While some authors of Science Fiction believe they write in a tradition that actually predates written history, other writers claim that the genre has only existed for about two hundred years.  Both novice and professional writers who plan to work in this genre, and more importantly, hope to sell what they produce, should be aware of the current trends in Science Fiction, as well as its history.
        If we accept Science Fiction as part of the “Great Adventure” motif in literature, then indeed it does have some very old and very prestigious ancestors.  The tales of heroes on glorious quests to far away lands to discover strange and unusual things probably started long before man was able to write them down.  Certainly the tales of Homer fit into this category, as does Aristotle’s tale of the lost city of Atlantis. Mythology has carried through time the tales of one-eyes monsters, mechanical men, flying carpets, and any number of strange and wonderful lands.  In more recent times, we have seen stories like Bishop Godwin’s The Man in the Moon (1638), Cyrano de Bergerac’s Voyage dans la lune (1657), and Jonathon Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels (1726).  In a technologically immature world, awe-inspiring characters and events were usually seen as magic or as creations of the Gods.  Even though Science Fiction attempts to explain the unknown through science, it still performs the same function as the old tales: it creates a sense of wonder and adventure,
        The other camp of writers has a more strict definition of Science Fiction, and generally agrees that it is only possible for it to have existed for about two hundred years--since the beginning of the industrial revolution in England. The primary criterion for a novel to be Science Fiction is that it must show a world where science and technology, its applications and ramifications, are a necessary part of the structure.  Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818) was the first novel to do this because it was based on extrapolations from current scientific discovery. In 1771, an Italian anatomist, Luigi Galvani, discovered he could make the muscle of a dead frog move by applying electricity. This was taken to it furthest extreme in Shelley’s novel: Victor von Frankenstein sews together parts of dead bodies and creates a man, who he then animates with electricity. Thus, some say, Science Fiction was born.  There have been tales of men rising from the dead that predate this, of course, Lazarus being just one, but it was always accomplished with the help of magic or Gods.
        Although credited with the first Science Fiction novel, Shelley still wrote in the Gothic tradition. The next significant writer to contribute to the establishment of Science Fiction as a genre was Jules Vern, the first writer to consciously combine the adventure tale, Gothic tradition, and science. “Vern realized that the public was hungry for adventure told from the viewpoints that were made possible by science in an age when optimism concerning the coming scientific advances was at its height” (Asimov 185). Using this new hybrid, he created such works as Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea (1870) and From the Earth to the Moon (1865).
        Of course, there were many other authors around this time producing works that loosely resemble what would come to be known as Science Fiction; Mark Twain, Edward Bellamy, and Edgar Allen Poe all made contributions, but no one was able to accomplish as much as H.G. Wells.  The Time Machine (1895) was an immediate success, followed by The Invisible Man (1897), and then War of the Worlds (1898).  Isaac Asimov gives us a perspective on the value of these works: “They were the first novels that were Science Fiction first and everything else second. They were the first novels that dealt with 1) true time travel, 2) the unforeseen side effects of scientific advance dealt with in a nonsuperstitious way, and 3) interplanetary warfare”(Asimov 195).
        It may seem that Wells was following in Vern’s footsteps, but in reality the two authors were quite different. Vern wrote adventure stories using science: Wells wrote stories about science.  It is a tribute to Wells’s skill that even today his works are still read, and that the themes he grappled with are still staples of the Science Fiction genre.
        Science Fiction as a genre is difficult to define because it exists in so many forms. If we regard it as mainly adventure fiction, then we can set it right next to the fantasy novels, as is often done in bookstores. Some critics argue that Science Fiction is an offshoot of fantasy: the difference is that, in Science Fiction, the magic has simply been replaced by technology.  While in a sense this may be true, there is another offshoot of Fantasy that Science Fiction is not--Sword and Sorcery. This type of story contains exactly what the title describes: The most advanced weapon is usually a sword, and anything more powerful than a sword is sorcery. Sword and sorcery is the classic good versus evil tale. It is high adventure, full of strong men and warriors and magic. To put it all in perspective, a troll with magical powers would not be found in true Science Fiction.  A troll who seems to have magical powers that actually come from applied science might be found in Science Fiction, if there were a logical reason for it being there. Some of the best fantasy writing can be found in Tolkien’s The Hobbit (1937) and Fellowship of the Rings (1954), while Sword and Sorcery is best exemplified by Conan the Barbarian (1954).
        Many books have been written that attempt to define and place Science Fiction within various schools of literature, and no doubt the debate will continue for a long time to come. Although questions concerning its literary heritage continue, most practitioners of the craft do tend to draw a line between Fantasy and Science Fiction. Robert Heinlein, a highly respected writer of Science Fiction, has tried to provide a somewhat workable definition:  “[Science Fiction is]...realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method” (Rose 4).
        Even this definition has its limitations because it does not encompass all the works in this genre. Ironically, strict adherence to this narrow definition would probably exclude Heinlein’s most famous work, Stranger in a Strange Land (1961) because it borders on the religious or mystic. It would also tend to exclude such classic works as George Orwell’s 1984 (1949), which is more sociological than technological. Clearly, this definition needs to be modified to allow a broader range of themes and styles.  Rather than attempt to create one definition that might encompass the entire genre, it is easier to break Science Fiction into smaller sub genres--the approach used by most publishers of Science Fiction.
      “Hard Science Fiction” can be defined as the type of story that deals with hard science and technology. Under this umbrella we will find robots, space travel, mathematics, computers, astronomy, astrophysics, and any other sciences that deal with the scientific method.  Science that has discoverable laws that can be tested and proved empirically are appropriate to this type of story.  Much of Isaac Asimov’s work fails into this category.
        “Soft Science Fiction” deals with sciences that are not as well defined, often dealing with sciences in the humanities.  Here we will find stories built around such disciplines as medicine, ecology, psychology, sociology, philosophy and politics.  Frank Herbert’s Dune (1965) is an excellent example of Soft Science Fiction, since it is a novel centered on the ecology of the planet Arrakis, social evolution, and political intrigue.
        “Space Opera” can contain both hard and soft Science Fiction, but can most easily be identified as a great adventure tale, something like high fantasy with a little technology thrown in.  The technology is merely a backdrop for the adventure, and the protagonist is usually the Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers type.
        “Speculative Science Fiction” is a label created within the last twenty years, partially to prevent authors from being pigeonholed as genre writers only. It also covers anything that is loosely connected with Science Fiction.  Sometimes the science is faulty, but authors make this sacrifice to make some kind of poetic or thematic statement, Still, if the science were removed, the work would fall apart, and so it still is considered part of the Science Fiction body of literature. As examples of speculative fiction we might look at Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle (1963) or Slapstick (1976).
        There are many other variations within the genre, but these are the most significant. These are the minimum breakdowns of which authors should be aware, because this is how publishers classify the Science Fiction they purchase. Obviously there will be exceptions to every definition, and within the last few years, several authors have been stretching these limits. Dean Koontz has crossed the line between horror and Science Fiction with such works as Nightchills (1976) and Lightning (1988), two novels that use a horror format to deal with bioengineering and time travel, respectively.  John Saul, who is predominantly known for his horror stories, recently produced the novel Creature (1989), which deals with genetic engineering, but in the manner of horror novels.  Even the detective novel has invaded Science Fiction with Alfred Besters’s Demolished Man (1975).  These are the exceptions, however, not the rule.
        We have now narrowed our definition of Science Fiction as it applies to publishers:  Science Fiction is a genre that extrapolates from or uses either hard or soft science in such as way that it is necessary to the story.  It is delineated from Fantasy or any other genre, but writers must have than a working definition of the genre if they expect to see their work in print.
        A common mistake made by new writers is finding an interesting scientific idea and then expecting that idea to carry the story.  There is a big difference between a great idea and a great story. Science Fiction may be a literature of ideas, but it still carries all the demands of any other type of fiction. It is about characters acting, reacting, and experiencing conflict.  The science may be important to the story, but it is the characters that make it real, make it worth reading.  The late Ben Bova, former editor of Omni, believed this to be the first requirement of Science Fiction: “All fiction is based on character.  That is, every fiction story hinges on the writer’s handling of people in the story.  In particular it is the central character, or a protagonist, who makes the difference between a good story and a bad one” (Bova 9).
        This may sound self-evident, but many Science Fiction writers in the past, especially ones published in the Science Fiction pulps of the early part of this century, did not do this. The primary concern of the pulps was a good idea, and the quality of writing was not particularly important. This is one of the main reasons that Science Fiction remained mostly out of the mainstream of literature. Science Fiction in the past had a very poor reputation, and deservedly so. It was written by people who had a command of science but knew little or nothing about writing, and so their tales were flat and dull, devoid of anything really but the science. This was both a blessing and a curse. Under the editorship of John Campbell, Astounding Stories became Astounding Science Fiction, the pioneer Science Fiction magazine without peer among most fans. Campbell was foremost in the attempt to make Science Fiction a legitimate form of literature through his magazine. He did this by publishing stories with the strongest and most convincing scientific basis. Unfortunately, he did not require great writing skills.  By the 1960s, the heyday of short fiction was over, and the markets were shrinking, Writers began to discover that one of the few formats left for publishing short fiction were the pulps, most of which were Science Fiction. Suddenly there was an influx of talented writers trying their hand at Science Fiction. Science Fiction had finally become, both in content and form, a respectable alternative to mainstream literature. This naturally drove expectations up, and thus today’s more sophisticated readers will not accept poorly written stories, regardless of how good the idea is. It is the writers who do not see this, who think that Science Fiction is the easy road to publication, who will end up with the infamous form-letter rejection slip,
        Like any genre that has been around for a long time, there are some themes, plots, and endings that have been done to the point that they are considered clichés. The writer of Science Fiction needs to be aware of them. Of course, the best way to find out what these are is simply to read a great deal of Science Fiction--not just the new works in the bookstores, but the old works as well.  Scan the library shelves for the "big three": Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, and Arthur C. Clarke.  Read back issues of old Science Fiction magazines and frequently check the bookshelves in stores that sell old and used books. There is no substitute for reading. Stanley Schmidt, editor of Analog Science Fiction/ Science Fact, offers a shortcut, a list of twenty-six Science Fiction clichés in an article entitled, “The Ideas That Wouldn’t Die.” The list is not all-inclusive, but it is quite informative. The first six of these horribly overdone ideas are in the form of surprise endings:
                 “But it was only a dream.”
                 “And it was all just a game”
                 “And the computer game turned out not to be a game after all”
                 “The planet’s inhabitants called it earth”
                “And his name was Adam and hers Eve”
               “And so, after a great and protracted agony, the traveler finally emerged into the frightening
               new world…and the doctor said, ‘Congratulations, Mrs. Johnson, you have a fine
               baby boy”. (Schmidt 41)
Schmidt says that he still receives stories like these every month.  No doubt they always get stuffed right back into the envelope and sent home, in hopes that the author will do a little homework before submitting again. There are repetitive themes as well--people falling love with robots, life after a nuclear holocaust, time travel stories that have nothing new to say--just to name a few. Overused devices include pointless sex and violence, hard-nosed private eyes, and the list goes on. It is unwise for new writers to use any one of these ideas even if they believe they have a new angle, They have been done so many times and by so many great writers, that this is exactly the reason they now seem trite. If the idea has been done before, it is usually safe to assume that somebody already did it better.  Caution is the operative word here, because if new writers think they have a fresh and new idea, it's probably because they are not well read in the genre.
        Many new writers think they can write Science Fiction because they perceive it as a realm of pure imagination. To a certain degree that is true: there is nothing wrong with creating a seven ton, two and a half foot high red alien who communicates telepathically, as long as there are physical reasons for it to have evolved this way, and the society it comes from is a logical extension of the alien’s way of thinking. Even in the fantastic realm of Science Fiction, there are rules to be followed, As far as is possible, if an author creates a bizarre world, there is still the obligation of giving it definable rules, explanations, and scientific principles.  It is not always necessary, in fact often impossible, to state or explain all of these within the novel, but the author must know what they are, so that the internal logic is not broken.  Failure in the internal logic creates bad Science Fiction.
        The converse of this is also true. Some beginning writers, and even some professional ones, get so obsessed with building their alien worlds, that they don’t realize they don’t have a story. They may create logical worlds unlike ours, with unusual life forms, religions, political systems, military, technology, and geography, but what they end up with is an in-depth analysis of their imaginary world, with no story to hold it all together. A Science Fiction writer needs to learn how much to explain, and how much to let the reader figure out.
        The most important advice to anyone wanting to write Science Fiction is this: if you are not strong in science, learn; if you still are not comfortable with the science, find some help; and if you are still confused, do not attempt to write Science Fiction. The best Science Fiction writers have strong backgrounds in the hard sciences.  Isaac Asimov is not only a respected writer of Science Fiction, but he has published numerous nonfiction books on subjects from chemistry to mathematics.  Harvey and Audrey Bilker offer these three reasons for the failure of Science Fiction stories:  “…flaws occurring because of discoveries made after the fiction was published…flaws of logic in a theoretical, postulated, or undiscovered science…flaws due to the total disregard of what is known and provable in science” (Bilker 24).
        At the rate technology is advancing, Science Fiction is always at risk of being overtaken by reality.  Forty years ago, home computers that take up no more space than a briefcase were considered fantastic.  Now it is commonplace.  When H.G Wells wrote The First Men in the Moon (1900), it seemed an impossible fantasy.  This is probably the best reason why a Science Fiction writer must be a good writer as well.  We can still look back and enjoy the stories of H.G. Wells, Jules Vern, Mary Shelley, and a handful of other writers from the past, even though some of the science has long since been proven incorrect, or has surpassed their predictions, because they were such superb story tellers.
        If the rapid advancement of science does not daunt Science Fiction writers, then they have to work hard at keeping up on the latest scientific advancements.  Read Scientific American, Omni, Discover, and anything else that records the latest scientific marvels.  Read Classic authors like Shakespeare, Twain, and Dickens, and find out what made them so good.  Learn about people and places and things.  Most importantly, write and rewrite until you get it right.
        There are several useful tools for marketing Science Fiction. Writer’s Market has a listing for commercial periodicals that accept stories in Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror.  It is interesting to note that the genres are combined in this listing, but the individual magazines are quite specific about what they accept.  Each magazine has its own style and readership.  Before sending off to any of these, it is important to look at a few back issues to discover the types of fiction they print.  According to Writer’s Market, these are a few of the better recognized magazines that publish Science Fiction: Aboriginal Science Fiction, Amazing Stories, Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, Isaac Asimov’s Science Fiction Magazine, Beyond…Science Fiction and Fantasy, Hobson’s Choice, The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, Midnight Zoo, Newblood Magazine, Omni, Owlflight, and Pandora (1991).
        All of these magazines pay for stories they publish.  If writers will be satisfied to start their careers a little further from the top, then a useful resource is The Novel and Short Story Writers Market, also published by Writes Digest books. This lists a great number of “little” and “literary” magazines that pay in copies or prestige.  It is a little more time consuming searching for appropriate listings in this book, because it does not have a section devoted to just Science Fiction.  There is an index in the back of the book, which lists magazines according to subject, and this helps.  Both Writer’s Market and The Novel and Short Story Writer’s Market include listings of small and large press book publishers, literary agents, contests, and awards. However, this should not be a writer’s sole marketing approach--looking for publishers in these lists--because this is no substitute for actually going out and locating magazines and books and reading them to find out who publishes what. Science Fiction editors offer the same advice to writers of Science Fiction as editors in any genre: know your market. It is a waste of time for both the editor and the writer, a waste of postage and paper, to send off an inappropriate manuscript. Doing so will result in the automatic return of the story.
        Other resources for writers are Science Fiction conventions, which are held in various cities around the world. They are usually advertised in the back section of Science Fiction magazines. Two useful newszines that list publication information and offer opportunities to Science Fiction writers are The SF Chronicle, P.O. Box 4175 New York, NY 10163, and Locus Publications PO Box 3038 San Francisco CA 94119.
        Perhaps, if the aspiring writer of Science Fiction learns the magic formula for writing well about characters caught up in a technological world that is fresh, new, exciting, logical, scientifically sound, in a way that has never been done before, he or she may win one or both of the most prestigious awards for Science Fiction: The Nebula and Hugo.
  

Asimov, Isaac.  Asimov on Science Fiction.  New York: Doubleday, 1981.
Bilker, Harvey L. and Audrey L.  Writing Science Fiction that Sells.  Chicago: Contemporary
        Books, 1982.
Bova, Ben.  Notes to a Scientific Writer.  Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1981.
Rose, Mark.  Alien Encounters.  Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981.
Schmidt, Stanley.  “The Ideas that Wouldn’t Die.”  Writer’s Digest Mar. 89: 40-43.
1992 Writer’s Market. ed Mark Kissing. Cincinnati: Writers Digest Books, 1991.