Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomika  yes, I know scientific publication can be dry and boring and all of that other stuff. What I mean by silly science is stuff like:
-all habitable planets have the same day length as Earth (+ or - 2 hrs).
-all habitable planets look more or less like Earth, with the same species or related ones.
-Being at the center of the Earth and have the same gravity as Earth's surface (I'm talking about Zion in the Matrix here).
-All intelligent species look exactly like humans except for one or two distinguishing facial features.
-Lasers that have recoil or make noise
-Evil aliens that look like savage beasts while good ones look like heavenly angels
-The whole "Q" non-sense.
-Every single alien homeworld is suitible for humans, with corresponding atmospheric pressures and the correct amount of Oxygen/Nitrogen mix.
-BS solutions to otherwise catastrophic problems.
-Weapon systems that have been borrowed and adapted from the colonial and industrial era, and work in pretty much the same way, with WWII battlefield tactics, strategies, and style of fighting for that matter.
-And other countless atrocities that are too numerous to list. |
Oh, I cannot possibly agree more. While this does not apply to all science fiction, specifically books, a great majority IMO are very inaccurate in terms of physics, biology, likelihood of planetary conditions, and other things of this nature. I think a great many stories could benefit from following the laws of reality a little more closely. However when it comes to true realism in science fiction, if it were followed properly, it would be a terrible mistake as a writer in my humble opinion.
For example physics. Flight in space almost always is inaccurate in its protrayal. For example, I think we all understand space flight is excessively different from atmospheric flight. Yet ships generally move in the majority of science fiction as if the ship is in atmospheric flight. Sound in space is another thing that does not exist. Sure, inside ships, you will hear noise, but outside where ther is no pressure, no elements with which to carry pressure sound will not exist (sound is just pressure waves translated for the brain into sound). Yet space fighting is always a noisy affair. Why? because sometimes the alternative is funner. Who wants to watch a battle on mute?
When it serves Biology, I think it is easier to "humanize" things so your audience can relate to it (I know I make myself sound as if I am a sci-fi writer, and I hope to be, but I am not published so take my words with a grain of salt obviosuly :P ). When I say humanize, I mean it in the sense of making life on alien worlds mirror some form of life on Earth. The alternative is creating a more "realistic" creature (I don't think any of us can predict what is realistic at this point in human advancement) that is unintersting. For example, talking to an amobea like entity that communicates through chemical signals simply will not involve the reader much beyond the first couple of paragraphs. Making aliens human like also makes it easier to communicate through body language. I can pretty much guarantee the liklihood of alien life using similar body language to us is pretty slim, yet hand gestures, and facial expression go a long way in getting a point across without forcing the writer to go into long winded explanations as to why this creature is doing what. Not unless you turn it into a joke like Douglas Adams, if your good at that stuff
.
I think in the end, the truely imaginative Authors make things more "realistic" in Sci-Fi, but personally if science fiction ever followed reality it would be far to boring to follow (unless we have the capability to do the things we dream about now, which I think is unlikely, but that's for a differnt thread). I do agree though, some of the sci-fi floating around out there is simply absurd IMO.