# Where does the science end and the fiction begin?



## Tim B (Dec 25, 2013)

Good morning and Merry Christmas,
I have a question, if I may, for the members here who delve into the speculative worlds of science fiction, where does (should) the science end and the fiction begin?

In writing science fiction I am of the opinion that one has to be cognizant of the fact that not everyone who chooses to pick up the work may be familiar with the latest, most popular or most probable theories of the science behind science fiction. I will take, for example, the perennial masterpiece Star Trek...

When "Trek" first burst onto the scene it was wholly unnecessary to understand any of the theoretical science behind FTL travel, it was wholly unnecessary to understand how, or why, the "transporter" worked and it was wholly unnecessary to know the mechanics behind the Dilithium crystal fuel source that powered the Enterprise... what was necessary was that the viewer "believe" or "accept" that such things existed.

So, in writing a science fiction piece how much science is too much? Where should the line be drawn between the science and the fiction? 

I am in that wonderful place of planning and development of a major work and in setting out the themes of the writing, that place where we have a choice whether to focus on the technology or the story of the characters and their reactions to situational motivators.

I would really like to get some solid opinions from fellow authors about this. Thanks, in advance, for your time and attention.
Regards,
T


----------



## Abernovo (Dec 25, 2013)

Hi Tim, and welcome to the Chrons. 

I think you've already summed up the main point for me:


Tim B said:


> In writing science fiction I am of the opinion that one has to be cognizant of the fact that not everyone who chooses to pick up the work may be familiar with the latest, most popular or most probable theories of the science


It's first and foremost a story, for me, a piece of entertainment. I like hard sf, but the characters have to be front and centre, in my opinion. The science and technology should be in the background. It's how the people (and aliens are people in another guise, if you go that route) react to the situations created by the technology that show exactly what the tech can do.



Tim B said:


> ... what was necessary was that the viewer "believe" or "accept" that such things existed.


Exactly. If you say 'in my universe X exists', then it does. So long as you stay consistent to the laws you create for your universe, I can suspend disbelief and imagine an Alcubierre Drive has been made real, or that transporters are not simply to get a character from A to B in time to save the Redshirt (or just in time to watch him die, anyway). 

You can then weave in explanations of the scientific principles, if you want. Again, hopefully, by showing the science as a part of the story's 'furniture', the principles of which are taken for granted by the characters. 

I mean, you can go to the shop and exclaim about the beautiful workmanship of a chair or table, but you know what the chair is for, just as your character knows the laws he's working from even if he discovers something new - so the principles are never discussed, only shown in action.



Tim B said:


> we have a choice whether to focus on the technology or the story of the characters and their reactions to situational motivators.


If it had to be a choice, I'd always go for characters, with their reactions and their emotional responses, but can we not have both characters and tech? Scientists fall in love too, perhaps whilst working alongside on a particle accelerator, or engineers working on the new 0.9c starship propulsion.

Like I said, it should be entertainment, in my opinion. If I want to read a paper on the possibilities of such and such a technology, I can, but that's not what a story is for me. The real trick is to blend information seamlessly with the entertainment, and maybe inspire those that want to know more to research for themselves. Science fiction helped drive me into biology.

Anyway, good luck with your writing.


----------



## hopewrites (Dec 25, 2013)

I am more a Fantasy than a SciFi gal, but I'll toss in my two cents.
First thing to concider when drawing lines in the sand is who your audience will be. I love the quote from Pixar, when creating Finding Nemo they researched dental tools to get them right. Just in case a dentist watched their movie. I like to think that they came across a debate in that research that led to the scene where the fish are arguing about tools and techniques.

I have no problem taking what I need from science and filling in with fiction the rest. I treat existing science like a boxed cake mix. Sure I could make cake from it. But I could just as easily use it to bread some chicken or mix with other boxes of cake to get my end goal; an enjoyable meal.

The short answer then becomes; where you want it to. Where ever it needs to for your story to work.

Story is king.


----------



## Tim B (Dec 26, 2013)

Good morning and best wishes 
Thank you very much for your input and advice. I am currently sketching the framework for what my audience will have to "believe" with this project. This will keep the "science" consistent.

As for the characters, so far I have a list of names and functions. Sometimes it's harder to build characters than stardrives, no?
Regards,
T


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 26, 2013)

Tim B said:


> So, in writing a science fiction piece how much science is too much?



I can only suggest ensuring you ensure you're well-read in the genre. _Science fiction_ encompasses a wide range of subgenres, from _space operas_, to _hard SF_ - the latter of which aims to provide theories behind future tech.


----------



## JoanDrake (Dec 28, 2013)

Tim B said:


> Good morning and best wishes
> Thank you very much for your input and advice. I am currently sketching the framework for what my audience will have to "believe" with this project. This will keep the "science" consistent.
> 
> As for the characters, so far I have a list of names and functions. Sometimes it's harder to build characters than stardrives, no?
> ...





I read a writer who said that he finds it helpful to write a backstory for his characters to know them better. Mind, this is not meant to be included in the story itself, though you can.


 As for science, unless you are employed by CERN (or maybe even if you are) I would suggest just assuming your reader knows what you do. Part of the charm of SF is figuring out things you don't understand.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Jan 24, 2014)

Tim B said:


> In writing science fiction I am of the opinion that one has to be cognizant of the fact that not everyone who chooses to pick up the work may be familiar with the latest, most popular or most probable theories of the science behind science fiction. I will take, for example, the perennial masterpiece Star Trek...



I don't think there is a simple answer to that question.

I think there are at least three groups, the science buffs, the clueless SF fans, and the forgiving moderates who care more about a good story.

But it also depends on how vague the science really is.  I think any talk about FTL is really nothing but techno-babble.  Just make the jargon sound good and I won't complain.  But I soldered together my first computer in 1978.  I think Neuromancer stinks.  The AIs in The Culture are almost as bad.    Write a story involving a lot of chemistry or biology and I probably won't be able to tell unless it is so bad a smart 8th grader would find it dumb.

I think first you need to decide are you writing to please yourself or a target audience.  

But I think there are also compensating factors.  If the story is really good and with appealing characters I'll forgive the science more.  If I hate the story I don't care how good the science is.  But I think an author must accept that he can't please Everybody.  

psik


----------



## medfair (Jan 27, 2014)

Hi there. The worst happens when the author uses pseudo-science. What I mean is trying to make the impression that there is a really solid scientific basis to her/his world. It mostly feels that the author's science education is at best at a level of a scientific supplement to a daily newspaper. If you try to make your fictional science plausible, you need to know a lot about the real science involved. Otherwise, be as creative and fantastic as you can. It's FUN, as long as you don't pretend its real.


----------



## medfair (Jan 27, 2014)

PS- I fully agree with psikeyhackr


----------



## mosaix (Jan 27, 2014)

Tim B said:


> So, in writing a science fiction piece how much science is too much? Where should the line be drawn between the science and the fiction?



Depends on what the story is about. You could be writing a murder mystery where the 'mystery' is the essence of the story and the science is incidental but necessary. On the other hand it may some futuristic piece where science is the thing and the story is how it affects society.


----------



## Peter Vida (Jul 26, 2015)

Tim B said:


> Good morning and Merry Christmas,
> I have a question, if I may, for the members here who delve into the speculative worlds of science fiction, where does (should) the science end and the fiction begin?
> 
> In writing science fiction I am of the opinion that one has to be cognizant of the fact that not everyone who chooses to pick up the work may be familiar with the latest, most popular or most probable theories of the science behind science fiction. I will take, for example, the perennial masterpiece Star Trek...
> ...




Actually, shouldn't it be the other way around? Where does science fiction end and science begin since science fiction generally predicts science?


----------



## Venusian Broon (Aug 19, 2015)

Peter Vida said:


> Actually, shouldn't it be the other way around? Where does science fiction end and science begin since science fiction generally predicts science?



That's an interesting statement - I certainly believe there was a lot of wish-fulfilment from SF authors in the golden age of Sci-fi that they predicted science, but when you examine it, it is a massive bag of hits and (mostly) misses. Currently, I'd suggest that a lot of science has just gone too far away in many areas for SF writers to keep up and it is science pushing the agenda now. (As it probably always did )


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 19, 2015)

psikeyhackr said:


> I think Neuromancer stinks. The AIs in The Culture are almost as bad.


Yes, most AI in anything are just other characters, really disembodied (or fake body) "spirits" or "gods". Nothing to do with science.
What counts is the story.
SF isn't about (and never really has) been about predicting the future, but using stuff we don't have as part of the story, it's really just either ordinary fiction or fantasy with either FTL travel, set in future or needing science for the plot (which might be simply not commercial or commonly known rather than fiction).

Is it really just an attempt to have "science" instead of magic?


----------



## psikeyhackr (Aug 19, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Yes, most AI in anything are just other characters, really disembodied (or fake body) "spirits" or "gods". Nothing to do with science.
> What counts is the story.
> SF isn't about (and never really has) been about predicting the future, but using stuff we don't have as part of the story, it's really just either ordinary fiction or fantasy with either FTL travel, set in future or needing science for the plot (which might be simply not commercial or commonly known rather than fiction).
> 
> Is it really just an attempt to have "science" instead of magic?



I have been suggesting The *Two Faces of Tomorrow* by James P. Hogan for I don't know how long on multiple SF sites.  So far no one has said they read it and what they thought of it.  I think it is the besa AI story I have read so far.  That does not mean it has the best portrayal human characters.  I think Hogan got better at that in *The Proteus Operation*.  But the AI in 2 Faces is very conceivable to me.

I think if we ever make an IA it will not be humanlike and won't give a damn about being like humans.  So all of these pictures of human robots, especially busty female robots, are really dumb adolescent wish fulfilment.  I doubt that they will be interested in k8illing people either.  Robert J Sawyer's Wake is reasonable also though I am skeptical of truly accidental development of AI.

psik


----------



## psikeyhackr (Aug 19, 2015)

Peter Vida said:


> Actually, shouldn't it be the other way around? Where does science fiction end and science begin since science fiction generally predicts science?



I think it is better to say that science fiction is entangled with science.  But the degree of entanglement varies with different books and different authors.  To make a blanket statement about all science fiction is extremely misleading.  Hence the need for categories.

psik


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 19, 2015)

psikeyhackr said:


> *Two Faces of Tomorrow* by James P. Hogan


I'll keep an eye out. But I find it easier to read a story with a djinn let out of a bottle than any AI I have seen or read so far


----------



## J Riff (Aug 19, 2015)

I wouldn't assume anything is technobabble unless there's been a lot of research done. FTL is time travel in a sense, very possible. The 'singularity' is the trick, how to fill in the science around 'what else must have happened' in order to get to FTL. Just read the great SF authors and see how they did it - and ignore most movies. )


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 19, 2015)

J Riff said:


> FTL is time travel in a sense, very possible.


Or perhaps not at all time travel, in any sense. It may or may not be possible.  
But Interstellar stories are not possible without it, so it's your one unlikely SF ingredient?


----------



## psikeyhackr (Aug 20, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Or perhaps not at all time travel, in any sense. It may or may not be possible.
> But Interstellar stories are not possible without it, so it's your one unlikely SF ingredient?



FTL seems to have a peculiar history.  My very first SF novel had FTL.  But I was 9 so what did I know?  But then I learned that it was presumed that FTL was impossible and it was just made up for the sake of the stories.  But in the last 15 years or so I keep seeing articles with or about people claiming to be physicists saying just maybe it could work.

It is mostly kind of funny to me since I don't think it likely in the next 100 years even if it can be done, but the change from impossible to "well maybe" is hilarious.

But then I read *Tau Zero *approximately when it came out, which was based on no FTL and the Big Crunch assumption.  But now they say the universe is expanding at an increasing rate.  It seems our science fiction is science fiction even when they think it is based on accurate science.  

psik


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 20, 2015)

psikeyhackr said:


> I don't think it likely in the next 100 years even if it can be done


Maybe aliens will arrive and explain it? 

For a story it only needs to be "not stupid", hence best to not explain anything. After all in a Detective story you'd rarely explain a car engine or how an aircraft works


----------



## J Riff (Aug 20, 2015)

Aliens arrived, and explained it. No, really. I think the math is right innit..? You whiz off for a few weeks and when you get back it's a year later. Bob's yer uncle, nothing to it. No reason to not go light speed, is there? I mean... it works if you gun it long enough to get to lightspeed, dunnit? I'm pretty sure it does. Which is'nt timetravel in a true sense, but near as dammit. Marcus Welby, I say.


----------

