When does science give way to fiction?

wprr1

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
5
Location
Looks like this is a Brit site. Neat. Family roo
Greetings from Big Bear, CA.

Having spent four decades in and around newsrooms, I find it hard to create SF environments that aren't grounded in science, especially since much of my time was spent in the shadow of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, CA, and many of my friends actually HAVE sent craft to other worlds and remind me of the constraints of science re lift/thrust, speed/time, funds and fact.

Any easy way to cast off the cuffs of reality or just put the old head down and charge forth, figuring it's my world and I can do what I want in it.

Just curious. And since I'm new here, I'm sure you've all figured this out eons ago.

Thanks.

Rocky
 
Any easy way to cast off the cuffs of reality

As you say, head down and charge like a bull at it. Obviously, your fictional/fantastic science facts have to act as a vehicle for your story or else they're just going to be extraneous bits of fluff that don't really help you from a storytelling perspective, but from your description of the problem it seems that suspension of disbelief (both in science and your own writing) is proving to be a stumbling block.

I've always had a problem with writing Fantasy, myself. I stumble horribly over the concept of magic again and again, mainly because I find myself wanting to use it in only minor ways, but end up having to build an entire set of rules so that I can be consistent about how it works in the universe I'm building.

A way to get started would be to take some plausible-sounding terminology, and just invent a meaning for it that is simple, has potentially far-reaching consequences, and is utterly, utterly constructed from your imagination. I wrote a short story for a competition (didn't win, naturally :D) that used self-resisting inductance - whereby the Earth's magnetic field was causing electrical circuits above a certain size to overheat and burn out, and the general societal meltdown in the Western world that resulted. Ultimately it was a bit too big to try and get across what I wanted to in the word limit and I ended up with more than sufficient rope to thoroughly hang myself.

About a week later, my brother showed me the novel Fade Out, which was pretty much the same thing, except caused by spacecraft landing on specific sites around the globe interacting with the Earth's magnetic field (and it gets all Chariots of the Gods at the end).

As an alternative, you could try some alternate history, where a plausible scientific event occurs at some point in the past and the consequences of that. What if the Manhattan Project had accidentally blown themselves up during the testing cycle of the atomic bomb?

Good luck with it! It's not an insurmountable problem you've got. Once you've invented an orbital laser platform to nuke the site from orbit with,* it won't seem so colossal after all.



*it's the only way to be sure.
 
Nothing wrong with telling a fictional story that is grounded in science fact, but sooner or later your story will probably need to 'break out' of the narrow bindings of known reality and at that point it still needs to sound plausible.

Unless your name is Edwin Abbot or Sir Patrick Moore with a natural ability to turn science itself into a story then I would tend to leave the 'How it Works' science out in all but the most general sense. Though that might be interesting to see- A coherent story that explains String Theory?
 
If all your friends are going to complain if you get the science wrong, then get it wrong on purpose. Write a parody of science giving your world all the things your friends wished they had. For example, palm-sized devices that could power a city or anti-gravity Segways to fly about. They'll know the science is wrong but they won't be able to resist liking it.
 
Oooh! I like what all have said so far. Good job, Goldhawk. There was something that MGItsRaining hinted at that is actually quite crucial. The science in the story must lend itself to the story. In other words, only describe as much science as needed to move the story along. Readers don't like reading for ten pages only to find out that it had nothing to do with the plot. There are accomplished writers who sometimes get away with this, but as you will find if you hang around the "Chrons", every rule they've ever made about writing has been broken successfully, but only if there was a good reason to do so. There are guidelines for writing, and in some of them there is a lot of value. If you go back several pages in this category (Aspiring Writers) you'll find discussions about "Show, don't tell." I'd recommend reading up on that topic, and form your own opinion. Also, the term "world building" gets used a lot here. Look at the title above called "On Creating Imaginary Worlds: Fantasy" (or click the link), and there you will find some interesting, although sometimes rambling (I admit it) discussions. All the best,

- Z.
 
It is quite possible to write an interesting story without ever deviating from known science. The problem with that is often new science leaves your story behind.

A grounding in science only helps a science fiction story. It is much more interesting to read a story that accepts science as a reality than as a problem. That does not mean your character has to understand how the science advance works. And even if your protagonist is a scientist and something comes up that is integral to the story where he has to explain something, chances are he will not be explaining it to another scientist.

Take a look at the common explanations of gravity that are floating around. The elastic sheet analogy only works on the most basic level because the only way to truly explain how gravity works is through the mathematical algorithms used in relativity. Yet no one balks at using that elastic sheet because layman can relate to it. Even your friends can understand that.

I have read stories where the math behind something was explained, and even though I was able to follow those explanations, they generally distract from the story more than enhance it. Remember that even if your readers can follow the scientific explanations what they want is a good story. In other words, as long as you don't invent perpetual motion to run your machines you won;t here much from your readers.
 
I read a short story competition winner somewhere and it was about BASE jumping on a terraforming world without a parachute.

It explained how the building atmosphere was thicker in valleys and canyons, about the need for a specific size planet to be able to hold its atmosphere and etc. Lots of science stuff.

But the story itself was about how the person felt, being able to do this once in a lifetime jump.

So the science was there to explain how and to be a background for what this person felt.

Stories, in general, are about people.
 
Flynx is aboout right, in my view.

You need to decide if you are writing a story about believable characters in dramatic situations, or an instruction manual/academic textbook about how things work. You'll find that most readers prefer the former!

In any event, unless you have a Huge Scientific Brain, there's always going to be someone who says with a knowing snigger - "Oh but that couldn't possibly happen", before launching into a byzantine explanation which usually includes an awful lot of long, compound words ending in "-ion" and nebulous phrases like "Duckhelm's Third Frottage Paradigm".

You're also going to find people who go one step further and actively derive joy from buying books and watching television programmes in order to spot technical and scientific errors in other people's work. That's fine, as far as it goes, not least because it doesn't seem to stop them buying the books/watching the programmes!

For my part, I have a great interest in Dark Ages and early medieval history. I could, if I wanted, pick holes in virtually every book set in a cod-medieval world, but I don't see the point. I'm reading fiction, not an account of an archaeological dig, and provided the plot and story are good, I couldn't give a tinker's cuss about historical realism. OK - I don't want to see Vikings doing something as unutterably crass and obviously wrong as wearing digital watches, but provided a piece has the right sort of feel, I can forgive pretty much everything else.

Regards

Peter
 
Last edited:
Well, it’s all really a matter of balance when it comes to the science stuff. Scientists themselves are some of the worst people to ask here because they’re always going to look at things from the “Okay, exactly how do I build one?” point of view. At the same time, lots of SF readers (TV/Movie SciFi is an ENTIRELY different set) are themselves followers of astronomy and the space sciences and will notice (and resent) very sloppy science.

A few pieces of advice:
1) Have at least a basic understanding of the rules you’re breaking and know why. It is one thing to invent a technology that is beyond current understanding, quite another to propose one that obviously can’t work.
2) Be aware of unintended consequences of your technology. For every machine that’s designed to solve a single problem, dozens of other uses are quickly found for it. Think these things through.
3) Respect basic physics. FTL is pure handwavium (as they say) but usually given a pass. Understand that the more fundamental the law you break, the more unintended consequences you incur. For example: “Damn the second law of thermodynamics! I want my stealth space ship!” So, you invent a way around this irksome rule. Trouble is, you have also invented (by inference) a perpetual motion machine. Free, unlimited energy for all on demand! “Now I can make a 1,000 megaton bomb in my backyard shed and teach that pesky tax man a thing or two!”
 

1) Have at least a basic understanding of the rules you’re breaking and know why. It is one thing to invent a technology that is beyond current understanding, quite another to propose one that obviously can’t work.
On the other hand Clarke's 3rd law of prediction states:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
 
One question to ask is whether the physics or technology is key to the story or merely in the background. In the latter case, there is little need to describe it except, perhaps, to give the reader some "shiny things" to think about and to hint that we're not in Kansas. (I can't, off-hand, think of a description in a non-SFF story of a car chase where the basic physics of a petrol or diesel engine is mentioned at all, let alone in any detail.)

Beyond that, DocFlamingo's advice is sound (even though you won't be able to hear it in open space without a radio/whatever ;):)).




EDIT: Of course, we ought to add that the unforseen consequences (unseen by all but the author) of a new scientific/technological breakthrough is the stuff of many a good SF story.
 
Of course, we ought to add that the unforseen consequences (unseen by all but the author) of a new scientific/technological breakthrough is the stuff of many a good SF story.

When the US went to the moon, it did so in a disposable rocket. Out of the entire multi-million-dollar Saturn V rocket, only a small capsule, about the size of a mini-van, was returned to Earth...and it could not be re-used. When the early SF writers were asked why none of their stories had disposable rockets, their reply was, "We were not that imaginative."

You can ignore science and defy logic but you write about spending big globs of money just to gain bragging rights. No editor would buy such a story. ;)
 
Some writers don't pay attention to science at all. If you watch "Star Wars", for example, you'll probably realise that George Lucas knows nothing about physics or perhaps has his own "George Lucas's Guide to Physics" :D

Many SF writers "invent" their own technology that could allow breaking the rules/laws of physics - antimatter propulsion drives, antigravity engines - and as long as you can make it sound believable you should be ok.

If you find it difficult to let science go, then why force yourself to do it? Some writers do better with "hard" SF. I'd recommend reading Ben Bova or Alastair Reynolds who is a physicist and tends to write "hard" science fiction.
 
Some writers don't pay attention to science at all. If you watch "Star Wars", for example, you'll probably realise that George Lucas knows nothing about physics or perhaps has his own "George Lucas's Guide to Physics"

And hurrah for that! Judging by the success of the Star Wars franchise, it's hard to criticise Lucas for not spending valuable screen minutes explaining the workings of the Hyperspace drive of the Millenium Falcon or explaining quite how a heavily armoured imperial battle walker can be crushed like a tin can by two judiciously swung bits of wood.

That said, I suppose one could argue that Star Wars isn't really sci-fi anyway. Take away the veneer of space and you're looking at a story with the poor farm boy, the beautiful princess (admittedly with croissants for hair), the Merlin-style elder, whizzy swords and even a dark lord. It's a classic fairy story, which is why I suspect it was so successful.

Which, ultimately, is the point. Global success requires a good story. A good story requires strong, believable characters (or at least instantly recognisable ones). Banging on about how teleporters really work might help the backdrop knit together seamlessly, but most readers (including me) would just skip those bits anyway. Suspension of disbelief comes from believing in the characters and the problems they face first and foremost. The world they inhabit is very much second place.

Regards,

Peter
 
Banging on about how teleporters really work might help the backdrop knit together seamlessly, but most readers (including me) would just skip those bits anyway. Suspension of disbelief comes from believing in the characters and the problems they face first and foremost. The world they inhabit is very much second place.

Regards,

Peter

Different strokes... as they say. Have you read Larry Niven's short story "Flashcrowd"? That's my kind of sci-fi
 
I'd recommend reading ... Alastair Reynolds who is a physicist and tends to write "hard" science fiction.

While it's true that most of Reynolds's books are hard when it comes to physics (and all the better for it - although there is some speculative physics in them), there's no shortage of speculative science in other fields. (And it also helps that Reynolds is a good writer with, for the most part, interesting characters and plots; and where he does divert from known science, it's generally believable even if it may not be feasible.)


Oh, and, to make it clear: I'd also recommend Reynolds.
 

Back
Top