Sci-Fi, fantasy and speculative Indie Authors Review discussion

Will there be a sudden rush to write science fiction with more science, now? The Martian was more realistic than any best-selling book for yonks, and the movie kept very close to that, with only a few bloopers. Seems to be going down well.
Will the publishing world be able to tell the real stuff from the space-opera versions that seem real? Agents and publishers tend not to have much science knowledge, after all.

Probably end up with more realistic soap operas, simply because the background props are evolving from farm tools to real life stun guns.

The indie effect should also play a role in this. They end up working with the traditional publishers by adding material to the publishing market that wouldn't normally get published.

If nothing else, the indie market has destroyed the rating system as a way of distributing books.

It seems to be that way. Given how the nerds want everything technically correct and realistic. Due to the ease of publishing, it will happen.

In a discussion about Philip K. Dick I found on the interwebs earlier today, Kim Stanley Robinson said:

"America as a culture can really only handle one of anything."

I think that is probably not just an American thing. In the late '60s we had 2001 that people looked to as the sciencey SF film. The Martian is probably just a similar blip on the screen (figuratively and literally).

Anyway, I think the book was more popular because of its humor and journal writing style (which personally turned me off to it immediately)...and because it somehow go word of mouth buzz. Popularity is the single biggest driver of popularity.

I've never read the book, but the hubby wants to see the movie (yeah!). I've been told The Martian is a MacGyver in space. Maybe that's why it got popular. I can honestly say that it's the reason I want to see it. :P

Do I have to start the 'Keep Fiction in Science Fiction' subversive group now? ;p

I try to keep my stories as realistic as possible, but, really, when you're writing about events that happen from 200 years to 2000 years in the future, how realistic in today's terms can you make it? There's no way to write realistically that far in the future. Cultures will change, language and technology will change, and unimaginable other things will change. We probably wouldn't be able to understand a story that depicted the far future realistically; how much of Star Wars would George Washington understand?--other than a small slice of the rebellion against the Empire. We have to make our far-future stories understandable today, and that prevents us from extrapolating everything to its bitter end.

(trots back into hobby-horse shed)

Richard wrote: "(trots back into hobby-horse shed)"

I agree with you, Richard, on the near-future stuff. If you get that wrong, you'll hear about it I'm sure. And, now with the ease of researching over the Internet, there's really no excuse for putting Mars in Mercury's orbit, or having a guy smoking a cigar in space without a pressure suit, and blowing smoke-rings toward the Sun. Too bad; nice image.

Funny...I read this thread and it reminded me of another where people argued about science fiction. Since they are actually sending settlers on Mars soon, that would make The Martian a non scifi story according to some. :>

G.G. wrote: "Funny...I read this thread and it reminded me of another where people argued about science fiction. Since they are actually sending settlers on Mars soon, that would make The Martian a non scifi st..."

That was supposed to have happened thirty or more years ago, so I'll believe it when it happens :-)

Tesla is working on the shuttle. People already reserved. I'm not sure when it'll happen but according to that other thread, since it's in the realm of possibilities, it's no longer sci fi. Don't take me wrong here. I disagree with their definition of scifi. To me it's still scifi. ;)

B.B. wrote: "G.G. wrote: "Funny...I read this thread and it reminded me of another where people argued about science fiction. Since they are actually sending settlers on Mars soon, that would make The Martian a..."

Lol

You'll never get the future right, ever. :) Partly this is due to Chaos Theory, but mainly it's just due to truth always being far stranger than fiction.

But this should in NO way affect your decision to write or not! :) I write about the near-future, and that's a *really* dangerous place to write - if I don't get published quickly it either gets debunked or comes true!

I doubt it. Sure you will have people writing these kinds of stories because of The Martian, but I still see epic space operas with fancy ships and exciting space battles dominating the top 100 lists.

Just think two years ago Gravity was all the talk and how many copy-cat works have come out because it was a hit? More than likely it won't be the ultra-real SciFi aspect that people copy, but the one man trying to survive an insurmountable challenge story you will see spring up with increasing frequency.

You're right, J.J.. 'Gravity' just recycled a bunch of long-used scifi memes in any case. The thing that makes realistic space-travel stories hardest to write is time: any travel in the solar system must take months, maybe years, by any scientifically feasible technology. 'The Martian' made that a plot element by having him wait hundreds of sols for rescue, but it's hard to fit into anything other than a Robinson Crusoe plot.
I have a book where they hear of an insurrection on another asteroid, and I struggled to fill the nine-month journey the cops had to take to resolve the problem. It's an interesting challenge though, and I'm not tempted to invent a 'torch drive' and have them zap around the system in days.

In my current book I'm using ether propellers and Tesla fields, far more efficient use of elapsed story time :-)

Probably runs well until the phlostigon tanks are empty. But you can always add some negative mass. ;-)

Richard wrote: "Probably runs well until the phlostigon tanks are empty. But you can always add some negative mass. ;-)"

Richard, I'm currently reading Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson. It's very long and detailed, almost an engineering handbook on how to colonize and terraform Mars. If you haven't read it yet, you might want to look it up; it seems to be right down your alley. The author has a trilogy concerning Mars: Red Mars, Green Mars, and Blue Mars. The writing is competent, and some of the many characters are interesting, but I'm not sure I'll read all three.

Richard wrote: "...I struggled to fill the nine-month journey the cops had to take to resolve the problem...."

Tip for future stories: Even SF using realistic technology doesn't have to describe events in real time. Instead of inventing torch drives to zap them there faster, just invent a new chapter that picks up 9 months later.

};>

The problem I had with my first novel was that the MC was going on a very long journey to another planet in our own Solar System, with relatively few events along the way. To skip over to the climax of his arrival would have made for a very short book. I could have invented crisis after crisis to keep him busy, but that's a cheap way out, and eventually boring. So I wove flashbacks from his past into his current situation until his background and his motivation for taking the journey finally become clear near the end. There are pros and cons for flashbacks, of course, but I could see no better way of doing it.

I was tempted to do as you say, Micah, but it would have felt like dodging the issue. I had them infiltrate the bad-guys over the internet and by hiring local agents in a nearby colony. It would not have made sense for them to do nothing all that time. I must confess that one or two chapters began with something like "by December they were no further along" or some such device.

Ken wrote: "The problem I had with my first novel was that the MC was going on a very long journey to another planet in our own Solar System, with relatively few events along the way. To skip over to the clima..."

That can be a very effective way of handling it and could have worked in the scenario you mention, Richard. Skip 9 months, pick up with the action then and weave some short flashbacks of what happened during that time.

Not that what you did was wrong, of course, I haven't read how you handled it.

I like that way of working and have seen it used by people like Iain Banks. I've got a novella told that way: two timelines, one present and one past, which allowed the characters in the present to slowly get closer and closer to their destination without going through that slower journey in a linear fashion. As the book goes on the past scenes catch up to the present and by that time the action of the climax happens.

I've also got a bigger story in the works that is written that was as well because it will eventually give the history of two separate groups over 2,500 years. We begin when the two groups are about to meet up, and then through flashbacks see the history of each group. It seems an appropriate way of handling it as trying to do so in a straight line of time would be nearly impossible.

Ken wrote: "Richard, I'm currently reading Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson. It's very long and detailed, almost an engineering handbook on how to colonize and terraform Mars. If you haven't read it yet, you might want to look it up; it seems to be right down your alley. The author has a trilogy concerning Mars: Red Mars, Green Mars, and Blue Mars. The writing is competent, and some of the many characters are interesting, but I'm not sure I'll read all three."

Fantastic series, but if you're expecting realism throughout, don't. It is highly technical hard sci-fi that does a great job of keping the journey realistic, but at it's core, this is a near space thriller and no, not everything that happens can be reasonably expected, especially going into the second and third books.

When it comes to events one or two hundred years from now that few if any of us will likely live to see, all any writer can do is extrapolate from known events and go from there.

When I write about a different planet orbiting a different star, I may not give that system's velocity relative to Sol, but I do try to work out the various factoids that make the world more believable. I place those factoids in the appendices, but items like length of day, number of moons, and so on may be referenced, i.e.: a world with three moons orbiting a star (K3-V) at slightly over 1.2 AU with a year 606 Terrestrial Days long. The kids wanting accuracy can and often will check basic assumptions.

Weaving a good story around the scientifically plausible simply makes for a better story. Some of what Jules Verne and H.G. Wells may seem dull now, and even when written some of the science was off or simply science not-yet-known, but for all that the stories were and still are good.

Richard wrote: "Probably runs well until the phlostigon tanks are empty. But you can always add some negative mass. ;-)"

I'm old enough to have had to change the steam pipes on the old Amstrad PCW, old enough to realise that the ether is a quantum effect, if an author needs it, it's there :-)

Christina wrote: "Fantastic series, but if you're expecting realism throughout, don't. It is highly technical hard sci-fi that does a great job of keping the journey realistic, but at it's core, this is a near space thriller and no, not everything that happens can be reasonably expected, especially going into the second and third books..."

I haven't encountered many thrills so far, but the story's technology is incredibly detailed. I'm only two-thirds through the book, however. I think I mentioned somewhere else that the further you go into the future the more difficult it is to keep the story realistic in today's terms. This book so far does a credible job at projecting realism, whether or not it could all work in the real world.

Richard wrote: "You're right, J.J.. 'Gravity' just recycled a bunch of long-used scifi memes in any case. The thing that makes realistic space-travel stories hardest to write is time: any travel in the solar syste..."

My first SciFi book I wanted something that was a more realistic extension of technology. No light speed, but had to concede a speed of about 10% light speed to keep tensions. Still takes time to zip around the solar system, but at least allows some downtime so the characters can get some rest instead of magically being bright-eyed 48 hours into the mission.

My current project, I'm going with something a bit sillier where they explain Einstein's theories were simply wrong, that light speed was nothing but another barrier like the speed of sound.

You're not alone in using high speeds, J.J., but unless your ship had (sci-fi magic) 'shields,' you'd have to explain about the dust. At 30,000 km/sec (1.2 million miles per hour) you're going to be pushing aside dust at a fantastic rate, getting extremely hot and eroding away.

Richard wrote: "You're not alone in using high speeds, J.J., but unless your ship had (sci-fi magic) 'shields,' you'd have to explain about the dust. At 30,000 km/sec (1.2 million miles per hour) you're going to b..."
True. Also find radiation rarely gets addressed.

I'm guilty of fudging the radiation issue a little. I do have solar flare incidents my characters have to shelter from (like in the Heinlein juveniles) a higher death rate and limitations on having babies, but I'm not sure I'm really taking account of the full dangers of long-term travel or life on the asteroids.

Richard wrote: "I'm guilty of fudging the radiation issue a little. I do have solar flare incidents my characters have to shelter from (like in the Heinlein juveniles) a higher death rate and limitations on having..."
with my current series, I had a character explain their hulls were comprised of some advanced alloy/composite, but there are still parts of the galaxy they can't travel because it's not a catch-all. I also think if you're using a planet that's life-bearing, you can make some assumption that the world has a magnetic field like ours that protects it.

I admit I do address gravity frequently. One character trying to conduct a rescue on Triton, holds onto a normally 2k pound rover while the riders climb to safety. In another piece, one character laments the weight of his suit on a higher gravity world.

Reading Weber's On Basilisk Station, he makes a big deal about the gravity on the 3 worlds in Honor's home system, but I struggle to believe that she would be on the tall side coming from the higher gravity planet, though I think he's spot on about it giving her a edge of strength.

Yeah, if you're doing interstellar places, you can assume an Earth-like planet has an atmosphere that'll protect you from cosmic rays, and a magnetosphere for the stellar wind. All bets are off in the solar system. Nothing with a decent atmo. The entire Jovian system is far worse, because Jupiter puts out a lot more radiation on its own. When my characters are on the surface of moons or asteroids, including our Moon, I have them live mostly underground, with a deeper shelter for use in solar storms. The Moon and Mars both have vast lava tube tunnels, which are great places to live if you don't mind not being able to look out the window.

Richard wrote: "The Moon and Mars both have vast lava tube tunnels, which are great places to live if you don't mind not being able to look out the window. ..."


Meant in the nicest possible way, that sounds very Jules Verne :-)

Yes of course, and John Campbell used it, and RAH, and John Varley. I don't value originality in ideas, just credibility. But that's just me.

Richard wrote: "Yes of course, and John Campbell used it, and RAH, and John Varley. I don't value originality in ideas, just credibility. But that's just me."
I'm trying to brainstorm a future project where Earth is destroyed at the beginning. Rather than blowing up planets a la the Death Star, I'm thinking they rewrite the atmosphere and environment a la Genesis from Star Trek 2 + 3, but I'm still trying to work out how to make it different so it doesn't look like a direct rip off of Genesis.

HI J.J. are you looking to destroy the planet, or just to wipe out life on it? Apart from the obvious asteroid, there are some cool ways to do the latter. If you have a relatively nearby star go supernova, the whole Earth gets fried by the radiation without much physical harm coming to it. By choosing how far away you put the supernova, you can choose different levels of destruction. There's one scenario (using Gamma Ray Bursters) where you can wipe out all life on one hemisphere and leave the rest of the planet unscathed.
One science-fictional scenario I rather like, though I don't think there's a lot of science behind it, is to radically increase the Sun's output on a permanent basis, subjecting the Earth to heat-death and turning Mars habitable. Or you can reduce it, turn Earth into an ice-world and make Venus habitable. Of course the plucky colonists on the newly-benign planets would have a lot of work to do.

Richard wrote: "HI J.J. are you looking to destroy the planet, or just to wipe out life on it? Apart from the obvious asteroid, there are some cool ways to do the latter. If you have a relatively nearby star go su..."

Part of it is I'm still brainstorming and a long ways off from starting anyway, so I haven't settled on the reasons, but I'm leaning towards a process that wipes life and allows for condition-specific terraforming. It's pretty much just to set up the universe they live in and provide stakes underlying the personal adventures.

J.J. wrote: "It's pretty much just to set up the universe they live in and provide stakes underlying the personal adventures. ..."


That is the way most classic SF works :-) Think of the work of writers like Jack Vance, he presents you with a universe, he doesn't go too deeply into the past, he alludes to it. Same with Asimov in the Foundation Trilogy or Frank Herbert in Dune.

But when you stop to think about it, what would be the effect on the morals and ethics of a race that habitually exterminated all life on a world before moving onto it. At what level did they decide you shouldn't do it? When life had reached the cute and cuddly stage? When life was sentient? When life was up-to-date with tribute payments?

Speaking of radiation, I read an article where Andy Weir explained that the anti-radiation shielding (or was it drugs? I can't recall now) he spoke about in The Martian are definitely fiction, otherwise he couldn't have written the story. It allowed for the MC to have a LOT more time outside the Hab than would be realistic.

So, it's still science fiction-y. :)

Hmm. That hab looked too flimsy to do anything about radiation. Solid shielding from 20cm to a metre thick is called for, I think. Unless the walls were full of water, I'd be surprised if outdoors / indoors would make any difference. Responsible designs for habitats on Mars include covering them with regolith or inflating the walls with water.

Anti-rad drugs do exist, but I think they make a marginal difference.

Richard wrote: "Hmm. That hab looked too flimsy to do anything about radiation. Solid shielding from 20cm to a metre thick is called for, I think. Unless the walls were full of water, I'd be surprised if outdoors ..."

Both NASA and the ESA are studying different materials for this purpose. Metal is actually fairly problematic because high-ionizing/high-energy particles can produce showers of more harmful secondary particles when they hit metal. Materials with lighter atomic nuclei have been shown to give better protection.

Some theoretical testing back in 2012 showed that water and polyethylene are better than aluminum, and some new kind hydrogen-rich material made for storing hydrogen fuel was better still.

It's all in the material science. I believe this problem is an obstacle, not an unsolvable issue.

I agree, Micah. If we can mine the Moon for water and something to make polyethylene from, that can be the basis of everything that goes to Mars of the asteroids. Once on Mars or it's moons, they can provide resources, too.

W. wrote: "Speaking of radiation, I read an article where Andy Weir explained that the anti-radiation shielding (or was it drugs? I can't recall now) he spoke about in The Martian are definitely fiction, othe..."

Since NASA is seriously gearing up for their own manned Mars mission, I would hope they're at least close to developing protection.

They're not actually gearing up to do anything except spend vast amounts of money repeating near-Earth stuff that was done during Apollo. Their published detailed plans for Mars involve huge year-on-year budget increases they know they have no chance of being approved. Their paymasters want space-exploration noises, not actual people going to actual space.

I think NASA's goal was to turn some of it over to private enterprise, and thus you have experimental launches by Virgin and others. Not sure if this is still their policy.

Using other people's money never goes out of fashion.

Robert wrote: "Using other people's money never goes out of fashion."

It occasionally goes out of fashion, but it doesn't stop them. Doesn't even slow them down.

I believe the ideal is for NASA to lead the way with probes private enterprise doesn't want to fund, while allowing entrepreneurs to make money (or at the least put their moneys where their mouths are) when it comes to making a profit from space exploration.

Then again, I'm an old pharte with delusions of total anonymity.

I'm still holding out hope for Mars-One.