The Key Ingredients to Sci-Fi(?)

[Dresdenus Prime]

I'm working on a Science Fiction novel right now, and I'm really enjoying it. But I'm not worrying so much abut the technicalities of what to include as of right now - this is just my first draft after all. However, once it's completed, I'm going to want to go back and fill in all that stuff, whether it be warp travel or laser fire or quantum polymer infusers.

So, to anyone who has written or read a lot of sci-fi work, what advice would you give? What makes a good sci-fi story (With the exception to character development, conflict and plot)

Something to consider when answering - I don't intend on this book being a hard sci-fi novel. It's first person perspective, and the main character is something of a rogue, sort of like Han Solo I guess. And the story will be set up very much like a detective/treasure hunting book, depening on which direction I take it.

Hopefully I've made sense, Thanks again everyone! 

[Shecky]

To me, good sci-fi has only one thing that separates it from a general good story: once the one truly sci-fi premise is accepted (a major writerly task in and of itself), the rest of the story must make sense together. The reader really shouldn't be asked to take too many things on faith, as that can strain the capacity for enjoyment.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Well for one thing, there are people who will wail and gnash their teeth on the preference for the terminology SF (being the stuff with ambitions to quality) over sci-fi (being cheap cheesy B-movies with monsters in rubber suits and no thought given to logical coherence.)

I'd second Shecky's point about having your world make logical sense as a consequence of whatever SFnal idea or ideas you are throwing in, though depending on what kind of SF you are doing, I'd not say limit it to only the one SFnal interjection.  Day-after-tomorrow thriller-type SF can work with only fairly minor consequences from whatever new thing you introduce, but if you're writing something massively far future (like Dune), plausibility kind of requires a lot of unfamiliar stuff.

Also, plot is not entirely independent of world-building.  An awful lot of classic 20th-century thriller plots totally break if you try to set them in a world where by default everyone has cellphones; the subgenres of mysteries and other novels that revolve around doubts as to people's paternity, whether the Mysteriously Reappeared person is actually the heir who was lost twenty years ago and so on, do not work in a world with DNA testing.  Think about whatever your fictional technology actually does, then think what other people might apply it for and how it might effect their lives  (Lots of people thought of cellphones or functional equivalents before they existed, but most fall short of the bar of Heinlein in the 1940s accurately figuring out the teenager "accidentally" leaving a cellphone at home in order not to be bugged by parents.) Indeed, character's also not independent of world-building - medieval monks or seventeenth-century samurai didn't think like us, and not will someone on another world.

My own approach is to start with making sure the physics make sense (adding in whatever exceptions you're playing with), layer the biology on top of that, then build a history and social conditions that works given those, fwiw.

[Paynesgrey]

I also suggest you rely on well developed, engaging characters, and that the main concept or premise of your conflict be not too dependent on the Science Gizmometrons.

IMOP:

Characters and a plot concept that would be engaging in any era.. tall ships or airships or spaceships, are key in making a good story.  Lois McMaster Bujold uses sci-fi elements in her world building, but the story isn't about the technology.  She could turn most of her stuff into a fantasy or historical setting with a wink of her eye and the stories would still be fantastic.

The tech is there to provide the characters tools, to provide flavor for the universe you create... I've seen too many books that had some neat tech, but sucked because I didn't give a popcorn fart about the characters, or because the plot was too contrived, too dependent on the Space Gizmos.

And keep in mind what Neuro said... remember that your tech will shape, or at least influence, culture and how people think.  Of course, different cultures will wrap their thinking around new tech in different ways...

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

  Think about whatever your fictional technology actually does, then think what other people might apply it for and how it might effect their lives

affect their lives, even. Brain, brain, who's got the brain ? *sigh*

[Dresdenus Prime]

As always thank you for all the input. To expand this discussion even further -

What do you think is an acceptable balance in science fiction in terms of realism vs fantasy?

I've been doing some general research as I've been writing, and a lot of technologies used in space like weapons and warp/FTL travel are being researched and discussed by scienctists and institutes today. Do you as a reader, or do you think readers in general, would be more impressed if a lot of technologies used in novels are based off reality? Or are people equally accepting of complete fantasy? I don't see people accepting my character saying, "Ensign acitvate the Slip Stream Equalizer!" if this term doesn't have any feasible definition.

At the same time the Fantasy part of Sci-Fi is one of the best parts, because it allows you to create new worlds, new species and economic and political structures, but even when doing that you have to be careful of not venturing too far out of realism correct? If my character lands on the uncharted planet of Gozimbob and the natives are there to greet him, it's going to really take the reader out of the story when the native speaks perfect english and says, "Yo! Welcome to our planet! Hands in the air like you don't care!"

So, did I make sense there? I have a terrible cold and quite poosibly a case of the Monday's (who says that?!). Is it better to have your Science Fiction more grounded in reality? Is it okay to lean more into Fantasy? Or is there a way to balance them equally?

[Shecky]

I know this is going to sound like an evasion, but... whatever way you feel best with is the right way. Readers often respond quite well to anything that is at least internally consistent (e.g., not suddenly having the warp drive also be a high-end home theater with no explanation whatsoever, much less one that is at odds with the world as portrayed up 'til then), so that's a powerful tool in your writer's box. Throw in a lot of non-contemporary, purely-imaginary things or only throw in one, it's fine as long as it all fits together without any left-over WTF making the reader stumble.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

What do you think is an acceptable balance in science fiction in terms of realism vs fantasy?

In general ?  Do whatever you like so long as you make it internally make sense.

I've been doing some general research as I've been writing, and a lot of technologies used in space like weapons and warp/FTL travel are being researched and discussed by scienctists and institutes today. Do you as a reader, or do you think readers in general, would be more impressed if a lot of technologies used in novels are based off reality?

Me as a reader, yes. I like seeing technologies where the bits based on reality are consistent with reality, and where the research shows if someone looks for it - not that you clout people over the head with it, but that if someone runs the numbers on, say, mass and speed and energy output of your spaceship's engine, they will add up. (This is the kind of thing the back of my head will do while reading if you give me clues in the text.)  I wouldn't phrase this in terms of realism and fantasy because I also like it when people do it in fantasy - or at least, if people are doing horses-and-swords in a reasonably grounded secondary world (as opposed to a setting overtly working on fairytale logic) I find it more enjoyable and convincing if they've visibly thought through how far a legion can march in a day and how much it takes to feed a horse.  The way I can only think of three examples of fantasy series where the logistics and economics definitely hold together if you prod them hard leads me to believe that many readers don't really need this.

Or are people equally accepting of complete fantasy? I don't see people accepting my character saying, "Ensign acitvate the Slip Stream Equalizer!" if this term doesn't have any feasible definition.

There are plenty of people who just want their fix of action, adventure, romance, and the colour of different suns, and will lump anything like that under "technobabble" whether it is real science or not.

I do not understand such readers.  Nor so far as i can tell does it do any harm to their experience and enjoyment of the book for you to get the science right.

At the same time the Fantasy part of Sci-Fi is one of the best parts, because it allows you to create new worlds, new species and economic and political structures, but even when doing that you have to be careful of not venturing too far out of realism correct?

I think we have enough understanding of physics for creating new worlds to be plausibly doable (or alternatively just wait another five or ten years and we should have enough extrasolar planetary systems mapped out to just pinch some real ones) and enough understanding of biological processes for figuring out plausible-ish new species, without them having to be truly fantastical.  (As witness TV shows like Alien Worlds or The Future is Wild that basically take a group of scientists, get them to do a bunch of plausible worldbuilding, and computer-animate the results in the style of a nature documentary.)  I'm regretfully coming to the conclusion that human beings in general are astoundingly bad at coming up with entirely new systems of political organisation, though.

If my character lands on the uncharted planet of Gozimbob and the natives are there to greet him, it's going to really take the reader out of the story when the native speaks perfect english and says, "Yo! Welcome to our planet! Hands in the air like you don't care!"

hrmm. How many light years away is the planet ?  Is it close enough that they could have picked up human transmissions back when humans were still doing more broadcast TV and less cable ? set  the conditions correctly, and that could totally work.

(The way my mind goes with that example would be for what the alien actually means by "Hands in the air like you don't care" is "Put your hands up or I'll burn your face off with this here hand-held plasma weapon, you vile alien scum", and miscommunication-related hilarity ensues.  But that may just be me, because almost every story idea I think of has "...and miscommunication-related hilarity ensues" in it.  Pity the poor aliens whose entire notion of Earth's culture derives from Men in Black.)