Instititute of Children's Literature

Rx for Writers

Transcripts

"How Has Science Fiction Changed? From 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea to Rockets, Redheads and Revolution" with S. Joan Popek.

Thursday, August 8, 2002

Moderator is Kristi Holl, web editor for this site and author of 24 books and 150+ articles. She also taught writing for children for 15 years.

Joan is S. Joan Popek, author of the EPPIE 2000 winner The Administrator and her latest book Sound the Ram's Horn, as well as more than 250 stories and articles.

Names color coded in blue are viewers who had questions.

Interviews are held on Thursday nights for two hours beginning [9 CANADA/Atlantic], 8 Eastern, 7 Central, 6 Mountain, and 5 Pacific.

Moderator: Good evening, everyone! I'm your moderator, Kristi Holl, and tonight I'm here with Joan Popek who will be speaking to us on the topic of "How Has Science Fiction Changed? From 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea to Rockets, Redheads and Revolution." When writing science fiction for children, it is important not to "write down" to them. They are smarter and more tech savvy than we were. Joan will be talking about this and about the necessary ingredients of science fiction. Joan Popek is the author of the EPPIE 2000 winner The Administrator and her latest book Sound the Ram's Horn. Welcome, Joan!

Joan: Hi all. It's great to be here. I'd like to make an announcement first. My newest grand baby came into the world this morning. 10 pounds, 4 ounces. Mother and son are both doing fine.

Moderator: That is so very exciting!!!!! Congratulations!!!

Joan: Yeah, it's great! I'm hyped.

Moderator: This will be quite anticlimactic for you tonight, I'm afraid! Ready? Let's start by defining our terms first. Joan, what is a working definition of science fiction?

Joan: Okay, start with a couple of definitions from the masters. They say it much better than I can. Isaac Asimov said in 1952: "Modern science fiction is the only form of literature that consistently considers the nature of the changes that face us, the possible consequences, and the possible solutions. That branch of literature which is concerned with the impact of scientific advance upon human beings." And summing all that up, Lester Del Rey said, "Science fiction is the myth-making principle of human nature today." Basically, science fiction is imagining the impossible and making it possible with your writing.

Moderator: What is the difference between "Hard" science fiction and "Soft" science fiction?

Joan: Oh hard facts huh? Okay, let's see. Hard science fiction includes all the sciences: physical science, medicine, human, physiology, astronomy and so on. Soft science fiction includes human psychology, sociology and any interaction between sentient beings. Take any of these ingredients, add a pinch of "what if," a generous helping of imagination, stir it all together with just a grain of salt and you have a memorable science fiction tale. What's the grain of salt for? It's called suspending disbelief.

Moderator: What does "suspend disbelief" mean? Why is this important in science fiction?

Joan: Well, I'm falling back on the masters again for this one. Frederik Pohl said, "The future depicted in a good science fiction story ought to be in fact possible, or at least plausible." I truly believe that science fiction writers did and still do have a not so small part in the extraordinary advance of science today. Asimov's "robotics," Sagan's "Contact" and so many more. These authors wrote of such concepts when they were only plausible, but not actually in existence. For instance, just twenty years ago the idea of me sitting here in my home talking to you in your home via cyberspace was a bit far fetched. Yet science fiction authors were writing about handheld computers in the 1940's. To answer your question about why it's important: Many adult science fiction readers and writers are also scientists. Some even admit that many of their "what ifs" may have had their inceptions in some science fiction author's "fantastic" idea. Writers must make their tales believable (if not actually possible at the time, at least use plausible) science. Make your audience be willing to suspend disbelief of something they know is not possible, and at least for a little while, believe it's true. Warp drive is a good example.

Moderator: What about writing science fiction for children? They are not scientists, so why do you have to be so careful about the accuracy of the science?

Joan: Kids today are smart! My seven-year-old grandson can identify the nine planets of our solar system and their mass and orbits. Ya just can't fool 'em. They know if something is a possibility or not, so not only do you have to have your science facts straight, you have to be able to put them into children's terms without "writing down" to them. In the 1800s, you could get away with shooting a rocket to the moon from a cannon or a giant Catapult. But today, not even kids will believe it. Even very young ones know it takes a lot of technology (and at the very least, a launch pad) even if your characters build one in their garage.

Moderator: Can you compare some of the science fiction in the past to today's?

Joan: Well, we have gone from fantastic inventions such as Verne's submarine to "Star Trek's" Enterprise and beyond. We have gone from the technology of Wells' "Time Machine" to "Star Wars" and further still. From Mary Shelly's "Frankenstein" through "The Bionic Man" and the "Terminator" to Dolly the cloned sheep. And here's a point you might not have considered. Although she didn't realize it, Shelly foreshadowed the modern concept of cloning (in a rather primitive fashion) in her work. Shelly's scientist dreamed of creating life. At that time in history, her character had to use body parts. Is using DNA and eggs harvested from ovaries really that different? Dr. Frankenstein used bolts, sewing needles, and electricity to fashion his creation. Today's scientists use test tubes, frozen embryos and-guess what-ELECTRICITY to fashion their creations. I think that's an interesting concept. Just a thought.

mbvoelker: Adult science fiction has many sub-genres; which of these are relevant to children's science fiction?

Joan: I think it depends upon the age of the child. Most kids love fantasy, and what kid over the age of 7 do you know that doesn't like Star Wars? Look how popular Harry Potter is for fantasy. And every kid knows who Darth Vader is. I think as long as you give them adventure and action, kids will love just about any science fiction or fantasy that lets them pretend they are heroes. I'm reminded of my generation's Peter Pan. I loved it. And I loved 20 Thousand Leagues Under the Sea just as much. Two totally different types of stories, yet they captured my 6 year old imagination and made me a hard core fan of the genre. So I say, write what the kids you know like, and I'll bet other kids will too.

noel: I've never written children's science fiction, so I'm not sure I understand how "not" to write down to children. Vocabulary, of course, but could you please offer some points on what to watch out for?

Joan: Well, Noel, that's sort of a gut thing. Don't expect an older kid in school to accept that he could build a spaceship in his garage without some knowledge of scientific principles, but also because of his imagination, if the character is with a group of "whiz kids," then it's PLAUSIBLE (there's that word again) that he and his friends could come up with something. Does any of that make sense?

Moderator: It does to me! I think it means we respect kids today and don't write for them as if they know little or nothing, but give them ample credit. Joan, when did science fiction actually begin?

Joan: Okay. There are many schools of thought on that. Some say Thomas Moore's UTOPIA written in 1516. Sir Francis Bacon's NEW ATLANTIS penned in 1628 or Mary Shelly's FRANKENSTEIN of 1817. I say it began when the first caveman looked at the stars and fantasized about what they were. But I'm a majority of one about that. LOL

Moderator: What about "monster" stories? Are they science fiction?

Joan: That's a good question. It brings us to one of the first changes in writing science fiction. In early science fiction, there was almost a blur between "science fiction", "monster stories" and the "hero pulp" stories like Shadow and Doc Savage. Today, these all fall into the realm of what has become "traditional science fiction", but Campbell's' discovery of Robert Heinlein and Isaac Asimov are special milestones. They brought a new brand of "style" to science fiction writing. As for monsters, we still have that, but much more sophisticated. ALIEN has a monster, but it's a space monster surrounded by state-of-the-art equipment, so even our monsters have changed--become more real--no more tomatoes that eat California, but real live "maybe it could happen" monsters.

Moderator: What kind of milestone was Campbell's' discovery of Robert Heinlein and Isaac Asimov?

Joan: This is one of my favorite topics. I'm no expert, but I'll try to tell you what I think. These and other authors of the "Golden Age" of the 1940s ushered in a new style that helped distinguish the difference between Hard and Soft science fiction in the genre. For instance, Heinlien's "Stranger in a Strange Land" is sociological or soft science fiction, as is my own "Sound the Ram's Horn." Asimov's tight, scientific writing brought a new dimension to hard science fiction designed, for the most part, simply to entertain. Before that, Verne's "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea," was hard science fiction mixed with sociological commentary, and Edgar Rice Burroughs introduced a new blend of science fiction with a cross between hard science fiction (going to Mars, even if the method of travel was a bit unorthodox) and fantasy with epic adventure. But they were both lumped as just plain old science fiction.

Moderator: Is science fiction just about technology?

Joan: Oh no. Science fiction has always used moral and technological questions to make the readers think. But science fiction is more than just stories about technology. Some are statements about the human condition and most offer hope and ways to change that. science fiction is essentially about adaptation. Both ours as a society and ours as writers. We must adapt to the technology and the future in order to survive. Science fiction helps us see that future. I get excited about the future every time I read a new science fiction book.

Moderator: What do you think is the biggest change in the way science fiction is written today?

Joan: Science fiction today arouses a sense of wonder and audacity that makes even a non-science fiction fan take notice. Imagery is used more today and character development seems to be a prime focus. In contrast, the very early writers tended to focus more on statements. (Wells' society and government theme, for instance).

Moderator: How can we use this information to help us write science fiction today?

Joan: One good way is to read and compare the techno fetishism of Verne or the social commentary of Wells with the understatement of author Paul Hogan's future worlds. You will see how much we have grown in science fiction today and you should also see the value of the earlier science fiction authors. Then let your imagination take it from there.

valentine: Is fantasy a different genre than science fiction?

Joan: Valentine, I think of it as different; however, most people seem to lump science fiction and fantasy into one genre called speculative fiction. They lump horror in there too. I personally think that ALL FICTION is speculative. It's all based on "what if." So to answer your question, I guess I'd have to say that it really depends upon how the editor you are submitting it to feels. If it's a science fiction & fantasy publisher, it's in the same category.

shari: Any tips for suspending the writer's own belief and getting past the "nobody would ever believe that" thinking? Or is that one of those gut things, too?

Joan: LOL. Shari, great question! Every writer is his or her own worst critic, and sometimes it's hard to believe that anyone would actually read "this garbage". I feel that way too. But if my "inventions" seem a bit far fetched to me, then I do some research and find something tangible in science to try to hinge it on. Yep, Shari. Guts count!!!

mbvoelker: What's different about writing science fiction for kids and writing science fiction for adults?

Joan: Mostly vocabulary. And with kids, you need a lot of adventure where with adults, you can delve into the human condition.

Moderator: What do you think about genre action films like Star Wars?

Joan: I love 'em! Action adventure such as in Star Wars are just technologically advanced adventure stories of the "PULP" era. There is not much "substance" as far as making people think, but they are very entertaining and an excellent escape from the ho-hum aspect of everyday living.

Moderator: If you don't know a lot about science, is science fiction difficult to write?

Joan: Hard science fiction is not easy to write because the author must incorporate true science as the core. You may then may come up with some off-the-wall science that although may not be actually possible right now is still plausible to the reader. Our audience demands the real thing. They require accuracy in science--at least enough so they can "suspend disbelief" long enough to enjoy the story. Research is the key to that.

Moderator: So you can write science fiction if you don't know much about scientific principles?

Joan: Of course! Science has become more important, but can bog down a story if it's too explicit. Again I say, "Research is your answer." Research enough to be scientifically correct, but write it in laymen's terms. If you aren't a scientist, keep it simple. For example, I'm no scientist. I'm a grandma! So when in one of my short stories, I had to know how the sun worked, I researched it, gathered a bucketful of information and boiled it down to a couple of paragraphs that I could understand. I figured if I could understand it, anyone could. In another, I had to find out about DNA. Same process.

paulplqn: What scientific sources do you rely on?

Joan: Paulplqn, mostly now I use the NET. I still use the library and I subscribe to several science oriented newsletters. Sometimes, I watch the news and "60 Minutes." Some pretty good stuff there sometimes.

mbvoelker: I participate in a speculative fiction e-mail list (SF-Writing from YahooGoups), and the issue of suspension of disbelief comes up frequently. I believe that internal self-consistency is the most critical point -- even in the wildest fantasy. Can you comment on this?

Joan: Whew, mbvoelker. You get to nitty gritty, don't ya? Yes, being consistent is vital when attempting to make the reader believe something they know is not really possible. If your facts aren't exactly true, but they are consistent throughout your story, your reader will suspend disbelief as long as it's not too off the wall.

jim: How would a religiously based fantasy hero go over? I'm thinking of a seemingly incompetent throne (higher angel) who is really an overworked family guardian.

Joan: Jim, that's cute. I like it. Actually, I've found that religiously based characters are usually pretty good. No pun intended there. Actually, if you don't make him an idiot or a fanatic, you will find an audience for such. Heck, even if he is a fanatic, you'd probably find an audience. I think it sounds like it could be a funny concept.

Moderator: What is today's main emphasis in science fiction?

Joan: During the "Golden Age" (about the 1940s) of science fiction, the emphasis was more on mankind's relation to the universe. In contrast, today's emphasis is on the cutting edge of physics--at least hard science fiction is.

Moderator: Is today's science fiction better than the early days? Some of the early stuff (now) seems kind of silly.

Joan: The writing is tighter, but the ideas are just more advanced because our society is more advanced. But the "Star Wars" of today's technological marvels are no more remarkable than the "hard" science fiction of Verne's submarine was for that era.

Moderator: Do you have to explain exactly how your scientific gadgets or concepts work in the story?

Joan: No. Today's science fiction is more sophisticated, with fewer "message books." In the early years, there was a more plodding description of science where today we have learned to "weave" it into the story with a "show" don't "tell" style. A perfect example is Asimov's Foundation Series which pictures a future high-tech society, yet he doesn't explain every detail of why it works. For instance, how many of us think about how our TV works when we turn it on? We just accept that it works even though we may or may not understand the technology behind it. Believable science fiction is the same. If it's so commonplace that your character accepts it without thinking about it, so will your audience.

Moderator: What about science fiction romances?

Joan: Time travel romances are becoming very popular. Women have become protagonists in today's science fiction where they were always bit players until the 90s (with a few exceptions) and they have come into their own as science fiction authors as well. In many cases, science fiction and romance have blended. Even though I don't write romance, I consider this is a good thing.

Moderator: Is characterization in science fiction different from other genres?

Joan: Yes, it is in a way. With science fiction, often the characters are not human. That leads to a whole new mind set in how they might behave. But the most important point to remember is to give your characters some human emotion even if they are not human. Here are some examples.

H.G. Wells' monsters were just that. Monsters, and not very believable ones today. But think about this: In Alien 3, (or 17 or which ever number it was <grin>) the horrible man-eating monster (which is just as fantastic to our belief as Wells' was to his generation) exhibited maternal feelings toward Segorni Weaver at the end. That made the audience feel just a touch of sorrow when that monster met her well deserved demise by being sucked through a hole in the ship to die alone in space.

Another example is Hannibal Hector. Although this story is a thriller/horror and not science fiction, Hannibal is just about as alien a human as it's possible to be. A psychotic murderer--a cannibal. A monster in every sense of the word--yet we discover that even a conscienceless creature like Hannibal has two soft spots: One is his chief adversary, one special woman, and the other is children. Yep, we discover that Hannibal likes little kids. And not for dinner! He actually enjoys their company. Most of the viewers I talked to actually wanted Hannibal to escape! Did you? Why or why not? Think about that.

Emotion--evoke it in your characters--human or other wise, and you will evoke it in your audience.

Moderator: Are there any clichés in science fiction that we should avoid?

Joan: Yep, a bunch. If it's true that there are no new ideas--only new ways to say them, then our job is to find those new ways. Here are some examples that are guaranteed to blast your story into the black hole of rejection.

1. Aliens who always speak perfect English, except they always use their own language about time, distance and space.

2. Alien monsters eat their way through humanity until the good guy blows him up into a thousand pieces. Then the pieces start growing and the whole thing starts all over again.

3. Post-cataclysmic, army leftovers with no food and who are barely able to walk kick well fed, well armed invaders off the planet.

4. No one realizes the bad guy is an alien until his skin falls off.

5. Computers rule the world, so the good guy blows them all up, leaving us back in the stone age--and this is supposed to be a GOOD thing?

6. UFO abductions

7. Amazon babes outwitting wimpy men.

8. Aliens find our women attractive, but we find theirs disgusting. There are many more. I'm sure you can think of some.

Moderator: Joan, are all clichés bad?

Joan: First, I'd like to mention that I found some of these examples while surfing the WEB at various sites. Type in "cliché" sometime in a search engine and see what you get. Now to answer the question. Clichés are not all bad unless overused or totally without scientific basis. Some make for pretty good stories. The "Star Trek" series has used many clichés and they work for them. One example is the cliché of Aliens putting one single human on trial for the sins of all humanity. Q did that to Captain Picard, and it worked. If you feel you must use a cliché, make sure that you are at least putting a new twist on an old idea. Think Fresh! Think New! Ask, "What if?"

paulplqn: Joan, is there a format for a science fiction story to follow?

Joan: Well, if you mean like formula fiction, nope. If you mean as in plot and such, sure. All good fiction has elements: Setting, characterization, conflict and resolution. These go into any good fiction, but are vital in science fiction.

ricki: With which age group can science fiction begin?

Joan: As soon as a child can sit and watch cartoons, he or she is old enough to enjoy science fiction. Science fiction is imagination taken to the limits. I read Asimov to my 3 year old granddaughter and even though she doesn't really understand it, she loves it. "Little Lost Robot" is her favorite. Science fiction and fantasy teach kids to think, to wonder, to never accept things at face value.

emmy: I see you have mentioned Isaaz Azimov and Robert Heinlein in the development of sci-fi. Is America's own Ray Bradbury part of that development? What did he add to the development of sci-fi writing?

Joan: Oh heck yeah, I had such a hard time deciding which authors to use. I finally just tossed a coin. Bradbury brought a fresh approach to sociological science fiction that made us take notice. Bradbury's contributions were as important in the history of modern science fiction as any author.

pfums: How acceptable are human implants/cyborgs in modern science fiction as main characters? I've got a character I'm working with who's an "enhanced human" because of a near-fatal accident, and has a special computer interface that's used to help another character (a rival, incidentally). Is that within the realms of "acceptable" characterization?

Joan: Sure! Just be careful that you have your facts straight about what you call him. I read a story once with a character as you are describing and the problem was that the author called him a bio human in one paragraph and a humanoid robot in the next. That sort of thing confuses readers.

Moderator: I'm sorry to have to interrupt here, but we're out of time. Joan, thank you so much for coming tonight and talking with us. This is a fascinating genre, and I know we've all learned a lot tonight. We appreciate your time with us!

Joan: I appreciate you having me. I've had the perfect day--a new baby and this great chat. Great questions, by the way. Thank you all for coming and thank you, Kristi, for inviting me. Loved it!

Moderator: It was our pleasure. Enjoy the new little grandson! And viewers, do come back in two weeks when author, former journalist, and instructor Nancy Butts will be talking about "Critique Groups: Your Chance to Grow." Nancy has two YA novels to her credit, CHESHIRE MOON and DOOR IN THE LAKE. She has belonged to the same critique group for nine years. Without their guidance on craft and their belief in her writing, she says she would not be published today. If you're interested in finding or forming such a supportive critique group, as well as learning how to function productively and grow through critique group interaction, you won't want to miss this interview! And now, good night, everyone!

Return to Transcripts

93 Long Ridge Road, West Redding, CT 06896
Phone: (203) 792-8600 (800) 243-9645
Fax: (203) 792-8406
E-Mail: WebEditor@institutechildrenslit.com

Copyright � The Institute, Inc., 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
No part of the electronic transmission to which this notice is appended may be reproduced or redistributed in any form or manner without the express written permission of The Institute, Inc.