For A Sci-Fi Writer, I Have A Hard Time With Plot
Science fiction is largely about ideas. Whether that's examining the human condition through a fictional lens, or taking a "what if" scenario and seeing where it goes, most sci-fi really makes you think.
All the great, "classic" sci-fi I've read is very much ideas-based. Asimov, Heinlein, Frank Herbert, Phillip K. Dick, to name only a few. Even Ender's Game, a young adult novel, is very ideas-driven. Neuromancer, one of my more recent reads, is breathtakingly detailed and deliciously inventive, but again, ideas are the name of the game.
For someone who thrives off these things so much, I sure lack in ideas. Or at least, big concept ideas. I feel like I could never create something as intricate and creative as those SF giants.
I'm always impressed by other writers who dream up entire cultures and worlds. It's so easy for some people! One thing flows into another and before you know it, the worldbuilding is practically writing itself. Traditions, etiquette, history, evolution. Other authors can imagine a whole space colony and a cast of dozens of characters, or a trade empire with endless intricacies and politics. And I'm not comparing myself strictly to the classics here--my peers are quite good at this stuff.
Me? I'm stuck with the small scale. I'll think of a character, or a relationship between two characters, and that's where the spark is. Then comes the trouble of developing a context for them. The whole epic worldbuilding thing is a total mystery to me--something I peer enviously at through a window.
I might end up there ultimately, or with some facsimile of deep worldbuilding at any rate, but only through a lot of teeth grinding and hand waving. I have to painstakingly build up a scaffolding around my characters until I have a scenario that makes sense, usually by asking "why" questions. Why is their relationship like that? Why did he end up where he is now? Why did he make that choice? Why, why, why--and thus I work backwards. Worldbuilding certainly isn't something I find enjoyable or addictive like some SFF writers do.
I feel like a cheat, in a sense. I rely a lot on what I like to call cold reading, because it's based on the technique used by psychics. Basically, by including a few highly specific details, it gives the impression that I have this vast understanding worked out behind the scenes. This is totally a valid writing technique, but I often find myself avoiding questions that I really should know the answer to, and have to force myself to do some research, or at least sit and have a think.
And this is to say nothing of plot. I swear, all my plots are accidents. I stumble upon them by sheer luck, and count my blessings that I was able to think of something that worked out. I envy those who envision a solid sequence of events, or even an ending!
But at the end of the day, I don't mind too much. It's something I'm aware of and work through. Hopefully by the final draft, you can't tell how much I struggled to come up with the plot and worldbuilding until then. I think one strength in all this is that I end up with highly character-focused, emotion-driven stories, which to me are the most gripping. It's easy to be intellectually impressed by sci-fi stories, but it takes that emotional investment and love for a character in order for me to really click with a story.
All the great, "classic" sci-fi I've read is very much ideas-based. Asimov, Heinlein, Frank Herbert, Phillip K. Dick, to name only a few. Even Ender's Game, a young adult novel, is very ideas-driven. Neuromancer, one of my more recent reads, is breathtakingly detailed and deliciously inventive, but again, ideas are the name of the game.
For someone who thrives off these things so much, I sure lack in ideas. Or at least, big concept ideas. I feel like I could never create something as intricate and creative as those SF giants.
I'm always impressed by other writers who dream up entire cultures and worlds. It's so easy for some people! One thing flows into another and before you know it, the worldbuilding is practically writing itself. Traditions, etiquette, history, evolution. Other authors can imagine a whole space colony and a cast of dozens of characters, or a trade empire with endless intricacies and politics. And I'm not comparing myself strictly to the classics here--my peers are quite good at this stuff.
Me? I'm stuck with the small scale. I'll think of a character, or a relationship between two characters, and that's where the spark is. Then comes the trouble of developing a context for them. The whole epic worldbuilding thing is a total mystery to me--something I peer enviously at through a window.
I might end up there ultimately, or with some facsimile of deep worldbuilding at any rate, but only through a lot of teeth grinding and hand waving. I have to painstakingly build up a scaffolding around my characters until I have a scenario that makes sense, usually by asking "why" questions. Why is their relationship like that? Why did he end up where he is now? Why did he make that choice? Why, why, why--and thus I work backwards. Worldbuilding certainly isn't something I find enjoyable or addictive like some SFF writers do.
I feel like a cheat, in a sense. I rely a lot on what I like to call cold reading, because it's based on the technique used by psychics. Basically, by including a few highly specific details, it gives the impression that I have this vast understanding worked out behind the scenes. This is totally a valid writing technique, but I often find myself avoiding questions that I really should know the answer to, and have to force myself to do some research, or at least sit and have a think.
And this is to say nothing of plot. I swear, all my plots are accidents. I stumble upon them by sheer luck, and count my blessings that I was able to think of something that worked out. I envy those who envision a solid sequence of events, or even an ending!
But at the end of the day, I don't mind too much. It's something I'm aware of and work through. Hopefully by the final draft, you can't tell how much I struggled to come up with the plot and worldbuilding until then. I think one strength in all this is that I end up with highly character-focused, emotion-driven stories, which to me are the most gripping. It's easy to be intellectually impressed by sci-fi stories, but it takes that emotional investment and love for a character in order for me to really click with a story.
In my sci fi reading career, it often struck me that an author would tap into some cutting edge technology, invention, discovery, and write a story around it. I like the sci fi that is based on technology here on earth. I even love checking in a site that hays sci-fi comes true stuff. Check into something like Futurism and they regular have oh wow stuff that could give ideas.
ReplyDeleteAs a writer of sf/fantasy/mixed genre short stories, I seldom have a clue about plot/world building when I start a story. I start from a single idea or character, write first draft off the cuff, with no outline. It's only after successive drafts that a real plot emerges. By the way, I'm your mother's cousin, Ron Ginzler, and it's great to have another SF writer in the family! Did you know my sister Nicola is married to Richard Kadrey, author of the Sandman novels? And congratulations on getting an agent! I've queried her myself, and Donald Maass is a very prestigious agency! I'm still looking for an agent for my novel. I've self-published a book of short stories which you can find on Amazon.com. I don't have a webside, but I write blogs on my Facebook page (Ronald P. Ginzler.)
ReplyDeleteOoh great to see another sf writer in the family! Thanks for visiting, and I'll definitely check out your stuff! What a small world that you queried Caitlin too :)
Delete