What do you write?

[maestrowork]

I think it would be fun to do a poll.

(This being the Novel forum, I'm excluding things like short stories, poetry, etc.)

[Inspired]

Go ahead. Do a poll.

[aadams73]

Ohhh I'm the first one to vote.

I write mysteries and childrens/middle readers. I've always been a huge fan of the mystery genre in both movies and books so this is a natural progression for me. As for the childrens books, well, I've always wanted to write something as wonderful as Enid Blytons Faraway Tree and Wishing Chair books.

[victoriastrauss]

Someone who writes SF might not want to admit to writing Sci-Fi...

- Victoria

[AdamH]

My genre sort of changes but lately it's been thriller/sc-fi. All my stuff tends to go the way of thriller though.

[AdamH]

Someone who writes SF might not want to admit to writing Sci-Fi...

- Victoria

Oh sorry, I wasn't supposed to admit that sci-fi part of my post...I take it back. :)

[icerose]

Is it bad if I clicked all but Literary??? I really do write just about every genre.:Shrug:

[aspiringwriter]

I tend to lean more towards mainstream...yet I have interests in Romance, Thriller, ect...In other words I like it all...

[aruna]

Is it bad if I clicked all but Literary??? I really do write just about every genre.:Shrug:

Oh, is this possible? I am somewhere between mainstream an dliterary (my ex-agent called it readable literary!) but I just assumed you had only one option.

[brinkett]

Where are erotica and women's fiction?

[aruna]

Where are erotica and women's fiction?

They must be "other"!

[Tim Dixon]

Historical fiction here, or re-tellings of ancient stories set in alternate times.

[triceretops]

I guess I do admit that I'm reluctant about admitting to writing Sci-fi because of its Geekness factor. However, I've been tagged by agents and others as an action/adventure writer. And I always wondered why that genre was not included here, unless the tag "thriller" takes it into account. In other words, what would you call Jewel of the Niles, or Raiders of the Lost Ark if they were not in fact action/adventure?

What would you call Spiderman, Batman, Hulk? Is this in the fantasy genre?

I'm not surprised that Fantasy hits the number one spot here at AW. We still need more votes to get a more accurate picture. Has the Harry Potter craze really lit this genre up?

Tri

[BlueTexas]

II'm not surprised that Fantasy hits the number one spot here at AW. We still need more votes to get a more accurate picture.
Tri

Why do you think that is, Tri? Honestly, I'm curious. I don't read or write fantasy or sci-fi (well, unless one Dragonlance book as a teen and Jules Verne count), so I'm clueless.

[triceretops]

Kira--I don't write fantasy any more because I figured it had all been done to death and that it was fading. I did my Hobbit (ripoff) 15 years ago and saw it for what it was. Honestly, I think fantasy takes in a very wide (if not all) audience, attracting children, young adults, adults, and even seniors, and because of this wide appeal it is still a very marketable quantity. I also notice that there are several Harry Potter related threads here at AW that cater to this tremdously huge fan base. I've never read the books, but I can bet that they have been done very well and are quite entertaining. From my perspective, I think that HP type fantasy filled a niche that wasn't popularized in past books dealing with spells, potions and magic, though we've certainly had it. HP is not really an epic action quest like LOTR. It is about a boy's inner quest with himself in a more interactive setting (the school) and the characters around him.

Star Wars gave us a tremendous reoccurance of Space Opera. Jean Auel's pleistocene epochs gave us a look back at prehistory. HP gave us magic again, for a newer generation. I wish I could follow trends and determine what in the heck is coming our way next--I'd certainly like to jump on that bandwagon with a spin-off tale. Even Jurassic Park gave Dinosaurs back to us. Jaws gave us the summer of the shark. Stop and think for a moment about the popular trends that have hit us in the past 30 years in book and film. Maybe we were ready for magic again and that's why HP took off so well. I can remember the dragon craze with Ann Macaffrey (sp?) Ann Rice certainly nailed us with vampires.

Who's next and what's it gonna be? Therein lies the real magic. We need a real soothsayer to determine the next massive hit.

Tri

[loquax]

I voted fantasy, although my WIP is sent in a WWI time period and doesn't have magic. I really don't think fantasy is as limited as people see it to be.

[triceretops]

Yes, I think fantasy deserves a broader term of definition that include just about all the supernatural. I often thought of the old Twilight Zone magazine as representing fantasy fiction.

Tri

[veinglory]

Erotica

[Akuma]

I lean towards Fantasy and Scifi. Why go research when you can make **** up? :)

[scribbler1382]

Yes, I think fantasy deserves a broader term of definition that include just about all the supernatural. I often thought of the old Twilight Zone magazine as representing fantasy fiction.

Tri

I always thought of TZ as dark fantasy, and Night Cry, a TZ spin-off, as Horror. Back in the 80's when I was writing a lot of Horror, I used to tell people I was writing dark fantasy...it seemed more respectable. :)

[alaskamatt17]

I lean towards Fantasy and Scifi. Why go research when you can make **** up? :)

I also write fantasy and sci-fi, but I do a lot of research. My current WIP is about a world where genetically engineered sentient dinosaurs have overthrown their human creators and developed into a feudal/imperialist society. In many ways, it is both fantasy and science fiction, though it leans more towards the latter.

[triceretops]

You might be right there with TZ being on the dark fantasy side. I never wrote for them--too, too difficult to get pubbed by those people. I did find it astounding (pun) that Amazing Stories was primarily geared toward science fiction and nothing else.

Tri

[Birol]

I lean towards Fantasy and Scifi. Why go research when you can make **** up? :)

You think Fantasy and SciFi don't require research? Err...Yeah. Right.

[veinglory]

I certan research s.f. less than historical where every detail needs to be correct rather than simply consistent and logical.

[loquax]

Akuma, I agree. I often find it hard to research a world that does not exist. You can google it forever and never find anything.

[Richard White]

Scribbler, did you mean Night Gallery?

I write Science Fiction and Fantasy, but then I've mostly been writing licensed material and that's the genre's I've been hired to write.

However, anyone who doesn't think Fantasy or SF needs to be researched, should come take a look at all the notebooks I have filled up with notes printed off the internet, books I've purchased, DVDs I've bought to research my material, etc.

Hell, Catherine Asaro wound up publishing an article in Scientific American based on research she did for a SF book that she wrote. (Of course, Catherine has a PhD in Physics, but hey, research is research. . . )

[gp101]

Crime fiction here.

Not detective, not mystery. Just a bunch of bad guys doing bad-guy stuff, each trying to get something.

Great poll, BTW.

[Birol]

Richard, yeah, I'm flummoxed by my fellow writers' assertations that science fiction does not require research. I'm sitting here trying to figure out if they're attempting to push my buttons, engage in some good-natured ribbing, or if they really believe that. My WIP is space opera, not hard SF, and even so, I cannot begin to describe the amount of research, the number of obscure texts I've read, the experts I've talked to, the technical manuals I've studied, trying to get the details right.

How much simpler my life would be if I could accept their claim that science fiction and worlds that do not exist do not require research, just logic and consistency.

[azbikergirl]

How much simpler my life would be if I could accept their claim that science fiction and worlds that do not exist do not require research, just logic and consistency.
Gosh, mine too. Then I wouldn't have to learn all the science behind the story I'm writing. I could just wing it. Agents, editors and readers would cut me lots of slack and suspend disbelief simply because they know SF doesn't require research. As long as it sounds good, right?

:ROFL:

[gp101]

So after I posted my genre I checked out the stats and they didn't seem right. So I added them up:

Mainstream/Contemporary 22.64%
Literary 9.43%
Romance 16.98%
Thriller/Suspense 20.75%
Mystery 15.09%
Horror 9.43%
Fantasy 35.85%
Sci-Fi 22.64%
Children's/YA 15.09%
Others: please explain 16.98%
________
TOTAL: 184.88%
5 5 5

How does 184% come to vote? Are there that many people voting for more than one genre?

We need an investigation. A special prosecutor. And injuction. Congressional hearings... okay, I'll stop.

[Richard White]

I voted for Fantasy and SF. I have two Fantasy Novels and 1 SF novella, so far. Working on two proposals for licensed SF novels as well as an original Fantasy novel and a SF/Military novel.

[scribbler1382]

Scribbler, did you mean Night Gallery?

No. You're thinking of the television shows. I was talking about the magazines. TZ and Night Cry are both defunct now, btw. Too bad, too.

[triceretops]

Birol, I'm right with you as I have a space opera. I've got to get to Tau Ceti, 11.9 light years (one way), and convince the reader that there is a 2nd planet in stable orbit there, with a suitable HZ, all the while putting my people in some type of coma sleep, and using a nuclear explosion drive to get there. Then I have indigenious life forms on the planet that must fit the ecology and.... so on and so on and...the research is enough to drive you batty when astrophysics is such a difficult core science to begin with!

The fastest way to NOT suspend disbelief is to make stuff up.

Tri

[Jamesaritchie]

Akuma, I agree. I often find it hard to research a world that does not exist. You can google it forever and never find anything.

But if you put a world where it can't exist, or have conditions on he world that couldn't exist, or, shoot, make one of a thousand mistake in science, it's unlikely to sell.

I suppose the answer is to just set a world around a start similar to ours, at a distance similar to ours, and essentially duplicate earth. And more or less duplicate humans, too. But I don;t think something is science fiction just because it's set on anothe rplanet. It might be sci-fi, but not science fiction.

Of course, you have to do enough research to make sure you use a real star, and one that we can't say for sure has planets or lacks them.

If there's a genre that requires more research and knowledge than science fiction, I don't know what it is.

Science fiction is the only genre out there that intimidates me because I know the hige amount of research and knowledge it takes to get it right.

[Akuma]

You think Fantasy and SciFi don't require research? Err...Yeah. Right.

Of course it requires research. I was merely exaggerating. Fantasy requires various knowledge, usually weapons, architechture, and tools of medieval times and stuff of that sort. Scifi requires much research. You got to know what the gravitational conflabulator is for chapter 4, that pychic-armada strain in chapter 11, etc. Usually stuff like that. What I mean by making **** up is you usually don't have to worry about cultures and modern figures and politics in fantasy and same with scfi. That these do not show up in scifi and fantasy, they often do in scifi.
What I mean is that you can make up your own nations, magic, and races in fantasy and for scifi you can make aliens and other stuff with only the basis that you created it and you know everything about them.
If that makes any sense. :)

[reph]

Oh sorry, I wasn't supposed to admit that sci-fi part of my post...
No, no, writing it is fine. Just don't call it that. The big guys in the field call it science fiction or SF. Saying "sci-fi" is acceptable if you pronounce it "skiffy." Otherwise, using the term ranks with calling James Baldwin's novels "nig-fic."

I checked "other." Mostly I write magazine puzzles. They're diverse and hard to classify. The ones that involve real writing, as opposed to playing with words or numbers or something visual and nonsymbolic, fit under humor or mainstream. I've also written a couple of flash fictions, which were mainstream.

I don't write novels. Oops! I shouldn't have voted at all. Too late now.

[victoriastrauss]

What I mean is that you can make up your own nations, magic, and races in fantasy and for scifi you can make aliens and other stuff with only the basis that you created it and you know everything about them.
If that makes any sense. :)I like that aspect of fantasy also--that you make up everything from scratch. However, once you've made it all up, you're as bound by the rules you've created as you would be by any "real" setting.

I do a lot of research for my books.

- Victoria

[Jamesaritchie]

No, no, writing it is fine. Just don't call it that. The big guys in the field call it science fiction or SF. Saying "sci-fi" is acceptable if you pronounce it "skiffy." Otherwise, using the term ranks with calling James Baldwin's novels "nig-fic."

I checked "other." Mostly I write magazine puzzles. They're diverse and hard to classify. The ones that involve real writing, as opposed to playing with words or numbers or something visual and nonsymbolic, fit under humor or mainstream. I've also written a couple of flash fictions, which were mainstream.

I don't write novels. Oops! I shouldn't have voted at all. Too late now.

Many of the big guys in the field make a clear distinction between science fiction and sci-fi. "Sci-fi" if more space opera, complete with science that can't work. Many label Star Trek as "sci-fi." "Sci-fi" is often sneered at by those who write serious science fiction, and who try to get the science as right as is possible.

It may just be a personal limitation, but I find it takes far more work, and far, far more research, to create a world than to use the one we have. Those who create worlds too often make mistakes in the world building that destroy the whole story, or at the very least, make everything therein implausible.

It's tough creating a believeable civilization, a believable ecology. It's tough figuring out how weather patterns would work on a world that isn't just a renamed earth. It's tough figuring out how a government would work, or how the economy would work, or how a hundred other things would work unless, again, you're just renaming earth and having it orbit a different star.

[icerose]

IT'S A MULTIPLE CHOICE POLL WHICH MEANS YOU CAN VOTE FOR MORE THAN ONE. NEED I SAY MORE????



So after I posted my genre I checked out the stats and they didn't seem right. So I added them up:

Mainstream/Contemporary 22.64%
Literary 9.43%
Romance 16.98%
Thriller/Suspense 20.75%
Mystery 15.09%
Horror 9.43%
Fantasy 35.85%
Sci-Fi 22.64%
Children's/YA 15.09%
Others: please explain 16.98%
________
TOTAL: 184.88%
5 5 5

How does 184% come to vote? Are there that many people voting for more than one genre?

We need an investigation. A special prosecutor. And injuction. Congressional hearings... okay, I'll stop.

[sunandshadow]

Why the heck is fantasy twice as popular as everything else???

[Diviner]

Other= Historical adventure fiction, not romance.

[Mistook]

... I've been tagged by agents and others as an action/adventure writer. And I always wondered why that genre was not included here, unless the tag "thriller" takes it into account. In other words, what would you call Jewel of the Niles, or Raiders of the Lost Ark if they were not in fact action/adventure?

What would you call Spiderman, Batman, Hulk? Is this in the fantasy genre?

Tri


Tri, I just read a fascinating non-fic called "Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters, and the Birth of the Comic Book" By Gerard Jones. It really explains all the interconnections between the old "Pulps" and the superhero comics, and today's paperback genre fiction novels.

More or less all of these genre's have been around forever. Science Fiction was born in the 20's, and more or less invented (or at least given a name) by Allan Gernsback, the editor for that old Pulp, "Amazing Stories". But horror, mystery, romance, and all the rest were alive and well (if lurid and seemly) in the Pulps and in the dime novels that preceded them.

I suppose what we'd call "Action Adventure" was born not in any one genre, but brought to life by a certain type of character that turned up in many genre's: Zorro, Scarlet Pimpernel, Tarzan, Buck Rogers, and Doc Savage, to name the most prominent.

These were the forerunners of Superman, Batman, Spiderman, etc. The problem is that "action adventure" as a genre was born in comic-strip form. As a recognized genre, it never appeared in plain old prose fiction. Superheroes are a strange mix of sci-fi, fantasy, mystery, and thriller. Spider man, for example is a fluke of science, and fights primarily mad-scientists. But his powers seem almost magical, and his get-up and his name seem almost mythological.

Anyway, my point is that nobody's ever really been able to free "Action Adventure" from the highly visual format of comic strips, cartoons, and films. Novels about superheroes, or even about pseudo superheroes like The Shadow, are simply unheard of in this day and age.

I really hate that, because this is exactly the genre that I'm writing, and I'd like to "come out of the closet" about it and be able to call it what it is, without having to pretend it's a "thriller" or a "mystery".

[gp101]

IT'S A MULTIPLE CHOICE POLL WHICH MEANS YOU CAN VOTE FOR MORE THAN ONE. NEED I SAY MORE????

No, you need say nothing.

[Sharon Mock]

Why the heck is fantasy twice as popular as everything else???

If I were to download an answer from www.pulledoutofmybehind.com, I'd say it's for the same reason that certain personality types are more predominant online than in the general population. But I don't know for sure.

(And yes, I've done my part to further skew the Fantasy percentage.)

[loquax]

On research: I'm sure George Lucas didn't mind having a planet with two suns (completely ridiculous), or about having a deathstar that if real would implode under its own mass and would require the metal reserves of about a million planets to be made.

I think there comes a point where if you've spent sleepless nights trying to figure out how a matter transporter works, or how you could stabilise and control a wormhole, you just have to sit back and write. My stance is that most research is fine unless it becomes just another form of procrastination.

[Mistook]

On research: I'm sure George Lucas didn't mind having a planet with two suns (completely ridiculous), or about having a deathstar that if real would implode under its own mass and would require the metal reserves of about a million planets to be made.

I think there comes a point where if you've spent sleepless nights trying to figure out how a matter transporter works, or how you could stabilise and control a wormhole, you just have to sit back and write. My stance is that most research is fine unless it becomes just another form of procrastination.


This is the reason why I think they always lump SF and Fantasy together. As the famous quote from Arthur C. Clark goes, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Science Fiction is just another way to create the same magic that grips readers of fantasy. Yes, SF writers often taut the virtue of having their science be believable, but who are they kidding?

Clark himself has stories where invading aliens are still using vacuum tubes in their onboard computers. And he's one of the most scrupulous of the lot. And if you look at any sci-fi movie or show in the past 30 years, every alien resembles a perfectly normal human wearing ear and nose prosthetics.

Carl Sagan once noted how our entire physical make-up has been determined by the conditions of our planet - the gravity, the atmosphere, etc etc. He imagined that aliens might be so truly alien we wouldn't be able to recognize them as living beings. He suggested that if they were to observe Earth, they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a dragon fly and a human - because every Earth creature would look the same to them.

No amount of reasearch can break an SF writer out of the confines of the times, and of concepts communicable to the average reader. Imagination really does rule the day, I think, as it does in Fantasy. And the themes of the stories are much more important than the facts.

[aruna]

If I were to download an answer from www.pulledoutofmybehind.com (http://www.pulledoutofmybehind.com/), I'd say it's for the same reason that certain personality types are more predominant online than in the general population. But I don't know for sure.

(And yes, I've done my part to further skew the Fantasy percentage.)

For similar reasons, in Brigg-Myers parlance INFP types are far more prevalent on the Net than ESTJ types - while INFPs are only abot 1 - 2% of the general population.

And OF COURSE I am INFP!

[Mistook]

Dammit! I just took the test to prove you wrong, and I'm INFP!

[Richard White]

Anyway, my point is that nobody's ever really been able to free "Action Adventure" from the highly visual format of comic strips, cartoons, and films. Novels about superheroes, or even about pseudo superheroes like The Shadow, are simply unheard of in this day and age.

I really hate that, because this is exactly the genre that I'm writing, and I'd like to "come out of the closet" about it and be able to call it what it is, without having to pretend it's a "thriller" or a "mystery".

Um, actually, that's not quite right.

My first professional sale was a short story in the Ultimate Hulk anthology in 1998 to Byron Preiss Multimedia/Marvel Comics. I actually had a sale in a second Spiderman anthology, but the book wound up being cancelled. (sigh)

Byron Preiss Multimedia and ibooks,inc. did the Marvel line for quite some time. About a year ago, the licence moved over to Pocket Books, which is bringing a new set of the books out this fall. I know Keith DeCandido just finished writing a new Spiderman novel "Down these Mean Streets". I've also seen novels based on the DC and Wildstorm characters and a few other companies as well.

It's not a huge market, but I had a friend who wrote the X-Men: Chaos Engine Trilogy that did very well, esp. considering it was sold at Trade Paperback size. Based on his work on the first book, they had 45,000 pre-sales of the book well before it went into production, which is remarkable for a very genre-specific trade paperback.

[maestrowork]

So after I posted my genre I checked out the stats and they didn't seem right. So I added them up:

Mainstream/Contemporary 22.64%
Literary 9.43%
Romance 16.98%
Thriller/Suspense 20.75%
Mystery 15.09%
Horror 9.43%
Fantasy 35.85%
Sci-Fi 22.64%
Children's/YA 15.09%
Others: please explain 16.98%
________
TOTAL: 184.88%
5 5 5

How does 184% come to vote? Are there that many people voting for more than one genre?

We need an investigation. A special prosecutor. And injuction. Congressional hearings... okay, I'll stop.

You can vote for more than one.

Like I expected, a lot of people write Fantasy here...

[aruna]

Dammit! I just took the test to prove you wrong, and I'm INFP!

welcome to the club!

[victoriastrauss]

If I were to download an answer from www.pulledoutofmybehind.com (http://www.pulledoutofmybehind.com), I'd say it's for the same reason that certain personality types are more predominant online than in the general population. But I don't know for sure.??? Explain, please?

- Victoria

[loquax]

I hate psychology and everything it stands for.

That is all.

[scribbler1382]

I hate psychology and everything it stands for.

That is all.

I love it. Someone using a Mythbusters quote in their tagline.

My life is now complete. :)

[loquax]

Mythbusters is the best show in the universe.

[Jamesaritchie]

On research: I'm sure George Lucas didn't mind having a planet with two suns (completely ridiculous), or about having a deathstar that if real would implode under its own mass and would require the metal reserves of about a million planets to be made.

I think there comes a point where if you've spent sleepless nights trying to figure out how a matter transporter works, or how you could stabilise and control a wormhole, you just have to sit back and write. My stance is that most research is fine unless it becomes just another form of procrastination.

I agree, but Star Wars isn't science fiction. It isn't even sci-fi. At best, it's science fantasy.

But the Death Star wouldn't implode under it's own mass, not as long as it's in space, and you wouldn't get the metal from planets, but from asteroids, and possibly from small moons.

Though if you really had the technology to mine it, one planet such as earth has enough iron to build several dozen Death Stars. Just slice the planet up and take out the iron core.

[loquax]

"Not as long as it's in space".

What you talkin' 'bout Willis? No such thing as gravity in space any more?

[triceretops]

You're actually both right. Death Star would have to have sufficient mass to possess its own gravity field. Judging by the size of it, it might have such a (small) field. For persons to walk upright within in, they'd probably have to put a spin on that lil' dude to create an artificial gravity field.

More on topic: I wonder, if this poll were taken with the same members, Pre-Harry Potter books, would fantasy still reign king over the others? How much of an impact has HP had on writers? Has an entirely new crop of fantasy writers popped up, or has HP stimulated the older vets of fantasy? Maybe both.

I thought horror might have been a little higher.

Tri

[Jamesaritchie]

"Not as long as it's in space".

What you talkin' 'bout Willis? No such thing as gravity in space any more?

On the surface of a planet, the planet's gravity would certainly cause the Death Star to collapse. In sspace, the only gravity is that of the Death Star itself, and the Death Star is mostly empty space, just like any other vehiicle or station. There isn't nearly enough mass at the center of the Death Star to create a gravity field strong enough to make the thing implode.

On earth, everything pulls inward because nearly all the mass of earth is located at the center. This wouldn't be the case with a Death Star.

Gravity is an extremly weak force. Even with the gravity of a plantet the size of earth, pretty much anyone can jump well off the ground, though earth has a solid iron core that's many, many times the mass of the Death Star.

Of course, I only used iron to say that even then it wouldn't implode. But no civilization who could build a Death Star would use metal at all, unless it's some advanced metal that's both very light and very strong. In all lilelihood, a Death Star would be built from carbon nanotubes, or something even more advanced. So would the hulls of the spaceships.

That's part of the research. Advanced civilizations will also use advanced building materials. You don't necessarily have to say that a Death Star is built of carbon nanotubes, but if you say it's built of iron or steel, or any ordinary metal at all, you just blew your credibility.

[azbikergirl]

More on topic: I wonder, if this poll were taken with the same members, Pre-Harry Potter books, would fantasy still reign king over the others? How much of an impact has HP had on writers? Has an entirely new crop of fantasy writers popped up, or has HP stimulated the older vets of fantasy? Maybe both.
I've never read any of the HP books, and I've been writing fantasy since the late 1980s, so I guess that puts me in the category of not having been influenced by HP at all. :)

[loquax]

Sorry, I always assumed that the deathstar was a planet-sized spacestation with stuff on the inside (don't they go inside at the end?).

But then again I'm not really a starwars nut, so you win. Go build one.

[Jamesaritchie]

Sorry, I always assumed that the deathstar was a planet-sized spacestation with stuff on the inside (don't they go inside at the end?).

But then again I'm not really a starwars nut, so you win. Go build one.

Well, if I remember right, the Death Star is actually the size of a small moon, and not planet sized at all. But it wouldn't matter how large it's built.

Of course it has stuff on the inside. But that has little to do with it. At the exact center of the earth, for instance, you would feel no crush of gravity at all. You would, in fact, feel weightless. This is because gravity would no longer be pulling you toward the center of the earth, but pulling you away from the center of the earth with a pull that was exactly equal in all directions.

I have no idea how to show math here, but it doesn't take much math to show how incredibly weak the center gravitational attraction on what's inside the death start would have on the outer shell.

You can't just say "It has stuff on the inside, so all that stuff is going to have such a huge gravitational field that it will cause an implosion. It doesn't work this way. You have to know the mass of everything on the inside, and you have to know the distribution of the mass.

The exact center of a Death Star would be the same as the center of the earth. You would feel weightless because all mass would be surrounding you and pulling outward equally in every direction. In other words, the closer you come to the center of the Death Star, the less gravity you feel.

Just because something like a Death Star has mass inside does not in any way mean all that mass is being pulled toward the center of the Death Star, which is the only way implosion could occur. This only happens when and if there's a huge, and I mean huge, concentration of very dense matter at the exact center. If the Death Star were built around a solid core of iron roughly 2,000 miles in diamater, there would be an implosion.

But assuming the Death Star would be built like an actual space station, the exact center would be a zone of weightlessness, and the structure between the center and the outer shell would distribute mass, and thus the various gravitational fields, evenly. But even if it didn't, there still isn't enough mass inside to cause an implosion.

Assuming the thing was built of iron, which would be silly, mass itself is what warps space and creates a gravity field. The outer shell of a Death Star would be far more likely to pull anything inside toward toward the outside, rather than the shell being pulled toward anything on the inside. But the distribution of mass and the interlocking nature of the structure mena sthe Death Star wouldn't even have to be terribly well built to withstand the almost neglible gravitational stresses.

Gravity really is an extremely weak force. Extremely weak. The only reason gravity is able to attract anything at all is because there's no stronger force fighting against gravity. And darned near anything is a stronger force.

The sun attracts the other planets simply because there is nothing else tugging on those planets, and even a very weak force wins against no force.

The real problem you'd have with a Death Star built of iron is that its gravity would attract every bit of space dust and small debris from hundreds of miles in every direction. Depending on the solar system, it wouldn't be long before it looked like a giant dust bunny floating through space.

The Death Star's shields would probably stop this from happening, of course, but then again, the shields could also stop an implosion, even if the thing did have a 2,000 mile diameter core of solid iron.

But just "having stuff on the inside" does not an implosion make, and unless all the stuff on the inside is concentrated at the center, and can generate a gravitational field suficiently strong to bend and break whatever the outer shell is composed from, implosion is not a possibility.

And, if the Death Star were built of Carbon nanotubes, not even the gravity of a planet sized ball of iron at the center would be enough to create an implosion.

The tough part of a Death Star would be moving it. Inertia would be incredible, and the stresses and strains would be tremendous. You would have to have inertial dampeners. Fortunately, they do have these, else their ships couldn't accelerate the way they do.

Let me put it another way. Suppose you opened a door on the Death Star and stepped inside. What would happen? The answer is nothing. You'd be able to walk, or float, just fine. If there were enough gravity at the center to create an implosion, there would also be enough gravity to make you fall toward the center fast enough to splatter you all over the first thing you hit.

If gravity doesn't yank you toward the center, accelerating you constantly, there isn't enough gravity to cause an implosion. You don't even need math to realize this wouldn't happen.

[loquax]

I would type a reply, but I wouldn't want to further hi-jack this thread to talk about starwars..... but just as a closing comment, and further tying it back into the original talk of reasearch vs. creation, this (http://home.iprimus.com.au/siegloff/clark/flotsam/scifi/death_star.html) article closes with an apt observation.

[Christine N.]

Shoot, was I allowed to vote for more than one catagory? Because I write MG, but it's all Fantasy.

[TMA-1]

On research: I'm sure George Lucas didn't mind having a planet with two suns (completely ridiculous)
It might be ridiculous to imagine a planet suitable for advanced life if there are two suns in the system. Other than that, it's entirely possible, in fact astronomers have discovered a planet in a triple system.

or about having a deathstar that if real would implode under its own mass and would require the metal reserves of about a million planets to be made.
I'm not sure why it would implode?

[TMA-1]

Someone who writes SF might not want to admit to writing Sci-Fi...

- Victoria
What would be the difference?

[Jamesaritchie]

I would type a reply, but I wouldn't want to further hi-jack this thread to talk about starwars..... but just as a closing comment, and further tying it back into the original talk of reasearch vs. creation, this (http://home.iprimus.com.au/siegloff/clark/flotsam/scifi/death_star.html) article closes with an apt observation.

Is it really a laser they use? I missed that explanation. It doesn't behave light a laser when it hits a planet.

Artificial gravity would be the central problem of a spherical habitation such as a Death Star, but certainly not an insurmountable one.

[Jamesaritchie]

What would be the difference?

From my understanding, science fiction uses real science, as least to the best of our knowledge. Sci-fi doesn't. Sci-fi is what you see on very bad TV programs laughingly called "science fiction."

[triceretops]

Zeta Reticuli has a double sun and is suspected of harboring a few terran planets in a habitable zone. But it is difficult to have a planet in a binary system that is not perterbed by the host stars.

Well, the fantasy writers might rule in greater numbers at AW, but whoaaa, dude...guess us S Effers downright own this dang thread. These are the type of discussions that I wish were over at the sci-fi depot.

Tri

[reph]

What would be the difference?
These posts answer your question:

http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=283590&postcount=36

http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=283611&postcount=38

[Sharon Mock]

??? Explain, please?

It doesn't seem like a huge stretch to think that the same forces that make someone comfortable on the Internet also might make them comfortable with inventing a setting to their specifications. Comfort with a less-than-tangible reality, perhaps?

Admittedly I'm basing this on some interesting statistics (what Aruna said about Myers-Briggs scores, among others) and extrapolating primarily from a sample size of one -- namely, me. Hence my not wanting to put too much weight on the idea.

(As for M-B, it's interesting but I don't put too much weight on it. I've scored as both INFP and INFJ, depending on the test and what work I've been doing at the time.)

[TMA-1]

These posts answer your question:

http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=283590&postcount=36

http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=283611&postcount=38

Right, thanks. I would have to change my name here, then...

[TMA-1]

From my understanding, science fiction uses real science, as least to the best of our knowledge. Sci-fi doesn't. Sci-fi is what you see on very bad TV programs laughingly called "science fiction."
I've only heard the terms "hard SF" and "soft SF" to differentiate between the two.

[alaskamatt17]

I'm really wondering where my current WIP would fall. I think it would be in the sci-fi category, but it may be able to squeak into SF. I do explain a lot of the crazy things that happen with science that, as far as I know, is sound. But then some of the things that happen are unverifiable with present technology. Like people having premonitions.

Also, I stretch some of the science a little. Some of my characters communicate telepathically using nanobot transmitters that read brainwaves. I don't think anyone knows of a way that thoughts could be read with enough accuracy for communication yet.

The talking dinosaurs might be closer to fantasy than science fiction, but I figured, Hey, some birds can talk, dinosaurs are phylogenetically related to birds, maybe they could talk if their cerebrums were enlarged with genetic alteration.

As for SFers hi-jacking this thread ... well, space pirates would seem in general more competent than the waterbound variety.

[loquax]

Even though I write fantasy, parts of my wip may very well be "SF". The mc looks at the cell biology of a new form of plant life, and discovers prokaryotic organelles within the leaf cells that utilise dark energy.

SF elements or Sci-Fi?

[Niku]

trying to write a "magic realist" literary novel - anyone out there doing the same?

[LadyLazarus]

I'm in the thriller / crime / mystery camp :hi: ... not too many others around, which surprised me... Edited to say I'm actually an INFJ on the Myers-Briggs...

[BenMears]

I find it a little confusing to list "mainstream" as a genre, since as I understand it, mainstream just means "popular," so you could be writing a mainstream book in any of the other genres, except maybe Literary.

[clotje]

I'm in the thriller / crime / mystery camp :hi: ... not too many others around, which surprised me... Edited to say I'm actually an INFJ on the Myers-Briggs...

I'm in your camp as well. There might not be so many mystery writers because of all that research you have to do? Maybe it's because you have to create a "believable" crime and a "believable solution." After all, you can't just start off by killing someone and pull the murderer out of your top hat at the end of the book without using some logic. Maybe? :Shrug:

[maestrowork]

I find it a little confusing to list "mainstream" as a genre, since as I understand it, mainstream just means "popular," so you could be writing a mainstream book in any of the other genres, except maybe Literary.

No, mainstream is a separate genre.

[NeuroFizz]

#1 - Historical (American West but not Western)

#2 - Horror (Supernatural suspense)

#3 - Mystery

#4 - Psychological Suspense (sequel to #3)

I checked one box - mystery, and tried to vote again for each of the others, but it wouldn't let me. If it did, and everyone voted that way, the percentage would come out to be 100% in the end, right?

[scribbler1382]

Zeta Reticuli has a double sun and is suspected of harboring a few terran planets in a habitable zone. But it is difficult to have a planet in a binary system that is not perterbed by the host stars.

Well, the fantasy writers might rule in greater numbers at AW, but whoaaa, dude...guess us S Effers downright own this dang thread. These are the type of discussions that I wish were over at the sci-fi depot.

Tri

I don't remember the specifics (just woke up) but there was an MSNBC article a few weeks ago about a planet they found in a system with THREE suns. If you search on MSNBC, I'm sure you'd find it.

[PattiTheWicked]

I'm not even sure how to vote on this. I've written a children's book, a YA novel, self-pubbed an historical fiction time-travel adventure, and am shopping around a romantic suspense novel right now. Of my WIPs, one is an historical YA novel, and two are romantic mysteries.

My goodness. What the hell DO I write?

[reph]

I checked one box - mystery, and tried to vote again for each of the others, but it wouldn't let me.
It lets you submit a vote only once. If you want to check multiple boxes, you have to check them the first time.

[dawinsor]

I just finished a draft of my first novel, a YA fantasy. I'd like to work with these characters and world some more, so I'm starting a sequel.

I like writing about adolescents. They seem so vulnerable and full of possibilities for good and for ill.

[NeuroFizz]

It lets you submit a vote only once. If you want to check multiple boxes, you have to check them the first time.

Thanks, Reph. I thought I'd be clever and help the "problem" of the overall percentge being more than 100%. As in too many cases, my attempts at being clever give me nothing more than skinned knees. That's why I wear shorts. Band-aids cost less than Levis.

Cheers, Rich

[aes25]

What is the difference between Mainstream/Contemporary and Literary?

In other words, does "literary" for the sake of this discussion primarily mean experimental, artsy, plotless, stylistic undiscovered-genius type of writing? Or does literary just mean a book like you might read in a high school english class, an F Scott Fitzgerald, or an Ayn Rand, a John Updike, a JD Salinger or a Michael Chabon, even a Bret Easton Ellis or Chuck Pahlaniuk, and so on. I always considered all those books/authors to be pretty literary, in that they had literary value beyond "a fun read," which is what you might say of a book such as The Da Vinci Code.

[aruna]

What is the difference between Mainstream/Contemporary and Literary?

In other words, does "literary" for the sake of this discussion primarily mean experimental, artsy, plotless, stylistic undiscovered-genius type of writing? Or does literary just mean a book like you might read in a high school english class, an F Scott Fitzgerald, or an Ayn Rand, a John Updike, a JD Salinger or a Michael Chabon, even a Bret Easton Ellis or Chuck Pahlaniuk, and so on. I always considered all those books/authors to be pretty literary, in that they had literary value beyond "a fun read," which is what you might say of a book such as The Da Vinci Code.

There's a discussion about exactly this in the "mainstream" thread on the genre forum.

[dblteam]

It would be interesting to know if the readership (either of the people who've voted in this poll or the broader public) read these various genres in similar trends.

Valerie

Maybe we should take another poll :-)

[maestrowork]

I suspect the result would be similar... people tend to write what they read, or read what they write. Maybe not the full spectrum (for example, I read science fiction and mystery, but I don't write them). But it would be bizarre if I write Fantasy but not read it...

[dblteam]

For us writers I'd expect the numbers to fall out similarly, for the reason you state. We tend to write what we read because that's what we love most.

But it would be interesting to know if the general public's reading tastes were skewed from what's being written. For instance, in some genre would we discover that 10% of the writers are writing for 50% of the reading audience? That would be a much better genre to write (in terms of winning a publishing contract) in than in one where 50% of the writers are writing for 10% of the reading audience.

Sorry, I'm one of those people who enjoy data for its own sake :-)

Valerie

[pconsidine]

Interestingly, I hardly ever write in the same genre as I write. Of course, 90% of my reading is non-fiction hard science books and 90% of my writing is comedy screenplays. Gee, I don't imagine you could get much farther apart, could you?

[victoriastrauss]

In other words, does "literary" for the sake of this discussion primarily mean experimental, artsy, plotless, stylistic undiscovered-genius type of writing? Or does literary just mean a book like you might read in a high school english class, an F Scott Fitzgerald, or an Ayn Rand, a John Updike, a JD Salinger or a Michael Chabon, even a Bret Easton Ellis or Chuck Pahlaniuk, and so on.This is the difference between "literary" as a market category and "literary" as a quality of writing. Writing in any genre can be literary, but "literary fiction" is a genre in and of itself.

- Victoria

[StormWarning]

I thought I was writing mainstream/contemporary until I noticed a recurring theme in the rejection letters I was receiving: "Too difficult a sell in today's competitive market." I therefore invented my own genre: Literary Mainstream. Undoubtedly, this will prove to be yet another rogue decision I'll come to regret, but I truly believe my novel has universal appeal--just for a small, select group.

[stace001]

The first novel I wrote was a romantic comedy. The second started as a drama, but somewhere in the middle twisted into a mystery. My WIP is a mystery/comedy. Goofy but loveable characters, stuffing things up at every turn, but getting the baddies in the end.

[scarletpeaches]

I ticked mainstream/romance/fantasy/other.
Why?
The first piece of crud I wrote was a vampire (oh god, I'm sorry, I'm so sorry, I'll never do it again) 'thing'. Much angsty Mary-Sueism. I apologise from the bottom of my laptop.

The second was a young woman finding out her father was up to something he shouldn't have been, so I called it mainstream although there were elements of romance to it which weren't central to the story. This was more of a subplot.

The third masterwork *snort* was mainstream, again with elements of romance which were essential to the story but it was by no means a heaving bosom book, more of a woman who's a total ***** goes out and...well, you know. I'd call it a fatal flaw novel.

Fourth? Fantasy. Shapeshifters. I speed-wrote it in a month and things came out of my fingertips that I'd never anticipated. The plot came together, it all worked and it was the only thing I'd ever written without knowing the ending before I began. It scared the hell out of me, was exciting, and is probably one of the best things I've ever written. Seat of your pants stuff. Or I could be wrong. Who cares? If it never sees the light of day, at least I had fun.

My WIP is edging towards literary; I'm learning to concentrate more on characters than plot...but I'll call it a 'mainstream problem' novel. 'What if this sort of person were to meet with this sort of difficulty'.

I don't make conscious decisions to switch genre; it just happens. I am guilty of looking down on romance, if any, though. I hate the fact that if there are male and female MCs, they must have sex or fall in love at some point. I prefer to write about relationships that are twisted in some way. Warped. Not everyone lives in Barbara Taylor Bradford's universe, you know. Relationships are f*cked up.

[Danger Jane]

I can't really put my favorite thing to write into a category....not that easily, anyway. I like historical--supernatural--semi-fantasy...or something...the first thing I wrote intending to make a novel was in, like, sixth grade, and it was...well, it was fantasy...I'll never open THAT notebook again.

But then over this winter I suddenly got hit with a story and it's something I feel GOOD about and all, and I've taken it FAR beyond the sixth-grade 75-page unfinished novella, lol.

[Lenora Rose]

Another fantasy writer - I may like Harry Potter, but I've been writing fantasy since at least 1983, when I was telling stories about my stuffed animals. (I think it took until 1985 before I did elves, though.)

I feel it gives me the most scope to say what I want to say, in ways that clinging to a literal world would not. This in spite of the fact that some of my stories are set here and now, in a world only a little unlike ours. There's a grandeur to the metaphor made real, and having the boy who hates his own life, turn into a fiery bird in his efforts to escape feels better than expressing the angst of teen alienation in more standard real-world events. Or maybe it's just that I'm obsessed with shapeshifters of every possible permutation, and fantasy has the widest range of them.

That, and it's just fun.

Reading would change the stats - I'd have to cover children's, YA, Science Fiction/Sci-fi, literary, mystery, and some romance. Though fantasy wins top place there, too.