As science fiction writers how are we to avoid being meaninglessly derivative? There are two different methods that come to mind. Both involve much reading.

The first method is used by V. J. Waks, who tries to keep up with the most popular current fiction in her field so that she can be certain to do something else, something more creative.

The second method is being followed by myself and Dominick Materro. We are both trying to get our hands on and share fiction and creative nonfiction written for our grandfathers and great grandfathers. The idea is to see how the writers who formed the genre looked at their past and present, and our future. There is another benefit though. One can begin to see how what is popular today is simply a grossly watered down version of what was popular yesterday. When working through this vintage reading list you begin to grasp the process of derivation [the rich and the poor]itself.

To me the book I am reviewing is more important than what I want out of it. I think a book should be shared. Whatever book you have read, and need not keep, has a reader out there who might not be able to find or afford it. So, I do not underline or highlight, as this is distracting and skews the next reader’s view, possibly even spoiling their read. When I did most of my reading at home and in libraries I employed notebooks. This becomes burdensome; another document to handle. Additionally, I now read out of a hand bag on buses, bus stops and on the break bench at work. In this way my 10 hour weekly commute is made productive. A binder is out of the question.

I have had a couple of readers comment that I have ‘picked up’ or ‘gotten an impression’ from a book that we have both read, that they have missed. This is partially because of my detached reading style, but also comes from reading systematically.

My system is to use a bookmark that I can write on. I will place four section headings on the bookmark and write page numbers under them. For instance, on page 5 of The Glass Bees by Ernst Junger, I placed a small bracket in the right margin away from the text. A small bracket means there was a significant phrase on that line. A larger bracket would involve the entire passage. In this way the next reader can regard the mark or ignore it. Underlining it is sloppy and lazy. If the passage was so important, then upon rereading it during the process of writing my review, I will be reminded.

The first heading on my bookmark is ‘title’, under which I mark the pages where I have left small brackets across from a line containing a likely title.

The second heading is ‘tech’, under which I list the pages that have a bracket indicating a technological prediction [this only applies to sci-fi].

The third heading is ‘social’, under which I indicate pages where I have marked a bracket indicating a passage in which the author makes a social evolution or devolution prediction.

The fourth heading is ‘quotes’, that might possibly be uses as samples in the review.

The fifth heading is ‘human condition’, under which I mark the pages that have brackets for humane insights by the author.

This card is then used as a point of interest index as I write the review. If I own the book I keep the card within it. If the card is not large enough [I usually use the backs of business cards] I will keep a register receipt [for my coffee at work for instance] and use that for making composition notes for the review, or just as an overflow from the card.

This vintage sci-fi novel had 7 phrases that were worthy of the title of the review. I went with, not the one I liked best, but with the one the author repeated.

Ernst Junger made 6 technological predictions during the course of this pretty wide ranging novel.

The author made 16 predictions of social change as a reaction to technological change.

There were 4 very impressive quotes.

Where Junger had the most to say was on timeless observations concerning the human condition and the nature of men, of which there were 18.

Just from the numbers here we can place Junger’s The Glass Bees more in line with our best American sci-fi writers like Wolfe, Dick, and Silverberg; writers who look into the human condition in order to shape a realistic and nuanced what if, as opposed to the ‘gee whiz’ technology tradition that has dominated American science fiction and has resulted in sci-fi movies based as much on video games as literature.

As with many things, I find that a procedural approach tends to provide a platform for my creative writing as opposed to stifling it.