1. Stephen1974

    Stephen1974 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2015
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    92

    How important is the science??

    Discussion in 'Science Fiction' started by Stephen1974, Sep 26, 2021.

    The science in science fiction is interesting to me, but on two levels.

    The first is pure entertainment. Is it cool? does it improve the story etc...
    The second is, is it realistic. Has it been done, can it be done etc etc...

    The second one is of interest and im not really that fussed if it cant be done. However, I was reading some book reviews today of people getting really bent out of shape over the realism of the tech in a series of novels.

    The series is Hell Divers by Nicholas Sansbury Smith and without trying to do spoilers, its post apocolyptic, some 250 years after nuclear war, which itself was sometime in the future (not sure when) with the world seemingly covered in electrical storms and radiation all over the place. Humanity survives on airships and Hell Divers jump through the storms to forgae for tech to keep the air ships going. The mutated earth is over run with nasties.

    There, shouldnt be anything you cant get off the back of the cover.

    The reviews though really went to town with 1 star reviews slating pretty much every concept going. How the airships worked, how radiation works, how mutation works, how a pencil works blah blah blah. Needless to say they didnt enjoy the books.

    Now, I never once thought to question the science in the story. It required me to accept some things but I did so without conscious thought of it. Stuff with radiation and mutation for example, meh, what do I care how someone chooses to write about that, but some people were freaking out with comments in caps RADAITION DOESNT DO THAT !!!! type stuff. Chill out.

    I could go on and on but my point is, how important is the science too you? is that what you read sci fi for? accurate descriptions of technology? To me, sci-fi is part reality part fantasy, it isnt there to cover what already exists its there to give us ideas about what COULD exist. Is a book bad because it doesnt technically prove its concepts can work ? whats wrong with these readers?
     
    MartinM likes this.
  2. Homer Potvin

    Homer Potvin A tombstone hand and a graveyard mind Staff Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2017
    Messages:
    12,141
    Likes Received:
    19,763
    Location:
    Rhode Island
    There's a certain class of people who love to hate on things. Player Haters' Ball, 24/7. They've always existed, but nobody paid much attention to them because they were annoying to listen to, face to face. But then the Internet happened and gave them a forum. And then social media happened and gave them an even bigger forum. Now we're forced to listen to them... we can't walk away or choose not to associate with them, like we used to be able to in real life.

    Not saying that's what's happening with this particular series--for all I know, the science is so bad it's distracting--but for the most part, the details never bothered me much. Unless it's egregious to the point where the author is insulting our intelligence.
     
  3. Xoic

    Xoic Prognosticator of Arcana Ridiculosum Contributor Blogerator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2019
    Messages:
    12,459
    Likes Received:
    13,503
    Location:
    Way, way out there
    The only time that kind of criticism would be relevant is if it's hard sci-fi, written by a scientist, and built on real science. A lot of what's called science fiction is actually science fantasy like Star Wars or Star Trek. There's no point trying to criticize the science when in the script it even says "Technobabble" and they leave it for another writer to fill in (and the other writer just fills in gobbledygook that sounds vaguely right).

    But even when it's midway between hard sci-fi and science fantasy, the science doesn't need to be technically feasible, as long as it sounds good.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2021
  4. Catriona Grace

    Catriona Grace Mind the thorns Contributor Contest Winner 2022

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2021
    Messages:
    6,260
    Likes Received:
    5,506
    I can accept some pretty far out science fiction in terms of technology, but if someone starts playing free and loose because they don't understand the basic laws of nature, the book is going in the pile to be donated to Friends of the Library. Deliberately changing the laws of nature for a fictional world is one thing; misrepresenting them because basic research was neglected is another.
     
    Cave Troll, Travalgar and Earp like this.
  5. Chromewriter

    Chromewriter Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2021
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    521
    Location:
    Australia
    I think the problem is in the detail. The more detail you place on explaining why things work the way they do, the more rock solid the concepts have to be. You can slide past bad science as long as it's not expanded upon. But if you have some guy explaining radiation doing some weird jumbo shit it's better not to have an explanation at all.

    I'm going to be controversial here because I feel like Nolan movies does this more and more every year. He spends the whole movie trying explain his idea that every issue with logic jars on me.

    Just look at the weird shit he has to do to make the logic in Inception cohesive- dreams exist as some weird reality of layers and then there are powerful architect etc. Etc. and the best defense a dream could come up with was matrix Anderson clones.

    On that note, why does Matrix work even though it has the same problem of weird scifi logic? Why the hell are humans such a good energy source? Well because it's not the focal point of the movie. The explanations are more "cool idea bro" than they are centre point.

    Where Matrix works is because it's mostly an emotionally driven movie. It's not a movie based on trying to explain shit that doesn't matter to you or the characters. It's about Neo overcoming his fear and fighting back as the one. You could change the whole setting and it could still work as a story. The details aren't relevant to the story working the way it does.

    So to reiterate, if you make a bunch of details, you better make sure it's rock solid or be ready for people to pick it apart.
     
  6. TheOtherPromise

    TheOtherPromise Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2020
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    411
    Sometimes it bothers me when a story doesn't jive with science, but pretty much that only occurs when I am not enjoying the story for other reasons.

    In this case nuclear war creating a monstrous hellscape could be its own sub-genre so it seems odd to complain about the radiation not being realistic since it's not really meant to be in those types of stories.
     
  7. Stephen1974

    Stephen1974 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2015
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    92
    Chromewriter, I understand what you are saying. In this case however the auther doesnt try to justify x,y or z through science or technology, he simply states how something works in the most basic terms, so his airships use helium to stay afloat, which is one of the issues these folks have. He doesnt try to explain how helium can be used as actually its hard to come by and doesnt actually have a great deal of lifting power, je just leaves it as a statement of fact, airships are powered by helium.

    Now that they've raised the issue and i've looked in to it, I can see their point, on the face of it I cant see how they could use helium for this purpose, but for me, it doesnt matter. However, I guess I could equate it to something that would bug me, military matters.

    Having some military experience I cringe hard at a lot of authors who say stuff that isn't accurate and have tossed books out based on such things, so I suppose i cant criticise these guys too much after all. It just makes for an interesting point of where you need to get things right and where it doesnt matter.
     
  8. Naomasa298

    Naomasa298 HP: 10/190 Status: Confused Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2019
    Messages:
    5,345
    Likes Received:
    6,168
    Location:
    The White Rose county, UK
    The thing is, I watch movies or read stories to be entertained. I don't really care how the Heisenberg compensators work. I'm pretty sure we now know that gamma radiation doesn't turn people into hulking green monsters. All I ask is that the internal science is consistent.

    What REALLY bugs me is when the science conveniently doesn't work for plot purposes. You know, atmospheric disturbances meaning the transporters don't work, thereby stranding the away team, that sort of thing.
     
    QueenOfPlants likes this.
  9. Chromewriter

    Chromewriter Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2021
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    521
    Location:
    Australia
    I think stuff like simple physics has to be right. You can fudge some theoretical concepts, but failing to get the right type of fuel for your airship may bug me if I knew about it.

    It's the equivalent of saying that cars were powered by water and creates oxygen as a waste product. It would only seem normal to someone who doesn't know about cars but is otherwise jarring. So getting those stuff right is better than getting those stuff wrong if it doesn't serve a narrative purpose.

    So if he was going to power it with helium and didn't work out the details, it would've been much better if he just said it was solar powered or something.

    This also leads me to another point I just thought off, getting these small details wrong is why Uncanny Valley is even worse than something that you know isn't real. Those little details stick out more and makes things unpleasant to read or think about.
     
  10. dbesim

    dbesim Moderator Staff Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2014
    Messages:
    2,836
    Likes Received:
    2,288
    Location:
    London, UK
    I’m not such a huge fan of sci-fi, though the book I’m currently reading is of that genre. However, I reckon that the laws in a fictional universe are pure imagination. You can have purple bunny rabbits with wings soaring in the air with a breed of floating hyenas and this needs no scientific justification. Blue mangoes plopping like raindrops into a sea of orange water and, once again, in a fictional land of pure imagination this requires no scientific reasoning. A futuristic universe where gravity is no longer a thing or an entire world seated on the shell of a giant tortoise and, once again, this requires no proper reasoning or explanation. In that respect I think that in a world of fiction, imagination dominates over reasoning and accurate scientific principles and ‘textbook’ info is not necessary unless you’re trying to make a point about quantum theory or Schrödinger’s cat - or whatever. You don’t have to be informed about any branch of science to write a story comprised of pure imagination. You also have the chance to bend those rules - because once again you’re writing about a situation based on pure imagination. That way you can explore themes like time travel, teleportation or reaching into the furthest areas of the universe in your own way and include a system of principles that is not proven. Since in the world of fiction, you’re given the scope to make most of it up, I don’t see why you shouldn’t make it up when it comes to historical, scientific and perhaps even mathematical notions. It’s not a requirement to take those things too seriously. It’s much more flexible because fiction comprises mostly of imaginative situations.
     
  11. Chromewriter

    Chromewriter Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2021
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    521
    Location:
    Australia
    I agree that imagination allows you to choose the rules of the world you are creating. But why would you choose to say a car runs on oxygen and creates wood as a by product? If it's done purposefully as some form of absurdism or abstract thinking, it may make sense.

    But otherwise if it has no relevance to the story then they will just take your audience out of the literature for no good reason. Or if it mattered this little, every author would go insane with descriptions that aren't relatable. Purple houses and blue dogs.

    I kinda feel like writing is about placing emphasis on things that matter and ignoring things that don't. If you try to describe the whole scene as you see it, it's overbearing. So you have to be very selective and careful in what details you want to include and if those details are important to the story.

    Having an airship running on helium is not really a detail that seems that important to choose to get wrong. I'd probably not mind it if it's not mentioned all the time, but if they go into detail and talk about helium mines and such, the emphasis would be jarring because it's not based on sound scientific premise.
     
  12. Stephen1974

    Stephen1974 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2015
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    92
    Well, i'm gonna just go with the Rule of Cool I think.
    If i wanted to write for nerds I'd be writing manuals not stories.
     
    Xoic likes this.
  13. Xoic

    Xoic Prognosticator of Arcana Ridiculosum Contributor Blogerator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2019
    Messages:
    12,459
    Likes Received:
    13,503
    Location:
    Way, way out there
    Rob Ager just uploaded this today and it immediately reminded me of this discussion:



    Emotional tone and thematic symbolism can be far more important than mere scientific accuracy in certain kinds of stories. It's a freaking fairy tale! In the face of a movie like Star Wars those science nerds demanding absolute materialistic accuracy seem pretty foolish.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2021
    B.E. Nugent likes this.
  14. Friedrich Kugelschreiber

    Friedrich Kugelschreiber marshmallow Contributor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2017
    Messages:
    4,744
    Likes Received:
    5,937
    If I had to choose between Dune or the Foundation Trilogy I would choose Dune every time. I'm generally not bothered if the smallest scientific details are left vague. Even hard sci-fi often requires suspension of disbelief in regards to FTL travel and so forth.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2021
    Cave Troll and Xoic like this.
  15. Chromewriter

    Chromewriter Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2021
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    521
    Location:
    Australia
    That thumb nail looks like some dude mooning us in the left. :D
     
  16. Cave Troll

    Cave Troll It's Coffee O'clock everywhere. Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2015
    Messages:
    17,922
    Likes Received:
    27,173
    Location:
    Where cushions are comfy, and straps hold firm.
    Only if it is a major focus of the story, and is leaning more on the
    Hard Sci-fi end of things.
    I've gotten crap for having paper in the 28th century, but more
    powerful gas powered guns are just fine. Granted the story leans
    heavy on other things besides the tech.
    People like to be asses, because it seems to bring personal pleasure
    shitting on things to make themselves happy.
    Also it could be the case that the author hasn't done the research
    into all the science that we already know and understand, which
    could put off a Hard Sci-fi reader.
    In short, if someone wants to find something to bitch about in a story,
    they will.
     
    Xoic likes this.
  17. MartinM

    MartinM Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2020
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    205
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    @Stephen1974

    Go back and watch the original Star Trek. Now watch the 2003 Battlestar Galactic series. What did you see? What did both shows make you feel? How influential was the sci-fi techs importance in each storyline?

    Star Trek became dated by the development of the mobile phone. Its ship protocols were ludicrous allowing the main staff officers to investigate a new strange planet with a couple of red shirts. Did this distract you from the overall story arc, maybe but probably not. The 1960s view of the world 400 years in the future looks sometimes childish however it’s the storyline that makes it work and not the tech...

    Battlestar Galactica gives the viewer a more modern and darker insight to human nature. The whole feel to the show of a 50year old out of date battle ship is real. Nothing looks completely outlandish in anyway. Even the evolution of the Cylon’s. The storyline is the focus, using modern day social topics played out on a different canvas. The tech is almost irrelevant.

    The key to sci-fi is the storyline and not the tech. My issues are many, were did gravity come from on a ship? Why use fighters in space combat? If I could move an object at multiplies of c, surely, I do it with a missile rather than a ship?

    To answer your question, you as a reader need to believe in the technology that underpins your story. However, the story must come first. The only time I’ve found this not the case is with the Andy Wier novels The Martian or Project Hale Mary. Both brilliant reads, but with weak storylines. It’s the tech that keeps you reading... science the shit out of this...

    The tech needs to be plausible to keep the story moving, nothing more.

    My view only


    MartinM.
     
    EFMingo, Bakkerbaard and Chromewriter like this.
  18. Travalgar

    Travalgar Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2021
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    141
    Judging newer works of science fiction with the same measuring stick one applied to classic titles is not necessarily fair. Back then, Internet was not yet as widespread as today, and people had to actually know the thing they criticize about before they can make their criticism public, or at least be taken seriously. Nowadays, anyone with a web browser and internet connection can comment on anything.

    I didn't want to say the standards have been raised, but then I would be lying. The present education level is significantly higher compared to what it had been when Star Trek first aired. Internet democratized learning, and as a result, one doesn't need to be a rocket science first to know that rockets need to lift their own fuel. Modern readers want more well-written stories with more plausible science; that's a fact. Something in the same vein of Edgar Rice Burrough's John Carter series wouldn't sell as successfully today as it had back in 1912. Sure, the storyline is paramount in any kind of story, but today:
    1. There are more who can criticize,
    2. There are more things to be criticized about.

    Now, I'm not saying that every sci-fi must be hard sci-fi. But maybe it's the author's job to, above all, prevent scientific mistakes from interfering with their contemporary readers' experience. Also, maybe some criticism is best ignored; one lone comment does not make the whole market opinion.
     
  19. Friedrich Kugelschreiber

    Friedrich Kugelschreiber marshmallow Contributor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2017
    Messages:
    4,744
    Likes Received:
    5,937
    you know they had books about rockets back then, and libraries where you could check them out for free? And they had much more frequent news coverage about rockets back then during the space race and the Cold War.

    That's not even sci-fi though, it's pulp fiction
     
  20. Xoic

    Xoic Prognosticator of Arcana Ridiculosum Contributor Blogerator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2019
    Messages:
    12,459
    Likes Received:
    13,503
    Location:
    Way, way out there
    You do realize a lot of classic sci-fi came from the pulps right? Like Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, Norton, etc. In fact many of the pulp magazines were specifically oriented toward sci-fi, some hard like Analog (formerly Amazing Tales I think?) and some veering toward wild science fantasy (like Burroughs).
     
    Cave Troll likes this.
  21. Travalgar

    Travalgar Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2021
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    141
    Just because there were books in libraries doesn't mean people came to check them out. Information is much, much more accessible today. You would agree with me that typing a few search terms in search engines is several degrees easier than going to the library to glean a specific information from piles of books.

    Also, did you think people in the space race era knew more about rockets than the average person today? Frequent news coverage during the Cold War didn't mean much other than fueling political debates and feeding ideological narratives. I believe one doesn't get more knowledgeable (past a certain "general knowledge" threshold) by watching the news to the exclusion of everything else.
     
  22. Chromewriter

    Chromewriter Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2021
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    521
    Location:
    Australia
    This is well articulated point I never thought of. But yes, the average reader demands more than the previous average readers if you go back 1960s.

    I mean, just look at the world we live in, we are bombarded with stories, information and misinformation. You won't be able to just repeat the same tropes verbatim, people will catch you. You cannot just make up shit, people will fact check you. We are just less easily seduced now.

    Plus people have become much more exposed to critique than the actual material. People will see reaction videos and recommendations more than anything they consume. So they become more critical of the "flaws". It's the age of cynicism and sarcasm.
     
    Travalgar likes this.
  23. Friedrich Kugelschreiber

    Friedrich Kugelschreiber marshmallow Contributor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2017
    Messages:
    4,744
    Likes Received:
    5,937
    of course, but scientific accuracy was nowhere near Burrough's mind when he was writing that stuff.

    sure, but you certainly didn't have to be a rocket scientist to find that stuff out, which is what you said. But it looks like we're on the same page.

    I certainly wouldn't be surprised. I don't think the average person today is particularly knowledgeable about rockets; most people don't read xkcd. I don't know if you're familiar with the movie October Sky? Great movie. Sorry I started an argument, lol. I was feeling a bit confrontational about nothing in particular.
     
    Travalgar likes this.
  24. SapereAude

    SapereAude Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2021
    Messages:
    1,714
    Likes Received:
    1,359
    John Carter on Mars was still good enough that Hollywood (Disney) made it into a feature film 100 years later. The movie was a financial bomb, but that was because it was a lousy movie, not because it was a lousy story.

    On the other hand, I submit the daily comic strip detective, Dick Tracy. In the 1950s, the Dick Tracy comic strip actually featured commerce between the Earth and the Moon, and Tracy's adopted son, Junior, married Moon Maid. Eventually, we humans traveled to the moon and the entire concept of a society thriving on the moon was so completely debunked that the comic strip killed off Moon Maid and ended that entire line of sub plot. Even though everyone knew it was fantasy when the Moon Maid story arc was created, it eventually reached a point where not even young children were willing or able to set aside logic and buy into it -- so it had to go.
     
  25. Xoic

    Xoic Prognosticator of Arcana Ridiculosum Contributor Blogerator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2019
    Messages:
    12,459
    Likes Received:
    13,503
    Location:
    Way, way out there
    Totally agreed of course. My point though was that not all 'pulp fiction' is as loose scientifically as Burroughs. And his Venus stories are at least somewhat more accurate, a rocket is used rather than a magic carpet. Though it cracked me up that IIRC the protag launched it accidentally and barely missed the moon and several other planets on the way to Venus. So even there the science is far from a top priority.

    Hence why I try to use somewhat more specific terms like 'wildly inaccurate science fantasy' rather than lumping it all together under 'pulp fiction'.
    I am, and I agree. I love that movie.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice