The most important ingredient
- Thread starter nandu
- Start date
- Status
For me, in a SF story it's the plot, especially if it's something fresh and original. Of course, you also want interesting characters, not cardboard cutout characters that seem like they were taken from every SF movie ever done.
And, please, no ten-page info dumps on what the alien spacecraft looks like, or what the planet Xerulia is like.
Just my opinion mostly as a reader; I don't try to write much SF, although I have written a story or two.
And, please, no ten-page info dumps on what the alien spacecraft looks like, or what the planet Xerulia is like.
Just my opinion mostly as a reader; I don't try to write much SF, although I have written a story or two.
Wonder.
If you can evoke that, you're home free with readers.
Read:
H. G. Wells
John Wyndham
Olaf Stapledon
Stan Weinstein
Ray Bradbury
caw
If you can evoke that, you're home free with readers.
Read:
H. G. Wells
John Wyndham
Olaf Stapledon
Stan Weinstein
Ray Bradbury
caw
"What's the most important ingredient in beer? The barley? The hops? The water?"
It's beer. It's a entity of its own and is greater than the summation of its parts, and yet it could not exist without them all.
Now, which part of your story can you eliminate and still have a story?
I honestly wish people would stop asking which part is more important, and figure out that they're *all* important.
It's beer. It's a entity of its own and is greater than the summation of its parts, and yet it could not exist without them all.
Now, which part of your story can you eliminate and still have a story?
I honestly wish people would stop asking which part is more important, and figure out that they're *all* important.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2005
- Messages
- 3,951
- Reaction score
- 850
- Location
- San Antonio, TX
- Website
- jmmcdermott.blogspot.com
i always thought the most important ingredient of a hard sci-fi story was the science.
half the hard sci-fi i read have such forgettable characters and such forgettable stories...
i'm not an analog fan, though.
half the hard sci-fi i read have such forgettable characters and such forgettable stories...
i'm not an analog fan, though.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2005
- Messages
- 210
- Reaction score
- 20
The reason I asked this question was, I find many hard SF to be long on science and short on characterisation and story.
Almost all of Asimov's stories move on the beauty of his ideas. I have forgotten almost all of his characters except R. Daneel Olivaw, the robot.
Asimov's "Robot" series was done almost like a mathematical game, each story playing on one of the three laws of robotics. And the "science" of psychohistory is the star of the "Foundation" series- even Hari Seldon, the hero, is forgettable.
Nandu.
Almost all of Asimov's stories move on the beauty of his ideas. I have forgotten almost all of his characters except R. Daneel Olivaw, the robot.
Asimov's "Robot" series was done almost like a mathematical game, each story playing on one of the three laws of robotics. And the "science" of psychohistory is the star of the "Foundation" series- even Hari Seldon, the hero, is forgettable.
Nandu.
I believe it's the characters and plot. Without characters, your story won't go forward. And without a plot, your characters won't go anyway.
Nandu has a point. The great sci-fi stories are remembered for their plot, not their characters. Who can name any of the characters in any of the Rama novels? (Dr. Blue doesn't count because he was an alien.)
...
Bad example. I can't even remember the plot for them either. LOL. Um... people get in spaceship, learn new language?
Rama: a hollowed out asteroid (containing artifacts of an ancient civilization) that appears suddenly in our solar system. Books by A. C. Clarke
Not bad as far as Clarke stories go...but I liked Greg Bear's Eon better. Also about a hollowed out asteroid (containing remnants of an ancient civilization) but with a whole lot more excitement.
The science in either of the stories was about equal. There is really only so much you can do with a giant potato-shaped hollow asteroid.
Not bad as far as Clarke stories go...but I liked Greg Bear's Eon better. Also about a hollowed out asteroid (containing remnants of an ancient civilization) but with a whole lot more excitement.
The science in either of the stories was about equal. There is really only so much you can do with a giant potato-shaped hollow asteroid.
What !!!??
It wasn't a hollowed-out Asteroid. Or potato-shaped.
It was a giant metal cylinder - as if turned on a massive lathe.
Sheesh. And yes, I remember the Nicole Yarden (spelling?) character ... although I didn't actually like her.
The little Shakespeare robots were memorable characters ...
Mac
The LEGS of a tripod are important only becase they hold the THING on the tripod. In SF, that THING is science. Having weak legs can make for a bad story, but in SF the science must also be good.
Sometimes the story is IMHO on the impact of scientific retardation... but that's just picking a nit. Your question got answered later in the thread, the DJ will anounce it...
I have to throw this in: "Is the soul greater than the hum of its parts?" A pun and spoonerism asked in "The Mind's I."
Okay, good point...
"No more calls, folks, we have a winner..."
I must admit I never much liked Asimov's SF novels, though he wrote many other things I very much enjoyed such as his science essays and shorter SF stories.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2005
- Messages
- 210
- Reaction score
- 20
I am a great fan of Asimov, but I have to say honestly that his characters are rather forgettable. Even his "All-human" universe sometimes seems too dull. However, his concepts catch hold of the mind.
Take The Gods Themselves, for example. The concept of energy flowing from one universe to another got him the Hugo and Nebula awards, in my opinion. The novel is not that well-written: three disjointed parts do not contribute to smooth reading.
In Ursula K. Le Guin's The Left Hand of Darkness, the structure of the alien planet where human beings are hermaphroditic is the main attraction. The strange background has your attention from page 1 (it is a damn good novel, too).
Dune wins hands-down on background. The planet Arrakis is fascinating: I wanted to visit it by the time I finished the novel!
It seems to me that if you have a fresh scientific concept or an exotic enough background, you have the winning elements.
Nandu.
Take The Gods Themselves, for example. The concept of energy flowing from one universe to another got him the Hugo and Nebula awards, in my opinion. The novel is not that well-written: three disjointed parts do not contribute to smooth reading.
In Ursula K. Le Guin's The Left Hand of Darkness, the structure of the alien planet where human beings are hermaphroditic is the main attraction. The strange background has your attention from page 1 (it is a damn good novel, too).
Dune wins hands-down on background. The planet Arrakis is fascinating: I wanted to visit it by the time I finished the novel!
It seems to me that if you have a fresh scientific concept or an exotic enough background, you have the winning elements.
Nandu.
OK, it looks like consensus has been reached and the science is settled so there is no longer need for debate. (Gosh, kinda like the cause of global warming.) The winner is: Plot.
The most important part of a story is everything. But if you can add in a Polka somehow, that makes it even better.
Though I remember quite a few characters from Dune. Paul, Vladimir Harkonnen, Leto, Duncan Idaho.
They're all cool dudes. Can't forget Lady Jessica.
Though I remember quite a few characters from Dune. Paul, Vladimir Harkonnen, Leto, Duncan Idaho.
They're all cool dudes. Can't forget Lady Jessica.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 28,750
- Reaction score
- 2,937
- Location
- right here
- Website
- www.veinglory.com
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2006
- Messages
- 372
- Reaction score
- 26
- Location
- The pacific NW
- Website
- ingemarwrites.wordpress.com
In hard SF I want fascinating ideas and concepts based on good science... a sense of wonder is very important.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 28,750
- Reaction score
- 2,937
- Location
- right here
- Website
- www.veinglory.com
Is it just me is the science a lot weaker in most sci fi from the 80s on? If not, I need some recommendations.
Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars books spring to mind.
I do think hard SF really does need that great idea to hold it up, but the best books have all the qualities mentioned upthread.
And yes, RAMA was an enormous cylindrical spacecraft, not an asteroid -- much like the probe in Star Trek IV in appearance, I would imagine. I have all four books in the series and was nearly in tears as I finished the last one.
ETA: guess what's in development at the moment
another link
I do think hard SF really does need that great idea to hold it up, but the best books have all the qualities mentioned upthread.
And yes, RAMA was an enormous cylindrical spacecraft, not an asteroid -- much like the probe in Star Trek IV in appearance, I would imagine. I have all four books in the series and was nearly in tears as I finished the last one.
ETA: guess what's in development at the moment
another link
Last edited:
- Status