Science Fiction Microstory Contest discussion
***JUNE 2016 MICRO STORY CONTEST - COMMENTS ONLY
date
newest »
newest »
Looks like Jack has posted the July stories thread, but not the comments one (probably due to his internet connection): https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
I had a lot of fun with my story - maybe too much :o) It is set in Rome on 5th December 63 BCE, towards the climax of the Catiline conspiracy, in a parallel world where Alexander the Great survived whatever in this timeline killed him in 323 BCE, and went on to conquer the rest of the known world.
My son read it and was confused by the Ks, that were obvious to me (only me?): if the prevailing, first foreign, language is Attic Greek rather than Latin - as it was in the territories conquered by Alexander - the Roman names that are familiar to us spelled with Cs would be spelled with Ks (kappa).
By a quirk of coincidence, almost all the protagonists in this story have names with C(/K). They look ugly in this Greek spelling, and that was a point, too.
Also, I used the Macedonian names for the months July (which in 63 BCE was still Quinctilis, of course) and December.
The Catiline conspiracy against the Republic I turned into an uprising against the Macedonian rule, and Caesar's hypothetical involvement gets a new twist. And I couldn't resist the allusion to Marcus Brutus, who was maybe/probably engaged to Caesar's daughter Julia before she was given to Pompey, and because of his ancestry (a Brutus led the revolt against the last Etruscan king in 509 BCE) was contracted into the killing of Caesar; he would, of course, be a suspect in an anti-Macedonian rebellion.
Plutarch tells us that some of Cicero's attendants attacked Caesar coming out of the Senate meeting that day, but Cicero stopped them. What if he hadn't?
A final detail is Cicero's friend, Titus Pomponius, nicknamed Atticus for his *ahem* Greek proclivities. In this world, he might not even get that name, if Greek views of homoeroticism are common in Rome (there could be another point of contention for the nationalists).
And, of course, anybody can feel the need of a cup of the good Falernian after a long day's work.
As I've said before- I only read each story once, scoring each as I read. I only re-read where I have equal scores near the top of my list. I do that because I wish to mimic the commercial reader. I know that method has as many flaws as any- and as I'm not always the fastest cookie I'm sure that mitigates against the complexity of Heather, JJ and Paula's writing. Or perhaps, I tend to be less adapt at and interested in right hemisphere thinking, period. Though JJ's managed to keep me interested this time- lovely piece.
All I'm saying is that with so few voters, winning is suggestive of excellence rather than truly indicative.
Some of the stories that got hardly a vote had great qualities, as always.
lol, Richard, I'm not saying it.'cause if I did, it'd seem an accusation of sexism, and you definitely do NOT strike me as sexist. :) Besides, yours is not a solitary opinion here. Some things in s.f. apparently don't change.
And of course, J.J.'s, my, and Heather's writing do tend, in varying and differing ways, to a bit of complexity. Some of that may be unnecessary (speaking for myself only), some may be very valuable, but in all cases readers' responses are good to know in detail, and of course, as Dostoevsky once (or multiply) said of psychology, can be a double-edged sword.
That would be interesting to know: do women sf writers tend to be more 'right brainers' than 'left brainers' ?Trying to redress that imbalance in my own writing is one thing that July's 'theme' of "must be science fiction" ... (with required elements of ' an underground world', 'a vacation' {or 'going on holidays" as we say in this part of the world} and 'a message received') is an opportunity to do.
I want to challenge myself to keep my July story well and truly grounded in some left brained, hard science ... but still keep my right brained point of interest, point of view.
I'm not frightened of the label Paula- Women and men tend to think differently. We are equal with all that implies, but the same- thank the Lord no. And of course there is a continuum across the sexes that has individual of both sexes high in the other camp.I don't feel the slightest difficulty as being labelled as having some old-fashioned, sexist views- provided that isn't used to as a weapon of abuse. I go further, I think the hard unisexists are a danger to freedom of speech.
"The hard unisexists are a danger to freedom of speech", and maybe a challenge to trouser makers.
In terms of stories needing an explanation - the history in my steampunk Georgian tale was all accurate. All real characters except for Eliza, whom I made up as the grand-daughter of Thomas Browne, the somewhat overshadowed pioneer of electricity (and inventor of the term). So I let his fictional descendant get one over on Benjamin Franklin.The dates when General Thomas Gage was in Britain and in the North America are also historical. Just had him doing somewhat different things, but perhaps not inconsistent with his outlook.
The focus of British forces on Manhattan is also historical, but not for the reasons in the story, which is really to achieve an anachronistic reference to a more recent demonstration of overwhelming force.
There also really was a museum of automata run by James Cox at Spring Gardens (where the British Council is now based in a very ugly modern building by Admiralty Arch), close to the Royal Society. I had also hoped to incorporate the RS into the story to include some more great minds and royal patronage, but alas word count intervened.
Submersibles/submarines were also of great interest amongst inventors in the mid-18th century. The first military one was American (The Turtle) and launched in 1775 with the purpose of sinking British ships by attaching explosives (though it was unsuccessful), so this again was a little reversal.
So the alternative outcome in the story really stems from a difference in outlook and a little invention. And possibly results in a better world :-)
Personally – I love stories that include stuff I don’t know. One finds out things that way. Jeremy’s story – reminding me a little of Umberto Eco – sent me running off to the Internet as I knew nothing of Snorri. Dorthe’s also sent me off to check her facts (ha ha!!) and I learnt new things about the Cataline conspiracy and Cicero, to add to the rusty bones of learning that were struggling to unearth themselves from ancient memory.
There's an interesting article here http://theconversation.com/can-we-tie... re unisexists and "the challenge to trouser makers" that Andy mentioned, jokingly, I think. But this article is serious about where it's all going, trouser-wise, starting off by saying,
"When writers and filmmakers depict the future, they often include one strange detail: men and women dressing alike."
and
"Founded in 1824, the New Harmony socialist utopian community let men and women both wear trousers. It was borderline-scandalous for the era, but representative of their vision of gender equality."
In answer to Andy- truly unisex trousers need to be baggy in many areas, with room for bananas, pears, ugli fruits, pomelos, apples, peaches, plums, prunes, um- etc. If one shape clothes must fit all, the rap-around kilt with no underwear seems to be the best hope. Anything clinging would never be roundly acceptable.
I really enjoyed the June contest. While the thought of alternate reality really interests me, I'm afraid I'm not that good a historian to think that stuff out. I loved the Man in the High Castle series and stuff like that where time takes a different path. But since I do a lot of work with Christian folk, and also profess to be one myself, I think it would be interesting to think about what would happen if the most important act of our faith didn't happen. Of course, I was tempted to take it from modern day view, but instead wondered what Jesus would think about it himself.
Hope I didn't get too religiously, but thanks for all the votes. As Steve Martin said in The Jerk, "I'm just happy to be in there somewhere".
I'm glad people enjoyed the challenge of alternative history. As others have said, sometimes the impact of the story was lessened not due to any fault of the writer, but of the reader's unfamiliarity of that historical period.I had not foreseen that consequence, though perhaps in an alternative timeline I might have.
Jon, I also like the Man in the High Castle and Harry Turtledove's alternative world that basically goes from the end of the Civil War through the end of WWII with the Confederacy still extant. Your take on Christ having regrets at not fulfilling his destiny was very thoughtful, well written, and done in a way that was respectful yet a challenging what if.
I am waiting with great anticipation to see the results of the July challenge. I have a few phrases sketched out for something that came to my mind out of the blue, yet I begin to second guess myself that my ideas are all too familiar...wait for it...tropes!
Not that again!We really need a July comments thread....
Sorry, I couldn't resist throwing that out there. It was a stereotypical cliché of me to revisit tropes.
What I liked about your story Jon was the way you made it (to my perception anyway) more poetic in structure than religious preachy. (It wasn't at all religious preachy ... but it was communicative of a(n alternative) truth!)It gave off a poetic feel I think because of the repetition (or near repetition), at the start of many paragraphs, of either the phrase "Jesus wept" or words that practically meant that eg in one paragraph it starts with "Jesus contemplated his death" (or words to that effect) ... which is sort of like saying "Jesus wept."
The effect for me was that it added in that right brain feel - which is, a bit mesmerizing!
I've been thinking a lot about what leads each person's story: their (so called) 'left-brainedness' or their (so called) 'right-brainedness' or do 'both their brains' take equal turns, or lead together throughout.
I've also been wondering about whether certain types of people favour their left or right brain as their leading brain: eg, black-and-white thinkers? lateral thinkers? men? women? right-handers? left handers? I'm left handed and I like to lead with my right brain, but then bring my left-brain in as a kind of 'servant of my right brain.' (But I also want to focus this month on upping the work load of my left brain ... to go a bit more 'hard science-fictiony.')
Obviously alternative history is drifting from science fiction, certainly from futurism anyway. Perhaps some of us would like to write on a parallel thread with wider goals. That idea has been explored a bit before. Paula ran a very interesting parallel thread, which I've either lost touch with or got dropped. I know there are other groups all of the place, but the standard contributions are often lacking. Where here we have good writers and certainly no duds. Perhaps it would have to be in a different group, unfortunately, unless it could wing in under speculative fiction or something. Just a thought.
Richard said, "... here we have good writers and certainly no duds ..."
That's something worth keeping!
The trouble with trying to compulsorily keep things in neat compartments all the time is that that is anathema to good writing!
To impose the restriction that "this is a (parallel) sci fi thread" ... "that is a (parallel) speculative fiction thread" doesn't allow for good left-brain:right-brain communication. Such communication works better when Permissions drift.
It's best, in my opinion, to just allow good writers to have the freedom of writing within the one Primarily Science Fiction Thread With Reasonable Drifting Permission! A writer needs - in order to grow as a writer, to find and hone one's own style - room to move, to make connections, to try things out, to shift to various orbits around-and-about an acknowledged Central Planet (which here is 'Science Fiction') to which one can then better 'bring home the varied-bounty' collected during those peripheral missions!
p.s. And there does seem to be a natural self-balancing mechanism at work in the themes provided. June's excellent theme (well Justin's excellent theme! :) rather than the theme of some woman called June) was at one extreme and now Jack has dragged it back to the bare bones: with a theme is simply a no-nonsense/no fuss, stark, specification: "must be science fiction" (+ the required elements.) I say let's just continue to allow this natural creative tendency - to avoid 'static situations' AND embrace 'dynamic stability' - do its job.
I'm a sucker for alternative history; KSR's "Lucky Strike" and of course his Years of Rice and Salt are right up there in my favorites. But, probably since I see science fiction more as conceptual (including philosophical as well as more techie issues of science and math concepts), I've no trouble regarding alternative history as fully science fiction. Time travel, too, of course. And, as one fellow student said many years ago, "Everything follows from a contradiction". . . in which these abound.Jon, I really really liked your story--no problem whatsoever with its being a variation of a religious tale. It is, as Heather notes here, beautifully written. And, much more than most the other stories this time, it was emotionally moving.
No, Richard, as I said, your comment did not seem sexist; the idea that "men and women think differently," on the other hand ...
Paula said "... on the other hand"ha ha ... That would be, 'on the other hand, left handed people and right handed people may well think differently'??
The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing...although it is beginning to suspect...
Heather - the left brain/right brain stuff is pretty much a myth. Just about any type of thinking need both hemispheres working together.But I guess the characterisations can serve as metaphors for different types of thinking
I realize that I'm in the definite minority,but I feel that alternate history = historical fiction, and in my mind is almost always very distinct from science fiction. AH , when I read it, seems too cutesy with the changing of one historical fact and then seeing how that spins out, but at the same time expecting the reader to keep straight what he/she knows about the actual historical events/ persons we all know about. It generally seems too simple an extrapolation process to keep me interested. Even in a story I admire for many reasons such as Dorthe's, the smartass version of me keeps whispering, But if Alexander did what she posits he did, then none of her Roman personages would even exist. Ack! I suppose calling alternate and science fictions "speculative" fictions is an out, but then that kind of dissolves into, well, all fiction is speculation of a sort. So, I've had my pointless mumbling grumbles, and time to move on.BTW, Paula, I very much liked Rice and Salt ( it has one of my favorite opening lines of all time), and it was indeed nominated for several SF awards the year it came out, so confirmation of my perversity is rampant. Funny, though, I tried Red Mars and Green Mars, but could never get into them. Never even picked up Blue Mars.
There is also of course The Martians (plural, by KSR)--either the outtakes of RGB Mars or its alternative history/ies. I'm more caught up, though, still, in Willis's Passage, specifically in the meaning (if any, and I think there is one) of the final appearance/event/epiphany, or more to the point non-epiphany, and why, and seeing this as, most pointedly, the author's comment on telling tales.
I am quite happy to write here about anything and call it SF- but I'm also quite sure that isn't even an average view. Stupid me for suggesting that alternative history isn't an easy fit under the umbrella for everyone. Of course we don't want to be writing anywhere else. What a totally ridiculous idea, and **** the rules.
@Andy G - on historical fiction and the changing of one historical fact: I agree entirely.That's why I also find it hard to take the mirror universe trope with bad Spock and Kirk (etc). Having spent a life acting very differently, they end up in identical posts to good Spock and Kirk. And of course, they wouldn't be there at all with their bad parents acting differently ...
But in Dorthe's story - I don't think it was inevitable that the empire Alexander built should have split so quickly. And even if it did, it's not so implausible that had his successors been less dedicated to infighting and instead looked westwards, they might have dealt with Rome. Rome and Greece as part of the Ptolemaic Empire, perhaps.
Whether the personnel would have been the same .... but I think the story here is more analogous to (say) weaving some Jane Austen characters or plotline in a different era, as is frequently done.
Andy, re the Austen characters being moved around to different plot lines, one wonders what the narrative effect of having Dorthe's main four characters instead be named, say, Johnus, Paulus, Georgeus and, umm, well, Ringo would be. An Alternate History mash-up. Sort of eating your narrative Alternate History cake and throwing it in the reader's face too.
@ Andy L. Yes I think that the left-brained dominant or right-brained dominant terminology must be regarded, basically, as a metaphor for an intuitive gnosis that there are different sorts of thinking and that it is possible to feel that you are one sort of thinker more than another sort of thinker. (N.B. that doesn't mean exclusively one sort of thinker.)But at the same time, sometimes people who try to debunk that 'gnosis' can also be wrongful in the way they go about that debunking ... and so underestimate the value of such metaphors. eg at this link https://www.theguardian.com/commentis... is the statement:
"When your 12-year-old fills out an online personality test that pegs her as a "right-brainer" and she decides to skip her math homework – because the test told her she isn't good with numbers – the persistence of this false dichotomy starts to become destructive
This completely passes over the fact that the right-brainedness concept is a way of describing 'a creative bent'(as opposed to a more rule based way of approaching life) no matter what the field of endeavour.
Being creative (or in metaphorical terms, 'right-brained' is actually a must for true mathematicians and a decided advantage for children learning it from insightful, creative teachers of that subject!
It's one thing debunking a myth. Its another thing when writers of articles try to debunk an idea that wasn't really contained within the targeted concept in the first place! In the latter case people can have ulterior motives - to try to clear the ground of everything, even meanings that weren't really there, in order to enhance the value of their 'replacement' idea or research.
If scientists really knew where any sort of consciousness was located and how it self co-ordinates with any other sort of consciousness then they'd be much closer to artificial intelligence creation than they seem to be.
Scientists have 'discovered' types of neurons in the gut and in the heart! ... and so far only God knows where the soul is!
Paula mentioned something (in a post that I can't now find, so I can't quote it exactly) along the lines of "contradictions can lead to new consistencies." (Or was it that they lead to "new progresses"?) There are so many angles from which to describe the 'feel of' what creative thinking (or right-brained thinking) is. But I think a good description would be to say it is ~ a talent for being able to see and express the Consistencies that Contradictions comprise. ~
Topically, a simplistic example might be, being able to readily see the 'consistency', in naming as Science Fiction, that which might at first glance seems to 'contradict' that term, viz., Alternative {Past} History ... perhaps because of being able to see Philosophy as a feature of both or perhaps because of being able to see a sameness in Alternative Past History and in Alternatives for how Future History might turn out to be (the latter actually being a very common feature of Science Fiction.) (An Alternative Past History could easily be imagined as 'one alternative' for what The Future might hold, if it was written by some random imaginary s/f writer from the, even further back, Past!)
Whatever that sort of thinking is called it ultimately is a natural way to restore points of balance when something (eg man-made rules) have hypertrophied one idea so that (some aspect of) Life becomes out of balance. (I actually think that the truest democracies are simply a politico-socio-philosophical bio-mimmicing (by various components of an overall system) of that tendency to seek rebalancing that is the cornerstone of, naturally occurring, creativity.
3) The stories have to be science fiction, follow a specific theme and potentially include reference to items as requested by the prior month's contest winner. I loved the theme- but however one twists it most of the stories were not science fiction. In fact the required/refused element made it incredibly hard to fit into a SF story. Alternative history as most of us wrote it isn't SF. Lots of them were very much speculative fiction and most were philosophical fiction- that doesn't make them SF, as nothing from now or the future was projected to the past. Time wasn't turned- history was simply manipulated. The implication that this would eventually have changed our time isn't robust.
I certainly don't want to restrict such diversity- but it does belong somewhere else.
One of the main drivers here is producing material for the book series- how can last months stories be justified? I've no axe to grind, as my stories aren't currently used in the books, but most writers here are interested in that goal.
Well I suppose different people here have different views on what mainly drives them to be in this group/what they see as the main drivers of this group ... but putting that aside for now, a very first question to ask is, "What is Science Fiction?" And so also, "How do different people here define where the outer limits of 'what can be fitted into the s/f category' lie?"
Here are some thoughts on the matter, from The Gunn Center For The Study Of Science Fiction http://www.sfcenter.ku.edu/SF-Defined...
p.s there are some good broad ranging definitions there, including this excerpt:
"... It explores possibilities and pushes boundaries. It asks the next question, and then the one after that. It is often epistemological - seeking to understand how we know things - ontological, metaphysical, or cosmological. It is concerned with all of us rather than individuals, and with how we got to be what we are, and what we might become...."
There is also a piece, at that link above, written by Christopher McKitterick (for more on him see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christo... ) about what s/f is, titled, "The Literature of Change."
And also at that link to the Gunn Center For The Study Of Science Fiction (the first link in this post) they note a high profile writer's thoughts on the matter, as follows:
Ursula K. Le Guin said, "Hard times are coming when we will be wanting the voices of writers who can see alternatives to how we live now and can see through our fear-stricken society and its obsessive technologies to other ways of being, and even imagine some real grounds for hope. We will need writers who can remember freedom. Poets, visionaries, the realists of a larger reality."
And in their hyperlink on DIVERSITY they quote this:
"The glory of creation is in its infinite diversity."
"And the ways our differences combine to create meaning and beauty."
- Miranda Jones and Spock, "Is There in Truth No Beauty?" (Star Trek: The Original Series)"
AND, for the trope-
Well, here we go. This would all be very nice, pleasant midsummer chatting such as we've done before, but unfortunately the last time we got into an "Is that REALLY science fiction?" chat, we ended up defining out a wide enough swath that we effectively pushed out Tom Huber--whose wonderful and moving winning story some felt was "not science fiction"--and sf author and scholar Elana Gomel. And so let us remember that this sort of "Your way of writing ain't in, my definition of sf" dissection can turn destructive in the end.This too---if sf does not include alternative history, we lose some classic examples; ditto if it does not include works based in philosophy, linguistics, or math concepts (such as large proportionas of Le Guin's and some of Benford's works); very much ditto if it does not include tales based in future, other worlds, or the like but that do not include tech of some sort (to use the classic example, Martian Chronicles); ditto if we exclude works "too poetic," "too complex," "too simplistic," "too space-opera," "too trite," or the like.
"I don't like vanilla" (or chocolate, or strawberry, or whatever) is no way to either judge a piece of literature or define a whole literature or genre, after all.
Huh, Paula? Tom continued contributing stories after his winning effort. But he was endlessly frustrated with changes to LinkedIn, and then didn't want to make the move across to Goodreads.Elana entered one contest?
I'm all in favour of a wide interpretation of SF. And experimentation and genre fusion.
But if someone writes, say, a moving romance between everyday humans set in a everyday living room in Victorian London, I think one is entitled to raise an eyebrow and ask if it's been entered in the right contest. Even if it's great writing.
I thought Justin's take was fine and enjoyable. Essentially this is a group of people who like to write SF and we were set a challenge which had the potential to cross boundaries. I still felt the urge to include some (as it were) future technology, but didn't down-mark stories that didn't, as alternative history was the specified challenge. And we were all doing a bit of time travelling and speculation as authors and readers.
And there have been some excellent stories this month and great discussion too.
Yes, Elana was only involved with the one contest, to the best of my knowledge. But obviously my knowledge has considerable limits, as I'd forgot that Tom had carried on after the discussion mentioned. No, clearly, if someone sends a truly superb story, definitely finest of the month--as each of these authors did, in point of fact--I will, again, vote for the superb tale before even considering whether it fits someone's "definition" of science fiction . . . unless, perhaps, it has absolutely no fantastical or intellectual deviation whatsoever from some other genre or commercial sort of fiction. The quality seems crucial.
Agree with both Andys on many points. I found myself on the slightly perplexed and lazy route for this month's story so just went for a simple Sliding Doors approach. I don't go with all the right-brain, left-brain, hare-brain, etc. ideology; I perceive it as a basic attempt to favour a sense of elitism in what I find to be one of the weakest genres in creative writing.
The styles here are individually so varied that I would never pigeon-hole anyone; but I think the group is too small to generalise. Too many restrictions over time and space. I know I write differently - my history's different from everyone else's here - all our histories are different from one another.
I do a lot of dry statistical reading and analytical research in my professional life. When I'm here I just want to play around a little. I'm irreverent; I clue drop. And sometimes I'll deliberately poke sticks in eyes.
I try to fill traditional holes in science fiction. I once read on a thread where someone said alienated urban youth would struggle mentally if aliens came to Earth. The irony and assumption behind that statement made me laugh; but it taught me something valuable.
Which is, the physics/science of the story - whether we choose to put it in or leave it out - is one thing. But in truth, 'science'/speculative fiction can only ever be what we personally live and/or can conceive: our feasibility, our extended world, our past, our future. Imo, that's as 'hard', 'soft' male/female or 'different' as it gets.
In the end, some of us here don't understand each other nor each others' stories (let alone each others philosophies or outlooks on life, art and everything) ... but things work well if/because we trust each other to write science fiction (according to each writer's own definition of science fiction, no matter how different each definition is.)Last month's theme might not have seemed traditionally science fiction-ish, but if we trust each other to have followed rule 3.) "it must be science fiction" then we just have to take it on trust that that is what each one did, no matter how at the edge-of-sci-fi any given story might have seemed to some.
Mod
Jot wrote: "As independent judges, each person can use their own interpretation of the rules and definition of science fiction when casting a vote. That said, I would rather people put more emphasis on their v..."+1
Well, here we go. Definitions/restrictions time again. Let's look at it: what are "true science fiction elements"? Pethaps tech-speak? a few lines here and there of superficially skimmed science concepts? And which sciences--and math?
I do assume most of us are aware that alternate history and time travel have an honored history in the body of science fiction--absurd to cast doubt on that.
And I assume we all know of Ursula Le Guin's response when asked how the Ausible (sp?) Drive--her faster-than-light space drive--worked. And what is the "science" element in PKD's "Second Variety" or Sheckley's "Watchbird"? Let alone in a "boys on the bridge" galaxy-galloping space-opera tale?
Speaking personally--as I think Jot just did and may be good if we each do--I prefer a well-written story, whatever its style or form, and whether character, plot, concept/s, or setting be most important to it (Karl, those need not be in conflict). I recognize Years of Rice and Salt, The Martian Chronicles, "The Day before the Revolution" and "The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas," The Doomsday Book, The House on the Strand, etc. etc. as science fiction and classic equally to, say, Benford's or Baxter's works or KSR's Mars trilogy.
Generally, the definitions game is a waste of time; we know how the words are used. But I do think we could clarify a lot by recognizing the very wide differences in our individual preferences. ON the other hand, keeping in mind that professional, or indeed any serious, judging of writing includes attempting to control one's individual biases so as to apply a more universal (let's avoid the term "objective") way to judge fairly.
imho.
@PaulaAgreed. As long as it's well written and has some element that would classify it outside of general fiction then I would welcome it. The writing matters most to me. Though, I'm probably one of those on the more literary side of things. But, if Iain Banks and George Orwell and Tolkien can occupy the same space in our classifications then we have a place to play in that is wide and deep. Plus, Carrie prefers fantasy and I wouldn't want to start eliminating things that aren't pure SciFi.
Not withstanding pseudo science fiction where the author just pluck a principle out of thin air, I believe a Sci-Fi based story takes real science based elements and projects the trend into their stories. Surprisingly, most of the pseudo science fiction, because they solve some basic scientific need in the story can force science to follow the imagination of the author or possibly change physical reality of our universe if people want it enough. Look how unlikely many of the recent science principles are. Which is why I believe any story that attempts to use science for plot development is science fiction, even fantasy stories.
Wikipedia's definition:Science fiction is a genre of speculative fiction dealing with imaginative concepts such as futuristic science and technology, space travel, time travel, faster than light travel, parallel universes and extraterrestrial life. Science fiction often explores the potential consequences of scientific and other innovations, and has been called a "literature of ideas."[1] It usually eschews the supernatural, and unlike the related genre of fantasy, historically science fiction stories were intended to have at least a faint grounding in science-based fact or theory at the time the story was created, but this connection has become tenuous or non-existent in much of science fiction.[2]
Pretty much sums it up. Now, there are lots of mixes of genre such as murder mysteries set in the future like Blade Runner, but the baseline is pretty clear. And according to Wiki, fantasy doesn't count. Lol
Personally, I really like phaser pistols and would love to use one to clear brush in my back yard.
- C. Lloyd Preville
Jon - I think it depends on the person. For me, reading other people’s critiques of a story won’t sway me. But I think your concern is why the third thread was created instead of including critiques in the comments thread. That way people who don’t want to be swayed can critique after the fact.
I read the stories as they get posted. (I know some here don't read till they've posted their own ... but I always feel that my story is inevitably not going to be affected by what others have written, cause I know what I want to say, so I don't worry about that 'point of discipline.')
From that first reading I get a gut reaction to whether or not the story 'spoke some truth to me.' And it moves to the top or wherever else on my tentative list of 'best stories.' But as more stories get posted that list gets re-sorted ... but it's still all very intuitive.
After all the stories are posted and Jot says "send your votes" I then go through them again. On this reading I am just reading the opening few lines ... or whole paragraph, looking for 'the hook.' Because I am perpetually looking for the writer to 'state a truth' that can 'move or rattle or massage or confront (it doesn't really matter which, as long as it engages) my perception of a reality' I appreciate writers who put in an effort - or just intuitively know how to - foreshadow that truth in their opening paragraph, ... so that then I can think to myself "OK, I'm in their world, now read on and find out what 'universally-relevant truth' it is they're telling me about! Will this change, or otherwise affect, my world (view)?" (By 'foreshadow' a truth, I don't mean 'summarize' it ... I just mean something that begins to lead me on that path towards it. It tells me that the author knows, at some level, what they want to say, rather than just say "this happened and then this happened and then ...")
Key things that break the spell of that opening hook's ability to make me suspend belief and enter this new world, for me, are: really 'clunky' sentences and anything that indicates cynicism. (Cynicism is, I think, the laziest form of expression there is and can be planted in a story to parade as a poor substitute for genuinely satirical comedy. I completely disrespect that.)
If the opening hook 'works' (= 'entertains', 'interests', etc) then, for those stories, I'm prepared to put in some more work, if needed, to 'get' what truth it is the author is/might be telling, in story form. (The author might be just 'asking about/playing with a truth' rather than telling one and that's very good story telling!)
How did they do/structure it - the characters, plot, plot twists etc ... and then, technically did they actually stick to the theme and requirements for the contest.) Whether or not its hard science or not or 'good' history or not comes in this 'compartment of criteria' for me ... because just like the characters, plot, etc these things are servants of the story ... and it doesn't really matter what uniforms the servants are wearing as long as they and The Story have some sort of self consistency among themselves. (Actually sometimes I think that a story is really engaging and then the author goes and tacks on a last sentence or two that completely breaks the spell and seems to take the story somewhere else entirely to where I thought it was going; a more mundane place often. That has happened a few times over the months of the contest.)
I generally vote for about my top 5-8 stories, but it doesn't mean that those I didn't vote for I didn't like, just that the list is getting too long ... and then there's some stories that I 'underestimated' (or mis-estimated) and didn't realize I'd done that till after the vote and I read comments about them and think "whoops, I missed that, sorry!"