A wonderful piece on writing science fiction and fantasy by Charlie Jane Anders at iO9!
10 Writing "Rules" We Wish More Science Fiction and Fantasy Authors Would Break
Science fiction and fantasy are genres where almost anything can happen — as long as the author can make it seem plausible, and as long as it's part of a good story. But that doesn't mean there are no rules. If anything, the fact that these genres are so wide open mean that there are tons of rules out there, some unspoken and some written in black and white.
And sometimes, breaking the rules is the only way to tell a really fascinating story. Here are 10 rules of SF and fantasy that more authors should consider breaking from time to time.
Note: We're not saying you must break any of the rules below. You can craft a brilliant work of fiction while still following all of the rules below. And most of these rules exist for a reason — because if you break them without knowing what you're doing, you can screw up horrendously. Some of the rules below represent things that may have been done to death in the past, so it's best to make sure you have a fresh spin. But at the same time, too many rules can be a creativity-killer, and sometimes it's good to bust out some illegal moves.
1) No third-person omniscient.
Third-person omniscient used to be the default mode for a lot of novelists — a lot of the classics of literary fiction as well as science fiction are written in third person omniscient. This means, in a nutshell, that the narrator can see what's going through any character's head, and can flit around as the story requires. But in recent years, fiction writers have opted for first person or limited third — in which only one person at a time gets to be a viewpoint character. The thing is, though, when you have tight third person with multiple viewpoint characters, it often feels like an omniscient narrator who's choosing to play games.
And actual third-person omniscient can be fantastic — you need look no further than Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which freely lets you know what Arthur Dent, Ford Prefect and assorted other characters are thinking at any given moment. Or countless classic SF writers, for that matter. But I also want to put in a plea: anyone who's serious about writing genre fiction should read Henry Fielding, who makes third-person omniscient into an art form. In novels like Joseph Andrews and Tom Jones, Fielding draws these brilliant tableaux where he pauses to show what everyone's thinking, and how much at cross-purposes everyone is. It helps him be a keen observer of people, and also creates these beautifully funny set pieces.
2) No prologues
This is one I've been hearing for years — some agents and editors say they stop reading immediately if they see that a book has a prologue. But prologues have their uses, especially if you want to set a mood or establish some crucial backstory before you start introducing your main characters. Like most of the other things on this list, prologues can be done well, or they can be done horrendously. Luckily, we don't have to reach far to think of an example of prologues done well — George R.R. Martin starts every one of theSong of Ice and Fire books with one, and it's clear why these prologues are there. They help set up the conflicts of each book, via the experiences of a throw-away character. (Literally, in fact.)
3) Avoid infodumps
Like its cousin, "show don't tell," this injunction can be a great idea but can also get you into trouble. Sometimes an infodump can be a horrendous load of backstory or technical schematics, rammed down your poor reader's throat. But at other times, authors can go to huge, insane lengths to avoid having to come out and explain something. Like having contrived conversations, or weird "teachable moments" to convey a basic bit of worldbuilding to the reader, with the effect that the story grinds to a halt. We posted a collection of 20 well-done infodumpsa while back, just to prove it can be done well. Perdido Street Station art by Les Daniels.
And you may have noticed that whenever literary writers tackle science fiction or fantasy, they include tons of infodumps? Maybe this is one of those instances where they're not as familiar with the genre conventions, and thus fall into habits that many "real" SF and fantasy authors would avoid — but in this instance, they may just be right. Sometimes you just have to explain something, as painlessly as you can.
4) Fantasy novels have to be series instead of standalones
We love a good epic trilogy (or decalogy) as much as the next fantasy addict. But sometimes a nice done-in-one story is also exceedingly welcome. And this is one area where science fiction seems to have a slight advantage over fantasy — both genres have tons of sprawling series, but science fiction at least sometimes spawns one-off novels. And there's something to be said for getting a satisfying story in one volume, without a cliffhanger or any loose ends afterwards. And sometimes, characters can actually be developed more fully if the author doesn't have to hold anything back for future books. A character who gets a full arc in one book can be a richer character.
5) No portal fantasy
The "portal fantasy" is a mainstay in both science fiction and fantasy, even though it's mostly used in the latter. (You could argue that Hitchhiker's Guide is a "portal fantasy.") In this type of book, someone from our world discovers a pathway to another world, where he or she is our relatable everyhuman explorer, and we discover this new world through his or her eyes. It's a tried and true notion, and Lev Grossman gets a lot of mileage out of it in The Magicians — both Brakebills and Fillory, in different ways, are strange worlds that Quentin visits from the "real" world, and there's a lot of portaling. But we've heard many people say that "portal fantasy" is over, and so is the neophyte who learns about the magical world over the course of a book. Now, everybody wants stories where the main character is already steeped in the magical (or science-fictional) world as the story begins.
But as we argued a while back, there's still a lot of awesomeness lurking in the concept of an ordinary person traveling to a strange world. There are so many ways to tell that story, and so many metaphors buried in the notion of someone being thrust into a weird new world. Isn't that what we all do when we start exploring genre fiction? I think to some extent, this is something that die-hard genre fans have seen too much of, but these sorts of stories could still have a lot of appeal to mainstream and newbie readers.
6) No FTL
Yes, our current understanding of physics tends to frown upon faster-than-light space travel — no matter what a few weird neutrinos may or may not have done. And there's definitely a place for totally rigid, scientifically plausible fiction in which the very real difficulties of exploring our own solar system are explored. But then again, there's something undeniably awesome about being able to jump to hyperspace, or warp speed, or whatever. And maybe a little bit less realism is needed sometimes, to amp up the excitement of space travel. Most of us grew up on big, bold space operas in which interstellar travel was unrealistically, thrillingly fast — and that's still the portrayal of space that resonates with many people. Plus, FTL makes all sorts of other stuff possible, including space warfare and lots more first contact.
7) Women can't write "hard" science fiction.
This is one "rule" that most people are at least sensible enough never to say out loud — but it often seems as though "hard SF" refers to novels and stories written by mostly white dudes. And women often seem to be shunted more into soft science fiction or fantasy. And then you get these discussions where peopledebate whether a particular woman author really counts as "hard science fiction." To some extent, this comes from preconceptions about the types of people who read hard SF, and that indirectly influences expectations about who's going to be writing in that genre. But especially once you broaden your sciences to include biology or computer science, you start finding lots and lots of hard SF written by woman authors.
8) Magic has to be just a minor part of a fantasy world
This is one I've heard a lot lately — probably because of the success of George R.R. Martin's novels, in which magic starts out as a quiet rumor at the fringes of Westeros, something most people don't really believe in. It's only once you get to the later books that magic really starts to become something that most of the characters are aware of. And this is an absolutely brilliant approach to fantasy writing, and a breath of fresh air — but it's not the way all fantasy novels should be written from here on out. There shouldn't be a law saying that magic should be kept to the margins of a fantasy world, any more than you'd say a space opera shouldn't have too many spaceships. Magic should be limited, sure — but it can have limits and still be central to the characters' worlds.
9) No present tense
At least, I've heard some people say this is a big no-no. It can be a bit disconcerting when the narrator is telling you about stuff as though it's happening now. But present tense can also really work to make the story feel more immediate. And it can feel more arty, since a lot of vaguely literary writing is in the present tense. But also, if you want to see present tense working to create a dark, intense mood, check out Richard Kadrey's Sandman Slim novels. Image by The Green Giant.
10) No "unsympathetic" characters
It's certainly true that if you're going to have a main character who's a total bastard, you're going to have work harder to win over the reader — a likable character is just obviously easier for readers to get on board with. But at the same time, feeling constrained to make your protagonist — or all your major characters — as sympathetic as possible can put a straitjacket on your writing. You're stuck trying to create characters who will seem sympathetic to all your readers, no matter what cultural context or attitudes they bring to the story. And you're putting severe limits on what sort of actions your characters can take. The bottom line is that "sympathetic" isn't the same thing as "compelling" — a character can be unsympathetic but utterly fascinating and spellbinding. Like a lot of the things on this list, this is all in the execution — if you're going to go with a protagonist who's fundamentally unsympathetic or unrelatable, you're going to have to do an amazing job of making the reader care about him or her in spite of everything. Steel Remains art by Vincent Chong, via Pat's Fantasy Hotlist.