How 'scientific' do you like your science fiction?

[Nerds_feather]

went to a john scalzi talk recently, and he went on a tear about "bad science" in science fiction, and particularly in SF television and film.

this brought up an interesting question for me to ask everyone: how important is it for you that the science of science fiction--and i'm specifically talking about fiction set in the future that involves technologies we don't have right now--be:

1) theoretically possible

2) plausible

3) realistic

What do you prefer and where do you draw the line?

[Vertigo]

I think it's highly dependent on the story. If the technology is of secondary importance to the story then I'm not too worried even if it is a bit implausible.

For example Alastair Reynold's plague in Chasm City is pretty implausible to my mind, but although it is central to the plot its really not about the plague so much as the weird society that grows up around it. Also much of PKD's technology is pretty implausible but again they are just plot devices for exploring much more interesting topics so, again, I don't mind them.

That said my preference is for hard SF and I particularly like stories with theoretically possible but not yet realised ideas in them. Of course the problem is that many of these later go out of date when the science changes.

[Grunkins]

I don't care too much as long as it's internally consistent. If, for instance, a book has FTL travel, but still sends interstellar messages some way other than handing a note to a person on an FTL ship (instead they use radio, or some version of email, anything that involves light speed transactions), that bothers me and pulls me out of the fictional dream.

[HareBrain]

I don't like spotting things in films or books that are scientifically impossible (but I know almost nothing, so this rarely happens). If the impossibility escapes me, but is raised later by internet yahoos, my reaction will depend on whether I enjoyed it for other reasons. If I liked it, I'll think it doesn't matter; if I didn't, it's fair game.

[Venusian Broon]

I suppose all I ask for is consistency and no obvious 'fridge moments'*

i.e. if the author is going to do something physically impossible/bizarre in our world then he/she explains it in a logical manner that makes his/her society/tech still work...but...doesn't bend it in such a way that anything can happen. Fair enough. Rules are important.

The problem with TV SF is that, as soon as they've set up a rule, the writers usually come up with episodes to subvert it.

And film SF generally descends into primitive archetypes, usually action and horror. Although not always.



* Yep, when TV Tropes was mentioned on this site I got sucked in reading it...

[Dave]

I agree with Grunkins and Venusian Broon:

Originally Posted by Grunkins

I don't care too much as long as it's internally consistent. If, for instance, a book has FTL travel, but still sends interstellar messages some way other than handing a note to a person on an FTL ship (instead they use radio, or some version of email, anything that involves light speed transactions), that bothers me and pulls me out of the fictional dream.

I can suspend my disbelief only if the world created is internally consistent, otherwise I can't buy into it.

[SiobhanT]

I quite like not knowing too much about science, it means when things are off I don't always know. It's only recently I've been able to get into harder sci fi, because I used to find the science of it too much. Ian M Banks is changing that, I love the Culture novels, even if I do find them heavy going.
Also, if the science is sily and over the top, but so is the book or programme, it's much better than when the tones are totally differecnt, i agree with what other people are saying about internal consistency.

[thaddeus6th]

I don't read too much sci-fi (I keep meaning to, though), but I don't mind slightly vague or inaccurate science so long as there aren't any absolute clangers.

Perhaps my favourite clanger, from recent memory, was in Outcasts where they had a virus that could be transmitted by sound waves. Even better, when the sound wave was stopped the virus disappeared from those already infected.

Holy bad science, Batman!

[Gordian Knot]

Agree with the majority. I have no problems with altered science or outright fantasy science, as long as whatever is used is consistent within the fictional universe of the story. Same with magic within fantasy settings.

[alchemist]

I'd differentiate between future science that's implausible (time travel, ftl travel), because I like that sort of thing, and plain bad science which only exposes the writer's stupidity.

Originally Posted by thaddeus6th

Perhaps my favourite clanger, from recent memory, was in Outcasts where they had a virus that could be transmitted by sound waves. Even better, when the sound wave was stopped the virus disappeared from those already infected.

A prime example and a very rich source of bad science, that series.

[chopper]

perhaps now is the opportune moment to point out the sterling work done by Mr Ian Sales in editing the thoroughly scientifically correct anthology Rocket Science? available from all good online stores, including this one?

contains absolutely no handwavium at all.

right. that concludes my plugging duties for the day....

[springs]

Ok, my name is... etc. etc. and I'm a terrible sci fi fan. I don't really question the science, unless it's utterly preposterous. I like a good rousing story that I can follow (I hate complex, multi-layered stuff, I can't cope), with characters that engage me (they can be as multi-layered as they like, though). Once drawn in to that, I'll suspend my disbelief pretty happily.

That's as a reader, though.

As a writer, Alc's description sounds pretty close. I'm happy to use conventional space opera stuff like ftl ships, but I try to at least make it sound like I've thought about it. And am delighted when those who are better than me at such things point out that it's utterly preposterous, so I don't show myself up completely.... )

[I, Brian]

Do be aware that "hard SF" is a subgenre of SF where the science is intended to be a main part of the story, and seemingly plausible extrapolating from current knowledge. If you're not writing hard SF, then that's not so much a concern.

In which case, as raised above, keeping consistency is important for a story to hold togther with suspension of disbelief.

[Nerds_feather]

i like the "idea" of hard SF, but in practice i tend to find it a bit dull. well, not if we're talking Arthur C. Clarke, whose writing I still love...but I'm thinking of the 1970s/80s hard SF people...Greg Bear, Ben Bova, Larry Niven, etc.

that said, i do want to feel as if the characters are doing things that i can imagine people possibly being able to do at the time when they are supposed to be doing it. 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 also hate the notion of time travel, at least the going back bit. but that's just me.

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Consistency over accuracy. The vast majority of sf novels I've read are entertaining in a reverse correlation to how realistic the science is. The only 'hard sf' novel I've read that was even marginally entertaining was Rendezvous with Rama. But as others have said, the basis for most sf is really fantasy science such as FTL drives and the like. Fun first, physics second... or twelfth.