The Sci-Fi Cliche

With the advanced technology of today, there's not much limitation on what we can put in movies. Unfortunately this means that everyone goes for the biggest possible special effect: exploding planet.

Every superhero out there is fighting the threat of the end of the world. Somehow the bad guy is gonna end all life on earth - and yeah, I guess that would be concerning - but am I the only one who gets bored when the bad guy starts talking about his weapon that has the ability to destroy a planet?

Yeah, it was devastating when Vulcan got swallowed by a black hole in 2009 but isn't that the only planet that's actually bitten the dust anyway?

The 'human residence' was almost incinerated in Doctor Who and the new Justice League was kind of apocalyptic.

Everywhere you turn, the whole world is being threatened and it's ironically anticlimactic.

The overwhelming amount of sci-fi books about Earth's impending doom is enough to make even me get tired of the entire genre.

The quality of science fiction has decreased with the increase of mass producing stories for money and recognition. And the mantra among 'creative professionals' (who are becoming less creative and less professional as time goes on) is 'bigger is better.'

It's not, by the way

"This is how you do it: you sit down at the keyboard and you put one word after another until it's done. It's that easy and that hard." - Neil Gaiman

My friend and I often joke (in a very not-joking way) that since becoming writers we can predict the outcomes of most every story we see. Based on a single line of dialogue, a single background character, a single passing glance, the story unfolds in our minds long before it does on paper or on screen.

Over the past few years it has become ridiculously easy to predict the end of the movie.

More and more I find myself leaving the theater or putting down my book thinking "I could have done better than that" - and I don't even consider myself a good writer.

"Everybody walks past a thousand ideas every day. The good writers are the ones who see five or six of them. Most people don't see any." - Orson Scott Card

So maybe having your villain blow up the world isn't such a plot twist - unless...you know...he actually succeeds.

I used to write about big world-threatening plots because that seemed to be what everyone wanted. But then I turn around and there's another book that looks exactly like mine.

"Does the world actually end in your book?"

"No, how about yours?"

"Nah, my hero saves the day."

"Mine too."

So...your book's not actually about the world ending...it's about your hero's psychological breakdowns and cool weapons that get detailed between the villain's verbal threat at the beginning and the hero's not-so-surprising victory at the end.

What's wrong with a smaller threat? Why can't you write a book that has the plot in the middle of the book and not just the cover pages?

A smaller but far more intriguing threat would leave more room for guessing than wondering if Superman's actually going to let the world blow up. (...is this actually a question?)

"My inspiration tends to come from two words. The two most important words to a writer: "What if?"" - Beth Revis

Please don't be afraid to write small conflicts. It says more about you and your work to go against the flow of fads. Dystopian and apocalyptic literature have seen their day. If you're going to write inside those categories, try to make your plot more intricate than the Hunger Games.

Ever since the Hunger Games came out, everything else looks like the Hunger Games.

Don't be afraid to do something different. Don't think you have to write like everyone else. You don't have to write to be liked by everyone else.

Write good books not popular books.

May the force be with you.

"Whether or not you write well, write bravely." - Bill Stout