Introductions

[StewHotston]

Hi,

I have posted in the introductions thread but I found this forum indrectly through John so wanted to say hello here.

I am a writer by passion although not by profession and although I've had non-fiction published I am drawn to fiction.

My background is as a professional physicist and trained philospher (degrees and advanced degress in those and economics/banking) and I find that when I write I keep coming back to exploring the idea of collapse, both in personal lives and in communities. What drives me is to see how people might be when their world's fall apart.

I write sci-fi/alternative fiction for a couple of reasons - it allows exploration of issues not easily contained within contemporary fiction and as a scientist I find much sci-fi intensely annoying... and simply wondered if I could write the kind of wince-free stories I would enjoy reading.
I originally wrote to entertain my wife and it has slowly broadened out to the point where perhaps three dozen or so friends and family read what I write.

I am interested in learning about publishing and the mechanics involved here and (if possible) seeing what people here, who are involved more generally in the industry, think of what I'm writing. It's all very well having friends encouraging me to try and get published but I'd like some view of just how possible that is and whether I personally should attempt it.

anyhoo, thanks and looking forward to basking on your wisdom...

[Havlen]

Howdy Stew, welcome to the party. Why do you find much of sci-fi annoying?

I've only tried my hand at one science fiction novel, and that was mainly because I love Heinlen.

[StewHotston]

I'm getting older and hence grumpier...

I grew up with Ivanhoe, Robinson Crusoe, Jules Verne and company. Then I did science at university and worked in the field for a while.

I love ideas and I tend to find that Sci-Fi can be very lazy and I suppose in the same way a medical doctor might find a medical drama very difficult to watch I tend to fall at the first hurdle with Sci-Fi. I'll just be looking at the characters and the story and suddenly some whizzimigig will reverse polarity or the hero turns out to be their own grandpa for no other reason than the plot had backed itself into a corner and couldn't get out without a helping hand...

That's a bit garbled.

I like sci-fi that's at least plausible...or at least has its own internal logical consistency
I like stories that don't depend on 'devices' to see them through. Sci-Fi (and other themed/genre writing) falls too easily into substituting devices into the narrative when characters and story should be doing the hard work.

I caveat that with acknowledging how all fiction can fall into this trap - but in sci-fi and probably because of my background I find it especially difficult to swallow.

If I'm honest I read Haruki Murakami, Cormac McCarthy, Vikram Chandra etc before Sci Fi and so I sometimes feel there's the basic quality test that's being failed as well.

Still I do like Neal Stephenson (although his Baroque cycle is his strongest and that is not sci-fi even if it's written as sci-fi), I loved Mary Doria-Russell's The Sparrow and perhaps my favourite sci-fi of all time was Paris Dans La Vingtieme Siecle. Although 1984, a Sci-Fi classic about power and its exercise is amazing and pertinent now more than ever.

Stew

[Havlen]

One reason I asked was because I found it a little ironic that you would find "sci-fi" annoying for some of the same reasons that some science fiction hardliners find the term "sci-fi" annoying.

For hardliners, science fiction should be plausible and well-researched.

Personally, I've never much been one for getting annoyed at labels. As soon as a phrase is coined it's immediately put to marketing purposes. But I have read a couple of rants by hardliners on people using the term 'sci-fi' for all science fiction.

And, yes, I understand exactly what you mean. As a programmer, I wince anytime a detective show wants to do something with computers knowing they are going to start rattling off words without knowing what they mean.

I suppose you can equate it with fantastic realism in fantasy.

[Aliénor]

Hi, grumpy physicist

You must have read Varley's novels (he studied physics)

[JDP]

Hi Stew, welcome to the forum. At the mo, I'm swinging more towards fantasy than sf, but I'm confident you'll find some great recommendations on here for uber-realistic sf that won't get your professional hackles up.

[John Jarrold]

If a new SF writer asks me which recent novelists they should read to get a snapshot of the commercial field in 2007, I'd include Alastair Reynolds, Richard Morgan, Neal Asher, Jon Courtenay Grimwood, Charles Stross and John Scalzi. Not everyone is going to like all of these writers - but if you are submitting an SF novel to publishers in 2007 it's pointless saying 'I want to write like...' naming an author who is no longer published, out of favour or in an area of the genre that is no longer considered commerical - or one of your favourites from the 50s or 60s. There will also sometimes be comparisons with Banks and Hamilton, of course, but any author needs to do market research, and be aware of the present situation in the market. 'Commercial' is the most important word, if publication is what you are looking for. The head buyers at book-selling chains want comparisons with two or three recently-successful writers when a publishers' sales director comes to them with a debut novel. So if an editor can't see these comparisons when you submit, your novel is likely to be rejected.

NOTE - This doesn't mean you have to write 'exactly like' those authors - just be aware of the areas of the genre in which they write.