I saw over on Sci-Fi Signal mention of A Political History of Science-Fiction. The reading is a bit dry (like I’m one to talk) but I did glean some interesting tidbits from it:

“Therefore, hard SF has a bias towards valuing the human traits and social conditions that best support scientific inquiry and permit it to result in transformative changes to both individuals and societies. Also, of social equilibria which allow individuals the greatest scope for choice, for satisfying that lust for possibilities. And it is is here that we begin to get the first hints that the strongly-bound traits of SF imply a political stance — because not all political conditions are equally favorable to scientific inquiry and the changes it may bring. Nor to individual choice.

The power to suppress free inquiry, to limit the choices and thwart the disruptive creativity of individuals, is the power to strangle the bright transcendant futures of optimistic SF. Tyrants, static societies, and power elites fear change above all else — their natural tendency is to suppress science, or seek to distort it for ideological ends (as, for example, Stalin did with Lysenkoism). In the narratives at the center of SF, political power is the natural enemy of the future.”

This is where Social Sci-Fi gets its true power. The sci-fi writer, and by association the sci-fi reader, are all about the exploration of ideas. What better villain than an individual or dystopian society that doesn’t allow the exploration of ideas? Here you have the greatest benefit of the genre expressed within the works by a clash between exploration and anti-exploration. It is a natural thesis and anti-thesis, protagonism vs. antagonism.

Where authors have the chance to differentiate and define themselves is specifically what ideas they choose to explore, and how the villain or society might oppose that exploration. This is perfectly in line with Lajos Egri’s definition of premise–a thesis which is proven true over the course of the story.

Sci-Fi just happens to be the perfect genre for stating a thesis. Of course that’s just my opinion. ;-)

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”

– F. Scott Fitzgerald

For writers this is an absolute necessity. Along these same lines, it is important to distinguish the objective from the subjective.

“I like this.” vs. “Is this good? Is it an example of fine form?”

There are many well-written novels I’m sure I don’t like. Just as there are talented, eloquent writers I’m not that fond of, yet my tastes have no bearing on my evaluation of their talent. So I can appreciate something for its qualities, but I do not have to like it on the whole, or even on those qualities alone. I can simply acknowledge that those fine qualities exist, but the composition does not have to be one I enjoy.

The understanding of composition is not terribly complex–it just requires measuring several elements at once, or in juxtaposition to one another.

Oddly enough, this is also related to mental instability, depression, neuroticism, and other afflictions that plague creative people.

The quote from F. Scott Fitzgerald is usually incomplete. Here is the full one:

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless yet be determined to make them otherwise.”

To see things are hopeless yet be determined to make them otherwise. He’s talking about the fighting spirit, the will to live. Maybe even the will to power? It is the ability to find resolution in contradictions. To find order among chaos. To form patterns out of the void. To create coherence out of incoherence. It is the will and ability to create meaning for yourself and others.

P.S. Updates may get more sporadic as Christmas approaches.

What is your overall strategy in writing a story?

What are your tactics?

Strategy being, the battle plans, the map. Tactics being, the singular operations taken on the field of battle–your move, or play.

Strategy is big picture, abstract. Tactics are what you do on a day to day basis in order to get things done and accomplish a daily goal.

Here’s a thought; Writers spend too much time in the clouds, or thinking about strategy. That’s why contests like National Novel Writing Month exist, because they pull writers back down to the tactical level of a daily word count and just getting things done.

As writers, do we strategize too much?