NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/misc/writing/2686

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-27 | 3.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!mimsy!nocusuhs!yoshi
From: [e-mail] (D M Yoshikami)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: World Creation
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:49:30 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: National Naval Medical Center
Lines: 56

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan Barclay) writes:
>But every SF or Fantasy author whose advice I've read has said consistancy is
>the key to believability.  I think every creation has to start with some
>arbitrary decisions.  The details come from extrapolating from those basic
>decisions.  McCaffrey's dragon stories probably all started with a desire to
>write stories involving believable dragons, and once she had come up with the
>explaination for dragons, all other creatures in her story operated within the
>rules that allow for dragons.

Believability has some interesting ramifications which reminds me of
something that the Star Trek Writer's Guide (first generation) said:

  If you're one of those who answers: "The character acts that way
  because it's Science Fiction," don't call us, we'll call you.

The main point they were trying to make is for all things to be
believable.  Their acid test was to recast the Drama aboard the
Enterprise, change the terminology to (say) a Navy Cruiser in Vietnam
(remember, this thing was written in the 60's), and see if the
situation was believable for that instance.  Remember also, back in
the 60's, that this television show couldn't be too wild, or it would
have lost viewers (so they say), and thus their slot.

Along these lines, it is interesting to note that D.C. Fontana stated:

    In reading some of the scripts prepared by novices -- even some
  professionals -- it's difficult to believe they've done their homework
  -- that they've even watched the show.  One of Gene's admonishments to
  the professional writers in the earlier versions of the STAR TREK
  GUIDE was to avoid getting wrapped up in the "wonder of it all"
    Perhaps this is what happens to these young writers -- they become too
  enchanted with gadgets, or one character, or with an exotic planet.
  The result is sixty pages of nice typing.  It isn't a script.

STAR WARS, for instance, keeps the technology as a kind of a backdrop
rather than as the main point of interest.  Ole George Lukas, who was
a good friend of Joe Campbell, used Campell's Hero with 1000 faces
story, almost letter for letter, but stuck a SF backdrop on an
otherwise unaltered story that is 1000's of years old -- thus making a
very successful movie and a lot of money besides.

I am interested in what the SF-er's think about balancing the
technology versus having a believable story that could be (in terms of
situation) similar if not the same as a story here on Earth.  In one
sense, I find it rather irritating, because if so, only the decoration
would distinguish SF from any other genre; on the other hand, if SF
does not appeal to anything that I am familiar with, it may lose my
interest.

DY :-)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
D M Yoshikami  :-) ;-) :-) | Internet: [e-mail]
May the Forth be with you! | Bitnet  : [e-mail]
***  !!xob X*NU V METSYS T&TA eht ni renosirp dleh gnieb m`I  !pleH  !pleH  ***
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=