Do you "modernise"?

I may as well add,

One reason not to do it, is that is can instantly date your story.

Also things can change quickly, so it may be obsolete by the time its published.

One anecdote is when Stan Lee was writing funny captions for a magazine of celebrity photos. Thecover of an issue had JFK, I believe, up on a podium with flags and banners, president of the United states, so on. He captioned it "Allow me to introduce myself." JFK was shot just as the copies were about to ship. Issue pulled, fortune lost, magazine cancelled.

Apparently *current famous fantasy author* fell into the hole of having a novel "modernised" and there was immediate fan backlash. I'll let you look that up. I only saw it on YT videos. Mistakes happen. He made it, so we don't have to.

Also remember there are people like the aforementioned persons with plackards, on all sides. And some people can be willing to go beyond that level. Just ask Mr T. The one with the jet, not the van.

PS

Of course, it could be worse:

"Books fatal to their authors"

https://publicdomainreview.org/collection/books-fatal-to-their-authors/

I looked up fantasy author modernised (zed) novel on Black Friday. This search offered me many books for sale on many websites. I am interested, maybe you can send me a PM?

I've only got one current novel in which cell phones are a thing. Even then I barely use them. I'd have to check, but I don't believe in my winning story I used phones. One guy had a tablet he was always poking. 

Those are what drive me most nuts in stories because they take so much tension away. Stranger Things - no cell phones. Otherwise Will would have just called, "Hey, I'm in the Upside Down." 

AI is the thing right now. Stories about rampaging AIs may not work, but a story set now or in the near future should include AI in the same way as cell phones. That tech is here. Only, we understand cell phones and can imagine where they're going to be in 10 years... Maybe a different interface, but still around. AI is a fog, difficult to see through to the future. Yet, that's what makes the speculation fun. 

A story where someone gets the future of AI wrong may not age well, but it could play well now as we all guess what the full impact will be. Probably rampaging AIs.

Posted by: @tj_knight

↑

 

A story where someone gets the future of AI wrong may not age well, but it could play well now as we all guess what the full impact will be. Probably rampaging AIs.

probably AIs using cellphones. But they'd likely just want to extend my expiring car warranty....

I'm surprised if you hadn't heard of the to do.

Seems to be from January: A Dredd dropped Santa's list and mixed up all the boys and girls names. Or something along those lines. I wheely would like say who.

Maybe in the future people will use AI to break my cryptic?

Let me know if you still can't figure it out.

Better yet, they may pop in to give their take?

I'm not in the know when it comes to public drama, then again, I'm not trying to be. I actively avoid "popular" opinion because it has nothing to do with my own, which I mostly keep to myself unless it relates to the craft I'm actively furthering.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with writing about a subject , modern or otherwise. What matters is how you go about doing so.

Take Lewis Carrol as an example. When you think about Alice in Wonderland's Mad Hatter, what comes to mind? I guarantee you're not thinking about Victorian England, about their use of mercury to treat rabbit fur as part of their hat making process, nor are you thinking about the hat makers, the "hatters," who developed the shakes as mercury exposure destroyed their nervous systems. Yet, if you lived in Victorian England at the time that Alice in Wonderland was released, you would easily recognize the parallel because "as mad as a hatter" was common knowledge during that time.

Also, while I didn't grow up watching Star Trek, the WotF Podcast has often referenced how the series took controversial topics, stripped away the familiar, and then set them within an environment where the issues could be more objectively examined while separated from our biases. The place where authors and creatives go wrong is when they masquerade their message/opinion as a story, then sell it to someone who believes a story is what they're purchasing. That's never going to go over well.

Personally, I believe your own "1950s viewpoint" will ultimately hinder your growth as a writer. While I don't know anything about your style or preferences for storytelling, I have firsthand experience with writing outside of my preferences. So I've witnessed how emensely such writing can inform the way you do want to write. And if you think about it, isn't sticking to your viewpoint a defining factor for the very controversy you're alluding to? When we become too rigid in our beliefs and practices, how can we expect another to compromise in their beliefs when we're not willing to even consider doing the same?

That's worth considering.

To answer your question, the only thing I care about is what is suitable for my story. For example, one of my current projects involves kid super heroes following a specific, philosophical, lesson plan of their teacher, who is secretly training them to one day defeat a dormant monster, which will become a great threat. So ask yourself, what part of that summary gives you any clue about what my message is? Well, the monster represents AI, but you'll see no mention of AI anywhere within the story. And that's the difference between authorial intent--one is concerned with the author's self, the other aims to entertain you while imparting buried lessons and altered points of view.

Posted by: @jtwrites

↑

When we become to rigid in our beliefs and practices, how can we expect another to compromise in their beliefs when we're not willing to even consider doing the same?

That's not always the problem, as it's often the fact the "non 1950s" idea is already a sudden and dramatic change.

So it's not asking people to change their view point, as they have already done so to get to the current situation.

If someone was very young when being indoctrinated into a new idea, then they may never have had the "1950s" viewpoint. 

But that's only a further negative in the "non 1950s" idea, as these people may grow to realise they made a mistake.

In their space ships.,

Posted by: @jtwrites

↑

Personally, I believe your own "1950s viewpoint" will ultimately hinder your growth as a writer.

I see it more as future proofing.

Stories can get awfully dated by not restraining things.

Like the mad hatter.

Its now a funny character no one gets.

But watch a "1950s" SciFi show, outer limits, and the like. And the characters are still relatable.

Im not sure a funny haired, never seen kindergarten cop character will age well, for example.

But, yes, a frustrated robot like Ash seems to.

What do robots have?

A magazine! 

"Thanks for the tip."

Listening to a WOF podcast and Toni Weisscopf being cancelled from guest of honour at discon 3 was mentioned.

Looked it up...

Basically in charge of a forum for Baen publishing, where apparently people were talking about stuff people didn't like. 

So you don't even need to do anything to have issues.

Although that may have been the actual complaint.

I don't understand people just saying "yes sir, no sir," basically lying to get along.

So it's good when people don't.

Like Ellison.

And it give people something to talk about.

Then they have to read your stories, or they may sound ignorant when discussing you.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/12/04/woke-books-are-a-flop-with-readers/

An interesting article. 

I went into a city bookstore and they have an abcd... section.

Puts me off, and likely more people than the few actively looking for such content if it's not there, I'd expect.

I find, listening to interviews and reading articles, normal caucasian male authors are more likely to simply talk about writing, as opposed to any particular political or social aspect they may push. But then I don't listen to many on other authors.

Often immigrant authors will write from that angle, different races from that, whatever is most obvious to the world about the person, often due to their banging on about it.

Please, don't do that.

Maybe a  gold medal winning Paralympian, or octo Mum.., maybe.

I don't immediately see an angle with JK Rowling, for example, except she wrote HP for her kids, which just gave her a market to aim for. Mary Shelley likely had some angle with Frankenstein, the dangers of mens meddling perhaps. But Stephen King? Regular folk in an extraordinary situation, aka, just a good story. 

The book mentioned in the article couldn't just be a book about the authors life, it had to be centred upon one political/social aspect. 

Not acting, no, not acting. 

You need a hook, and that's a doozy, but I would think acting would have been a more global one which may have actually helped sales, as opposed to limiting them.

Then again, I don't think a typical 50s family would approve either. Which is why I use them to help decide writing choices. They do like actress's though, so that may have been the better angle.

Note: I have not read any of the books mentioned. But I have seen all 7 Harry Potter films, at least 3 Frankenstein films and many Stephen King films.

And Juno, which was actually a pretty good film, from memory. If it ain't broke...

I've seen this article's "obstacles" listed on publisher/agent sites. And as a white male author, do you know what that information did for me? Initially, it was discouraging, of course. But only initially. After that, I realized what a great motivation it truly was. You see, I like obstacles. Love them, even. Because when one stand atop them, they often find that they're able to reach places they might not have otherwise.

It's just another form of competition, albeit one-sided. But I'm willing to bet that most people will incorrectly guess how it's one-sided. The most obvious answer is the favoritism side, right? Well, that's incorrect.

Think about running a foot race or any other form of competition. If you have any amount of competitive drive, you will run harder and faster when there's someone running alongside you. The presence of the competitor makes you better. It makes you both better.

Now, think of the unfair playing field. Who does the competition benefit? The favoritism side has no need/motivation to improve, so why would they? They are safe. They are comfortable.

"Somewhere in the world someone is training when you are not. When you race him, he will win."
-Tom Fleming

"The heights by great men reached and kept were not attained by sudden flight, but they, while their companions slept, were toiling upward in the night."
-Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

All of the motivation is on the disadvantaged side. And a political view will no more craft a professional writer than a microscope will craft a master blacksmith.

So I say let them errect their fences, their higher bars. I'm still going to write, still going to improve. And when my craftsmanship has reached a point they can no longer ignore it, I'll be improving still.

I wonder what will become of their walls then.