[BrassMan]

Great point, KW. Heaven knows, I've had people pass up my stories because "they're science fiction," and others call them that and like it. Still others have called them a romance, an adventure, and one (my second daughter, no less) said she thought it was a West Texas Chicano action story.

I'm pretty dang tired of niches.

 

[Michael R. Hicks]

Great point, KW. Heaven knows, I've had people pass up my stories because "they're science fiction," and others call them that and like it. Still others have called them a romance, an adventure, and one (my second daughter, no less) said she thought it was a West Texas Chicano action story.

I'm pretty dang tired of niches.

A West Texas Chicano action story? Sounds like a great marketing opportunity! LOL!

 

[MikeD]

Back to the issue of character development and Sci-Fi...

I think it really is all about the writer. A good writer can develop any genre into something captivating and interesting all the while developing characters with some depth and complexity.

Personally, I read a wide variety of books and will readily admit, for that reason, that I limit what I read to those few authors in each genre who I find exceptional. The "so little time, so many books" concept at work. In the area of Sci-Fi, one of my favorite authors is Robert J. Sawyer. Read any book of his and you will find that the story is clearly driven by the characters, not the other way around. Robert Charles Wilson is another author in that vein. And they're not alone. I find it very hard to believe that anyone could read their works and not see how well they handle character development.

I believe that it really comes down to the old 10-80-10 rule. IMHO in every genre, 10% is trash, 80% is mediocre, and 10% is exceptional. Sci-Fi is no different. Some people, I think, have a lower opinion of the genre than is realistic. It gets painted with much too broad a brush stroke. Some reasons why that might be true:

1. Historically Sci-Fi has been looked down upon. This comes from the early pulp novels and the early formulaic novels that started the modern era of Sci-Fi. That opinion gets passed down generationally and ignores the growth of good writing in the field.

2. Movies typically do not do the books justice. This is true in every genre, but is especially true in Sci-Fi. More people see the movies than read the books and this affects pop culture. Ensuing discussion drives a certain amount of the general opinion of Sci-Fi.

3. How many of you have felt uncomfortable at some point in your life because you were carrying around a book with an obvious Sci-Fi cover (Kindle resolves this dilemma a bit)? Public perception, driven in part by 1 & 2 above, make it hard for people to enjoy Sci-Fi in the same way they would enjoy popular literature or mysery, or adventure or a West Texas Chicano action story.

So, IMHO, Sci-Fi gets a bad rap. Sci-Fi can be, and often is, very well written. Overall it is no better, nor any worse, than any other genre. It just carries a bit of reputation baggage along with the name.

JMO.

 

[Forster]

3. How many of you have felt uncomfortable at some point in your life because you were carrying around a book with an obvious Sci-Fi cover (Kindle resolves this dilemma a bit)? Public perception, driven in part by 1 & 2 above, make it hard for people to enjoy Sci-Fi in the same way they would enjoy popular literature or mysery, or adventure or a West Texas Chicano action story.

I feel that way more so with carrying around a fantasy novel than with Sci-Fi, but I know exactly what you mean. There seems to be a stigma attached to Sci-Fi/Fantasy that they are "kids" books.

 

[Rasputina]

My biggest complaint with sci fi is that all too often it is still culturally based in the 17th-20th centuries, that was my beef with the original Star Trek. I consider this to be laziness on the part of the writers to not create a unique immersible world. Enough with the references to classical music and literature in sci fi. I think that's why I often times enjoy fantasy more.

 

[Geemont]

Movies typically do not do the books justice. This is true in every genre, but is especially true in Sci-Fi.

But how much longer will that be true? It seems like more and more novels in many different genres are being written like text movies. Have you ever picked up a story were you that what the author really wanted to write was a film script? Or authors actually trying to write novels as to justification for making the story into a movie?

My biggest complaint with sci fi is that all too often it is still culturally based in the 17th-20th centuries, that was my beef with the original Star Trek. Enough with the references to classical music.

Ah, yes, well, here is a very Star Trekian line of dialogue for you:

PICARD: I was listening to the great music masters of the past: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and Ix Thit Ot of Serris Six.

 

[NogDog]

Maybe it's because I probably read more sci-fi than any other genre, but my perception is that sci-fi has historically supported more stylistic innovation than any other genre novel type. It's hard for me to imagine the envelope-stretching works of Delaney, Sturgeon, Delaney, Zelazny, or Iain Banks appearing in western, romance, or detective genre novels. Not to say they never do, just that my impression is that sci-fi has always been more open to such deviations from the norm. Or do you think my perception is skewed?

Then again, perhaps that's an unfair comparison. Maybe sci-fi is too broad a category for such a comparison, since you can have sci-fi detective stories, sci-fi romances, and even sci-fi westerns (Star Wars?).

 

[Michael R. Hicks]

My biggest complaint with sci fi is that all too often it is still culturally based in the 17th-20th centuries, that was my beef with the original Star Trek. I consider this to be laziness on the part of the writers to not create a unique immersible world. Enough with the references to classical music and literature in sci fi. I think that's why I often times enjoy fantasy more.

True. Either that or the story tries to be so far "ahead" that it loses me completely - and those often tend to be the stories where the technology is the focus and the characters and plot are more or less incidental (not all the time, but that seems to be pretty common).

 

[Kevis Hendrickson]

My biggest complaint with sci fi is that all too often it is still culturally based in the 17th-20th centuries, that was my beef with the original Star Trek. I consider this to be laziness on the part of the writers to not create a unique immersible world. Enough with the references to classical music and literature in sci fi. I think that's why I often times enjoy fantasy more.

I have to disagree. I believe that many writers choose to include historical cultural references in science fiction because it is relative to the overall story arc of humanity. You can't have the future without the past and the past is in direct dialogue with the future. True, some writers may be simply trying to show off how smart or cultured they are. But I believe most writers trust their instincts enough to include the kind of material that helps to make their stories commune with other forms of art and literature. I don't think laziness has anything to do with it. In fact, it takes a clever sort of writer to include historical cultural references without coming off sounding cheesy like the aforementioned quote from Picard.

 

[J Dean]

I had a similar conversation with my 25 year old son. He reads a fair amount of fantasy, not so much science fiction. He says it frequently seems like the author thought up some cool technology and then wrote a book around it; the characters are secondary.

Ann

That is a spot-on criticism. The difference between a good scifi/fantasy writer and an amateur one is summed up right there. A lot of not so good scifi writers will throw their jargon or their concepts in your face ad nauseum, while making the characters secondary. Good writing, whatever the genre (but especially in scifi and fantasy where it's more necessary) needs to concentrate on fleshing out your characters and weaving your plot. The best scifi and fantasy writers are careful to integrate their technology or their fantasy WITHIN that story, to enhance rather than dominate it.

 

[BrassMan]

That is a spot-on criticism. The difference between a good scifi/fantasy writer and an amateur one is summed up right there. A lot of not so good scifi writers will throw their jargon or their concepts in your face ad nauseum, while making the characters secondary. Good writing, whatever the genre (but especially in scifi and fantasy where it's more necessary) needs to concentrate on fleshing out your characters and weaving your plot. The best scifi and fantasy writers are careful to integrate their technology or their fantasy WITHIN that story, to enhance rather than dominate it.

Yes. Bingo. I agree completely. I can't help thinking about this discussion in personal terms, so pardon me please, but I started with the character first. The story grew up around her. Suppose the first known alien to visit Earth was completely human? What then? That's where it started. I didn't need a lot of gadgetry for that. It's her story, and eventually, the story of her family. I guess that's why I've never been sure it really is science fiction.