Do you know too much for the author's own good?

[RX-79G]

Despite rewind, video and film are pace controlled - you go past the hokey parts before you can think too much about them. Which is probably why I enjoyed The Force Awakens for a couple of hours, before it set in and soured for me.

With a book, if you read something that doesn't make a lot of sense, you will reread it. You may even go back and reread it. And since the hokey book won't be over inside of two hours, you may just put it down and not complete it, like you would with a silly movie.

 

[Phyrebrat]

What a miserable way to see one's entertainment.

pH

 

[RX-79G]

What a miserable way to see one's entertainment.

pH

What is? And why?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

What is? And why?

I think what Phyre means is if you can suspend disbelief - willingly - reading is a richer experience. But everyone's suspension level is different. For me, all it takes is clumsy character interactions and I'm a lost reader but I can stand any amount of hokum if that bit is right.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I'm like Jo. As long as the characters are good and the story fires my imagination - the rest is optional. If I want to know about facts I can Google it or look it up myself.

 

[RX-79G]

I suspend my disbelief all the time to read books or watch TV. There is a difference between inviting the reader to suppose something fantastic and asking the reader to ignore plot holes, bad prose, unlikely characters, poor grammar and bad science.

Specifically, if you want to write a story about a rapidly spinning giant planet, you aren't throwing out a little detail to be looked past if it is a little off. You are writing a hard science fiction component into your book, and you're going to need to treat it that way. Why are people there, how does this planet come to be like this, and what about it drives the story? Much of science fiction starts with a "what if this happened" and the book derives its features from exploring the what if. If the exploration is one dimensional or just inaccurate it hurts the story.


I like Star Trek well enough, and "suspend disbelief" on warp engines. But when they illustrate that the Picard Maneuver - where the ship appears in two places at once - was something executed over several seconds by the captain yelling "Warp 4!" and then "Full stop!", I wasn't able to buy into those events appearing to be "simultaneous". Years later, that's all I really remember about the episode, and I don't remember the interactions and plot - just the big, dumb, glaring departure from internal consistency.


As writer's, you are going to be struggling enough getting people to like your story, characters, prose, dialogue and everything else that makes for good fiction. Don't hobble yourself with bad science on top of that in a "science fiction" novel. Publishers are not looking for more 1930s pulp writers. If you can't be a Frank Herbert, at least be an Alastair Reynolds.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Ooooh, that's a dangerous statement - what publishers are looking for. Hard sf is one of the hardest genres to sell and incredibly niche. Space opera is big at the mo. To highlight the science over the fiction ignores most of the genre these days.

 

[RX-79G]

Ooooh, that's a dangerous statement - what publishers are looking for. Hard sf is one of the hardest genres to sell and incredibly niche. Space opera is big at the mo. To highlight the science over the fiction ignores most of the genre these days.

Alastair Reynolds writes space opera. But it is space opera that isn't a mess of half realized ideas and poorly illustrated principles.

I'm not suggesting what genre to write in. I'm saying that certain types of sci fi story details ARE hard science by nature, and if you are going to use them you're going to have to treat them like that.

Ringworld isn't the hardest sci fi ever, but Niven didn't put a spinning ring around the sun and ignore the need for that material to be excessively strong. Dune doesn't have knife fights just for the fun of it - its the only way around a technological barrier that drives almost all of the themes in the book.

Everything you put in a story needs to do something. If the science stuff creates a plot lever - great. If the science doesn't do anything but make the reader scratch their head: Why is it in the book? It isn't about science or genre or even being internally consistent. It is about having a cohesive and meaningful work of art that lacks distracting details that decrease the impact of the story. For any type of fiction, "fishy" things just make the reading less enjoyable. It doesn't matter if it is hard SF or a romance novel where the flight from LA to NY is only 2 hours - that stuff stands out and trashes what the writer set out to do.

Don't assume that most people don't know a considerable amount about science and engineering. They might not be able to write a paper about every topic, but they have watched enough PBS and Discovery Magazine to notice when stuff doesn't sound quite right.

 

[Phyrebrat]

But don't assume they care as much as you. We all have different values and levels of suspension of disbelief.

It's important to realise the diversity of an audience or risk being a fact-bore, elitist or high-maintenance reader.

Who is that super-cool Scientist who is all over social media at the moment? He's great - has a ridiculous amount of knowledge but still cites modern sf blockbusters as his favourite movies. And we're not talking about Primer for example.

I wrote an allegorical story about a giant pike as a blend of child abuse and the story of Jonah. Does that mean an ichthyologist will turn her nose up at my 60' long pike? Maybe. But it doesn't mean every fish expert will.

I should clarify I don't write sci fi, just supernatural horror. But I love reading SF - whether space opera or hard.

A lot of what you've said reminds me of that old truism, 'if you seek the bad in a good man, you'll surely find it.'

pH
Edit: Neil de Grasse Tyson. He's a great entertainer, too!

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Alastair Reynolds writes space opera. But it is space opera that isn't a mess of half realized ideas and poorly illustrated principles.

I'm not suggesting what genre to write in. I'm saying that certain types of sci fi story details ARE hard science by nature, and if you are going to use them you're going to have to treat them like that.

Ringworld isn't the hardest sci fi ever, but Niven didn't put a spinning ring around the sun and ignore the need for that material to be excessively strong. Dune doesn't have knife fights just for the fun of it - its the only way around a technological barrier that drives almost all of the themes in the book.

Everything you put in a story needs to do something. If the science stuff creates a plot lever - great. If the science doesn't do anything but make the reader scratch their head: Why is it in the book? It isn't about science or genre or even being internally consistent. It is about having a cohesive and meaningful work of art that lacks distracting details that decrease the impact of the story. For any type of fiction, "fishy" things just make the reading less enjoyable. It doesn't matter if it is hard SF or a romance novel where the flight from LA to NY is only 2 hours - that stuff stands out and trashes what the writer set out to do.

Don't assume that most people don't know a considerable amount about science and engineering. They might not be able to write a paper about every topic, but they have watched enough PBS and Discovery Magazine to notice when stuff doesn't sound quite right.

But there are types of sci fi stories that don't require accuracy and whose readers don't look for it. Don't assume all of us are pulled out by it

I'm - so far - a space opera writer (mostly) at the soft sf end of the spectrum. Not one reader has complained at my lack of scientific rigour ( and I'm sure I have howlers in there). Why not? I don't market it as hard sf in any way.

Your advice is good. (And even in space opera it had added veracity if we at least sound confident). But it's really only relevant to one small sub genre. Otherwise, make it plausible, go wild, whatever works provided you are consistent in your world and readers will stick with you if it is their preferred level of believability.

But don't assume every reader wants the same as you (I'm quite partial to 30s pulp as are some publishers) or the sf world becomes a very boring place.

 

[ErikB]

I suspend my disbelief all the time to read books or watch TV. There is a difference between inviting the reader to suppose something fantastic and asking the reader to ignore plot holes, bad prose, unlikely characters, poor grammar and bad science.

Specifically, if you want to write a story about a rapidly spinning giant planet, you aren't throwing out a little detail to be looked past if it is a little off. You are writing a hard science fiction component into your book, and you're going to need to treat it that way. Why are people there, how does this planet come to be like this, and what about it drives the story? Much of science fiction starts with a "what if this happened" and the book derives its features from exploring the what if. If the exploration is one dimensional or just inaccurate it hurts the story.


I like Star Trek well enough, and "suspend disbelief" on warp engines. But when they illustrate that the Picard Maneuver - where the ship appears in two places at once - was something executed over several seconds by the captain yelling "Warp 4!" and then "Full stop!", I wasn't able to buy into those events appearing to be "simultaneous". Years later, that's all I really remember about the episode, and I don't remember the interactions and plot - just the big, dumb, glaring departure from internal consistency.


As writer's, you are going to be struggling enough getting people to like your story, characters, prose, dialogue and everything else that makes for good fiction. Don't hobble yourself with bad science on top of that in a "science fiction" novel. Publishers are not looking for more 1930s pulp writers. If you can't be a Frank Herbert, at least be an Alastair Reynolds.

Actually more than warp in Star Trek it is food replicators that bug me. But a personal thing, though warp and transwarp are also poorly treated. The problem being that if we look at it pragmatically then the entertainment value diminishes.

As for my planet in the story it has a LOT of background to it some of which is infused into little segments of the narrative here and there. This thread has actually given me some ideas to play with in the second book which is already 8 chapters into the first draft.

But worst case scenario, if you don't agree or like the science in my writing no one is forcing you to read it. Or the works of any other author that has schisms with what you believe or know to be correct.

The bottom line is that whether you are very forgiving of writing styles, info, or science that you dislike or feel is inaccurate, or weather you are a casual; "okay I'll let that slide" type of reader, you get to choose the reading you wish to engage in.

I have read books for years for the entertainment value. These days I read as a writer and things that are glaringly wrong or little errors stand out. I try to curb that inner editor and critic. But it is harder than when I did not do as much writing.

Still it boils down to, to each his or her own.

Cheers!

 

[ErikB]

But don't assume they care as much as you. We all have different values and levels of suspension of disbelief.

It's important to realise the diversity of an audience or risk being a fact-bore, elitist or high-maintenance reader.

Who is that super-cool Scientist who is all over social media at the moment? He's great - has a ridiculous amount of knowledge but still cites modern sf blockbusters as his favourite movies. And we're not talking about Primer for example.

I wrote an allegorical story about a giant pike as a blend of child abuse and the story of Jonah. Does that mean an ichthyologist will turn her nose up at my 60' long pike? Maybe. But it doesn't mean every fish expert will.

I should clarify I don't write sci fi, just supernatural horror. But I love reading SF - whether space opera or hard.

A lot of what you've said reminds me of that old truism, 'if you seek the bad in a good man, you'll surely find it.'

pH
Edit: Neil de Grasse Tyson. He's a great entertainer, too!

Marine biology and ichthyology are specialties of mine. But while I might not buy into a 60 foot long pike, I can appreciate the fun of "what if" and the interesting allegory of such a story. It would be great to explore that as a biological "monster" and having fished for pike and kept pike and chain pickerel in aquariums when I was younger I understand what an enterprising and determined predator these fish can be.

 

[ErikB]

That is why sff chrons is a great place. We can discuss without trolling (for the most part), and while I will stick to my guns on the point of gravity, you Erik have taken all the discussion with good grace. And that is what matters most.

Thank you. It is a community of writers in these forums and I believe the richness of social forums for writers and readers of fiction is in the diversity of beliefs, methods, and ideas that we bring to the table.

Also I am rather fascinated with everything that everyone has shared. There is a lot of common ground and despite some differences its all a learning experience.

Also a bit of a social/personality learning curb. I am starting to learn who views what in very regimented ways, who may be more loose, the humor levels, the quirks and annoyances that bother some, the backgrounds and richness of the many cultures and lives I am meeting here.

No matter what its all good by me. I'm grateful for every disagreement as much as everything between and those who are similar. Everyone here is a treasure for me and I am lucky to have found this site and to be able to participate with all of you.

 

[Ursa major]

I think I agree with

Everything you put in a story needs to do something. If the science stuff creates a plot lever - great. If the science doesn't do anything but make the reader scratch their head: Why is it in the book? It isn't about science or genre or even being internally consistent. It is about having a cohesive and meaningful work of art that lacks distracting details that decrease the impact of the story.

and

make it plausible

Or, to put it in one sentence:

Put in those things that need to be there, making them as plausible as one can, and don't put in things that don't need to be there.​

I suppose one could argue that if one wants to put in things that don't need to be there for the story (but one likes them too much to leave out), one should take extra care** to make them plausible, in order to avoid the risk that they'll attract the wrong sort of attention from the readers, who then might wonder why they are in the book.


** - And if you really like them -- so much that you desperately want to share them with the readers regardless of their relevance to the story -- surely you'd want them to be really plausible. After all, one doesn't want one's "shiny things" to go out into the world tarnished, does one?

 

[Toby Frost]

I’ve always thought that what matters in terms of “realism” is that the interior logic of the story, given its contents and style, isn’t broken. Who knows how a shield in Dune works? What does matter is that once it’s there, the logic of how it’s dealt with remains. Herbert makes his rules and sticks to them, hence the lasguns and the knife-fighting. If the reader doesn’t like the world Herbert creates, that’s the reader’s problem and not the author’s. He has done his job properly. I have very little time for the “real SF is hard SF” argument because so much good SF clearly isn’t. You might as well say that the only real fantasy is the sort with unicorns in it.

Does it matter how the spaceship is powered so long as it’s consistent and doesn’t insult the reader’s intelligence? Sometimes people will swallow daft things if it works in the story. Other times, it’s simply not necessary to say what makes the spaceship go (I don’t think about the internal combustion engine every time I drive my car). And sometimes people want the wrong details, or a lack of logic. Medieval cathedrals probably weren’t lumps of grim unpainted stone, but that doesn’t fit most people’s idea of life back then, so the detail is often omitted. A big chunk of military SF is either the past or the present military in space, which isn’t terribly realistic either. People will forgive a vast amount of stuff if they are having fun, because the basic purpose of reading fiction is to be entertained.

On a positive side rather than a negative one, what really impresses me in a novel is when the book thinks through its own world. A more basic fantasy story might include some mercenaries as just a different sort of evil dude that the heroes have to kill. A more sophisticated book might involve a mission to steal the money with which the mercenaries will be paid, so that they refuse to fight or turn against their employer. Unfortunately, it’s easy to mistake grimdark for complexity or realism, and the two are very different things.

 

[ErikB]

SF asks a lot of readers in the grand scheme of things. The limits if any are within the imagination of the writers.

It is an evolution in the writing process that goes hand in hand with the day and age that we live in. Very much like the TV and movie industry.

Look at old TV shows and we see space ships that look like either discs, or rockets propped upright on three large tail fins. Special affects included a bunch of smoke and sparks coming from the rear of the ship as it made its way slowly into the sky.

Remember Flash Gordon. The affects were part of the sign of the times. It was years later that Star Trek popped up. Things changed. Affects looked better and seemed more plausible.

Today Battlestar Galactica, Star Wars, Avatar, and others share with us incredible realism of affects. Plausibility increases.

But in the same way that our technology has made for better and visually more appealing entertainment it has also made books more subject to scrutiny.

If you were not an expert in medieval castles or a history buff, and you read something that seemed a bit odd, in the 70's you could not pull out your smart phone and google it.

You had to ask around, go to a history teacher or specialist, or hit the library. It took more time to check things out than what many people cared to do.

But today the data is at everyone's fingertips. There is always going to be someone checking things that any author writes with a critical eye.

Whether its an oversight on the part of an author, a different perspective, or intentional breaking "the rules" there will be a critic or two checking or calling "foul" at times. It comes with the territory.

I think that the biggest thing is that an author establishes rules within their own system and sticks with those rules consistently, and then works on creating the best tale that they can.

Its easy to tear down Star Trek. Its easy to debunk or dismiss parts of this industry. Still its far more enjoyable to overlook it and simply immerse yourself in the plot or the story.