My steampunk series of posts has so far focused on what's possible with steam power. However, there are also some limits to the capabilities of steam technology, primarily focused on the needed parts for steam machines to operate and the size of the related engine.
Steam-fueled machinery, unlike contemporary electronics, requires moving parts in order to operate. This means gears, flywheels, pistols, belts, and various sundry items to maintain mechanical motion. If you've ever looked under your car's hood while it's running, you can see the type of machinery I'm talking about.
Because steam machines requires this, the mechanism is going to be more complex and, depending on your time period, larger than what we see now. Take a look at this steam car prototype from the 1770s vs the 1924 Doble or the Stanley Steamer. The last two are much more advanced, but you can see from this diagram (sorry it's in German), the parts that a steam car needs to have in order to run. And here's some diagrams of how a steam engine works.
For any other steam technology, whether it's an airship, tank, or battleship, some things to consider are boiler and engine size, water supply, and fuel storage. Sure you can have a massive steam engine powering your humongous aerial battleship, but you're going to need a boiler that's a proportionate size to create all the steam needed to make the airship rise. That's going to necessitate a room at least the size of a standard battleship engine room (roughly 60 feet long by 27 feet wide). The USS Texas had two engine rooms that size, as one example.
What's this mean for your naval/aerial vessels? They need to be comparable sizes to vessels that actually ran on steam power. And if you intend to have the airship be a zeppelin, well then you have another issue with the balloon size. Note how much larger the balloon is than the gondola where the people sit. This should probably increase proportionately with each addition to the underside. Or you could always go the Girl Genius route (Castle Wulfenbach) and make the balloon itself be part of the airship. Your choice really.
In Part 2, we'll talk about the other limits I mentioned.
Note: Involve magic instead of straight technology, and many of these limits go out the proverbial window.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
New Query
There's going to be this short-ish post and a longer one later today (maybe), but I wanted to draw attention to my new query over at Public Query Slushpile.
The hook for CALLARION AT NIGHT is giving me a lot of problems. For SON OF MAGIC, the hook's easy -- "Engineering student Swain Kirby remembers things that never happened to him." BAM! Done, and it tells you what the main crux of that volume is.
Moriah Rowani's story (CALLARION AT NIGHT's MC) is more difficult to encapsulate. Her father's death is the catalyst for the story, but I don't know how to get across the fact that he dies on her first day back in the city without getting too detailed. That's why, if you look at version 1 and version 2, the hook is So. Effing. Long.
I might just need to finish this revision of the story and get it out of my head for awhile. That's what allowed me to come up with the hook for SON OF MAGIC so readily. It's a thought at least.
The hook for CALLARION AT NIGHT is giving me a lot of problems. For SON OF MAGIC, the hook's easy -- "Engineering student Swain Kirby remembers things that never happened to him." BAM! Done, and it tells you what the main crux of that volume is.
Moriah Rowani's story (CALLARION AT NIGHT's MC) is more difficult to encapsulate. Her father's death is the catalyst for the story, but I don't know how to get across the fact that he dies on her first day back in the city without getting too detailed. That's why, if you look at version 1 and version 2, the hook is So. Effing. Long.
I might just need to finish this revision of the story and get it out of my head for awhile. That's what allowed me to come up with the hook for SON OF MAGIC so readily. It's a thought at least.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Considerations on Steampunk Weaponry
Death rays, clockwork guns, and steam-powered cannons are some examples of the weaponry that can exist in a steampunk tale. What weapons you use depends on whether you decide to make things realistic or fantastic. My general rule is to not make anything up when something that already exists will serve the purpose. Some basic research will show the vast catalog of weapons that people used in the 19th Century, in details more than enough to satisfy the creative mind. Changing the names is OK, by the way.
Take the repeating rifle for example: a standard rifle designed in the late 1800s to improve on the breech- and muzzle-loading rifles of the time. There are four types of repeating mechanisms at use in this firearm -- bolt action, lever action, revolving, and pump action. Lever-action repeating rifles are the one seen in a lot of Westerns, where the shooter fires, pulls the trigger assembly down, and fires the new bullet that's been levered into place. This gun serves the purpose of giving soldiers a long-distance weapon that fires multiple bullets before reloading. And is a real weapon that can fit easily into any steampunk work.
The former Royal Small Arms Factory of Enfield, London crafted numerous ubiquitous weapons that fall under the auspices of traditional steampunk with its Victorian setting. The Enfield revolver and the Lee-Enfield rifle, two examples that bear mentioning, were in service well into the 20th Century for the British military. This is one of those cases, however, where you can't use the actual names of the guns unless you're writing a traditional steampunk or historical fiction.
Going forward with more esoteric weaponry, such as those with clockwork firing mechanisms, it's always worthwhile to consider how the design might potentially function. No one's really going to build a gun with a clockwork firing mechanism because traditional mechanical versions do the job they're supposed to. There's no point to doing anything with the level of complexity a clockwork mechanism requires. However, considering how the machine might work can add a certain veracity to your writing that you might not get simply from saying "a clockwork gun." It also helps if you have a MacGuyver-ish character that has to repair it in the context of the story.
Steam-powered cannons and other heavy guns are easy answers for determining how they fire. Steam generated by the attached boiler is compressed until the pressure increases to a suitably high level behind the cannonball/shell/whatnot and, when the pressure is released, the shot explodes from the cannon.
Then, there's the stuff of pure fantasy -- death rays, dream extractors, and whatever else you want to make up as weaponry in your story. The sky's the limit really. Just remember to think about how it operates. Details are good.
Take the repeating rifle for example: a standard rifle designed in the late 1800s to improve on the breech- and muzzle-loading rifles of the time. There are four types of repeating mechanisms at use in this firearm -- bolt action, lever action, revolving, and pump action. Lever-action repeating rifles are the one seen in a lot of Westerns, where the shooter fires, pulls the trigger assembly down, and fires the new bullet that's been levered into place. This gun serves the purpose of giving soldiers a long-distance weapon that fires multiple bullets before reloading. And is a real weapon that can fit easily into any steampunk work.
The former Royal Small Arms Factory of Enfield, London crafted numerous ubiquitous weapons that fall under the auspices of traditional steampunk with its Victorian setting. The Enfield revolver and the Lee-Enfield rifle, two examples that bear mentioning, were in service well into the 20th Century for the British military. This is one of those cases, however, where you can't use the actual names of the guns unless you're writing a traditional steampunk or historical fiction.
Going forward with more esoteric weaponry, such as those with clockwork firing mechanisms, it's always worthwhile to consider how the design might potentially function. No one's really going to build a gun with a clockwork firing mechanism because traditional mechanical versions do the job they're supposed to. There's no point to doing anything with the level of complexity a clockwork mechanism requires. However, considering how the machine might work can add a certain veracity to your writing that you might not get simply from saying "a clockwork gun." It also helps if you have a MacGuyver-ish character that has to repair it in the context of the story.
Steam-powered cannons and other heavy guns are easy answers for determining how they fire. Steam generated by the attached boiler is compressed until the pressure increases to a suitably high level behind the cannonball/shell/whatnot and, when the pressure is released, the shot explodes from the cannon.
Then, there's the stuff of pure fantasy -- death rays, dream extractors, and whatever else you want to make up as weaponry in your story. The sky's the limit really. Just remember to think about how it operates. Details are good.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Information Dumps
Laura's comment yesterday about 100 pages of research equaling 1 page of narrative reminded me of one of my writing pet peeves/things I used to do a lot:
Information dumps
This, I feel, is one of the bigger problems for new writers. You have all this background information that the character needs to fulfill the quest or the reader needs to understand the story and, in the rush to get to the "meat" of the tale, you let the reader know absolutely everything up front. This has the unintended consequence of making the reader disappear faster than pizza at a Weight Watchers convention (brownie points for anyone who knows the comic I stole that from).
Same thing goes for all of the research we do as writers. It's all necessary for verisimilitude, but those reams of research may only serve to make sure one comment by one character makes sense to someone who knows the topic better than you do. For example, I chopped an entire page and a half from a friend's WIP because it was an information dump (she thanked me for it, by the way). All that (necessary to her story) background is better spread throughout the story, rather than up front.
I tried to do the same thing in SON OF MAGIC and CALLARION AT NIGHT. You never get all the info right at the get-go and, in fact, there's (hopefully) enough vague tidbits that you keep reading to find out if your questions get answered/that offhand comment in Chapter Three plays out in Chapter Seventeen and so on.
Information dumps can work, however. J.K. Rowling was asked, at one point, if she'd ever have Ron and Harry read Hogwarts:A History. She replied that they'd never read the book because then she couldn't use Hermione to explain everything to both them and, by extension, the reader. It's a brilliant way to get the background information out without resorting to massive blocks of text that makes the reader's eyes glaze over.
This is rare though, and most writers who attempt to do end up resulting in the dreaded info dump. The lesson to take away from all this is to only let your character and readers enough to drive the story forward. Otherwise, what's the point of writing it?
Information dumps
This, I feel, is one of the bigger problems for new writers. You have all this background information that the character needs to fulfill the quest or the reader needs to understand the story and, in the rush to get to the "meat" of the tale, you let the reader know absolutely everything up front. This has the unintended consequence of making the reader disappear faster than pizza at a Weight Watchers convention (brownie points for anyone who knows the comic I stole that from).
Same thing goes for all of the research we do as writers. It's all necessary for verisimilitude, but those reams of research may only serve to make sure one comment by one character makes sense to someone who knows the topic better than you do. For example, I chopped an entire page and a half from a friend's WIP because it was an information dump (she thanked me for it, by the way). All that (necessary to her story) background is better spread throughout the story, rather than up front.
I tried to do the same thing in SON OF MAGIC and CALLARION AT NIGHT. You never get all the info right at the get-go and, in fact, there's (hopefully) enough vague tidbits that you keep reading to find out if your questions get answered/that offhand comment in Chapter Three plays out in Chapter Seventeen and so on.
Information dumps can work, however. J.K. Rowling was asked, at one point, if she'd ever have Ron and Harry read Hogwarts:A History. She replied that they'd never read the book because then she couldn't use Hermione to explain everything to both them and, by extension, the reader. It's a brilliant way to get the background information out without resorting to massive blocks of text that makes the reader's eyes glaze over.
This is rare though, and most writers who attempt to do end up resulting in the dreaded info dump. The lesson to take away from all this is to only let your character and readers enough to drive the story forward. Otherwise, what's the point of writing it?
Monday, October 5, 2009
On Being Detail-Oriented
One of the things I always tell people is that I'm very "detail-oriented."
For my fiction, this means that I research things almost constantly. I have a "Russian"* character in CALLARION AT NIGHT, so I looked up Russian speech patterns; recently I found a resource on writing the Irish accent without using dialect (needed for another character). I have books on architecture, weapons, Nazi thought, numerous printouts of baby names from various cultures, etc.
I also know the exact mph of a horse at a walk, trot, canter, and gallop -- information I used to calculate the distance between the cities of Haldor (the world of SON OF MAGIC). And did you know that the average person's walking speed is 2 to 3 miles per hour? That's another random tidbit of information you can use to calculate distance.
All of this translates (I hope) into stories with as few holes in the background as possible. I'm not a fan of the practice of "making it up" if you don't know it. Mostly because there's always someone out there who's going to call you on any bit of information you get wrong, no matter how small. This is why writing historical fiction is so hard. You have to get things dead-on accurate for your period or else the story doesn't work.
Same goes for any part of a fantasy/sci-fi story where you pull something from reality. It has to be accurate or it doesn't ring as factual, with the end result being you lost the reader. Probably the worst thing that can happen to a storyteller.
So, dear readers, I told you some of the research I've gathered. Now it's your turn. What's the weirdest tidbit you've ever had to look up for a story?
* The character isn't Russian per se, but he's from a country that's heavily based on Russia.
For my fiction, this means that I research things almost constantly. I have a "Russian"* character in CALLARION AT NIGHT, so I looked up Russian speech patterns; recently I found a resource on writing the Irish accent without using dialect (needed for another character). I have books on architecture, weapons, Nazi thought, numerous printouts of baby names from various cultures, etc.
I also know the exact mph of a horse at a walk, trot, canter, and gallop -- information I used to calculate the distance between the cities of Haldor (the world of SON OF MAGIC). And did you know that the average person's walking speed is 2 to 3 miles per hour? That's another random tidbit of information you can use to calculate distance.
All of this translates (I hope) into stories with as few holes in the background as possible. I'm not a fan of the practice of "making it up" if you don't know it. Mostly because there's always someone out there who's going to call you on any bit of information you get wrong, no matter how small. This is why writing historical fiction is so hard. You have to get things dead-on accurate for your period or else the story doesn't work.
Same goes for any part of a fantasy/sci-fi story where you pull something from reality. It has to be accurate or it doesn't ring as factual, with the end result being you lost the reader. Probably the worst thing that can happen to a storyteller.
So, dear readers, I told you some of the research I've gathered. Now it's your turn. What's the weirdest tidbit you've ever had to look up for a story?
* The character isn't Russian per se, but he's from a country that's heavily based on Russia.
Friday, October 2, 2009
I Got A Feeling ....
That CALLARION AT NIGHT is pretty much the best story I've written thus far. Also, based on the response over Public Query Slushpile, I feel like this WIP (more than SON OF MAGIC) has a chance of actually getting published.
Granted, I've yet to finish my current (third) revision of the story and figure out which of several endings will work. Then there's beta readers and more rewrites, and so on and so forth. The entire process may take upwards of a year. Which I'm OK with. Because I'm confident this will be the one that passes muster.
Oh, and where am I on the revision (in case you're curious)? Wrapping up Chapter 7 (less than a third done with it, so I have awhile before I get to the beta reader point). Word count's at 21,318 right now -- roughly 75 pages -- and growing every day. With any luck, this draft will be wrapped up by Christmas. It might even get a bow on it.
Granted, I've yet to finish my current (third) revision of the story and figure out which of several endings will work. Then there's beta readers and more rewrites, and so on and so forth. The entire process may take upwards of a year. Which I'm OK with. Because I'm confident this will be the one that passes muster.
Oh, and where am I on the revision (in case you're curious)? Wrapping up Chapter 7 (less than a third done with it, so I have awhile before I get to the beta reader point). Word count's at 21,318 right now -- roughly 75 pages -- and growing every day. With any luck, this draft will be wrapped up by Christmas. It might even get a bow on it.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Where Seldom Is Heard ...
... a discouraging word/and the skies are not cloudy all day. -- Home on the Range
Natalie Bahm's Wednesday post on encouragement and Bane of Anubis's Art Rant got me thinking about the benefits of encouragement and of critcism. I won't summarize either set of points, because you can just check out the original posts at the links above, but I do want to add something that would end up being too long for a comment on either one.
Encouragement and criticism both have their places in a writer's development. One, in my opinion, isn't worth the sweat off a dog's back without the other. If you receive too much encouragement and not enough criticism, you might potentially have an inflated sense of your own ability. Conversely, if you receive too much criticism and not enough encouragement, you end up second-guessing yourself so many times the universe will perish before you come to a decision (extreme example, yes I know).
There's this one writing group in my area, lead by a published author, whose focus is not on publication or anything of the sort. It's merely a venue for people to read from the stories they're working on and get (mostly) positive feedback. The last time I attended this group was more than three years ago because myself and the two other fantasy authors in there spun off into the awesome crit group we have now.
This type of encouragement is good ... to a point. You need the person who's going to give your MS back dripping with red ink because they're the only ones who are going to tell you what is and is not working in the text. The above writers' group is good for those who aren't ready for this type of criticism. And it is something you have to be ready for. Otherwise you might end up just getting depressed instead of taking the comments for what they are.
Then you get into the "artistes" of the world who've received universal encouragement from their little circle of influence, or been in a place where what they create tends toward being better than the limited creative types they have contact with. These people may have an ego the size of the Sears Tower and be convinced, through the "yes" men/women around them, that they don't need criticism.
Artistes tend to look down on the folks in the trenches who are aiming toward publication. And could use a page dripping with red ink the most as a reality check, but they're also the most likely to say "oh you just don't understand my work." Said comment means two things a) they think you're a Philistine and b) you just wasted your time trying to be helpful.
Critique helps make creative types better. There's no two ways about it. Having your work deconstructed in front of your eyes and shone where it could be improved is sometimes energizing, especially because the person doing this loved (or disliked) your story/song/painting enough to take the time to think about it. Which is what we all want to have, methinks.
And remember, critique can also be a form of encouragement. If it's worded properly, of course.
Natalie Bahm's Wednesday post on encouragement and Bane of Anubis's Art Rant got me thinking about the benefits of encouragement and of critcism. I won't summarize either set of points, because you can just check out the original posts at the links above, but I do want to add something that would end up being too long for a comment on either one.
Encouragement and criticism both have their places in a writer's development. One, in my opinion, isn't worth the sweat off a dog's back without the other. If you receive too much encouragement and not enough criticism, you might potentially have an inflated sense of your own ability. Conversely, if you receive too much criticism and not enough encouragement, you end up second-guessing yourself so many times the universe will perish before you come to a decision (extreme example, yes I know).
There's this one writing group in my area, lead by a published author, whose focus is not on publication or anything of the sort. It's merely a venue for people to read from the stories they're working on and get (mostly) positive feedback. The last time I attended this group was more than three years ago because myself and the two other fantasy authors in there spun off into the awesome crit group we have now.
This type of encouragement is good ... to a point. You need the person who's going to give your MS back dripping with red ink because they're the only ones who are going to tell you what is and is not working in the text. The above writers' group is good for those who aren't ready for this type of criticism. And it is something you have to be ready for. Otherwise you might end up just getting depressed instead of taking the comments for what they are.
Then you get into the "artistes" of the world who've received universal encouragement from their little circle of influence, or been in a place where what they create tends toward being better than the limited creative types they have contact with. These people may have an ego the size of the Sears Tower and be convinced, through the "yes" men/women around them, that they don't need criticism.
Artistes tend to look down on the folks in the trenches who are aiming toward publication. And could use a page dripping with red ink the most as a reality check, but they're also the most likely to say "oh you just don't understand my work." Said comment means two things a) they think you're a Philistine and b) you just wasted your time trying to be helpful.
Critique helps make creative types better. There's no two ways about it. Having your work deconstructed in front of your eyes and shone where it could be improved is sometimes energizing, especially because the person doing this loved (or disliked) your story/song/painting enough to take the time to think about it. Which is what we all want to have, methinks.
And remember, critique can also be a form of encouragement. If it's worded properly, of course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)