What makes a good Sci Fi story?

Avid Scifi Fan

Avid Scifi Fan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
158
I look for scenarios that explore the "what if" with future technology. Sometimes linking it to moral issues and applied in a setting that brings in aspects of the currnt political climate.

What elements do you think make a good sci fi story?
 
Space, AI, Robots/Androids, Aliens, Strange settings, it's all good fun.

I do have a hard time with the time travel pieces. Fun to explore, but not really my thing.
 
I use like it when science fiction uses the alien or advanced setting to discuss philosophical and moral questions.
 
That if you use a hard-science background and base for your story to a point where you're using not just technobabble but informed technobabble - then also mix that with sufficient regular descriptive elements so that those who don't have a science background can still easily follow on with the story and its events.
 
I agree. The science has to be beleivable and not just technobabble, otherwise it pushes it more into science fiction/fantasy like a comic book would.

I too find the discussion and exploration of philisopical/moral issue a great plus in scifi as "The Bravest Newbie" points out. The Star Trek series did alot of this exploration. You could just see the parallels between the civil rights movement, the cold war and many other issue of the day that explored right vs. wrong.

The interesting thing about scifi is that many of the other genres can be a subset within them:comedy, romance, horror, etc...
 
Avid Scifi Fan said:
The interesting thing about scifi is that many of the other genres can be a subset within them:comedy, romance, horror, etc...
Click to expand...

This can be said of any genre. In truth any book or series (esp series as they've more time to go into more elements) will have multiple genres. Indeed most times the genre itself is only the rough overall setting which dominates over multiple other ones which don't clash, but rather add up to the whole.

Many novels will have a romance element - but not all are romances. Same for many other elements.

Thus I'd say that its not true that sci-fi is capable of holding other genres within itself any more so (nor any less so) than any other genre. I would say that sci-fi does tend to do better with some, a philosophical angle tends to work best with sci-fi and similar science based stories (eg cyber punk which can be very heavy on philosophical things - potentially more so than most strict sci-fi). In contrast you don't tend to get as much philosophy heavy content in fantasy.
 
Characters, every time. Give me good characters and I can fogive weak plot, silly science and many other ills.
 
Usually Earth related, and ' what if' scenarios around it. Its very dificult to care about and empathise with a race of people I've never heard of before reading the book.
 
IMHO technobabble works if it is related to things that actually exist, or at least have been discussed by serious scientists as actually existing. For example, graviphotons and graviscalars - either of which could be related to the (currently nonexistent!) tractor beams. And oddities such as preons and axions. Again IMHO, this approach is superior to Star Trek's invention of particles with bizarre names.
 
Excellent points.

Good characters are essential, but I have to believe that the plot has to be a close second place.

I've found empathising with character for me comes more from how they act and what they do vs how they look. Say there was a jelly fish like creature that only made noises and acted like a jelly fish. I would have a hard time empathising with it. However, say this jelly fish could talk and hold an inteligent conversation, wear clothing, and do other human like tasks like repair things. It would be alot easier to empathise with it when it has a hard day when it's boss yells at it.

Mirannan, the technobabble you mentioned sounds like a very limited scope of the technobabble typically used. But I agree, it's more believable when based on actual science. I think the hardest part is when you start talking about the cutting edge finding that few are aware of and then extrapolate them into technobabble. I think too few can follow that sort of stuff.

As for good scifi, I prefer a little action and drama mixed in with a thought provoking story. If the story is set in a lab and never leaves, it can get pretty boring even if its thought provoking. I'm sure there has to be a balance of a few things to make a story good.

Any thoughts?
 
It is a bit broad of a question. Science fiction is merely a setting in which a story occurs, so there is nothing particular outside of that setting that is necessarily required for it to be 'good.' That is dependent upon the story itself.
 
Yes, but what makes the setting a good one?

I suppose the answer is different for everyone, yet similar. Science and technology are pretty obvious, but what are the other points to play with. Some seem to perfer staying close to home with familiar looking characters, where as others want to explore the vastness of the universe and see various aliens.

The science itself has many different areas to branch out and explore. Is there a prefered area people gravitate toward?
 
From my perspective, the variety of possibilities is what makes science fiction a special setting. You can quite literally create any sort of story within it, the possibilities are endless. By the latter I do not mean the possibilities for the characters or humanity are endless, which you often hear from fans, but rather that the possibilities for a storyteller are endless within the science fiction settings. This allows a wide variety of themes, interests, characters, and structures of storytelling to be explored vividly.
 
I tend to agree with most if not all of the below::

Michael Colton said:
From my perspective, the variety of possibilities is what makes science fiction a special setting. You can quite literally create any sort of story within it, the possibilities are endless. By the latter I do not mean the possibilities for the characters or humanity are endless, which you often hear from fans, but rather that the possibilities for a storyteller are endless within the science fiction settings. This allows a wide variety of themes, interests, characters, and structures of storytelling to be explored vividly.
Click to expand...

But I would add that for me when you strip the special settings and limitless possibilities away from the whole you have to be left with good writing. So for me great science fiction has to be written well in the sense of common story telling. When the 'special effects within the science are stripped away and you still have a great story then it is good; but if you strip away the science and reveal a bunch of cardboard shapes and shallow faces full of mindless drivel, then it is not good science fiction.

The distraction of a discussion about things like techno babel verses real science is a red herring presented to disguise poor writing skills. The real test is when you remove both of the above; do you still have a well written story?
 
Good point, both of you.

I definetly agree that the storytelling and characters should be able to stand on their own, regardless of the setting. The tech and science should be there to merely enhance the feel of everything going on.
 
Setting for science fiction is vast and diverse. I mean, Frankenstein could be considered science fiction, yeah? You've got hard sci-fi, space opera, post apocalyptic, utopian, dystopian, cyberpunk, steampunk, near future... the list is probably endless. To me, what makes sci-fi great is seeing how it affects the human condition. I tend to believe that people are people, regardless of setting, and what makes it interesting is seeing how people have adapted to or rebelled against the various sci-fi elements and how they retain or lose that humanity.

So yeah, as others have said, characters are the most important because that's who the reader is meant to empathise with, root for, or vilify. Next is the story, because what good are characters if they aren't engaged in a gripping plot?

Just my views.
 
ShotokanXL said:
I mean, Frankenstein could be considered science fiction, yeah?

Just my views.
Click to expand...

Frankenstein is regarded by many people as THE FIRST science fiction story.

It has a scientist working in a laboratory even though the word SCIENTIST had yet to be coined. That did not happen until 1834. The ideas are derived from Galvani's experiments with frogs and foreshadowed reality. How many people have had their hearts restarted by electrical shock who would otherwise have died?

psik
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D What makes a story interesting to read? Writing Discussion 44
ldorfner Short story: Letter written to the general population about a sentence that can be said, which makes the impossible probabilities possible Book Search 0
Brian G Turner What makes a story YA? SFF Lounge 19
Cayal What makes my story better then yours Writing Discussion 36
S What makes a good story? SFF Lounge 36

Similar threads


Back
Top