Definition of SF - What is Science Fiction? Part 2 - Science Fiction Romance by Jacqueline Lichtenberg

Definition of SF - What is Science Fiction?
Part 2
Science Fiction Romance
by
Jacqueline Lichtenberg  

In 2008, I proposed a definition of Science Fiction we could use to further discuss how to  create and market Science Fiction Romance.

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2008/03/what-is-science-fiction-really.html

The over-all subject of these Science Fiction Romance writing posts is to probe the dilemma pioneers of Science Fiction Romance face -- That while science fiction itself has gained an overt acceptance among the general public now even winning Oscars and Emmys, Romance per se has not followed, even though Romance prevails in film in the RomCom -- Romantic Comedy. 

So Science Fiction Romance burst into the Romance novel scene, and showed every sign of taking over the entire field.  The Fantasy and Paranormal branches thrived.  The first to hit impressive sales figures were the Vampire Romances (my favorite which is why I write them.)

Then all of a sudden you couldn't sell a Vampire Romance, and soon galactic adventures just weren't making the cut.

Science Fiction writers, at first curious enough to read some of the Romances,  dismissed Science Fiction Romance written by Romance writers no matter the sales volume.  The reasons they gave were anywhere from bad writing, bad characterization, bad plotting, and bad dialogue, all the way to the real center of the issue, bad science.

Now science fiction has always extrapolated and postulated about science.  The best science fiction -- and best selling -- always postulates that the latest, hottest, most solemnly endorsed scientific finding is simply not TRUE.

Today you'd apply that kind of postulate to modern science and launch a series of novels depicting a future Earth where it turns out that because of measures taken to avert "Global Warming" or CO2 caused climate change, Earth's civilization collapses and can't restart again, leaving the remnants of humanity to live in a world without any metal-working, and no power other than maybe wood-burning.

What if Global Warming is not TRUE?  That's what makes a science fiction postulate. 

The trick is to think the un-thinkable.  Assume it's true. And build a world from that premise.

Star Trek did this exact thing.  At the time (in the 1960's when close-orbit space travel and a jaunt to the moon were in reach), it was a tenet of any "real science" that it is "impossible" to go faster than light.

For decades, science fiction had been depicting galactic civilizations based on this or that kind of space drive -- updated every decade to a new "What if current science is wrong about this?" as science came to new conclusions.

This is the kind of thinking shunned by the brand new Science Fiction Romance writers.

In the beginning, they simply took the idea of a galactic civilization, sometimes with aliens, sometimes not so alien, and wrote a typical Romance of their time using characters like the readers in some way.

Because the readership did not know science, had developed a self-image based on a cultural maxim that said things like, "Women can't..."  the lead female characters in these early novels shared that self-image.  Otherwise readers wouldn't be able to identify with these characters, and thus wouldn't enjoy getting to an HEA.

You root for the home team.  You want to see yourself, someone like you, or someone you admire and aspire to emulate triumph in a decisive and permanent way. 

The plausibility of that decisive, permanent HEA rests entirely on the reader's ability to understand the mechanism that governs the fictional universe (the worldbuilding that illustrates the theme) and thus to understand how and why these characters actually solved the problem.  Solving a problem is answering a question. 

Both Science Fiction and Romance must "sell" the reader on the implausible premise (Love Conquers All) by selling the characters as a seamless outgrowth of their environment which they are capable of conquering and worthy of conquering "if only" they admit their Love and thus Conquer All permanently.

Thus the plausibility of the premise of the World you Build rests almost entirely in the accessibility of the characters who people your world. 

Science Fiction readers and writers rejected these hybrid Romance novels because of the scientific errors (yes, especially when repudiating a scientific principle, one must demonstrate a complete understanding of the principle you are repudiating).  And they rejected these novels because of the self-images held by the characters -- to be the hero of a science fiction novel, you had to have or to develop during the story a Self Image of being capable, powerful, and RIGHT -- more right than the opposition. 

Science Fiction readers also rejected these Romance novels partly because of the HEA which didn't seem plausible considering the weakness of the characters, and the characters' refusal to address that weakness.  Weak characters are ones who can not adjust their self-image to include getting the correct answer when all the other characters cling to the incorrect answer.

For more on the definition and creation of "Strong Characters" see:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2014/10/strong-characters-defined-part-3-tit.html

That Part 3 has links to previous posts on this topic.

Science is based on the systematic application of principles to generate Questions.

It is question-formulation which is at the core of all scientific endeavor.  Phrase a question incorrectly, and the answer doesn't matter.  You won't learn how to get something to work. 

So science fiction is driven by both Science and Characterization.  The character of a "scientist" must be the central, plot-driving character, and the writer must convince the reader that this character actually does science for a living.

That's difficult because most readers of science fiction did (at that time) do science professionally (for a living) -- and came to this reading material as a bus-man's holiday, a vacation from a profession where you do the same thing you do at work every day just because that's what you most enjoy, what relaxes you, what thrills you.

So most of the writers of early science fiction were indeed professional scientists.

And their writing showed it.  People steeped in good literature scoffed and departed quickly, then heaped public scorn on any Science Fiction Novel or story even if they had not read it.

That's partly why Romance has a bad rep in some circles, even though it out-sells most other genres.  The people who scoff can't find a character in a Romance with whom they can "Identify."  The people in a Romance aren't themselves in another guise.

Identifying with the main character is what most readers seek. 

If you can't identify, then you want to aspire to be that Towering Figure. If you don't aspire to be that Towering Figure, then you already expect to become akin to that main character and want to glimpse your future.

Again: "What if ....I were this character?"  "If Only ...I could be this Towering Figure."
"If this goes on ...I will become this character of face this fate."

Romance is actually, at its very core, very precisely identical to Science Fiction -- but the science it uses is Psychology or other soft-sciences. 

Romance is the bus-man's holiday of the professional mother, family manager, office manager, mediator, problem-solver involved in other people's lives.

Science is about involving yourself intimately with physics, math, chemistry, astrophysics, space-time-quantum mechanics, and the respective engineering issues associated with manipulating the structure of the physical universe.

It's the same kind of involvement and the same kind of HEA -- SUCCESS! 

Science succeeds at conquering incompatibilities between physical objects and human aspiration.

Romance succeeds at conquering incompatibilities between human obstacles and human aspiration.

Both genres center on the human Will overcoming impossible odds to achieve an HEA in at least one department of life, while leaving open the question of what challenges might arise in other departments of life.  (e.g. a Romance may end with wedding bells, but the readers know to ask, "What will these two do with children?" 

Winning a war is just like that -- for the moment, there's peace and time to enjoy.  But you also know there's a mess to clean up, and more disagreements coming, that in fact being the winner just makes you a bigger target.

The two genres are the SAME, and so should not only blend well but engage both audiences at the same time. 

STAR TREK proved that is possible. 

While the aired episodes had some sex, a lot of violence, and a triumph at the end, even when laced with hints of challenges to come, the fans examined the cracks between scenes, the time-spans not chronicled, and connected the adventures with a tissue of complex Relationships among members of the crew.

Millions (maybe billions) of words of STAR TREK fan fiction are extant, and most of it is essentially Romance in various guises, filling in the "real life" experiences of the characters.

In later incarnations, Trek's producers acknowledged the pervasive interest of the fans in the love-lives of the characters and did what Buffy The Vampire Slayer TV Series did, pairing off the members of the crew (or staff of DS-9 space station) with each other in various combinations to see what happened. 

Don't forget the popularity of the TV Series The X-Files was based on such a Relationship that generated lots of fan fiction.

As new generations are becoming involved in fiction consumption (even in video-game format), we are seeing more fiction about the edges of the possible, about "the impossible" and a bigger emphasis on how "the impossible" situation that science fiction postulates affects how we Love, how we Bond, and how we Cope.

For more on generational shifts in taste and how to predict them, see my post on Pluto in the Signs and how tht 20-year cycle reflects in fiction-taste.

The theme I am seeing on TV these days centers on Betrayal in one form or another.  Betrayal (Scorpio) is an obsession (Pluto) of an entire generation that currently forms the highest paying, easily swayed by advertising, market for fiction, those born with Pluto in Scorpio.

Pluto is the ruler or moving signifier of the zodiac sign Scorpio.  Scorpio governs two Houses of the USA natal chart, 8th (death and taxes) and 9th (Justice and Foreign Affairs including Foreign Aid.) 

Revolutions, insurgencies, and revolts (great fodder for a Romance writer ) are fueled by the emotion of "betrayal."  "You promised me one thing and gave me another." 

That "Betrayal" theme of Pluto is currently visible as Pluto transits Capricorn.  Pluto is magnifying power, reveals scandals (and hidden dire illness), and summons do-or-die focused obsession on change, on "turning on the leaders."  Capricorn is ruled by Saturn and is all about defining limits, discipline, efficiency, organization, practicality, necessity.  The current transit of Pluto through Capricorn is seen in the overthrow of governments, the re-drawing of country borders. 

I've been collecting news items illustrating this Pluto in Capricorn manifestation on the world stage.  All the situations in these news articles form venues for great Science Fiction Romance if you can think about them as a science fiction writer and analyze them to the core.

https://flipboard.com/profile/jacquelinelhmqg

Betrayal can also be associated with Neptune -- and all Romance occurs under major transits of Neptune that blur the edges of "reality" and put you in a softer mood.  Neptune transits let you believe that what you wish to be so is already in fact so.  Thus when the transit is over, the fog lifts, and there is the discovery that what you thought was so is in fact not-so.  Many people, in this discovery-section of the process, point the finger and yell, "You made me believe."  "You lied to me."  "You deceived me."  But the truth is, the yellers actually deceived themselves because of the influence of Neptune.

Neptune effects are discussed in the Astrology Just for Writers blog posts.

All Relationships are Marriages regardless of what you call them.  A Relationship is a merger where each party loses and each party gains, so it is a Marriage. 

Divorce often results from a contract broken, a betrayal of trust or a disillusionment.  Even mortal enemies are "married" to each other. 

I've examined the Marketing implications for writers of the birth of generations with Pluto in different Zodiac Signs here:

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/10/astrology-just-for-writers-pt-6.html

Here is the index post for Astrology Just For Writers:

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/03/pausing-for-you-to-catch-up-with-me_30.html

Astrology, while disparaged by science, is precisely the kind of science that Romance Novels use to generate plot.  It is about character, personality, and relationships, but discusses these nebulous experiences in terms of numbers, of times of life, of epochs of experience, of triumphant moments and tragic moments that reshape understanding and expectation of life.

Now, considering this discussion of what Science Fiction is, what Romance is, and why the two fit so perfectly together, consider this discussion below that I found on a LinkedIn Group thread wherre there were a lot of posts, but I just lifted out the Question and my answer for this discussion.

The question is why does science fiction gravitate toward Dystopia, and my answer is in essence, it does not! 

I've given you above the reasons why a short-sighted, merely current sample of Science Fiction and Fantasy might seem to emphasize Dystopia when in fact it does not, and why Utopia is likewise the primary subject of Science Fiction or Science Fiction Romance.

Examine this question's phrasing, think about how you would answer, then read my answer.  If you're a member of this LinkedIn Group, click through and read the thread.  It's interesting! 

https://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=86422&type=member&item=244052608&commentID=5894115016050749440


----------QUESTION----------
Why does Science Fiction gravitate towards Dystopia and not the Utopia that Transhumanism promises?

Clyde DeSouza Author; "Think in 3D", "Memories with Maya". Virtual Reality, Tech Evangelist
------------END QUESTION-------

--------quoting myself----------
This question is phrased in a self-defeating manner.  If you let "others" define the parameters of your choices, you will never solve the real problem but just be manipulated by manipulators, essentially "buying into" a world view that you really do not share.

Think about it this other way (but don't stop here!)  "Does Science Fiction at its best portray dystopia?  Is there something fundamental in SCIENCE that leads to disintegration of civilization?  Is there something fundamental in FICTION that demands portrayal of disintegration of civilization?  Or is there something in MARKET DEMAND that rewards writers of dystopia more readily than writers of adventure, triumph, and success (editors and publishers, too)?" 

As Science Fiction writers we are scientists FIRST, and fiction writers SECOND. To fail to examine the question itself is to fail to think like a scientist.

BTW as author of the Bantam Paperback STAR TREK LIVES! that blew the lid on STAR TREK FAN FICTION and explained why fans were so energized by that TV Series (as opposed to others on the air at the time) -- I can tell you that interviews with Gene Roddenberry revealed he didn't view STAR TREK as utopian, but rather as a simple but necessary improvement in human attitudes linked inextricably to the developments in technology.  He would always say, "When we are wise ... then we will ..." 

That's what SCIENCE FICTION actually is -- the examination of the impact on civilization, via close-ups of characters' lives, of science and technology.  Dystopia is ONE result of that impact.  Utopia might be another. 

As Theodore Sturgeon (author of the STAR TREK episode, AMOK TIME) said many times, "Ask The Next Question."  Do not stop asking.  This discussion's question is an "asking stopper" in the way it is phrased, not in the subject itself.

STAR TREK examined the questions about technology impacting civilization which were obsessing the public at that time, and in every incarnation has addressed contemporary issues.  (Captain Dunsel).  And STAR TREK was about the adventures had along the way toward answering those questions (Prime Directive, IDIC).  Each new answer poses more questions to have adventures answering. That's the spirit of science fiction; a journey.  "What if ...?"  "If only ..."  "If This Goes On ..."  Dystopia is only one of many-many ways to finish those sentences.

Science Fiction reading/viewing teaches how to avoid letting the person who poses the question limit your analysis of the domain of definition in which to answer the question. 

Consider Captain Kirk posing one little question to the Entity discovered at the center of the Galaxy, "What does God need a Space Ship for?"  Study that question.  The way this question about Dystopia is posed uses the psychological methodology of that fake god.  Answer like a real KIRK.

Do not accept authority - challenge it. That is the essence of science fiction, and you will find it in a lot of the characters in SF-Dystopian visions, even if they are not main characters.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

The Day The Earth Stood Still (yesterday, on TV, at 8pm)

I missed the first eleven minutes of this remake of "The Day The Earth Stood Still", because I was watching an absolutely gripping bit of political theatre.... and perhaps if I had seen the very beginning, I might have enjoyed the movie more.

How is a debate a "debate", if people vote from remote locations without any solemn or otherwise obligation to listen to, and weigh, the arguments for and against the motion? I hope the Jury Trial system never goes the way of the Senate!

My husband tells me that I am in for a real treat when I see the original movie.  He rates the original a 10, and this version a 3.

Reviewers are kinder here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0970416/

I give kudos to John Cleese for his endearing and totally charming performance as a true world leader, a Nobel prizewinner who keeps a blackboard and chalk in his living room.

The other fine supporting performance was by Jaden Smith as the bigoted little boy who probably did more than his stepmother to convince the unsmiling alien that mankind was worth saving.

The blubber premise grossed me out, frankly. I won't say more even though I don't consider it a major spoiler... unlike the idea of carrying a bit of ones own blubber/placenta around with one in a little jar in case of accidents, and even smearing some of it inside an inconvenient policeman's mouth.

Major spoiler:

That the explosion-proof, diamond-bit drill-busting robot turned into bifurcating cockroaches and ants bothered me. That they flew around in a cloud reminiscent of starling flock formations (currently on display in the Artology exhibition at the Cranbrook Institute of Science) was cool. I could have wished that they'd focused on eating something more to the point than one big truck and a few roadsigns.

If mankind is going to radically modify its alleged, environmentally destructive behaviour, a few missing truckers and roadsigns won't impress an out-of-touch President in his bunker. Those metal munching cockroaches ought to have eaten all the airports, and all the ships, and all the world's nuclear reactors. And the tree cutters and earth movers and shakers, such as Caterpillar, John Deere, Hewlett Packard, Google, and Goodyear... (You can't run a mine without rubber, apparently).

How the world has changed since this movie was made, by the way.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01

However the physics of mass confused and upset me the most. It always does. It's my pet peeve with science fiction. In fact, the cockroach size issue was my biggest hurdle... my wall-banger moment. It surely could, and should have been photographed with more care and sensitivity.

Oh, and there was another issue of mass. Keanu Reeves asked an apparently smaller man what size that man's clothes were. He then asked the man to undress. Unfortunately, we were not permitted to see this feat. Moments later, the tall Keanu left the room in a perfectly tailored, exquisitely well fitted suit.

Continuity is ok. But, what was Keanu going to wear if he did not take the man's clothes, no matter what size they were? Ask a silly question!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_bNDv0-ZrU

Bottom line, though. I'd have given The Day The Earth Stood Still (Remake) an extra two points at least if they'd shown that particular logistical detail. My philosophy when telling a fantastic story is to show everything that is --or could be-- plausible.

Communicating in Symbols

In my previous blog entry here:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-cb-radio-come-on-back.html
I mentioned the process of acquiring language rather than learning it, which sparked a lively exchange in the comments all about communication which is so much the heart and soul of every romance.

On http://editingcircle.blogspot.com/2009/03/in-beginning.html , the comments on my entry about the art and craft of constructing the beginning, opening, and narrative hook of an SF Romance novel got into a discussion of the Protagonist's Goal at the opening and how that determines the ending.

In one of the comments, I pointed out how it is possible to telegraph the Protag's goal to the reader without the Protag actually knowing what his/her goal is. That is the goal that will be achieved at the ending in order to resolve the conflict, but the protagonist might have his/her conscious mind focused on a different goal, or even on avoiding the actual goal.

When you open a story with the Protag declaring (aloud or within) that under no circumstances will they do this or that -- you are telegraphing to the reader that in the end, they will do it (and might not even consciously know they have done it), and there will be unforeseeable (suspenseful) consequences.

The adamant declaration that an action is out of bounds is likely to be taken as true by the reader if the declaration comes in the Middle (low point - major defeat - certain failure looms). But if that declaration is on page one, or in chapter 1, the reader knows this is blind stubbornness that must be overcome, not an expression of a true point of Honor that must be lived up to.

How can this be? The same words on page one mean the opposite of what they would mean on page 200?

Symbolism.

The novel's structure is what it is (varying across genres, but even in new genres settling into what the readers enjoy most). The novel is an artform in which the very structure telegraphs a philosophical position, a theme. And that structure telegraphs the theme of the genre by symbolically representing some well-known pattern of real life.

Remember on Buffy The Vampire Slayer -- they would often refer to "oh, this is the sad part" or "oh, this is the happy part?" Kids learn early that novels and stories have "parts" and even before the kid has lived long enough to know life has parts, they understand "parts."

Writers use the novel structure to SYMBOLIZE those "parts" of life that bespeak the theme of the genre. Break the genre pattern and you have a very difficult commercial sell, or you have a NEW GENRE.

Stories as a whole are SYMBOLS, and the 3 points, Beginning, Middle, End, are SYMBOLS for "life" - the shape of some part of real life is symbolized by that sequence.

The location in the novel structure of the story-event symbolizes the real meaning of the story-event, regardless of the words (which are also symbols.) People, readers in particular, believe the message in the symbolic placement of the dialog about say, goals or values, over and above the message in the event itself. "I won't" means one thing on the first page, and the opposite on page 200.

Writers communicate with Readers in symbolism.

Structure is symbolism too.

Art is symbolism.

Oddly, algebra and higher math rely on SYMBOLISM.

Science relies on Math, and Math is symbolism.

Religion teaches and conveys values, behaviors, and runs the gamut of all philosophies, invades every aspect of life, and speaks to our deepest mind, heart and soul -- in symbolism.

Great films speak to us in symbolism.

Film uses a set of symbols established and evolved only in the last century or so, but now part of our culture. For example, in THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA, the Fashion Industry symbolizes everyone's job in every industry.

Written language is symbolism. Alphabets are symbols -- the more so in pictographic writing.

What about spoken language? Conversation? Dialogue?

Yep. Symbolism. "The map is not the territory." But in the realm of psychological and philosophical symbolism used by novelists, there is a magical link between the symbol and the territory. Powerful change can be wrought in a reader who responds to the symbols in a story because in magic, the map is the territory, and storytelling is magic.

Also by manipulating the symbols, by manipulating the map, we can learn new things about the territory. We can learn about hard, objective reality by manipulating fictional symbols.

Our brains are not digital. We're analogue creatures.

So, to interface with reality, we have to build, in our minds, an analogue of reality, a set of symbols that seems to "work just like" the reality outside us. I've borrowed from E. E. Smith's LENSMAN SERIES the phrase Visualization of the Macrocosmic All to refer to that internal analogue of reality we all build.

In the Lensman Series, the aliens called Arisians were energy beings, pure thought, whose main hobby was visualizing the macrocosmic all. By perfecting that Visualization, they could predict events thousands of years hence, and had done so in their age old battle against Boskone, manipulating human history and breeding the special humans called Lensmen who had an ironclad ethical code built into their genes. The Arisians were the Good Guys (just read to find out what Boskone was!) and the Arisians perfected the symbolic analogue of reality as no human ever can, not even the Lensmen.

Science calls this symbolic analogue a MODEL.

A novel (or feature film or TV Show) is a model of a universe built by the writer to be analogous to your personal small corner of reality so that it will speak to you on a deep, inner level, stir emotions you never knew yourself capable of, and let you walk a mile in some character's moccasins, learning lessons you may never need in real life.

Science does most of it's work on models - trying to "model" reality in such a way that the model behaves like the reality it represents. Get the model right, and you can predict what some small corner of reality will do under stress -- just as the Arisians did in fiction for the entirety of all creation.

This is what the Treasury department is trying to do now with "stress testing" big Wall Street firms. They will run a computerized, mathematical model of the economy crashing further, input the firm's current financial data, and the model will produce a graph showing at what point the firm would have to declare bankruptcy. (OK, it's not THAT simple; but that's the idea).

The touchstone of science is predictability -- the model of reality should replicate the behavior of reality so well that when you make a change in the model that has never been made in reality, what the model does will be exactly what reality would do if hit with that change.

The failure of the levees under the impact of Katrina was a failure of the engineering MODEL, as well as politics that prevented spending on upgrading the levees before Katrina. To date, the levees haven't been upgraded to withstand what a Katrina type storm making it all the way to land might deliver, according to some models of the atmosphere.

If this sounds a bit like voodoo dolls, think really hard about that. Math is the cornerstone of magic, too.

Our political decisions are made by politicians under the impact of public opinion which is guided by the media -- and the media speaks to us in symbols such as dead bodies floating in the exact same New Orleans streets many of us had visited.

Madison Avenue advertising firms have spent hundreds of millions of dollars studying how large populations respond to symbols -- what makes you buy this toothpaste or that car? (OK, sex. The hope of romance. But what else?)

Today, I saw an item on CNBC about the dire state of the advertising industry, and learned a new buzzword from this science of manipulating behavior with symbols. "Influence Consumer" -- that's you, the consumer of products designed to influence your behavior, the person at whom this multi-million dollar research is aimed.

How much have you spent learning to resist that well financed force?

Trust me. You haven't a chance against this kind of force unless you invest in mastering symbolism and how it works inside you, personally.

Our largest decisions as a civilization are rooted in models made of symbols and communicated to us in symbols -- dramatized by symbols. We understand drama better than expository lumps, which is why so many "news" shows are nothing but gossip about individuals.

Remember Ross Perot running for President - the man who coined the term "giant sucking sound" to designate the loss of jobs that N.A.F.T.A. would bring - and how resoundingly he lost that election?

Remember also his speeches being expository lumps illustrated with mathematical graphs in color - like a Corporate meeting, not a political speech fraught with symbolic rhetoric. Contrast with Obama's speaking style. See how the public handles symbolism. Remember that when you set out to write a popular novel about love.

Modeling is a process which is currently in progress with our atmosphere. There are competing models, some predicting global warming, some not, some predicting a cooling cycle. These are computerized mathematical models made of symbols connected in ways which are mostly theory, or even untested hypothesis.

The disagreement over global warming is not just political, but also represents two groups of scientists, each emotionally invested in their own carefully built "model," trying to communicate with each other -- over the barrier of the press, politicians and the general public in between them.

This generates screaming and yelling not unlike what we discussed about Twitter as portrayed on YouTube, and for pretty much the same reasons pointed out in the comments to that post. The participants are not talking about the same subject and they aren't "in the conversation."

All our lives and our grandchildren's lives are at stake in who's right about which model replicates the Earth's Atmosphere correctly -- and these groups of scientists are not able to communicate properly despite having symbol-sets in common. Because of all the people in between them, they can't argue until they figure out which Model replicates the atmosphere. They can only take sides and yell.

Their MODELS OF REALITY don't match -- so they are shouting at each other like the Tweeters on Twitter. They're using the same symbols, the same math, but their models of the rest of the universe besides the atmosphere don't match so they can't communicate about the atmosphere.

Or take another example, Kaynesian vs Freidman economic theories -- each mathematically MODELED from reality to represent the behavior of large economic systems.

NEW KAYNESIAN theory http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/NewKeynesianEconomics.html

MILTON FREIDMAN's Nobel winning theory of economics
http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/friedman.htm

These two MODELS of how an economy functions are currently duking it out for control of the US government and the world.

The fights over Pres. Obama's 2010 budget and the stimulus packages are huge, prominent and dire examples of how mere mathematical SYMBOLISM controls our lives on a very intimate level. The two articles I referenced are couched in words, "made-simple" articles, but the textbooks about these theories contain a lot of math, graphs, statistics.

Which model is the correct model? They are mutually exclusive, aren't they? It is a zero sum game, isn't it? One works and the other doesn't, right?

In childhood, each of us creates an internal symbol set, pretty much originally, and on our own. Forever more, those symbols represent TRUTH for us.

Symbols (from kid book illustrations of Moses parting the Red Sea to novels full of words without illustrations) can bypass intellect and connect directly with our emotions. Isn't that ironic -- Symbolism, the most powerful tool of the "coldest" discipline, Mathematics, is actually the most powerful tool of the "hottest" discipline, rhetoric, President Obama's forte.

Semantics is the study of the emotional loading of words -- and of course words aren't the "thing" they represent, "the map is not the territory;" words are symbols.

Words have power. But some of the power they have is invested in them by the child first ACQUIRING them. Think about the comments on my blog entry of last week:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-cb-radio-come-on-back.html

Children store the newly acquired word in context associated with the sound or written symbol, smells, colors, possibly the perfume of the woman bending over them and pointing out the word under the picture of Moses.

Forever more, that word MEANS "right." Or possibly "fear" if the teacher was harsh. Or whatever the context suggests. That emotion will always rise on hearing that word, though adults can cram the emotion back down into the subconscious and pretend it isn't there - even believe it isn't there. Nevertheless, it's there and it can manifest in a person's choices and actions.

Given this idiosyncratic response to symbols, the random way we acquire those responses, and the writer's absolute necessity of choosing the most effective symbols to communicate a story to the widest possible audience, how do you choose symbols for your Chapter One?

Your own internal symbols won't mean the same thing to your readers, especially if you are aiming this story at a broad readership.

Perhaps the most prominent symbolic utterance pivotal to all Romance sub-genres is the phrase, "I love you."

You would think everyone knows what that means. Well, we all do know. The problem is, we all know something different about that phrase than other people know.

We each create a mental model of the universe around us, a Visualization of the Macrocosmic All, and having invested so much of our Self into creating that internal model, we cherish that model as we cherish our own souls.

Therefore, we subsequently take any incoming information, any event or tidbit of fact, and try to fit the new bit into our Model.

If the bit does not fit -- we discard the bit not the model. The model we have created is our own self on a very deep level. A threat to our model of reality is a threat to something more precious than our very life. That model we create is our main symbol of reality

"The Levees will hold!" we scream. Or "The Economy Is Sound!"

Adherents of Friedman say, "Sound Economies Hold Recessions! It's Good!" and Keynsians scream back, "Recessions Must Be Controlled, Damped Down, Eliminated By Government Action because that's what government is for!"

"There is no Global Warming!"

Whatever does not fit our model of reality, we reject. That's how we decide what's right or wrong, what's true or false, and it's also how we decide "Does she/he love me?" We take all the little, tiny gestures, expressions, tones of voice, and fit them into our model, and feel either love or rejection according to how well the bits fit into our model of how a lover behaves.

We'd throw our lover away long before we'd ever consider modifying our model of the universe.

That fact is so universal that you can code it into the symbolism of a novel in any genre. It is symbolized by the moment of epiphany when the Protagonist has been beaten down, destroyed, (this is usually the 3/4 point of the novel, what I call "the worm turns" point). At that moment when the protagonist's model of the universe has been totally smashed, he/she can reach down inside and create a NEW model of the universe more congruent with actual reality. Or at least the reality the reader/viewer prefers.

Readers live for experiencing that moment of epiphany with a protagonist. Make it deliver everything you've promised up to that point, and readers will memorize your byline.

Readers love watching a protagonist they really like (SAVE THE CAT!) change their model of reality into something closer to the reader's own model (but not the other way around). It's so much less painful to watch a fictional character change their model of the universe than it is to change your own.

The new model of reality that your protagonist adopts must fit into your reader's personal model of reality. That fit is at the core of the concept "plausible." We believe plausible things because they fit our model. We reject "implausible" things because they don't fit our model.

If you want the reader to believe six impossible things before breakfast, this is the level of your fictional construct where you do that. Plausibility has everything to do with that symbolic level of the model of reality. I've discussed this on this blog in relationship to "background" and "worldbuilding."

Plausible means "fits my model" -- and "my model" is a symbol composed of symbols, each of which has an idiosyncratic meaning.

So what's a writer to do?

In any Romance based story, the writer has to show-don't-tell "What does she see in him?" and "What does he see in her?" These are the key questions that, when answered in the right symbolism, trigger a cascade of great emotions in the reader. Real lovers see each others' models of the universe.

Where do you look to find the most universal symbols that carry the most widely understood semantic loadings?

Think about it. The letters you are reading in this message are symbols that we agree on. People with different accents might make different sounds out of these letters, but still get the gist of what I'm saying.

I might make typos, or (heaven forefend!) actually misspell a word, but you could still make out the gist of what I'm saying.

We have a symbol system and a language built from it in common.

Likewise with the pictorial images, the symbols such as Moses parting the Red Sea become common symbols among us.

Oh, yes, it's in the Bible of course -- but that's just words. The SYMBOL, the image that speaks across cultural gulfs is something like Charlton Heston in the Cecil B. DeMille blockbuster remake of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, Oct 5, 1956. (correlate that date with advances in Keynsian economic theory and ponder it all from a futurologist's point of view). It's the visual image that has such incredible power. That's why kid's Bible Study books have pictures.

Anne Phyllis Pinzow,
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/6/40b/553
a professional reporter who moonlights in film, says of Heston in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS:
------------
What they could do with creative editing for a few thousand dollars can only just be matched by millions in technology now. Him standing there, both hands on the staff in front of him, spreading his arms proclaiming to the Hebrews to see the power of G-d. WOW Star Wars looks like shlock compared to it. Not because it's shlock but because it looks like a comic book come to life, or really high-tech animation. Yes, there was animation in The Ten Commandments, and yes, some very sophisticated editing for the time. But when watching The Ten Commandments, audiences looked at that and felt it WAS REAL. THIS ACTUALLY WAS HAPPENING. I don't think anyone could ever say that about Star Wars. Also, this was just 11 years after the Holocaust, and 8 years after the founding of Israel. In a very huge sense, the movie was symbolic of what was actually, really happening at that time. Take that in your symbolisim and smoke it.
--------------

I couldn't have put it better. Note how Pinzow draws the parallel between what was happening in the world, and the images that rocked the entertainment industry. SYMBOLISM. Something currently real reduced to symbolism -- taken from something far older, something studied by most of the intended audience in words, cold print or static pictures -- suddenly turned into a Big Screen Reality. The impact was epic for the intended audience of 1956.

That's an important part -- INTENDED AUDIENCE. Wouldn't play so well in Moslem countries.

Images, pictures, become a language of their own. One symbol goes with another -- but not with a third because the third is in a different "language."

Our cultures and societies and civilizations have ordered and organized our symbol sets -- and we've inculcated those subconscious symbols into our children for generations.

The writer, on a very mundane level, belongs to such a society or culture, and can speak in their symbols natively -- because the writer (being of an artistic temperment to begin with) has ACQUIRED the image-symbolic language of the writer's own society.

A drastic change in that acquired symbol set (video games) has made the current generation gap much wider than previous ones.

If Jung was right, there may be some universal (primal) human symbols that communicate across civilization boundaries.

But today, the USA is such an un-mixed stew pot of cultures that we don't have a "universal" symbolism in which to speak to each other any more. The generation gap is only one cultural gap dividing us.

It seems to me that one of the important tasks of the splintering and reforming Romance genre is to re-establish a common language of symbolism in which we can speak to each other in the USA, and across the world, about the things that matter most - love, aspirations, nesting, building a life for our children, all the ingredients in the HEA ending -- the part of the story the Romance writer does not write but symbolizes for the reader.

Love is universal. It is our job, as writers, and maybe especially SF Romance writers, to establish a common symbol system in which future generations will be able to communicate - even on Twitter.

Analyze what deMille did with TEN COMMANDMENTS -- think about what Moses parting the Sea means to you today and drop a comment about what tidbits like WWII are floating around in our collective consciousness that could be dramatized to become a symbol of love across all our communication gaps.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.simegen.com/jl/

A Different Solution To Global Warming

The debate is still open on how much of Earth's temperature rise is due to the natural glaciation cycle and how much to human activity.

But it's pretty definite that we're in a very steep warming cycle, and losing species fast.
I read recently that there are a number of human-food species in our oceans that are in danger of sudden collapse.

The bees from a number of continents are dying off -- here there's some kind of infection in commercial hives, and the move northward of killer bees that don't pollinate but do invade domestic bee hives and destroy them.

The cost of food is rising because of the cost of renting bee hives to pollinate. A worldbuilding writer could forecast famine.

A huge number of frog species are going extinct. Amphibians seem to be reproductively sensitive to something that's killing them off. Fast. They're a vital link in the food chain.
Rise in temperature is causing migrations -- and the creep of tropical diseases north and southward from the equator.

Some of this is due to global warming -- changing habitats and water availability. Some is due to pollution. Some to the increase of UV from atmospheric pollution done decades ago when nobody believed aerosols could cause a problem in the arctic -- and nobody cared about the antarctic because it was so far away.

So an sf writer who wants to do some worldbuilding futurology has to look at what changes the increase in global temperatures may bring -- and it's not just ocean levels rising.

To cope with these conditions, humans will develop better buildings against storms, better flood control, and cheaper air conditioning.

But the really big profits will be in terraforming Earth -- trying to control the glaciation cycles, to reverse the damage from global warming.

Clearly, of course, we will try to preserve the genetic specimens from species going extinct. And we'll try to re-breed and rebuild those species.

We'll have to study and breed and release microbes -- and no doubt we'll make mistakes.
But there is one response to global warming that I can't recall ever being discussed on TV or in magazines.

We are all set to spend money looking for cheap renewable energy resources and to control the greenhouse gas emissions of power plants and vehicles.

But that may not be an effective approach. It may not target the actual cause.

RESTRICTING human activity and trying to eliminate greenhouse gas production might not work. Instead, we should be looking at the other side of the problem -- not restricting our emissions but increasing the Earth's ability to recycle greenhouse gases.

Today, human activity has reduced the Earth's ability to absorb and recycle Co2 -- cutting down the Brazlian rain forrest (and forrests in the USA early in the 18th century), and spreading oil slicks and other chemicals on the oceans which is killing plankton and other ocean surface plants that absorb CO2 and release O2.

We need to stop destroying the Earth's ability to recycle greenhouse gasses more than we need to pull back on our production of them.

Suppose industry saw a profit to be made in increasing Earth's ability to absorb and recycle pollutants to match our production of them?

The richest people in the world would be those who could produce trees, plankton, and other plants with more acre-feet of leaf surface and faster C02 recycling.

In our current world, a goodly number of people are convinced that the Western industrial lifestyle is wrong, or even just plain evil. Their response is to make an all-out effort to destroy Western economies that are based on such absolute immorality.

Here you can listen online to some of their reasons and decide for yourself if they're wrong.

http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/index1.php

Now do some SF worldbuilding and visualize the future they are driving toward.

Jacqueline Lichtenberghttp://www.simegen.com/jl/