i finally came up with a true scene for the tale. I have no idea where it will take me but I think it offers several directions and hints at some past events that I havne't yet thought through. My first reactions (I wrote it in pen) when i took it as far as i could at the time that it was very contemporary and could easily be a scene in a contemporary book, but if I recall, that's fairly common for my SF drafts, and it helps ensure real characters that readers can relate to, even if the story goes elsewhere before it's really written.
I have no idea where the names came from. Probably something I've heard on t.v. lately, which adds to the contemporary feel.
"Sary, where are ou going?"
"For a walk, do you mind?"
"It wasn't an accusation."
"Wasn't it? Just becasue you've exprssed affection doesn't mean i't your concern how I epend my time."
"i just woory when I don't know where you are."
"Worry implies a right to know. You don't have that right unless I choose to give it to you. Worry about keeping me happy when we're together. The rest of my time is my buinesss. Unless you don't trust me?"
His eyes went down' and he bit his lip, knowing enough not to admit that, at least. Nor, however, did he deny it an she was in no mood to be tolerant.
"Is that it, jealous already?"
"No. Of course not. I don't worry about you having an affair. i know-"
"You obviously know nothing, Jack," she said, knowing he hated to be called that. "An affair? An affair is what established couples do outside the lines. You and me don't have any lines to be outside."
"But you said-"
"I said I appreciated your interest and would be willing to date. That's all I said and that's all I meant. That was concession enough when we work together on some project at least once a week and often more besides seeing each other outside of work. if you can't deal with-"
"I'mnot a child, Sary. I just care about you. Our date-"
"Will be the last if you push me again, Jack. I'm not so old-fashioned I intend to let even a husband run my life, much less a boy friend." She turned away from him before he could object and the dogs growled at him when he moved as if he might block her path. In her mind, she'd made a great concession to refer to him, still, as a boyfriend. She wasn't going to waste the pleasant weather arguing with him when he should instead simply have apologised for going too far/presuming too much, and let it drop.
--notes--
Why is she so testy or is he being possessive/stalker-like? What other trust issues might be going on here? Is good weather rare where they are at? Why? What kind of work do they do together? Setting? visual elements of the characters? Sensory input?
Title idea: Start from Scratch
What would be starting? What might Scratch represent?
Friday, July 16, 2010
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Intellectual vs technical in science fiction
I guess he didn’t want any advertising for his book because the paragraphs about them wouldn’t copy, but you can read those bits at http://www.concatenation.org/articles/hocking~science~sf.html. They weren’t the bits that interested me, anyway, as much as his clear misunderstanding of the quotes he included in his write up.
“Science fiction comes in so many flavours that defining 'science fiction' is problematic. One aspect of our understanding of SF is that it should be technically accurate.
But is this more important than the story? Should it be compromised to tell a story? asks author and psychologist Ian Hocking” is the blurb at the start of the story.
Ian Hocking makes some good points about the value of some degree of accuracy, and the often misleading results when journalists misrepresent medical findings and translate it into incorrect or misleading advice to their readers (A relationship may not be cause and effect). (Scientists would like to see some of the same correctness in science fiction, knowing that science fiction readers often become science students and ultimately scientists, and benefit from realistic portrayals of current science knowledge.)
“But should science fiction be held to such standards?” he counters, “I would argue not. Because, first and foremost, the responsibility of a storyteller is to tell a story. If the storyteller is primarily concerned with edification -- rather than letting this grow organically from the story -- then an alternative form of dissemination, such as the essay or the documentary, might be more appropriate.”
Hocking further explains: “Perhaps SF is seen as too challenging. My own view, however, is that science fiction is commonly conceived as tedious unless one is interested in gadgets, time paradoxes, poor characterization and the willfully obscure. As an SF writer, I would not agree that this conception is an accurate one, but it does appear to describe the common reaction.”
His further arguments, however, take on a rather sideways perspective. Hocking uses a quote by Ben Bova from an essay on the Cassandra Effect in SF, where Bova assesses that few people read SF because “Perhaps the problem lies with the visual entertainment media: movies and TV. Let's face it, most of Hollywood's "sci-fi" has its origins in comic strips, not actual published science fiction. Many people don't realize that the "sci-fi flicks" on both big and small screens are a far cry from the intellectual and emotional depth of real science fiction.”
Hocking says of this: “I find this problematic in the context of creating fiction. A story is a series of moments that, through the interactions of their meaning, create emotions in the reader. Intellectual depth, it would appear, works at a level incommensurate with the story. Sure, we can be entertained by a bit of techno-jargon, we can go 'Ahhh,' when the author explains how a nifty camouflage suit can lower the wearer's refractive index to zero, rendering them invisible. But this not the story. It is, yes, part of the support structure of the story, but it represents a reduction of forward motion while what the reader should really care about - the characters and what happens to them - is put on hold.”
In my view, Ian Hocking has missed Bova’s point entirely. Hocking equates “intellectual” with technobabble, just because sometimes the technobabble is technically correct and well-researched. I accept that technostuff, accurate or totally made-up, can be problematic, that the story should take priority, and that technobabble) can just slow the story down and discourages readers who have no interest in gadgetry. it’s a problem not exclusive to science fiction, either: look at the spy tales of Clancy). He argues reasonably that “You shouldn't have to be interested in the space stuff to an enjoy an SF story any more than you need to have an intrinsic interest in African territorial jurisdiction to enjoy Casablanca.”
But Hocking misses the point that intellectual and technobabble have nothing to do with each other and may even be contradictory, if the technology stuff is handled badly. A little bit of technology and a lot of ethics, social, or emotional questions surrounding the use of the specified technology and its impact on individual lives--all the makings of “intellectual depth”-- can be the meat of a genuinely good story. No technobabble is needed beyond character’s understandable and realistic dialog. Tolkien put a lot of work into researching the Lord of the Rings and the story is enriched by the language and legends portrayed, truly an intellectual work in many respects, but LoR isn’t an academic study in the those languages and legends, the inclusion as part of the lives of the characters doesn’t make the tale harder to read, and yet the reader still wants “Frodo to reach Mount Doom and you worry for the tragic figure of Gollum.”
Hocking does offer some good advice, even if he got there through a sideways logic: “I guess I've come to this conclusion through the editing process. I've learned that what makes a scene good isn't the tech; it's the meaning conjured by the characters, their struggles, the conflict, and the wider narrative. When working to improve a piece of fiction, you can fiddle with the meaning (I'm using this word in a broad sense that encompasses 'emotion', 'affect', 'interest' and so on) or you can fiddle with the technical stuff. At the end of the day, it's the sharpening of meaning that improves the work by any real margin.”
“Science fiction comes in so many flavours that defining 'science fiction' is problematic. One aspect of our understanding of SF is that it should be technically accurate.
But is this more important than the story? Should it be compromised to tell a story? asks author and psychologist Ian Hocking” is the blurb at the start of the story.
Ian Hocking makes some good points about the value of some degree of accuracy, and the often misleading results when journalists misrepresent medical findings and translate it into incorrect or misleading advice to their readers (A relationship may not be cause and effect). (Scientists would like to see some of the same correctness in science fiction, knowing that science fiction readers often become science students and ultimately scientists, and benefit from realistic portrayals of current science knowledge.)
“But should science fiction be held to such standards?” he counters, “I would argue not. Because, first and foremost, the responsibility of a storyteller is to tell a story. If the storyteller is primarily concerned with edification -- rather than letting this grow organically from the story -- then an alternative form of dissemination, such as the essay or the documentary, might be more appropriate.”
Hocking further explains: “Perhaps SF is seen as too challenging. My own view, however, is that science fiction is commonly conceived as tedious unless one is interested in gadgets, time paradoxes, poor characterization and the willfully obscure. As an SF writer, I would not agree that this conception is an accurate one, but it does appear to describe the common reaction.”
His further arguments, however, take on a rather sideways perspective. Hocking uses a quote by Ben Bova from an essay on the Cassandra Effect in SF, where Bova assesses that few people read SF because “Perhaps the problem lies with the visual entertainment media: movies and TV. Let's face it, most of Hollywood's "sci-fi" has its origins in comic strips, not actual published science fiction. Many people don't realize that the "sci-fi flicks" on both big and small screens are a far cry from the intellectual and emotional depth of real science fiction.”
Hocking says of this: “I find this problematic in the context of creating fiction. A story is a series of moments that, through the interactions of their meaning, create emotions in the reader. Intellectual depth, it would appear, works at a level incommensurate with the story. Sure, we can be entertained by a bit of techno-jargon, we can go 'Ahhh,' when the author explains how a nifty camouflage suit can lower the wearer's refractive index to zero, rendering them invisible. But this not the story. It is, yes, part of the support structure of the story, but it represents a reduction of forward motion while what the reader should really care about - the characters and what happens to them - is put on hold.”
In my view, Ian Hocking has missed Bova’s point entirely. Hocking equates “intellectual” with technobabble, just because sometimes the technobabble is technically correct and well-researched. I accept that technostuff, accurate or totally made-up, can be problematic, that the story should take priority, and that technobabble) can just slow the story down and discourages readers who have no interest in gadgetry. it’s a problem not exclusive to science fiction, either: look at the spy tales of Clancy). He argues reasonably that “You shouldn't have to be interested in the space stuff to an enjoy an SF story any more than you need to have an intrinsic interest in African territorial jurisdiction to enjoy Casablanca.”
But Hocking misses the point that intellectual and technobabble have nothing to do with each other and may even be contradictory, if the technology stuff is handled badly. A little bit of technology and a lot of ethics, social, or emotional questions surrounding the use of the specified technology and its impact on individual lives--all the makings of “intellectual depth”-- can be the meat of a genuinely good story. No technobabble is needed beyond character’s understandable and realistic dialog. Tolkien put a lot of work into researching the Lord of the Rings and the story is enriched by the language and legends portrayed, truly an intellectual work in many respects, but LoR isn’t an academic study in the those languages and legends, the inclusion as part of the lives of the characters doesn’t make the tale harder to read, and yet the reader still wants “Frodo to reach Mount Doom and you worry for the tragic figure of Gollum.”
Hocking does offer some good advice, even if he got there through a sideways logic: “I guess I've come to this conclusion through the editing process. I've learned that what makes a scene good isn't the tech; it's the meaning conjured by the characters, their struggles, the conflict, and the wider narrative. When working to improve a piece of fiction, you can fiddle with the meaning (I'm using this word in a broad sense that encompasses 'emotion', 'affect', 'interest' and so on) or you can fiddle with the technical stuff. At the end of the day, it's the sharpening of meaning that improves the work by any real margin.”
Friday, July 9, 2010
traitors and other subplots
A few too many distractions to have made much progress on the new tale, but here's a few more thoughts in that direction. The mind thing is more of SF than Fantasy, but we can still use some of the examples from fantasy of what makes a great, popular, saleable story. Really, it's not just limited to fantasy either:
Interesting side characters as well as protagonist
A classic story line often helps: girl meets boy, one saves the other, not necessarily appreciated, understanding develops, romance develops, then other stuff. Well, as a side story anyway. How about the core story though: good versus evil. Evil should have representative bodies doing dastardly deeds, preferably at least representatives on site, face-to-face, which is why traitors in the midst is a common sub=plot, to give a visible baddie. I didn't do that in Cerel Gold, but maybe I could try that here. Note to self: need scenes with the traitor playing good guy, and others hinting that he (or she) may be something other than it appears. It will be more subtle and mysterious if there are other side characters hiding things (ala mystery suspects).
The traitor needs to be working for someone, something related to the mind control ability or telepathy or related skills.
I'll see if I can keep it on Earth. otherwise I'll get tempted to place it on one of my already existing planets, and that has too many in-built rules already established. the goal here is to start from scratch. The future, but not so far in the future as space travel, then? (At our current rate, that could still be a long long long way in the future, alas, but I won't go that far. Some of the world should be identifiable unless I go for post apocalypse or some such other theme, and those are a breed unto themselves. But far enough in the future that country boundaries don't mean the same thing, that technology has changed again and impacted the biology/ecology, like some suspect of autism's increasing occurances.
Well, that's enough for tonight. If any of my fellow writers are insprited to write a scene, please share. What I've provided so far is still fuel for a million different books and stories and comparability encourages readers.
Interesting side characters as well as protagonist
A classic story line often helps: girl meets boy, one saves the other, not necessarily appreciated, understanding develops, romance develops, then other stuff. Well, as a side story anyway. How about the core story though: good versus evil. Evil should have representative bodies doing dastardly deeds, preferably at least representatives on site, face-to-face, which is why traitors in the midst is a common sub=plot, to give a visible baddie. I didn't do that in Cerel Gold, but maybe I could try that here. Note to self: need scenes with the traitor playing good guy, and others hinting that he (or she) may be something other than it appears. It will be more subtle and mysterious if there are other side characters hiding things (ala mystery suspects).
The traitor needs to be working for someone, something related to the mind control ability or telepathy or related skills.
I'll see if I can keep it on Earth. otherwise I'll get tempted to place it on one of my already existing planets, and that has too many in-built rules already established. the goal here is to start from scratch. The future, but not so far in the future as space travel, then? (At our current rate, that could still be a long long long way in the future, alas, but I won't go that far. Some of the world should be identifiable unless I go for post apocalypse or some such other theme, and those are a breed unto themselves. But far enough in the future that country boundaries don't mean the same thing, that technology has changed again and impacted the biology/ecology, like some suspect of autism's increasing occurances.
Well, that's enough for tonight. If any of my fellow writers are insprited to write a scene, please share. What I've provided so far is still fuel for a million different books and stories and comparability encourages readers.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Tip: Technology will always be ahead
Don't try to keep up with technology. These days, only the rich and those who have to keep up in one field for their career can hope to stay up-to-date on technical things. So long as the version you have does what you need it to, hand onto it. I upgraded my computer only when it got to the point that the most advanced software it could handle was still too old to go to a lot of the web sites I needed for e-mail, agent hunting and other important online activities. I saw it comeing, was able to save for it, and could afford a good, up-to-date replacement. I've had to replace the hard drive on this, my second computer, once, and plan on holding onto it awhile longer, though i can see the signs of needing a new one and have started to save accordingly.
Besides the obvious of not spending money that you don't have to, waiting has several advantages, especially though not only with technical things.
: With technical things, prices are prone to come down.
: time to save up for big expenses means the opportunity to buy the best, longest-lasting and most up-to-date version so that it is longer before another is needed.
: time to consider what is really needed and buy the right thing.
: the longer it lasts, the more value it has, cost per day as you might say.
Besides the obvious of not spending money that you don't have to, waiting has several advantages, especially though not only with technical things.
: With technical things, prices are prone to come down.
: time to save up for big expenses means the opportunity to buy the best, longest-lasting and most up-to-date version so that it is longer before another is needed.
: time to consider what is really needed and buy the right thing.
: the longer it lasts, the more value it has, cost per day as you might say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
