Science-Fiction Stories: What Dimensions?

[lpetrich]

Inspired by Grading Science Fiction for Realism, which goes into a *lot* of detail.

The highest realism in that scale is characters using present-day technology. Including more and more extrapolation and more and more implausible technology makes SF less and less realistic, until one gets to outright fantasy -- superheroes and the like. Visual-media SF often scores low in this, sad to say, though with exceptions like 2001: A Space Odyssey.

That's often called hard-to-soft, but there's another hard-to-soft scale often used: nuts-and-bolts SF to sociological SF.

Another dimension is optimism to pessimism. Star Trek is optimistic - humanity can work together and use technology and explore and successfully deal with challenges. 1984 is pessimistic - humanity divided among three super-Stalinist evil empires that perpetually fight each other.

-

Quality of worldbuilding is another dimension that one must consider. One almost regrets to mention it, because it implies that many SF writers have been falling down on the job. But that seems all too common, sad to say. Some sorts of quality deficiencies:

Inadequate extrapolation. Isaac Asimov once wrote a wonderfully satirical passage about a 1880 SF writer imagining a car as a mechanical horse. But that seems all too true of a lot of visual-media SF about spaceships. Too often, they seem to behave like familiar water and air vehicles. Gene Roddenberry himself had conceded some of this, but he stated that it was not to unnerve Earthbound audiences. A soundless explosion would make many watchers ask what happened to their TV's sound.

Technobabble. IA also wrote a technobabble-filled satire of SF about cars. But sad to say, some Star Trek episodes have been legendary for "treknobabble".

Poor continuity. It may be hard to avoid this for long-running serial works, but some authors don't seem to try very hard. If something needs a lot of retconning to be made continuous, then it loses badly there. Retcon = "retroactive continuity".

Worldbuilding incoherence has a further problem: it can make possible dei ex machina relative to what was established elsewhere in the work. If you've established at one point that your character cannot survive a big dose of ionizing radiation, then it's cheating to have your character survive a big dose without a hint as to why your character became much less vulnerable.

 

[azzthom]

Realism is just one way of judging the relative merits of SF. The problem is that if a particular piece scores highly in terms of realism, is that piece still SF? Some extrapolation and 'artistic license' is, in my opinion, necessary for the genre. A piece based entirely, or even very closely, on currently existing science or technology ceases to be SF and moves into another genre. This will of course depend on the way we define SF.

I agree with most of the examples you cited. Especially 'Technobabble' . And especially especially 'Treknobabble'. However, I would have to argue that many of the other yardsticks we might use to compare SF are a matter of personal taste. That doesn't mean they can't be compared, it just means that we're talking about preference rather than any objective measure.

I will close by offering up one of my favourite SF films. It's a fine example of SF that is grounded in reality (but not too much) and might serve to illustrate some of your categories being done well. The film is 'Silent Running' and the link is to a playlist with the film broken into chunks (the only complete version I could find on Youtube was dubbed into Russian).

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7869E7CE6A8D86D4

 

[lpetrich]

Realism is just one way of judging the relative merits of SF. The problem is that if a particular piece scores highly in terms of realism, is that piece still SF? Some extrapolation and 'artistic license' is, in my opinion, necessary for the genre.

That's certainly correct, otherwise it would not be much different from mundane literature.

There are various levels of departure from present-day tech, from plausible extrapolations to requiring new physics to outright fantasy. But it's still possible to have low realism and still have good worldbuilding, and my OP's link seemed to mix up levels of realism and some sorts of worldbuilding incoherence.

 

[rjh01]

I would like to think that true science fiction explores what happens if we develop a certain technology or make certain discoveries. About the only certainty is that it will be wrong.

 

[Ryokan]

A soundless explosion would make many watchers ask what happened to their TV's sound.

So we've heard.

But did anyone really wonder if their tv was broken during Firefly's soundless explosions in space?

 

[aggle-rithm]

I always remember a discussion we had in AP English in high school. We were reading "Lord of the Flies" and the teacher brought up the question of how realistic it was to have a plane crash on an island, disgorge the children unharmed, and disappear in the ocean with the adults trapped inside.

She let us talk about it for a while, then said: "It doesn't matter. It's just a plot device to get the characters in place to tell the story."

 

[lpetrich]

I would like to think that true science fiction explores what happens if we develop a certain technology or make certain discoveries. About the only certainty is that it will be wrong.

Yes, Isaac Asimov in "Future? Tense!" in From Earth to Heaven noted

Do you see, then, that the important prediction is not the automobile, but the parking problem; not radio, but the soap-opera; not the income tax but the expense account; not the Bomb but the nuclear stalemate? Not the action, in short, but the reaction?

Thus, if automatic-driving cars became feasible, what would happen to manual driving? IA once wrote a story in which it was outlawed as needlessly dangerous ("Sally" in Nightfall and Other Stories).

 

[Ryokan]

Thus, if automatic-driving cars became feasible, what would happen to manual driving? IA once wrote a story in which it was outlawed as needlessly dangerous ("Sally" in Nightfall and Other Stories).

I made this prediction at a family dinner yesterday.

It's not such a far fetched prediction, though. I wouldn't be surprised if this happened in my life time.

 

[Spockette]

Seeing the word "stories" in the OP, I expected this discussion to be about real science fiction, i.e., literature. Books. Robinson's Mars trilogy. Bujold's Vorkosigan saga (now there's a fine series for discussion as to realism). Heck, even the Hitchhiker trilogy, which, you know, looks pretty good in retrospect. I mean, we already pretty much have the Guide.

If you must talk TV, what about Earth 2? I often think about those characters walking around consulting their virtual reality headsets. It did occur to me the other day to wonder where their internet was based, but I guess on their mother ship?

As for Firefly vs. Star Trek, you're comparing the great-grandchild with the parent. Star Trek was making the leap from "It Came from Outer Space" to something relatively plausible. I was pretty snobbish about its logical holes at the time, but the fact is it taught the naive audience of its time how to understand real science fiction.

 

[paiute]

If you're wondering how he eats and breathes
And other science facts,
Just repeat to yourself "It's just a show,
I should really just relax

 

[Bikewer]

Much of what's being said applies primarily to Scifi on film and TV... Where expectations are generally low. The thought normally expressed is that too much realism would drive viewers away.
In print, we of course have the designations of "hard" and "soft" scifi, and the complaint that "hard" often ignores character and story or handles same badly.
Some authors try harder than others....I've always liked Greg Bear, who extrapolates often from known cutting-edge stuff to arrive at very advanced technology, yet tells a good story at the same time.
Gregory Benford is generally acknowledged the same way.

However, I admit I have a fondness for a number of authors who simply hand-wave their characters into the plot situation. Jack Vance is a master of this... The "space splitter" requires minimal effort to get from one world to the next, but once you arrive, the wonderfully-drawn worlds more than make up for the lack of technology.

 

[Mudcat]

I don't think many people would regard Doctor Who as anything close to realistic, yet it is the longest running and arguably the most popular and beloved science fiction series ever.

Realism is over rated.

 

[lpetrich]

I think that the popularity of fantasy is good evidence of that.

But what may count more than realism is quality of worldbuilding. It's easier to do worldbuilding with higher realism, because one's using a mostly-existing world. With lower realism, one has to do more worldbuilding, and it's easier to make mistakes.

So some people may confuse poor worldbuilding with low realism in general.

 

[Dinwar]

Sci-fi stories are stories. If a strict adherence to scientific principles gets in the way, the author is obliged to toss them out. The story is the thing; you're not reading a scientific textbook.

Also, a story can NEVER be realisitic in the strictest sense. EVERY story leaves out vast amounts of information. Imagine a sci-fi storie that was entirely realistic--including every bowl movement and inconsequential feature of every room. Humans don't make realistic observations, so strict realisim in literature would be almost incomprehensible.

A better expectation is to demand that they get one major change, and they have to handle it well. For example, Star Wars fails because they have the Force and warp drive. Star Trek fails for similar reasons ("mind-meld"=magic). Firefly does okay, though I seriously doubt any society that includes large numbers of interplanetary space ships would include ox carts as a major form of transportation. Bonus points if the technology is actually feasible, or is an extrapolation from modern science.

As for the explosions in space thing, I've never had a problem with it. A LOT of debris is going to hit your craft, driven by a shockwave. If you're inside the craft, you'll hear an explosion (actually, an impact). Since 99% of the time the action is taking place inside a ship, the audience has every right to expect to hear the explosion.

Heck, even the Hitchhiker trilogy, which, you know, looks pretty good in retrospect. I mean, we already pretty much have the Guide.

I've always wanted to build two wireless-internet devices: one that's visual and only links to Wikipeadia (with, yes, yellow letters saying "Don't Panic" on the front!), and one that's audio and only links to Pandora.

 

[Mudcat]

I think that the popularity of fantasy is good evidence of that.

But what may count more than realism is quality of worldbuilding. It's easier to do worldbuilding with higher realism, because one's using a mostly-existing world. With lower realism, one has to do more worldbuilding, and it's easier to make mistakes.

So some people may confuse poor worldbuilding with low realism in general.

Agreed, that is probably the reason why Harry Potter or Twilight are so popular despite the low quality of those works and the extremely transparent rip-offs from much better writers.

 

[Loss Leader]

Science Fiction is a literary device that allows the author to explore themes that would be otherwise difficult to convey. If the author's message is communicated clearly and convincingly, the device works.

Why anyone would grade sci-fi based on any other criteria is beyond me.

 

[rjh01]

Science Fiction is a literary device that allows the author to explore themes that would be otherwise difficult to convey. If the author's message is communicated clearly and convincingly, the device works.

Why anyone would grade sci-fi based on any other criteria is beyond me.

For example racism or the stupidity of the cold war in the 1960s. They did this in Star Trek.

Painters used to do similar things. They would paint nudes and erotic images and say this is what happens in another country.

 

[Dinwar]

Science Fiction is a literary device that allows the author to explore themes that would be otherwise difficult to convey. If the author's message is communicated clearly and convincingly, the device works.

Why anyone would grade sci-fi based on any other criteria is beyond me.

People like to pretend that they're better than us unwashed masses that enjoy a good story. That's the only explanation I can find for most "literature".

Like I said, a sci-fi story must necessarily be a story first. I'll go further: it should be a story first, fiction second, and science a long, long third. Vern was nearly unique in his ability to tie together (what was then) scientific advancements with storytelling, but those were secondary considerations that honestly got in the way of the story (how many here have actually read, say, "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea"? I have--the book goes on and on about things that just do not matter!). If the story fails as a story, no one will read it. If it fails as fiction, it's either unbelievable or it's true. The science is only there as a vehicle for discussing some other point the author has in mind.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Personally, I dislike it when an author tries to explain too much. If the characters are interesting, and having interesting adventures, do I really need a plausible explanation of how their machinery works?

Evil Spacelord Kronos leered at Princess Bosom of Boobulon VI. 'I have discovered your rebellious plot, my dear, because I have captured your dearest lover who also happens to be---but wait, let me explain how I tapped into your ship's communications and how that communication works in hyperspace and what hyperspace is and how your ship travels in it.'

'But I already know how all that stuff works,' replied Princess Bosom, heaving. 'I'm more interesting in the startling revelation you were about to make about my lover and our sexy sexlife together and the mysterious secret from his enigmatic past even he doesn't know about.'

'Too bad!' sneered Kronos, evilly. 'The author did hours of research on physics on Wikipedia, and is not about to waste that by skipping over how the space engines work. To begin with, particles travel in a wave and a line and gravity is like a rubber sheet...'

-The Space Rebellion of the Sex Planet in Space by J.R.R. Martin

 

[Dinwar]

Personally, I dislike it when an author tries to explain too much. If the characters are interesting, and having interesting adventures, do I really need a plausible explanation of how their machinery works?

That's one thing I loved about Star Wars--every character assumed you knew what they were talking about when they said stuff. Talking about how fast the Falcon would go beyond light speed was the equivalent of talking about a car goinig zero to sixty in ten secons: no one needed to explain units or why this was an important datum. No one explained what a Bothan was, because everyone knew.

Compare this to Star Trek, where it feels like every third conversation is about some technical aspect of the ship that either should be common knowledge, or is so technical that the captain shouldn't have to deal with it (how many captains of air craft carriers actually understand how electricity flows through wires?).

Tolkien actually discussed this in one of his essays: he said that it's necessary in fantasy to have someone to explain stuff to, because otherwise it makes no bloody sense to the audience. The hobbits in LOTR were needed not only for the plot, but to have someone to explain international politics to. It makes sense for Gandalf to explain the tension between Rohon and Gondor to Pippin; without Pippin, we have the author simply saying "Yeah, these two don't like each other", which is a pretty pathetic literary tactic. Similarly, in sci-fi you either need to have technology similar enough to our own to need no explanation (which is why all capital ships resemble, in some idealized form, modern naval ships in sci-fi, for example), or you have to have someone who doesn't understand the tech so someone else can explain it to them (say, a back-woods country boy thrust into inter-planetary politics during a botched recue mission). Or have the aliens come to a modern Earth, "Earth: Final Conflict" style.