Is science fact the enemy of science fiction?

[HareBrain]

In another thread, a writer was working on a story in which an earth-like planet had a year only about a fifth the length of ours. From the replies posted by people with much greater scientific knowledge than mine, it seemed that this was unlikely to be realistic. So either the writer has to ditch the original idea (which presumably would have had some story impact, and wasn't there just for the hell of it) or write something knowing that it might later be picked apart by the astrophysically knowledgeable.

I'd be interested to know how much writers worry about this. How many times does an entertaining story idea get abandoned through fear that its basis might be rubbished by an expert? Was SFF easier to write when people knew less? Is our scope for invention hamstrung by considerations of what is feasible given our knowledge of physics etc? This might seem to be less of a problem in fantasy, where "magic" can be treated as a get-out-of-jail card with infinite uses. But even here, are we feeling the need to make our magic systems stand up to the kind of scrutiny usually given to planetary dynamics?

Recently, in my own writing, I've found myself worrying because I couldn't convincingly answer questions that probably 99% of readers wouldn't think of asking, including whether the slabs that form the ceiling of a pyramid's interior chamber would actually support the weight of the stone above. In the end, I changed things so I could answer them, and the story might be slightly stronger as a result. But it takes time to do this research, and if it keeps happening, there's a chance nothing will get finished. To build a world that will convince everyone, a SFF writer has to be well-versed in geology, ecology, anthropology and many more disciplines - either that, or has to build a word almost indistinguishable from our own, and where's the fun in that?

 

[Peter Graham]

Hi HB

This has been discussed in the past. My view is that your hypothetical SF author is (or should be) writing a piece of fiction, not a Haynes Manual. If people want to have learned discussions about the precise properties of (very often) non-existent or putative technologies, then there are plenty of academic publications out there which should float their boats.

It's all about suspension of disbelief. Provided your characters and the world they inhabit are believable, 99% of readers will forgive you the rest. And the 1% who don't will still read your stuff, if only to congratulate themselves on spotting the mistakes. And if that is how they derive pleasure from reading, good luck to them.

If you think about it, unless you know more about phsyics, biology, chemistry, astronomy, philosophy, engineering (mechanical and electrical), geography, history, linguistics, agriculture, horticulture, construction, aviation, computers, military hardware and street fighting than every reader, someone will always be able to pick you up on something.

So just do your best and try to avoid really obvious howlers which, to my mind, would not include the precise means by which a solid roof in a pyramid stays up....

Regards,

Peter

 

[chrispenycate]

For me, the best science fiction contains the best science. It's all right, I'm aware my taste is not universal. And I'm aware that science isn't static, giving permanent, reliable answers, too; even a Niven, who takes care with his details, can write "The coldest place" or "The hole man" where physics or cosmology comes round a year or two later and says 'Sorry, mate, that's not how it is'.

But out and out errors in science throw me clean out of my suspension of disbelief. Much as a major change in history would throw a knowledgeable reader of historical novels, or a geographical error one of travelogues.

When I'm reading science fiction I expect the science to be convincing. Not overwhelming, not at the expense of the narrative, but no glaring errors. Otherwise I get upset. Which I suppose classes me as a 'hard' SF reader.

 

[Ursa major]

I've actually been in a pyramid (Khufu's) where there was a (potential) problem with the solid slab forming the roof. While I was inside, this issue was of no concern, even though a failure in the roof could have led to a significant fatality. (Well, if it was safe enough for Bonaparte, it was safe enought for me.) When I was looking at a book that looked at the construction of the pyramid, it was interesting to see how they'd solved the problem. Bonaparte had no such information, I believe.

Unless a novel is about - in some significant way - how such a pyramid (or whatever) is built, it wouldn't really matter, as long as the POV character(s) don't much care about it either.



* Imagines readers of HB's text determining the exact dimension of that room within the pyramid, its exact position within the pyramid, and determining the stresses on the slab. They would then consider whether a slab could ever bear the weight, however thick it was, based on their intimate knowledge of all the possible types of stone that could be used at that site - bearing in mind where the pyramid is, the type of craft available to the civilisation and the surface geology of the surrounding area within a possible radius of trade and travel of the site.... I can see why you were worried, HB: just imagine one of these readers getting on the 'phone to detail just how wrong you were. *

 

[j d worthington]

I tend to agree with Chris, in the main. And, with my stint as a clerk at a sff specialty store, not to mention plenty of discussions with various sf fans... I'd say that people do indeed notice these things, and the more of an sf reader that person is, the more likely it is that they fall into that camp. (Fantasy readers tend to notice errors, too, but it tends more to be on anthropological issues or mediaeval technology, weaponry, etc.)

However... extremely esoteric aspects can be (and are) frequently forgiven; it tens to be (as Chris put it) the real howlers that get the readers up in arms; generally because these sorts of things can be fact-checked fairly easily... especially in this day of widespread information availability on the internet. To not take the time and trouble to get such things right simply makes a lot of people feel as if you're insulting their intelligence, or are just a sloppy writer.

Again, this applies to general knowledge, and/or whatever specialized knowledge your tale may be centered around. Doing such research comes with the territory when you're a writer (at least most of the time; occasional exceptions, such as Dunsany with "The Queen's Enemies" tending to be the exceptions which prove the rule) -- hence you find fantaisistes such as Harlan Ellison turning to Ben Bova for technical information for such a tale as "Along the Scenic Route", etc.

 

[HareBrain]

The fear of it haunts my every dream, Ursa ...

Of course it's all my own fault. When at the age of eleven I read Susan Cooper's "The Dark is Rising", a book I loved, I was struck with horror when I read that Will had been given "a racing bike with eleven gear speeds" as a present. No doubt the author had wanted to go one better than the ten-speeds that were then state of the art, but what she hadn't realised was that a ten-speed bike has ten gears because it has two chainrings and five rear sprockets. It has only now, in 2009, become possible to have an eleven-gear bike, with a single chainring and eleven sprockets, though no one in their right mind would make one.

(Unless she was more of a cycling enthusiast than I gave her credit for, and she meant two chainrings and six sprockets, but where two of the combinations coincided with the same gear ratio?)

You see, it's readers like my eleven-year-old self I dread - stupid insecure brats that enjoy finding out that in some obscure and irrelevant field they are more knowledgeable than a published author.

 

[The Judge]

* Imagines readers of HB's text determining the exact dimension of that room within the pyramid, its exact position within the pyramid, and determining the stresses on the slab. They would then consider whether a slab could ever bear the weight, however thick it was, based on their intimate knowledge of all the possible types of stone that could be used at that site - bearing in mind where the pyramid is, the type of craft available to the civilisation and the surface geology of the surrounding area within a possible radius of trade and travel of the site.... I can see why you were worried, HB: just imagine one of these readers getting on the 'phone to detail just how wrong you were. *

Well, I didn't actually 'phone him...

J

 

[Blackrook]

My father is a professor who knows everything about science and I actually consulted with him when I was making my Dungeons & Dragons world. I wanted a world that was one of several major moons of a gas giant. My father worked out all the astrophysics so I knew all the details about the orbits and masses of the gas giant and moons. I could never have done this myself.

I would put similar effort if a world was such a major part of the story that such things matter. If a world is just a minor part of the story I don't think it's worth the trouble.

The broader issue is something I mentioned in my thread "Write About What You Know." I don't know very much about science, so I am very forgiving of science errors, but I do know a lot about other topics: law, history, religion, and the dynamics of how people relate to other people in the real world. If I see sloppiness in these areas I get annoyed and may stop reading.

 

[Nik]

There's a certain latitude, IMHO: As Clarke's Law puts it, 'Sufficiently Advanced Tech is indistinguishable from Magic'. Readers don't mind if you have eg Fusion, FTL or AI *provided* it is plausible and self-consistent. Hand-waving several serendipitous breakthroughs and some elegantly nano-engineered meta-materials etc etc covers a lot...

(ST-TOS movie's time-travelling whales' Transparent Alumin(i)um is the classic fudge, "How do you know he *didn't* invent it ?" ;-)

What's nigh-unforgivable is bloopers like ignoring Newton's Laws when you're *not* into Relativistic territory. I recently spotted one in a respectable SF mag, got an apology !!

Um, the short-year planet: I take it the year was measured in Terran Days ? That puts the planet in close orbit, which makes the star *really small, dim and very red*. One way around is to have a bright, but safely distant binary star to provide 'day-light'. Of course, if the local day was about a terran week long, you have some wriggle room...