Being all technical and science-like in sci fi

[Infinite Monkey Typing]

Hey everyone,

I was just wondering, concerning sci-fi flicks especially, how much do you value that a given sci-fi novel has its scientific elements founded in something plausible, or perceivable at least?

Do you think, for example, Star Trek's teleportative beams are silly? Would you grumble and shake your fist at an author who suddenly introduces a wormhole portaldevice and explains its existance with little reference to, I don't know, Einstein's theories, or makes some vague explanation of using dark matter energy, taking full advantage of our limited knowledge on the subject?

I ask because I could see myself doing all the above things. And I realize that many of my favorite franchises in the genre are also, at best, very flimsy on the scientific details. How do portals work in Portal?... Something about moonstones, right?

 

[Venusian Broon]

Hi IMT,

Personally it depends...if something is sold to me as being very hard SF and I find an obvious problem within five minutes then I might get the automatic fist shakers out and try and find the AA batteries for their use.

On the other hand if it's clearly there with a big dose of fantasy - as practically all of them are - then it's about going with the flow. Does whatever they use fit with the universe that they are trying to present to you? So, then it's about world-building rather than scientific accuracy (the esoteric stuff we have at the moment will all be wrong in a couple hundred years anyway )

I suppose as an author, you have sound like you know what you are writing about! At least that's what I'm aiming for...

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Entirely up to you - there's a whole genre to play with from soft to hard. Me, I like my sf fast and escapist and am willing to forgive much (although I think some attempt should be made to make it sf.)

 

[Jeremy M. Gottwig]

Yeah, different tastes.

Analog exists for those who love diving into scientific details, but I will note that most other publications are happy with loosey-goosey. I think the bigger goal is to maintain consistency in your world-building. You noted Star Trek, which is a good example of a show that tries to be hard but still has a few unlikely elements. It is, however, consistent with those elements and how they are used.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

If Science fiction ignores science, basic physics, maths etc and the author doesn't bother to research, invents technobabble extensively and merely copies popular tropes from TV & Cinema, then it's Space Opera or Science Fantasy, not Science Fiction. There seems to be more people today than 1950s & 1960s simply putting an SF veneer with no science, technology, physics or maths input, even though the research is far easier than 20 years ago.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

You noted Star Trek, which is a good example of a show that tries to be hard but still has a few unlikely elements.

Star Trek has NEVER tried to be hard, the TNG, DS9 and Voyager even less than TOS. Most of it is impossible and unlikely. Much doesn't even make internal logical sense.

 

[Droflet]

Story always come first. The tech stuff can be handled easily enough.

 

[Mirannan]

Trek has a big problem, in that it doesn't follow the possible chain of consequences of the numerous technical and scientific breakthroughs which happen in the episodes - even a little way.

ST has demonstrated strong AI, anti-aging technology, suspended animation of almost indefinite duration, high-end nanotech, transwarp drive vastly faster than warp drive, and holographic matter indistinguishable by most methods from real matter - and done nothing with any of it. (There may be other things I haven't thought of, too.)

ST also seems to have forgotten some extremely basic technologies - electrical fuses and seatbelts come to mind.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

There may be other things I haven't thought of, too

Lots. But that's a good start.

 

[Infinite Monkey Typing]

If Science fiction ignores science, basic physics, maths etc and the author doesn't bother to research, invents technobabble extensively and merely copies popular tropes from TV & Cinema, then it's Space Opera or Science Fantasy, not Science Fiction. There seems to be more people today than 1950s & 1960s simply putting an SF veneer with no science, technology, physics or maths input, even though the research is far easier than 20 years ago.

I might just find myself falling into Science Fantasy then. I don't know, it's probably what has seemed like the biggest hindrance for me to start writing in Sci-fi. In Fantasy, I feel you can just make up your own rules, while in Sci-fi, you have to include a little bit of thought to actual science, given the usual technological advances. I'll probably swerve a little around the more technical details as much as possible, and have a main character that isn't necessarily initiated in all the scientific wonders. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a cool genre, I just don't want to pretend to be a phycisist or anything.

It's interesting, because, there are a lot of times where I just take the science for granted in Sci-fi, but ocassionally, something happens that can really jar me. Even if you aren't a student of the hard sciences, it's sometimes just hard to ignore. Personally, I think it strikes me most obvious when a lot of effort is put into portraying a character as all "science-like", but you realize the things that that character actually says are just banalities or straight-up swaps to more longer-syllabled words to make them sound more clever.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

you have to include a little bit of thought to actual science, given the usual technological advances

Look it all up on Search and Wikipedia. Use real science, physics, technology terms, not ones in TV/Cinema. Use Logic too. You can't insist a 5 light year journey takes months and then do 50 light years in an couple of hours (Star Trek did this, approximately, in same series!)

So when you have written story, update your secret "world building" files and research the tech. Then fix the inconsistencies and nonsense. Good SF needs as much or more knowledge of Tech and ability & Time researching as good Historical Fiction or good Detective Fiction.

Even fantasy there are "sub genres". Unless you are doing "princess and frog" level fairy stories, you can't just put anything in. Readers of Fantasy do have certain expectations. Possibly Urban fantasy needs less research than traditional "mediaeval" style fantasy. No doubt someone will explain why I'm wrong on that!

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I'll probably swerve a little around the more technical details as much as possible, and have a main character that isn't necessarily initiated in all the scientific wonders.

Good plan. The story and characters are the thing, the SF background is really part of the plot. I'm not suggesting though that it's merely a backdrop for Cowboys or Detectives in space (unless that's what you want to do), for example, First Contact (Us -> Aliens in far future, or Aliens -> nearer future) is more about cultural and political impact. Any technological impact or Trade/Economic impact is usually going to be much slower (c.f. Portuguese & Japanese, Europe and Carribean, North America, Africa, Australia or South America).

Also today, how many people understand a modern car (they are not like 1950s models), TV, phone, tablet, computer, Microwave Oven? Or even know what is inside them?

Never mind LED lights, CFL etc, I bet most people don't know how a modern filament lamp works! I think in general people today know less about the insides of tech than educated Victorians & Edwardians did!

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Hey everyone,

I was just wondering, concerning sci-fi flicks especially, how much do you value that a given sci-fi novel has its scientific elements founded in something plausible, or perceivable at least?

Do you think, for example, Star Trek's teleportative beams are silly? Would you grumble and shake your fist at an author who suddenly introduces a wormhole portaldevice and explains its existance with little reference to, I don't know, Einstein's theories, or makes some vague explanation of using dark matter energy, taking full advantage of our limited knowledge on the subject?

I ask because I could see myself doing all the above things. And I realize that many of my favorite franchises in the genre are also, at best, very flimsy on the scientific details. How do portals work in Portal?... Something about moonstones, right?

Just about every single time I've read a science fiction novel that tried to get all 'technical and science-like' the author invariably put me to sleep. I don't think of SF as technical manuals with a bit of dialogue, description, and narration linking the learning moments. It's a story. Either the story's good and it works or the story's bad and it doesn't work. All getting 'technical and science-like' does is stop the narrative and destroy both my sense of wonder and suspension of disbelief.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

All getting 'technical and science-like' does is stop the narrative and destroy both my sense of wonder and suspension of disbelief.

Absolutely ... It's bad when character or narrator tries to explain it, unless the story / plot demands it. Doubly bad if it's total gibberish / Technobable.

 

[Jeremy M. Gottwig]

Star Trek has NEVER tried to be hard, the TNG, DS9 and Voyager even less than TOS. Most of it is impossible and unlikely. Much doesn't even make internal logical sense.

Could be. I can't claim to have seen that much... this is only how it seemed to me on the surface. I think the bigger point I was trying to make was to encourage consistency, which I consider to be just as important as the plot. Losing that jars the reader and pulls them out of the story... which Star Trek apparently does given some reactions to the show that I'm seeing in this thread.

 

[James118]

The tone of the story should be a big help in remembering how technical and accurate one should be; when you've got grounded problems and plot based on accurate science, I suppose hard scifi is likely a must.

But when it's all ridiculous (or even not so much) OTT concepts and an adventurous or humorous tone, I don't think much accuracy is necessary. Sure, you can explain all sorts of stuff for that situation, whether for a more scientific characterisation, or to relate how the mechanics of your particular universe work, but they don't have to be accurate in that context.

Me, I like to keep my stuff grounded. But, whilst I'm enthusiastic about science, I'm not really that learned about it. So failing grounded space travel (no juxtaposition intended) and terraforming and chemical supplies and whatnot, I try at least to apply some sort of real-world logic to my fictional mechanics and statistics.

 

[Piousflea84]

SF is an extremely broad genre, and you can write very good stories in a hard, soft, or fantasy setting.

That said, there's a few generally reasonable rules. First of all, if you have poor-to-average science knowledge, do not attempt hard sci-fi. It's way too common for wannabe-hard-SF authors to confuse m/s with km/s, massively underestimate mass-energy equivalence, horribly mangle time dilation scenarios, etc. If you aren't comfortable writing hard science, don't.

As Arthur C. Clarke observed, any sufficiently implausible science is indistinguishable from fantasy-magic. Therefore, "soft" sci-fi should try to behave like good fantasy writing. If you want readers to be able to "think through" scenarios in a logical way, your technology has to work in a logically predictable manner. For example, if your protagonists use a cloaking field to sneak past the police, from that point onward the reader will constantly be on the alert for cloaked characters. They'll assume that if a hundred dollar bill disappears off a table, it's because a cloaked thief took it. If you don't want this to happen, you will need to explain how rare, expensive, or limited cloaking technology is. Plot-wise this is exactly the same as if they'd used a Magical Cloak of Invisibility.

Star Trek is somewhat of a special case. The TOS, TNG and DS9 television series were more like allegory/philosophy than classic SF. The TOS Federation was NATO while the Klingons were the Soviet Union, many TOS episodes dealt with things like racial discrimination and drug use that were prevalent in the 1960s (when the show was on air). DS9 did much the same thing, with the Cardassian/Bajoran proxy war representing the real-world Middle East. TNG tended more toward the metaphysical, from Data's musings about synthetic life to Riker's holographic girlfriend, to the sociological wanderings of "Darmok and Jalad" to Q-continuum questions about free will and suicide. Because they were largely allegorical tales, the Star Treks never had to worry too much about strict logical consistency.

 

[Tim Murray]

Hey everyone,

I was just wondering, concerning sci-fi flicks especially, how much do you value that a given sci-fi novel has its scientific elements founded in something plausible, or perceivable at least?

Do you think, for example, Star Trek's teleportative beams are silly? Would you grumble and shake your fist at an author who suddenly introduces a wormhole portaldevice and explains its existance with little reference to, I don't know, Einstein's theories, or makes some vague explanation of using dark matter energy, taking full advantage of our limited knowledge on the subject?

I ask because I could see myself doing all the above things. And I realize that many of my favorite franchises in the genre are also, at best, very flimsy on the scientific details. How do portals work in Portal?... Something about moonstones, right?

I "try" to forward today's science 400 years into the future. Scifi can be forgiving if you can make it sound feasible. Clarke and Asimov did a great job of it, the were both scientists. One example; I have self-healing hulls, living ships. Nasa is NOW working on the same material. I saw a program on it. They have a clear material that seals itself after being shot with a .22 caliber pistol. Have fun and play!

 

[J Riff]

Right. I currently use the Gorbelton Grid to traverse the Universe. It's like getting on the bus, and that's as scienterrific an explanation as the reader (helplessly captivated by intriguing characters and plot) is gonna get.

 

[Nick B]

We have pulse rifles which fire solid slug projectiles which have been energized with extra energy which releases on impact. Like 'extra' kinetic energy i suppose. The actual slug is launched at hypersonic speed by means of electromagnetic induction, a la railgun.

I have no idea if this is possible, dont care much if it isnt, and will not really describe the process in the text anyway.

Ray! Tell me it can/cant be done!