A Measure for Ideas in Science Fiction?

[Serendipity]

We all know there are two basic types of science fiction - literary and ideas-based. In a recent post I argued that whilst we have some measure of the goodness of the literariness of a story, we have little idea of that goodness for a new idea.

I go on to propose that the goodness of a new idea should be based on a combination applicability spread, curiosity effect and a minimum of newness (more detail - Science Fiction Split and Newness ).

Be interested to see what sffchronicles hive mind thinks... over to you!

 

[Finch]

Personal, I don't accept the Idea that there are two basic types of science fiction in the way you are suggesting. The Idea of there being a real and definable deference between literary and popular SF seems unrealistic . Can you give some examples , books , that demonstrate the difference you are suggesting?

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Literary stories would be stories where character development and associated baggage is the main drive and Idea Driven are stories where following the consequences and actions generated by exploring an idea or ideas is enough to make someone want to read the story without noticeable, or any, character development to keep them interested in reading the story.

If popular science fiction means lots of people are reading it, it could be either kind. That kind of division makes it easier to classify stories. Right off the the bat, many older stories dwell little on character development while many newer stories have character development as a required element.

The article seemed to be saying when an author is pushing a deadline, they only have enough time to devote to either character development ( which i figure to be literary) or new fantastic ideas, but not both. Character driven stories would seem to be using "older" technology and ideas as they have already been written about and so are easier to adapt or understand.

Before word processors came out, it took longer to create finished stories for most people, so they had the time to create/implement new ideas along with strong characterization. While a person could type 100 words a minute on a typewriter error free, I suspect the bulk of those people were typing pre-written material, not thinking about what they were typing in terms of creating workable text as they typed.

 

[Serendipity]

I have long since struggled to find an agreed definition of literary although most people instinctively recognise a literary story when they read it. So at the risk of being deluged with further comments...

Literary fiction is when the fiction somehow forces the reader to empathise with one or more protagonists in the piece of fiction they are reading.

The means by which this can be done are numerous, and would require an essay in its own right.

Given this definition of literary there is a further issue that prevents a science fiction story with new ideas being also literary than just the lack of time in being able to write both. Some very relevant science fiction ideas are so off the normal track of the human experience that they have to be explained in straight narrative form (i.e. without the use of literary techniques) in order to let the reader understand what is going on.

What in general has happened is that after about the 1980s the plethora of new ideas in science fiction diminished in number, which meant that non-new-idea led science fiction came to the forefront of the genre. We are living with the consequences of this today of which there are again enough to write an essay.

But the bottom line is despite science progressing in a multitude of different areas, the ideas science fiction has not kept mid 20th century pace. Hence we have today what I call have science fiction in the literary doldrums. (Again a generalisation - there are exceptions.)

 

[tinkerdan]

The importance of idea depends on a definition of genre vs literary. This seems to be ignored here both in the referenced blog and the references within the blog. There is no clear definition(beyond unsupported assumption that idea driven are genre and character driven are literature)of what is genre and what is literary and without that it muddies up the whole argument.

What this means is there is a need to examine what is literary and that might be accomplished by examining Thomas Pynchon's Gravity Rainbow as an example of the literary. The idea there still was fresh at the time; however the writing style allowed for more in-depth examination of the character and the absurdity of the character's life within an absurd situations caused by this. Then let's wander into Samual R. Delany's Dalghren; another fine idea at the time, dealing out in-depth look at the characters in relationship to how this idea or world was affecting them. This is more a marriage of ideas and character and close examination of how the two intersect rather than a preference of one over the other.

What is different with those and mainstream science fiction would be that often the style of writing allowed itself to meander off on threads that delve deeper into character and reaction sometimes detrimental to the character agency and ending up muddying any clear picture of a plot. And yet they still work as a novel, to some extent.

Idea and character can survive the marriage when the author adheres to structure and plot and, in fact, can't so easily be separated(split)and defined into types that have ideas or types that have characters(and be well written).

Now let's get back to the OP, because it seems the reference is specific to magazines, which tend to be short stories and are a much more difficult thing to write sometimes. There is less room to develop character and ideas and it is easy to try to compromise one or the other to get to the point and stay within word counts.

It is not the ideas alone or the characters alone that drive a well written story; however, when a preference is forced, that alone is not enough to determine whether it is genre or literary.

Defining Genre and Literary should include how the writing style uses these elements, how it blends them to creates a voice or tone that sticks to plot and character and idea development; or allows it to wander into deeper examination of one or the other often at the expense of plot and agency.

There is a certain balance that creates a well written story, which is more important than determining whether something is genre or literary. And the reference inside the reference seemed more focused on someones determination of what is a well written story in relationship to specific magazines that are loosely defined as either genre or literary and then precede to forget to explain what a well written story should look like. It is uncertain how that might be a good place to start in defining idea driven as one thing and character driven as another.

New ideas are important, yes; but they pale when peopled with undeveloped characters; however, the upside is that someone will eventually take the poorly written stories new ideas and people them with well developed characters and those ideas will likely not be wasted.

 

[Serendipity]

The importance of idea depends on a definition of genre vs literary. This seems to be ignored here both in the referenced blog and the references within the blog. There is no clear definition(beyond unsupported assumption that idea driven are genre and character driven are literature)of what is genre and what is literary and without that it muddies up the whole argument.

What this means is there is a need to examine what is literary and that might be accomplished by examining Thomas Pynchon's Gravity Rainbow as an example of the literary. The idea there still was fresh at the time; however the writing style allowed for more in-depth examination of the character and the absurdity of the character's life within an absurd situations caused by this. Then let's wander into Samual R. Delany's Dalghren; another fine idea at the time, dealing out in-depth look at the characters in relationship to how this idea or world was affecting them. This is more a marriage of ideas and character and close examination of how the two intersect rather than a preference of one over the other.

What is different with those and mainstream science fiction would be that often the style of writing allowed itself to meander off on threads that delve deeper into character and reaction sometimes detrimental to the character agency and ending up muddying any clear picture of a plot. And yet they still work as a novel, to some extent.

Idea and character can survive the marriage when the author adheres to structure and plot and, in fact, can't so easily be separated(split)and defined into types that have ideas or types that have characters(and be well written).

Now let's get back to the OP, because it seems the reference is specific to magazines, which tend to be short stories and are a much more difficult thing to write sometimes. There is less room to develop character and ideas and it is easy to try to compromise one or the other to get to the point and stay within word counts.

It is not the ideas alone or the characters alone that drive a well written story; however, when a preference is forced, that alone is not enough to determine whether it is genre or literary.

Defining Genre and Literary should include how the writing style uses these elements, how it blends them to creates a voice or tone that sticks to plot and character and idea development; or allows it to wander into deeper examination of one or the other often at the expense of plot and agency.

There is a certain balance that creates a well written story, which is more important than determining whether something is genre or literary. And the reference inside the reference seemed more focused on someones determination of what is a well written story in relationship to specific magazines that are loosely defined as either genre or literary and then precede to forget to explain what a well written story should look like. It is uncertain how that might be a good place to start in defining idea driven as one thing and character driven as another.

New ideas are important, yes; but they pale when peopled with undeveloped characters; however, the upside is that someone will eventually take the poorly written stories new ideas and people them with well developed characters and those ideas will likely not be wasted.

I must admit I have some difficulty with 'genre versus literary'. I have always believed that there is an overlap of stories between the two i.e. there are some science fiction stories that are also literary and some literary stories that are also science fiction. (The same is true for other genres.)

The most common definition of science fiction I have seen is that it answers the 'What if?' question. I would add that if you cannot answer that question in the here and now or historical world, there is some construct in the story that is alien to our current and recorded experience. With the development of the science fiction genre a lot of such alien elements (e.g. warp factor drives) have become understood and are now used without having to describe their function. However, when these now accepted tropes were first introduced to science fiction, they had to be described. Imagine someone in Elizabeth I's reign trying to understand computers of the machine kind and AIs (computers used to be people good at arithmetic!).

This description of new ideas needs to be clear for the reader to grasp the meaning and intent, which in turn reduces the scope for using word techniques or other literary devices to write that description. The more unusual or new the idea, the more straightforward the description has to be.

If you put literary devices into the story surrounding the description of the idea, then unless it is skilfully done the reader will get confused by the author's intent. For example, if the story is written in an ironic manner and the description of the idea is simple narrative, then will the readers not think there is some hidden irony in the description that they have missed?

To my mind, although they use the same basic tools (words and syntax), I consider short stories an novels different art forms. They require different disciplines for plot and presentation structures. Certainly the limited word count puts more pressure to making the best use of words in a short story, but that does not mean it cannot also have literary aspects. But the very length percales the use of some literary techniques.

The other issue with the short stories versus novel length debate is that effort wise it is easier to develop a short story than a novel. Consequently there will be more short stories written and published in one form or another. And therefore it is easier to gather statistics about the payment rates versus ratings of short stories. The transfer of conclusions from short stories to novels should be considered to see if they are correct. My experience to date suggests they are likely to be, but it remains to be proven.

 

[tinkerdan]

I'm not sure exactly what was just said here.
However the point was that the cited article here cites an article elsewhere that splits magazines by genre and literature with no clear definition of what is what, and why Science Fiction Magazines could be separated this way; and then goes on to say that the literature magazines pay more per word yet yield less in quality. What is in question is how they can determine that any of those magazines is strictly genre or strictly literature. The clear difference is that one charges more than the other for the magazine and possibly pays more for the articles. To the writer of this article it seems that there is a lack of substance for the extra amount they pay for the one they labeled literature and apparently paid the authors more. This is the prerogative of the articles author to choose to show no support for conclusions, though it remains unclear how they determined literature from genre without citations.

Then returning to the article that cites that article; it is confusing how there came a split between literature and new ideas. First after citing the other article it makes conclusions from the article cited that this is not the only person coming to these conclusions and then forgets to cite who some of those others might be. But, and furthermore, the OP cited article jumps from a conclusion about price structure into one about how the higher paid literary magazines that are author driven(and for some reason this makes them a clique)are literary oriented and the lower price magazines that are reader driven are idea oriented.

Further down it states literary only use ideas that have already been accepted into science fiction.
And latter concludes that new ideas are ones not already accepted into science fiction.

Not really much is there to support these conclusions and the logic/fuzzylogic diagrams are no help.

More Frightening though, the conclusion limits new ideas to a narrow field and overlooks the obvious, which is that science fiction has never been just a story about new ideas. Rather it is a story about how man makes use or misuses some possible new science. Not just that, but it is also about how man might use or misuse the science that already exist and what is new is the whole concept of use and the what if--What if someone used a nail-gun for something other than it's purpose.

This has already been done with chainsaws.

When written well you can dispense with any label of idea vs literary because they are not mutually exclusive, rather they embrace each other and literature is not defined by a lack of new idea and science fiction is not defined as purely new ideas.

Now let's get back to the title of this post.
Measuring new ideas is rather ridiculous for the average reader because the only way to measure properly would be to read everything in chronological order of published date.
Otherwise::
The first book they read about moon landings would be the new idea and any they read after would be accepted idea so every other moon landing story would be literature?(When reading things out of the normal genre we usually read this becomes apparent, because what seems like a really cool idea usually ends up being the norm for that genre and maybe trope ridden or cliched without our having full knowledge.)

The first book they read about clones-new idea-every other clone novel accepted idea?

Often there is an authors treatment of ideas that is unique--not really a new idea just a way of turning things on their heads--and they're using that quirk as the new idea. If it is good enough it gets reused or reissued and becomes a cliche or a trope at some undefined level of overflow.

The question is, why measure newness when the bottom line is whether the story is written well enough to entertain and hold up under reader scrutiny.

Newness of idea doesn't make something good science fiction or for that matter science fiction, so why were we measuring it?

 

[Serendipity]

Newness of idea doesn't make something good science fiction or for that matter science fiction, so why were we measuring it?

If you look at what is considered by other some of the best science fiction from Frankenstein onwards, you will find that new ideas have always played an important part in making that book popular.

So newness has to be a factor in any measure of which science fiction stories should be considered successful.

Any piece of literary fiction also belongs to a genre. The issue of literary fiction is that it develops its own techniques that can then be applied to any genre. You only need to consider the impact of modernism and post-modernism movements. Those movements have impacted on the writing style of every genre to a greater or lesser extent. That includes science fiction.

 

[tinkerdan]

I'm not sure how you are using newness here and that gives you some wiggle room that's a bit uncomfortable.

I write something from my perspective that is new because I have a unique perspective.
You write something from your perspective it is new because it is unique to your perspective.

That has nothing to do with ideas.

Ideas are just setting and props and world-building. Yes they are important however they are not the real driving force behind good writing, in fact if you push them too hard they get in the way and ruin the story for the reader. The only way the idea becomes a story is when the idea becomes a character.

Sure there is a small margin of readers who like to pick at the science, technology, biology, chemistry and design; however they quickly lose interest when the writing is poor. When all the characters are flat and no one cares if they live or die and when all that is left(when they all die)is the science with nothing to support it--unless that science has become a relate-able character--the work sort-of dies.

That's the one thing ideas and your perspective of newness have in common--if you present it poorly then few readers will care.

This is the thing that has always bothered me about that buzzword High-concept. The only place the newness and idea make a difference is when you sell it to the agent or the publisher in your one sentence pitch. And even that doesn't call for newness of ideas; it just calls for the certain something that make your story different. And that often amounts to a different perspective often on a combination of accepted tropes. A lot of successful work out there is variation on themes.

Now that one sentence might give the agent a small window into what you could be capable of doing; however if you don't deliver by writing the story well then your high-concept no longer matters.

A new idea today won't be new next year--maybe even tomorrow.
Not everyone will read the first book with the new idea; however whichever book they read first will present a new idea to that reader.
If I hand a Jules Verne novel to someone young enough there is a high probability that something in there will be new to them. There is a probability that they won't see anything new in it or even in the latest fiction. I'm not sure measuring it has any value in the success of a story or novel.

By the end of the day the reviews still read.

It started out with a great idea and I was so excited; however it went nowhere the characters were one dimensional and the plot was all over the place, I stuck it out to the end because I figured with an idea like this they had something to say. Not so much, there were so many plot holes and the science behind the ideas was inscrutable(which might have worked if there were good characters and a solid plot), and that's too bad because all this story amounted to was a great idea driven into the ground and I don't think it would have made any difference if all the characters died.