Stylus at Dawn

                 I have been challenged! To write something, rather than an event as dramatic or enthralling as a duel, I should explain. I have been charged with writing a piece which is a scientifiction and demonstrates character growth or change within five thousand words. Some would argue that I could use five pictures, using a certain equation most are familiar with, but I have neither the talent nor the patience to hone it for that to be a viable choice. I am about six hundred words in, due to time constraints rather than lack of ideas (fortuitously) but I am not worried that the deadline of a week will pass to find me in failure.

                Now, I used a word in that paragraph that some people (and Microsoft Word) would say isn’t real, or perhaps that it is a misspelling. ‘Scientifiction’ is that word (I hope, or my editing skills need more work than I thought) and it is quite an old fashioned one. I suspect a large number of literacists (an actually made up word, a spoonerism of ‘literary artists’) might not be familiar with it. It is an interesting term that is used to describe a sub-section of the science-fiction genre. In my mind the great, bloated and vast genre encompasses a huge amount of writing and a similarly pronounced potential for the exploration of ideas in the future and because it is so big can sometimes lose meaning. To give an example; Alien, Man of Steel and The Time Machine are all science fiction but differ quite substantially in content. As with most works of fiction these fall into several categories, and as with most science fiction pieces that particular descriptor is unfortunately lacking in descriptive detail. This is why I use the term scientifiction.

                Scientifiction is another spoonerism, borrowed from a university lecturer in my first year of study, for ‘scientific fiction’. This is now a sub-genre of science-fiction, but was probably the original genre before fantasy and science fiction started overlapping to the stage of being close to indistinguishable in some areas. It describes a piece or story that is based around the idea of fictional science, and explores it. Sometimes very little else happens in the story – Flowers for Algernon is one of my favourite examples of this. It is a really touching story of the romance between two individuals, one of whom is a scientist and the other a (willing) test subject. I highly recommend it, and it is only a short story, and it is a good example of scientifiction. It explores the effects of a new (and entirely fictional) scientific discovery on the two main characters and how they react to it.

                How is this different from other science fiction – or indeed, other fiction in general? Firstly the story is about mostly character reaction to the discovery and their responses to each other’s reaction. Usually there is a more interactive element in stories that are so character driven, but the focus in Flowers is overwhelmingly how the discovery affects the characters. This is not to say there is no interactive elements – there definitely are – but the science is central to everything that happens. This focus drives the piece forward, which is a strength, but at the same time because there is an intensity to this central element stories tend to be shorter as it is harder to maintain that diamond-edged concentration on a single subject through an entire novel. I’m not saying it can’t be done, I’m just pointing out it is difficult. 

                Yes, other genres have a similar, concentrated focal point. Gothic horror is an example with many stories that keep the reader tightly bound on a single subject. One of my favourite stories of this genre is The Red Room by (author) which I read during my GCSEs (middle school finals). I remember reading it in class and feeling almost claustrophobic, like there was a pressure pulling on me as I lived through the narrator’s horror. It was my first foray into what a friend of mine calls entrapment-horror and for all the reasons he hates it, I love it; the feeling of inescapable, inevitable doom good Gothic and/or horror stories induce is a thrilling feeling for me, although I appreciate that in the same way not everybody enjoys skydiving this emotional state is not everybody’s idea of an enjoyable reading reaction.

                Returning to my point – I am aware that my writing (and my conversation) can be haunted by tangents – scientifiction looks at imaginary science. If you are familiar with the Star Trek series, you will know they have the ability to travel at ‘warp speeds’. The science behind this faster-than-light travel is often alluded to but as something everybody is familiar with, and it is never really explained in any detail. This is, obviously, partly due to the fact we don’t know how to travel faster than light so explaining such is pretty close to impossible. If the show had a scientifiction grounding, however, conversations about the process would be more common place. They would probably involve a lot of jargon or ideas that sound legitimate but are actually improbable at best as scientific theories. 

For example, a new element – Kirkium, for the sake of an example – could be invented (read: discovered on Jupiter) that reacted in a particular way with something like lead which is cheap, common and plentiful to create a clean form of energy that was easily convertible into electricity (as that is the most common and accepted form of energy we use currently) in vast amounts. Then, on one of Jupiter’s moons (probably Titan) another element is discovered which is super dense yet easily forms alloys with more common metals in small amounts, making a super-strong molecular compound that can resist every pressure it is put under and doesn’t become brittle at absolute zero temperature. This is how starships are powered and can be flung through the void at faster than light speeds without smooshing them into a small lump of variously composed mush.

The above scenario is possible, although improbable and very difficult to substantiate at the present time. However, because it is possible and potentially plausible people are more willing to accept it - or suspend their disbelief – because the result is both brilliant and believable as a theoretical concept: If we could produce enough electricity and if we had a sufficiently structurally-sound construction material then the result is possible. This is the conceit we are willing to accept, and science fiction expands slightly on what those ifs are. Scientifiction explores the discovery and application of those ifs, which is the difference.

Now, I appreciate that might not sound like the exciting, rip-roaring adrenaline ride that some people look for in literature and nor is it the emotionally moving epic other want, but for some the exploration of a theoretical concept is incredibly intriguing, and I am one of those. So the challenge that has been laid at my feet is one I face with relish, and the genre is one I am happy to discuss – and little known enough I thought some might find it interesting to learn about. It strays flirtatiously close to creative non-fiction in some cases and if you enjoy relaxing to an intellectual piece or the exploration of a concept (not necessarily scientific in nature) then it would be worth a look. 

BIG BAD WRITING TIP FOR THE WEEK:

Don’t procrastinate. I talked about making time last entry; don’t put off writing simply because you think you will have time later. Get some done, even a little, and sometimes it unleashes a torrent of creativity. Keep it dammed up and you may find your ideas dry out before you can bathe in their refreshing waters. I failed in that this week, writing blog entries and having a social life rather than writing under this misconception I would have some free time at work. I didn’t, so am behind on the above challenge. So if you’ve made time, use it!