Christian Speculative Fiction discussion

Hi. I’m an aspiring author (okay we all know that’s code for a complete novice) and I’ve been watching podcasts on YouTube and considering all the tips about plot, characters, tension, dialog, scene setting and so on.
So, I’ve got some questions about writing style and I’m just wondering whether some of the advice that I’ve come across would be overkill for me? I’m planning to self-publish and self-promote but I would still like to aim at a reasonable quality. I’m also wondering if different writing styles suite different genres?
So, here’s some background, I’m a software engineer and I’ve seen what technology can do and I’m underwhelmed by the hype of robots becoming self-aware and taking over the world etc. I’m convinced that God is still in control and that the fate of humanity is in His hands.
So, my agenda is that I would like to write about real tech but with a sci-fi flavor and explore – without preaching – what sets humans apart from machines. I would like to have the characters provide the tension instead of the technology, (e.g. a totalitarian regime using real tech to control the masses.) I
In some ways it goes against the sci-fi genre to ground it in real world tech but as far as I’m concerned, the future is here. For those over 40, imagine waking up from a 25-year coma.
Isaac Asimov is a popular sci-fi writer but some critics suggest that he does not immerse with the reader with elaborate scene setting and that he did not write female characters well but he must have done something right.
So, I’m wondering how much of the advice about scene setting and immersing a reader in vivid scenes achieves the goal of attracting readers, especially if those readers are into tech? (That’s code for nerds like me).
Should I limit myself to writing for nerds?
Does trying to be the next Stephen King or Hemingway as opposed to imitating someone like Asimov get you more readers?
Cheers,
Les

I have been watching a lot of MasterClasses of some pretty famous writers such as Neil Gaiman and Margaret Attwood. They seem to validate my experience, which is to write the book you personally would go out and buy. I find that speculative fiction of any kind needs vivid descriptions (not necessarily long, just specific) or you get a vague fogginess to your world, even if that world is now and today. Also, remember that not everyone who picks up your book will be up to date on current technology. One way to deal with that is to have a non-techy character that you have to bring up to date.

My 2¢...

The only hope for great books is your passion. You need to write about something you understand, fully grok, and strongly believe in. Write a story that excites you, in which you are genuinely interested. My preference is for solid uplifting characters who inspire as well as edify. I'm tired of being depressed when I finish a book.

Following the fashion or your hero rarely does anything powerful. Let it be filled with truth, love, and mercy.

I guess that uses up my $$$...

Thanks Lara and David. What you've said makes a lot of sense.

I think you're touching on the difference between hard sci-fi and soft sci-fi, the former being firmly rooted in actual science.

I'll echo the advice above - write the story that moves you. Hopefully it will move others too.

Word choice is important. I was reading about simplifying the other day. Something like this - simplifying is taking away everything that is unnecessary to communicate what you want to communicate. It is kind of the "less is more" idea. How much detail do you need? Of course, there's a qualitative difference between the writing of Louis L'Amour and many other writers. That guy had a way of expressing environment. Then, one can compare The Count of Monte Cristo with Scaramouche. To me, Sabatini is the superior writer and Scaramouche the superior story. Why? Because Dantes shows back up perfect in every way with no explanation of how he attained it. Scaramouche on the other hand, well, you get to see his development. The details of character development in Scaramouche make the story much more real. On the sci-fi front, I just finished Ender's Game. Excellent writing. Plenty of detail, but not too much. And, Card understands how kids feel about teacher's pets in a way that J K Rowling never will. And also, Starship Troopers - I slogged through way too much detail about boot camps and training future soldiers than was necessary just to have two action sequences of space marine combat against aliens. Ender's Game was probably just as detailed, and it was a multi-dimensioned , as Starship Troopers but Card's work was far superior. That said, Starship Troopers was much closer to hard sci-fi.

I'm not sure all of that helps. Write the story you love with as much detail as you need.

PS. Sabatini chose to write in English, his sixth language. He mastered the language and is a master wordsmith. If you've never read Scarmouche it is worth your time.

Also, Annie Dillard's The Writing Life is worth your time. She talks about agonizing over word choice to say just exactly what she wants to say. Far too few writer's do that today.

G'day Les. I'm also a software engineer who writes sci-fi (in my case, space opera). I think those above have given some great advice.
I guess my advice would be to remember that fiction of any genre is about people. A good sci-fi story must also be a good story. So all the standard stuff like conflict, drama and emotion is important, but we get to add the cool stuff like space ships and robots.
Or as Brandon Sanderson says, fantasy is great because you can tell any story that you can tell in any other genre, but you can add dragons.

Adam wrote: "Or as Brandon Sanderson says, fantasy is great because you can tell any story that you can tell in any other genre, but you can add dragons."

Shadow Run tried to write Sci-Fi with dragons. Unfortunately it didn't catch on!

Love that quote though!

Thanks Adam and Stan. More good advice.

We play Shadow Run with dragons! I kind of like it that way. Then again, I'm a grumpy wizard with an allergy to the sun. I tend to like everything the other players don't like.

Lara wrote: "We play Shadow Run with dragons! I kind of like it that way. Then again, I'm a grumpy wizard with an allergy to the sun. I tend to like everything the other players don't like."

I'm working on a short story/novella that is based on cyberpunk, but it is turning into something akin to Shadow Run, but I don't have magic worked into it. Supernatural? Yes. Magic? No. It is an interesting project to be working on. It is morphing just about every time I write on it.

Thanks again to all for your input. My "Want to read" list just got a little longer

I know this is kind of an old thread, but I just wanted to add my two cents for Les and anyone else who's reading!

One of the things that is so wonderful about writing is that everybody has their own voice, shaped by their own experiences, bank of knowledge, and interests! I personally would love to see science fiction novels written by a software engineer being as nerdy and technical as they want to be. As long as you have a well-written story, I wouldn't worry so much that it's not like the way other sci-fi writers write. Because you aren't them, you're you! The world would be so terribly boring if everybody wrote the same way. And as far as different writing styles for different genres, I actually really like when a writer has an unusual style for their genre. I say, break that mold! I like getting a different writerly perspective on familiar themes and material.

All this talk about the difference between famous writers and novels shows that everybody likes different fiction for different reasons. It is just plain impossible to please everyone, all the time, and when you try to do that you end up losing your unique and creative writer's voice. Just let the stories flow, and they'll find their audience.

In my opinion, there is a bit of a gray area when it comes to what's considered "important" in prose, such as character development, lots of scenery description, worldbuilding minutiae, etc. If your aim and interest is to write technological commentary in story form, I think you should be primarily focused on that, and shouldn't worry so much about things that are ultimately secondary to your goal.

For example, The Lord of the Rings is an utter feast of worldbuilding and scene-setting. But it's really lacking in character development. But I still love it, because I could tell Tolkien's focus and passion was with the worldbuilding, and he did a wonderful job of it.

That being said, I do think it's important to get a good grounding on how story construction works, so from there you can decide what elements you want to emphasize while not making grave missteps with the others. Again, with Tolkien, it wasn't like his character development was bad. It just really faded into the background compared with the worldbuilding. As a reader I find that acceptable. Same with Asimov--he had great concepts, and he just chose to focus more on his concepts than on scene-setting, and in my opinion that is totally okay.

Also, even just writing for nerds gives you a pretty big audience! I never dumb down my science fiction, because I want it to be enjoyable to fellow nerds, and I want to teach non-nerds. I love hearing from readers that they learned something new about science or technology from my books. I think people who are interested in science fiction are generally open to learning, even in fields they may not have much experience in. I've heard many tales of science fiction inspiring young people to pursue STEM careers when they hadn't thought of such a thing before.

In closing: I honestly just write books that I would want to read, and I have a blast and gain enthusiastic readers.

I hope that helps!