# Question: Technology, Technobabble, Handwaving, Disbelief.



## Michael Colton (Jul 24, 2014)

I searched the forums for a post on this topic and did not quite find one, though I am sure various comments have touched on it at some point. I have a general question for readers of science fiction regarding the believability of technology.

In what ways do authors manage the concept of technology in their fiction that bothers you? I have heard people disparage meaningless technobabble and I have heard people state they prefer meaningless terms over an author attempting to extrapolate new technologies from actual scientific principles. The argument for the latter being that suspension of disbelief is easier to maintain if real concepts and terms you are familiar with are left out entirely. A recent example of the shattering of disbelief that can happen by including recognizable terms in futuristic settings occurred on the television show Almost Human - in that show, they used bitcoins in their world building. The writers apparently had included this before bitcoins had become an international punchline. This is obviously not a scientific term, but the principle is the same.

Some authors inject technology into their fiction without even attempting to ground it in science - extrapolated or meaningless. The ship simply _does_ travel faster than the speed of light and the reader is expected to accept this. A different author might invent scientific terms or technobabble to 'explain' this feat, but not attempt to ground it in actual science besides throwing in real terms from time to time. And still other authors, such as Schroeder, completely avoid concepts like 'faster than light' travel due to the sheer implausibility of it.

I am not asking whether you prefer hard science fiction or soft science fiction, but rather what ways of handling technology in _either_ category irritates you? It seems to me that this sort of question is much more important for written science fiction than television or film. In science fiction television shows, they can throw technobabble at the viewer at a speed not possible in the written word so that the viewer may not really follow it unless they are actively trying to. Technology is purely a plot mechanic in that case - a sort of filler intended to keep the viewer onboard until the next event occurs. An obvious example of this would be Star Trek - the writers obviously did not care all that much how believable their technobabble was. They simply presumed the audience also did not care (and apparently were right). Whereas a reader experiences the text at their own pace, rereads certain sentences, and thus seems more likely to notice technobabble or take it 'seriously.'

tl;dr version - second paragraph, first sentence; last paragraph, first sentence.


----------



## J-Sun (Jul 24, 2014)

I'm not sure if this is what you wanted to talk about but the thing that most bothers me is - in stories like, e.g., Aliette de Bodard's "The Waiting Stars", George R.R. Martin's "The Second Kind of Loneliness", Joe Pitkin's "Full Fathom Five" or James K. Isaac's "Valued Employee" or hosts of others - when the story's foreground or face-value structure makes little sense because the foreground is sacrificed to thematic purposes. Ideally, the writer picks a technological element that they are intrinsically interested in which also happens to have thematic resonance they can exploit. I hate SF that doesn't care about what it's actually talking about. And there are two ways to go about it. Some people are really freakin' into it like Chiang trying to speculate on AI in "The Lifecycle of Software Objects" (not his best, which still means it's twice as good as most others can do) and some people aren't really into the precise details, like Isaac Asimov's "positronic robots", but he was absolutely interested in the parameters of the things - logic constraints and so on - and in the actual sociological implications of the things. And, of course, even there, you can make thematic points regarding human illogic and emotion and so on. But then there are those who write stories where the robots aren't metal at all but are symbolic tissue paper for slavery or whatever.

Otherwise, I dunno - it depends on very precise feelings from each individual story. Sometimes convincing bad science is worse than technobabble. Technobabble is innocent and, if well done, can be okay. On the other hand, it can be literally babble. And "near-science" can evoke the dynamics of actual science but it can also be sneakily misleading and damaging to conceptual clarity.

Probably the best way to do it is the either get it right or to step around it and just deal with what the black box does rather than what it is.

tl;dr: metal, not metaphors!


----------



## Michael Colton (Jul 24, 2014)

J-Sun said:


> I'm not sure if this is what you wanted to talk about but the thing that most bothers me is - in stories like, e.g., Aliette de Bodard's "The Waiting Stars", George R.R. Martin's "The Second Kind of Loneliness", Joe Pitkin's "Full Fathom Five" or James K. Isaac's "Valued Employee" or hosts of others - when the story's foreground or face-value structure makes little sense because the foreground is sacrificed to thematic purposes. Ideally, the writer picks a technological element that they are intrinsically interested in which also happens to have thematic resonance they can exploit. I hate SF that doesn't care about what it's actually talking about. And there are two ways to go about it. Some people are really freakin' into it like Chiang trying to speculate on AI in "The Lifecycle of Software Objects" (not his best, which still means it's twice as good as most others can do) and some people aren't really into the precise details, like Isaac Asimov's "positronic robots", but he was absolutely interested in the parameters of the things - logic constraints and so on - and in the actual sociological implications of the things. And, of course, even there, you can make thematic points regarding human illogic and emotion and so on. But then there are those who write stories where the robots aren't metal at all but are symbolic tissue paper for slavery or whatever.
> 
> Otherwise, I dunno - it depends on very precise feelings from each individual story. Sometimes convincing bad science is worse than technobabble. Technobabble is innocent and, if well done, can be okay. On the other hand, it can be literally babble. And "near-science" can evoke the dynamics of actual science but it can also be sneakily misleading and damaging to conceptual clarity.
> 
> ...



Interesting that you ended with that sentence after your first point. From my initial perspective, working for the purpose of theme through the use of metaphor would be a form of dealing with one black box through the metaphor of another black box while ignoring the 'essence' or internal functioning of the second one.

That being said, I am not advocating that. I agree that it can muddle things when something as distinctive as robots are used entirely as metaphor, but I also think there are moments when that muddling is precisely what the author is aiming for. I also think that sort of approach is easier to pull off when the metaphorical tool is not as developed in its own right. Using something like nanotechnology at this point in time as pure metaphor would most likely end up falling flat because nanotechnology is so fully matured as its own sphere now.


----------



## J Riff (Jul 24, 2014)

It's only irritating if there's too much of it. If you can't back up_ and_ write tech well, then get it over with as quickly and painlessly as possible. Many great authors have done exactly this. Invent a few terms and leave it at that.
Time travel? A staple of SF, and not something you can prove the math for. So make it entertaining if nothing else.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 24, 2014)

Just something you might want to keep in mind, Sodice:  A fair number of our active members are getting on in years, and our eyes aren't what they used to be.  If you use a small font when you post a message, some people who might have responded may not, because they won't be able to read what you've written.

I gave up halfway through trying to read your post at the beginning of this thread, because it was a strain on my eyes even after I zoomed in.


----------



## Michael Colton (Jul 24, 2014)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> Just something you might want to keep in mind, Sodice:  A fair number of our active members are getting on in years, and our eyes aren't what they used to be.  If you use a small font when you post a message, some people who might have responded may not, because they won't be able to read what you've written.
> 
> I gave up halfway through trying to read your post at the beginning of this thread, because it was a strain on my eyes even after I zoomed in.



Oh, okay. Maybe the font I picked does not work with your browser or something so it picked a small one, because I did not change the size on my end (unless by 'small' you mean a font with thinner lines and not literally smaller in height, in which case yes I did pick a lighter font). I would change it now, but it has been too long since the post so edit is not allowed anymore.

Here is a direct copy paste with the default font:

I searched the forums for a post on this topic and did not quite find one, though I am sure various comments have touched on it at some point. I have a general question for readers of science fiction regarding the believability of technology.

In what ways do authors manage the concept of technology in their fiction that bothers you? I have heard people disparage meaningless technobabble and I have heard people state they prefer meaningless terms over an author attempting to extrapolate new technologies from actual scientific principles. The argument for the latter being that suspension of disbelief is easier to maintain if real concepts and terms you are familiar with are left out entirely. A recent example of the shattering of disbelief that can happen by including recognizable terms in futuristic settings occurred on the television show Almost Human - in that show, they used bitcoins in their world building. The writers apparently had included this before bitcoins had become an international punchline. This is obviously not a scientific term, but the principle is the same.

Some authors inject technology into their fiction without even attempting to ground it in science - extrapolated or meaningless. The ship simply does travel faster than the speed of light and the reader is expected to accept this. A different author might invent scientific terms or technobabble to 'explain' this feat, but not attempt to ground it in actual science besides throwing in real terms from time to time. And still other authors, such as Schroeder, completely avoid concepts like 'faster than light' travel due to the sheer implausibility of it.

I am not asking whether you prefer hard science fiction or soft science fiction, but rather what ways of handling technology in either category irritates you? It seems to me that this sort of question is much more important for written science fiction than television or film. In science fiction television shows, they can throw technobabble at the viewer at a speed not possible in the written word so that the viewer may not really follow it unless they are actively trying to. Technology is purely a plot mechanic in that case - a sort of filler intended to keep the viewer onboard until the next event occurs. An obvious example of this would be Star Trek - the writers obviously did not care all that much how believable their technobabble was. They simply presumed the audience also did not care (and apparently were right). Whereas a reader experiences the text at their own pace, rereads certain sentences, and thus seems more likely to notice technobabble or take it 'seriously.'

tl;dr version - second paragraph, first sentence; last paragraph, first sentence.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jul 24, 2014)

If it's meaningless technobabble for me then it has to be totally unimportant to the story and best if you don't try and explain anything, even if it is "real". Star Trek gets bad when they try and explain anything. Almost every tech featured in Star Trek is probably impossible (But I enjoy some of it esp novelizations of original series). Better SF where the SF is more important has very little technobabble and explains little (Asimov).

Maybe have one or two unlikely inventions (but don't try and explain them then!) unless the SF is really just a fairy story fantasy given an SF appearance (this can work, i.e. Star Wars vs Willow are actually both Fantasy with Magic. Lucas makes a mistake later trying to explain stuff. The 1st film released was good because nothing was explained!).

Anne McCaffery and Urusla LeGuin both have SF as well as Fantasy, but it doesn't have much Technobabble. It's very good

Ian Macleod has Tecnobabble  and it distracts from story because he tries to relate it to existing jargon and gets it wrong.  So if you do have "technical stuff" either get it 100% correct or else made up technobabble that can't be confused with real mathematics, electronics, biology, computers and physics.

Unless it's important to the plot then don't explain, or else put it in the Appendix like Tolkien.


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 24, 2014)

If the way the technology works is the point of the story, then it can be hard to avoid going into its details. Then the author should make those details plausible. 

But if the point is that the technology does something useful, or if the technology is just part of the setting, then the details can be avoided. After all, one rarely sees the intricacies of petrol or diesel engines being mentioned in non-SF stories where the characters have to make use of cars, buses, lorries (trucks) or trains. (One has to wonder why authors leave out such essential details.... )


----------



## Michael Colton (Jul 24, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> {snipped for quote size}
> 
> Unless it's important to the plot then don't explain, or else put it in the Appendix like Tolkien.



What about explaining function rather than cause? An example I recall from a short story (sadly, I do not remember the author - shame on me) was a rather extensive explanation of how a communication technology functioned but no explanation as to _why_ it functioned that way. The author just let the reader know that long distance communication functioned in a certain way in their world, but never explained how that technology worked or how it had developed that way rather than in other ways.

I could imagine engineers of some sort thinking to themselves, "that is not how communication is progressing," or some such response. But from my perspective, I rather liked that approach because it let me know how a technology was integrated into the world setting in a fairly detailed way without trying to explain to me how it scientifically worked. But then again, I am no communications engineer so I would have no idea how plausible it was.



Ursa major said:


> If the way the technology works is the point of the story, then it can be hard to avoid going into its details. Then the author should make those details plausible.
> 
> But if the point is that the technology does something useful, or if the technology is just part of the setting, then the details can be avoided. After all, one rarely sees the intricacies of petrol or diesel engines being mentioned in non-SF stories where the characters have to make use of cars, buses, lorries (trucks) or trains. (One has to wonder why authors leave out such essential details.... )



I am curious as to your response to my above comment, given your initial reply. Detailed explanation of function and operation without giving any scientific basis for it? So in your car example, it would be much like describing the changes in refueling stations, average use of cars, types of cars, functioning of road systems, but without ever explaining why those changes took place.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jul 25, 2014)

I don't know the story. But communications is totally constrained by physics (Einstein and many others also Heavyside etc.)  and mathematics (Maxwell, Shannon, Nyquist).

You can change the implementation, but not what it really does, unless it's imaginary like the Ansible or Telepathy.

So ...  
Normally you'd never explain a diesel engine unless this was germane to the plot. But if you do need it, then you better research diesel engines. With Internet & Wikipedia there is no excuse compared to 20 years ago about getting technical details 'right'. 

But usually best to not have them. I know how a smart phone works and even designed one. But even in Star Trek Original they just have the little flip up communicator and thankfully don't explain it. Before launching in to technobabble 
Does plot need it?
Do most people know or care how a Microwave Oven, Flatscreen TV, Satellite RX box, Smart phone, Car Engine management, jet engine etc works? 
(I know the theory of a Jet engine BTW, but it's the only one on the list I can't design!)


----------



## Jo Zebedee (Jul 25, 2014)

I think it depends on your audience, too. A military sci fi book will need some detail about the weaponry and what not - that's what the readers are looking for. A space opera might get away with a bit of handwavium (I use at least a canister-worth per chapter.) For me, I glaze over at technical detail - it might not stop me reading on, though, I'll probably just skip those bits, others drink it in. 

As ever, it's the old answer of whatever's right for your story.


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 25, 2014)

Sodice said:


> I am curious as to your response to my above comment, given your initial reply. Detailed explanation of function and operation without giving any scientific basis for it? So in your car example, it would be much like describing the changes in refueling stations, average use of cars, types of cars, functioning of road systems, but without ever explaining why those changes took place.


If it wasn't clear, I was suggesting that none of the above _need_ be mentioned if they weren't in some way pertinent to the story (in terms of plot, characters' relevant experiences, etc.). I don't think I've ever read a book which mentioned changes in refuelling stations and the average use of cars. I'm pretty sure I've read stories where makes and models of cars are mentioned; sometimes these are plot-related, e.g. the protagonist keeps spotting a car, so they know they're being followed, or the protagonist worries that the car chasing them is a faster model than their own. I've read stories, I'm sure, where traffic jams, or long open stretches of road, are mention, and some of them may even have given an explanation of why this might be (which may be wrong: the PoV character may have no real idea). I'm not sure much detail was included in any of these cases, and generally nothing at all about the technology, not even mentioning whether the vehicles concerned have petrol or diesel engines.


Having said that.... My WiP1 has: 1) a scene set at an abandoned fuel stop; 2) a scene where the general absence of cars is mentioned, and an explanation given; 3) scenes in which the models and makes of car are mentioned; 4) a scene where there's a sudden disappearance of most of the cars from the traffic after a particular junction. In (1), the state of the fuel stop is a bit of colour and something that drives (no pun intended) the decision making of a character who never visits it. In (2), the PoV character uses it as a hook on which to say something about the way the society is currently organised. In (3), the cars' make and model are simply local colour. In (4), the change in traffic mix allows a mention of a part of the setting that is otherwise never visited, so again its for (non) local colour. Note, however, that I never mention what the engines are and what fuel they use, and I don't say why one vehicle may be faster than another. (The reader may make a stab at this -- the model number may be larger on the faster car -- but it would be no more than a guess: I've never said if the numbers indicate engine "size".)


Oh, and as it happens, I was chatting to a friend of mine yesterday evening -- talk about coincidences! -- and he mentioned that a close relative of his worked for an oil company helping to decide where its petrol stations ought to be sited, and what facilities they should have, based on the social and economic conditions of the surrounding areas, not just the traffic patterns on the roads there. I found it interesting, but I'm not a character in an adventure whose mind might be focusing on more important, more deadly, things.


----------



## Michael Colton (Jul 25, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> I don't know the story. But communications is totally constrained by physics (Einstein and many others also Heavyside etc.)  and mathematics (Maxwell, Shannon, Nyquist).
> 
> You can change the implementation, but not what it really does, unless it's imaginary like the Ansible or Telepathy.
> 
> ...



Ah, I see I was asking people to read my mind a bit here. The technology I was referring to was a cybernetic implant form of communication - so the author certainly did invent an aspect of it, but never tried to explain how exactly cybernetics happened to develop to that point or the science behind it. It simply just did develop to that point and a large part of the story revolved around it. I wish I could remember the author, but it was not a well-known story. Just something someone sent me a link to.

So in your ST:TOS flip communicator example, it would be like having a story largely revolving around the ramifications of those flip communicators without ever explaining their scientific grounding.

This is part of my perpetual frustration with the subgenres I enjoy most such as postcyberpunk, bioengineering, that sort of thing - the very subgenre relies very heavily on the dramatic consequences of technology but also tends to rely on expressing that without explaining the technology. Because, well, it is not real. Science fiction cybernetics or nanotech extrapolate some pretty drastic leaps away from real life cybernetics or nano.



Ursa major said:


> Oh, and as it happens, I was chatting to a friend of mine yesterday evening -- talk about coincidences! -- and he mentioned that a close relative of his worked for an oil company helping to decide where its petrol stations ought to be sited, and what facilities they should have, based on the social and economic conditions of the surrounding areas, not just the traffic patterns on the roads there. I found it interesting, but I'm not a character in an adventure whose mind might be focusing on more important, more deadly, things.



Your explanation makes sense. I am just trying to figure out whether other readers are quite as forgiving as me when it comes to use of technology. This last paragraph of yours indicates the themes that I personally find the most interesting in quite a bit of fiction: the social and cultural aspects. So because of that, when authors utilize technology to explore those it does not bother me all that much unless it is blatantly implausible or poorly handled.

And as I said to someone above, I think I was asking folks to read my mind a bit too much. Your point about whether or not the explanation is needed makes sense - but where that dividing line between necessary and unnecessary is located varies between readers. For me as a reader, it is often unnecessary. But I have met other readers who apparently find it much more needed than I do. When I ask people why they dislike certain subgenres of science fiction, the lack of explaining the technological development the story relies upon is one of the first things I hear. People seem to forgive space opera quite a bit more than other subgenres because they enter into it fully aware that the technology is a low priority compared to the adventures of the protagonist.



springs said:


> I think it depends on your audience, too.



Yes, precisely. And I am trying to avoid that age-old trap of assuming I am the standard audience.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 26, 2014)

Thanks for changing the font.  Since I don't have Century Gothic, my computer did indeed turn it into something else.  That's the problem with the software here:  it offers options that don't work for everybody.

But to address your question.  I'd take Ursa's example of the automobile.  It seems to me that it would make no sense to describe how the internal combustion engine works until and unless something goes wrong and someone is obliged to look under the hood and try to figure out the problem and get things going again.

So with the technology in a science fiction story:  my belief is that the author should explain the principles involved if, for instance, something goes wrong and someone has to fix it.  If there is tension there as the main character runs the science behind the FTL drive or the cybernetics (or whatever it is) through his mind, in a race to find the flaw and do something about it before things get any worse, then I'll be interested in a detailed explanation whether it is real science or just something the writer made up that _sounds_ like it could be real.  Or, another example, if the main character were trying to get funding, and had to argue their case before some governmental body that challenged him to prove his case.  Anything like this where explaining the science involved is vital to understanding the plot and the challenges faced by the main characters.

But if there is a scene where characters are taken on a tour of the ship _just_ so that readers will understand the author's nifty theory of how the FTL drive works, or if there is a similar sort of scene in the factory where the implants are made so the writer can explain about those, or anything shoe-horned into the story (infodump/technobabble thinly disguised) so the author can describe the scientific principles at great length, then I'll be bored and start skipping ahead.  I don't know for sure, but I suspect that many other readers would do the same.


----------



## Michael Colton (Jul 26, 2014)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> But if there is a scene where characters are taken on a tour of the ship _just_ so that readers will understand the author's nifty theory of how the FTL drive works, or if there is a similar sort of scene in the factory where the implants are made so the writer can explain about those, or anything shoe-horned into the story (infodump/technobabble thinly disguised) so the author can describe the scientific principles at great length, then I'll be bored and start skipping ahead.  I don't know for sure, but I suspect that many other readers would do the same.



That makes sense. I think finding that balance between 'under the hood' and just using a car is pretty vital (in other technologies primarily, but I am sticking with the car example). I can see the downside of boring the reader like you mentioned and also risking issues with disbelief if one ignores the details of a technology too much if it is a central aspect of the story. Perhaps part of my inordinate concern with this issue is due to knowing many computer scientists that get frustrated very easily by how an author handles technology. I myself am not in that profession, but many of the people I spend my time with are - and they seem particularly sensitive to it.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 26, 2014)

Also, if you slip in the information during a scene of gripping action, conflict, or danger, they're less likely to stop and ask themselves questions about whether the whatever-it-is would work or not.  They'll be too interested in finding out what will happen next to pick apart your science.

They may go back and do that after they've finished the story, of course, but they are more likely to be tolerant about it if you've just given them a great reading experience.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jul 26, 2014)

Action Sequence:
Surely last place you want to put any explanation? Detracts from Action?

Cyber-implant communications:
1) If it's radio based, it can't do anything you can't do today.
2) If it enables telepathy then it can do anything you like.

Anything that doesn't use Electromagnetic waves (Radio) is basically 'Magic' or Telepathy, but of course you can call it anything you like.

Quantum Entanglement can't ever be used for communication. Analogy:
you have two shuffled packs of cards that are identical order, but you don't know the order (quantum entanglement). Doing any operation that doesn't collapse the entanglement affects both equally.  Examining the cards to see the sequence destroys the entanglement. So you can never ever use this property to send a signal, not even once, like a hill top bonfire. So Quantum Entanglement can't be used to make an Ansible.   It can be used in a complex way to tell if ordinary laser (fibre or air) communication has been eavesdropped on.  So for anything other than Electromagnetic waves you have only "magic/telepathy".  Semaphore is Electromagnetic wave based as light is carrying the "clacks" arms position. 

For point to point links (only) you maybe could use Neutrinos in SF. Still limited to speed of light, but will go through a planet. This is the problem, very problematic to detect as they can go through a planet. Generally inferior to laser or Microwaves for point to point communication unless you need to communicate through a Planet, but fibre or satellites round the outside will work better.


----------



## Michael Colton (Jul 26, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> For point to point links (only) you maybe could use Neutrinos in SF. Still limited to speed of light, but will go through a planet. This is the problem, very problematic to detect as they can go through a planet. Generally inferior to laser or Microwaves for point to point communication unless you need to communicate through a Planet, but fibre or satellites round the outside will work better.



I actually seem to remember some short stories that threw in neutrino communications - especially after it was pulled off in real life (at a non-useful level, but it meant it was doable). If I remember correctly, there are some researchers theorizing axion-based communications now as well.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jul 26, 2014)

Neutrinos are unlikely to be ever used by anyone anywhere except as a demo. See Shannon Limit on my blog. They are so hard to detect (inherently) that signal to noise is very poor. Any Radio or Laser Technology is inherently better.
Again if Axions exist (they may not), they would be even more disadvantageous than Neutrinos. 
Absolutely anything that can be varied and then the variation detected at a distance can be be used to create a "Channel". But at the minute nothing known appears to have any advantage over Electromagnetic waves (light, Radio, Infrared, UV, X-rays), nor does anything allow lower latency (The time taken for a change in the channel information initiated at A to be detected at B) than light.

Sad but true.

Some things are poor or can't be done because we don't know how yet (but nothing in Communications sadly). Other stuff is understood fairly well and so we know it can never be any better.
There are also Unknown Unknowns. Stuff we might communicate with that we don't know about. But Shannon will still apply, even if it's something that can beat the speed of light. Current physics suggests you can't signal faster than speed of light (lower latency) unless you "cheat". 

*What sorts of cheats?*


 Instantaneous micro wormholes. Blast a very high bandwidth message in a femto second before it collapses again.
 Somehow "fold space"
 Discover some sort of Hyper or Infra space outside of normal space time.
 Put the message inside a hypothetical Warp bubble (related to 2). Unless the bubble is self collapsing it destroys your destination.
In my SF I use two methods for Faster than Light Messages:
1) Imaginary Telepaths.
2) A pair of modified space ship Jump drives at A and B in deep space that exchange micro-miniature physical messages (crystals, micro SD cards whatever). c.f. Babylon 5, Stargate and C J Cherryth's Gates.


There are no currently known real methods. Warp bubbles, folding space, jump gates and even instantaneous micro worm holes may all be impossible, though there are mathematics and physics that's suggestive. Usually trying to solve the equations results in needing negative mass (this is not Antimatter, it has positive mass) or more energy than exists in visible universe or both. Of course Hawking Radiation suggests a possible solution if the worm hole is open only for an extremely short period of time. But then then this may be too short to actually signal!


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 26, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Action Sequence:
> Surely last place you want to put any explanation? Detracts from Action?



It depends on how you do it, and of course on the plot. For instance, if the action in question is a character dealing with the technology gone wrong, it only makes sense that person would be thinking about what he/she is doing and why and it could _enhance_ the action by allowing the readers inside that character's mind. Without context (and a chance to identify with any of the persons involved) action may come across as little more than running around and making noise.

Although action doesn't always involve intense activity.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jul 27, 2014)

> dealing with the technology gone wrong


I have experience of that.  Unfortunately about 40 years of it.
It's either an instant inspired Macguver fix or a large mug of coffee and schematic / software source / manual / Searching Internet or email / skype to someone I know that had one.

Fix it slow and you are an idiot and incompetent (hey but maybe no-one else could have fixed it!). Fix it quickly (using brilliant expertise that no one else has) and "What's the fuss, can't be a big deal because you fixed it quick."

One boss I had thus had the logic
"NEVER EVER fix it on the Customer Premises. Always bring it back."
He was right.

Didn't Macguver explain afterwards?


----------



## Michael Colton (Jul 27, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> [*] Discover some sort of Hyper or Infra space outside of normal space time.



This is why so much science fiction uses hyperspace excuses for faster than light travel. The odd thing is that it seems like readers are getting more and more used to it and thus it is easier to get away with. I do not even do a double-take anymore if a science fiction author refers to hyperspace, hyperspeed, or hyperjump/warpjump when referring to a spacecraft of some sort - but I _would_ do so for communication for some odd reason.


----------



## Bick (Jul 27, 2014)

I like my SF to have science in it that can be explained.  I don't like the term technobabble, as it suggests making up spurious explanations for unlikely technologies.  If it can't really be done (FTL) then, on the whole, I'd rather it didn't get a daft explanation - at least not in any depth. If the FTL needs fixing, then provide some babble if you have to, but try to make it brief. The best SF to my mind, invokes real science and extrapolates it to a possible future setting.  This doesn't require technobabble, but clear brief explanation, and I like to see that.  Most SF these days doesn't actually do this much, instead its technobabble fantasy in space.  Which has its place, and I enjoy much of it for other resaons, but its not my favorite genre or way of treating technology.


----------



## Bick (Jul 27, 2014)

Sodice said:


> I do not even do a double-take anymore if a science fiction author refers to hyperspace, hyperspeed, or hyperjump/warpjump when referring to a spacecraft of some sort - but I _would_ do so for communication for some odd reason.


You wouldn't have like it in Star Trek: Into Darkness, where Kirk phoned Scotty on his mobile phone from another star system then?


----------



## Michael Colton (Jul 27, 2014)

Bick said:


> You wouldn't have like it in Star Trek: Into Darkness, where Kirk phoned Scotty on his mobile phone from another star system then?



I have tried to block that film out of my memory. Thus, I do not recall the scene of which you speak.

But as far as the whole "much SF is just technobabble fantasy" thing, I find that notion rather irksome. Science fiction in general often deals with very different themes than fantasy - regardless of how science is actually handled in a particular work. And even concepts like hyperspace and FTL are hypothetically possible based upon current knowledge, no matter how vague, abstract, and nondescript those hunches may be. Despite the lack of realism in trying to imagine how those sort of things would or could function if they turned out to be theoretically viable, it is still a different approach than fantasy in my opinion. A setting including hyperspace is different than Star Wars' co-opting Sword and Sorcery into Lightsaber and Force - the latter to me best described as space fantasy rather than any subgenre of science fiction. I would not include soft science fiction that rests upon hyperspace in the same category.

All that being said, there seems to be an inherent pointlessness to this sort of genre and subgenre differentiation most of the time.


----------



## Bick (Jul 28, 2014)

Sodice said:


> But as far as the whole "much SF is just technobabble fantasy" thing, I find that notion rather irksome. Science fiction in general often deals with very different themes than fantasy - regardless of how science is actually handled in a particular work. And even concepts like hyperspace and FTL are hypothetically possible based upon current knowledge, no matter how vague, abstract, and nondescript those hunches may be. Despite the lack of realism in trying to imagine how those sort of things would or could function if they turned out to be theoretically viable, it is still a different approach than fantasy in my opinion. A setting including hyperspace is different than Star Wars' co-opting Sword and Sorcery into Lightsaber and Force - the latter to me best described as space fantasy rather than any subgenre of science fiction. I would not include soft science fiction that rests upon hyperspace in the same category.


Sorry, I perhaps was unclear, as I agree with your comments above.  I'm ok with the use of FTL and such like, and don't mean to denigrate such speculations as 'fantasy'.  My feeling is that more and more SF is really just a drama set in space, without much in the way of science or scientific extrapolation at all.  This is relevant to the discussion of the depth and quality of technology explanations in SF, because if the genre is (to some extent) drifting away from scientific extrapolation, there's not going to be that much required.  

Of course, the consequences of scientific extrapolation can be well explored in both "soft" and "hard" SF as you point out.  An example from the softer side is "Greybeard" by Aldiss; an example from the harder side is "The Fountains of Paradise" by Clarke.  Both extrapolate a scientific idea to a natural conclusion, and they are quite distinct from the 'drama in space' type of modern book typified by Weber, Bujold, McDevitt, etc. To be clear - I'm not judging those authors' books at all - I have enjoyed work from all those authors for other reasons.


----------



## Michael Colton (Jul 28, 2014)

Bick said:


> Sorry, I perhaps was unclear, as I agree with your comments above.  I'm ok with the use of FTL and such like, and don't mean to denigrate such speculations as 'fantasy'.  My feeling is that more and more SF is really just a drama set in space, without much in the way of science or scientific extrapolation at all.  This is relevant to the discussion of the depth and quality of technology explanations in SF, because if the genre is (to some extent) drifting away from scientific extrapolation, there's not going to be that much required.
> 
> Of course, the consequences of scientific extrapolation can be well explored in both "soft" and "hard" SF as you point out.  An example from the softer side is "Greybeard" by Aldiss; an example from the harder side is "The Fountains of Paradise" by Clarke.  Both extrapolate a scientific idea to a natural conclusion, and they are quite distinct from the 'drama in space' type of modern book typified by Weber, Bujold, McDevitt, etc. To be clear - I'm not judging those authors' books at all - I have enjoyed work from all those authors for other reasons.



Ah, in that case I would agree. This is part of the reason why I find the various subgenres of science fiction to be so attractive. Depending on what I am interested in at the moment, I can usually find a work or author within the umbrella of science fiction that can fit that interest. Whether it is the ramifications of a technological advance/scientific idea or simply an interesting story situated amongst science fiction themes. The dividing line between these two approaches is part of what I was asking about in the original post. For me, I can find interesting technological themes explored in works that are often more about the social ramifications of said technology than a 'scientific idea' explored explicitly as such which then requires elaborate scientific examination.


----------



## Null_Zone (Jul 28, 2014)

I tend to view it the same way I view a story set in the modern world. Some people will have an incredibly detailed knowledge of technology, or at least parts of it, but the vast majority will have an understanding they kind of picked up at school but really weren't paying that much attention. Take televisions for example, how many people if you sat them down in a lab could build a working TV from first principles despite it being an incredibly common item of technology? I'm willing to bet most descriptions and attempts would bear an remarkable similarity to "magic beams cause picture to appear".

So I take the same approach to future technology. Faster than light travel that relies upon technology maybe a dozen people on a planet can follow the maths on but everyone "knows" it involves manipulation of gravitational fields. And so on.

But then I find it irritating when authors have political systems magincally just work with hand waving. Communism suddenly working throughout a star sytstem because...eh everyone just tries really hard, sort of thing.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jul 28, 2014)

Lost technology is also interesting. Much detailed manufacturing processes are not sufficiently detailed in books. Companies may shred old documentation and dump it as they go out of business or change.
Certain pre 1950s electronics devices and parts can't be made. No documentation survives and the experts are dead. They would need R&D almost from scratch.
The last CRT factory in Europe (USA & Japan long gone) and tube rebuilders (anywhere) closed last year (2013). Some valves (very few) are still made in Russia and Eastern Europe. I'm not sure if any CRT maker is still in production in China.

Most things rely also on a long vertical supply chain of specialist materials. Once that is gone it is extremely difficult as the OEM device maker never knew how to make the component parts, probably by the 1920s as companies specialised.

So one interesting area of fantasy is the idea of some common material failing due to say a rogue nano-bot or a new fungus or bacteria, the dislocation of society and rush to find replacement.

Or your Colony gets independence in Space but the Earth is destroyed or has an embargo. You'd be amazed how many things no-one would have a clue how to make. Wikipedia isn't good enough and doesn't even allow "how to" detailed articles!

Perhaps no-one knows how to make optic fibre properly, or how to fabricate ICs, or how to make pure enough silicon and other materials for the fabrication. Research the supply chain. processing and manufacturing to make a Tablet computer, starting by just digging stuff up on your planet. It's frightening. Most of the detail is totally unavailable even in the best universities or Patent records as it's "trade secrets".

If you can make copper wire and steel etc, at least you could build a slow computer out of about 5,000 to 10,000 relays. You might have to use miniature valves for 10 to 30 years for everything till your materials science is good enough for transistors. Developing decent miniature valves will take 3 to 5 years even if you know how, due to materials difficulty (Glass to metal seals, drawing tungsten filaments using diamond dies, special pure barium compounds to coat cathode or filament, getter materials. Coils, resistors and capacitors are easy though! Really good vacuum pumps).
It took years to have commercial Tungsten lamps instead of rubbish carbon filament because Tungsten is such a pig to make and then even worse to make into wires.

So in your "cut off" Colony Planet, existing working technology would be extremely valuable and irreplaceable for maybe a generation. Initially manufacturing might be at 17th century level!

Babbage's computer couldn't be made with the tools they had. The attempt made UK a world leader in Machine Tools!


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jul 28, 2014)

Politics is hard.

For example if your world has evenly divided opposed factions, democracy won't work.
Communism perhaps can't work on a larger scale than a village. (Kibbutz sort of works but a Moshav is better, No country has ever had functioning communism).

Capitalism is totally unstable in a zero growth scenario.


----------



## Michael Colton (Jul 28, 2014)

Null_Zone said:


> But then I find it irritating when authors have political systems magincally just work with hand waving. Communism suddenly working throughout a star sytstem because...eh everyone just tries really hard, sort of thing.



Politics has to be given much more leeway. It is not a hard science (no matter what certain famous political scientists try to tell you - the rest know better). Because of that, it is awfully difficult to tell an author 'you got the political makeup of your own world wrong'.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 22, 2014)

Yes. a small change or difference in perception can make a system work or fail. Look at how well democracy has worked in Iraq, Afghanistan, South America, South Africa, Egypt etc.
Obviously the Chinese system isn't what the USSR had.


----------



## Michael Colton (Aug 23, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Yes. a small change or difference in perception can make a system work or fail. Look at how well democracy has worked in Iraq, Afghanistan, South America, South Africa, Egypt etc.
> Obviously the Chinese system isn't what the USSR had.



Despite the name of the party, no political scientist considers China a communist country today. It is referred to in political science academia as 'state capitalism.' Same as Putin's Russia.

And speaking about perception, some would be surprised by the responses the US gets when it talks about democracy to other countries. They look at our electoral college system and instantly see the irony of the US lecturing anyone on democracy. By any strict standards, many South American countries are technically more democratic than the US. We do not even vote in our own president.


----------



## J-Sun (Aug 23, 2014)

I dunno. I think Russia (and the US) could be called stateless capitalism in different ways. In Russia, it seems to be run by the Russian mafia with Putin as don (_l'etat c'est moi_). In the US the powers that be (corporations, tea party, "corporations are people and money is speech" folks, whatever) have basically wedged the government into impotence. Which is unfortunate when (a) we're re-enacting WWII in the Ukraine, (b) Viet Nam in Iraq/Syria and (c) the Chinese think its funny to flip us off and fly barrel rolls over our jets with theirs and all we do is (a) sanction, (b) chuck some ordnance at Iraq, and (c) complain. But, hey, "state(less) capitalism" is the way of the future! Now that the US is neutralized, Putin can take Europe and there basically won't be any pesky states anymore.

As far as the electoral college, it's the least of our problems and only made any difference once or twice (and one of those put Jefferson into the White House due to political spite but at least that worked out okay in my book). It was part of the price of getting _these United states_ to federate. I mean, we never were a direct democracy in any sense although the historical course until recently was more and more directness. But we were always a republic/representative democracy. The electoral college derives from our direct votes, so we do choose our president but through an added layer.

But this thread is wandering so far off topic it's headed straight for an entirely different forum.


----------



## Michael Colton (Aug 23, 2014)

J-Sun said:


> I dunno. I think Russia (and the US) could be called stateless capitalism in different ways. In Russia, it seems to be run by the Russian mafia with Putin as don (_l'etat c'est moi_). In the US the powers that be (corporations, tea party, "corporations are people and money is speech" folks, whatever) have basically wedged the government into impotence. Which is unfortunate when (a) we're re-enacting WWII in the Ukraine, (b) Viet Nam in Iraq/Syria and (c) the Chinese think its funny to flip us off and fly barrel rolls over our jets with theirs and all we do is (a) sanction, (b) chuck some ordnance at Iraq, and (c) complain. But, hey, "state(less) capitalism" is the way of the future! Now that the US is neutralized, Putin can take Europe and there basically won't be any pesky states anymore.



Putin largely broke the Russian mafia's power when he came into office by making an example of some of the billionaires. They still own quite a bit, but Putin's government controls the show - hence the 'state' part. It is considered state capitalism because even though there are free markets, Putin's government largely dictates the direction of the economy. It is a more severe version of France's dirigisme. The mob itself has very little power in the economy unlike during the 90s. Putin cleaned house with public offices, police, and government agencies. As long as the mob does not oppose Putin, they are left alone - but he made it clear what happens when they oppose the government. He does not run the country through the mob. Quite the opposite.



J-Sun said:


> As far as the electoral college, it's the least of our problems and only made any difference once or twice



I was not saying that it has made a difference, just that other democracies look at it and find it silly that the US touts democracy when it is not one.

But yes, we are off-topic. If you are interested in the topic I can send you materials about it, including the criteria comparative political scientists use for labeling something as state capitalism (the term came into wide usage in academia largely because of Putin).


----------



## tinkerdan (Aug 23, 2014)

This is shaping up to an interesting conversation and I'm not sure how much of value I can add.

I have a sense of technobabble   being relegated into a sort of dirty area like Sci-Fi has been with such endearing monikers such as Skiffy.

What's most interesting is that they might be somewhat related. It seems that purist would much rather see science in science fiction to be the best extrapolation of current science into the future. And I'm not about to disagree with that because there is much to embrace in that thought. 

What I do find interesting in that vein is that in a way that would mostly lead to no need for much scientific explanation unless you are targeting the engineering types who like to look under the hood. Basically we're speaking of a useful analogy to automobiles because it does not take an understanding of how the engine works to get into a car and drive it. It does if you mean to fix it so minor repairs might require  the 101 class. Even so they don't need as yet the information for rebuilding or recreating the engine so there is still no need for a great amount of any sort of technological background. That means that the technological background included in a story involving someone getting into a car to start it would have to specifically target those people who like to get under the hood and identify all the parts.

Much the same could be said of future stories of space flight. Some day it might require less and less knowledge to operate a space ship. Of course still for those who like to look under the hood it might be that we need to demonstrate that the character operating the ship knows more than just how to get from point a to  point b. So we get into some sort of explanation. At this point if we are mostly extrapolating within the constraints of known physics this could be done without Technobabble if we define Technobabble as being close to if not tantamount to hand waving.

It's when we go beyond physics that we have to make a choice. Do we fall back to that place where we address all the readers as people who are not interested in looking under the hood or do we have to keep the techno-philes head under the hood?

But there's another aspect to this because we are in an area that threatens physics as we know it so, there is an obligation in a fantasy to create rules that govern the portion where we expect the reader to suspend their disbelief. This unfortunately can lead to some if not a whole lot of hand-waving and Technobabble. You could leave it off but then there are no physics that explain what you are doing so there are either no limits or the known limits have already rendered your technology into magic. So you either don't go out of the bounds of known physics or you start dealing with the extraordinary extrapolation as fantasy and create the rules.

Of course this all assumes that we are only speaking of Technobabble as something that explains something that has no real explanation. If we were to put something like the explanation of how a car really works as being technobabble then we'd have to back-peddle.  If all scientific exposition is considered technobabble  then we would be looking at just the basic question of when is exposition acceptable, which I feel is a slightly different question.

But I could be wrong.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 23, 2014)

Michael Colton said:


> Despite the name of the party, no political scientist considers China a communist country today.


Which is why I said it's not the USSR!
Actually 1912 to 1948 was the Mandarins.
about 200BC to 1912 only tinkering with it. Is today's China hugely different politics to pre 1912?

I think if you tinker and adapt you'll find at least one Chinese period between 200BC and 1912 a starting point for a more viable Extra-Solar political system. Churchill famously said that Democracy was terrible, it was just the other systems are worse. The USA has a totally broken system mostly designed for a pre Civil war looser Federation. It was slightly reformed. IMO the Civil war wasn't about Slavery but between looser than Swiss Federation vs a single Nation State federal only in Name. The USA didn't have a Federal dollar till I think 1913  (USA dollar created 1792, but printed dollar could be different value in different towns).
The Swiss have the only real "federal government".
Western democracy isn't a single system. Ireland, UK and USA are very different. Israel, love or hate it, is the only real working Democracy in the Middle east but has a totally archaic system of Proportional Representation. Theirs is based on a pre Czarist era Polish concept brought by East Europeans and Russians in the 19th Century when Turkey (Ottoman Empire) still ruled most of the Middle East (earlier all of it).

*It's worth studying political systems and history before you make your own.* Some systems worked for a very long while. Fairness, freedom, efficiency, wealth, peace, stability, social mobility, level of crime, corruption are all separate attributes. If you need some combination of those for the plot then some now extinct system may be more readily adapted than what you suppose the 20th Century or today has.
Pre 15th C. Irish Brehon laws interesting. No automatic inheritance. Women more rights than any other contemporary system (Look up too when Swiss Women got the Vote or when Switzerland joined UN!).
Contrast Western European Feudalism (technically ended with Sark in 2004!) with China 200 BC to 1912 (various different periods), Japan and India before the 17th Century. Compare religious freedoms and local National freedoms between different periods of Roman Empire before Nero and Muslim World 1100 to 1914, esp. Ottoman. Or British Empire colonial rule India vs West Indies vs Australia (Ireland wasn't ever part of Empire or a really a colony except maybe during Cromwell. Cromwell still is unpopular in most of Ireland, some people probably blame him even for the Irish Famine, which actually was a Europe wide phenomenon and not as bad as some earlier European Famines. Nor was the Absentee landlord maybe as bad overall as athe Highland Clearances. I'll be getting visits now from men in balaclavas and white vans after a few black & Dekker catalogues are put through letterbox).

What used to take weeks (Months?) in the reference section of a major city library  (no taking home the books and the town library was useless) is now a few hours on Internet / Wikipedia so no excuse to skimp on research before inventing your SF&F politics and economics!


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 23, 2014)

tinkerdan said:


> Some day it might require less and less knowledge to operate a space ship.


Probably similar to operation of a regular ship or aircraft  that has full electronics, autopilot and navigation. Maybe even a few weeks on a flight simulator and then a few hours on the real spaceship / starship to get the "pilot's licence?". Assuming one has already the appropriate education so you can either manage the engineer or attempt repair yourself when something goes wrong and you have no "Houston" on the Radio / Laser / Ansible /subspace link etc.


----------



## Michael Colton (Aug 24, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> What used to take weeks (Months?) in the reference section of a major city library  (no taking home the books and the town library was useless) is now a few hours on Internet / Wikipedia so no excuse to skimp on research before inventing your SF&F politics and economics!



While I agree with this, it is also true that the political systems one can research are extremely dependent upon the context of their time and place. There are many examples of people extracting those systems because of elements they find interesting or useful and placing them in another context that makes little sense or feels unintentionally surreal. It is not enough to research political systems in and of themselves, but also their development and downfall within the context of their time. If you merely transplant a system without examining its context within the rest of the world setting, you can create a situation where the question "how the hell could this system have possibly developed here?" blinking at you in huge neon lights.

And yes, China's current political system/situation is very different than 1912.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Aug 24, 2014)

Michael Colton said:


> I searched the forums for a post on this topic and did not quite find one, though I am sure various comments have touched on it at some point. I have a general question for readers of science fiction regarding the believability of technology.



What really annoys me is when authors get ordinary things WRONG and then I am relly pissed of when fans don't even notice.

I have tried 4 of Iain Banks books and finished two, *Player of Games* and *Looked to Windward*.  PoG was interesting because I was a chess fanatic in high school but beyond that I wasn't excited about it.  I though LtW sounded like a much more interesting plot but it was confusing because of the scene changes between characters and in time and because one character had two people in his brain because of a technological implant.

But anyway the thing that reall pissed me off was a scene where a character was hanging upside down and dropped a "stylo".  Apparently it is a device that allows drawing in 3D.  The character then waits an unspecified time and decides to fall after it to retrieve it.  Banks then says some time later that the character had propellors on his ankles and stabilized his velocity at 22 m/s.   Then I thought, "Wait a minute, that can't happen at near Earth gravity."  It takes less than 3 seconds to reach 22 m/s in Earth gravity.

Now this event occurred in one of Bank's air spheres.  But at no point previous to that had he indicated that Air Spheres had low gravity.  In fact it is never stated in the book.  I searched the net to find it discussed elsewhere.  But Banks has his character falling for kilometers and talks about his clothes flapping.  The aerodynamics would make it impossible for the character to catch the dropped object especially if he limited his speed.

So to me Banks writes SF that is basically indifferent to science it is just about the story.  I tried *Consider Phlebas* and *Use of Weapons* but did not finish either.

I found this thread by searching on "physics".

psik


----------



## WinterLight (Aug 28, 2014)

Thinking on the question I am struggling to recall excerpts or references of explanations that have 'annoyed' me - I suppose if they cannot suspend my disbelief they just don't belong in my memory banks.



tinkerdan said:


> Some day it might require less and less knowledge to operate a space ship.



But this got me thinking that if an author is telling a tale it is often more believable when they skirt casually over the technology as if it is a now mundane part of everyday life in their fiction. This way the hows and whats can be left to the best storyteller of all, our own imaginations.

Even so if the author is intending on digging a bit deeper, I am no physician but plausibility is present only if what is being explained can be understood. It needs grounding in the real world to be able to relate, otherwise even if there is a genius invention hiding behind the words it might as well be space magic.


----------



## tinkerdan (Aug 28, 2014)

That's kind'a what I had in mind.



WinterLight said:


> Thinking on the question I am struggling to recall excerpts or references of explanations that have 'annoyed' me - I suppose if they cannot suspend my disbelief they just don't belong in my memory banks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But just for fun I'm not adverse to someone using something common place to help explain something that is otherwise magic.

Something like when trying to explain the inexplicable portal that stands before you ready to send you through some billions of light years away to your destination.

 It stands open ready with a space time distortion that wants to grasp you up, like some enormous hand tossing stones across the water with hope that you'll bounce across the surface of subspace a number of times and reach the other side. Or fall short and sink to the murky depths. We lose more travelers that way.

Or.

It opens the rift and reaches out through space time to the destination and pulls the cosmic strings taught like a gigantic slingshot with loads of potential cosmic energy and waits for you the precious stone to insert yourself whereupon it releases the strings to return the energy and delivers you to the bullseye. Or maybe a gnat's hair off. Or possibly missing completely. Couldn't hit the broadside of a barn.


----------



## Michael Colton (Aug 29, 2014)

I have noticed that sort of metaphorical explanation in a few different instances. It can work pretty well. If I remember correctly, BSG used it for several cylon technologies.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Sep 21, 2014)

> _At the 1998 Worldcon in Baltimore I attended several of the panels on the use of science fiction in education (and the importance of luring a steady influx of young readers into SF) and was inspired to do something. I had several ideas, but the first to come to fruition was to speak at the Johns Hopkins University Society of Physics Students about "Physics in Science Fiction". _



http://www.larryniven.net/physics.shtml

psik


----------

