This books provides a good overview of what to consider what trying to publish your work. To some extent it is applicable to any genre as much of the writing and publishing process is the same, it is of course looked at from a science fiction perspective. Although there is the inclusion of fantasy and horror; SF has a rather broad definition anyway. One key point to note is that the book was written in 99/00, so while some of the information is timeless there are some sections that are quite dated in 2012.

There are many important topics covered such as contracts, agents and taxes. This is perhaps some of the more boring stuff that you need to do once you have written your ”masterpiece” but it is even more important than the writing itself. The authors do a good job of presenting the information in an easy to digest and actually non-boring way. The occasional humour is also welcome.

The section near the end on promoting your material is a little bit dated when they review the electronic forms of promotion. Yes, it mentions websites but there is no mention of social media which is currently a dominant form of advertising. Facebook is obviously popular but Twitter seems to be awash with aspiring writers and their myriad spam posts to buy their wares. There are more self-publishing websites than they mentioned too, such as Lulu and now Amazon via the Kindle Direct Publishing.

I think speculative fiction will always be a strong selling genre, perhaps the authors should consider an update.

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Publishing Science Fiction and Fantasy (Paperback)

I cannot find a link to an article I read that stated (roughly) that Krugman (?) said that sci-fi was all about economics and was the reason he became interested in economics. Unfortunately, without a link to the source I can’t verify the exact wording. I’m not wishing to put words into his mouth as it would seem underhanded. I have to admit that I am not fond of Professor Krugman (not worth discussing here), but I will at least agree that many great works of sci-fi can be seen as economic parables. That said, I do not believe that any consideration of economics is the prime impetus for writing sci-fi. I believe that economics adds flavour to sci-fi, and in many cases it is a core theme, but that isn’t what makes it sci-fi.

Classic sci-fi is based upon what-if scenarios. Spaceships, laser guns and little green men were the props necessary to illustrate the author’s chosen scenario. Sci-fi grants a freedom to go beyond the confines of physics, and everyday life, but consequently the logic within a sci-fi story is contradictory. This is also true of fantasy. Sci-fi has evolved from simple what-if scenarios to become a large meta-genre that covers a multitude of (sins) plot styles.

An interesting question would be: do all sci-fi writers sit down with a what-if scenario and then try to construct a plot around? No, I don’t believe this is the case. I think many have an idea for a plot or a character than try to create a story from their seed idea. Whether it is by intended or unconsciously decided a what-if scenario is likely to emerge.

• What if Victorian Britain actually had powerful steam-powered devices?
• What if we could go back in time?
• What if we could journey to Mars or live in the stars? (unintentionally poetic )

First and foremost, any story should have interest characters. Readers can identify with characters they like and / or enjoy reading about. The fact that a love story is set on Mars as opposed to Earth is mostly irrelevant. Readers who appreciate a love story will enjoy that aspect; they want to read about interesting characters. That’s what keeps them reading, but it doesn’t make it sci-fi. Not even setting the love story on Mars would really do that (some debate there, sure). The defining aspect of a sci-fi love story would be: what if the love between two characters can’t work because of a technological or scientific difficulty?

The man is from Mars yet the woman is from Venus, and due to different physiologies they can’t reproduce. The what-if aspect here is how can these characters life together, and should they want to try living together if they can’t reproduce? The meta-scenario of difficult love isn’t new, nor restricted to sci-fi, but the use of different planets and species gives it that sci-fi flavour. The interplay between science, the characters, and the core scenario is what defines a story as sci-fi.

On top of this simple plot there could also be economic concerns. An extension could be that the couple in the story could eventually find out that there is a way to reproduce but in order to do it would cost vast quantities of money (or resources) which are beyond their means. To re-iterate a previous statement: sci-fi can grant the freedom to take this scenario to extremes without being contradictory.

A difficult love story is familiar to us Earthling writers and readers. We can understand and empathize with the characters. Using a sci-fi setting allows the writer to appeal to extremes in order to create a grand illustration of “how can this relationship work if there are extreme difficulties?”

The appeal to extremes is also in fantasy, so naturally, there is shared ground there. I find that fantasy is less interested in the what-if scenarios but more on the themes of what makes life worth living. Sci-fi questions wants us to question existence and “why should we bother? Why do we exist?”

While fantasy doesn’t necessarily ask us “why bother?”, I think that the genre accepts that we do exist and then ponders “how could we live better?”

Caveats:

Yes, I’m simplifying but the overall direction is something I believe to be correct. The criteria I suggested in this article are not the only considerations but I believe they are common across many work of science fiction, particularly the great ones.

Stephen Hawking’s Universe – David Filkin

This book is the easiest one to dive into and finish without any headaches. Better yet, this is actually a simpler version of Hawking’s book “A brief history of time”. So if you have fancied reading that book but were too afraid then try this one first. The great thing about the book is that it covers the history of the key people in the scientific revolutions that lead to our modern day understanding of the cosmos and it covers the history of the Universe as we know it. The book is also a companion to the TV series although I never saw that. Finally, it is full of colourful pictures and well worth every penny you pay for it.

Also posted to Amazon:  http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R2IMNGXCC5AL31/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

Once you have read it the I thoroughly recommend that you go on to read A Brief History of Time.

A brief history of time – Stephen Hawking

I read this book more than 10 years ago now, I actually borrowed a copy of the original version of the book and read it within a week (I’m not a fast reader but I was a teenager then). I thoroughly enjoyed it and soon after I purchased my own copy which is the 10th anniversary edition. Before I read this book I actually read Stephen Hawking’s Universe (Stephen Hawking’s Universe: The Cosmos Explained), which I found to be good preparation. At the time my knowledge of physics was that of high school level physics, which is enough to get you through both books. Both cover a bit of history of the key figures in the development of astronomy / cosmology but this book eventually goes into greater detail of the more difficult concepts.

Read the rest of my review on the Amazon page for the book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R3SSQH9N4RPN78/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

Black Holes & Time Warps – Kip S Thorne

One of my favourite books and also one of the most influential. I read this in my teens, about 12 years ago, in the same summer that I read Hawking’s Brief History of Time. Although I skimmed through the book again before writing this review. This book is perhaps easier to read and like Hawking’s book is full of diagrams to aid understanding. Some relativity is covered, including the idea of lightcones and how they relate to causality. This was actually one of the trickier concepts, in that I tried to fully understand what the lightcone diagram meant and what the consequences are of the information displayed upon one. They are key to understanding black holes and how they distort space-time.

Read the rest of my review on the Amazon page for the book:  http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R2FFQSXTQSWES2/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

Please, no, don’t do it.

Creating a new language, even a simplified one, is much tougher than I first thought. I experimented with creating one for my first novel but it felt too clumsy and amateurish. At some point I will try again but I think I’ll start from scratch and try to make it more logical!

See this TED talk where John McWhorter discusses Conlangs!

Are Elvish, Klingon, Dothraki and Na’vi real languages?