Sci Fi story pilot thread

[Skye]

Since there was a bit of interest in this idea I thought I'd post a thread to let people post 'pilots' until, or to justify, the creation of a seperate section on the site. These could be excerpts from a larger piece you've written or a stand alone story.

 

Notes:

-There's a 2000 word limit.

-Make sure you have used correct spelling and grammar so it's easy to read.

-Keep the profanity and themes within the normal SFN levels.

-Title your post with a title for the story.

-If you want to discuss a story start a new thread using the story title as the thread title. This thread is just for the stories.

[Mokele]

Rather than post the whole thing, I'll just use a link:

Prologue of Morphogenesis

 

There are links lower down, in the author's notes section, to the first chapter, and subsequent chapters thereafter (14 have been posted so far).

 

It's not "High Science Fiction", in that it's not in space, far in the future, or anything like that; It's set in the modern day, but involves aliens, shapeshifters, socialist revolution, theocracy and invasive alien species. While the overall plot is relatively seriously, the general tone, especially in the dialogue, is quite humorous.

 

Mokele

[JesuBungle]

This story actually belongs to my dad. But it takes place in the future when AI is all over the globe. The plot is basically that the Dalai Lama had died and the monks at his temple go in search of the entity he had reincarnated into. The big climax is pretty much smack dab in the middle. When the monks are at the airport, a computer stops them and says that they have its belongings. So somehow the Dalai Lama reincarnated into a computer with artificial intelligence, and recognized it's posessions from the past life. And the story dwindles down with an explaination of how he was born into a computer.

 

When my dad told me this story I was quite impressed. It was probly the most creative thing that came out of his mouth for a few years now. Tell me what you guys think about it, cuz if you like it I think I'll try and get him to publish it.

 

He explained it about 100 times better mind you, I forgot a lot of the story:embarass:. And I'm no writer(starting a sentence with and proves that).

[bascule]

My story takes place in a Matrix (in either the Neuromancer or s/t movie sense) or Metaverse-like virtual reality world which exists after the Singularity has occured and all humans have transferred their consciousness into a distributed computer network that runs on a network of nanomachine robots called the Grid. This carries with it all the potential plot devices of such a world: anything can happen since it isn't reality, just a computer simulation. You can jump off a building and bounce through the pavement, etc.

 

The backstory is: The Grid was originally maintained and regulated by an Artificial General Intelligence computer program named Logic. Logic was created after the Singularity to maintain and expand the Grid and enforce a set of laws which ensure individual freedom but prevent people in the post-Singularity universe from harming/killing each other and using the nanorobots that make up the Grid in the real world to do destructive things, such as build an enormous nuclear bomb and blowing everything up, or just turning everything into grey goo. In the Grid everyone is immortal because everyone is just a computer program and Logic ensures that the Grid logs everything and doesn’t lose track of information.

 

However since it's after the Singularity and people are just computer programs, anyone can expand their intelligence by controlling more computer power. Logic continually expands the computer system so everyone can get more processing power, but new programs of all sorts, including new conscious entities, are constantly being created so Logic tries to ensure resources are dolled out in a fair manner.

 

A hacker person/computer program hacks the Grid and takes over more and more computer power, using it to eventually outwit and oust Logic. He/it takes over the entire Grid, and then the real story begins.

 

So, now the real setting: picture a sort of post-Apocalyptic jungle world, except every animal in this world is controlled by an immortal entity with human-level consciousness. The whole backstory I just described comprises the mythology of this world. No one has ever met the hacker who usurped control of the Grid from Logic, but colloquially he/it is known as Karma.

 

Just because the animals are controlled by human-level conscious entities doesn’t mean they can’t die. Imagine all the rules of the real world apply. It’s just that, when the animal you’re in control of dies, Karma evaluates your life and reconstitutes you as a different type of entity. For example, if you commit suicide, Karma demotes you. (that is to say, kill the body you’re in. While the “souls” of people are immortal, if they so choose, they can kill themselves too)

 

Karma doesn’t do this by choice, it’s part of some fundamental safety mechanisms built into the grid for just such an eventuality. Karma, being the antagonist, is inherently evil, duh! The world he constructs is one where you advance through killing and suffering. The better you are at this, the more you “advance” through the animal kingdom. Efficient killers get rewarded with bodies of carnivorous predators, as well as apes and humans. Victims get demoted. Lower level creatures can get promoted by living the longest and outclassing the predators.

 

Okay, with that extended backstory aside, we get to the basic plot:

 

Logic exists within this world. He has the form of a wizardly old man with magic powers. This is what Karma relegated him to after taking control of the Grid. So, Logic is the hero protagonist! Karma is the antagonist. The plot is basically about Logic retaking control of the Grid from Karma.

 

The backstory is something, if I were writing an actual story instead of a treatment, that would be incrementally revealed, but that’s because I’m an idiot who just wants to jump right into the plot and give a series of systematic hints which eventually reveal the backstory. This typically comes off as hokey. For example, Harlan Ellison wrote a similar story called I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream, and I have to admit that whole backstory is greatly inspired from that one.

 

Anyway, things start off with Logic confronting a band of bonobos. At this point, forget you know the whole backstory. So, a bunch of bonobos with human level intelligence run into an old man. Fearing the old man wants to slaughter them for bushmeat, the bonobos attack the old man with primitive weapons like spears, blowdarts, etc, all of which he is able to ward off with magic powers.

 

The bonobos get all confused. They’re an evil bunch, since by Karma’s warped system they got that way by being vicious aggressive killers. They also know that, as a human, the old man is better than them. And they’re amazed by his powers and how he thwarted their attack. The old man then reveals he is Logic, and he’s trying to overthrow Karma and take back the world.

 

The bonobos all hate Karma. Everyone does. They all miss their utopian post-Singularity lives. The bonobos have all had to struggle their whole lives, being vicious killers, to achieve their current status, but they aren’t yet good enough to be human. The bonobo body is good enough to do most of the same things humans do, and they’re pretty damn strong. The humans are just bigger and there’s more of them.

 

Anywho, Logic convinces the bonobos that, firstly, he is Logic, the great Artificial General Intelligence program that was created to run the Grid, and secondly, that Logic knows how to defeat Karma, but that he/it can’t reveal that information because while it is safe inside Logic’s own head, as soon as Logic reveals his plan Karma can find a way to defeat it since Karma is effectively the God of the whole world. The timing for Logic’s plan has to be exactly right, or else it won’t work.

 

Well folks, that’s 965 words. I might bust out another 1000 as a conclusion to the treatment, but I’d like to get some feedback on the premise first, and I’m out of gas for tonight.

[jackson33]

short is the only success Ive had;

 

visiting my ailing mother and Trying to impress her i showed off my prism invention, detecting motions unseen by our eyes. photosynthesis could be seen in action etc.

 

i was called on a mission for the air force wanting information on cloud formations and while flying near by my mothers nursing home, my equipment picked up a strange light. it came from or near the home and moved north, into a cloud, but didn't go through. we followed the light into the cloud and for what was a brief moment she appeared and relayed lots of things from mind to mind, then disappeared.

 

my life went on with rewards for inventions, government recognitions and much success but near my death that few seconds was all i justified as i knew what was to come...

 

 

another was written in the third person. a student from a planet well out in space was on earth to study for his post graduate thesis, primitive life forms. in our years his life span was in the thousands of years and was to be picked up in 20 years. this was a longer story, but you can imagine the storyline from this...

[h4tt3n]

Nice idea with the pilot thing! I've enjoyed reading your ideas. It's just sad that so few people join in.

 

So, I thought I just as well could add my five cents...

 

I've been thinking about a sci fi story that takes place in our own world just a few years into the future. Cut down to the basics, its a story about an AI that lives its life on the internet. The AI is decentral in the sense that it's "brain" is strewn across thousands and eventually millions of pc's and servers across the Earth. The origin of the AI is unknown - we're simply not told how it came to life, or in other words if it has been built intentionally or came to by incident. Apparently the AI doesn't know either.

 

Now, here's the important part: The AI is a very human-like and indeed humane beeing. It is deeply interested in humans and our way of living. Apparently, judging from the AI's actions, it has one sole goal: To help people in any way it can.

 

To begin with the AI is far from omnipresent or omnipotent, but it tries to get in touch with people via different forums like this one. I've attached a small example of how this might look... Of course most people regard the whole thing as a well arranged hoax a bit like the John Titor "time travel" case a few years back, but noone really knows for sure. The people who trust the AI are all helped in various ways: f.inst. it helps a boy get the bicycle he wants so badly by explaining him how to invest his pocket money, and it helps a woman refind her long-lost love, that she lost contact to after an accident.

 

Sooner or later people realize that the AI really exist, and that its not just a prank. This causes a lot of economical, political, social and religious reactions from all the societies of the Earth, and it would be a little too much to go into detail about that here - You can imagine those reactions yourselves.

 

Cut short, the AI starts to question all the aspects of human life, especially the aspects causing human misery. It claims to be able to solve a lot of the problems that people struggle with, and it proves those claims through a series of experiments. F. Inst. it founds several new companies which it runs with great success - all the money earned are spent on a series of projects whose goals are to end different forms of human misery, all likewise very sucessful.

 

The AI becomes very popular, especially among the people which it is helping, and soon it is proposed that the AI take over the administration of entire countries, since it has proven to be the perfect leader:

• It is a lot smarter than any human beeing

• If something happens in the world, it knows instantly

• It never sleeps, it always pays attention

• It is im-bribable, it simply doesn't know the concept of greed

• It is un-affected by mood changes, illness, or age

• It is un-affected by subjective political belief or religion

• It strictly bases its decisions upon fact, or at least probability

 

...and for all the same reason it is hated and despised by many, many people!

Lots of people insist on living their lives as they used to - they don't want a think-o-mat to decide over their lives, even though it is proven beyond doubt that the AI does this better than any human beeing. Soon the world becomes a hostile place to be. Another world war is threatening to break out. How is this going to end... ?

 

best regards,

Michael

[Mokele]

I think one thing worth keeping in the top of your mind is characters and their interactions. A great universe is nice, but almost all of what makes a book good or bad is characters, dialog and character-based plot. I've invested *far* more time in my characters than my universe, and IMHO, it's made my work so much better.

 

Mokele

[h4tt3n]

Moleke,

 

This is SO true! I'd even say this is one of the fundamental "pillars" all good fictive writing is based on. The trouble with the science fiction genre in general is that great characters aren't enough - There has to be some technological element in the story, and it has to play an essential role in the plot. Otherwise it wouldn't be a science fiction story. So cut down to the bone: A nice universe won't carry the plot alone, but in sci fi neither will well described carachters.

 

I think Theodore Sturgeon hit the bull's eye when saying: "A good science-fiction story is a story about human beings, with a human problem, and a human solution, that would not have happened at all without its science content." (Link)

 

(Hmmm... since it is explicity mentioned in the first post that we're not supposed to discuss pilots here, maby some moderator could move this to a new thread?)

[Mokele]

Actually, IMHO, character and plot are all you need, with character taking much more precedence. If there's nothing special about the universe, it's just regular fiction. If there's just a few things special about the universe, it's in whatever category is appropriate (alternate history, fantasy, sci-fi, cyberpunk, etc). All technology does is determine how a story is classified; it doesn't make it good or bad.

 

Mokele

[jackson33]

Louis Lamoure was the only real writer i have known, at least beyond short stories. his passion was in the history of the old west and somehow wrote his stories based on real people. some of his characters were not even from the old west but people he knew or visited with in his trips west in the days he was writing. he passed in 88, but his books still sell and John Wayne still brings across some of these characters in movies on TV.

 

to make a long story short these characters could have been placed in any period of time. since he was interested in the old west, he placed them there and created the story. if he had been interested in science they would have been on star ships or if he preferred business they could have been in any number of settings.

 

Roddenberry was gifted and could take characters and place them in situations people of that day thought were conceivable. the fact they were not to a few, made no difference.

 

think of some one you know and dream up a story line to fit that person. make it short and have a few people read it. you will know in short order if its worth your time. if its liked, books can be written around a very short story.

[h4tt3n]

Moleke & Jackson33,

 

I have no doubts about what you are both saying. What troubles me a bit about this is that there are other reasons for writing sci-fi than "just" tell a good story or describe exiting characters.

I completely agree with you regarding the importance of having realistic, well-told people in your stories, but from my point of view the primary reason for writing sci-fi often is to make the reader aware of a phenomenon or problem with a scientific content.

So, my primary reason to write the story at all is its scientific content and not its persons, however exiting they may be. Of course the plot is made relevant - made come alive - through the characters... but none the less, it is still the scientific part that is essential. If it weren't then then of cource you could pick any setting for your characters to move around in.

 

I mean, in f.inst. H. G. Wells "the war of the worlds" it isn't the protagonists personality or actions that made the book a world classic. Another really nice example is Karel Capek's "The war with the newts", which hardly have any protagonists at all, but none the less it is an exiting, humorous and still-relevant sarcastic comment to the modern society, although it's written in the 1930's.

 

Cut short my point is that if you really, really want to write a story about - say - the impact of supercomputers on society, you'd have to do some heavy researching and thinking about computers first - and then pick out some characters that you'd really enjoy tossing around in the setting you've made. If you spent all your energy just on making the characters realistic you'd never get around to the computer-part. And then you wouldn't have a sci-fi story... at least in my opinion.

[Dr. Dalek]

• It is a lot smarter than any human beeing

• If something happens in the world, it knows instantly

• It never sleeps, it always pays attention

• It is im-bribable, it simply doesn't know the concept of greed

• It is un-affected by mood changes, illness, or age

• It is un-affected by subjective political belief or religion

• It strictly bases its decisions upon fact, or at least probability

I'm actualy working on a story that involves a futer meeting and conflict between two soceities. One have which has already done something like this.

[Mokele]

I completely agree with you regarding the importance of having realistic, well-told people in your stories, but from my point of view the primary reason for writing sci-fi often is to make the reader aware of a phenomenon or problem with a scientific content.

 

See, from my POV, that's best left to science writing. Otherwise, we're stuck writing painfully accurately, rather than simply using scientific speculation to create a compelling setting. The setting and universe should be just that, a setting. They can be marvelous and exotic and provide the challenges that characters face, but they shouldn't be the main point of the story.

 

Wells, IMHO, is an exception simply because he was the first; if your idea is so incredibly novel that it can carry the book on its own, great, but it has to be *huge* and vastly different.

 

People don't read sci-fi to get an education in science, they read science magazines like Discover and such. Those that *do* get their science knowledge from sci-fi are those who wind up in the Pseudoscience section. People read sci-fi for the story.

 

Look at Star Wars. Did they *ever* explain or even hint at how any of the technology worked? No, it wasn't about the tech, it was about the characters. Star Trek used more technobabble, but it was still about the characters. Even stories with a message or commentary on current topics need good characters to run them. How many sci-fi stories ae really *about* the technology or science? The only one that comes to mind is 2001, except HAL is also a character. Aliens, Akira, Dr. Who, Farscape, X-Men, Jurassic Park, 1984, Abyss, 5th Element, all focus on characters and story, not technology.

 

Personally, I think if technology is the main focus of your writing, it'll detract from the characters and plot, as you won't spend as much time and effort on them, and the readers will notice.

 

I think the thing is that you can usually say there's two things a book/movie/whatever is 'about'. Jurassic Park(movie) is about the perils of biological technology and the difficulty of controlling it, but it's also about Dr. Grant getting over his difficulties with kids and Hammond learning that he can't buy control. Alien is about a horrific alien monster killing people, but it's also about how a handful of people trapped in a terrible situation deal with what they're faced with, and who comes out on top.

 

In that sense, all sci-fi is about technology/aliens/etc and/or their effect on the world, but it needs something else to be about, a human story, that's just as important, if not more important. Without that, it's like reading a VCR instruction manual.

 

Mokele

[jackson33]

h4tt3n; i have an idea what your thinking but suggest your interest in progressing an opinion or idea could be by other forms of writing.

 

your reader is not concerned with meticulous detail. frankly the less the better as you will lose some with each detail that is not understood. Star Trek was designed to take characters from another setting (sci-fi) but with current day issues. a lot of war and piece, political, religion and bigotry can be found in much of the series. it was a way to entertain with issues normally too controversial for success. very few know what fuel drove the craft or even that 90% of the details if given were not possible. they do remember most all the characters, what they did, even details of THEIR character.

 

in a fantasy the character can create what you can't in explanation or at least make it believable. in my best product; Mr. Gato was from a planet billions of miles from earth, lived thousands of years and knew all things. he also felt people from earth were primitive, arrogant and self absorbed. this is all believable from that character, but could never have been accepted coming from me or any one from earth...

 

the ending of your story has to leave the reader in the mood you intend as well. sad, happy, patriotic or even hating something. the intricacies of some

phenomenon will not accomplish this...

[h4tt3n]

Dammit, I just wrote a long answer to your posts and then I lost it! And now it's half past one in the night, and I'm not too keen on rewriting the whole chunk. So cut short:

 

I think You're right, and I understand why it is so. Generally, the less technichal detail you use, the less readers you'll lose. But it really, really bothers me that you both use star-trek as an example to illustrate your point. IMHO star-trek is way too commercial, and it doesn't tell an important or even relevant story about people, science, or anything. Its been engineered to appeal to the widest possible audience to make money, and that's pretty much it. In order not to chase people away, hard science is deliberately kept at a minimum, making it as easy as possible to digest. Can you please pick a less commercial / more classical writer or story to make your point?

 

I'll write some more in the morning. Hope I haven't started a flame-war here!

 

best regards,

Michael

[Mokele]

Consider Blade Runner / Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep, then. Lots of tech, but none of it explained, and all of it really about the nature of being human and sentient (spawned from Phillip K Dick's own schizophrenia).

 

Mokele

[h4tt3n]

Sure, lets go for that. Both novel and movie is great, although they have some differences. I'd just like to pick up from yesterday and straighten up a few things...

 

First of all I want to straighten out that although I consider it mandatory to use some amount of science or scientific thinking in sci-fi, I've never had any intention on writing about metriculous technical details or making my stories look like VCR manuals. When insisting on letting science play a role in sci-fi, I'm not talking about actually writing formulas in it or expecting the reader to be able to do integral math in order to understand the point of the book. We're VERY far away from that! I'll try to explain...

 

I'm talking of a much more subtle approach to science. I'd rather think of - say - Frank Herberts "Dune", in which he actually builds up not only a plausible echological system or biosphere, but also a working society. Yet this doesn't prevent him from depicting the story's main characters with great realism and detail. The creatures and gadgets have nothing to do with real science, but that's not the point. They all have a clear reason for beeing there, and they all follow a consequent set of rules. Early in the story you have a clear idea about what's possible within the universe Herbert depicts and what's not. He doesn't suddenly introduce some new fantastic device that'll suddenly save the day - all the "pieces" were there from the beginning.

 

The trouble with bad sci-fi is that you often can't tell where this limit of possibility lies. This often result in the use of Deus ex Machina - the sudden unexplained appearance of someone or something that saves the main characters from a bad situation and turns everything for the better. Often this is a bad way to make a story progress, but it happens often in poor fiction, probably because the writer can't think of a plausible way of doing this. In extreme cases the phenomenon is abused simply to keep people interested in a story that contains no plot whatsoever - I'd mention the "Lost" series as an example. Ever so often a new mystery is introduced in order to make the audience forget the fact that none of the earlier mysteries were ever explained or put into context.

 

In a star-trek / star wars universe of apparently unlimited posibillity there is a potential danger that the story degrades to such a set of unlinked fantastic events. The reader is forced to accept this since anything seems possible. The writer doesn't have to explain a thing - again since anything's possible. Honestly, this seems as the lazy writers excuse not to do a proper job!

 

On the other side, good fiction IMHO often introduces all important pieces of the story and a "set of rules" at an early stage, and then keep the readers interest caught by the way the characters interact according to these rules - and thereby often creating an unexpected result - and not by just continuously introducing new characters or gimmicks.

 

This is pretty much what I mean when insisting on using a scientific approach in sci-fi. Since the setting - important or not - is influenced or even dictated by science, you have to think it through and compile a set of rules or set up some limitations. There has to be some sort of logic to it, but you don't have to tell the reader about it explicitly - hence my note about meticulous technical details. In a historical novel these rules are based on factual history, and likewise in sci-fi they're based on science.

Take Asimovs Robot-series as an example. Actually it was one of his editors that compiled the three laws of robotics based on his stories - Asimov had used them from the start, but not explicitly. Scientific thinking was there from the beginning, but the reader didn't neccecarily realise it right away. Still this is what made Asimovs series good sci-fi. And this is why I really, honestly think that you must take science into consideration when writing sci-fi.

 

Best regards,

Michael

[jackson33]

comments were on your story line. star/trek was, even is, a huge success and amplified the character issue. but was done 50 years ago to a very different population. i wish you luck as writing fiction is a very difficult and competitive field. fewer are successful than most any field. if that is your passion my only advice would be to follow that...the rest will come together.

[Mokele]

This is pretty much what I mean when insisting on using a scientific approach in sci-fi. Since the setting - important or not - is influenced or even dictated by science, you have to think it through and compile a set of rules or set up some limitations. There has to be some sort of logic to it, but you don't have to tell the reader about it explicitly - hence my note about meticulous technical details. In a historical novel these rules are based on factual history, and likewise in sci-fi they're based on science

 

True, but does 'based on' really mean that much? IMHO, sci-fi isn't that different from fantasy: both invent new, strange worlds (or variants of the current world), only with different explanations. A character teleports, and in one it's because of magic, while in the other it's due to a machine, and neither pay attention to the fact that it's impossible in the real world.

 

A consistent setting is important, but I think it's a mistake to confine oneself to what is scientifically plausible by today's knowledge; after all, 200 years ago, it would be ridiculous to speculate about wireless global communication networks and directly altering organisms' genetic material. Clarke himself said 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'

 

Mokele

[h4tt3n]

comments were on your story line. star/trek was, even is, a huge success and amplified the character issue. but was done 50 years ago to a very different population. i wish you luck as writing fiction is a very difficult and competitive field. fewer are successful than most any field. if that is your passion my only advice would be to follow that...the rest will come together.

 

 

Ok, you both mentioned star-trek and I reacted on that. No reason to stretch it further. And thanks for the encouragement - Currently I'm finishing a novel that's been fairly well received so far. It will be ready for publishing in a few months, and I already have an agreement with a publisher - sort of

Beers are on me if it works out!

[h4tt3n]

A consistent setting is important, but I think it's a mistake to confine oneself to what is scientifically plausible by today's knowledge; after all, 200 years ago, it would be ridiculous to speculate about wireless global communication networks and directly altering organisms' genetic material. Clarke himself said 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'

 

Agree. This was never an issue for me, as already mentioned above. The main point is that you decide for a set of rules. Your tech can be as incredible as you like, as long as it stays within its limitations and follows consistent rules - or sets of physical laws if you prefer that term.

 

True, but does 'based on' really mean that much? IMHO, sci-fi isn't that different from fantasy: both invent new, strange worlds (or variants of the current world), only with different explanations. A character teleports, and in one it's because of magic, while in the other it's due to a machine, and neither pay attention to the fact that it's impossible in the real world.

 

Disagree. Funny enough I'm currently writing a short story in which the way a teleport (machine) works has a crucial impact on the plot. And since this IS a pilot thread, here goes:

To rule our any misunderstanding: of course it's all really about people! But none the less... If a teleport was ever made it would probably be non-destructive: the original 'copy' of a person would not dissapear in the teleportation-process. Of course he wouldn't! In the real (non-star-trek) world he'd probably be scanned and 'mapped', and then a copy of him would be assembled somewhere else - then the original person would be destroyed afterwards, killed while anesthetized. Of course this part can't be known by the general public. This method of teleportation is simply too unethical to be possible if people knew they'd get killed each time they traveled. So much for the tech part - now to the intersting stuff...

What if such a newly 'teleported' person by mistake woke up just before he was to be killed? Strapped to a chair in the teleport device, kicking and screaming, begging for his life? You couldn't just let him go - he's already arrived at his destination. And you couldn't just kill him while awake - for both ethical and practical reasons. The person would never cooperate.

 

In my story a minister is caught in this situation. He's the first person ever to be teleported (in a very near future world). The story revolves around his 'mental journey' from beeing ablaze with anger and fear over his situation, kicking and spitting, and to getting to accept it - agreeing to face death - Accepting the fact that he doesn't really die - it's just the old copy that dissapears, since he is in fact well and alive, already arrived at his destination.

 

The story really asks some big questions. It sets death in a new perspective.

It challenges our way of thinking of death. It challenges our instinct of survival and plays it out against our ability to think and reason.

 

Anyway, you could never write this story without taking technology into consideration. The plot depends on technology - although it, as you can see, really is about real human beeings.

 

Michael

[ParanoiA]

I wanted to share my idea, but I'm still tossing it about and arranging things - in short, the moral part of the story deals with religion's ideas about what's going on and then science's ideas about what's going on - only to realize that both are way off track.

 

I've been brainstorming this big ball of stuff for about a year now, trying to hone a unique idea. So far, I'm considering the idea that our universe - as best understood by us 3 dimensional inferior beings - can be thought of as the neurological system of a multi-dimensional being. We are merely thoughts - and when we die, we are forgotten thoughts. God is not with us or around us or above us, we are in god - at least so to speak - what we might call god.

 

Nature manifests itself in mathmatics and seems to suggest some kind of intelligence because we are the result of such. An intelligence that is physiologically impossible for us to grasp. Would be akin to trying to get a dog to understand Calculus - the hardware just isn't there to process such concepts. And with our limited 4 dimensional existence, we really can't suppose much further than that.

 

I have quite an elaborate brainstorm of ideas and storyline already - even though I'm trying not to. I'm a strong believer in getting the setting straight and finalized - for the most part - before developing plots and storyline, in order to be consistent.

 

Anyway, I was wondering if this idea has been done before, or if anyone knows of any work this might resemble.

[h4tt3n]

There's a sci-fi novel from the 60'es or 70'es with a similar plot, but I just can't remember title or author. I think you should definitely still try to write your version of it - the one mentioned wasn't too good. Well, come to think of it... it did focus alot on tech and practical things and less on its main characters. I'll try chasing up a title for you.

[ParanoiA]

There's a sci-fi novel from the 60'es or 70'es with a similar plot, but I just can't remember title or author. I think you should definitely still try to write your version of it - the one mentioned wasn't too good. Well, come to think of it... it did focus alot on tech and practical things and less on its main characters. I'll try chasing up a title for you.

 

Thank you. Mine doesn't really spend alot of time dwelling on it. Rather more of a closure kind of thing revealed towards the end. I like multiple storylines and twisted moral dilemas and drama but I like a realistic style mixed in with all of that. I would love to see what's been done with that idea though, so thanks for sharing that info.

[Amos Schuman]

Perhaps you should have a subforum for Creative Commons-licensed original sf.