|
Hi everyone,
Although I am pursuing an advanced degree in Biotechnology, I always wanted to write some political commentary based on science fiction.
For years, I have been gathering ideas on how to develop this novel. So far, here's the storyboard of my novel:
There are 3 main races in this universe:
First is the humans (of course, we need the humans!)
Second is the advanced race called Ascendants. This race is actually the advanced cousin of the humans. Seeing that the humans could not keep up with the Ascendants, a small of group of sympathetic Ascendants wanted to transport the humans to Earth and give humans the environment to grow and develop as a species.
Third is the "Assimilators" (name to be changed, if necessary). The leader of this group is an exiled Ascendant who wants to "assimilate" everyone thru mechanical neural reprogramming to become as "perfect" as he is. There will be a backstory behind this rather extreme philosophy. Basically, this character mirrors the Napoleon complex but with a more sentimental touch.
---
After much self-deliberation, I have decided to have two protagonists.
The first one is a half-human and half-ascendant. His name for now is Jason. His political philosophy is human liberty (kind of like the 13 colonies during the Revolutionary War). This character is a mixture of variety superhero archetypes such as Batman, who faces human limitations and Superman, who always choose the more noble yet difficult path of humanity. He appreciates how human freedom can enrich human lives by allowing them to experience all kinds of stuff. (After doing some research, I have decided that Thomas Jefferson is actually a poor and rather boring person to be used as source material).
The second one is Jason's half-sister sister named Selyndis (sounds like Selendis from Starcraft, but it's really hard to find a female name that sounds beautiful yet powerful!). She is an Ascendant who has achieved the greatest potential of psionics (no, it's not just a Blizzard term, go wikipedia it!). Her political philosophy is that superior beings like she must "teach" humanity to becoming a more advanced species. She will represent Alexander Hamilton's political distrust of the human populace and belief that a strong leader must guide the public towards greater efficiency.
---
So, what's the setting?
This novel will definitely take place during the distant future. At the moment, humans have finally declared their independence from the Ascendant's occupation. Despite the technological inferiority and physiological disadvantage, humans had a powerful Ascendant ally, who is the Father of the two protagonists.
Unfortunately, for the Ascendants, the war against Humanity was extremely costly and began to lose against the decades long war against the Assimilators. As a result, the Ascendants have lost their capital, and only pockets of survivors are scattered across the galaxy. (Kind of like how Britain were losing its rivalry against the French after the Revolutionary War and indirectly leading to Napoleon's domination in Europe.)
So, the Father is now assumed to be deceased, and now the children have different interpretations of his Last Will for Humanity. Because of the grave political differences, the two protagonists are mortal enemies and will take any measure (including a Duel to the Death) to prove the correctness of their political philosophy.
---
What Style I am Going to Take
The setting I have mentioned is on the present day (I don't mean today). However, I will put some past back stories like many other popular novels have done to explain how each character has developed their philosophies. Also, there will be some mention of the Father and the leader of Assimilators. The leader of the Assimilator will have a defined background. Although I, at first, wanted to talk more about the Father, I have decided to write more about his actions and less on his mentality. The trick is that the Father is kind of like George Washington. He is a role model that people look up to without fully understanding his life or background. We will see his political philosophy, but we won't see much of the origins of that belief.
---
Themes
Like any other science fiction novels, themes are presented as commentary for human society. For this story, here's the list:
1) The Dangers and Absurdity of Political Intolerance/Obsession/Punditry
2) The Influence of Family and Personal Experience on Political Philosophy
3) Fulfilling Personal Potential
4) The Use of Power
5) The Gray Lines
(And many more...)
---
The Plan
I will start writing my novel on this blog. Sure, Facebook has notes, and there are other blogging websites. First of all, I don't want to bother my friends' Newsfeeds with my long ass notes. Second, I would like some feedback on my story writing. Although my ideas seem "great", my writing is not that fantastic, which is why I need some critiques on my writing. I trust the Team Liquid community to be civil and intelligent enough (if you look hard enough, you will see several diamonds in the rough) to give me meaningful comments.
Thanks for reading my blog post! 
I will write my novel on this blog and hope for the best! :D
 
|
On June 13 2014 15:41 hansonslee wrote:
1) The Dangers and Absurdity of Political Intolerance/Obsession/Punditry
What does this mean?
|
Second is the advanced race called Ascendants. This race is actually the advanced cousin of the humans. Seeing that the humans could not keep up with the Ascendants, a small of group of sympathetic Ascendants wanted to transport the humans to Earth and give humans the environment to grow and develop as a species.
Reminds me of that movie with the lad crashing on earth during the Viking era.
|
Hmmm. Okay, a couple questions and pieces of advice...
1. Do you have any conception of a plot? There comes a time when one has to stop thinking in terms of world-building and begin conceptualizing in terms of the "novel-unit." As in, conceptualize a clear beginning, middle, and end. Conceptualize about how long you want your book to be (compared to the genre).
2. I don't recommend writing your novel in terms of themes. You need to focus on getting down and dirty with the mechanics of writing a good STORY; the themes you want to express will still be there through the pages of the story itself. Choosing to write about these themes in a heavy-handed fashion will result in your characters being nothing more than Mayan mouthpieces for your commentary. And that's not good.
Now I understand you want to write some political commentary. But if you ignore the other essentials of writing a good story, you might just be better off writing a political commentary rather than a novel.
3. If you want my honest to goodness best suggestion, it is this. To come up with a second blog in which you outline the key points of your plot. And get down and dirty with plotting out a story from beginning to middle to end. It doesn't have to be in any particular form - you can use the 3 ACT structure or w/e you feel like. The point is to conceptualize the story as a unit and have a clear direction to prevent your writing and characters from meandering.
Now, I know that every writer has a different method they prefer. But how can you know whether "SOTP" (seat of the pants'ing) or outlining is best for you? You have to try them both. Most writers end up with pieces of both and sit somewhere in-between.
The reason why I offer this suggestion? Several assumptions, and some key words on your part. "For years, I have been gathering ideas for this novel." That's the key. Everyone does this, when they start out. EVERYONE, has the novel they world-build for years and years, promising furtively to write some glorious day in the future. And that's awesome.
But (being a huge world-building nerd myself) one thing we tend to neglect in this world-building are story-writing mechanics. And as a writer there is nothing more key than constructing the scaffolding needed to write a novel cleanly and efficiently. And that means translating everything to terms of plot, character motivations, scenes and sequels, etc. So there are a couple things I think you should consider before beginning (again, this is just advice - you asked for it, lol ^^).
A. What genre are you writing in? What is the average word-length of novels in this genre? Can you visualize how long you want your novel to be?
B. Is your story a standalone? Do you intend it to have sequels? Try to conceptualize where each sequel will go so that you have a clear idea of each book. This doesn't have to take more than twenty minutes.
C. This is just advice offered because you may not have written much fiction before, but - TRY outlining the plot of this first book as a self-contained unit so that you at the very least have a clear beginning, middle, and end.
D. For your characters - try to think of them as more than political mouthpieces. They really are more. I know you want to have themes - but the best themes are those which reveal themselves gradually (if at all) and not those shouted from the lungs of a Mayan mouthpiece.
Ask yourself - what are your characters wants, needs, and motivations? Think about what a character might want or need in a world - were there no plot to occupy their time. Don't just let a character's motivation be "liberty" or "freedom" or "educating the ignorant." Characters that are motivated by only a single guiding factor are VERY rare, and are usually very dull. Come up with a laundry list, if you want to. Just try to visualize different strings pulling your character in different directions - resisting the tug of the overbearing plot.
E. I do not recommend writing your story solely on this blog. At the very least, write it in word documents and transfer "chunks" to the blog as you go. If you're interested, there is a great piece of software called "yWriter" which makes writing a story very easy to manage (and much more satisfying as a result!).
F. Differentiate between writing and editing. Ofc, you'll learn to do this after you start writing. But when you're getting your hands dirty the last thing you want to focus on are the peculiarities of prose. That comes later. If you want me to give you advice it will be in much more abstract terms - what is the scene? What is the sequel? What are his/her motivations? Where is the conflict?
G. That reminds me. Conflict - no matter how big or how small, how trivial or important - is the essence of what makes your plot and characters tick. What makes them change. So whenever you get in a bind, ask yourself - where is the conflict?
|
On June 14 2014 02:15 Qwyn wrote:
Hmmm. Okay, a couple questions and pieces of advice...
1. Do you have any conception of a plot? There comes a time when one has to stop thinking in terms of world-building and begin conceptualizing in terms of the "novel-unit." As in, conceptualize a clear beginning, middle, and end. Conceptualize about how long you want your book to be (compared to the genre).
2. I don't recommend writing your novel in terms of themes. You need to focus on getting down and dirty with the mechanics of writing a good STORY; the themes you want to express will still be there through the pages of the story itself. Choosing to write about these themes in a heavy-handed fashion will result in your characters being nothing more than Mayan mouthpieces for your commentary. And that's not good.
Now I understand you want to write some political commentary. But if you ignore the other essentials of writing a good story, you might just be better off writing a political commentary rather than a novel.
3. If you want my honest to goodness best suggestion, it is this. To come up with a second blog in which you outline the key points of your plot. And get down and dirty with plotting out a story from beginning to middle to end. It doesn't have to be in any particular form - you can use the 3 ACT structure or w/e you feel like. The point is to conceptualize the story as a unit and have a clear direction to prevent your writing and characters from meandering.
Now, I know that every writer has a different method they prefer. But how can you know whether "SOTP" (seat of the pants'ing) or outlining is best for you? You have to try them both. Most writers end up with pieces of both and sit somewhere in-between.
The reason why I offer this suggestion? Several assumptions, and some key words on your part. "For years, I have been gathering ideas for this novel." That's the key. Everyone does this, when they start out. EVERYONE, has the novel they world-build for years and years, promising furtively to write some glorious day in the future. And that's awesome.
But (being a huge world-building nerd myself) one thing we tend to neglect in this world-building are story-writing mechanics. And as a writer there is nothing more key than constructing the scaffolding needed to write a novel cleanly and efficiently. And that means translating everything to terms of plot, character motivations, scenes and sequels, etc. So there are a couple things I think you should consider before beginning (again, this is just advice - you asked for it, lol ^^).
A. What genre are you writing in? What is the average word-length of novels in this genre? Can you visualize how long you want your novel to be?
B. Is your story a standalone? Do you intend it to have sequels? Try to conceptualize where each sequel will go so that you have a clear idea of each book. This doesn't have to take more than twenty minutes.
C. This is just advice offered because you may not have written much fiction before, but - TRY outlining the plot of this first book as a self-contained unit so that you at the very least have a clear beginning, middle, and end.
D. For your characters - try to think of them as more than political mouthpieces. They really are more. I know you want to have themes - but the best themes are those which reveal themselves gradually (if at all) and not those shouted from the lungs of a Mayan mouthpiece.
Ask yourself - what are your characters wants, needs, and motivations? Think about what a character might want or need in a world - were there no plot to occupy their time. Don't just let a character's motivation be "liberty" or "freedom" or "educating the ignorant." Characters that are motivated by only a single guiding factor are VERY rare, and are usually very dull. Come up with a laundry list, if you want to. Just try to visualize different strings pulling your character in different directions - resisting the tug of the overbearing plot.
E. I do not recommend writing your story solely on this blog. At the very least, write it in word documents and transfer "chunks" to the blog as you go. If you're interested, there is a great piece of software called "yWriter" which makes writing a story very easy to manage (and much more satisfying as a result!).
F. Differentiate between writing and editing. Ofc, you'll learn to do this after you start writing. But when you're getting your hands dirty the last thing you want to focus on are the peculiarities of prose. That comes later. If you want me to give you advice it will be in much more abstract terms - what is the scene? What is the sequel? What are his/her motivations? Where is the conflict?
G. That reminds me. Conflict - no matter how big or how small, how trivial or important - is the essence of what makes your plot and characters tick. What makes them change. So whenever you get in a bind, ask yourself - where is the conflict?
Thanks the awesome feedback and advice. Is it all right for me to PM if I have any more questions? :D
|
United States24801 Posts
I'll share my personal thoughts on the 'races.'On June 13 2014 15:41 hansonslee wrote:
There are 3 main races in this universe:
First is the humans (of course, we need the humans!)
Second is the advanced race called Ascendants. This race is actually the advanced cousin of the humans. Seeing that the humans could not keep up with the Ascendants, a small of group of sympathetic Ascendants wanted to transport the humans to Earth and give humans the environment to grow and develop as a species. Are we so far behind them genetically, or just culturally? At what stage in human development were humans brought to Earth? Does it contradict our fossil records IRL? If yes, are you okay with that?
Third is the "Assimilators" (name to be changed, if necessary). The leader of this group is an exiled Ascendant who wants to "assimilate" everyone thru mechanical neural reprogramming to become as "perfect" as he is. There will be a backstory behind this rather extreme philosophy. Basically, this character mirrors the Napoleon complex but with a more sentimental touch.
You seem to be describing the Borg, from Star Trek (they are even famous for saying "you will be assimilated). What are the differences between the Assimilators and the Borg?
|
You sure hit the jackpot with that post from Qwyn :O.
As far as themes are concerned, I would be extremely careful about how you depict the races. The Nietzschean idea of the 'super man' is basically central to such a setting, which can lead to certain untenable (real world) political philosophies. It also seems to echo the idea of a political, economic and cultural 'overclass'.
The fact that you do not explicitly mention these themes as deliberate is a concern. It also echoes Qwyns advice about the characters and the setting driving the themes, as opposed to vise versa.
|
On June 14 2014 06:27 micronesia wrote:I'll share my personal thoughts on the 'races.' Show nested quote +On June 13 2014 15:41 hansonslee wrote:
There are 3 main races in this universe:
First is the humans (of course, we need the humans!)
Second is the advanced race called Ascendants. This race is actually the advanced cousin of the humans. Seeing that the humans could not keep up with the Ascendants, a small of group of sympathetic Ascendants wanted to transport the humans to Earth and give humans the environment to grow and develop as a species. Are we so far behind them genetically, or just culturally? At what stage in human development were humans brought to Earth? Does it contradict our fossil records IRL? If yes, are you okay with that? Show nested quote +Third is the "Assimilators" (name to be changed, if necessary). The leader of this group is an exiled Ascendant who wants to "assimilate" everyone thru mechanical neural reprogramming to become as "perfect" as he is. There will be a backstory behind this rather extreme philosophy. Basically, this character mirrors the Napoleon complex but with a more sentimental touch. You seem to be describing the Borg, from Star Trek (they are even famous for saying "you will be assimilated). What are the differences between the Assimilators and the Borg?
About your first thought, I have definitely realized that I have to be a bit more careful with that. I have decided that these humans were during their primitive state. That way it does not contradict the common theory of the human evolution. However, I might need to do some more research on primitive humans to make the exodus seem as authentic as possible.
As for the Ascendants, they are genetically more advanced than humans are because they are gifted with psionics that grant them greater intelligence and physiological prowess.
About the Borg, believe it or not, the similarity between my idea of Assimilators and the Borg is actually coincidence. I actually wanted a Zergy-like (or Halo's Flood) race, because those kind of races usually bring a lot of good plot points to work with. However, instead of using biological assimilation, I was thinking about Brainiac and thought about using technology to "assimilate" other beings.
To answer your question about the Borg, as of now, the Assimilators as a race is very similar to the Borg, unless I come up with something more creative/original. However, the leader of the Assimilators and Queen Borg are completely different concepts.
The leader of the Assimilator is actually an Ascendant who was the Father's best protege. During that time, the Father had high expectations for him and demanded nothing short of perfection. The leader later became obsessed with perfection and efficiency and has lead his army countless victories, due to his well-calculated tactics and execution. However, when the Ascendant government had a political gridlock during a major conflict, the army he commanded could not act as coherently and suffered major losses with the leader being the sole survivor of the conflict.
The leader constantly witnessed how even advanced being like the Ascendants engaged in disagreements and could not make decisive decisions at the right moment. Valuing efficiency above all else, he wanted to stage a coup to overthrow the government. However, the Father stopped him. Despite calls for the leader's execution, the Father has decided to exile in an abandoned scrap yard, stating that the place is fitting for a heartless machine with trashy morals like the leader.
However, the leader, trained as a survivalist and gifted as a technological genius, devised ways to technologically assimilate other beings (kind of like how Borg operates). That's how the Assimilators were born. Because of his hatred against the Ascendants, he has waged a long war against the Ascendants. At best, the war was a stalemate, until the humans have waged a war of independence against the Ascendants.
The Assimilator are a major plot point highlighting that common motif of freedom vs security and the massive responsibility that the protagonists have to take as future guardians against the threat.
On June 14 2014 12:35 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:
You sure hit the jackpot with that post from Qwyn :O.
As far as themes are concerned, I would be extremely careful about how you depict the races. The Nietzschean idea of the 'super man' is basically central to such a setting, which can lead to certain untenable (real world) political philosophies. It also seems to echo the idea of a political, economic and cultural 'overclass'.
The fact that you do not explicitly mention these themes as deliberate is a concern. It also echoes Qwyns advice about the characters and the setting driving the themes, as opposed to vise versa.
The main antagonist definitely represents the "ubermensch" to some degree. The sister protagonist is more of an "elitist" and wants the humans to be as advanced as possible but through meritocracy and other forms of regulations. In the realm of politics, meritocracy does not dictate who gets elected but by popular support. Like Alexander Hamilton, she distrusts popular opinion and believes that those with the brains and experience should take government positions, kind of like how the Ascendant's political system (or in historical terms, ancient Asian political structure). Also, she wants to regulate the political media/press to have an "efficient flow of information". She does not want absolute power or dictatorship, like the antagonist does, but she believes that mild forms of political restrictions are necessary to keep the human race going.
|
hmm, from my perspective the races seem rather poorly defined. Are the Ascendants actually a different species, like humans to chimps, or are they just humans with magical powers?
You need to decide if you are writing 'hard science' fiction (star trek), or 'science fantasy' fiction (star wars).
As it seems to me you are favoring the fantasy element, i would suggest not to set it on earth, but some distant galaxy, were you have more space to construct the rules of the world while avoiding any pesky logical inconsistencies.
However, if you want to subvert your own concept, you can set it on earth many generations after a techno-apocalypse (nukes/energy weapons/EMP's, vast majority of infrastructure and technology destroyed), where the 'overclass' managed to evacuate Earth to off-world colonies.
They then return and attempt to re-civilize earth. However, due to the initial devastation and the long passage of time, the Earth humans are considerably weakened genetically (with rare though significant exceptions), while the Colonists are more or less well preserved.
The Colonist social structure is by necessity authoritarian. Due to limited population and real estate/resources, strict rules would govern all aspects of life, especially reproduction. This social structure, as well as advanced technology would allow the Colonist leadership to set themselves up on Earth as aliens/gods.
Once you have this kind of setting, the plot basically writes itself. The easiest and most effective way is to make it a love story a la dances with wolves.
As this is (i assume) your first serious attempt at writing, nice and simple is the best way to find and hone your style and get a feel for all sorts of storytelling mechanics.
|
i think that setting out to, or intending to, or thinking about writing something specifically as "political commentary" makes a story usually uninteresting (to me).
first, and foremost, i think, when writing a story should be the story.
idk i have trouble reconciling with metaphor too, it might just be me
im not sure how world-building works, because i dont write science fiction or fantasy, and hardly read science fiction or fantasy, but i think that for most people, especially beginning writers, that just writing is a lot more useful than thinking of these conceptual things etc. because in the end, like someone above pointed out, everyone has a novel that they are writing or want to write or have the idea of etc. and what sets apart the people who write from the people who don't is that the people who write write, and the people who don't don't.
|
On June 14 2014 04:35 hansonslee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2014 02:15 Qwyn wrote:
Hmmm. Okay, a couple questions and pieces of advice...
1. Do you have any conception of a plot? There comes a time when one has to stop thinking in terms of world-building and begin conceptualizing in terms of the "novel-unit." As in, conceptualize a clear beginning, middle, and end. Conceptualize about how long you want your book to be (compared to the genre).
2. I don't recommend writing your novel in terms of themes. You need to focus on getting down and dirty with the mechanics of writing a good STORY; the themes you want to express will still be there through the pages of the story itself. Choosing to write about these themes in a heavy-handed fashion will result in your characters being nothing more than Mayan mouthpieces for your commentary. And that's not good.
Now I understand you want to write some political commentary. But if you ignore the other essentials of writing a good story, you might just be better off writing a political commentary rather than a novel.
3. If you want my honest to goodness best suggestion, it is this. To come up with a second blog in which you outline the key points of your plot. And get down and dirty with plotting out a story from beginning to middle to end. It doesn't have to be in any particular form - you can use the 3 ACT structure or w/e you feel like. The point is to conceptualize the story as a unit and have a clear direction to prevent your writing and characters from meandering.
Now, I know that every writer has a different method they prefer. But how can you know whether "SOTP" (seat of the pants'ing) or outlining is best for you? You have to try them both. Most writers end up with pieces of both and sit somewhere in-between.
The reason why I offer this suggestion? Several assumptions, and some key words on your part. "For years, I have been gathering ideas for this novel." That's the key. Everyone does this, when they start out. EVERYONE, has the novel they world-build for years and years, promising furtively to write some glorious day in the future. And that's awesome.
But (being a huge world-building nerd myself) one thing we tend to neglect in this world-building are story-writing mechanics. And as a writer there is nothing more key than constructing the scaffolding needed to write a novel cleanly and efficiently. And that means translating everything to terms of plot, character motivations, scenes and sequels, etc. So there are a couple things I think you should consider before beginning (again, this is just advice - you asked for it, lol ^^).
A. What genre are you writing in? What is the average word-length of novels in this genre? Can you visualize how long you want your novel to be?
B. Is your story a standalone? Do you intend it to have sequels? Try to conceptualize where each sequel will go so that you have a clear idea of each book. This doesn't have to take more than twenty minutes.
C. This is just advice offered because you may not have written much fiction before, but - TRY outlining the plot of this first book as a self-contained unit so that you at the very least have a clear beginning, middle, and end.
D. For your characters - try to think of them as more than political mouthpieces. They really are more. I know you want to have themes - but the best themes are those which reveal themselves gradually (if at all) and not those shouted from the lungs of a Mayan mouthpiece.
Ask yourself - what are your characters wants, needs, and motivations? Think about what a character might want or need in a world - were there no plot to occupy their time. Don't just let a character's motivation be "liberty" or "freedom" or "educating the ignorant." Characters that are motivated by only a single guiding factor are VERY rare, and are usually very dull. Come up with a laundry list, if you want to. Just try to visualize different strings pulling your character in different directions - resisting the tug of the overbearing plot.
E. I do not recommend writing your story solely on this blog. At the very least, write it in word documents and transfer "chunks" to the blog as you go. If you're interested, there is a great piece of software called "yWriter" which makes writing a story very easy to manage (and much more satisfying as a result!).
F. Differentiate between writing and editing. Ofc, you'll learn to do this after you start writing. But when you're getting your hands dirty the last thing you want to focus on are the peculiarities of prose. That comes later. If you want me to give you advice it will be in much more abstract terms - what is the scene? What is the sequel? What are his/her motivations? Where is the conflict?
G. That reminds me. Conflict - no matter how big or how small, how trivial or important - is the essence of what makes your plot and characters tick. What makes them change. So whenever you get in a bind, ask yourself - where is the conflict?
Thanks the awesome feedback and advice. Is it all right for me to PM if I have any more questions? :D
Yeah sure, you can PM me! I don't hop on TL that often anymore so it may be awhile, best to submit questions or concerns on bulk. Bulk is the way of the game, not little snippets. You'll be able to track your own progress better that way.
There is a wonderful podcast called Writing Excuses which I listen to often; you might let this become your companion xO. They don't write sci-fi per se, but they do give a lot of wonderful advice when it comes to the craft of writing stories! And that's key - focusing on and nailing the "mechanics" of writing a good piece of fiction.
Have fun man, I love reading about people who are starting their writing journeys.
There's also a certain writer by the name of Zealously who just finished his own book ^^. You might ask him questions as well! I'm sure he'd love to answer when he has the time.
|
On June 14 2014 16:54 AiurZ wrote:
everyone has a novel that they are writing or want to write or have the idea of etc. and what sets apart the people who write from the people who don't is that the people who write write, and the people who don't don't.
I have the opposite problem, I'm a good writer and I enjoy writing but I have no ideas about what to write, I'm not very creative..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
