Science Fiction: too ambitious

[hermi-nomi]

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]

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]

If you wait long enough, the outdated science fiction regains its charms.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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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