Sci-fi actually needs science

[Cathbad]

I don't read courtroom fiction to learn proper court procedures.

I don't read horror fiction to learn how to hunt ghosts.

I don't read Mystery fiction to learn how to be a better detective.

Why on earth (or off) would I read science fiction to learn science??

Can't we just read fiction to be entertained?

 

[BAYLOR]

If your writing a science fiction novel , Im thinking that underlying science hs to be as sound as possible.

 

[Onyx]

If your writing a science fiction novel , Im thinking that underlying science hs to be as sound as possible.

Why? Are Dune or Player of Games bad SF novels because of all the unsound science in them?

 

[BAYLOR]

Why? Are Dune or Player of Games bad SF novels because of all the unsound science in them?

Then what is your definition of science fiction?

 

[Onyx]

Then what is your definition of science fiction?

The one that includes the SF works of Frank Herbert, Asimov, Heinlein, Iain Banks, Vernor Vinge, etc, etc.

What's yours?

 

[Brian G Turner]

If your writing a science fiction novel , Im thinking that underlying science hs to be as sound as possible.

True, but scientific understanding is constantly changing - novels written on current principles are in danger of becoming dated quickly, especially in terms of technology from this.

Hence why I've always been looking out books that look not to today, but to tomorrow, for their inspiration.

 

[Vertigo]

I don't read courtroom fiction to learn proper court procedures.

I don't read horror fiction to learn how to hunt ghosts.

I don't read Mystery fiction to learn how to be a better detective.

Why on earth (or off) would I read science fiction to learn science??

Can't we just read fiction to be entertained?

I would take your point in that I don't wish to learn about science from my SF unless I have picked something I know is good accurate hard SF, which I sometimes do. I certainly don't expect all or even most of my SF to conform to this. I thoroughly enjoy an FTL space opera as much as any SF enthusiast. However:

I will be upset by a court procedure novel if those procedures are blatantly wrong/illogical.

Can't say much about ghosts as I know nothing about them.

I will be upset by a crime thriller iF the detective uses method that patently will not work are illogical or just wrong.

So I want to be entertained but I don't want to read an SF novel where the captain of the ship, in dire straits, suddenly casts a spell and all is saved. Science fiction is, by it name, associated with science; introduce speculative science, that's fine, but don't break known laws of science or if you do postulate a new, speculative technology that makes it possible, like Weber's compensators (I think that's what they are called) that protect the crews from the effects of inertia, permitting accelerations in the realm of hundreds of Gs, and also considers the implications of the failure of said compensators.

It is not necessary to provide a full scientific paper explaining the science but it should have at least been considered. An example of the opposite was a book I read some years ago where the seasons were caused not by the planet's tilt but by a highly elliptical orbit, which is perfectly possible, except they still had summer in the northern hemisphere whilst it was winter the southern at the same time, which isn't possible.

Science fiction doesn't have to be a course in physics but it should be consistent with known laws and also consistent in its use of any added speculative science such as the Dune stuff already mentioned by @Onyx.

 

[BAYLOR]

The one that includes the SF works of Frank Herbert, Asimov, Heinlein, Iain Banks, Vernor Vinge, etc, etc.

What's yours?

As much as I like Dune , I always found it it problematic that they ban thinking machines Computers . Yes they have mentads Human Computers , But ithey don't strike me as being nearly as good as computers. How do you run world let alone an entire galtice empire without computers . And navigating Space with super modified humans in the pace navigation systems. Thats to me is more in the realm of fantasy then science fiction. Running a star faring galactic empire without real computers . I cannot imagine that one being possible.

 

[Vertigo]

As much as I like Dune , I always found it it problematic that they ban thinking machines Computers . Yes they have mentads Human Computers , But ithey don't strike me as being nearly as good as computers. How do you run world let alone an entire galtice empire without computers . And navigating Space with super modified humans in the pace navigation systems. Thats to me is more in the realm of fantasy then science fiction. Running a star faring galactic empire without real computers . I cannot imagine that one being possible.

To be fair the novel was written in 1965; before the moon landings and really not that long after IBM's classic statement that they thought the world market would only ever need 5 computers at most. Okay twenty years after but still... I mean a decade later in the mid seventies I was at Liverpool university when I first used a computer and THE only computer available to the university at that time wasn't even in Liverpool it was in Manchester!

 

[James Bridie]

i'd have thought that science fiction needs some science to get its teeth into, in order to be science fiction. Just as you'd expect historical fiction to have some history in it.

In other words, to have some sort of treatment of different understanding of science, advanced technology, or alternative science/technology - and where that is some significant part of the story.

The example at the start was from 'space opera' - is that even science fiction in the first place? Maybe if the author does not intend to be realistic about science they should just be less specific about mechanisms. The craft ascended swiftly... and so on. Just as a historical fiction could have a story about 'outlaws' without necessarily specifying the legal apparatus involved - the point is, they live on the periphery, outside the law.

 

[Brian G Turner]

As much as I like Dune , I always found it it problematic that they ban thinking machines Computers . Yes they have mentads Human Computers , But ithey don't strike me as being nearly as good as computers. How do you run world let alone an entire galtice empire without computers . And navigating Space with super modified humans in the pace navigation systems. Thats to me is more in the realm of fantasy then science fiction. Running a star faring galactic empire without real computers . I cannot imagine that one being possible.

The context in Dune always seemed to suggest a reaction against AI - not explicitly stated, but I took it as implied. Which in itself is very, very interesting because it goes beyond the limits most writers imagine.

I also think the way Frank Herbert deals with the mind in Dune is superb - all too often writers focus on material rather than mental development, which ignores the evolutionary process inherently at work within us.

 

[Cathbad]

I will be upset by a court procedure novel if those procedures are blatantly wrong/illogical.

The most popular courtroom drama, Perry Mason, violated court rules constantly. People loved it because they were to be entertained.

I will be upset by a crime thriller iF the detective uses method that patently will not work are illogical or just wrong.

CSI, NCIS, etc etc... Crime Scene Technicians chasing bad guys?

The point is, most people watch/read fiction to be entertained. Frankly, much of the sci-fi discussion on Chrons puts me off sci-fi. I don't want to read any fiction I have to judge as to its professional accuracy.

 

[Venusian Broon]

i'd have thought that science fiction needs some science to get its teeth into, in order to be science fiction. Just as you'd expect historical fiction to have some history in it..

Personally, I don't feel that it's necessary. Making it a requirement that real Science has to go into Science fiction feels like propagating a Hugo Gernsback-esque pulp SF formula.

Science fiction is a pretty old genre now and has gone through many twists and turns over the years. I'm happy for it to mutate, evolve and explore. And I'm happy to embrace distant 'relatives' as SF!

I'd have to think what my personal definition of SF is (Perhaps my preference for using SF over science fiction tells you something ), but it doesn't include science as a primary requirement.

The example at the start was from 'space opera' - is that even science fiction in the first place?

Well, again my personal definition, is that Space Opera is a mixture of SF and Fantasy. So it's not a 'pureblood' SF...but I think of Space Opera as a major part of the SF family.

The thing is it's not 50/50 - some books are far more fantasy orientated, others more SF orientated - imagine a line with fantasy on one side and SF on the other. Star Wars is edging towards the fantasy side, Iain M. Banks Culture universe closer to the SF side and Alastair Reynold's work much closer to SF. (But even then, Hard SF is not the ultimate form of "100%" SF for me - it is only a set of assumptions that the author puts into their worldbuilding etc...)

To be a living, evolving genre I prefer if we were just inclusive and accepting rather than restrictive.

 

[Onyx]

I have to say that this conversation is a bit vexing, as people seem to actually be arguing themselves into believing that some of the most iconic SF books of all time aren't SF.

Fantasy is when the world operates under different rules than ours - and the author feels no need to explain why it has the fantastic elements it does. It's a "fantasy" - it has dragons because that is what you and author want it to have.

SF is where the author puts the events in our universe(s) and implies or explains how the 'fantastic' elements arose through ordinary means - like the progression of technology or expanded understanding of physics. The pleasure is reading something that could (or could have) become reality through our labors or travels. Much SF uses the the underlying explanation of fantastic elements as the plot motivation, rather than just elements themselves. Dune is SF because Herbert went out of his way to describe how we become the people in Dune.

Game of Thrones is fantasy because Martin doesn't need to explain how his magic world is connected to ours - it's a "fantasy" - the pleasure is derived from the fact that his world doesn't need to obey our boring rules. Fantasy is absolutely unapologetic about its fantastic elements - it just needs to define them, not suggest how they fit with our Einsteinian universe.



Tolkien could have written the Hobbit as SF. But he would have felt a need to imply an explanation as to why our natural history includes a flat earth or the taxonomy of a troll and what physical process changes them to stone. Not that SF should have an obsessive need to explain everything, but it at least implies that there could be an explanation that isn't simply that the author dreamed it up and therefore it exists.

I think everyone here can tell the difference between SF and fantasy - we only start doubting where the line is when we find that rules we conceive to define them aren't very good rules.

 

[awesomesauce]

Hence why I've always been looking out books that look not to today, but to tomorrow, for their inspiration.

But even tomorrow can only be extrapolated and predicted from the best available knowledge we have today. And we all have our blind spots when it comes to society and culture and technology.

It's not just science fiction that ends up dated and obsolete through no fault of its own. You couldn't do Die Hard 3 today; finding that many payphones just isn't plausible.

 

[Brian G Turner]

extrapolated

Visionaries don't extrapolate from today - that's what I mean.

 

[James Bridie]

Personally, I don't feel that it's necessary. Making it a requirement that real Science has to go into Science fiction feels like propagating a Hugo Gernsback-esque pulp SF formula. .... To be a living, evolving genre I prefer if we were just inclusive and accepting rather than restrictive.

Personally I am not precious about categories or strict 'requirements'. I only asked if space opera was science fiction to allow it to be excused from having to meet science fiction criteria.

My point was simply a logical/linguistic one. If there is no science in it, why call it science fiction not just fiction? (If there is no fiction in it, can it be SF?).

In that case, to stay relaxed, we just need to be fluid about the definition of 'science'. It needn't involve scientific method. I daresay a monster unknown to science could be science fiction. I suppose because it is fictional and its existence would be of interest to science.

 

[Onyx]

My point was simply a logical/linguistic one. If there is no science in it, why call it science fiction not just fiction? (If there is no fiction in it, can it be SF?).

"Science fiction" is an anachronistic term, left over from a time when "science" was a word with different connotations than used today. The genre could easily enough be called "future fiction" or "extrapolation fiction", and neither name would really capture the breadth properly.

Keep in mind that plenty of medical fiction, adventures, thrillers, military fiction and mysteries are "science fiction" - we just don't call them that because we prefer to acknowledge other more pressing genre elements than how they handle questions of technological speculation. Something like Rainbow Six by Tom Clancy is full of fictional technology which his military thriller readers are happy with, even if they wouldn't choose to read standard SF.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I think a scientific attitude may be as important and and nearly as useful as real science.

In the book Komarr Lois Bijold has a plot dependent on Wormhole Physics. As far as we know right now this physics is pure fantasy. But she treats it in a scientific manner within the context of her Vorkosiverse. Bhe Bad Guys make a mistake with their understanding of the physics and a female 5-way physicist figures out the problem. But physicists, engineers and mathematicians are are involved characters in the plot.

It can have readers thinking along scientific lines but most reviews ignore this aspect of the story.

So science is as unimportant to SF literature as the readers allow it to be.

 

[BAYLOR]

Independence Day 1996. The character David Leveinson uses a computer virus to take down the shields around the attacking alien mothership . Not possible given the fact you have two vastly different technologies and computer operating systems.