How 'scientific' do you like your science fiction?

[clovis-man]

Okay. I'm not a rocket scientist and I don't necessarily expect my authors to be either. But I do appreciate if they are at least plausible/realistic. One reason I appreciate Alastair Reynolds: he makes it real and he is a scientist (astronomer anyway). Before his untimely death, Charles Sheffield was a physicist and it showed in some of his works. His wife, Nancy Kress has tried to incorporate scientific factors in her books, even subsequent to his death, although she admits to having checked some ideas with him while he was alive. At this point, I don't necessarily think she gets it all right. However, most everything she writes fits the "plausible" criterion. So I'm happy. I'm certainly not one to nit pick over a missing quark or two.

[THX-1138]

Different kinds of sci-fi appeal to me in different ways. Space operas like star wars don't have to seem realistic, because they're not about that. They're about the drama and the characters. Part of the appeal of the Alien series is that it seems so real. That's what sets it apart from the other sci-fi horror movies if you ask me. The aliens aren't humaniod, they have a different chemical makeup and don't look like anything on Earth. Then again the xenomorphs could never work because a silicon-based organism would need different nutrients than a carbon-based organism and could never gestate in a human. But just the fact that it superficially seems real is enough. It takes some actual thought to realize it wouldn't work. That's why I like Micheal Crichton novels also. Cloning Dinosaurs? That actually had to be tested to prove impossible! I'd love to see a movie or book where it tells you how they travel faster than light convincingly, but if they try and fail it just makes it so much worse. Don't explain how the tech works if it's just a load of bs. Star Trek strikes me as having that problem(though I haven't seen it and could be wrong). It just ruins the story for me.

[SiobhanT]

Originally Posted by Nerds_feather

AFAIAC, far, far future space opera like Iain M. Banks' culture series gets more of a pass for wacky stuff than, say, a space opera taking place in the year 2103.

I find it amusing that what is hard sci-fi for me is not for other people, shows how little sci-fi I've read comparatively.

[iansales]

The problem is that sf authors have got lazy. Readers are willing to swallow FTL and galactic empires and aliens and all that because they're staples of the genre, and so sf novels often might as well be fantasy. I can see no point in refighting WWII with aliens when you'd be better of writing, well, a WWII novel. What exactly has the writer done by setting it in a galactic empire, except perhaps trivialise the real WWII?

OTOH, if the author maintains scientific plausibility - if the author does a proper job of researching their novel - then that grounds the story, no matter how seemingly fantastical, in reality. Science fiction is too powerful a tool to be used for mere escapist adventure stories.

[springs]

Originally Posted by iansales

The problem is that sf authors have got lazy. Readers are willing to swallow FTL and galactic empires and aliens and all that because they're staples of the genre, and so sf novels often might as well be fantasy.
Science fiction is too powerful a tool to be used for mere escapist adventure stories.

I'm sorry, Ian, but I find these comments not only elitist, but also dismissive of a huge section of readers and writers.

Sci fi is too powerful a tool to use for escapist adventures - I don't read books - others do, I believe - to trawl through a lot of science, I read them to enjoy them. I fully understand there are many hard SFF fans, to whom the purpose of the genre is to explore the possible - to others, the genre is there to provide a sense of wonderment - that it's a big universe, into which any story might happen. I'm afraid my sff reading (and writing) falls into the last category: for enjoyment, first and foremost, not scientific integrity.

In terms of whether this makes me lazy - no, I don't think so. Many SF stories I have read, particularly those with science at the heart, don't IMHO spend enough time on their characterisation, see it as second to the tech. I could say this is lazy in terms of development - i prefer to see it as different ilk for different folk. But to classify space fantasy/opera as lazy is to dismiss a body of writing which I, for one, find much more inspiring - and easier to read which is a talent in and of itself - than the harder style.

[iansales]

The science is there in the books whether you like it or not. But it needs to be right science, not a casual reliance on over-well-worn tropes or clichés. I'm not saying sf novels need to have equations in them, only that if a story is going to be science fiction it needs a reason to be science fiction. If you can take the sf out of a story and it remains unchanged, then it's not sf. And that's laziness on the part of the authors.

Enjoyment and scientific integrity are not mutually exclusive. If you think they are, then you've completely missed the point. A well-written book is a well-written book and as such should be more enjoyable than a badly-written one - because there's nothing to throw you out of the story, no eye-stabbingly bad prose, no inconsistent characterisation, no blatant contradictions in background or plot, etc. If you continue to put up with shoddy craftsmanship, don't be surprised if after a while shoddy craftsmen are all that's left. You need to value talent for it to prosper.

[psychotick]

Hi,

Like the rest, I'd vote for internally consistent, and no rule bending. The transporters on Star Trek for example. You have this wonderful tech that can beam you anywhere, but because it would seriously stuff up plots, beaming within a ship is a no no. Or for that matter the Borg. An enemy that was made way too powerful. I mean one borg, not a ship or anything, lands on a planet, and a few days later the planet is borg. You can't beat technology like that. So the writers had to come up with endless ludicrous excuses for them not wiping the Federation's but within the first few hours of contact.

Cheers, Greg.

[Lilmizflashythang]

Originally Posted by iansales

The science is there in the books whether you like it or not. But it needs to be right science, not a casual reliance on over-well-worn tropes or clichés. I'm not saying sf novels need to have equations in them, only that if a story is going to be science fiction it needs a reason to be science fiction. If you can take the sf out of a story and it remains unchanged, then it's not sf. And that's laziness on the part of the authors.

Enjoyment and scientific integrity are not mutually exclusive. If you think they are, then you've completely missed the point. A well-written book is a well-written book and as such should be more enjoyable than a badly-written one - because there's nothing to throw you out of the story, no eye-stabbingly bad prose, no inconsistent characterisation, no blatant contradictions in background or plot, etc. If you continue to put up with shoddy craftsmanship, don't be surprised if after a while shoddy craftsmen are all that's left. You need to value talent for it to prosper.

I disagree. If you think that you cannot exclude the science from an enjoyable story that's your problem. You shouldn't tell me that if I don't get the science absolutely perfect then I have shoddy craftmanship. That's an insult to those who worry more about a good story, than if the science is either applicable or could be applicable.

Hard Sci-fi writers and readers do seem to get the 'hard sci-fi or nothing' additude. It cuts out almost all of the sci-fi fields. That's not fair to the weekend sci-fi fans. Or the fans who can read any type of spec. fiction.

[Ursa major]

As with most posters here, I believe consistency is the key, because if the reader spots an inconsistency, they're likely to be thrown out of the story.


Regarding Ian's criterion, that the science ought to be pertinent to the way the underlying plot of an SF story works, not merely window-dressing....

I have a lot of sympathy with this, but I can't agree with it one hundred percent. Yes, it would be nice if every SF story played with at least one scientific idea, as well as the various behaviours of the characters. But sometimes I read SF to step out of the "mundane"** world in which I live. Yes, a story could be set in WWII, or mediaeval Europe, or Japan. But on occasion, I'd would rather read it as set on that now-forgotten colony on QuitealotlikeEarthexceptforafewinterestingchanges.

Originally Posted by Nerds_feather

i also hate the notion of time travel, at least the going back bit. but that's just me.

It isn't just you. I find time travel implausible.


** - Our world is far from mundane, as it happens. As is real science. Whoever thought of the term, in relation to SF, must have been making some sort of joke; it's hardly a word to attract new readers.

[iansales]

Originally Posted by Lilmizflashythang

I disagree. If you think that you cannot exclude the science from an enjoyable story that's your problem.

Er, that's not what I said. I said they were not mutually exclusive. Which means you can't have one and not the other. You can have both in a story. I would also contend that the science is always there, but to differing degrees. I would also contend that the more rigorous the science, the more enjoyable the story as science fiction.

Now see what you're doing, you're forcing me to put words in bold :-)

[springs]

Gargh! Not the bold....

I think it also comes down to how you're selling your story. If I was to say, look here's a sci fi book which has tech at its core, and you read mine, I'd expect to be kicked onto some distant planet for shoddy workmanship.

On the other hand, if I say, look, this is science fantasy, it's escapist and character driven not tech driven, hope you enjoy it, then it's up to you whether you read it or not.

Having said that, I have tried to give some sort of science credence to at least some of it. I just have to invent a FTL stardrive, and it'll be perfectly sound.

But both fall in the sci-fi genre, just at different ends of the spectrum. And I happen to enjoy the latter more. (teleportation, I do draw the line at, though. Too many years of watching B7 trying to defend it as a concept - you can't!)

[James Coote]

There also has to be consistency in the level of hardness. If the story starts off giving technical, scientific explanations then suddenly goes all soft and mushy, that really puts me off.

Equally, If I've already accepted the story isn't realistic or scientifically accurate, but I'm going along with it anyway, then when the author tries to wedge some pseudo-science bs, they ruin the whole thing

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by James Coote

There also has to be consistency in the level of hardness. If the story starts off giving technical, scientific explanations then suddenly goes all soft and mushy, that really puts me off.

Equally, If I've already accepted the story isn't realistic or scientifically accurate, but I'm going along with it anyway, then when the author tries to wedge some pseudo-science bs, they ruin the whole thing

Would you feel the same if the soft, mushy pseudoscience was in one PoV character's narrative and the hard, just-short-of-equations science was in another's? Consider the first to be a space liner's passenger and the second, the chief engineer of that liner. Now you might think the former wouldn't contemplate any sciency things, but they might, in passing, wonder about them, possibly trying to make their journey through hyperspace() feel less dangerous.

[James Coote]

You wouldn't switch writing styles mid way through a book in the same way you might switch character PoV.

Likewise, you can't just change 'hardness' mid way through.

A good example is the 2008 film Hancock, staring Will Smith.

[steve12553]

A couple of points: To be Science Fiction it the science can't be true but rather an extrapolation of science. If it can be proved, it's more of a technology fiction. If there is no "leap of faith" it's just not Science Fiction. Some of the first Science Fiction was referred to as "Speculative Fiction if I'm not mistaken. The Fiction part wasn't the speculation, the Science was.
Another aspect is that Scientific belief changes. The learned men who were the precursors of today's scientists were sure the Earth was flat and that the Sun revolved around the Earth. 400 years from now, what will Scientists believe. We've not solved the secrets of the universe and our percentage of understanding may be much smaller than anyone suspects. To Science Fiction needs to be good fiction and science that's not silly. If written well, the Science can actually be something that can be proved wrong.