# Sci-fi books vs. movies, & Roger Ebert



## BrassMan (Dec 8, 2008)

This morning I found a review of the movie _Solaris_ by Roger Ebert, which said this, in part:

"One of the most frequent charges against science-fiction is that it replaces emotion with intellect. Its characters are people who live by and for the mind, and their personal relationships are likely to be stifled and awkward, That's probably true enough of most s-f novels (although exceptions range from Fredric Brown's "The Lights in the Sky are Stars" to a lot of the work by Theodore Sturgeon), but it's even more true of science-fiction movies."

I don't have time to check out those books, but fans of the genre might, if so inclined. I think I'll take a look at _Solaris_. Anyone know it?

Ebert's comment made me feel better about my own stuff....


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

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


----------



## Forster (Mar 9, 2009)

To me the distinguished works in SiFi/Fantasy are those where the technology/magic become secondary or background music for lack of a better description to the characters, plot, social/political commentary etc. A great story will work in any genre if adapted properly.

I am a huge fan of both genres, but IMO the criticism that technology/magic takes center stage is valid in a number of cases.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

Forster said:


> but IMO the criticism that technology/magic takes center stage is valid in a number of cases.


I agree. I've been an SF fan for 60 years or so. Fantasy, not so much.

Mike,


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Dec 28, 2008)

Brassman, I assume that you read or saw Ebert reviewing the 2002 remake of the 1972 Russian scifi film, Solaris. I have not seen the newer film, but I saw the original in the theater back in the Seventies. I gave it four stars. I loved the psychodrama indigenous to the plot, but it was a bit on the slow side. I saw it as a double feature with Zardoz, which i expected to like better, but I preferred Solaris. It helped that I am a big fan of 2001, 2010, and others of that nature, and that I don't care much for the fantasy/action segment of the genre. The 1972 Solaris was a very adult scifi film. In comparison to your Distant Cousin, I find that they have little in common. The DC Series is much more Spielbergian, with clear, likable characters, like Disney for adults. Solaris is more sombre, dark, slow, and thought-provoking, like the works of Kubrick and David Lynch. You could see the combination in a.i., as it was directed by Kubrick and Spielberg in sequence.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

I think sci-fi gets a bad rap for being too pessimistic in its view of the future. The excessive exhibition of a post-apocalyptic dystopian future and the stoic figures who inhabit these tales turns many people off. Truth is, every writer has the right to tell the kind of stories they enjoy. But I agree that too many science fiction writers focus too heavily on technology at the expense of their stories. I think that's what made the original Star Wars films so great. They breathed life into a genre that these many years later is still too rigid and cold.


----------



## BrassMan (Dec 8, 2008)

You are correct, Mr. Trout, that was the movie he reviewed. It struck a chord with me because I used to like sci-fi (in print, this was before all the movies got so big), but I burned out on the genre in high school. I think I got tired of all the impossible gadgets and the galactic conflicts. That was one reason it took me so long to dare to write my own. I wasn't sure I could write a story that I myself could stand (and if I could, could anyone else?).

Then I got this today from an unnamed KindleBoarder who shall remain anonymous. (I hope I'm not violating anything by mentioning it.    If so, I'll delete it.) At least it speaks directly to the point about characters coming before hardware:

    "You SUCK!!!  Ever since I started Distant Cousin, my dishes haven't gotten done, I have an entire house to pack, which isn't getting done, and I was up till 2AM last night to finish it!!!  I haven't spent more than 10 minutes at a time online and we have been eating premade casseroles so I don't have to cook much and there is less clean up.  It's all your fault!  My husband thinks it's funny.  I am not going to start the second one till the weekend so I can get some work done around here.  Thank you for entertaining me. You are wonderful at drawing a reader in.  The characters, especially Darcy, become so real.  I know I am reading a good story when I worry about the characters well being and celebrate their successes!"


----------



## hazeldazel (Oct 30, 2008)

I think the reviewer is correct... for crappy scifi.  There are crappy examples of every book genre.  But I think the reviewer must not be a fan of S/F if he stereotypes an entire genre of storytelling in such a way.  Either a book sucks you in or it doesn't, the type of book doesn't matter.  For example, was "The Menace From Earth" by Heinlein SciFi, YA, Romance?  Immaterial - all I know is that I enjoyed reading it and made me feel good for having done so.  That's all that matters.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

As others have alluded to, there is certainly a variety of levels of characterization (as well as any other part of the art you can think of) in any genre. I suspect sci-fi is more amenable to being able to find a market in spite of shallow characters, but I think most (if not all) of the sci-fi that is considered to be the best of the genre tend, in fact, to have very interesting and well though-out characters.

I think the "Star Wars" movie franchise shows the importance of characters even in sci-fi. The first movies (first in terms of release dates) to me have much better characters both in terms of writing and acting, and as such I think that is the main reason they stand above the later movies, which in spite of better gadgets and special effects are poor cousins to the first movies in terms of being effective works of the filmmaker's art.

All you have to do is read Herbert's _Dune_, Zelazny's "Amber" series, or Donaldson's "Thomas Convenant" series, or even Pratchett's "Discworld series" just to name a few; and I think you can see the sort of quality you can get in this field with authors who know how to create complex and interesting characters whom you care about and want to know what is going to happen to them.


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

I was asking another Sci-fi/fantasy fan for recommendations and he asked if I was into "hard-core Sci-Fi". I am not, and gave up on Solaris. I have slept through every attempted viewing of 2001, but did finish the book - with a big "Ah Ha! So that's what the first 45 minutes are about!" moment. 

I read for entertainment (and if I'm not careful I might learn something along the way Hey Hey Hey...) and most "hard core" just makes me think too much.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

Kevis Hendrickson said:


> I think that's what made the original Star Wars films so great. They breathed life into a genre that these many years later is still too rigid and cold.


I disagree. I think the Star Wars films and the Star Trek TV shows are probably the two worst examples of science fiction imaginable. It is unfortunate that the layman, who never reads, is likely to name these two franchise as examples of good science fiction, but they are space fantasy with starships and aliens instead of wizards and dragons. Sure, I enjoyed Star Wars when I was twelve or thirteen, but they are as not nearly as deep as _Solaris_ (the book) or _Dune_ (the book).


----------



## BrassMan (Dec 8, 2008)

Geemont said:


> I disagree. I think the Star Wars films and the Star Trek TV shows are probably the two worst examples of science fiction imaginable. It is unfortunate that the layman, who never reads, is likely to name these two franchise as examples of good science fiction, but they are space fantasy with starships and aliens instead of wizards and dragons. Sure, I enjoyed Star Wars when I was twelve or thirteen, but they are as not nearly as deep as _Solaris_ (the book) or _Dune_ (the book).


I respect your opinion, but personally I would say that there are far worse, truly lousy, hackneyed, stereotypical examples out there. Better not to think about them.

What would you say to a story that featured no slimy aliens, no wormholes or warp drives, took place on earth only, and featured only humans? Could that possibly be science fiction, do you think?

Just wondering....


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Geemont said:


> I disagree. I think the Star Wars films and the Star Trek TV shows are probably the two worst examples of science fiction imaginable. It is unfortunate that the layman, who never reads, is likely to name these two franchise as examples of good science fiction, but they are space fantasy with starships and aliens instead of wizards and dragons. Sure, I enjoyed Star Wars when I was twelve or thirteen, but they are as not nearly as deep as _Solaris_ (the book) or _Dune_ (the book).


Everyone has the right to respectfully disagree. But I love Star Wars (and Star Trek) as much now in my 30's as I did when I was 4. I've never asked anyone's permission to enjoy Star War and never will. With that said, I'm not one of those uninformed people that you mention and I have to admit that I resent being used as an example of a person who has not read science fiction. Asimov, Bradbury, Heinlein, Herbert, and a slew of other science fiction authors have been the staple of my reading over the years in addition to Lucas, Straczynski, Tolkien, Liebert, Lewis, Leguinn, etc, etc.

The real problem with science fiction is that there are people who think they are the guardians of the genre and go out of their way to disassociate the genre from anything remotely popular and in the process alienate the casual and curious science fiction reader who has discovered sci fi but has not had a chance to explore the genre. Unfortunately, these so-called guardians scare people off from becoming sci fi fans and play a huge role in the bastardization of sci-fi from the rest of literature.

I have always loved science fiction and will not let someone tell me that Dune is more relevant than Star Wars simply because they feel ecology or anthropology are subjects that echo more loudly with a particular reader than metaphysics, philosophy, or spirituality. Sci-fi is not the domain of the few. Who cares if Star Wars pays less attention to the science involved in its stories than Ender's Game? If this is the case, then where does this leave War of the Worlds, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Twenty thousand Leagues Under the Sea or The Lost World? Or do we give more points to those who strive to be scientifically accurate over those who are scientific visionaries? By your insipid standard, I would have to disregard nearly every single science fiction novel written before the advent of computers into the trash.

I read fantasy and science fiction because they explore possibility and alternate realities. How dare any of us attempt to condemn those who dream of other worlds and realities just because we don't share those visions. I will continue to watch The Empire Strikes Back with a big fat smile on my face while others read Dune with an Elitist attitude. When I read Dune I will do so knowing that Frank Herbert allowed me to share his vision to the future, not as a member of a private club, but as a person who also has his own dream of the future even if it happens to be different from yours.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

BrassMan said:


> I respect your opinion, but personally I would say that there are far worse, truly lousy, hackneyed, stereotypical examples out there. Better not to think about them.


True, but sequels and remakes of those aren't still being made and novelizations aren't still being written. I mean, really, I was so over Star Wars after seeing the third film humpteen years ago.



BrassMan said:


> What would you say to a story that featured no slimy aliens, no wormholes or warp drives, took place on earth only, and featured only humans? Could that possibly be science fiction, do you think?
> 
> Just wondering....


Admittedly, it has been decades since I read the book, but I would probably count _Earth Abides_ by George R. Stewart has one of the great science fiction novels of all time. It has none of the stuff you mentioned, but it does have the end of civilization.



Kevis Hendrickson said:


> By your insipid standard, I would have to disregard nearly every single science fiction novel written before the advent of computers into the trash.


Where did that straw man come from? I'm not the first to call Star Wars space fantasy and my comment in no way advocates tossing any novel, science fiction or fantasy, written before or after computers, into the trash. There are many scientifically incorrect novels that are still fun, but they lack the depth of Stanislaw Lem or the original Dune books. And, yes, I do assign more weight and importance to books with intelligence and depth than to the purely fun ones.

You're original comment was that the Star Wars films "breathed life into a genre that these many years later is still too rigid and cold." I simply do not see that breath of life from those films and it is not the kind of statement that should be left without a counterpoint.

Nor do I see science fiction, as a whole, as rigid or cold. If anything, science fiction should shake loose the shackles of Hollywood and TV. Too many authors, in all genres, want their books to read like it was a movie. If that makes me elitist... so be it.


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

Lucas created a sci-fi/fantasy universe that appealed to the masses. The genre still has trouble appealing to Joe American - look at how many Sci Fi TV shows are out there. And then they are still generally stuck on Friday night, because I guess folks who like that stuff don't have a life. Even Sci-Fi network (sorry SyFy network) shows little. How does wrestling relate to Sci-Fi?!?

The perception is that science fiction is all Tolkien, Clarke, Asimov and the other "masters". For the record, I don't consider Star Wars true sci-fi. It is more fantasy with some sci-fi thrown in. Star Trek, IMHO, is more sci-fi. And remember, it bombed when it first aired on TV.


----------



## RangerXenos (Mar 18, 2009)

Kevis Hendrickson said:


> Everyone has the right to respectfully disagree. But I love Star Wars (and Star Trek) as much now in my 30's as I did when I was 4. I've never asked anyone's permission to enjoy Star War and never will. With that said, I'm not one of those uninformed people that you mention and I have to admit that I resent being used as an example of a person who has not read science fiction. Asimov, Bradbury, Heinlein, Herbert, and a slew of other science fiction authors have been the staple of my reading over the years in addition to Lucas, Straczynski, Tolkien, Liebert, Lewis, etc, etc.
> 
> The real problem with science fiction is that there are people who think they are the guardians of the genre and go out of their way to disassociate the genre from anything remotely popular and in the process alienate the casual and curious science fiction reader who has discovered sci fi but has not had a chance to explore the genre. Unfortunately, these so-called guardians scare people off from becoming sci fi fans and play a huge role in the bastardization of sci-fi from the rest of literature.
> 
> ...


VERY well said! I love both SW (the original movies) and Trek. If you want deeper SF television, Babylon 5 is wonderful.

There is a lot of elitism aimed at media SF (versus literary SF), and I'm sick of it. Why can't I love both? Something needs to be well written; whether it be media or literary doesn't matter to me. Like you, I was drawn to SF because of the possibilities it presents.

As a side note, I'd like to plug one of my favorite authors, Lois McMaster Bujold -- if you haven't read her Vorkosigan series of books, I highly recommend them.


----------



## wilsondm2 (Dec 8, 2008)

BrassMan said:


> I respect your opinion, but personally I would say that there are far worse, truly lousy, hackneyed, stereotypical examples out there. Better not to think about them.
> 
> What would you say to a story that featured no slimy aliens, no wormholes or warp drives, took place on earth only, and featured only humans? Could that possibly be science fiction, do you think?
> 
> Just wondering....


Hmmm - Caprica (spinoff from Battlestar Galactica) may fit that description, also Dollhouse from Joss Whedon?

Both of these shows are GREAT btw.


----------



## wilsondm2 (Dec 8, 2008)

Hmmm - I think this thread is interesting and coming from two distinct sides of the road. Those that like peanut butter and those that like chocolate.  Both are good, but better together!

Seriously though, there are many, many flavors of Sci-Fi and many different devotees. One of my favorite authors is Robert Heinlein, an engineer by trade and writer by choice.  He uses many different engineering angles to approach his stories and has mixed fantasy at times and slimy aliens at others. I enjoy them all. I think that no one is better or worse for liking Dune over Star Wars or vice-versa. In fact there are times that I want a serious in-depth book and others I want something lighter. In general I like stories that are more optimistic and this is why I like Al's Distant Cousin series. I also like end of the world/dystopia type books too and when I'm in the mood I read those.

my .02


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

RangerXenos said:


> VERY well said! I love both SW (the original movies) and Trek. If you want deeper SF television, Babylon 5 is wonderful.
> 
> There is a lot of elitism aimed at media SF (versus literary SF), and I'm sick of it. Why can't I love both? Something needs to be well written; whether it be media or literary doesn't matter to me. Like you, I was drawn to SF because of the possibilities it presents.
> 
> As a side note, I'd like to plug one of my favorite authors, Lois McMaster Bujold -- if you haven't read her Vorkosigan series of books, I highly recommend them.


RangerXenos,

As the world's biggest self-acclaimed fan of Babylon 5, I cannot agree with you more. I think many people fail to realize that the offshoots of extrapolative fiction, in this case science fiction, allow people to delve into a wide and varied range of tales to enjoy. As art is subjective, one kind of science fiction tale is not necessarily better than the others. Fashions change as time moves ever forward and books that were once hailed as literary achievements now find scarcely a reader today. I think it is more important to find the relevance in a story and apply it to your own life than to try to force conformity or create a consensus as to what should be considered good science fiction versus bad science fiction.

Star Wars introduced science fiction (and fantasy) to a world of people who may not otherwise have taken any interest in the genre. Through films like Star Wars, masses of people have been inspired to go on and discover books like Dune or the Lensman series. Star Wars is every bit a legitimate vision of the future, even if given over to flights of fancy, as the one shown to us by Herbert. There is a reason why the genre is called science fiction. Perhaps some of us focus too strongly on the science and not the fiction, both readers and writers alike.

Perhaps time will reveal to us that there are no extraterrestrials in space. Then again, perhaps as science moves forward we will discover that the concept of ships traveling through light speed is not as far fetched as we think (as a few scientists are starting to say now). In the end, does any of this really matter? Lightspeed, Hyperspace, or Warp Speed, are all conventions of a science either real or imagined. The science, though an inescapable and vital element of science fiction, is not important. What truly matters is the bold and daring attempt of writers to capture the essence of humanity's place in the universe and the never ending quest for the knowledge of who we really are and what are role is in the vastness of time and the universe. To me, any story that explores that concept is indeed science fiction even if the particulars cause some of us to label some works of science fiction as hard science fiction or space opera.


----------



## Michael R. Hicks (Oct 29, 2008)

I think there's a spectrum that runs from what we often call "hard" sci-fi through a blend of sci-fi/fantasy on to more typical fantasy. And I think there's really another spectrum tied to that (sort of in another dimension, like the range between two layers of a cake) that spans what RangerXenos characterized as media (focusing on entertainment) on through literary (focusing more on provoking thoughts or emotional reaction).

Some people enjoy a particular zone in that melange, whereas others - like me - simply look for something they enjoy. And you can have very in-depth characters and messages anywhere in the matrix (if you'll pardon the pun!), or they can be very shallow: like everything else, it depends on how the author or director brings the story to life. I'm amazed that so many folks expend so much energy trying to define, refine, or defend a genre when, like with most things, different people are going to feel differently about any given book or movie, regardless of how it's billed.


----------



## BrassMan (Dec 8, 2008)

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 (Oct 29, 2008)

BrassMan said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2008)

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 (Mar 9, 2009)

MikeD said:


> 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 (May 6, 2009)

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 (Nov 18, 2008)

MikeD said:


> 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?



Rasputina said:


> 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 (May 1, 2009)

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 (Oct 29, 2008)

Rasputina said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2009)

Rasputina said:


> 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 (Feb 9, 2009)

Ann in Arlington said:


> 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 (Dec 8, 2008)

J Dean said:


> 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.


----------

