Somewhere, there is loads of SF and Fantasy I have written.
My problem with writing SF is that I know what I want from science fiction, but find it very difficult to write it. The science fiction
When Robert A Heinlein writes "Starship Troopers" it's from the point of view a man who experienced the military during World War Two. When Isaac Asimov writes "Foundation" it's from a background in academic engineering and developing new ideas like psychohistory. When Arthur C Clarke writes of "Fountains of Paradise" it's from the point of view of the man who invented artificial satellites. These experiences are woven into the narratives and this gives a provenance to their work that modern authors don't have.
When Paul Anderson write "Tau Zero", he's working with the intricacies of relativity. When Larry Niven writes "Ring World" he's dealing with the possibilites inherent in a world with a surface area of 600000000000000 square miles. When Charles Sheffield writes "Proteus Unbound", he's looking at the ultimate outcomes available to genetic engineering. These authors are scientists and use this knowledge to to provide a convincing background or an intriguing pretence for their work.
Joe Haldeman's "Forever War" is allegory of his experiences in Vietnam, Anne McCafferey's "Ship Who Sang" is a beautiful love story written during her relationship with Bob Dylan. Mike Resnik's "Kirinyaga" deals with multiculturalism, racism and green politics. All three are powerful stories but still written within a framework of a readable science fiction novel.
Most modern SF is written by people who have read these works and as a result are often poor imitations. If pushed, I could easily write half a million words about some badly drawn characters in an intricately described future world, but I need to get out more. I don't want to be another poor imitator.
When I find things, I've written, they will appear here. Here's the first.
