Does Science Fiction Need Science?

[MarshAngel]

A good example of a bad scifi flick and you can take your pick from SciFi, but there are plenty of crappy science fiction stories where they totally ramble on about some tech that makes no sense.
One that sticks out in my head is an old B+W flick I saw at a movie marathon called The Giant Claw. About some giant bird almost Rodan-like that looked more like Gonzo and they tried to take it down with anti-matter bullets. And they had to generate some bio-electric field to make the bird vulnerable and it was powered by a wall socket.

See now, that's just funny.

[skritsys]

At some of the movie marathons that are out there they show some pretty funny stuff from the 60's and 70's.

[plot mechanic]

In the history of science fiction the science has been so rarely plausible, almost never accurate, and almost always requiring a leap of faith and imagination....The science fiction writer, more so in the past than now, seems to have been borne of a modern technological era where all the mysteries of life once strictly the realm of the supernatural were being rethought and redefined by science...To some writers their goal isn't to get people to believe the science but to blend it well enough, to make the story good enough so that you accept the scifi elements as scenery.

Pardon the radical snipping, but I think these encapsulate the most interesting points you make.

It certainly is true that the "science" is speculative. Thus, it is not strictly speaking "accurate." Almost never, at best.

But I think that the simple truth is that even speculation can be roughly assessed as "likely"; "unlikely but possible"; "maybe possible" allowing for the notorious fact that that the most amazing discoveries have already been made in defiance of the predictions of previous scientists; "possible but practically implausible" (incidentally, starships/time machines fit this category,) and "absurd."

My belief is that absurd speculations are obstacles to good storytelling. Wells' Invisible Man is a good example of some issues raised here, I think. Try as he could, Wells simply could not figure out how his protagonist could see if light passed through his eyes! So he slithered past the point. I can't read the story with wholehearted engagement anymore since I realized this. But I can still appreciate the point of the story in a more detached way: Fantasies of magic powers are childish. Wells careful analysis of invisibility in every other respect was not some incompetent writing dwelling on minutiae, however. It was absolutely integral to making the point!

Second, I agree that modern writers are much less apt to feel that technological/scientific verisimilitude carries more conviction to the reader. I believe this is because there is a current rise in superstition and other types of magical thinking. I also believe this to be an entirely backward trend. Militantly ignorant types like Joss Whedon and Ron D. Moore may find pandering to this phenonomenon both popular and profitable. I think it bad art and personally dishonorable.

Third, I must restate one of my points: Many sf writers (especially in movies and television) are not successfully blending the sf props and scenery. Their lapses actively interfere with enjoyment of the story. Could you enjoy a Civil War story that had Chester Arthur as the Union President? I tried to watch an episode of Battlestar Galactica, in which a character solemnly informed us that "CAG" meant "Commander, Air Group." What air? They're supposed to be in space!

Worse, the stories are not very good, which apparently is the whole point of importing otherwise irrelevant sf materials into the story at all. Reverting back to that episode mentioned before, most of it was about soldiers being put in harm's way for the benefit of the civilian population, showing the pressures they were under, pressures that the civilians did not understand.

Except of course, the said civilians are right there on the battlefield! In its own fictional terms, the story was garbage. The story is to be read as a contemporary story in disguise, hence valid? A contemporary story in which our religious fanatic enemies are genuinely inhuman despite appearance with genuinely supernatural powers that threaten our very existence is not a valid story: It's just some lame ass propaganda. Without the sf trappings this would be painfully obvious. My point is that realistic attemtion to the science, even speculative science is incompatible with such falsehoods.

pm

[MarshAngel]

My belief is that absurd speculations are obstacles to good storytelling....Many sf writers (especially in movies and television) are not successfully blending the sf props and scenery. Their lapses actively interfere with enjoyment of the story

Imagination isn't absurd unless it's pointless such as a TV that walks. There should be no limits on what can be imagined and even the absurd can be complemented by good writing.

I understand completely that bad science can ruin what may otherwise be a palatable story but only in so much as the viewer is able to see that and understand the science in the first place. Given the fact that the science is more often than not bad or at least incorrect, it wouldn't be unfair to say most viewers either do not care as long as the story remains watchable and they accept that the writer is either unable or unwilling to make the scientific
details as accurate as they can be to those equipped to analyze it.

Granted there are stories like Mansquito, Frankenfish that fall into the category of the absurd but the truth is they weren't good stories anyway.

Fantasies of magic powers are childish

So the entire Lord of the Rings series is childish? if I'm taking you out of context please correct me but it seems that statement is far reaching and a matter of personal taste.


The truth is that for many of us watching, if a story is good, unless the errors are glaring ( which depends on your level of scientific knowledge) the story takes precedence. most people never even notice the continuity errors in non sci-fi shows. Only a select group of people watch science fiction and analyze in detail the possibilities, find the flaws and forsee the future. Some people actually watch for those thinly veiled metaphors of current society.

One view is no less valued than the other. Just because you don't understand the science and therefore can't give it as much value as others do doesn't mean that part of the show is expendable, just secondary. It is the effect of the science rather than the science itself that matters to many.

Ideally, all writers would try to make their scientific imaginings plausible; the truth is however, few writers are that good or as equally educated in science as they are in story telling. By nature of story telling they are working backwards to explain a concept they've already imagined in a specific way which inherently makes for bad science. If you first start with an invisible man no one can see but who can see you just fine, you jump over the physics that would decide whether such a thing is possible in the first place. The true physics might say, it's possible to be invisible but not without a machine attached to your back and goggles. But is the author going to go back and change a story that depends on the situation being that he does see without the goods? It would change the story and the message. And regardless of the scientific material many stories are about the message.

Militantly ignorant types like Joss Whedon and Ron D. Moore may find pandering to this phenonomenon both popular and profitable. I think it bad art and personally dishonorable.

Why do assume that these writers must be ignorant because the express themselves in a way that does not meet your standards of scientific accuracy? Art is purely subjective and if science fiction is art, it is also subjective. Writers do no dishonor in fiction as long as they live up to their personal standards and I find it a bit judgmental and high handed to assume
that because you don't enjoy their work then that means their work must be of low quality.

We decide what we like and what we don't. We may decide en masse that something is crap but there is always at least one person who enjoys it. it doesn't mean the writers are stupid it means that the aren't attuned to your desires and tastes.

[@Li3n]

I tried to watch an episode of Battlestar Galactica, in which a character solemnly informed us that "CAG" meant "Commander, Air Group." What air? They're supposed to be in space!

OK, that's beyond nitpicking. Why even watch TV if a military title, which is most likely used because of tradition, bothers you just because it's not 100% accurate based on physics?

[plot mechanic]

...it wouldn't be unfair to say most viewers either do not care as long as the story remains watchable and they accept that the writer is either unable or unwilling to make the scientific details as accurate as they can be to those equipped to analyze it...

And many viewers/readers do not care about incompetent characterization or implausible plotting so long as the story remains watchable, which seems to mean that the hero wins for a happy ending. I too have more or less deliberately overlooked bad writing for things to my taste. Star Wars is a fable very much to my taste. Doesn't make the dialogue well written.

So the entire Lord of the Rings series is childish? if I'm taking you out of context please correct me but it seems that statement is far reaching and a matter of personal taste.

Yes, the whole point of Invisible Man is to show how childish Kemp's fantasies are. And our own. However, Tolkien didn't think very highly of fantasies of magic power either. If saying fantasies of magic powers are childish is somehow mean, I'm in good company. They're dead, and past arguing the point, but I remain unrepentant.

Some people actually watch for those thinly veiled metaphors of current society.

As do I. Given the generally deplorable level of television and movie sf, there's not much choice but to simply decide that, usually, even badly written sf is more to my taste than non-sf, which also is usually mediocre. The point I begin to despair of making is that bad science still makes for bad drama, because it makes for silly metaphors!

For one example, the scientifically absurd Cylon power to masquerade as human while retaining strange powers is just a thinly disguised paranoia about subversives. How is hysteria good writing?

Or for another example, a herbal remedy for cancer that induces genuine prophetic visions while simultaneously causing withdrawal psychosis is about as silly as you can get. That storyline cannot possibly tell us anything honest or true about the question of leaders who have religious visions. So, how is that good writing?

Why do assume that these writers must be ignorant because the express themselves in a way that does not meet your standards of scientific accuracy? Art is purely subjective and if science fiction is art, it is also subjective. Writers do no dishonor in fiction as long as they live up to their personal standards and I find it a bit judgmental and high handed to assume that because you don't enjoy their work then that means their work must be of low quality.

Ron D. Moore: "The audience doesn’t sit there and go, ‘God damn, they know science. That is really cool. Look how they figured that out."

Joss Whedon: "If you start asking me science questions, I'm going to cry."

As you see, I haven't assumed anything about those two. They stand condemned from their own mouths. I don't know how scientific ignorance could be any more acceptable in readers/viewers than illiteracy. I don't know why anyone would defend writers who glory in their indifference to nature, or the uniquely human achievement in understanding it. Dismissing both nature and science strikes me as highhanded and judmental to the max, however.

We decide what we like and what we don't. We may decide en masse that something is crap but there is always at least one person who enjoys it. it doesn't mean the writers are stupid it means that the aren't attuned to your desires and tastes.

And this is true of other things than the science, such as spelling, grammar, good taste, morality, simple honesty. I would have no use for writers that sneered at those things either.

pm

[plot mechanic]

OK, that's beyond nitpicking. Why even watch TV if a military title, which is most likely used because of tradition, bothers you just because it's not 100% accurate based on physics?

This sort of thing still flabbergasts me. Are these pseudonyms for the writers, or relatives, or employees? (Yes, this is a joke.)

The absence of air in space is too simple and basic a fact to be a nitpick.

As for "tradition?" Some Colonial who planned a battlestar thought he'd go retro to prespaceflight days for the terminology? Yeah, sure.

The sad thing is that "CAG" could have been "Commander, Assault Group." The whole thing is just slovenly writing.

Incidentally, in a real aircraft carrier, the aircraft are desirable because they have a greater range and speed and firepower, attacking through a different medium (air) than the carrier itself. None of these apply to the battlestar. The whole concept of a carrier as presented in BSG is senseless.

pm

[Dahak]

A lot of people mistake space fighters for well fighters. But they aren't. Basicly they are PT boats. A little faster, more maneuverable, and a lot more expendable.
They do not have a 30 times speed advantage like air fighters do over sea ships. They are not attacking from an angle that the ships can not go.
Now whether space fighters are worthwhile is a good question. From what I have read in real science magazines probably not. A good missile could acomplish 95% of what a fighter can at a far lower cost. You don't have to worry about the meat pilot going there and coming back. No dangerous landing bays. You don't have all the maintenance crews required to fix damaged fighters.
But if there were no fighters that show would not be BSG. People like fighters and the "one man does amazing things".
As far as the CAG thing goes the military does a lot of weird things and the Navy is usually the worst. Does the Army officer rank system really make that much sense? Does it make sense to still call subs boats even though they are huge? The saying,"the right way, the wrong way, and the Army way" wasn't coined out of thin air.
As I said a while ago in this thread I don't care what science a show uses as long as they are consistent. Also the writer has to think through the implications of their technology. I don't like all SciFi but I don't blame the lack of technology on the show sucking. Bad characters and stupid plots are far worse than a BS FTL drive.

[skritsys]

It is easier today to label things as Scifi, Fantasy, Horror, Spec-Fi, etc.
In the past it was all considered all to be science fiction given that early on, science fiction was the generic label. To substantiate this argument one can pick up a copy of Stephen King's DANSE MACABRE. When Stephen King started his writing career, horror was a very small division of the scifi genre.
These days it is now in its own genre. The same can be argued about Fantasy now. Many are now making Fantasy into its own genre, however, most book store today have a scifi/fantasy section.
Most retailers/ booksellers who sell these forms of merchandise will tell you that in the retail business that if it incorporates any kind of science (real or not) with any kind of fiction, it automatically gets thrown in the scifi category.
As to what sells and what makes good science fiction? Sadly, what sells is often not good scifi. Or vice versa. Every now and then there is a decent balance between the two, only it rarely happens.

[Jarnin]

It is easier today to label things as Scifi, Fantasy, Horror, Spec-Fi, etc.
In the past it was all considered all to be science fiction given that early on, science fiction was the generic label.

No, the generic label has always been fiction, which means "what you're reading is completely made up". Later writers started adding themes to their fiction, which got you to Sci-Fi, Horror, Fantasy, and Alternate History.

Sci-Fi = Completely made up, but based on ideas that could proven true by science (Example: Black Holes could lead to other universes).

Horror = Completely made up, but it can probably be explained by science or magic.

Fantasy = Completely made up, based on ideas that can not be proven true. (Example: Wizards can shoot fire from their hands, but it's impossible in real life).

Alternate History = Completely made up, but based on known events in the past turning out differently.

To substantiate this argument one can pick up a copy of Stephen King's DANSE MACABRE. When Stephen King started his writing career, horror was a very small division of the scifi genre.

I think you need to spend some more time in literature class. Horror is as old as human storytellers. Ever heard of the boogeyman? How about Grendal? Or maybe you're familiar with demons? All of those are examples of antagonists in horror.
Stephen King didn't invent horror, he just added his own twist to the genre to create a series of popular stories.

The same can be argued about Fantasy now. Many are now making Fantasy into its own genre, however, most book store today have a scifi/fantasy section.

Again, these genres are not new. Fantasy has been around since humans have been telling stories, it was just called fiction then. In fact, if you consider the terms fiction (false) and non-fiction (true) which would you consider to have been created first?

Most retailers/ booksellers who sell these forms of merchandise will tell you that in the retail business that if it incorporates any kind of science (real or not) with any kind of fiction, it automatically gets thrown in the scifi category.

Which makes sense, because science fiction always includes science on at least a rudemendary level.

As to what sells and what makes good science fiction? Sadly, what sells is often not good scifi. Or vice versa. Every now and then there is a decent balance between the two, only it rarely happens.

Good and bad are subjective. If you can't understand the concepts of some science, more than likely you'll not be enjoying the story. Hard science fiction is called that because it deals with fringe scientific concepts that most people cannot understand.

That's why soft sci-fi is the majority of what people have experienced; it's concepts aren't difficult to grasp, they explain everything so the most moronic person can understand what's going on. That's why it's such a big seller; Most people on the planet are not especially bright, nor are they very knowledgable about science, but they like engaging stories about heroes defeating villians and saving the day.

Someone who understands science can easily make the distinction between sci-fi and fantasy. Someone who doesn't understand science cannot.

As Arthur C. Clark once said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

[skritsys]

There are some definite points that you bring up that I will not argue with, however, for the standpoint of the average person, Joe Schmo so to speak, these are the people that buy the stuff.
Technically and literally you are correct with your definitions, however, having worked in a bookstore myself, unless you have a super mega store where you can isolate each individual format into each available section as it should be, the average bookseller is allowed to lump scifi, fantasy, and horror into the same section.
I am only presenting my argument from the standpoint of not the classroom itself, (which does present the various art forms of literature into the correct context as they should be) but from the perspective of the people out there who buy it and read it.
The ones who make the sales go up are the masses. Statistically speaking, when a person goes into a book store and this has been the issue as presented by Stephen King, horror has often been combined and associated with science fiction early on, leaving the masses to automatically assume that it is all scifi.
Definitions aside for a moment, the internet is now more widely available and so are computers to anybody who can afford one. Information is now easily accessible and more and more people are able to educate and understand more. Though we have come very far into the age where we can break down each form of literature into its correct category and genre, we are still a long way off.
Horror is just an example of how the genre has been confused and lumped in with another. Fantasy, spec-fi and such are just beginning to emerge.
Unless someone is going to start up a secret well funded agency that is going to inspect every bookstore in the world to make sure each genre is correctly categorized, labelled, presented, and sold correctly to the specific genre so that when Dick and Jane off the street come in to buy a book they know exactly what section to look under, then they will automatically go the scifi/fantasy/horror section to find whatever book.
Stephen King may not have started the horror genre, but he became one of the most widely recognized writers today that has helped the horror genre become recognized for what it is. Not science fiction per se.

[MarshAngel]

Just for the sake of throwing another perspective into the mix:

http://scifibrain.ign.com/index.php?...k=view&id=1364
Oddly enough, there are two definitions that can be found in the dictionary. The first is listed as “literary fantasy involving the imagined impact of science on society,” which I believe is what the classic definition is based upon. The second becomes a tad bit broader in generalization, defined as “literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.” With the latter definition, one can pretty much start throwing hundreds of movies into the sci-fi category, but is that truly what the science fiction genre is meant to be?

The article makes a few more interesting points. The writer doesn't/didn't consider Star Wars, Alien, or Pedator science fiction simply because they included aliens and other planets. She seems to believe that unless actual science is discussed or enacted in the form of surgery using advanced technologies, discussions of theoretical events like blackholes or warp engines, yadda yadda then the 'science' part of Science Fiction isn't complete.

I suspect the writers of some of these less science heavy shows (Smallville, Roswell, Firefly etc.) take certain things to be understood because of the proliferation of the concepts on which they've based their writing. Most people who watch these shows will have seen Star Trek or Star Gate and/or other similar series which spend more time discussing the science of what's going one so to do the same may be considered rehashing ideas already known to the viewers and frees them up to spend their time on the effect rather than the cause.

[skritsys]

as usual splitting hairs...or would this be splitting hares?

[MarshAngel]

as usual splitting hairs...or would this be splitting hares?

In terms of sitting down to watch it and appreciating it yes. Defining it for yourself and determining what to air and how to classify it? perhaps not.

[skritsys]

And I am stinking sober too.