Last week Jim linked me to a journal - "The Role of Specificity and Abstraction in Creative Idea Generation" by T. Ward, M. Patterson and C. Sifonis (Routledge, 2010). It was an interesting read; it explains that in creative environments (i.e. designing a creature), those given more narrow suggestions for their work (i.e. consider elephants) made less interesting/creative creatures than others who were given free reign, or others told to consider how such animals might adapt, or what environment they are within. However, it also noted that keeping things familiar helped the design become more acceptable to an audience.
"An extraterrestrial that deviated greatly from known Earth animals may not be recognized as an animal at all."
[literature]
I have spent the majority of the week reading through a library book, "World-Building: A Writer's Guide to Constructing Star Systems and Life-Supporting Planets" by Stephen L. Gillett (Writer's Digest Books, 1996). It is a fascinating read, though slow-paced and fairly technically involved. I had no experience of SF literature or the depth of detail used within their worlds, as I normally read typical fantasy novels (which also have ridiculously common themes). Having a deeper understanding of what goes into an environment felt incredibly necessary, especially as the author often points out common themes within SF novels and bemoans the underutilised ones.
"Researching a scientific background is not such a chore ... It gives a sense of the breadth of a world - interesting planets will be as multifarious and varied as is the Earth ... that very framework imposes a sense of verisimilitude that's particularly valuable ... It keeps you consistent."
"Anyone who writes fiction knows the value of the advice to use a few vivid details in descriptions, rather than a catalog of generalities. A well-thought-out world generates such details automatically."
My idea of mangrove swamps/a jungle environment was quickly discarded, as Gillett notes that jungles are an incredibly common detail within SF literature. Amongst chapters detailing orbits and atomic particles, I noted a few interesting points which will go into my world:
- volcanic activity - flood basalts (flood of lava that engulfs a huge portion of land), and nuee ardentes ('glowing cloud' - explosive cloud of lava that forms rocks when it lands and cools)
- auroras - to add interest to a sky. If the world has no magnetic field, they could appear anywhere (and birds would have to navigate in other ways)
- sky colour - sky colour is affected by particles within the air - if there is a desert, dust particles would make a reddish sky
- desiccated landscape - fairly active volcanoes would erase a huge chunk of world that might not recover - creatures would have to adapt
- elliptical orbit - half of the year (split into two events) would be much brighter/hotter than the rest, due to a closer proximity to the sun
- oxygen-rich atmosphere - oxygen is necessary for high-energy metabolisms, which are desirable in interesting creature designs
Adding to the volcanic theme, I recently found an article about liquid sulphur flows, where sulphuric gases from a volcano ignite into bright blue flames, and can flow down the mountainside like lava. I intend to use this as a significant event within my world, where creatures would be adapted specifically to utilise sulphur in interesting ways. Another material I wish to use is mercury, which is liquid at room temperature and thus could also exist in a river form within the world, and affect creature designs as such.
[literature]
Additionally, I borrowed another book today to begin reading once the other is completed: "Evolving The Alien: The Science of Extraterrestrial Life" by Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart (Ebury Press, 2002). The astrobiology, evolution and animal behaviour/physiology books available in the library seemed far too scientific to peruse for ideas on creature design, but this one appears more open and doesn't take itself too seriously.
"Instead of looking for carbon copies of Earth, then, we ought to be theorising about and looking for the different kinds of planets, and other potential habitats for life, that exist out there in the wide universe. 'Exotic' habitats should not be seen as obstacles, but as opportunities; instead of dismissing them with an airy wave of the hand and saying 'Obviously life couldn't exist there', we ought to be asking 'What would it have to be like if it did?' ... it would help if people stopped the silly practice of equating limitations of current observational techniques with limitations on the universe, though."
No comments:
Post a Comment