Science Fiction: too ambitious

[Brian G Turner]

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can be a big risk: get it nearly right, and you're a visionary writing timeless classics - but get it wrong and you're outdated within a decade.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

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]

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]

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And then we have enterprise, the prequel, which makes the original series of startrek so outdated as to be laughable.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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

OK, fair enough

 

[aurelio]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.