Illusions of Fiction-Writing Advice

Imagine that I’m endowed with perfect writing ability – the ability to not only write the most beautiful style appropriate for any idea but also to know the perfect story realization of that idea.  As luck would have it, you have me for your advisor on your latest story.  Can I make your current story into a fantastic novel?

The perhaps surprising answer, I think, is no.  If your story idea and execution are mediocre, the best I can do – and the only escape from mediocrity that I can offer – is to re-imagine your story.  No amount of fine-tuning – changing a few scenes, cleaning up sentences, improving the flow – will elevate your story beyond mediocrity.  The moment you re-imagine your story, you have a different story.  We didn’t improve the story you were working on; we created a new story that might better realize your basic idea.

The above is intended to counter an illusion that many if not most writers entertain about their stories: If they only get the right feedback, tweak the beginning or middle or ending just right, and substitute good sentences for bad ones, their story will become a masterpiece.  This is no truer than if you fine-tune your basketball game, learn all the right moves and basic techniques, that you will play like LeBron James.  Rather, you must have the requisite physical and mental ability, plus all the fine-tuning, to achieve that level of excellence.

Likewise, your story must already be a winner, plus lots of fine-tuning, to achieve excellence.  Polishing limestone will never produce a diamond.

I’m not going to offer any thoughts here about what I think defines a mediocre or good/excellent story.  It suffices for my point to merely accept the existence of these things.

So is there any value to writer-workshops or critical analysis?  Can working hard to master grammar and style or trading ideas in a writers’ group help you become a better writer?  Yes, certainly.  Can they make your novel good?  Only if its story is already good.  All the self and mutual critiques and study are useful for giving you the skill to potentially create a good or excellent novel (and to improve it through editing).  Superb editing of a mediocre novel will only produce a superbly edited mediocrity.

The takeaway, I think, is that once you’ve achieved a basic, professional writing skill-level – a common shortcoming for indies, in my observation – you should focus on creating a first-class story.  Of course, I have no simple means of creating or objectively assessing a good story.  Still, changing one’s emphasis to story-creation should, in theory, improve the probability of creating one.

A couple of other approaches might help.  First, you could try setting your bar higher for your story idea.  Knowingly writing a completely derivative, formulaic story pretty much guarantees mediocrity.  Rather than write about the same old vampires or zombies doing basically the same old thing, strive for something at least somewhat original (for example, True Blood or World War Z).  What’s the point of writing some tiny variation of a story that’s been written a million times?

Another suggestion is not to get attached to a story simply because it’s yours.  Be willing to toss it in the garbage.  Most people believe their children are wonderfully special and worthy of universal adoration, but most people are wrong.  Try to be objective, even unemotional in assessing the merits of your story.

Passion is a great motivator, but a poor adjudicator.  Seek out your best story with a cool, disinterested eye.

Writing THE ONE (Perfect Story)

When I was younger, I often spent months musing, daydreaming, and generally dithering over my next novel.  I’d take long walks imagining my characters and their adventures and getting a feel for their world before, at long last, feeling ready to sit down and start writing.

Once writing, I would usually question myself and end up endlessly revising, taking long breaks (including more musing and daydreaming) – more often than not my story traveling in vicious circles and finally eating its own tail.  Followed by lots of anguished soul-searching and reverizing (verb form of reverie;-) and telling myself that next time I will succeed. 

Then something changed: over a period of maybe two or three years, I started finishing my stories without any great drama or long breaks during or between novels.  Instead of lengthy periods of wandering about in a dream, I merely took a walk or two, thought out a few basic things, and started writing.

Maybe it was partly about growing up and becoming more disciplined, but I think it goes deeper than that.  It was more about developing a different conception of how to tell a story.

What concept did I change?  Number one, I think, was the notion of what I’ll call THE ONE.  In The Rational Male, Rollo Tomassi describes the “myth” of having a “soul-mate” and how it cripples relationships and psychological development by encouraging us to strive for an impossible ideal (and trying to hammer a less than ideal person into that ideal).  I think he’s onto something there, and it applies to writing as well: When you believe you must find THE ONE – the one perfect story line – that has a crippling effect on your story.  You see or imagine an imperfection – and then you’re off to the races revising and editing and rewriting in search of that ideal.

So I gave up the idea of perfection.  Huge burden removed, and – voilà! – my writing suddenly became much freer!  This, far more than the contrivance of forcing yourself to write fast, is an enormously effective part of creating and finishing stories.  It frees you from the crippling cycle of negative self-judgment and unrealistic expectation.  You can just write, without feeling Shakespeare is looking over your shoulder and sadly shaking his head.

That, for me, was the most liberating belief of all.

 

Writing Fast or Writing Well?

Fast writing is all the rage.  If we could just master writing fast, not only would we write many more novels, but we would actually write better!  Dare to write fast – and bypass writer’s block while finding inspirational bliss!

This is the premise of “Nanowrimo” (National Novel Writing Month) – possibly the ugliest acronym I’ve ever heard – and a whole cottage industry of self-proclaimed writing gurus and bloggers (almost all of which, in my observation, are self-published and have non-existent to minimal writing accomplishments to back up their claims).

Color me highly skeptical.

The notion that merely writing fast will take you anywhere near the writer’s promised land seems to me mostly grounded in wishful thinking.  I wouldn’t argue that shaking up your writing process – including pushing yourself to write faster – couldn’t have beneficial results; what I would argue is that it’s simplistic and almost surely wrong to point to any writing method as the One True Method.  I would also argue that merely pushing yourself to mechanically place more words on paper in a shorter time is, logically, no more likely to produce good writing than learning to type faster.

Some good results might be: 1) avoiding distractions (writing faster tends to preclude doing other things), 2) breaking through mental blocks that unnecessarily slow you down, and 3) demonstrating what you’re capable of if you don’t procrastinate or make excuses.

Some possible bad results: 1) poor writing, 2) mechanical story-crafting, and 3) pressing down poorly considered plot paths that some reflection would help you avoid.

While not claiming a rigorous scientific study, I have followed a few writers who advocate “fast-writing,” and I’ve noticed that they don’t seem to publish novels any faster than I do (I’ve been publishing novels about every 2 – 3 months over the last few years, averaging around 50K words a month).   Some possible reasons why that might be the case include more revision time (writing fast could require more time to correct poor story decisions and clean up sloppy writing), and a delay in plotting out novels.

My suspicion is that what slows most writers down is not how fast they put words to paper, but rather how many of those words stick and how quickly they construct the story itself.   For example, if it takes you a long time to compose a story, regardless of how many words you write a day you still might publish novels more slowly than someone who fairly quickly transforms a story idea into a novel.  The same proviso applies to needing to make more revisions.  My sense is that slow and steady – tortoise vs. hare – will more often than not win the day.

Bottom line: my impression of self-proclaimed fast-writers is that their novels tend to feature more “mechanical” plots (that is, story lines that follow the numbers and the path of least resistance) and more uninspiring prose.   If you’re making yourself write quickly it’s easy to understand why the least path of resistance would be appealing.

This isn’t to say that when you’re inspired you won’t write faster – nor that you should resist that impulse.  Some great songs were written in a matter of minutes, and some great novels in a matter of hours or days.   But they came about naturally, not because the authors forced themselves to produce a certain output.

I would also make clear that I am in no way advocating slow writing!  There are many authors, some highly skilled, who take forever and a day to write a novel.   They, in my opinion, are laboring under the illusions that good writing requires a lot of time or that one can’t rush the creative process – or are suffering from other issues such as procrastination or distractions.   This is probably a worse fate than writing a bit too fast.

I’ll conclude with another bottom line: if you make an arbitrary writing output your goal, you’ve subverted the ultimate aim of putting out good work.

Cover Quandaries

I feel I’m an expert in a sense on bad covers, having had several nominated for world’s worst covers by different websites and newspapers, including The Daily Mail and WIRED.  Jason Kehe of WIRED selected my formerly titled: MOIRA: THE ZORZEN WAR (now MOIRA: A GIRL AND HER DRAGON) for his Reviews of Absurd Self-Published Ebooks series basically because of its cover.

Not exactly a bragging point, but it does give me a certain perspective on the subject.  One would think my own cover disasters would incline me to greater compassion toward poor covers, but that isn’t the case at all.  After laboring long and hard to semi-master (or at least massively improve) my cover-creating prowess, I’m far less tolerant of amateurish efforts.  Here are some before and after covers, starting with the “award-winning” cover featured in WIRED (same story, some titles were changed):

Before                                                 After

harpoon-rope-chariot-winged-wolf-3-copy

a-girl-and-her-dragon

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kindle Akrasia with full sky

ultraprime-ultra-bubble-removed-text

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uploadable JPEG smaller file Kindle Book Cover Virtually Love

virtually-love-wedding-morning

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kindlized 6

zzzzultra-llighningt-strike-on-house

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bluenewest-fusion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I fully expect some readers will still think my covers suck, but I doubt even my most devoted critic would dispute a vast improvement in the “after” versions.

My sense from talking to people, reading blogs, and my own take is that most of us can tolerate a cover that’s not to our taste – even one that we consider ugly – as long as it appears professional.  Also, judging from popular novels, most people seem to appreciate a cover that clearly identifies its genre.  No surprises here, I think.

Somewhat more questionable is how well the quality of covers correspond to the quality stories.  I performed a personal experiment, selecting several what I considered to be clearly amateurish covers, in the same spirit Jason Kehe conducted his Reviews of Absurd Self-Published Novels experiment (though I will only be giving my impression from a brief reading, not a full review).

My selections: THE WEDDING RING, Jessica Collins; GRAND SLAM, Abby Angel, and NOT ALONE,  Craig Falconer.  For the record, I acknowledge that my opinion is largely subjective and not the word of truth (unlike so many reviewers, it seems, who treat their pronouncements as if they had been delivered to them on stone tablets from on high).

THE WEDDING RING’s cover wouldn’t be b51g9tryo22lad, except for the blurring, in my opinion.   The writing is classic self-published-never-seen-the-eyes-of-an-editor storytelling, starting with: “The sand angrily steams…”  and continues in that vein.  Ranking two million.

NOT ALONE is an amateurish-looking cove41oh8hrsjdlr, I think – the title font alone labels it thus – and the writing follows suit fairly well.  It’s not terrible, just as the cover isn’t terrible – just a bit weak (bland and unfocused and non-credible).  What’s notable about this novel is the number of reviews and its Amazon sales rank.  I would’ve predicted the plodding story with the uninspiring cover would rank in the millions, not in the low thousands.  Tons of suspicious-looking five-star reviews.

GRAND SLAgrand-slamM might possibly be the worst cover I’ve ever seen.  It’s as though its creator purposely aimed for the most confusing and clumsy juxtaposition of images imaginable.  The writing in the sample is improperly formatted, rendering it mostly unreadable.  What you can read seems uninspired and bland but not terrible.  Ranking 880,000.

I checked out several other covers I judge to be amateurish/terrible, with the same results as above.   An interesting question is: What correlation exists between good covers and good writing?

I’ll be looking into that in my next Cover Quandaries installment.

 

 

 

Amazon Book Reviews: What Do They Mean?

How reliably do reviews indicate the quality or appeal of a novel?

I doubt many would question that the number of reviews has some rough correlation with a novel’s quality and appeal.  When I read novels with zero or few reviews I usually find them to be less well-written and well-conceived than their more apparently popular counterparts – as is generally the case when I see novels with poor/amateurish covers.  On the other hand, there are some praiseworthy novels with minimal reviews, and many novels with large numbers of reviews and strong, professional covers that seem amateurish and ill-conceived, sometimes to a head-scratching degree.

To make matters more interesting, I’ve seen many books with a few reviews outselling books with hundreds of reviews.  At this moment my best-selling novel is SUPER WORLD, which has exactly one review.

One known issue is that fake reviews for books and other products are commonplace.  “Factory purchase and review” sites can provide large numbers of reviews and book purchases.  A few authors such as John Locke have famously availed themselves of such services.  Some scientists who have studied the phenomenon, such as Bing Lu, professor of computer science at the University of Chicago, estimate that as many as many as one-third of all consumer reviews on the internet are fake.

It’s extremely difficult to prove an author is utilizing fake reviews, and I’m not going to pretend I have some full-proof means of detecting them.  Still, having personal experience about how difficult it is for an unknown to get reviews, I’m inclined to be suspicious when I see equally unknown writers with questionable bona fides getting lots of reviews in short periods of time, particularly when the novels in question seethe with typos and grammatical errors and seem poorly written; and even more particularly when these novels receive rave reviews.

The temptation for writers to use some “hired reviews” is enormous: not only does it lend credibility to your work that makes it more saleable – a lack of reviews can also prevent you from using many promotional services.  Many writers sternly admonish anyone paying for reviews, claiming they’re both unethical and self-defeating.  I won’t dispute the ethical claim here (though one counterargument that comes to mind is that traditional book publishers utilize a network of reviewers that may include highly partisan readers, and an individual hiring reviewers is merely attempting to level the playing field), but I believe the self-defeating charge is clearly false.  Based on my admittedly brief study of the subject, many writers besides John Locke have jump-started book sales or even achieved best-seller status via faux reviews.

But surely a badly written novel will not be able to succeed in the long run based on numerous fake reviews?  Well, no, but as the famous economist John Maynard Keynes pointed out, in the long run we’re all dead.  Even many well-written and deservedly successful novels peak out in sales and then fade away.  The success of the fake review-purchase model only requires that a novel generate more money from sales than the cost of the fake reviews.

A few novels have caught my notice as clearly not deserving hundreds of gushing five-star reviews, yet all of them achieved and maintained a high Amazon ranking for many months – enough to generate significant earnings for the author.  I can only guess how much without knowing the cost for the hypothetically fake reviews, but the point is these reviews did earn the novels a high rank for a considerable length of time.  My sense is that a large number of reviews and purchases, fake or no, create a momentum that is strongly supported by Amazon: once you get a certain number of sales, Amazon promotes you.  Nothing succeeds like success.

And sometimes “crime” really does pay.

 

A Few Modest Proposals For Amazon’s KDP Program

Six ideas that I don’t think would be especially difficult or expensive to implement.  In fact, one proposal would reduce costs (3).  The theme is improving feedback between authors and their readers and easing the process of self-publishing.

1) Inform authors of the reason their book was returned. Seems simple enough, and could provide valuable feedback.  It would be nice to know, for instance, if readers were finding too many typos or had other complaints.

2) Voting buttons on book pages where the viewer/reader can rate the product description, book cover (and other?).  More valuable feedback.  If an author’s cover or description is sinking sales, for example, that would be great to know.

3) Allow instant publishing, including covers.  To say that Amazon can be glacially slow putting up revised covers is an insult to glaciers.  Back away from your control-freakdom, Amazon.  Every other book publisher that I’m aware of has –  without any dire consequences.  Use the money saved in hiring employees to pointlessly review book covers and content and put it toward financing the above.

4) Provide authors with page views.  Consider how nice it would be to know how many views result in book sales – or even if anyone is actually seeing your book.  Smashwords does it.  Surely, Amazon could.

5) Allow authors to set their books as “free” without all the ridiculous rigmarole.  They’ll do it anyway if they’re motivated, so why make them waste their and Amazon’s time?

6) Offer incentives to review books?  I’m not so sure about this one, though I’m sure most authors would love the idea.  I’m thinking along the lines of rewarding every twenty reviews with an Amazon $10 gift certificate or maybe an extra library book borrow or something.

Any other suggestions?  Tell me, and I’ll happily include them here.

Blue’s Point by Richard Ferguson

Blue’s Point

It’s rare in the world of self-publishing to find a first-rate novel.  BLUE’S POINT by Richard Ferguson is that rare exception.

Blue’s Point, Louisiana, is like the town that time and progress forgot: a place where racial hatred and murder of Black Americans remain a cherished way of life.  Into this maelstrom comes Steve Cox, fresh out of state prison for a murder of a black man he didn’t commit.  At the same time, a black journalist, Mykeisha Ali – “Mike” – arrives in town to investigate numerous murders involving Afro-American men.  Their paths soon collide, when Steve is strong-armed by the local good old boy tyrant, Jim Blue, into working for the town newspaper where Mike begins her investigation.

After being roughed up the by locals, Mike is doubly suspicious, even fearful, of Steve – son of a former KKK grand wizard on top of having been imprisoned for killing a Black man – but she’s gradually won over as Steve shows his true colors and risks his own life to get her the information she needs.

Ferguson writes uncompromisingly about the hearts and minds of his characters, never shying from describing ugliness and violence, but not dwelling on it, either.  The story flowed like a movie in my mind – I could barely turn the virtual pages on my Kindle fast enough.  Richard Ferguson’s novel is both a meditation on what stirs men and women’s souls and a thrill-ride – a rare combination, in my experience.  At times, I was reminded of Harper Lee’s TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD.

 

Amateur Writing Tells

TELLS, you might call them. They’re the sometimes subtle – sometimes not so subtle – stylistic, grammatical, and format errors that cry out “Amateur!” to readers.

I want to focus here on authors who actually can write, and have a decent grasp of grammar and spelling, but nonetheless indulge in certain foibles that label them as “amateurs” in the eyes of discriminating readers (especially agents and editors).  In today’s hyper-competitive writing market, they’re the kind of subtle issues that separate decent but amateurish writing from professional, polished writing.  Sometimes it can be just a word-choice here, a comma splice there.  Those little issues make the difference between acceptance and rejection by an agent or publisher.

Some of these amateurish tells are insidious because you may read many sentences, perhaps even pages, without spotting any obvious examples.  In these cases, the impression of amateurishness results from an aggregation of small errors/stylistic issues.

Here are a few of my favorite “amateur tells” for otherwise reasonably skilled writers.

1)  Overwriting

You’ve spent years developing your writing skills and vocabulary, and you’re damn well going to let your readers know that!  If you can describe something well in two sentences, imagine how impressive that description will be with twenty sentences!  There’s an almost giddy quality to this kind of writing – like a teenager falling into a swoon over their first puppy love.  Here the writer has a crush on the sound of their own words.

2)  Constant Editorializing

A variant of overwriting.  Here the main character is mentally chattering about almost everything in the scene.  It’s like that friend who has to comment or explain every few seconds what’s going in the movie you’re watching. After a while, you want to strangle the character just as you would your friend.

3)  Starting the Story without Actually Starting the Story

Sounds paradoxical, but this is what happens when you begin a story with a scene that goes nowhere – a static conversation or description that doesn’t move the story forward. A story in the hands of an accomplished writer moves forward from the first sentence..

The opening scene being utterly quotidian is one of my favorite amateur tells. One (real-life) example: a couple of old friends sharing coffee on a living couch while chattering “wittily” about various mundane things in order to provide “as you know” facts and fill in settings in advance of the actual story.  If you begin your novel with a couple of friends chatting over coffee, please show us the common courtesy of having a character deliver a bombshell (or an actual bomb!), or perhaps arrange for a violent home invasion (I will be rooting for the invaders to take out the coffee-drinkers).  Maybe even poison the coffee.

4)  Failing to Keep Your Eye on the Writing Ball

This is something I see over and over again, especially in self-published works.  It’s a lot like (3), except it appears at various, seemingly random, points throughout the novel.  You’re reading about a hard-boiled detective pursuing a serial killer, and then suddenly it’s as if the writer calls a timeout.  Let’s just step away for a few pages or maybe a chapter and discuss the weather, indulge in some pet-grooming, or maybe describe a minor character doing the laundry.

5)  Telling Instead of Showing

Telling us what to think about people and their actions rather than showing those actions and letting us decide for ourselves. “I hate the way you’re looking at me,” he lied cleverly.

6)  General Cluelessness

This is fairly subjective, but I suspect most of us know it when we see it. The story idea and execution strike us as lame or just plain silly.  Sharks that talk and walk around playing pool, teaching us something about humanity.  An elephant who speaks in a terrible Indian accent.  A man who enjoys torturing people and having sex with dead bodies who pines for acceptance.  Perhaps any of these could be made to work with sufficient brilliance (what couldn’t?), but absent incomparable brilliance they’re going to suck beyond measure.

I’m not talking about books where the premise seemed questionable or the characters and events struck me as non-credible; what I’m talking about is a more pervasive sense of the writer really not having a clue. They may believe they’re: being witty when they’re in fact (in your eyes) being silly; trenchant when they seem shallow; eloquent when their prose is florid; dramatic when they come across as melodramatic, etc.  It’s the kind of writing that happens when you live in a cabin cut off from everyone long enough to begin talking to yourself.

7)  Frequent Typos and Poor Formatting (Mostly Relevant to Self-Publications)

This doesn’t necessarily relate to the author’s writing ability, but perhaps more often than not poor formatting signals an inattention to detail that is necessary for skilled writing.  Numerous typos and irregular formatting in self-published books does – sadly – cry “amateur,” at least as regards the self-publishing aspect.

How does one cross over from being a skilled amateur writer to being a bona fide professional?

The key factor, clearly, is improved awareness. This is a subject for another post, but in a nutshell, the solution lies in listening to the criticism of others, studying the writing of established, respected authors, and approaching one’s craft with an eye toward improvement.

Talk to writers you respect and ask for their honest opinion from a quick overview of your novel (not a review or in-depth analysis; most writers are reluctant to serve as your unpaid editor).  It doesn’t take long to spot the above amateurish motifs.  Join a writers group and ask them to be brutally honest.

Why would you suspect you haven’t “crossed over”?  For starters, you’re consistently rejected by agents (most of us don’t deal directly with editors).  That’s by no means a sure sign, but it is suggestive.  Are you getting favorable reviews from dispassionate, intelligent reviewers (family and friends don’t count)?  If not, another indication you may not have crossed the line.  Are you quick to dismiss those who unfavorably critique your book?  Do you have any interest in listening to such critiques?  Do your writing group members look the other way and hum or make vacuous comments when you ask for an honest review?

If you find yourself getting defensive about your writing, if you believe that criticism is largely worthless, and if you stick your fingers in your ears and sing “la, la, la,” when you see bad or middling reviews, those are signs you’re probably still stuck in Amateurville.

Blessed be the critics, for they shall help you grow.

Three Factors Which Harm Writers

 

I believe these are the three factors that are most damaging to writers (drum roll):

1) ISOLATION

Professor Uri Treisman of the University of California, Berkeley, conducted a fascinating investigation into the study habits of Blacks and Asians.  He was attempting to explain the large discrepancy in success completing calculus courses.  What he discovered was, after allowing for all the other variables, that the most important factor appeared to be how cooperative the Asians were in their study habits – regularly gathering in groups that critiqued other members’ efforts and collaboratively strove to solve difficult problems – while the blacks studied largely in isolation.

 To the extent that you write in isolation, you lack critical feedback about your work.  That’s true whether you’re a bestselling author or a relative unknown.  That’s a very bad thing, because we as writers can be nearly blind about our own work.  We need input from outside sources – and we need to listen to those sources – to be the best we can be.

2) DEFENSIVENESS 

It is the enemy in pretty much every aspect of life, in my view.  Defensiveness kills our ability to be honest about and improve ourselves.  It may be the greatest challenge for all of us to open ourselves to the possibility that we can make mistakes or aren’t as accomplished at something as we believe we are (or should be).

Defensiveness is one of the prime reasons we isolate ourselves.  Working alone, we need not be troubled by criticism or suggestions that we’re on the wrong track.  Barricaded within our illusions about ourselves, we are free to believe whatever we wish about our work.  Judging from many self-published novels I’ve sampled, many choose this form of freedom.

3)  INATTENTIVENESS 

How is it possible not to notice that the plural of most nouns does not involve an apostrophe, when every periodical, newspaper, newsletter, magazine, short story, and book does not use apostrophes to designate plural?  And yet, countless writers somehow missed this near-infinitely repeated memo.  My only explanation is that these writers simply, perhaps willfully, haven’t been paying attention.

Pay attention to what other (skilled) writers are doing – pay very close attention – and that problem is solved.

So there you have it: the three things you must overcome en route to becoming the next bestselling author. J

Two Events That Would Change SF As We Know It

Advances in technology can change culture, but how much do cell phones, computers, electric cars, or other gizmos of the twentieth and twenty-first century fundamentally change our stories? Are classic epistolary stories of romance such as Fanny Hill so different from Sleepless in Seattle? Has modern rocket technology rendered Jules Verne’s From Earth to the Moon obsolete? Does it matter in any important story-telling way whether people travel by horse or by car or commercial jet?

I think our archetypal, classic story lines are remarkably immune to scientific knowledge or even place and time. Still, in theory, certain changes in our knowledge or attitude, could antiquate certain stories or even whole categories of stores. For example, if it were scientifically determined that love was a form of pathology, a la Delirium, that would likely have a chilling effect on romance literature. Perhaps, in light of that knowledge, romance might become a branch of psychological horror fiction.

One event that I believe would fundamentally change the landscape of science fiction would be the discovery of alien civilizations.

It would be hard to overstate the impact of detailed knowledge of advanced extraterrestrial civilizations (and their technology) on speculative fiction. Every aspect of science fiction would be influenced, from alien characters to the kinds of technology used in space travel and day-to-day life. We would no longer be free to populate our universes with all manner of alien beings and cultures, any more than we are now free, when writing Earth-based contemporary fiction, to write about tentacled beings with giant horns.

Yes, people could still write fiction with this new cast of characters and technologies, but unless the writers wrote speculative fiction based on that new cultural-technological foundation, their novels would no longer be traditional science fiction (which always involves a speculative element).

Further knowledge derived from human-alien contact could also powerfully affect religious or spiritual themes (for instance, alien civilizations have proven that life after death does or does not occur, or that no supreme being exists) or SF military fiction (if advanced ET civilizations show us that such conflicts rarely if ever occur). Perhaps these civilizations would demonstrate that some of our most important self-concepts were false (for example, free will), or that some of our assumptions about future human technological advances are fundamentally flawed, such as the commonly held idea that someday we will create machine life.

Which brings me to the second discovery/event that would alter the science fiction irrevocably: the discovery that genuine A.I. sentience is impossible.

That genuine sentient machine intelligence is inevitable is treated an article of faith among science fiction writers (as well as most of the scientists who study artificial intelligence). Consider all the popular SF fiction that would be rendered obsolete by the discovery that this belief is false. From Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein to Ian Banks, Dan Simmons, and Daniel Suarez (I’m reading his Influx as we speak) – among countless others – the SF landscape is littered by A.I.s, usually with clearly human personalities or motivations, seeking preeminence, love, survival, or enlightened service to humanity.

Imagine all the science fiction literature based on sentient A.I’s vanishing into the mist. Now imagine all the SF literature based on speculations about alien beings – ideas about their culture, technology, philosophy, and basic physical form – being washed away by actual knowledge about other alien civilizations.

Fortunately, we writers would still be left with quotidian story lines. Or would we?