Avoiding Cliche

[Toby Frost]

I don't think the use of aliens in SF is cliched. It's a popular trope that's often dealt with in an unrealistic way, a bit like laser guns; no more than that.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

However, in fact, a single erupting volcano can pollute the atmosphere with much bigger amount of interesting chemical compounds then the entire human industry can produce in a decade

No, quite different signature. Your basic point though about making assumptions based on what we know is true. But we have to start somewhere. Spectrography far more likely to have any positive and indeed real "positive" than any other method we know right now.

Has SETI been successful?

Not in what they claim they are doing! A radio based search is probably pointless. Other than listening for passing probes.
Well, even if the SETI processing on PCs does what they claim, such a system could be compromised or hijacked.

I doubt that such thing as "the maximum possible level" exists at all.

A disciple of Kardashev?

The first man made orbital satellite was Sputnik, does that mean Wanderer?

 

[Ray McCarthy]

It's a popular trope that's often dealt with in an unrealistic way, a bit like laser guns

Yes.
Aliens and Interstellar travel can be done much more realistically. Also James White might not be realistic either, but certainly his Sector General Aliens are more imaginative and not at all Star Trek wrinkly foreheads. Perhaps with motion capture of real actors and cheaper better CGI, the TV and Cinema might start having Aliens less like Starwars/Star Trek/ DS9 and more like James White.

There is though an interesting argument than more advanced organisms tend toward only four limbs and bilateral symmetry.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Yes.
Aliens and Interstellar travel can be done much more realistically.

As we've not met any sentient self-aware aliens who we can talk to (I assume you mean those kind!) nor attempted interstellar travel, being 'realistic' is a bit of a moot point! However I'm being a bit facetious, I do understand where you are coming from

Being realistic with aliens - given our record with other sentient creatures on Earth - I'd be more willing to except that we'd inflict the three E's on them: Exterminate them, Exploit them or Eat them. (Let's face it, we humans will eat anything - one of our major evolutionary advantages over other animals.) Of course more 'advanced' aliens may well do exactly the same to us...

There is though an interesting argument than more advanced organisms tend toward only four limbs and bilateral symmetry.

Well given our lack of knowledge of the rest of the universe and our position on the only 'point of data' regarding life in the universe, we would say that wouldn't we?

 

[Brian Rogers]

Ok, here's a thought. And I'm straying from aliens somewhat - but from all the discussion the only "realistic" truth is there is a natural quarantine for now. Cost of fuel, scaling up technology to near SF levels, lack of understanding, and much more are real hurdles that will prevent any company and certainly government from investing the boggling amount of money it would take to undergo even simple experiments. (We can't test those warp or space-folding techniques anywhere near Earth since it might generate something unpleasant like a singularity hehe).

So let's look at why the universe unfolded this way and suspend your belief for a moment as I postulate (maybe this should be a new thread) that God set up the universe in a way where He gets a sandbox to play with for every planet he grants life. Since we're basically quarantined its like He gets multiple worlds and races He can monitor and watch as they develop. As one race kills itself off, He's made the universe large enough that there are other planets/systems that are still alive and kicking and we're just one of them.

This wouldn't mean much to us, since we'll remain "land-locked" in local 4-10 light year space for FAR longer than any of us will be alive, but hey, for God this is great entertainment and experimentation. He can see what works and what doesn't. Maybe there is non-carbon based life He's trying out and maybe there is EM creatures which don't need an atmosphere, etc. Maybe God is testing a huge amount of different life throughout the universe, His sandbox, and eventually will pick one race as His favorite, or perhaps the first race to solve the interstellar travel quandary will be advanced enough to participate in His grand plans.

I smell many stories from this premise...but anyway maybe that should be a separate thread but to me, it would be interesting. The reason we as humans are designed to push for more progress, to gain more understanding could be wired in us because God wants to see which lifeform has the greatest chance of success of their race. The balance of aggression and passivity, etc. I'm just thinking out loud, but weirdly I feel this is more likely the truth than any alien race ever visiting us in our far flung system on the edge of a spiral galaxy among trillions of other galaxies among the vast emptiness which is space.

 

[Piousflea84]

Light SF can certainly utilize those explanations you provided to make their story fun, but in no way should an author attempt to be serious while disregarding the "Ensteinian" laws of physics. Adding in anything faster than light makes the SF a fantasy based in space, which is fine so long as the author realizes this and doesn't pretend its nothing more than that.

. . .

This is the only realistic or hard SF that is possible at least for now. I have nothing against aliens though, I just do not look for any SF book containing aliens to attempt to be taken seriously for their technology or physics.

Brian,

Apologies if this is a bit of a threadjack, but your post came off as upsettingly pedantic against all but the hardest of SF. I think that's unfair.

Even the hardest of sci-fi (say, Red Mars) makes use of technology that doesn't exist in real life. No one's sent any robotic atmosphere processors to Mars, nor do we know that they could produce and store thousands of kilograms of fuel and water nearly as successfully as they do in Red Mars. Yes, the physics is plausible, but that doesn't mean it's practical. After all, many people in 1969 thought that we could build a permanent moon base with 1969-level technology. (Plausible, but so expensive and risky that no one attempted it in real life)

Once you get into stories with terraforming (Green/Blue Mars), you're dealing with very implausible technology. Any environmentalist will tell you that we can't even control the Earth's atmosphere, let alone control the atmosphere of another planet. Even if humans eventually terraform Mars (or Venus), it will likely be done with technologies that are very different from what is being written into "near-future" sci-fi. This is the Jules Verne principle: mankind eventually landed on the Moon, but we sure as heck didn't do it with a giant cannon.

Due to the slowness of realistic rocket travel, the overwhelming majority of "hard" sci-fi makes use of cryohibernation ("coldsleep"). Cryo-sleep doesn't exist in real life, and no one knows if it ever will! Medically speaking, there are plenty of reasons why coldsleep might not be plausible. The freezing-and-unfreezing process has so many ways to injure the pulmonary alveoli, small blood vessels, kidney glomeruli, etc. Due to the uneven distribution of heat in a larger body, people may be really, really, really difficult to safely freeze when compared to fruit flies and mice.

If you want to be super-pedantic and nitpick any technology that might not work in real life, you might as well stick to romance novels and literary fiction. By definition, all SF will include speculative technologies and any speculative technology may never actually work in reality. (even if it sounds plausible) It's only a matter of how improbable those technologies are, and it's very closed-minded to dismiss all unrealistic SF as "not SF". Just because it uses unrealistic technology does not make it a silly, Jar Jar Binksian space opera.

For example, the recent William Gibson novel "The Peripheral" contains all sorts of "ridiculous" tech including time travel, nanotechnology, and extreme post-human body modification... however, the novel is a great commentary on our real-world problems of the surveillance state, over-commercialization and corporate welfare. It also serves as a fantastic (and altogether rare) example of how you can write time travel without introducing time travel paradoxes. It's a really good book, pick up a copy if you haven't read it.

SF and Fantasy share one genre-defining trait: they use stuff that doesn't exist in real life to build a story that people in real life want to read. Fire-breathing dragons and planet-destroying molecular disruptors don't exist in real life, but stories like A Dance With Dragons or Ender's Game make a lot of commentary on the nature of diplomacy and war.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

but from all the discussion the only "realistic" truth is there is a natural quarantine for now

You are limiting speculation and would end up with only "techno-thrillers" related to Apollo 13.

Part of the point of SF is Speculation. It's Science Fiction, Speculative Fiction. Having Interstellar travel and aliens is possible in Hard SF. There is nothing wrong at all with one or two unlikely or ideas we don't know how to implement. Limiting hard SF in Space to everything we exactly know how to do today isn't SF of any kind, just a story in space.

I agree that TV series like Star Trek goes to the other extreme of vast number of pointless technologies that are probably inherently impossible that are not even needed for the plot generally.
Jump Drive and Warp Bubble drive as outlined earlier don't contravene Relativity or speed of light. They hypothetically use other means.
Generation Ships and Near Light Speed Starships also don't contravene any known physics, but Gen Ships (unless there is hibernation, which isn't breaking any known laws either) only descendants arrive. Ben Bova did a good story, and others.
Many Authors have used Near Light speed (or actual light speed, Ken Macleod) ships which don't contravene physics. Of course if the crew do a "round trip" everyone they knew is dead. (Ursula Le Guin Hanish Universe Stories).
We know almost nothing about how a warp bubble drive or Jump Drive (perhaps instantaneous wormhole or some other method) might work. As long as it's not explained there is no reason for a Hard SF story to avoid them. Author's choice. They don't break the speed of light or Einseinian physics as they are not travelling in the normal sense, nor using normal space time.

So even in Hard SF we don't need a Quarantined Earth. I'm sure someone can think of other methods of interstellar travel, but really those are the four obvious ones.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Cryo-sleep doesn't exist in real life, and no one knows if it ever will!

No, but hibernation does. This can be aided with low temperatures. We don't know if it's possible for people or how long it could be extended for. Serious chilling with adapted blood rather than freezing also looks promising and is used to preserve trauma patients till surgery is possible. The prolonged service of nuclear subs with recycling suggests a generation ship, a small village in space travelling world to world isn't an unreasonable idea.

 

[Brian Rogers]

Allow me to explain my "pedantic" rant against all but the hardest SF. My interpretation of what is realistic is in fact fluid. I just read a critique set in our time period or shortly after our current time which would by default eliminate many fantastic elements of Sci Fi you bring up

Even the hardest of sci-fi (say, Red Mars) makes use of technology that doesn't exist in real life.

Once you get into stories with terraforming (Green/Blue Mars), you're dealing with very implausible technology.

so my mind was set in the "now" for a world build. But I have NOTHING against SF that includes all the elements that makes SF great. In fact if the world building and setting make sense, nearly any technology created from an author's mind could work. So as the setting progresses further into the future what is realistic then could be great reading and often is.

When we discuss aliens and the quarantine, I don't mean we should eliminate all speculative ideas.

Part of the point of SF is Speculation. It's Science Fiction, Speculative Fiction. Having Interstellar travel and aliens is possible in Hard SF. There is nothing wrong at all with one or two unlikely or ideas we don't know how to implement. Limiting hard SF in Space to everything we exactly know how to do today isn't SF of any kind, just a story in space.

I completely agree but I have a mental stipulation - basically as the time period progresses deep into the future almost anything is possible. If an author creates a story with a setting of today or the near future and includes anything fantastical then I don't consider the story realistic, it's now a fantasy in space, which is not to say that it is no longer worthy of a read. It can be a great book/series, but the author should recognize he's asking readers to believe in impossibilities and if he pretends he's not, it becomes very hard to swallow.

BUT I would believe most authors recognize this and in order to implement their speculative ideas about technological advancement and alien encounters they naturally place their story FAR into the future. They may include history of why the human race is no longer centered around Earth and provided the setting and world building are sufficient, any technology could be considered realistic for that timeframe.

There is no black/white argument IMO about what makes a good tech or an impossible tech. OR if aliens make sense or are ridiculous. It depends on setting, world building, time in history, etc. for me to conclude (often subconsciously) that this makes sense or this is simply a fantasy.

I hope you see my perspective. I do love being challenged to think though, so please if I still come across as close-minded give it to me!

 

[Ray McCarthy]

If an author creates a story with a setting of today or the near future and includes anything fantastical

Could be the Starship tech of the Aliens.

 

[Brian Rogers]

By the way - if you want some great hard SF that is also a fantastic comedy check out the book The Martian by Andy Weir. That is a perfect example of what I view as phenomenal hard SF set in the correct time and setting. Also one of the funniest books I've ever read!

 

[Brian Rogers]

Could be the Starship tech of the Aliens.

True. But then how we interact with that tech depends on where in time we've found it. In 1960 that tech should go in a museum or be trashed without knowing what it is. Today it should go in a research lab and studied endlessly but with limited ideas. 100 years from now it could be adapted into our own tech, etc. etc.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

But then how we interact with that tech depends on where in time we've found it.

Perhaps the Aliens are using it and the existence of it and the aliens change our priorities.

Likely it would be incomprehensible without a lot of background knowledge from them.

 

[Brian Rogers]

I would say a set up where a race of beings capable of interstellar travel to visit Earth, close enough for people of our time to detect them and make contact, perhaps friendly, would still seem more light SF than realistic if we could understand their tech even with their explanations. They are too advanced and that probably includes biologically as well as technologically. Meeting aliens when we're already also in space makes better sense but then your time period would have to be far future, which is basically all I ask if I read a set up like that and it is supposed to be hard SF. Not against a set up like this but I would read it for its fun plot and fantastic otherworldly science, not for realism.

Getting back to the cliche topic, I think setting and world building can play a key role in feeling if a trope or cliche is fun to read or if its out of place and makes you want to put the book down. I didn't go back through all the thread so I'm sure other people have brought that up, but it relates to how I view what works or doesn't work when creating Hard SF.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Allow me to explain my "pedantic" rant against all but the hardest SF

Don't worry about it - it's an argument that surfaces occasionally here.

 

[Wanderlog]

Spectrography far more likely to have any positive and indeed real "positive" than any other method we know right now.

Well, if spectrography would give us 10 times more chances to discover aliens than "other" methods, and that chance still would be 0,000001%, it won't help us much. Besides, it has exactly the same problem as radio: it's limited by the speed of light.

A disciple of Kardashev?

Me? No. Just optimistic. Seriously, I believe that all talks about technical and scientific progress that "gradually slows down" are based on general ignorance. There are no limits to it as there are no limits to the Universe.

The first man made orbital satellite was Sputnik, does that mean Wanderer?

No, it's far less romantic. "Sputnik" means "a companion" or (in astronomy) "a satellite". For example, the Moon is a sputnik of Earth.

I'd be more willing to except that we'd inflict the three E's on them: Exterminate them, Exploit them or Eat them.

Exterminating a space-wandering civilization is quite impossible. The Universe is simply too huge to let anyone found every single specimen and spaceship of an alien race even withing a single star system. Wars can happen, mostly due to philosophical issues rather than fighting for resources, but I don't believe they can end in total extermination of one of participants.

Exploiting aliens is a very questionable idea even if we set aside its moral aspects. Slaves are simply ineffective in the modern economy, they can't compete with automated conveyors and robots.

Eating a sentient species is also absolutely ineffective as bringing up a meaty specimen would require too much time time and investments. All edible Earth animals gain enough weight in a year or two and usually produce broods of youngsters at once. Compare it with humans who need 9 months only to bear a single child and 15-17 years more to fully grow him up. As with slavery, it's simply too ineffective.

as I postulate (maybe this should be a new thread) that God set up the universe in a way where He gets a sandbox to play with for every planet he grants life. Since we're basically quarantined its like He gets multiple worlds and races He can monitor and watch as they develop.

BTW, that's almost exactly the concept I use in my books. My gods (Demiurges) create isolated universes for playing games there. One Game Universe - one planet with sentient species - one Game, and after the Player wins, the planet is abandoned and its population can do whatever they want. Who knows, maybe our Earth is one of such artificially created game maps, and the Game is still in progress...


P.S. Too much work to do now, no time for visiting the forum too often. Don't lose me, boys and girls, I'll be coming back eventually.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Didn't Prachett do the gods playing dice with the world scenario?

 

[Venusian Broon]

Don't worry about it - it's an argument that surfaces occasionally here.

Yes when coming to discussing 'Hard SF', the coefficient of friction of peoples views placed on the slope of the argument surface can be quite high - in the region of 0.6-0.7 I see from measuring it...

 

[hardsciencefanagain]

I've just written some pieces which are chockfull of cliches.I STILL want to post them(in critiques).
Got snagged on the tag cloud thingy,and/or did something wrong.
I write for fun,like i used to play/write music.
Need help,and input.
*kneels*.Blessed be the Chrons,source of all inspiration

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Spectrography would aim to discover oxygen - ie a continuous chemical imbalance in atmospheric gases which couldn't exist by geological means - in a distant planet's atmosphere. We have James Lovelock circa 1965 to thank for that insight.