10 Laws of Good Science Fiction
10. Earthmen are not all white or all men.
Subscribers to Science Fiction magazines in the 1950s were predominantly adult educated white men working as engineers or other technical jobs. White, educated men with technical backgrounds wrote SF stories. There is a strong tradition dating from the Golden Age of SF that SF protagonists are white educated males.
Today, SF readers are younger and much more diverse. SF characters need to reflect the diversity of its readership. It should be as diverse as the backgrounds of the readers, and even more so. Characters need to be all age groups from very young to very old. Ethnically they need to reflect the readership and then push the limits. Sexually, there should be reality-based characters that represent the readers’ real world.
Science Fiction should expand the worldview of its readers and expose them to much more than the normal, expected and ordinary. Nowhere is this more important than in the characters that populate SF stories.
9. No Supermen
A Science Fiction writer should never put beings into a story that are so far superior to men that we cannot understand their motives, we cannot overcome their will or we cannot meet them face to face in a fair fight. It is not interesting that there is a being out there who can simply step on us like an ant. This is one of the rules of the famous Science Fiction editor John W. Campbell, Jr.
It is quite possible that we will meet such beings, but it will not be such a good story because the aliens will destroy us, ignore us, or take us as pets.
In order for there to be interaction, or conflict, the protagonist has to have at least a chance of success. He has to out fight, out smart, out luck, or out something in order to make an interesting plot resolution. Avoiding the superman is not interesting. If you can avoid him, he may not be so super. All villains have to have a weaknesses and faults. Even the hero should have a few faults, and it helps if the pretty girl brought along by mistake has a few as well.
The hero’s cause can look hopeless, but we expect that. It is always interesting to see how someone gets out of a sticky situation, but it is no fun when the cause is without any hope.
8. No Trek or Star Wars.
Nothing can kill a story, conversation, or relationship deader than an inappropriate reference to Star Trek or Star Wars.
Star Trek and Star Wars are worlds unto themselves. They are beyond judgment and criticism. It doesn’t matter how bad any individual scene or episode is, on the whole the worst Star Trek episode is better than anything else that has ever been on television. But, don’t ever think that Star Trek and Star Wars are good Science Fiction. Rarely, they have had moments where they approach good SF, but only rarely.
Authors, please do not bring elements of ST and SW into your stories. Don’t use Phasers, teleporters, droids, Klingons, Wookies, the prime directive and especially never bring “The Force” into a story. This, of course, includes renaming things.
The technology, philosophies, plots and characters of ST, SW, Bab-5, BG, and other TV shows are so obvious and easily recognizable that these elements, no matter how well disguised, are instantly flagged as a bad imitation.
7. Science Fiction is Real.
Science Fiction is not like fantasy. Science Fiction has to plausible, realistic, possible and yes, it has to be real. Even if it hasn’t happened yet, or never happened in the past, Science Fiction has to be possible in some alternate world. Elements that make a story downright impossible make a story something other than Science Fiction.
There is a lot of leeway as to what reality includes, especially when dealing with a possible science or technology. It is important that the ideas appear to be real and do not raise obvious objections. There will always be a certain level of what Coleridge called the “willing suspension of disbelief”, but a Science Fiction story should never ask a reader to swallow something that is obviously ridiculous or patently impossible without a lot of convincing explanation.
Reality includes creating scientific principles and concepts for which there is no current basis. These scientific notions must be plausible in the sense that they act like the scientific principle which we currently are sure of, but they may not so outlandish as to negate anything we are pretty sure is true now.
Certain things so obviously lack reality that they cannot appear in a Science Fiction story. Vampires, zombies, ghosts, demons, unicorns, elves, and magic are mythical and have no scientific basis, and they are incompatible with Science Fiction. No amount of rationalization is going to make a vampire seem scientifically sound.
Religious ideas such as God, angels, devils, life after death and miracles have a kind of reality based on faith, but are not describable using the scientific method. They are perfectly acceptable as part of a society’s or character’s belief set, but under no circumstances should Jesus appear in a story as a fictional character.
One of the things that makes SF so compelling is that there is a feeling that what we read is real. It may be happening to fictional characters in a fictional situation, but the science and technology are a very real and important part of a reality that affects our lives.
6. Given Something an Alien Name Doesn’t Make it Alien.
Raktajino is coffee. By giving it a Klingon name it sort of appears alien, but everyone drinks it like coffee. It looks like coffee. It is coffee. Writers should not think that making cows into Dvigids and Horses into Pytkos that they are not writing a western. Pistols should not be a ray gun unless the difference between a pistol and a ray gun is important to the plot.
A possible future or an alien culture should not be full of aliases for things that belong in our time on earth – that’s just lazy.
A western can’t be turned into SF by changing Texas to Alderan 7. Humans can’t be transformed into aliens by changing their appearance. A murder mystery set on a space station is a murder mystery, not Science Fiction.
Damon Knight described this as “calling a rabbit a smeerp.”
5. Aliens Should be Alien
It is quite possible that in the next thousand years we will find intelligent aliens or that they will find us. It is not at all likely that they will be buxom babes with an urge to procreate with the men of Earth.
TV and Movie Scifi uses humans, usually with a strange shape of ear, a long tongue, or wearing a rubber alien suit, because it is hard to make stories about truly alien aliens. Very often aliens are not characters, but props or monsters, especially in movies, making the story not Science Fiction, but a horror movie.
It is quite possible that any alien will be humanoid with symmetric bodies, a head, arms, legs, hands, mouths and eyes that work similarly to their human equivalents. It will be unlikely that they work the same way, though. Sharks and Dolphins are similar looking, but very different creatures, so aliens may look like men in many ways.
Aliens may have two sexes, but are unlikely to be mammals and therefore will not have breasts or lips. They may communicate through sound, but even if they do, they will probably not be able to mimic human sound patterns. Lips are an adaptation for drinking milk from breasts. On earth there are many ways in which a creature feeds its young. Breast milk is one way, but this may not be common on other planets. It seems a good solution to us, but may not be the best way. Creatures without breasts do not have lips.
Aliens will not be like us.
Corollary laws:
A. You will never meet an alien who speaks English like a native.
B. Aliens just like us, but with little squiggles on their noses only appear in low budget TV shows.
C. We will never be able to have sex with aliens using the missionary position.
D. Aliens as far as they have personalities will be more likely to be aggressive and pushy. There are not likely to be kindly, friendly and caring aliens because they would not have the drive to explore space. (In this way, they will be much like us.)
E. Real aliens don’t act anything like you’d expect them to act. For instance, they will not be Nazis.
4. No Nazis!
Lazy writers have no idea how to create a villain. Villains are human beings with character flaws, psychological handicaps, or even bad luck that forces them to do bad things. They are hard to create, hard to develop and hard to write. The motivation of someone who performs evil acts is difficult for a writer to explain to a reader.
Writers use short cuts. There are classes of characters who are ready-made cookie cutter villains, and require no thought or effort to put in a story. These include Nazis, serial killers, Islamic terrorists, crooked cops, greedy businessmen, maniacs, corrupt politicians, drug fiends, and sadistic nuns.
A writer should use his experience and his imagination to develop characters. A reader should be able to recognize a character as being like someone they may know. A villain should also have a sympathetic element. This is one of the ways to make truly believable characters, and a believable character is the way to bring a reader or viewer into a story line. A writer must create villains that are recognized, understood and even pitied by the reader. Developing a villain is one of the three or four things that make writing hard, but a good villain is one of the three or four things that make fiction good.
A writer who includes World War II Nazis in his story has given up trying to make a real character and has opted for taking the cheap and easy path.
TV shows and Movies are particularly prone to using WWII Nazis, or proto-Nazi villains (cruel men with dark uniforms), simply because there is so little opportunity to develop a good villain in the short time available in a film.
3. Good Science Fiction is Good Science.
You cannot take the science out of Science Fiction. Science Fiction is not Mythical, Magical or Religious. It is Scientific. Myth, Magic and Religion may be subjects that appear in SF, but there is fundamental difference between Fantasy, Horror and Science fiction, and that is that SF requires real or believable science as part of the plot.
There is a quote somewhere which sort of goes “Advanced science will be indistinguishable from magic”, but when you can’t tell the difference between Science and Magic, it is no longer Science Fiction.
Science must be a part of science fiction. In a real SF story, the science must be so integral to the plot that it cannot be removed from the story.
The science can be mundane, technological, futuristic, advanced or even steampunk science, but it must be part of the story. Stories that take place on other planets or in space are probably science fiction stories. Stories of alien contact may be science fiction, but without fundamental science, are properly classified as horror.
Magical powers like telepathy, visions of the future or communication with the dead are not scientific and not Science Fiction, and they should be classified as Fantasy.
A science fiction story needs to be scientifically real. There must be an element that leads the reader to think, “Yes, this is possible”.
The famous Western Writer, Louis L’Amour describes in an introduction in one of his books the Western Landscape as an active character in a Western Novel. Westerns are not so much stories that take place in a certain place and time as stories about how human beings cope with the land. The deserts, mountains, weather and climate all play an important part in Louis L’Amour stories. It not enough that the stories take place in the West. His stories cannot succeed without some characteristic of the land playing an important role.
Just as the Western Landscape must be a kind of character in a Western, or the sea is a major force in C. S. Forester’s Hornblower novels, so must good science be a character in a Science Fiction Story.
2. Science Fiction has a Sense of Wonder
Science Fiction is a unique genre. It blends Technology with Fantasy to create a world in the imagination. The world Science fiction creates is much more than ordinary reality. It is a world of dreams and speculation. Science fiction has embedded in the plots, characters and ideas the goal of an amazing universe of possibility.
True Science fiction is imbued with Sense of Wonder. The reader should be astounded, amazed, and inspired. This sense of wonder is what separates Science Fiction from mainstream technical thrillers.
Science Fiction is the direct product of daydreams and wanderings of imagination. It draws the reader into a feeling of awe about the open-ended universe of what-if. This sense of wonder is what separates, more than anything else, Science Fiction from other genres. It is this sense of wonder that makes young boys so addicted to Science Fiction that we are still reading it when we are old men.
1. Science Fiction Changes the World for the Better.
We live in a Science Fiction world. As Ray Bradbury said, “Anything you dream is fiction, and anything you accomplish is science, the whole history of mankind is nothing but science fiction”.
TV, computers, cell phones, cures for diseases, the exploration of space – all of these things are the subjects of Science Fiction. Science Fiction is a “What If” literature dealing with Technology, Science and the future.
I am sure that almost every major advance in modern science and technology for the last 50 years appeared first in a Science Fiction novel or short story.
What is more, I think that most, if not all advances in modern science and technology were motivated by a Science Fiction idea. Science Fiction leads and the real world follows. Science is possible because of the Science Fiction notion that there is a new world coming.
The proper function of writing Science Fiction, other than to entertain is to chart the dreams of our futures. A Science Fiction writer warns us of obstacles and dangers to come and shows us the promises of our imagination. Science Fiction is literature where a man’s vision is temporarily cast into a plot with characters so that some day it may become reality.
Science Fiction works out our needs, hopes and problems in the form of a written page, but its goal is to create a future world where the human condition is vastly improved.
RULE ZERO!
Many readers of this list complain that I am being too harsh in my judgments and the many great SF stories break these rules. I only have one case where any Science Fiction story can break a rule without failing.
A Science Fiction Story Should Be Fun!
With the exception of rule #4, a good story can break any of the above rules as long as everyone has a good time. SF’s lowest common denominator is cheap thrills. It is often not literature, but escapist reading for enjoyment. A good story can overcome any breach of rules as long as the reader is transported to a land of imagination that makes all transgressions forgivable. (I still think any story with a Nazi sucks the big one, though).
I enjoyed reading your list. Its true that you are harsh but so much that passes as science fiction these days is totally ignorant (in some cases the writers are totally arrogant) of what makes good science fiction that this list feels like a breath of fresh air. Thank you.
Patrick posted it in the future
Harsh? These rules should be mandatory! I’ve read so many terrible articles on writing. No matter what genre one is affiliated with, there is something to be learned from this article. Even a published writer needs a refresher on how to create a good villain! This was great and I bookmarked it. Thanks :)
I am learning to write Science Fiction. Not any story writer can write it. You
need a lot of Technical and Scientific Knowledge. It is an open field for a
starting writer, who has those capabilities.
…It is an open field…
Not so open since telling a good story is a separate skill from Engineering or Science.
Of course, there are a many sites who don’t get enough science fiction. Most young writers want to create Fantasy, Horror or romance, so there is a shortage of SF. There is also quite a bit of fan fiction which, although well done, is not usually a paying gig.
Writing good SF is much harder than you would think. For every five stories I start, I finish only one or two and some of those have a hard time finding a market because the science may be a hard sell. It is a not so easy as picking a technical or scientific theme, it has to be a good story, with good characters and accessible to non-technical readers. When I write a story I have to go through and edit out some of the techno-speak so that an intelligent, but not necessarily technical reader can enjoy the story.
For rule number 7, that no vampires, elves, or zombies can be in your story… What if you explain your mythical character in science fiction-y terms?
Vulcans, for example, are a human like species except that they are generally taller, more logical (emotionally, anyway) and technologically superior to humans. Furthermore, they are partially telepathic and don’t like meddling in human affairs.
Elves are also a human like species except that they are generally taller, more logical and technologically superior to humans (their long bows are superior to anything that humans can create). Furthermore, they are partially telepathic and don’t like meddling in human affairs.
Mush – rule 7
Heinlein wrote Magic, Inc. and Glory Road, and Poul Anderson wrote Operation Chaos. Both of these use mythical or magical characters explained by science. It can be done, but I would say it is very very hard to pull off.
Spock was purposely made to appear like a devil (not an elf). He was later “softened” to appear elf-like. He is nothing like classical elves. (Read Lord Dunsany, The King of Elfland’s Daughter for a good example).
Elves in mythology were smaller than people, not telepathic, and meddled in human affairs whenever they could (but had trouble crossing the barrier between Elfland and the real world. Tolkien made their lords tall, but most elves were shorter than men. D&D created many different flavors of elf and I think that’s where they were made tall.
You might try googling Andrew Lang’s fairy books (try The Red Fairy Book). They are available to read free online and you will get an idea about the old English idea of elves, trolls, ogres, fairies, giants and other fabulous creatures. Each culture has different versions of these old fables, but we get most of our cultural memories downloaded through the English. Elves are northern European, but many cultures had similar little people who lived in the woods and performed magic.
If aliens are to be scientifically real, then the likelihood of parallel development is very improbable, meaning that any space faring aliens will be far more advanced than humans. This means that the aliens should fall into the realm of superbeings and contradict the No Supermen clause. If you choose to incorporate parallel development, then you violate the No Trek or Star Wars clause.
In the stories that I am writing, my premise is that life is rare in the universe, and the few other space faring beings are far more advanced than humans. The aliens are all nonhumanoid and their contact with humanity is equally rare and limited. I’m violating the No Supermen clause. A good writer should not be daunted by the superiority of the aliens and can work in credible strengths and weaknesses of such beings and weave them into a tale that is both believable and entertaining.
It doesn’t follow that space faring aliens will be superior. I believe that evolution will stop when a species becomes supremely successful. Human evolution, with the exception of disease resistance, has stopped and humans are genetically much the same as they were 10,000 years ago. This is likely for any space faring aliens that we meet. They will be much like us as far as intelligence and physical abilities.
Technologically, we will meet aliens the range from just starting out in interstellar travel to beings so far advanced that they will indeed appear as supermen.
I did not say that we will not meet supermen in space, just that the stories where the supermen have no weaknesses and human individuals can not cope with the supermen, are not interesting stories. For a story to work. the protagonist must have obstacles that he at least has some kind of chance to overcome. Stories are about characters coping with problems, not characters having no chance or being destroyed like flies.
Are all conflicts ones that assert that advanced cultures will destroy lesser advanced cultures?
Not all, of course. I would say that lesser advanced cultures would be at a grave disadvantage. Think Europeans and native Americans or Europeans and Australian aborigines. Think Europeans and any other culture they’ve come in contact with.
I do not think it likely that space faring people will be exploring out of the goodness of their hearts. They will not be benevolent. They will have their own alien motives for whatever they do. People aren’t nice. Aliens won’t be nice.
On the other hand I think we can come to a position of mutual benefit with most aliens. Unless they are out to cleanse the universe of non-alien beings, they will find it much easier to exploit humans than destroy them. In the same way, if we ever get to the stars it will be easier for us to exploit any natives we find than to destroy them.
Read Heinlein’s Have Spacesuit Will Travel. In this novel there were Bug Eyed Monsters who wanted conquest and domination. There was also the Mother thing and the government that she represented that wanted order and mutual cooperation. We might find both kinds, although I would think the former more likely.
There are always exceptions to all rules, for example Nazis… you simply have to make it plausible
for example
Iron Sky (though it hasn’t been completed)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KEueJnsu80
Hi, this article looks like you read the Ten Rules of Bad Science Fiction. I think it was by Ray Bradbury, but I can no longer find it. Any idea of how I can get a hold of that?
It doesn’t sound so much like Bradbury. It sounds more like one of the writers who also edited SF mags. Maybe a Fred Pohl or Damon Knight. At the time I wrote the list I had just read an article about good titles for blog posts and 10 best or 10 worst lists was touted as being a good thing. If you find the article that you are looking for, I’d love to read it.
Keith
This sort of thing is doing the rounds:
http://io9.com/5241996/the-top-ten-rules-of-space-opera
Read the comments at IO9 and then read them here – totally different audience.
I don’t read their website – it has nothing for me since I enjoy reading SF.
I don’t think anyone there reads my site because I don’t watch movies or TV.
Keith
I have tried to read some sci-fi, but much of what I have found I haven’t liked particularly, I agree that the point of sci-fi is that the ideas in it are plausible; but some people just can’t seem to see where the line is drawn between it and fantasy. Now, don’t get me wrong, I love fantasy; but as soon as you have telepaths and magic then… ugh.
I’m doing a physics degree, so hopefully that would help in any future endeavours into science fiction.
90% of SF pretty much sucks, but the 10% makes up for it. I read mostly Golden Age SF (from the 1940s and 50s). There was so much good science fiction written back then that I don’t think I will ever run out. I sample modern SF from time to time, but it is mostly bloated ramblings with little redeeming value.
Keith
One thing I’ve noticed about modern Science Fiction is that it’s gotten ruder. Dialogue is cynical and insulting and then characters behave like their in the shallow end of the gene pool. For this reason I can’t fault Keith for only reading Golden Age material.
“…Tolkien made their lords tall, but most elves were shorter than men. D&D created many different flavors of elf and I think that’s where they were made tall…”
Well, it was not D&D games and even Tolkien didn’t started that “superior than humans in almost every way(sometimes at the first sight however)”. Tolkien itself stated once, that his elves are original, mostly northern european mythology based race, and it were the Shakespeare’s works, that kind of “downgraded” them into a little creatures with fancy hats and that the popularity of Shakespeare made the rest as the time passed. He even tried to change that(as he was one of the contributor’s to his time’s issue of Oxford English Dictionary, however with little success).
So, the D&D only chooses and tries to expand/twist the Tolkien’s model for it’s own needs(f.ex.: so called High Elves(that superior, immortal and advanced(mostly in magic) are derived from Calaquendi/Noldor houses of Elves in Silmarillion), “Wood Elves” and their variations(most of them are almost as common as humans in D&D/RPG worlds and if not immortal they are at least very long lived and has far better sight and agility than a human) could see their “ancestry” in Tolkien’s Sindari or even better in the less “radical” branch of Moriquendi(which literarilly translates as “Dark Elves”, however not for their dark characters, but because of the fact that they never saw the light of the Two Trees Of Valinor, but rather chose to stay in Middle-earth) and finally, in D&D and many other fantasy universes there are some real Dark Elves(f.ex. D&D has drows, Elder Scrolls has dunmer…) which are “true” Moriquendi and really have something dark in them to some extent(drows are kind of extreme in that way).
Basically, I agree with the opinion that if it’s a good story with enough ideas of it’s own, it could break some of these rules(race of Technomages in B5; Firefly: western setting & the Empire:-)that defeated “rebels” in time before the beginning of a story). As for the “imitation”, I think even major SF franchises sometimes do that(f.ex.: Rangers(B5 – without something as Force, off course) and the Jedi Order – their purpose in their respective universe is quite similar; Mimbari or Vulcans have much in common with elves(and it’s not because of ears); also Firefly’s western “look” is not so groundbreaking – there was an old anime called Saber Rider & The Star Sheriffs in late 80′s, which incorporated similar western /sci-fi crossover enviroment(also with japanese-styled mechs:-), but similarities are there); finally, The Matrix is chapter of it’s own in context of references or imitations.
I think, sci-fi that would be written according to these rules would be kind of a technical sci-fi A.C. Clarke often wrote, which’s work is really great . However it’s not so widely written by present or beginning authors, because it requires tremendous knowledge in various areas of science, great mind to be able to find that something “what if” even within the limitations which present knowledge in that areas sets and all that in combination with not so common ability to write a good story. And to be able to do all that is quite rare.
Most of your examples are Film or TV, which are mostly piss poor fiction. Written SF (as apposed to theatrical Sci-Fi) is much better at coming up with something new and exciting, even using old themes in new and interesting ways. TV and Film have to appeal to a much broader audience and therefore shoot for a lowest common denominator. They are easy to watch and understand and hardly challenge the viewer at all.
D&D should not be included in any serious discussion of fiction. It is a derivative hodgepodge of other people’s ideas designed to be played by young people. It is a blast to play, but makes for bad fiction.
Yes, I prefer HARD (technical) SF as apposed to soft sci-fi. Yes, hard sf is more difficult to write. Good fiction of any kind is hard to write. You can’t say that soft SF is a good alternative to hard SF because it is easier to write.
Will J.
I wasn’t even aware Hard Science Fiction existed until a read a “Soft” Science Fiction novel. When it comes to particulars I don’t mind either genre if the novel is well written. It’s been said that there exists only two kinds of books; well written and poorly written. I find that a lot of Science Fiction novels in general fall into the latter category.
On a side note I’ve learned to be wary of novels that have blurbs on their covers alluding to or directly comparing the author to a famous writer; I call this feature a bullshit stamp.
demons and ghosts can function in sf with no problem. take Stanislaw Lem`s Solaris, for example.
Is there any recent sci-fi you would recommend reading? I just want to read good fantasy or science fiction, but it seems that fantasy is all book X of 10, and sci-fi is all short stories. Oh how I long for authors to just write great single novels!
“Is there any recent sci-fi you would recommend reading? I just want to read good fantasy or science fiction, but it seems that fantasy is all book X of 10, and sci-fi is all short stories. Oh how I long for authors to just write great single novels!”
Depends on what kind of sci-fi/fantasy you like. I would add some of my favorites:
anything by A.C.Clarke – mostly technological or “philosophical” sci-fi
Frank Herbert(+ his son and others) – anything from Dune universe(I really recommend to read it from it’s very beginning(Butlerian Djihad is the first book in the series)
Isaac Asimov – Foundation
Dune and Foundation are multi-part novels so don’t worry about the length :-)
W.Gibson – Neuromancer, Johny Mnemonic – Gibson is considered father of cyberpunk, very interesting reading but for someone it may be too difficult
fantasy:
If you only read LOTR or Hobbit from Tolkien’s books about Middle-earth, there’s more:
Silmarillion – myths and legends of Middle-earth and events preceding and thus explaining some things and references in LOTR
The Book of Unfinished Tales – collection of mostly unfinished works on Middle-earth – many people don’t know there are two parts
Hurin’s children – the longest of the “unfinished tales” finally completed. It was published only recently by his son.
R.E.Feist – Riftwar Cycle(probably most known book is Betrayal at Krondor)
A.Szapkowski – The Witcher saga – sometimes incorporates even “naturalistic” approach to fantasy(btw this story was made into quite good RPG PC game just recently)
off course there are many more…
…and, yes, It’s true, there’s not much of single SF/fantasy novels.
Read Dune. I’ve been put off reading the rest of it by the recycling of characters
Really need to read some Asimov, but I’ve struggled to find in libraries here in SA.
Used to roleplay Cyberpunk 20/20, but need to read more of Gibson.
Read all the Tolkien there is. Stopped just short of actually learning Quenya and Sindarin.
Read most of the Riftwar, but I actually preferred the Empire saga with Janny Wurts.
Also Cycle of Fire, Deathgate, Earthsea. About to start Game of Thrones.
But I was specifically asking about the more recent stuff, especially sci-fi. Like Iain M. Banks Culture series. I go to the bookshop, and, once you get past the heady influx of emo teen vampire crap, there and a lot of books that I just don’t know if it’s worth my while even starting, especially if it’s a series.
As far as fantasy goes…
I am a big fan of Leiber’s Gray Mouser stories, although they are not novels.
I like Poul Anderson’s SF books. He also wrote a few fantasy books. You should try Three Hears and Three Lions by Anderson.
Of course, there is Conan. Read the Howard books. I assure you that there are no characters even remotely similar to Arnold.
I reread Edgar Rice Burrough’s Mars books every few years. They are fantasy, even if they take place on Mars.
Andre Norton’s Witch World series started out as one stand-alone book and slowly grew so you can read the first few Witch World books without having to read sever 10 pound sequels.
Fantasy books before J.R.R. Tolkien were usually a single novel and under 100K words, so look for good fantasy from the 40s 50s and 60s.
The Dune novel is continued with Dune Messiah and Children of Dune. I consider these three to be the basic Dune trilogy. Dune ends well, but there are many unanswered questions and the next two books round things out. I seem to remember that the original Dune as Herbert wrote it included material from these books, but was shortened. The sequels after these three are not really worth reading more than once, but I have reread Dune, Dune Messiah, and Children of Dune many times.
My taste in SF runs from Golden age classics like the Early Robert Heinlein (I think everyone should read “Door Into Summer”). I especially like the Heinlein Juveniles.
I like the modern CyberPunk novels like Gibson. I like Shirley’s Eclipse books. I like Vernor Vinge’s books. Read Vinge’s True Names and other stories.
Asimov is good, but dry. I like Clarke’s short stories better than his novels.
The later Golden Age has people like Anderson, Pohl, Harry Harrison, and Blish,
The best, though, will always be Ray Bradbury.
I think your list makes sense. I just dont think you should call it a law. thats like saying someones’ writing isnt good just because it doesnt follow your function or structure. I love to read science finction especialy Ray Bradbury & Stephen Kings But That Doesnt mean they have to follow your structure to have a good SF Novel Or story. Maybe they reach the SF audiance on a whole other level? However you are right on the realisticness.
zombies are real. You use a toxic like that in puffer fish to produce them. I have read only one book in the current zombie genre: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. It has but one reference to zombies that make sense; harnessed zombies pulling a carriage. I find it hard to imagine why anyone would go to all the trouble of producing a zombiie to do the sort of other silly things they do in the book. However ghouls might do those sort of things.
>>zombies are real.
I just don’t know where these people come from and how they find my website.
William Forstchen’s book “One Second After” is a great read. It follows a community after an EMP attack on the U.S. There are no aliens, vampires or zombies.
The Beave may be pushing his own book. Here is the link to it. I’ll watch out for it. SF without Nazis, vampires or zombies is for me.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0765317583?ie=UTF8&tag=thenewjt30page&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0765317583
On point 3
“Good Science Fiction is Good Science. You cannot take the science out of Science Fiction.”
This is the key definition of SF – what ever happens is based in the scientific explanation. For example a talking donkey can be achieved through
1.Fantasy (like Shrek),
2.religion/mythic (as in the Bible)
3.Horror (some sort of possessed donkey) or
4.Science fiction (through a GMO, nano-cyber implants or whatever)
The plot of all four stories oould be identical – A talking donkey is SF literature based on the reason behind the change in the universe that allowed the donkey to talk.
To just dismiss scenarios as non SF is not true to the genre.
A good rule of thumb is “assume that xyz is different to our world … how can we explain it and would things actually happen as a result”
This was a great read. I loved the part about the villain and could not agree more. Peter F. Hamliton’s The Nights Dawn trilogy is a prime example of what happens when these rules are ignored. Kudos.
I may be in over my head…
My SF will take place in a future in which humans are gone and only isolated societies of androids exist. In their attempts to uncover the mysteries of human extinction and why they themselves are still around, the main character will slowly discover how similar they are to human (like appreciating leisure, contemplating a greater purpose in existing without getting too spiritual, etc).
I agree any book should examine or present an opportunity of an improved human condition, but thought it would be more interesting to have a pinnochio kind of story – the characters long to be human but discover the capacity to experience what it means to do just that. More appropriately, I want to present the artificial condition. My story thus far fits all 10 rules, only trick is to put more action in it and less description…
It sounds good – the androids, of course, need to find the last remnants of humans living in a primitive state and not at all like what they thought they would be.
I think finding surviving humans regardless of their state would be a predictable outcome. My friend’s first guess/suggestion was that the main characters could discover that the androids were once human, and technology was developed by them to convert themselves into androids as a way to control their own pace of evolution. He suggested at the end they find the original machines that did this and maybe even find a way to reverse the process. Personally I thought that would be awesome but a machine that turns you into a robot is borderline fantasy. It was still a cool idea my friend thought of imo.
I loved this list and I’m using it for school, however, I have one problem with this list. You stated that telepathy falls under magic, however, it is anything but. To some people who don’t understand it, it is lumped with magic, but it is in fact a psychic power, which is currently being studied for science. Mankind uses less than 10% of our brains, whereas some alien races may use 100% of theirs and unlock the psychic abilities inherent in all creatures. Psychics are currently being studied, and so psychic powers used in MODERATION (meaning their telepathy is blocked by certain substances, their pyrokinesis can’t burn others, etc.) is okay. Just saying.
Psychics are charlatans and telepathy is a myth. There is no credible evidence that any of the psychic powers have any basis in fact. There is a great percentage of the U.S. that believes otherwise, but they are wrong.
The Amazing Randi has offered a million dollars to anyone who can show under controlled conditions any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. He has had this offer open for many years and no one has ever claimed the prize.
If you could read minds, predict the future, talk to ghosts, move objects with your mind, or see events far away, don’t you think you’d claim James Randi’s prize?
While we are on myths and hoaxes, “mankind uses less than 10% of our brains” is one of them. Absolutely no basis is real science, but often erroneously used to ‘prove’ psychic abilities. See the writeup @ Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp
We seem to be drifting away from SF. However there are two grievous errors in recent comments whiich should be corrected. Unfortunately it will require two or three paras to do that adequately.
First: About not using our brain to its full capacity. Well of course not. My
car has a speedometer that registers up to 200 km/hr. That does not mean that I have to drive at 200 Klicks every time I drive. I carry out a lot of chores but I certainly do not strain my muscles for every task. Similar with mental efforts. I want to go into high gear for thinking in terms of quantum mechanics, or string theory. At a more mundane level; the best Scrabble play, or to fully focus my attentiion when driving in heavy traffic at high speed on the freeway. But lots of other thinking can be done with about 10% of my potential.
Now the other is a bit more complicated: This matter of people failing to qualify for rewards offered for displaying psychic powers. Randi is making such an offer, Dunninger did it before in conjunction with Scientific American. It might be a good way to lure frauds, and there are a lot of them around. It is NOT a good research instument item to discover if there really are occult powers.
Let me elaborate: When Newton was admonished for his interest in Alchemy he replied: The difference between us is that I have studied it and you have not.
So, I have studied it. There is a lot more about magic that I don’t know than what I do know. However I am a graduate of the Internatiional College of Esoteric Studies and I have carried out other independent investigations
I’m requesting you more sceptical to indulge me for a moment and ypothetically, for the sake of argument, assume that there might be such a thing as psychic powers and individuals who have mastered them.
Now two of the reasons for studying that kind of magic are to gain power, to gain wisdom. If you have power there are easier ways to get a million dollars than responnding to Randi’s challenge. You might also wish to keep it secret that you have such powers. If you have gained wisdom you may not care about getting a million dollars.
Now a final comment about the fakes: The existence of counterfeit furnishes a measure of evidence that there really is such a thing as genuine currency.
As a writer, all of the powers of the mind exist. I saw a ghostly shadow on the wall of my shower the other day and dismissed it. Then, my wife saw it and called out to her recently deceased friend. Skeptically, I didn’t walk into to see if she was seeing the same thing I did. Darn.
I like to think that I use 100% of my brain. The problem is with all of the mistakes I make, I want that not to be true.
If I had telepathy, I wouldn’t have to tell anyone about it to make money. I would go to the casino and win just enough to stay under the radar. I would just read the pit boss’s minds. No publicity. No endless lines of people looking for money.
It’s not drifting away from SF. One of the laws was that “3. Good Science Fiction is Good Science”. Like it or not, psychic abilities are bad science, if science at all. At least until they are proven with copious studies are are able to be defined clearly.
As to the 100% of brain capacity, you’re still making assumptions that there is an amount beyond normal use which will suddenly enable extraordinay external abilities. Where is there any valid evidence that our minds have a vast untapped potential beyond normal use, even up to 90% so? Draetrialis even went so far as to make the bold assumption that “psychic abilities [are] inherent in all creatures”. Your analogy is flawed, because whether you’re driving 10km/h or 200km/h, you’re still only doing the same thing – driving. Going faster doesn’t grant your car extra abilities, like controlling other cars or moving mountains. So why should thinking harder (ie: at 100%) allow you to suddenly break a threshold and do something you cannot do when playing Scrabble?
A vast majority of psychics are frauds, however, there are those few that have true powers. I never heard of this prize, but I will tell my dad, who is a more fulfilled psi than me. There are two powers that have been known to occur, but always has been misidentified. Pyrokinesis (heat control) is one of them, and when people spontaneously combust, their pyrokinetic potential overpowered them due to ignorance. Cryokinesis (pyro’s opposite) is the other, and when people seem unnaturally cold, they have no control over their cryokinesis. I know someone with the “subconsious cryokinesis”, though like you, they are skeptical.
I think the 10% thing has been taken too much to heart. It just means that you and I are capable of perceiving complex and intagible ideas, give them shape and name them; however, we usually just spend our time watching television and reading anonymous comments on discussion boards.
Simply excellent. I laughed incessantly after reading the point about having no Nazis; the idea never occurred to me to ever include it in any story.
[...] Well, unless I move to a country where it is very cheap to live. So, even if I stuck to the 10 laws of good science fiction and wrote a lot of science fiction stories and novels, I would probably still have to live on [...]
[...] Some good guidelines for writing science fiction here. [...]