This month, Uncle Geoff discusses how a greater use of imagination is needed if we are going to see SF develop.

Hello everyone

Writers are a rare breed. Sure, everyone has a potential novel in them although few ever get around to writing them. Most people don’t stay in one frame of mind long enough to put pen to paper or type productively at a keyboard. I might have a big pile of novel samples to plough through but if everyone was so committed I wouldn’t have any space for anything else.

SF writers are even rarer because so much has to be done compared to other genres. A standard novel relies on things that should be familiar to the general reader. A car or system of transport. The aims and motivation of characters. Social conventions.

Cities and accommodation. All the familiar things that the target audience if not use then certainly know something about without having them explained. They don’t need much more than that. A detective story throws a spanner into the works by killing a character and solving the crime.

A love story is mostly about two people breaking down the barriers between them and ultimately getting married. A war or adventure story demonstrates conquering adversity against seemingly impossible odds. All such stories show some sort of aspect of conventional lives that their readers hope they’ll either be entertained or learn something from to fulfill their lives. Some hidden truth or wishful thinking that makes them come back for more as a diversion from what they perceive as their own uneventful lives.

Science Fiction is an oddity as a genre. For familiarity, some stories are written with a bit of fantasy attached to what would have been a conventional reality where things then deviate markedly.

They set the unexpected into a recognisable situation and all its conventional trappings. In many respects such stories make it easier for the reader. Oddly enough, the stories by the likes of Wells, Wyndam and even writers into the 50s-60s don’t quite capture the modern audience because the trappings themselves have dated.

Something modern SF writers have to be aware of, especially as society is evolving so quickly these days. They don’t want to appear totally archaistic and feel they have no choice but to stay with certain generic types that readers can easily get a rapport.

Others are set in a distance future or planet where the reader will not have any focal reference point they can compare it to. Often, some writers bring in a 20th or 21st century renaissance man for the reader to share the experience through.

This ‘Buck Rogers’ approach isn’t used so much any more simply because ‘futuristic’ situations are now recognisable conventions. Likewise, the problem from the previous paragraph arises as to who do you select? Other than that, it’s not difficult to place recognisable conventions but with different names. There might not be any cars around but everyone recognises a means of transport.

Character motivation is still likely to be the same as we have today. People are still ruled by greed, envy, love and hate. Society might be different but the basic ground rules can be laid down in the opening chapters. Some of the terminology, like ESP, faster-than-light travel, etc has entered every day lives so full explanations are no longer required unless something radically different is done with them.

The plot twist that makes SF Science Fiction still needs that extra bit of thought and preparation but that’s in the order of problem-solving. Oddly enough, people still think writing SF is easy and then wonder why they fall flat on their faces in their first attempts. There’s many reasons for that and a sharp reminder that I must get back to work on the ‘Storycraft’ chapters in the near future. Suffice to say generally that a lot of the answers to problems aren’t explored sufficiently.

Yes, they understand the conventions. Yes, they’ve read SF to understand something about what other SF writers are about. It’s just that they don’t understand how the imagination is supposed to work in the genre. Many neo-writers see it as a need to create some fantastic civilization or technology or alien creature or all of these things. They classify the McGuffin or the dressing as the SF element that they’re paying their dues with. The problem is is that it’s only surface imagination. The plot hasn’t required any additional work or thought.

The whole point of an SF plot is that it is hard to place it in any other genre because story points aren’t easily transportable. When said plot element depends on something like new technology, super-human abilities, time travel, truly alien species or worlds, etc then it is perceived the mix is changed sufficiently.

As such elements are seen so much on TV SF series or films, readers who watch them already recognise the conventions and are looking for the solutions from these plot elements or why introduce them as red herrings? Of course, there are readers who treat this as safe ground and probably have more akin to romance readers who don’t really want change but just like reading the same plots.

That isn’t a criticism of such folks, especially if you think that’s addressing your personal taste, just pointing out that aspect. The problem lies with getting writers to extend the boundaries to allow new conventions to develop.

Established writers know that more of the same is expected from them to maintain the readership they’ve developed. This is often influenced by how much publishers pay to maintain their commodity. New writers have to work harder to show they understand both storycraft and can do something new, let alone getting a publisher to take a chance with them that the story will sell. With SF, that really is a problem. Is there anything new any more?

A lot of the good ideas have been used over the last century. Indeed, a lot of it is now becoming fact. First it was space travel even if we haven’t gone personally beyond the Moon, we have set technology beyond the Solar system. Organ-cloning looks as though it will be a viable proposition in the next decade. Shades of Larry Niven’s ‘A Gift From Earth’. We haven’t resolved time travel but no doubt something will be addressed in that direction one day although I suspect a different answer than any we’ve yet come up with.

I think what a lot of neo-writers are forgetting is the impact of change or technology has on society than the effect itself. I’m not entirely convinced that humans have become so blasé about new discoveries not to voice opinion or be affected by it in some way. I’ve often found some wry amusement that although many earlier SF writers wrote dark stories about technological misuse none of them even considered the influence of how cheap computer technology would affect all our lives.

Was it because they didn’t deem it important? Probably not because there are some famous novels and short stories that deal with both computers and robots. The problem was they were either shown in a bad light working alone, well sort of, as in the case of D.F. Jones’ ‘The Forbin Project’ or it was resolving a mechanical problem, as with Asimov’s robots. There was little to deal with any real social implications. No doubt this was a reflection of the times and what was perceived to sell.

This editorial isn’t going to dwell on that today. It’s primarily to do with imagination and what needs more thinking if your work is see print. It’s getting pretty obvious that a lot of the neo-writers and many of the older ones are thinking that there isn’t much new they can write about and have gone into re-hash mode than work on their craft.

The reasons for this can be legion as scientists are reeling out theories at a faster rate than a two-year turnaround before a book gets released. The same kind of thinking means they also want to avoid something that can turn obsolete. In the old days, writers expressed their concerns over futuristic developments far more than the benefits. A change in the opposite direction has never worked out simply because people, by and large, prefer bad to good news. Saying that, a more balanced outlook of good and bad points together is likely to please more than one type of audience.

Where imagination really does need to score is looking at all the implications of anything radical and figuring out how to incorporate it into a reality picture and story. SF is supposed to give insight into radical change or behavior not just presenting modern day man in such a setting. There really is a need to show how such things affect a whole culture rather than its discoverers.

Although change comes from the writer, the stumbling block might well be people like, well like me I guess. Editors tend to have their own ideas as to what sells or directed what they can buy by their publishers. I can see an editorial like the above encouraging more radical thinking is going to get more experimental stories just aimed at me. Really, I’m only small fry and tend to give everything an equal chance.

If you want to change what is being bought and then released by publishers then you who write will have to send out more that is a radical departure or show greater insight to all publishers you can send to. If nothing else, it might encourage them to think things are changing when they weren’t looking. Don’t forget that good storycraft counts as well. Good ideas poorly presented rarely get past the slush pile.

Those who don’t write stories but express opinions can either vote with their feet by not buying books but more effectively, it would pay to encourage publishers to try new direction by asking them to do it.

It isn’t just TV companies that believe each letter received represents a thousand potential replies. If you want to shape SF back into something that you look eagerly to exploring the bookshelves for some goodie to read then there is a need to get your voice out there and tell the people that count what you want to see. We only have ourselves to blame by doing nothing at all.

Gods what have I started here?

Thank you and good night.

Geoff Willmetts

editor: SFCrowsnest.com

PS. My re-organising is working out and I’ve done some samples. It’s taking time but I think I’m in the process of catching up. If you have moved your book elsewhere, then tell me and let me take it out of my pile for those with more patience.

SFCrowsnest e-mail: gfwillmetts@REMOVE.FOR.SPAMhotmail.com
terrestrial address:
74 Gloucester Road,
BRIDGWATER, Somerset TA6 6EA, UK.
SAEs (International Rates: include at least 2 IRCs or enough to cover return of manuscripts if sending in material) will always get replies.

About the H&T (handsome and talented) Geoff Willmetts