Algis Budrys introduces L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard (1911-1986) was born in the American West at a time when the Frontier ethic still placed a heavy responsibility on a man. The responsbility was to suvive without being a burden on others; to be a positive force; to not merely survive, but to contribute. Nothing said you couldn't have fun in the process, and there is plenty of evidence that Hubbard loved taking the world apart to see how it ticked, and putting parts of it back together in ways that baffled some and often afforded him enormous merriment.

Even in his earliest teens, he displayed an omnivorous thirst for information, at first hand and from books. That's not rare in someone who'll be a writer, but his intensity was. Too, his personal circumstances were such that he could explore sea and land personally, while also coming into contact with some unusually effective teachers. He made observations and formed opinions that were not always usual, and developed a manner that dared you to dispute them. If you put up a good argument, so much the better; if you couldn't, so be it. Either way, both of you had had the opportunity to test some feature of the universe, that wonderful box full of marvelous toys and elegant instruments.

Something led him to share his discoveries, and his delights in them, and his occasional consternations at what he found there. He became an entertainer; specifically, a writer of popular "pulp" fiction. Soon enough, even more specifically, a writer of speculative fiction.

Science fiction and fantasy are where the ultimate speculations can go and turn into dramas. The supposed worlds they embody are based on our common understanding of reality, as they must be, but they can be taken apart and put into unique configurations that amaze, and yet work in human terms... work elegantly, sometimes, to the edification and delight of the reader.

All his life as a writer, Hubbard devoted constant attention to making his writing more effective; to reaching larger and larger audiences, and to making them want more of his work. He wanted to know why people read so avidly for "entertainment" and perhaps he wanted to know why he himself was so strongly drawn to provide it.

He concluded that underneath it all, the audience wants to learn something; that storytelling is not pure diversion. Teaching is essential to entertainment, and background gives meaning to action. Oh, you had better not preach, and you had better not stop the action for an expository paragraph or two cribbed from some encyclopedia. That would lose your audience. But your story had to be about something, or why should the reader care to enjoy it?

Many years after his rise to fame as a writer, Hubbard, on looking back on how it all worked, dictated a few paragraphs on "Message." Here's some of what he had to say:

Successful works of art have a message.

It may be implicit or implied, emotional, conceptual or literal, inferred or stated. But a message nonetheless.

This applies to any form of art: paintings, sculpture, poetry, writing, music, architecture, photography, cine, any art form that depends on art, even advertising brochures and window displays.

Art is for the receiver.

If he understands it, he likes it. If it confuses him, he may ignore it or detest it.

It is not enough that the creator of the work understands it; those who receive it must.

Many elements and much expertise go into the creating of successful works of art. Dominant among them is message for this integrates the whole and brings comprehension and appreciation to those for whom it is intended... a message is fundamental to understanding.

This view is guaranteed to raise some hackles among established arbiters of these matters. It is, however, a view promulgated by one of the most successful communicators we have ever seen, by someone who was a widely popular writer and top producer while still in his twenties, and whose final work, the ten-volume Mission Earth dekalogy, legitimately rode best-seller lists, attracting enthusiastic readers by the multiple tens of thousands.

Hubbard knew how to reach them. And he knew how to teach it. Here is some more of his expertise....

ART AND COMMUNICATION
by L. Ron Hubbard

When a work of painting, music or other form attains two-way communication, it is truly art.

One occasionally hears an artist being criticized on the basis that his work is too "literal" or too "common". But one has rarely if ever heard any definiton of "literal" or "common". And there are many artists simply hung up on this, protesting it. Also, some avant-garde schools go completely over the cliff in avoiding anything "literal" or "common"—and indeed go completely out of communication!

The return flow from the person viewing a work would be contribution. True art always elicits a contribution from those who view or hear or experience it. By contribution is meant "adding to it."

An illustration is "literal" in that it tells everything there is to know. Let us say the illustration is a picture of a tiger approaching a chained girl. It does not really matter how well the painting is executed, it remains an illustration and IS literal. But now let us take a small portion ouf of the scene and enlarge it. Let us take, say, the head of the tiger with its baleful eye and snarl. Suddenly we no longer have an illustration. It is no longer "literal." And the reason lies in the fact that the viewer can fit this expression into his own concepts, ideas or experience: he can supply the why of the snarl, he can compare the head to someone he knows. In short he can CONTRIBUTE to the head.

The skill with which the head is executed determines the degree of response.

Because the viewer can contribute to the picture, it is art.

In music, the hearer can contribute his own emotion or motion. And even if the music is only a single drum, if it elicits a contribution of emotion or motion, it is truly art.

That work which delivers everything and gets little or nothing in return is not art. The "common" or overused melody, the expected shape or form gets little or no contribution from the hearer or viewer. That work which is too unclear or too poorly executed may get no contribution.

Incidental to this, one can ask if a photograph can ever be art, a controversy which has been raging for a century or more. One could say that it is only difficult to decide because one has to establish how much the photographer has contributed to the "reality" or "literalness" in front of his camera, how he has interpreted it, but really the point is whether or not that photograph elicits a contribution from its viewer. If it does, it is art.

Innovation plays a large role in all works which may become art. But even this can be overdone. Originality can be overdone to the point where it is no longer within any possible understanding by those viewing or hearing it. One can be so original one goes entirely outside the most distant perimeter of agreement with his viewers or listerners. Sometimes this is done, one suspects, when one has not spent the labor necessary to execute the work. Various excuses are assigned such an action, the most faulty of which is "self-satisfaction" of the artist. While it is quite all right to commune with oneself, one cannot also then claim that it is art if it communicates with no one else and no other's communication is possible.

The third flow, of people talking to one another about a work can also be considered a communication and where it occurs is a valid contribution as it makes the work known.

Destructive attitudes about a work can be considered as a refusal to contribute. Works that are shocking or bizarre to a point of eliciting protest may bring to themselves notoriety thereby and may shake things up; but when the refusal to contribute is too widespread, such works tend to disqualify as art.

There is also the matter of divided opinion about a work. Some contribute to it, some refuse to contribute to it. In such cases one must examine who is contributing and who is refusing. One can then say that it is a work of art to those who contribute to it and that it is not to those who refuse to contribute to it.

Criticism is some sort of index of degree of contribution. There are, roughly, two types of criticism: one can be called "invalidative criticism," the other "constructive criticism."

Invalidative criticism is all too prevalent in the arts for there exist such things as "individual taste," contemporary standards and, unfortunately, even envy or jealousy. Too often, criticism is simply an individual refusal to contribute. One could also state that "those who destructively criticize can't do."

"Constructive criticism" is a term which is often used but seldom defined. But it has use. It could probably be best defined as criticism which "indicates a better way to do," at least in the opinion of the critic. Those who simply find fault and never suggest a practical means of doing it better rather forfeit their right to criticize.

Art is probably the most uncodified and least organized of all fields. It therefore acquires to itself the most "authorities." Usually nothing is required of an "authority" except to say what is right, wrong, good, bad, acceptable or unacceptable. Too often the sole qualification of the authority (as in poor teaching of some subjects) is a memorized list of objects and their creators and dates with some hazy idea of what the work was. An "authority" could considerably improve his status by using rather precise definitions of his terms. The modern trend of seeking the significance in what the artist meant is of course not likely to advance the arts very much.

Viewing and experiencing art on the basis of what one is contributing to it and what others contribute to it is a workable approach. And it would result in improved art and improved appreciation.

Such a viewpoint, interestingly, also includes some things into the field of art not previously so viewed.

To get other essays about the craft of writing from top authors in the field, get the Writers of the Future book collection here:

Words of Wisdom from K.D. Wentworth or Tips On How To Win the Writers Contest - The Year In Review!

Hey, gang, it's the end of the fourth quarter, and I've been thinking back over the year's entries. Here are a few hints to improve your chances.

1. Avoid gratuitous and on-stage sex scenes. Off-stage sex is fine if it's necessary for the plot, but on-stage hijinks would make it inappropriate to market the anthology in as many markets as we would like.

2. Don't write about serial killers unless there's something supernatural going on. Ordinary serial killers do not qualify as fantasy. Also, most serial killer stories are horror, not dark fantasy, and so do not fit our guidelines.

3. Get your best ammunition on the first page. Put whatever makes this science fiction or fantasy up front. Also, don't start with an extended scene that only functions as an info dump. If you think you need a prologue, try breaking the information up instead and salting it throughout the story. Prologues can slow down a reader's immersion in the story.

4. If you're writing hard sf, do your research and get your facts right. The judges love hard sf entries, but the science has to be dead-on. You can't have diamond ships that shatter when iron runs into them or creatures that can blithely go from Earth normal pressure to survive without distress under Jupiter's pressures without explanation. Even though it's only scientific handwaving (because if we really could do these things, we'd be out there doing them, not writing sf stories about them), it has to sound plausible.

5. On the other hand, though, don't spend pages telling me how your space drive works. Again, just make it sound plausible and mention enough accurate scientific details to convince your reader.

6. And, lastly, if you're writing a fight scene, remember that you don't have to lovingly choreograph every single blow on both sides. I've seen too many fight scenes that go on for pages. The reader just wants to know who won and what it cost both the winner and the loser. A short description is fine, but anything longer slows the story down. It doesn't matter who hit whose head/nose/ear/stomach. It just matters who came out on top and what kind of shape they're in now.

K.D. Wentworth - Coordinating Judge of the Writers of the Future

Writers of the Future Ends 2007 With Best Year Ever

Despite industry pundits predicting a downturn in book sales overall, none of that doom and gloom has touched the world's most prominent best selling science fiction book for new writers and illustrators - L. Ron Hubbard Presents Writers of the Future. That was particularly true for 2007 as the book series set several major milestones.

L. Ron Hubbard Presents Writers of the Future, volume 23, continued its impressive run capturing commercial, critical, and social acclaim from the publishing industry's major trade weekly, political and social recognition from communities and internationally-recognized groups, and acceptance into widely-popular publishing.

"For a writing contest and anthology series that's almost 25 years old with more than 540 winning honorees to date, we enjoyed the greatest expansion in 2007 than any year prior," said John Goodwin, president of Galaxy Press, the series' publisher.

Publishers Weekly, the publishing industry's highly influential news publication, said of the 2007 anthology that "those looking for a new group of classic, hard science fiction writers need look no further than the latest volume of Galaxy's always-original anthology series."

The NAACP presented the Award of Excellence to the Contest as recognition of its open policy towards all fledgling writers and illustrators while mayors and representatives from nearly 20 cities or states formally honored local contest winners in their communities.

Industry-leading audio entertainment publisher, Audible.com, released the first audio book edition of Writers of the Future and praised it as a "high quality" presentation by SFFaudio.com.

Culminating the year's excitement and momentum, the Science Fiction Book Club announced its first-ever release of the anthology, calling it "the best SF/Fantasy authors to watch for."

Additionally, the Contest's winning authors themselves have gone on to publish over 500 books and 1,400 short stories combined. Steven Savile broke the one-million mark on words sold professionally since his first appearance in 2003's Volume 19. Winner Patrick Rothfuss (Volume 18) won the Publishers Weekly Quill award for the best science fiction/fantasy/horror novel in 2007 for The Name of the Wind (DAW).

"2008 is already showing great promise for the contest as it continues to expand on the international scene with winners for the first time from Pretoria, South Africa and Cordoba, Argentina," Goodwin said.