Folks, I've been writing now for nearly 14 years, and I had a first today as I was writing 2 chapters of Schism (the second book in The Earthside Trilogy). It's pretty common for your story to surprise you, and your characters to take things in places and directions you don't expect. Heck, most of us writer's love those times, because that's when it really takes on a life of it's own. But today, I had my writing take an altogether different turn from what I've ever expected: the ethical dilemma.
Here's the situation: In one of the chapters I wrote today, I set up the antagonist for the story: a woman named Hailey in her mid-40's that depends on nanotech in my near future to ward off early onset Parkinson's disease. The problem: A race of cybernetic aliens has figured out how to hack into the very tech keeping millions of people alive and potentially control them. So what do you do? Shutting down the nanotech would block out the alien threat - at the potential cost of millions of lives. Which do we want more: to preserve the life and well being of our fellow human beings, or to shut down the nanotech to preserve our safety from a potentially devastating alien threat?
It seems I've created quite a doozy here, and I'm actually happy about it. While I already know how I intend to work out the situation in the end (or rather, a little over halfway through the novel), I hadn't given much thought to the health versus safety aspect of this novel. I believe this is going to lend a lot to the plot, and in fact make it much richer than I planned. Plus, it makes it somewhat timely, given the many debates and ponderings over what we would be willing to sacrifice for our safety. Yes, my novel takes place close to a century in the future, but threats are always present, and it's likely an issue that will continue to turn and evolve through time.
Indeed, this is an interesting turn in the writing of this novel, and I'm excited about it. Now to get this debate raging - and, of course, I'll share a sample chapter here once I get it written.
That's all today. Take care, and have a great rest of the week.
Bye!
Here's the situation: In one of the chapters I wrote today, I set up the antagonist for the story: a woman named Hailey in her mid-40's that depends on nanotech in my near future to ward off early onset Parkinson's disease. The problem: A race of cybernetic aliens has figured out how to hack into the very tech keeping millions of people alive and potentially control them. So what do you do? Shutting down the nanotech would block out the alien threat - at the potential cost of millions of lives. Which do we want more: to preserve the life and well being of our fellow human beings, or to shut down the nanotech to preserve our safety from a potentially devastating alien threat?
It seems I've created quite a doozy here, and I'm actually happy about it. While I already know how I intend to work out the situation in the end (or rather, a little over halfway through the novel), I hadn't given much thought to the health versus safety aspect of this novel. I believe this is going to lend a lot to the plot, and in fact make it much richer than I planned. Plus, it makes it somewhat timely, given the many debates and ponderings over what we would be willing to sacrifice for our safety. Yes, my novel takes place close to a century in the future, but threats are always present, and it's likely an issue that will continue to turn and evolve through time.
Indeed, this is an interesting turn in the writing of this novel, and I'm excited about it. Now to get this debate raging - and, of course, I'll share a sample chapter here once I get it written.
That's all today. Take care, and have a great rest of the week.
Bye!
RSS Feed