Day One, Day Two, Day Three.
I arrived a bit late this morning so only heard part of the talk on Alienation in Science Fiction. A big part of this panel dealt with the question of whether science fiction is still an "outside" genre, and what either answer would mean. Many expressed a concern about the difference between Geek Culture and Nerd Culture (geeks go to Comic-Con, nerds go to WorldCon). Many 'pop' sf shows are more cosplaying science fiction than engaging with the underlying questions that made the genre interesting. Consider The Big Bang Theory.
Others argue that geekdom and nerddom are overlapping categories, and that one can move between them. Even if many new sf fans aren't interested in the serious stuff now, it doesn't mean they won't later.
Part of what science fiction unique was it's willingness to ask questions. In a culture where everyone asks questions, that's not very special. Is that evidence that scifi has done it's job? One panelists argues that science fiction as a genre is over, and we need to look to the future for real now.
For those of us still deadset on writing there was The Art of Worldbuilding. Edgar Rice Burroughs invented much of the modern art--flushing out all the details of a fictional world. Barsoom is the obvious example. It's not perfect, but he covered a great swath of space in loving detail.
There's different places to start. You can ask why your world is interesting. What are the implications of any given premise? Do you have characters with professions? Images in your mind? A tone you wish to establish? Values systems to explore--what do this world's inhabitants love and fear? How does that impact their economy and political system? What are the story's thematic drivers?
Readers don't need to know all the details the author knows about the world. Sometimes you'll have blindspots. Getting a beta reader to ask questions about it. You might not know something important. All information needs to have a purpose.
Overresearching is a problem which strikes many writers. "Prepcrastination" is real, and can be combated with time limits. Many authors just note what needs to be filled in, and wait until the plot is rolling to add the details. Some iterate on the world between drafts.
Don't frontload the exposition. Readers will accept more once they're invested in the story and plot.
 |
| The lighting wasn't that great for photography in there. |
The next talk I attended was on SF Pulp Art, which was interesting but not conducive to paragraph summary. I'd recommend getting a good history of science fiction book and reading that instead.
Jesper Stage of Luleå University of Technology gave a presentation on Interstellar Trade for Fun and Profit, looking at both technological and economic perspectives.
Shoddy worldbuilding is often given away by economically infeasible situations. Resources need to come from somewhere, and trade routes require multiple hubs. A spaceport is useless if you can't go anywhere.
Consumer price is equivalent to production plus transport costs. The latter are huge for interstellar exchanges. The value of a physical product either needs to be huge, or you need really cheap starships. If the former, there needs to be a reason why you can't produce the product at home.
Alien ideas and media are an obvious IP trade good. This applies with humans as well.
Cheap FTL changes things, in ways you might not expect. In that case, we're competing with aliens adding political incentives, such as controlling trade routes and losing economic autonomy. A multi-star civilization might experiences "cosmization".
Far future fiction is much more optimistic about trade compared to near future fiction. Economists and enlightenment philosophers agree that trade is a net-benefit and makes people better through incentivizing upright behavior. Many fiction writers echo this notion, either because it's a fun plot device, or because it's easier to see the big picture in a galactic scenario.
Alienbuilding dealt with the question of interstellar interactions for a biological and psychological perspective. Some writers start top-down (star, planet, biome, evolution, aliens), while others start with an alien they like and work the other way. Larry Niven advises us to ask "what's the weirdest thing about them?" This can guide your design. Note that easy description is good for booksales.
Don't overdo the alienness, because eventually it becomes impossible to write a story about them. On the other hand, don't make them humans that look funny. This is especially true if you base their culture on another human society. It's tacky and limits your international market prospects.
An important question in the field is the relevance of toolmaking to intelligence. Humans suit our environment to ourselves. Aliens may suit themselves to their environment. It's a good idea to research the incredible morphological diversity of terrestrial life to get an idea how big the space of possibilities actually are.
Strange starting points limit your ability to extrapolate. Many biologically interesting premises don't lend themselves to fun stories. A few things that do warrant more speculation include non-animal intelligence and the variations within species.
I was afraid the panel on Political Worldbuilding would be ideologically triggering. In fact, it was boring as hell. The scientists are spoiling me. A few things to consider are the notion of political systems as technology and the symbolism fictional systems will have. To gain perspective, consider reading about how other cultures conceived of past societies. Modern political shapes probably aren't the default. Again, work out more detail than the story demands.
 |
| >>Self Referential Caption<< |
Finally, I sat in on a panel discussing the latest progress in Exploring the Solar System, and what's coming next. Nominally this was about planetary science, but the audience seemed more interested in launch technology once Q&A rolled around. I elected to leave a few minutes early."X-Wings are metric, but TIE fighters use Imperial units." #MAC2— Nathaniel M. Routh (@NathanielMRouth) August 20, 2016
One big take away is that space is hard. We're still getting the hang of chemical propellants. Advanced propulsion holds promise, but a lot of work is yet to be done. What a spacecraft is designed to do is not necessarily what it was built to do. Sometimes mission controllers can do things outside the specifications with ease. Sometimes it falls apart.
More and more we're worried about contaminating life-carrying environments. Personally I'm skeptical about widespread abiogenesis and panspermia, but it's still a matter to be cautious about. There's a lot of interesting places to go in the outer solar system. The trans-Saturnian parts are still very neglected. We don't understand Pluto's energy budget, and JPL is try to set up a solar sail fleet to explore heliopause.
For that matter, there's a lot about Earth we still don't understand, geology particularly. How is our magnetic field generated? Fast rotation seems to be a requirement, but we just don't know. Investigating the other planets' magnetospheres can help us in this quest.
That's about it for Day Four. We didn't stay for the Hugo Awards for the same reason we didn't vote: you really should be informed, and I haven't read any new fiction.
