|
-
Hivemind social net
-
News
- Features
- Blogs
- Events
Calendar
- Editorials
- Monthly
Zine
- Offworld
Report
- Our Daily
RSS Feed
- Google Toolbar scifi
- Movie/TV
Reviews
> Recent movies
> Movies by year
> Movies by title
- Book
Reviews
> Recent books
> Books by year
> Books by title
- Home
- Worlds
- Biography
- Bibliography
- Appearances
- Reviews
- Blog
- Community
- Press
- Links
Become
an Advertiser
- Web
Site Directory
- Search
the Net
- StephenHunt.net
- WoodenRocket.com
- Check
your E-mail
- Non Sci-Fi
News
|
That only makes it worse (or reality should depend on the hand of the writer)
01/01/2006 . Source: Geoff Willmetts 
What tends to distinguish Science Fiction from fantasy of any sort is the avoidance of using deus ex machina, says Uncle Geoff, a rough translation of which means 'the hand of god', for sorting out a story problem or solution. It's the sort of thing amateur writers do when not pre-planning a story and writing themselves into a corner without any viable, sensible or plausible solution. That only makes it worse.
or Reality should depend on the hand of the writer.'
Hello everyone
What tends to distinguish Science Fiction from fantasy of any sort is the avoidance of using deus ex machina, a rough translation means 'the hand of god', for sorting out a story problem or solution. It's the sort of thing amateur writers do when not pre-planning a story and writing themselves into a corner without any viable sensible or plausible solution. He or she therefore comes up with an implausible if not impossible solution as a way out.
Invariably, the hero, heroine or world stands to be killed and there's no way to have a happy ending without some serious connivance to generate a happy ending. In such cases, they tend to illustrate that the writer was stumped and hadn't thought through the original ideas, no doubt convinced the solution would come while writing. When this happens in westerns and thrillers, the cavalry arrive and rout the enemy. In romance, it's often an explanation for the misunderstanding that puts everything right even if it makes idiots out of the characters. They work largely because such things are expected in these genres as they are closer approximation to real life.
They are systematic clichés and only stories that rise above such solutions tend to be remembered which speaks for itself. They have been used in SF but that lessens the genre. Readers are far more aware these days that a writer should not risk such a route. It differentiates the good writer from the unknowing hack. Invariably the stumped writer thinking that SF deals solely with the fantastic resorts to deus ex machina rather than thinking the problem through and applying a little intelligence to the resolution. SF tends to play by a slightly different use of the rulebook but going down this path rather than using a little more brain power is just poor thinking. We expect better.
Science Fiction, whether its based in contemporary reality or any other time period or world, has to introduce a reality's building blocks early on to the reader so there is an awareness of any significant differences. The writer has to show what's in his reality for the reader to expect as the norm. It doesn't necessarily follows that you have to reveal every last detail and its application but even evidence and clues that the reader might be taken unaware but not impossible to figure out if they want to. In that respect, there are similarities to detective stories although those are mostly limited to character motivation and who actually did the crime. Indeed, many pro-SF writers say it's a lot easier to plot back from the solution than work towards it.
SF covers a much wider choice in its playing field including technology and science law changes, even if it's a practical demonstration than the theory of how it works. The cardinal rule throughout though is not to cheat the reader because, ultimately, you're cheating yourself. Let the brightest readers figure out your plot if they can't be led by red herrings and let other readers enjoy the ride and look back over the story for the detail that they missed earlier. Is it any wonder that SF supports good storytellers and not hacks?
A lot of people, especially in the film and TV industry seems to think that Science Fiction gives the licence to do whatever it wants solely because it is SF. As if it's a given reason to cheat because its set in the future or off-planet and anything can sound reasonable as long as no one questions it. A bit of a contradiction in terms as SF fans put their own genre under a microscope all the time. Those who know Science Fiction, and I hope that means most of you or are here to widen your knowledge, often uses this as a criteria between good and poor Science Fiction. Don't you hear alarm bells when people, especially involved in TV or cinema, describing SF in those terms?
How easy it is to press the reset button and undo an incident. Resurrect dead characters in a way that would make a god blush with its ease. If it can't be explained with science then it becomes borderline mysticism using Clarke's Law of anything too far advanced will appear as if like magic to us primitives. I often wonder if Arthur Clarke thought through the consequences of his statement. I mean, pulling a rabbit out of hat can easily be explained by opening a portal to elsewhere. You don't have to know how to make a portal to understand the principle just questionable on how to do it. Even futuristic technology still has to rely on some elementary science familiar to our time. Just because we can't do it now doesn't mean we can't grasp the principles given enough time to think about it.
The one advantage SF has is the latitude of solutions even if it has to apply a similar rule structure over other genres. As long as something is established, then it is usable. Even so, there is also consideration as to how far one can go before stepping out of the realms of plausibility. Although it's been said that there are no new plots under the sun, it is up to the individual writer to find a new twist or solution than to tread over old ground. Read enough books and you can soon spot whether a writer hasn't done research, a background check or not done anything startlingly innovative. It hurts even more when the premise seems good but with a cop-out ending. To work back from a cop-out ending is therefore seen as the worse kind of folly as using deus ex machina. If you want to write good SF then you have to put some work into the plot.
What makes it worse is when deus ex machina is used for the plot solution cos generally it means there has been less thinking given to the scenario that has been created. Very much a dumbing down solution that doesn't do Science Fiction any favours. It happens a lot in time travel stories because it gives a reset button or generates an alternate reality where events can be locked away from regular reality. This might give liberty to experiment but in fiction, you're already playing with alternative worlds anyway. We expect to see such things happen at the movies or on TV, at least here it can be used to stretch the actors, but it's a lower standard than can be expected in SF literature. Written a few times, such events can be a novelty but as an accepted plot pattern clearly shows lack of invention and originality. So it makes it far worse when such solutions are used in Science Fiction.
Without wishing to go too far into the definition of just what is Science Fiction, which has been covered in previous editorials, the argument above seems to support the idea that SF is very much an intellectual game than anything else. Do you find yourself responsive to new ideas, not just in fiction but in our reality? Do you like your fiction to be challenging rather than go through the motions? Do you groan and feel cheated when you see deus ex machina used instead of a workable plot? Exactly so. Which probably explains why so many of us real SF fans seek out the best that Science Fiction can offer and groan when any writer uses deus ex machina. For any story, the writer is the god of reality but omnipotence shouldn't allow for sloppy plotting.
Does it leave any room for anything else? I mean, some people like less challenging fiction that doesn't feel like a mind-stretcher. They desire a feel good factor that no matter what, the heroes and heroines come out on top. Science Fiction is a wide-range genre and doesn't mean such tastes can't be catered for but I suspect in the long term, such readers will either leave the genre or move into the more rationalised Science Fiction that most of us read. To stay with SF for the long term invariably means finding more to hold your attention not less.
Does it mean Science Fiction is purely just for intelligent readers? I think that will have to be left to you to decide based on how you see yourself. Certainly, I think readers come to SF because it offers something different, beyond spectacular, to other genres. When it comes to writing Science Fiction, then writers certainly need to be more self-aware and knowledgeable than they would be for any other genre. It isn't for someone who thinks they ought to write something in the genre simply because its there to try out. There has to be something more in the blood that makes writing SF second nature. The ability to dream realities and bring them alive to readers. Certainly, it doesn't need deus ex machina to resolve them.
Thank you, take care, good night and welcome to 2006.
Geoff Willmetts
editor: SFCrowsnest.co.uk
(Less Serious) Thought For The Month # 1: Bearing in mind King Kong's size, fury pelt and not very keen on washing, why hasn't he got fleas?
(Less Serious) Thought For The Month # 2: With rumours flying that there's likely to be a spin-off from 'Smallville' following the live of Arthur Curry aka Aquaman, one wonders what they can call it. Can hardly call it 'Atlantis'. Even though it was used in the comics first, although I think Marvel's Sub-Mariner could also put in a claim here, for TV I think the producers of 'Stargate: Atlantis' might raise an objection as well. 'Man From Atlantis' has also been used. Of course, Arthur Curry doesn't need to hang around an underwater city, he might well turn out to be the ultimate fish out of water and live in a city far from deep water. Then, why have an aquaman away from water?
SF books that should be films: Let's put my twopence in for 'The Einstein Intersection' by Samuel R. Delany.
A real Zen thought for everyone: Statistics show patterns but doesn't mean they have to be lived up to. They are only patterns of previous times and have influence on people who didn't know the first time.
PS If you've survived this far in the editorial, let me reiterate something from the website newsletter and the above editorial. As you can see from the main page, we have one of the biggest SF/fantasy/horror monthly reviews columns on the Net. Our success has increased the number of books that comes in and our policy is to read everything before giving a review. You want the bottom line about what you're going to choose to read. We roadtest books so you have some idea of what you're letting yourself in for. That means actually reading the product and telling others what you think. For that, we're always on the outlook for more reviewers. Do you think you have what it takes to review a book? It's a skill that can be easily mastered. Apart from the ability to put words into sentences, you also need to know how to précis, either know or do a little research on associated subjects and can express opinions constructively expressing good and bad points about the books you read. We even let you choose from our pile of received books rather than foster something on you that you wouldn't read. You'll even get a little editorial help in how to write good copy and that can always lead to other things. I did say you have to love books and willing to read beyond your favourite authors, didn't I? If you like reading books in the genre, think and show you can write a decent review and, most importantly, live in the British Isles (sorry, expense, time and distance travelled mostly prohibits elsewhere), then use the link below and see our requirements. We can't pay you but a review for the price of a book has to be a good incentive. We have one of the most popular SF review columns on the Net. Do you think you're up to writing a review? If you think you can, then you're really going to think you've landed your hands in the biscuit tin.
Look up the Review Guidelines
PPS: For those keeping track, I'm still about 24 months (December 2003 - I've been working my way through my short story pile while my Mum's been ill) behind. With going through the ebook samples, I have removed some who've gotten published elsewhere. Thank you for your patience but let me know if you've sold elsewhere so I can reduce my pile or if you've changed address, especially e-mail address. I can't give you my comments unless either is up to date. Currently, doing spot-checks to see if you're still there when I reach your sample in the pile is making it easier on my time and catching up on the slush pile. This isn't much of a repeat, just to show you're not forgotten. Those sending in ebook samples, be prepared for a long wait and read the Guidelines elsewhere on this website.
They are there to help you do some of the right things and reduce the number of times I'm repeating myself over silly grammatical errors and spelling mistakes that you shouldn't be making. It makes editing a lot easier if any editor has less work pointing out poor English which should have been sorted out in the first place and more focused on other areas of your work.
General advice:
There's an old editorial adage, if you can't aim for perfection why should an editor nurse-maid you to that state? If you're a writer, then you should understand the words and grammar of the job you're supposed to be writing or are you considering it as mundane and boring as any other job to get right? Fall in love with making every sentence the best you're ever written, read up and understand the rules of grammar. Be prepared to put a story away for a few weeks and go back to it for a self-edit. A lot of the time, errors will just stare you in the face when you didn't see them the first time round. Once you know where your weaknesses are, they can be sorted and allow you to move a little higher up the ladder towards making your material look its best.
Look up the Common Problems Link.
Please don't confuse this with my short story slush pile which is kinda low at the moment. We're always willing to give short story writers a chance to be seen if they can withstand my scrutiny even if we can't pay for their efforts. If you can get a short story written well then it'll make it easier to move up to novel length.
Look up the Short Stories Link
Don't forget also, we've got a teaching ground of one page stories, so check out the rules elsewhere on the website.
Flash fiction stories link.
|
|
