It's spring break, time to relax and enjoy a bit of non-school reading. I've had Charles Stross's book HaltinG StatE (that title's no typo) on my table for a long time and decided to start reading it. Stross is a Scotsman and a writer of good hard SF (and some fantasy that I haven't read)
This book is a bit different from his earlier works like Singularity Sky and Accelerando, which I read and thoroughly enjoyed. It's set in an independent Scotland in the near future. The book was hard for me to get into at first. It's multiple points-of-view, second-person, were confusing. The early chapters were full of Scottishisms and Britishisms, foreign acronyms, local history in-jokes, and computer science tech words that were over my head and slowed my comprehension to a crawl. There wasn't much action in these early character-establishing chapters either.
If not for my earlier experiences with Stross, I probably would have put the book down. But I hung in, and things started to get interesting as an investigation into a cybercrime (the robbery of a virtual gaming bank) started waves rippling in the wider world. Now that I'm more than half-way into the book, I'm hooked on it, and learning a lot about the computer and gaming world that Stross is so expert in.
If you are a technophile, a mystery buff, or interested in near future predictions, you'll probably be as interested in the book as I am. It's a strong Idea novel, with good characterization, though I still don't understand the reason for the second-person p.o.v.--it's an unnecessary affectation, IMHO. I'll let you know when I finish it if its worth putting on your summer reading list.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
What's Plotting?
On the Odfellowdiscussion list, an argument has been brewing about whether to plot or not. One of my fellow Odfellows, playing Devil's Advocate, has raised the point that some famous writers, like Stephen King, don't plot. (Or at least that's their claim.) Here's my answer to that:
Your point is indeed devilish. (And I like a good argument.) So let me counterpoint--Stephen King can easily be the exception that proves the rule. Prolific writers like King and Joyce Carol Oates aren't the norm in the publishing world--they're freaks of nature, writing geniuses that are probably impossible to emulate. To say you're not going to plot because Stephen King doesn't is like saying I'm not going use color in my painting because Rembrandt didn't---okay, but don't expect the same results.
Besides, King *does* plot. Look at page pp. 192-195 in his memoir, On Writing, and see the story he tells about writing Dead Zone. He definitely had a plan in mind writing that book and carried out his plan (i.e., his plot). King also mentioned that while he begins with character and situation, like most writers, he looks for "story" and that's the most important element of the writing he has to get right. What is "story" in this context but another word for "plot?"
Like King, I'll bet a lot of those successful writers who say they don't plot will tell you that they look for the 'story.' Stories have beginning, middles, and ends. In other words, they have plots. Perhaps these writers don't outline; perhaps they keep the stories in their heads; but they have a developing structure that moves them from beginning to end. They have a plot.
Your point is indeed devilish. (And I like a good argument.) So let me counterpoint--Stephen King can easily be the exception that proves the rule. Prolific writers like King and Joyce Carol Oates aren't the norm in the publishing world--they're freaks of nature, writing geniuses that are probably impossible to emulate. To say you're not going to plot because Stephen King doesn't is like saying I'm not going use color in my painting because Rembrandt didn't---okay, but don't expect the same results.
Besides, King *does* plot. Look at page pp. 192-195 in his memoir, On Writing, and see the story he tells about writing Dead Zone. He definitely had a plan in mind writing that book and carried out his plan (i.e., his plot). King also mentioned that while he begins with character and situation, like most writers, he looks for "story" and that's the most important element of the writing he has to get right. What is "story" in this context but another word for "plot?"
Like King, I'll bet a lot of those successful writers who say they don't plot will tell you that they look for the 'story.' Stories have beginning, middles, and ends. In other words, they have plots. Perhaps these writers don't outline; perhaps they keep the stories in their heads; but they have a developing structure that moves them from beginning to end. They have a plot.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
To Plot or Not
Over on the Odfellow discussion list, the topic is the necessity of plotting in advance of writing. Lots of writers are weighing in on both sides of the issue. Here's my take:
Plotting is an important tool in any writing tool box. Certainly there's no reason not to use any of the other tools--inspirtational writing, visualization, jotting down numerous ideas, character studies, building the world first, etc. But the risk of taking a trip without a road map is that you will get lost and lose your way completely. All that previous work will go for naught.
I agree with Lane that it's a huge waste to write two hundred pages only to toss them into your (already big) writer's trunk. I have a big trunk of those false starts, which leads me to now endorse plotting first.
How detailed your plotting gets is of course up to you. I was astonished at the level of detail that Robert McKee considers necessary to write a really good screenplay or tell a really good story. He asks for a complete summary of each scene, dialogue, and action before writing them. I don't think I would go that far, but I would go a long way towards it, especially if the scene was complicated.
A lot of writers have commented that a detailed plot like that would suck out their creative juices and make it impossible for them to then write out the finished product. McKee's counterpoint, I think, would be that if you're a writing professional you don't depend on inspiration to finish, but on hard work. You assume the work atttitudes of a professional, because that's what you are.
I think I agree with him. Working from a vantage point of inspiration and surprize can be fun, but when you're carving out a career in anything, there are days when you just have to slog through the work. It can't all be fun.
The Romantic notion of writing as self-discovery is only good for a few works. Then you've discovered what your themes are and what kind of person you are and you're writing for the payday.
So consider plotting, you romantics! :-)
Plotting is an important tool in any writing tool box. Certainly there's no reason not to use any of the other tools--inspirtational writing, visualization, jotting down numerous ideas, character studies, building the world first, etc. But the risk of taking a trip without a road map is that you will get lost and lose your way completely. All that previous work will go for naught.
I agree with Lane that it's a huge waste to write two hundred pages only to toss them into your (already big) writer's trunk. I have a big trunk of those false starts, which leads me to now endorse plotting first.
How detailed your plotting gets is of course up to you. I was astonished at the level of detail that Robert McKee considers necessary to write a really good screenplay or tell a really good story. He asks for a complete summary of each scene, dialogue, and action before writing them. I don't think I would go that far, but I would go a long way towards it, especially if the scene was complicated.
A lot of writers have commented that a detailed plot like that would suck out their creative juices and make it impossible for them to then write out the finished product. McKee's counterpoint, I think, would be that if you're a writing professional you don't depend on inspiration to finish, but on hard work. You assume the work atttitudes of a professional, because that's what you are.
I think I agree with him. Working from a vantage point of inspiration and surprize can be fun, but when you're carving out a career in anything, there are days when you just have to slog through the work. It can't all be fun.
The Romantic notion of writing as self-discovery is only good for a few works. Then you've discovered what your themes are and what kind of person you are and you're writing for the payday.
So consider plotting, you romantics! :-)
Saturday, January 10, 2009
My Goals for 2009
My goals for 2009 are simple:
1. Keep my teaching job, but still find time to write. (Neither of these is a certainty in this economy.)
2. Finish my non-genre novel that I workshopped at TNEO last summer.
3. Find the money to attend those workshops I want to go to--chiefly TNEO and Laurie's Wild West Novel Workshop Weekend.
4. Begin in earnest my YA SF novel (this might be simultaneous with 2.)
1. Keep my teaching job, but still find time to write. (Neither of these is a certainty in this economy.)
2. Finish my non-genre novel that I workshopped at TNEO last summer.
3. Find the money to attend those workshops I want to go to--chiefly TNEO and Laurie's Wild West Novel Workshop Weekend.
4. Begin in earnest my YA SF novel (this might be simultaneous with 2.)
Friday, January 2, 2009
Science Fiction and Human Evolution
I'd like to comment on the future of human evolution today, a subject first broached by H.G. Wells, both in the Time Machine and War of the Worlds. In the Time Machine, Wells speculated that humans might evolve into two species, a master species and a preyed-upon species. In War of the Worlds, he speculated that advanced species would evolve into big brains, telepathy, and stomachs adapted for feeding upon nutritious blood--very vampire-like.
A new article offers a scientist's speculation on the same topic. This article is in the latest Scientific American (January 2009). It's interesting because the author summarizes the basic directions humanity can go: 1) continued natural evolution; 2) splitting off of different human species because of isolation (for example, in isolated space colonies); 3) splitting off of different human species because of artificial genetic engineering; 4) transhuman experimentation (i.e., humans as Borgs).
The article's author, Peter Ward, has been involved with NASA's AstrobiologyInstitute at the University of Washington, and wrote a book on this subject, Future Evolution, in 2001. There's a nice bibliography at the end of the article if you want more information, too.
One interesting bit of detail is that scientists believe that modern humans (i.e., humans in the past 10,000 years) are evolving at a faster rate than at any time since humans split off from chimpanzees around 7million years ago.
The article is published online at ScientificAmerican's website (an excellent place for research, btw): http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-future-of-man
It seems to me that this whole area is a fertile realm of speculation about the direction humans can/should take. I once wrote a short story in which the future human race is split into two--a space-faring humanity and an earth-bound humanity. I don't think I'm finished with the topic yet, but for now, it goes on the back-burner while I work on other things.
A new article offers a scientist's speculation on the same topic. This article is in the latest Scientific American (January 2009). It's interesting because the author summarizes the basic directions humanity can go: 1) continued natural evolution; 2) splitting off of different human species because of isolation (for example, in isolated space colonies); 3) splitting off of different human species because of artificial genetic engineering; 4) transhuman experimentation (i.e., humans as Borgs).
The article's author, Peter Ward, has been involved with NASA's AstrobiologyInstitute at the University of Washington, and wrote a book on this subject, Future Evolution, in 2001. There's a nice bibliography at the end of the article if you want more information, too.
One interesting bit of detail is that scientists believe that modern humans (i.e., humans in the past 10,000 years) are evolving at a faster rate than at any time since humans split off from chimpanzees around 7million years ago.
The article is published online at ScientificAmerican's website (an excellent place for research, btw): http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-future-of-man
It seems to me that this whole area is a fertile realm of speculation about the direction humans can/should take. I once wrote a short story in which the future human race is split into two--a space-faring humanity and an earth-bound humanity. I don't think I'm finished with the topic yet, but for now, it goes on the back-burner while I work on other things.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Astronomy Continues to Provide Ideas for SF
It's quite apparent that with the launch of a whole series of space telescopes, like Hubble, that astronomy has entered a new golden age. With these telescopes, we're able to see things never seen before: large exo-planets in orbit around nearby stars, black holes dominating the center of galaxies, and even light modifications in background radiation that hint of mysterious structures that may have existed before the Big Bang.
These discoveries provide grist for the SF writer's mill. Take, for example, the discovery of a new class of planets: large, icy, Super-Earths some ten times the size of our terrestrial planet. These planets, apparently plentiful, orbit many stars in distant orbits, well away from what we consider the zone of life--a zone where the star's heat warms ice into water.
We have discovered, however, that in some places, the tidal forces of nearby planets, and perhaps even the gravity of the planet itself is capable of heating ice and turning it into liquid oceans that may well hold life. Thus these large, plentiful, icy Super-Earths may be stages for a whole range of life adapted to quite different environments than our own. Imagine marine life; imagine heavy planet marine life developing intelligence and working with technology. What civilizations would be created by these creatures? What form of interaction would they desire, if any, with us? See http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0812/17life/ "Looking for extraterrestrial life in all the right places."
As I said, grist for the SF writer's mill.
Another such example is the discovery of something that may be a pre-existing structure from a universe that existed before the Big Bang, or perhaps a structure from the Multiverse (if such a place exists). What settings would such structures create?
Such discoveries seem to multiply with each astronomical satellite launched into orbit. This golden age of astronomy may well lead to a golden age of science fiction as well. That's my hope, and I hope to tap into some of these amazing ideas.
These discoveries provide grist for the SF writer's mill. Take, for example, the discovery of a new class of planets: large, icy, Super-Earths some ten times the size of our terrestrial planet. These planets, apparently plentiful, orbit many stars in distant orbits, well away from what we consider the zone of life--a zone where the star's heat warms ice into water.
We have discovered, however, that in some places, the tidal forces of nearby planets, and perhaps even the gravity of the planet itself is capable of heating ice and turning it into liquid oceans that may well hold life. Thus these large, plentiful, icy Super-Earths may be stages for a whole range of life adapted to quite different environments than our own. Imagine marine life; imagine heavy planet marine life developing intelligence and working with technology. What civilizations would be created by these creatures? What form of interaction would they desire, if any, with us? See http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0812/17life/ "Looking for extraterrestrial life in all the right places."
As I said, grist for the SF writer's mill.
Another such example is the discovery of something that may be a pre-existing structure from a universe that existed before the Big Bang, or perhaps a structure from the Multiverse (if such a place exists). What settings would such structures create?
Such discoveries seem to multiply with each astronomical satellite launched into orbit. This golden age of astronomy may well lead to a golden age of science fiction as well. That's my hope, and I hope to tap into some of these amazing ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)