Writer's background in his science fiction

[Isaac Law]

I just read that Iain Banks put his studies on hyperspace and its implications in his work. I also remember Isaac Asimov's background was in robotics and Arthur C. Clarke's back ground was in spirituality and the future of space travel. I think my background would be in xenology (the study of all things extraterrestrial) and speculative biology (study of hypothetical organisms). My aliens wouldn't just look cool, scientific minds might actually find them believable as living alien life forms that could exist. I would also study transhumanism, genetic engineering, intelligent dinosaurs like Dale Russel's Dinosauroid and creatures from parallel Earths. What's your opinion?

 

[Pennarin]

Asimov's background was as a mediocre chemist, according to himself.

The rest of your statements make no sense. Plus, what tense are you using, exactly?

 

[Isaac Law]

What do you mean? I think I'm talking in present tense for the moment. Also, I meant in his works of science fiction that he was writing. Or at least what he's most famous for. Also, how I'm I not making sense? I'm talking about what I want to do for the science fiction that I want to write, what specific kind of question I want to ask.

 

[Pennarin]

This:
I would also study [insert stuff].

Are you telling us what you intend to study? in which case it would be:
I will also study or I intend to study

Maybe it's just me.

 

[phil_geo]

I think there's a big potential to bore people with too much scientific knowledge as a novelist. If you are writing a novel, your most beneficial study and past work would be English and writing. David Brin is an astrophysicist, but his strength is good characters and world building. The scientific knowledge he has supplements his writing, not the other way around. When Gentry Lee started cowriting with Clarke, it was stolid, boring stuff and I think a large part of it is Lee put too much of his science into the writing.

Your background can absolutely improve novels you are writing, but they are not sceientific papers, they are fiction. Learning how to write and what makes a great plot is far more important than making your science perfect in a science fiction novel.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Asimov's background was having a rational imagination and a 160 IQ.

His robot stories began before we had electronic computers.

But the famous "Helen O'Loy" from 1938 by Lester del Rey may have been one of his early inspirations.

psik

 

[Isaac Law]

I mean I already study subjects I like and I want to put that into my stories.

 

[Andols]

I mean I already study subjects I like and I want to put that into my stories.

you have my official permission sir.

 

[Chuffalump]

I just read that Iain Banks put his studies on hyperspace and its implications in his work.

I was under the impression that IMB didn't have any hard scientific background at all. More English Lit and psychology. I imagine that all authors put whatever they are interested in, into their work. Which might explain The Wasp Factory.

 

[Isaac Law]

So, works that inspire me are works of speculative biology. Examples are Dragon's World: A fantasy made real, Mermaids:A body found and Alien Planet based on the works of Wayne Barlowe. The problem with me in writing my stories, I think, is that I think visually like an artist. I think what I really like is weird and exotic creatures. I admire the visual concepts they put in science fiction movies and TV.

 

[Pennarin]

There is a current market for cinematic-like descriptions in SF stories. You should have no trouble pleasing a readership (audience?) with it if that interests you. I've read cinematic and non-cinematic stories written in the past few years, both are attractive in their own right if their stories are good.
Sure, do go ahead and include as much stuff as you like: genetic engineering, parallel Earths, etc. Just be aware that for some people fake limitations are bad, and thus stories that do not carry ideas to their fullest will diminish the reading experience, yet if the idea is...let's say, transhumanism or the singularity, then it'll make the job of writing such a themed story quite difficult, considering transhumans/posthumans can be said to be incomprehensible or difficult to relate to, and the singularity if I recall correctly is unknowable. Most who include the singularity in a story show us plain people left behind during or after the sweeping changes, or people who fled the solar system and thus are not themselves part of the singularity while still being aware it has or is occurring. Think Charles Stross' stories.

 

[ian_sales]

I just read that Iain Banks put his studies on hyperspace and its implications in his work. I also remember Isaac Asimov's background was in robotics and Arthur C. Clarke's back ground was in spirituality and the future of space travel.

Banks studied English, philosophy, and psychology at the University of Stirling. Not hyperspace. I've no idea where you read that, but it's wrong. It's unlikely Asimov had a background in robotics, given that he was born in 1920 (approx), and in fact he has the first cited use of the word - in one of his sf stories in 1941. Clarke served during WWII as a radar technician, and afterwards earned a degree in maths and physics. You could not study "the future of space travel" at that time, though Clarke was an active member, and president twice, of the British Interplanetary Society.

 

[Jennifer P]

A writer's background and the science they put into their stories are not always the same thing. Some science fiction writers are scientists, others are not.

For example, C.J. Cherryh has a masters in Classics, but she writes books that go deeply into genetics and the intersection of nature and nurture (I DO recommend Cyteen and Regenesis, with the caveat that neither are easy or quick reads).

The important thing to remember is many fans are also armchair scientists. Get things wrong and they'll spot you. Do your research and they'll respect you. But there's one thing even more important than getting it 'right' and that's staying consistent with what you've already written.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Banks studied English, philosophy, and psychology at the University of Stirling.

It shows. I have tried 3 of his books and only finished Player of Games. It was not "scientifically" interesting. I was a chess addict in high school so I could get into the psychology of the book. But I still don't regard it as "good" sci-fi.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

But there's one thing even more important than getting it 'right' and that's staying consistent with what you've already written.

I just read Bujold's Curse of Chalion and Paladin of Souls. You can tell that she has a scientific attitude about her fantasy. It is not like just anything can happen.

psik

 

[Isaac Law]

I like how David Brin had amazing aliens and uplifted dolphins and chimpanzees living in the same universe.

 

[Pennarin]

You might say Brin has humans living in a galaxy of uplifted animals; no actual aliens anywhere.

 

[Omphalos]

You might say Brin has humans living in a galaxy of uplifted animals; no actual aliens anywhere.

No aliens? Did we read the same books?

 

[Isaac Law]

One thing I want to do is to put aliens that people reported seeing(like Greys, Reptoids and Nordics) in a space opera setting along with aliens I came up with as well as speculative biology.

 

[Pennarin]

It reads like a pun, Omph. Read it again.

Our intelligence is a product of evolution, while Brin's intelligent alien species were all with chimpanzee- or dolphin-level intelligence before being uplifted by their new masters, hence all of Brin's aliens are uplifted animals. It's funnier to say this than to say they actually are aliens.