SCIENCE FICTION RULES QX! Part 1: Using and Understanding Science Fiction Nomenclature the rule structure of Science Fiction

An article by: G.F.Willmetts

Science Fiction without science isn't Science Fiction?

Science Fiction without fiction isn't Science Fiction?

Science Fiction without structure isn't Science Fiction!

What is Science Fiction? Is it a conventional plot with a bit of futuristic-looking or advanced science added? Maybe it's the other way around with a futuristic plot and a conventional human-interest attached? Perhaps 'futuristic' is the wrong word to use. Substitute out-of-the-ordinary, extra-ordinary, weird, outlandish or unconventional instead. 'Conventional' is a convenient way to provide a bridging link to the readers of the day. It allows meaning from unrecognisable scenarios by often metaphoring to similar real situations. An alien task would be totally meaningless unless it could be put in human terms. It's either none, all or a mixture. Science Fiction can have it all ways.

Defining Science Fiction is bogged down with everybody's different interpretations with no answer acceptable to all. So why should my definition be any better? Good question, even if it's asked in a rhetorical sense. Maybe it's because I'm less interested in looks and how SF should be more broadly defined.

A lot of people think SF stops with space opera, time travel, aliens, ESP/psionics and mutated humans. All these items are the trappings or trademarks that differentiate SF from Thrillers or Romance stories. If they crop up, then the book is neatly slotted into the SF shelves. A hint of sorcery or mythological beasts and it's on the Fantasy shelf.

All stories rely on the same three basic plots with different window dressing appealing to different reader's tastes. Unlike most genres, adding the trappings doesn't necessarily make a story Science Fiction. The trappings are an important functional integral part of the story, not just the wrapping paper.

Science Fiction tends to be seen in the same light as Fantasy and, if you must, Science Fantasy - despite the latter being a contradiction in terms. By definition, they are far apart. A Fantasy is basically an author-driven dream following a path with little consequence providing it reaches a suitable climax. If the plot isn't working, then something is hastily added to keep everything rolling with the author's state of consciousness. Fantasy ends up being a form of mental masturbation, with the author writing whatever occurs at the time.

Science Fantasy is an excuse to bandy techno-words without any need to justify the trappings. Convenient labels for conventional props. Its name is derived because the science used is a total fabrication. Other than application, it's no different than some of the fantastic sciences of regular SF.

Fantasies, like dreams, lack the realism handle and have no overall structure from chapter to chapter! The reader invariably can't figure out the characters' decision choices because there isn't a pattern to choose from. Suppose you can recognise and can anticipate the options available? Then maybe what you're reading isn't Fantasy but Science Fiction!

I can hear you saying, 'This doesn't apply to Tolkien!' 'This doesn't apply to Robert Howard!' 'This doesn't apply to...' fill in the blank of any particular Fantasy writer you like. They use magic and that's essentially Fantasy. If 'sorcery' is used in a logical fashion, then it's no different to some advanced sciences used in Science Fiction.

The strength of Science Fiction comes from how the author designs a reality. There may be a plot in mind but it is worked out within the confines of the created reality. The rules of the reality govern the actions of the characters of the story. The author can only work within the confines of the reality with the tools available. If there is no solution, then the story is ditched, totally re-thought or re-written. A few mistakes like this and an SF author creates a reality and plots very carefully.

This brings us back to plotting and structure. A well thought out story, no matter the genre, is based on a logically drawn plot. Establishing facts about the reality and characters are introduced in the opening chapters. These elements are used in the story in different combinations or red herrings. The reader is a forgiving sort of person providing everything makes some sort of sense. If all the right evidence is presented, the reader might even indulge in a second reading to find and savour the clues missed the first time. It's in the author's interest to make the reality as realistic as possible in the reader's mind.

On reflection, I can see many of you believing that by applying this process, an SF plot has to be clearly defined before writing it. As many of you have no doubt experienced, different possibilities can open once the story begins. Providing the author finds solutions to the problems within the reality created, the overall plot can be as much a framework as needs desire. In such cases, it's in the author's interest to flesh out the reality at a depth to cover a variety of possibilities. Inventing after the fact often means a hasty re-write later.

If the cause and effect of a 'magic spell recitation' changes each time it's used, with no explanation as to why, then it's Fantasy. Consistent use means a rule structure is being applied, even if some authors don't realise it. Some authors are gifted enough to carry all of the information they need in their heads. Advanced science is only viewed as magic providing you don't understand it, NOT because of the time period it's set in. You don't need to know the rules of science to be able to predict the actions of our science laws. Most people recognise cause and effect without knowing how it happens.

What you have to ask yourself is: Has your favourite author create his or her reality from straw or concrete? Your reality can have the most fantastic setting, odd exotic characters and beautiful alien sunsets, but it is all governed by a set of rules consistent to that reality.

Has your favourite story been in the wrong category all these years? Will this mean a re-classification of what is Science Fiction? A lot of Horror Fiction is only classified as such because its scary elements appeal to readers who wouldn't normally read SF. I tend to view Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein' and Stephen King's 'Carrie' and 'Firestarter' as SF rather than Horror. Publishers and bookshops only see authors and books in pigeon-holes and rarely recategorise them.

Does this mean that there will have to be a new classification of SF and Fantasy? Hell no. It just means a good selection of books need to be re-distributed to different shelves. I haven't removed a category. Whether those who favour 'sorcery' based fiction will need a new sub-category can be debated. There's been an unofficial Fantasy sub-section 'Sword and Sorcery' category for years anyway. All I'm doing is adjusting the definition and opening areas readers might have found taboo. They may even find similar books that they didn't realise existed before.

I could stop at that point, but if you're a budding author, I'm sure an example of how to develop or work a rule structure change won't come amiss. How far can you change a rule structure and not lose your readers? In short, keep it simple and see how far the changes will affect a reality and the society that lives there.

Never change a rule structure too far from what is familiar to the reader. It leaves too much to demonstrate or explain. Once there is an understanding of the difference and its being used, the reader shouldn't be knocked over the head with comparisons to our reality. Saying that, the differences should be continually used to ensure the reader realises where they are.

You may not know too much science, but should be aware of some its basic science rules in practice. The Conservation of Energy means nothing can be created or destroyed, only its form altered. Newton's Laws of Motion essentially says that most things fall to earth or if they don't, keep going until something moves them in a different direction. Deviate from these and you're changing what is acceptable in a big way. Yet these are simple rules. If it's different, it needs demonstrations of the effects.

Let's suppose you change the Laws of Motion. Something you'd have to do if you wanted to introduce an SF trapping like the anti-gravity device. It's frequently used and taken for granted without thinking about how it would affect a society.

If the ground was wherever you planted this device, your home can be laid on the side of a mountain, in the deepest part of the ocean or even floating among the clouds. With separate gravity areas, you'd need some kind of warning to adjust when you cross over into someone else's gravity dug-out or everyone will end up bumping heads. It opens up a whole new world by messing with one fundamental science law and becomes integral to the plot. It would be impossible to ignore the device if widely available. It affects a lot of other applications. A gravity field can act as an effective atmosphere container or force field. Don't indulge in some major rule change unless you're going to use it effectively. Some other author may have a better use of the idea.

Think through some of the effects. With people walking on the ceilings, where do the lights go? There would be a greater surface area to the planet. There could be a population explosion equivalent to the greater agriculture area. The perception of up and down would be radically changed. Transport would be faster because anti-gravity devices would counteract Gee-force.

I'm only scratching at the potential differences. Could you honestly write a 'conventional' story in this reality without taking none of this into account? If the plot doesn't work with the differences, then it should either be reviewed, revised or create a more appropriate reality. Science Fiction starts off with 'What if...' and designing the reality 'How do I...'. A terrorist would be dangerous if he left heavy gravity mines around and I've got a plot. Another plot could be based on the world falling apart if the anti-gravity devices began to fail with massive over-population.

Is there a necessity to do all this work for a short story? You do if you intend to pursue the reality over a series of stories. If you don't, then you need to focus on what the plot requires and apply the changes there. How do the characters move from place to place? Are they in favour of the anti-gravity device? How does it affect their lives? What happens if it goes wrong? It should colour all the actions of the story in some way. If there is no immediate bearing on the story, then hint and suggest with knowledge that shows you have thought through the consequences. No one is going to worry about how toilets flush unless you point it out.

A fully realised setting will cry 'potential' beyond the page. I should, at this point, say that I'm making this look awfully easy. It's not! There's a lot of research involved if you're not up on the science to visual the consequences. My anti-gravity example demonstrated without me explaining how it worked! There's a need to dig into textbooks or approach knowledgeable people in the field. With the latter, they should only be asked pertinent specific questions and NOT asked to create your reality for you! Personally, I think it's an advantage if the author has a grasp of the principles of science in the first place. Scientists today tend to be too specialised to see beyond their own individual subject. An SF author needs to examine the wider picture of the reality.

There might not even be a need to change a science law. The introduction of a unique fully realised device working within current scientific laws can be worked the same way. Likewise, the same applies to unique individual characters or species. As the author, there is a need to examine how far this will change society in general or characters in particular. Your task is to make the setting so real that readers are drawn into this reality.

Practical demonstrations are far more important than technical double-talk. Detailed explanations can be left for later articles or lectures as required. 'There is more going on behind the written page' is probably more fundamental of SF than any other genre. There is no need to give scientific explanations providing the demonstrations are internally consistent. No doubt some genuine scientist will correct or even justify what you've done, providing you've been applying a consistent logical rule structure. There will always be an opportunity to revise, correct or justify any problems found in another story.

The creation of a device that forever changes reality is a standard SF cliché. A lot of the SF Masters were smart enough to keep it confined to being recognised by a few characters. With multi-book epics, the repercussions on society can be examined in more detail. Regular fiction doesn't rely greatly upon such changes. SF themes hit a far more grandiose order of scale. We commonly expect in Science Fiction to see society change by the work of individuals.

Science Fiction stories are littered with the effects of failed societies or empires that are re-built into something less extreme or better. We frequently see utopias fail because, without nothing to strive for, these societies become weak and useless. In SF, it becomes difficult to base such social changes in modern times. No SF author, as far as I can recall, predicted the fall of Communism in Russia due to poor economics. Obviously it was either not dramatic enough or no one bothered to analyse the effect.

If modern societies are explored in SF, then they are treated as futuristic metaphors so no direct criticism or threats can be made at the author. These are still changes of rule structure, albeit social rather than scientific. Observe society-changing templates from unexpected sources. Look at how Henry Ford changed the world with assemble-line mass production techniques.

Look at how the NASA Space Programme has changed our world in a few decades with its distribution of advanced technology. They should be observed for effects but not carbon-copied because no situation is ever alike. Necessity changes society. It doesn't stand-still. The rule structure is changing. Don't ever consider your reality is unlikely to change as these are the points of most interest. How your society got there provides much needed history in its broadest terms.

Rules in SF are continually broken with rarely any good explanation for them because it's convenient. It makes time travel possible, short space flights to the stars viable and aliens speak English because it is convenient to tell a story. Cause and effect are clearly visible and accepted because their use is consistent.

If every author had to explain how all this affected a reality's history, they'd probably never get another story written. We'd also be left with many similar stories. It then becomes a balancing act of acceptance, integration and subtle reference rather than make a change blatantly important. Just because it's a trapping doesn't mean to say its use can't be re-invented. Taking things for granted is the act of a lazy writer.

One doesn't explain a computer to know it can do a particular job. It is important to note that in a changing society many people can use a computer competently. In such instances, broadstroking the picture with regard to exact details can be done providing any major implication is observed by the characters. If it was easy to create realistic realities more readers would be writing Science Fiction.

I would be the last person to say that I want stories depicted in National Geographic or New Scientist detail. On the other hand, I don't like seeing a setting that obviously is only window dressing, either.

It's important to think of what's been previously been written as the stepping stone to what can be done in the future. Don't rely on a revised imperialism, empires or medieval state set on a future world for a sale. It might be safe but it is very cliched. 'Borrowing' or laying homage to previous or existing mythologies and cultures are readily caught out by eagle-eyed readers because they've been done to death. They are a crutch rather than relying on imaginative thinking. SF is a field of logical imagination that has to be applied, not the re-circulating of old regimes.

A sound rule structure means a stronger imaginative Science Fiction story. Although some scientific knowledge is crucial in many stories, the options for social change are purely that of the author's individual speculation. It is here, that the SF author finally has the final diverse imaginative say with cause and effect leading the way.

G.F. Willmetts

Top level: teXt Files

The latest Science Fiction Books