Mind Meld of the Gods

I'm doing it again, I'm linking to another Mind Meld over at SF Signal. This one is about Gods in Speculative Fiction».

If you are unfamiliar with a SF Signal Mind Meld let me give you a heads up: This is not an experience for the unprepared. Brew some coffee, find a comfortable seat and settle in for an intimate look into the minds of some of the greatest SF writers out there. People like Elizabeth Bear, Gregory Frost, and L.E. Modesitt Jr.

I have some thoughts of my own as to the nature of religion in stories.

More Below/Beyond the Link...


Religion in real life (there's a mindbender) is something that comes easy for some, hard for others and not at all for the rest. In Fantasy it seems to generally be an expected and active component of the world and in Science Fiction an invisible or non-existent force. I'm not saying that those are the rules for all, in fact there are some fantastic stories that defy my above statement. And how do you really classify A Canticle for Leibowitz or The Algebraist?

In world building and writing I struggle to find the difference between a god and superhuman. What makes one divine and the other merely impressive? I don't believe there is a hard line, no simple criteria or checklist. On a bell curve I would place normal man at one end, and the monotheistic omniscient god at the other end. Then on the hump I would look for my stories. To me that space is where men can achieve greatness and where the gods can falter.

Ultimately given the role faith and religion has in the real world, and the influence it has on the lives of so many, it is a mistake not to give it some thought when world building. You don't need gods with winged horses and lightening powers, just a conscious knowledge of the role religion plays in your characters lives. Some of the most powerful stories written never show the gods, or their motives, but without the characters faith there would have been no story.


For more on the religions in the two books I mentioned check out this review of A Canticle for Leibowitz from SF Reviews.net and this article on The Algebraist from Gordon's Notes





...Read Complete Post...

Eating my own words?

So a few days ago» I listed three common mistakes made by members of a writing group. (at the bottom of the linked post)

* Didn't Finish the Story.

* Didn't Edit the Story.

* Submits Story Late.

Last night I had to send in a story submission for the next meeting of my writing group. So did I follow my own advice and avoid the three mistakes?

More Below/Beyond the Link...

In reverse order:

* Submits Story Late.
I did submit my story on time. I sent my submission sometime around 8pm last night, so I didn't make this mistake. Not that I wasn't tempted as we'll see below.

* Didn't Edit the Story.
I spent a good few hours editing this story. It needed it and sadly I'm not that good at editing. What I struggle with is grammar and I blame myself for that. I didn't really pay attention to grammar in school and by the time teachers started to really get serious about the intricacies for grammar I had already closed my mind to the subject. My instincts were 'good enough'. Well today I am admitting that they aren't 'good enough'. I really need to understand the mistakes I am making so that I can avoid them in the first place. Is my story edited and readable? Yes. Are there still errors in the writing? Plenty.

* Didn't Finish the Story.
Well I finished, but in less than 3000 words. I had a goal of 3 to 5 thousand words and I fell short. This kills me. I tried during editing to increase the length of the story and ironically enough shrank it down by 300 words. So even though I am sure that the story would be better for the addition of a 1000 words, it is finished at least.

So in conclusion, while I did complete, edit and submit my story, I know that I could have done better, and next month I will.



...Read Complete Post...

More Lousy Advice

I've got a little bit of a penchant for advice these days. So to keep things fair and balanced I give the good with the bad, distinguishing between the two I leave as an exercise for the reader. (Gotta use Critical Thinking somewhere people)

Over at The Chronicle Review is an article by Geoffrey K. Pullman entitled 50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice ».

In the article Pullman discusses the 50th anniversary of The Elements of Style, yes that book. Essentially, as well as some really good advice, there are a number of errors in that book. Errors that have been perpetuated by teachers and writers both for decades now.

Sigh. I remember having my short stories covered in red ink by one particular teacher who was a devout follower of Elements of Style. Hearing the words "Passive Voice" still stirs a decidedly non-passive response within me.

So the message, with any advice, be it from me or from some guys 50 years ago, is to evaluate whether it makes sense for you. Don't allow argument from authority to blind your critical thinking skills.




...Read Complete Post...

Ten Styling Mistakes

Over at Holt Uncensored a few days ago was a fantastic article on Ten Common Mistakes made by all writers». The beauty about these mistakes is that they are all very common, easy to spot once you know what to look for, and by fixing them the quality of your writing will improve immediately.

Moving on, I also wanted to share a link to Writtenwyrdd where today writer D. Lynn Frazier discusses the impact something as simple as Concrete can have on World Building» (puns not intentional).

On the home front, I'm busy working on my next story for my writing group. We have a simple system: 1 short story a month, 3 to 5 thousand words in length. Ideally in a few months each member should be starting to build a collection of short stories that have been peer reviewed and would be suitable for submission to editors and magazines.

See that's ultimately the goal of this group. To write and submit our stories in pursuit of publication. To some writers it's about finding personal meaning in stories, and developing their craft or art. All very literary, and a great use of 6 years of university. I get it,and I could spend years at my desk writing things that make me happy. Of course by ignoring the current markets desires then I would have little chance of being published. Happy, but unpublished, and that's not for me.

So back on the topic of mistakes, here are three common mistakes made by members of a writing group:
(I have made all of these mistakes!!)

* Didn't Finish the Story. Members with an incomplete story that drags on for months (with edits, additions, rewrites and changes) will bore the other members of the group and have nothing of value to use for submission. Finish the story and move on. If you want to edit, fine, but don't resubmit the edited piece the next month and the next month, ad nauseam. The converse of this is the member who submits the first part of a different story each meeting without ever submitting the second parts (or even finishing the second parts oftentimes). They likewise short change themselves. There is no market for half written stories, nobody publishes a book of chapter ones. In the meantime what value is the critique of half a story?

* Didn't Edit the Story. It should be as obvious as the nose on your face that if you write something for publication that commas, periods, paragraphs, and other correct uses of punctuation are expected. To submit unformatted stories, riddled with punctuation errors, to the writing group is a waste of time. Nobody can effectively critique the work because they have to struggle to read it. The writing group isn't there to fix errors that should have stopped in Grade School.

* Submits Story Late. Deadlines are hardly deadly in an informal writing group, and the story may be better for the extra time spent on it, but a late story is less likely to be read and critiqued. Not everybody has a schedule that allows them to read late stories in the hours before the meeting. Which is exactly why many writing groups have stories due days or even a week before the meeting. This allows everyone time to read the story and prepare a critique.

The nice thing about these mistakes is that they are easy to avoid. Just write and finish what you write. Don't delay, don't dwaddle, just DO IT. And on that note: Time to get back to my own writing.


...Read Complete Post...

13 Things that Do Not Make Sense

I'm sure there's more than 13 things that do not make sense », but New Scientist had to end the article somewhere.
(I'm trying something new: the '»' symbol is a link that will open the preceding link a new window.)

The 13 things they list are:

1 The placebo effect
2 The horizon problem
3 Ultra-energetic cosmic rays
4 Belfast homeopathy results
5 Dark matter
6 Viking's methane
7 Tetraneutrons
8 The Pioneer anomaly
9 Dark energy
10 The Kuiper cliff
11 The Wow signal
12 Not-so-constant constants
13 Cold fusion


More Below/Beyond the Link...

The article gives an explanation for each item on the list, briefly explaining some of the questions that surround them. It's a pretty good look at some of the mysteries that are still unexplained by science. Personally I wouldn't advise attempting the experiment they describe to demonstrate the placebo effect. In most jurisdictions that would be considered torture and in others (cue the rim shot) marriage. Hiiyooo!!, I'm here all week folks.

No seriously now, there are legitimate questions in science and, unlike the article I reviewed yesterday, this article does a little bit better at approaching the subject. And these articles are about the same subject, bad science, fringe science, wacky science, it all is the same thing. The unexplained and unexplored.

In my readings I've encountered many of the items on the list and have my own conclusions. To preface: I'm not a scientist, nor am I accredited by any institution that would give me any credibility. (heh) However I can read and follow many arguments in physics and chemistry thanks to a decent education. Yay Canada

Most of the items on the list are acknowledged mysteries of astrophysics and particle physics. Things ranging from Dark Matter to Tetraneutrons. And Most have little impact on life. Impact or not though, the Pioneer Anomaly is pretty cool. It just feeds the imagination to wonder why the probes are moving faster than they should as they exit the solar system.

Also on the list were a couple of the items dealing with health and biology. A subject I only know really through, well, being a biological sometimes healthy being.

The first, #1 (Placebo Effect), is a psychological/physiological mystery, and fascinating to behold. How it works is still unquantified, but the fact it works is well documented and accepted.

The other, #4 (Homoeopathy), I had always thought of as bad science. I'm sure that others disagree, and this is one of those subjects I railed about yesterday as something that needs to be treated seriously. So Seriously, it may make for good medicine, but the chemistry doesn't make sense so it's bad science.

For all the Homoeopaths and their followers out there if you are healthy, or improving then ignore my opinion. I wish you all the best in health and happiness. And really the only problem I have with Homoeopathy is the dilution theory. The idea that you can start with a mixture of water and a substance (ie:nightshade, or charcoal) and dilute it enough that there is nothing left of the substance. Essentially just water is left but that water still has the healing powers of the substance diluted out of it. Crazy enough for me, and a challenge to my preconceptions is the Belfast Study. Here is a controlled scientific study that seems to indicate some basis of truth to the dilution theory.

Two final items on the list that caught my eye were #6 (Viking's Methane) and #11 (the Wow signal). Both offer little in evidence, but they inspire hope in me that there really may be life out there. This is my own little bastion of bad science. I know that there is no evidence in support, and many logical arguments against, but I still believe, even if the only aliens I meet exist in the pages of my library.





...Read Complete Post...

How To: Instantly Lose a Debate

Yup,
That's right, I know how to instantly lose a debate. I used to debate competitively when I was in school. Somewhere I have a box of trophies and plaques which should back up any claim I make to competence at debating. But today I'm not going to tell you How to Win. Today I'm going to tell you How to Lose. (and eventually tie this back to science, technology or speculative fiction writing)

It's easy to lose a debate. All you have to do is bring up one of the Forbidden Cases. These are cases (or 'debate topics' if you don't get the lingo) that will instantly polarize the room in such a way that the judges will have to give you the loss. I have seen this again and again in competition.

And I'm not suggesting you stand up and vomit in your first speech - that does not guarantee an instant loss, for proof look to the year Worlds was in Ireland.

More Below/Beyond the Link...


The Forbidden Cases:
Abortion
Euthanasia
The Holocaust/Israel

Some Non-Forbidden Cases that will likely lead to a loss in competition*
Death Penalty
Creationism in Schools or elsewhere
Marijuana

(*I should mention that these latter three are great starter debates out of competition to learn debating - just keep the debate on the floor - in other words nothing personal and when it's over leave the room friends. And again, these are lousy debates in competition.)

So why do the first 3 cases give you the loss? If it isn't obvious right away, then let me lay it out. People really care about those topics. Personal beliefs that have nothing to do with logic or reason.

In a normal debate tournament the participants are there for sport, competition, but not to actually challenge or defend their deep held personal beliefs. When things become personal all perspective is lost and the debate fails. This is why any government (case presenter in a debate) will instantly lose if they start a debate on those topics.

Now to bring us back to Science, Technology and Speculative Fiction writing.

Over at Space.com is a little bit of a bait/troll article about Wacky Scientific Theories.

Essentially the author: Seth Shostak, Senior Astronomer, SETI Institute, discusses some of the wacky theories that he has been sent over the years. Ideas like:

"Aliens came to Earth a long time ago to engineer a new species, and Homo sapiens is the product."

He then goes on to suggest in a pseudo serious manner that these people pursue publication of their theories. Ideally in an academic setting, however like Galileo, they can also self publish.

It's mean, what's he's done.
It may seem funny, but most Wacky Scientific Theories are like the Forbidden Cases, people actually care about these ideas. Watch the discussion thread to see people take the bait.

Calling out the Crazies Proponents of Alternative Theories with a half mocking, half serious approach is not the way to win this argument. And it is an argument. Bad Science is a serious problem that will not go away because of laughter. Educate, Educate, Educate. Science isn't mythology, you don't need to have special privileges to understand it. You just need to learn.

What Seth Shostak does is invite these people to participate in the scientific discussion without giving them a clue as to the tools, resources and knowledge that will keep them from being dismissed or marginalized in that discussion. I would have liked to have seen Seth Shostak discuss the years of study and education that he himself went through in order to acquire the status and credentials he has in the scientific community.

In fact what I would have liked to have seen even more is Seth Shostak call for greater education in the Scientific Method, in the fundamentals of Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment, Conclusion, and in how it's used in science ranging from biology to quantum mechanics. That would do more to address the problem of Bad Science than any dozen or hundreds of rejected journal submissions and self published wacky ideas. (In Shostak's defence he did state that "Data" backing the idea is valuable)

In Conclusion:
Seth Shostak brought up an important topic to many people, but he handled it badly, so I'm forced to give him the loss, even though I agree with everything he says.




...Read Complete Post...

Advice fail? Me? Never.

So I open my mouth and make a silly statement.
I find Worldbuilding for short stories effortless.
And I get called on it (twice).

Hee hee.
And here I thought nobody paid any attention.
I think that my statement (which was meant as a joke on my laziness when worldbuilding) also illustrates one view of writing fiction. Write first, fix later and only if it needs fixing. I'm not saying that it is a superior view over others, just that it exists.

A few weeks ago I read an interesting Mind Meld Discussion over at SFSignal (seems all I do is read their Mind Melds) where they asked authors for the best advice they've received on writing.

More Below/Beyond the Link...

I've actually linked to this Mind Meld before. Proving just how full of info those Mind Melds are.

One of the answers came from Author John C. Wright and he discussed advice given by Robert Heinlein. I really want to include John C. Wright's answer in full but I don't think that's fair to SFSignal - so go there and read the whole Mind Meld. In the meantime here's a couple of the important bits from Wright:

Heinlein's rules for writing were professional and simple. "1) You must write. 2) You must finish what you write. 3) You must not rewrite unless to editorial demand. 4) You must mail your story to an editor who will pay you money. 5) You must keep it in the mail until someone buys it."

Rule number 1 and 2 are paramount and cannot be over-praised. The Dean of SF is exactly right. Rule 4 and 5 are paramount and cannot be over-emphasized. The Dean of SF speaks words of wisdom more precious than gold, more to be treasured than refined gold.

Rule 3 is just bad advice.

--snip--

Now, on the other hand, Heinlein not only sold these books, but won plaudits and awards for them, so take my caution with a grain of salt. On the gripping hand, A.E. van Vogt wrote tightly-plotting thrillers of cosmic wonder without a wasted scene and barely a wasted word; J.R.R. Tolkien rewrote and rewrote until magic shines from his pages.

Obey Heinlein's rule number 3 if and only if you have Heinlein's knack at charming characterization and if and only if you find a market for meandering, plotless, charm-driven stories.

Don't fall into the trap of rewriting if it means you cannot finish your work. That is a fine rule.

I like John C. Wrights reinterpretation of the Heinlein Rule 3. I edited out a chunk of his answer and again I encourage you to read the complete answer and see his justification for disagreeing with Heinlein. (Wright's is the 8th down the page)

The reality is that Heinlein was writing in a different time and what worked for him doesn't work in a more mature Speculative Fiction Market. I say more mature because our expectations are higher, we've been raised on a solid foundation of character and plot driven stories that make sense (worldbuilding!) and push the boundaries of literature even. Do I need to make a list ? (Simmons' "Hyperion", Atwood's "Handmaids Tale", Brin's "Earth", to start)

My personal opinion of Heinlein (formed when I was a judgemental youth) was that his early work was fantastic and he went crazy later when he was writing the big stuff ("Number of the Beast", "Cat Who Walks Through Walls"). Now I know that he just didn't edit.

Lesson learnt - bad editing and world building can make people think you are crazy. (Perhaps that explains the failure of my writing group to meet last week. ;)




...Read Complete Post...

World Building

Yesterday's ramblings lead to a more focused look at World Building today. I have always found world building difficult. Well, let me rephrase that. In the context of a short story it's almost effortless, for a longer work though I really struggle.

To me the less of the world you reveal in a short story the more room there is for the actual story. And if I need something, I just throw it in. Of course the problem with that philosophy is revealed when a piece starts to get beyond the short story range. It becomes hard or even impossible to just throw something in without breaking the world. This means that if I want to write more than just short stories I need to get a handle on world building (also plotting, characterization, outlining, etc...).

First I want to point out a great blog dedicated to World Building:
WorldBuildingRules!.
It's an informative and insightful blog that tracks resources and provides information to help writers design the reality in which their characters live. For example, the recent discussion on "Write what you know" was useful in allowing me to get my story together for my upcoming Writers Group meeting.

Continuing on with World Building here is an interesting article and other resources over at author S. Andrew Swann's blog Genrewonk.

He breaks world building down to Clarity, Conciseness and Consistency. These are the elements that will allow the 'World' to be an effective supporting part of a story. As long as an author maintains an awareness of these elements without losing their story to them (spending days on huge infodumps) then they should be on the right track. Obviously if the world is consistently crap, it doesn't matter how concise or clear the description is, but none of my worlds are crap, really! :)

And finally for those interested in a technological way of tracking the details of their worlds I would suggest a Writing Wiki. Using a writing wiki it's easy to organize and relate notes on characters, locations and more to each other. Much like in Wikipedia, the wiki about the Real World.


...Read Complete Post...