# Science Fiction: too ambitious



## Brian G Turner (Oct 10, 2004)

When it comes to science fiction writing, some degree of speculative writing is almost certainly involved.

 However, speculative science can be a big risk: get it nearly right, and you're a visionary writing timeless classics - but get it wrong and you're outdated within a decade.

 The question is this: how important is the actual degree of speculative sience to a science fiction story?


----------



## Foxbat (Oct 10, 2004)

Good question. I would think that the closer you are to your own time, the more accurate you need to be. Move forward a few thousand years and you can probably afford to cut some slack. Let's face it - there won't be anybody alive long enough to prove you wrong.

Problems probably arise with the precise nature of your subject matter - for instance - Time Travel if based in your own time (or any time for that matter). Personally, I would look to the sub-atomic level (tachyons?) where things are still (and probably will remain for a long time) theoretical.

A good example of lateral thinking would be Joe Haldeman's Forever War. He did not so much write about the technology as such - but of the differences between technologies caused by space travel - a nice way to get around the problem I think


----------



## dwndrgn (Oct 10, 2004)

Foxbat said:
			
		

> A good example of lateral thinking would be Joe Haldeman's Forever War. He did not so much write about the technology as such - but of the differences between technologies caused by space travel - a nice way to get around the problem I think


I think you make a good point here.  Often, I find that the best of this type of fiction looks to probable causes of probable events/circumstances.  For instance, overpopulation, hunger, the wider and wider gap between the haves and have nots - there is a distinct trend with these types of things that an author can build on without ruining the narrative with too much detailed and specific science.


----------



## Princess Ivy (Oct 11, 2004)

My husband, who doesn't read very much, was extremely impressed at the predictive nature of the classic H G Well, the time machine, when he watched the remake. In the scenes of the second world war etc... Not of course realising that this had been entered for the purposes of film. 

And then we have enterprise, the prequel, which makes the original series of startrek so outdated as to be laughable. Although not half so enjoyable.

Foxbat and DawnDragon make good points as to ways of dealing with this, however, sometimes I think that the bullet just has to be bitten and the gap leapt. I love TOS, no matter how dated. And the practicle problems with setting things in the not to distant future of course is the terminator problem. How many people breathed a sigh of relief on Judgement Day? Its to real and close to home.

I think that this is a problem more experienced in film and television than images on a page as the imagination can carry you through.

Also a reason that I love fantasy as opposed to SF, more scope to play with. everything is immagined.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Oct 13, 2004)

I actually kind of enjoy reading sf that is "dated", that is, it was written a long time ago about a future that is already in our past.  It's fun to compare how the author thought things would be with how things have actually turned out.  While I may notice the discrepancies between speculation and reality, if the story itself is good, those discrepancies don't make the story less enjoyable.  If the story isn't that good, it's just fun to pick apart the history of the thing.

Maybe I'm just too easy to please.  I don't know.  Or maybe it's just that story is the main thing for me, and if the science and the history make sense in the context of the story that's all that really matters.


----------



## Foxbat (Oct 13, 2004)

> I actually kind of enjoy reading sf that is "dated", that is, it was written a long time ago about a future that is already in our past. It's fun to compare how the author thought things would be with how things have actually turned out. While I may notice the discrepancies between speculation and reality, if the story itself is good, those discrepancies don't make the story less enjoyable. If the story isn't that good, it's just fun to pick apart the history of the thing.



Me too. Perhaps that's why I spend far too much of my spare time watching SF films and serials from the 30s and 40s (my next target to acquire is Phantom Kingdom starring Gene Autrey). Then again, perhaps I'm just at odds with my timestream   

PS. Ivy tell your hubby to look out for HG Wells 'Shape Of Things To Come'
I think he'll find it quite interesting.


----------



## aurelio (Oct 13, 2004)

Wow, Brian... you've started an interesting thread here.

I personally think the need for scientific accuracy varies depending on a lot of things: tone of the piece, the characters, the time frame (I agree with Foxpat's point that the further out of our time you go the more you can "speculate").  For example, 2001 was made with actual aerospace consultants and such, and I think that was pretty convincing, even though that was supposed to be 3 years ago and all we've been able to do is land some robots on Mars, blow up a couple of shuttles, crash a space station into the ocean, etc. (Although we do have flat screen technology!)

Then there's stuff like Hitchhiker's Guide, or even Star Trek to a degree, which are more out there.  A phrase that is attributed to Walt Disney in regard to making animation believable was to seek "the plausable impossible" and I always loved the sense of that.  It reminds me that the interest comes from the impossible part, but it has to feel real to work.  I think this can apply to science fiction equally well.


----------



## Rane Longfox (Oct 13, 2004)

I still think my favorite Sci-fi is EE Doc Smith's Lensman series truly ancient.


There are a lot of very good modern sci-fi series out there, authors like Richard Morgan, Al Reyolds etc have a damn good stab at keeping it as realistic as possible, with only the occasional straying in the realms of complete fabrication Things like transmitting people across space as data may seem very ridiculous, but it could well be possible. Of course, for a novel to really count as sci-fi I would think it needs to have a certain amount of speculative science, otherwise it becomes more a thriller, or similar, depending on the story. For example, Richard Morgan's "Market Forces" is classified as sci-fi by every shop I can find, but it is most certainly not, it's merely set in the future. Not very far into the future either, 30 years or so. I would classify it as a futuristic thriller. Its quite similar to Jennifer Government, if anyone's read that...


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Oct 14, 2004)

The thing is, this question assumes that sf has to be extrapolative, even prophetic. Sure, that's an aspect of the genre, but it isn't all. Much of sf is a thought experiment, an attempt play out an intriguing 'what if' on its own terms. Most of all, sf is an artform, and the future is as much a metaphor, as is its chosen language which derives from dominating aspects of our modern world view - the sciences, technology and so forth. 

Pure imagination is another consideration. Burroughs' Barsoom adventures were scientifically absurd even when he wrote them but they're still great fun. How accurate can you be about future technology anyway? Everything in a work of fiction is, basically, a lie, from the perspective of logic. I appreciate the scientific knowledge and rigour many fine writers bring to their exploration of fantastic futures, sf often acts a starting point for me to read about real science, but that's not all that sf is about. An sf work is ultimately a 'visionary timeless classic' if the writer gets the human story right, not just if all her tech-specualtion comes true.


----------



## Foxbat (Oct 14, 2004)

> The thing is, this question assumes that sf has to be extrapolative, even prophetic. Sure, that's an aspect of the genre, but it isn't all. Much of sf is a thought experiment, an attempt play out an intriguing 'what if' on its own terms. Most of all, sf is an artform, and the future is as much a metaphor, as is its chosen language which derives from dominating aspects of our modern world view - the sciences, technology and so forth.



This is very true  - but it's an artform that is sadly still regarded as the runt of the literature litter.


----------



## malfunkshun (Oct 17, 2004)

I like my sci fi to be firmly grounded in hard science.  Stephen Baxter does this very well.  He invents speculative science, such as GUT ships (ships which use the as yet proven Grand Unified Theory as a basis for propulsion) and wormholes, which are based on real scientific theory.

I can enjoy Star Trek, which uses fantasy science, but as a general rule, I like all speculative science to be a logical extension of science that we already know.


----------



## Rane Longfox (Oct 20, 2004)

I heard an interesting exapmle today.

Would Frankenstein be science fiction? Its surely very advanced science? The people I heard it from decided not, as it didn't go into any detail about the science, just "disguised magic as science". Is that the dividing line?


----------



## Foxbat (Oct 21, 2004)

> Would Frankenstein be science fiction? Its surely very advanced science? The people I heard it from decided not, as it didn't go into any detail about the science, just "disguised magic as science". Is that the dividing line?



If I remember in the book, there is nothing technincal to the creation of the monster but I'd still say this was early science fiction. 

Perhaps I should explain my position - To me Science Fiction is as much about the application of imagination as technology itself. Mary Shelley did not know what we know when it comes to genetics/cloning - but she had an idea based on the creation of life from lifelessness. If you look at cloning techniques, the first thing that is normally done is to detroy the nucleus of a cell (egg?) and then add new material. Obviously, the cell is lifeless when the nucleus is destroyed. Life from Lifelessness? I would say so


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Oct 21, 2004)

What Foxbat said. 

Incidentally, Frankenstein has been claimed as perhaps the first sf work by Brian Aldiss in his overview of sf, Billion Year Spree, a thesis that's been accepted by other commentators such as John Clute, and even Forry Ackerman.


----------



## Rane Longfox (Oct 21, 2004)

OK, fair enough


----------



## aurelio (Oct 21, 2004)

If something written in a science fiction novel later becomes fact, it does not negate the fact that it was, and still is, science fiction.  I feel it is an indication that the writer was clever in their speculation of what the future may hold.  Many times, as with Mary Shelley, the writer focuses on the goal rather than the technique.  Certainly her idea of organ transplantation, complete with a jolt of electricity to restart the heart, was pretty right on.

Also, Star Trek's tri-corders have inspired the design of the cell phone so, in this example, the science fiction is inspiring or driving real technology in a particular direction for marketing purposes.

Now if they can only get those darned transporters working...


----------



## White_Tiger (Oct 23, 2004)

Science fiction wouldn't be science fiction if it wasn't for the science, right? Sometimes it really irks me how some authors completely martyr science for the sake of the story. Rarely, and very rarely, a good work can still emerge. For example, the story Flowers For Algernon (I know it doesn't quite qualify as science fiction). It's a most interesting read, and the idea is both pitiful and inspiring. However, the science in there is just completely screwed. Some very good science fiction writers, like Benford, they are actually scientists (physicists, biologists, chemists, blah blah blah). So most of the time their science are sound, and their speculations are actually possible. Some other great minds a little back also made very sound predictions, most notable of them is of course, the one and only, Jules Verne. Most of the times it's okay to be wrong with the speculative scientist. No one can blame the writer, becasue it does take a true scientist and someone working in the field to know. But please get the basic things right! I have seen a very, very, very stupid and awry explanation of the "shooing-a-quantum-through-a-paper-with-a-slit" experiment and the following explanation of shadow universe. And from Robert Sawyer, one of my favourite too. Please, it is complicated, but a good, sound explanation can be found in most first year university physics book.  

PS: I am fairly new, but I think i enjoy hanging out here already! Cheers!


----------



## aurelio (Oct 29, 2004)

Welcome, White Tiger.  I agree with you for the most part.

The only precautionary thing I would add to what you are saying is that sometimes actual science can astound us and seemingly far-fetched science fiction we read today could be actual fact tomorrow.

For example, I recently read "Gulliver's Travels."  (not science fiction, I know, but for the sake of a timely example...)  Remember Lilliput, land of the little people?  Far fetched fiction, until this week when they unearthed the remains of a colony of little people on Flores Island east of Java. 

Just a reminder to not immediately dismiss something simply because it doesn't jive with current scientific knowledge.  Science can change on you.


----------



## Carolyn Hill (Apr 22, 2006)

aurelio said:
			
		

> Just a reminder to not immediately dismiss something simply because it doesn't jive with current scientific knowledge.  Science can change on you.



Aurelio's comment reminds me of Isaac Asimov's essay "Social Science Fiction" in _Modern Science Fiction_, ed. Reginald Bretnor (Chicago: Advent, 1979).  Asimov sums up his essay in three points:

"For the first time in history mankind is faced with a rapidly changing society, due to the advent of modern technology" (195).

"Science fiction is a form of literature that has grown out of this fact" (195).

"The contribution science fiction can make to society is that of accustoming its readers to the thought of the inevitability of continuing change and the necessity of directing and shaping that change rather than opposing it blindly or blindly permitting it to overwhelm us" (196).

At the beginning of the essay, Asimov offers his definition of science fiction as "that branch of literature which is concerned with the impact of scientific advance upon human beings" and says that this definition "places the emphasis not upon science but upon human beings. After all, science (and everything else as well) is important to us only as it affects human beings" (158).  

Noting that this definition is somewhat narrower than some people might prefer, Asimov limits the definition to what he calls "social science fiction" (159).  But it's clear that social science fiction is not a minor category in the larger field: "It is my opinion that social science fiction is the only branch of science fiction that is sociologically significant, and that those stories, which are generally accepted as science fiction (at least to the point where skilled editors accept them for inclusion in their science-fiction magazines) but do not fall within the definition I have given above, are _not_ significant, however amusing they may be and however excellent as pieces of fiction" (159).

He says that "To appeal to adults, to gain serious consideration in our society, [science fiction] must not offend reason.  It must be coherent with the life we know in the sense that it does not contradict that which is known to be uncontradictable," but he allows science fiction "liberties with the unlikely," so long as it does not "drag in outright impossibilities" (174).


I like to view science fiction in a similar manner, as literature that can affect society by accustoming us to science and to technological change--not as one whose function is to predict and, thus, which loses value if its predictions or speculations do not come to pass.  

In fact, if part of science fiction's value is to help us avoid future disasters by predicting those disasters in such horrifying detail that we turn away from currently destructive paths, then failing to predict the future accurately is a virtue not a flaw.

But, OK, I'm being highfalutin' here.  Sorry 'bout that.


----------



## orena (Apr 24, 2006)

I find what makes a sci-fi interesting or well thought out for me is not that it is accurate within our own reality or time but within the reality it creates for itself. That it is has its own continuity which is adhered too through the story, even if it is drastically different from our own. 

Also I feel that as sci-fi stories age and the science behind them becomes more understood, or less accurate that the story can or should change sub-genres. So it would be more beneficial to see 2001 as an alternate history story these days rather then a view into the future.


----------



## hermi-nomi (Apr 25, 2006)

I go with the view that references to science in sci-fi should fit the continuity of the story. A story that flows is probably the best sort. And although I am the sort of person that prefers sci-fi to be fantasical, I can see the benefit of having accurate references to scientific concepts for one reason ~ you end up believing it's real! Everytime I read a Dan Brown story I have to keep telling myself that it is not an academic piece ~ it's a novel! For most people that is probably the attraction of reading a sci-fi story that deals more with facts. But for it to be a story, it has to be speculative. The 'what if?' element is the basis to any story, no?


----------



## Coolhand (Apr 26, 2006)

I think it depends on what you want from the story. If the main focus of the tale is on the workings of the technology itself, then the story will date or seem less relevant as real life catches if up or surpasses it. However, it the technology is just a vehicle to allow a story to take place then I think it doesn't really matter, as it's the story and not the tech that the reader is there for.
Frankenstien, already mentioned, is a good example. It's not a speculative manual on how to reanimate a corpse, it's a story about Frankenstien's obessions and of how his work comes back to haunt him. Amongst other things.


----------



## petkusj (Apr 27, 2006)

If you wait long enough, the outdated science fiction regains its charms. I know Mars is a barren planet, but I still enjoy A Princess of Mars.

Why the Martians never invented stairs, that's a bigger question.

Jennifer


----------



## SteveR (May 5, 2006)

For me, the science in sci-fi needs to be there in the right amount to trigger the 'sense of wonder' and 'awe' that the genre is often aiming to achieve in the reader. 

I think a good example would be some of Greg Bear's work. His earlier stuff like Eon, Forge of Good, Anvil of Stars and Moving Mars are all solid 'sense of wonder' stories that rely on some scientific explanation for what is going on. This was important to make the stories work and to make them appeal to the readers desire to be "wowed".

Greg's (we're on first name terms you know  ) latest stuff is all about Shiva - a virus. Darwins Children is the first of these books I believe (only one I have read) and the genetic/biological science in it is very heavy - Greg has gone to massive pains to get the science as close as possible. No doubt to enforce the depth of the novels significance in terms of real life and what might in reality happen. But in this case I find myself being turned off from the novel because it has crossed that line between fun and documentary. All interesting stuff I don't doubt - but I'd rather learn about it on the Discovery channel! When I read sci-fi I need to enjoy it! It shouldn't be hard work.

Dunno if that made any sense - but I think I could summarise by saying there should be enough science in sci-fi to make it fun and convincing, and no more!

Just my opinion of course - bit of a newbie on these forums so treat me nice!!

cheers
Steve


----------



## alicebandassassin (May 5, 2006)

lets face it writers dont get it wrong any more offten than some of the worlds greatest physasits so then they must be equelly clever or lucky depending how you wont to look at it!


----------



## steve12553 (May 5, 2006)

To me the science in science fiction always needed to be possible in the sense that it hadn't been and was not likely to be proven impossible yet or in the near future. The science can also be strictly background and conceptual. If your character steps into a box and travels back in time it's Science Fiction because of the concept. Your character can also step into a box made out of molyedeblum and be bombarded by inversely triggered tachyons and the science is more involved but it's still science fiction. Ray Bradbury wrote several Science Fiction stories where the setting was sci-fi but the story was purely good fiction (The Long Rain where the astonauts on Venus are struggling against the depression of endless rain and a sunless forrest.) Michael Crichton writes near future stories that are not too far from cutting edge science) (Jurrasic Park where the concept of cloning prehistoric animals from preserved DNA is delved deeply into.) They're are both science fiction.


----------



## cskendrick (May 7, 2006)

*Have an explanation for the pace of advances*

A mechanism that can speed up, slow down, stagnate, and even reverse itself...or just some rules of thumbs --- cylinders of a progress engine, if you will. When all cylinders are running, the progress engine runs well during and you see rapid technological advancement, yet the mechanism suffers when one or parts is worn or broken down.

Also, the same mechanism (or rules of thumb) needs to explain not only differences in progress across time, but across countries, as well.

There are many candidates -- war (or peace), plentiful food (or famine), relatively pleasant weather (or harsh conditions), long life expectancy (or short), religion (or its lack), you name it. Choose one. Choose twenty. It's all good, and it's your universe.

But you definitely need some sort of framework that works both for your story, and for your speculations.

Now, me? I worked up a crude map of technological paradigm shifts for the past two thousand years, when they occured, when they peaked, and when they stagnated, then mapped these changes against the estimated total population of the planet. I derived growth equations for each 'layer' of the ever-taller technological 'cake', making the whole sensitive to sudden improvements --- or collapses -- in the population, for whatever reason.

Why? I just couldn't quite accept that 19-20th century rates of technological progress were typical, on account they aren't, and it bears mentioning that there was quite an amount of innovation before the invention of the steam engine, too, perhaps miniscule from the perspective of this side of the 'Steam Singularity', if you will, but I suspect that the development of deep oceangoing navigation was a huge deal for the merchant marine of Europe in the late 1400s. It certainly worked out to be a big deal for the then-extant inhabitants of the Americans.

For pushing science forward, I needed some assumptions of what human population was going to do going forward. If we're mostly stuck on Earth, and the Terran environment degrades, then we're in for (a) first a significant slowdown in population growth, (b) a dramatic slowdown in innovation, and (c) at just the moment we could really use some practical applications based on all the neat-o ideas running about, resulting in (d) nothing much in the way of stopping the degradation of the resource base and environment of the planet, ergo (e) population crash and (f) technological collapse cascading us down, down, down the long, slow path back to foraging in the wake of packs of jackals.

Or not.

I wound up creating a host of scenarios, most more optimistic than the "Son of  Malthus" tale above, yet even in the most optimistic, it will be quite some time before most human population growth is sustained by off-world (meaning off-Earth) population increase. In other words, at least for a bit, there will be (in my opinion) a tapping of the brakes (perhaps a slamming of same) on the progress engine that in my opinion has already been underway for the past 30 years (thus, no heavy-ion propulsion, no Mars colonies, only modest basic research relative to prior generations, and little more than cosmetic progress in consumer technologies).

Yet, that's just me, using a kludged-together spreadsheet chock full 'o' heavily-tainted assumptions to build a fictional future in a direction in which I want it to go...for purposes of story.

Personally, I want my warp drive, I want it hot, and I want it now.


----------



## Chris T Allen (May 8, 2006)

On the subject about Frankenstein being accepted as science fiction, shouldn't medical thrillers, that push modern medicine well beyond its current capabilities, be included as sci-fi too? What exactly is the defining line?  Or when?  Is it sci-fi only if the nearly possible takes place in the future or the past?

Makes me want to run to wikipedia and look science fiction up.


----------



## j d worthington (May 10, 2006)

Of course, this is a debate that's been going on for decades, and I doubt it's going to be resolved any time soon. However, for my money, the difference between science fiction and fantasy is more the intent and "mode", rather than use of science (though to be fair, genuinely outdated science shouldn't be used in science fiction); and in any event, it's a shaky boundary at best. Asimov's "The Ugly Little Boy", for example, or -- as mentioned above -- "Flowers for Algernon" by Daniel Keyes, are both considered classic science fiction stories, yet the science in each is, to put it mildly, extremely dubious. Yet they retain not only their charm, but their impact, because they deal with the effects of such changes on the human condition. In essence, what it means to be human in a changing world. This is what allows much of J. G. Ballard's work, where the science is negligible, to be considered science fiction; in the "post-human" world he depicts, "being human" is a condition that itself is undergoing change.

Fantasy, on the other hand, is more interested in a retrospective sort of view -- not necessarily medieval or faux-medieval (think of much of Rod Serling or Ray Bradbury, who really fits -- despite his use of many science fiction trappings -- more as a fantasy than science fiction writer). While still very much concerned about social issues, one seems to be forward-looking, the other very much, if not nostalgic, at least very informed by the past (Lovecraft comes to mind, as his work is very historically-minded). Which is why Bierce fits very uneasily as a science fiction writer with "Moxon's Master" or Poe with "Mellonta Taunta" or "The Balloon Hoax" or any of his other speculations, including his essay "Eureka", which some class as at least proto-science fiction (much like "Frankenstein", which, however, was in some ways forward-looking, but that was not the focus, simply incidental to the story; at least given what Mary Shelley herself has indicated).

To be blunt, while I certainly enjoy the "nuts-and-bolts" sort of story (I can enjoy even George O. Smith at times; and very much like Heinlein, Bear, etc.), being too strict with scientific adherence, and especially letting it override your concerns with story, can ruin an otherwise excellent idea if that science proves to be based on premises later proven wrong (such as what happened with "cold fusion" a few years ago). The speculation needs to be bold enough and carried through with enough conviction to withstand the disproving of a scientific theory, hypothesis, or even a complete overturn of the model of the universe (say, what happened between the "solid state" universe model and the acceptance of "big bang"), or else it becomes nothing but speculation about a scientific advance, and not really fiction. This was the problem with Hugo Gernsback's work, which, unlike "Doc" Smith's, is frankly unreadable nowadays. Much as I like and respect Asimov, I find I often disagree with his opinions on what constitutes valid sf (he had little or no use for most of what was being written during the "second revolution" of the 60s, for instance; because they were experimenting, there was a fair amount of dreck there, but there was also a substantial amount of very, very good material that holds up extremely well today). This is by no means to run down the man; "I, Robot" was one of the two first books (outside of little children's books) I read when I was 6, and I've been an Asimov fan ever since; it's simply that Isaac did sometimes take a bit too narrow view, I feel.

Anyhoo, some good thoughts all 'round. I look forward to any further posts on the subject.


----------



## Hawkshaw_245 (May 29, 2006)

I once worried myself into a coma trying to make a 'hard science' saga.
I sweated blood, working to get the details as accurate as possible for different scientific ideas..like FTL and wormholes, energy weapons, terraformng, etc..

And then a little voice said "Why are you doing this?"

It's all speculative. If you go into a room full of techno-geeks and ask "How can you travel faster than light?". half of them will label you as a moron, because they're convinced it can't be done. 
The other half will argue vehemently with each other about the 'hows and whys'.

Sci-fi fans already know the basics. Sticking with 'Faster-Than-Light'...they all know what it is. Warp drives, hyperdrives, jump-drives, stargates....a plethora of engines and machines have been used to get us across the unvierse in a very short time.

So why sweat over the so-called 'facts'? It's all speculative, based on theories that have yet to be fully proven.

So I reached a compromise. Since all my technology was within accepted boundaries of mainstream sci-fi...I would just focus on my story and characters, and create some plausible technobabble for the characters to use in discusison.


----------



## alicebandassassin (Jun 3, 2006)

si -fi hits a good balance between the  straitness off plain sience and the limitlessnes of the imagination that good fiction gives


----------

