A few weeks ago I started reading a book about writing science fiction. In it the author expounds on how if you write sci-fi your facts had better be correct or you're only writing fantasy. Only? Only! Hurrumph.
I'm sure the point the author was making - in the midst of his numerous mathmatical equations - was that science fiction has to be based on science fact. If you are proposing FTL travel, you had better know the "current" acedemic thoughts on the concept. All right, I agree with that to a point. If you are going to write a book where you are reciting scientific principals, yes, you'd better have them right. But for me, in my sci-fi romances...
Sorry, Homey don't play that.
When I read a contemporary, I don't need to know how the engine of the car the characters are driving works to believe it can get from 0 to 60 in X seconds. I don't care how a warp engine works on a starship either. Don't get me wrong, I've read hard sci-fi and loved it, but in today's market with faster-than-light plots, using 10 pages to describe the way the hero's starcruiser can skim the galaxy in less than a month isn't all that important. It tends to bog things down and take away from the actual story which is... characters and conflict. Unless of course the way in which the ship works is central to the plot and you have villians trying to hijack the technology - all right then, maybe I'll go with you on that, but not for 10 pages.
One of my favorite writers is Micheal Crichton. While reading his book Timeline, I thought my head would explode from his ad nausem recitation of why time travel in his world was possible. All right, anyone who reads TT romances or has watched an episode of Star Trek will pretty much say..."Time Travel plot. Gottcha. Check. Move on." Despite this skipable portion of the book, as a whole, I liked it. But I was left to wonder why it was allowed to stay in and why the editor or powers that be didn't say...."Whoa, babe, you need back it up there." - And before anyone comments that "But he's so big a name, he can get away with it." I would like to say that even big names can and have written real stinkers.
So, food for thought here: when you write or read sci-fi to do you prefer long detailed descriptions of principals or just enough that you're able to suspend disbelief?
-Kat
Step Into The Mists with our adventurous band of award-winning authors to otherworlds of paranormal, SF, fantasy and speculative romance. Nervous? Don't be. The creatures that live here are friendly. Most of the time... This blog is for age 18 and over only.
11 comments:
Probably the author is from the Hard SF section of the genre. Admittedly you should know facts and the story should be derived frm known science but Hard SF differs from regular SF in that it tells all.
For example.
One Hard SF I read had four people running from natives on a planet they'd been abandoned on, the find a trench to jump over. The archeologist of the group spends FIVE PAGES, describing the bones they see and what sort of animal they would have been. Forgetting all about the raving mad natives throwing spears etc.
That's Hard SF and I find it very difficult to read though I understand some folks love it.
Epic, space opera and other forms of SF are less technical but most readers still want to see the reasons why something does what it does. So understanding and being able to extrapolate scienctific advances is not a bad thing and for a SF fan will enhance the reading.
As to FTL travel there is a large section of the scientific community that believe it is impossible. On the other hand I have a wonderful quote somewhere from a famous nuclear scientist describing how splitting the atom is a fundamental impossibility too. :)
S.J.
Sorry, log-in issues, lol.
Suspend disbelief. I don't really care all that much that the missile travels at xyz speed at a trajectory of abc with the explosive power of an (insert appropriately hard hitting thingy here).
Does it hit harder than cheese? I'm good to go! Does it have enough oomph to breach the hull? Works for me! Do I need to know why?
Nope.
Now, my hubby LOVES that sort of thing, where they discuss how/what/when/where and in what positions. He will then try to discuss the physics of it.
He gives me funny looks when I ask him, "Why are you trying to make my brain implode?"
So I guess the answer is, it's a matter of taste.
I would say it probably depends more on your intended market. Writing SF for romance readers you tend to get away without the factual bits because they're generally more interested in the relationships within the story. If you want to write for the SF market though, I've seen authors wiped over the carpet for lack of research.
S.J.
One of my favorite authors, David Weber, writes space opera with a lot of hard science.(I particularly like his series centering on a starship captain, Honor Harrington.) His explanations of space travel, missile velocities and capabilities, and other aspects of space warfare make my head hurt. But his characterizations and political intrigues are gripping. I tend to skim over the more technological parts (sorry, Mr. Weber!) and relish the character interactions.
I'm re-reading the 10 book Harrington series and loving it as much, or maybe more so than when I first encountered it. But I'm still not able to bring myself to care how fast a heavy cruiser can gain velocity over a battleship : )
There is no doubt about it... give me a skimming look into things... quick, direct and then move on. Or I will. ;-)
Cole
Make me believe it can happen or make me want to believe it can happen by giving me some really great characters, or wonderful plot and I really don't care how they got back in time, forward in time. Or even to the planet RockaPalooza. As long as they bring me back some really cool autograps from all the cool bands, mmkay?
I'm like you, Kat. Give me what I need to know -- what moves the plot along -- and get the story in gear!
I guess I'm somewhere inbetween. A page or two on the hows and whys intrigues me. I know just enough physics and quantum mechanics to know how much I don't know. So five to ten pages of explanation will get skimmed and is more than necessary.
I love The Science Channel and watch a great deal of science fact to the point that an accurate explanation will ring bells and an inaccurate one will pull me out of the story. Meaning, in the end, short, accurate and basic is best for holding my attention. Yet, I'm generous and will take on faith that something works if I'm allowed to get caught up in the characters rather than the science.
~X
I think there's a difference between "Science Fiction" and "Futuristic Fiction". Science fiction should have some basis in Science--hence, the name. The hard Sci-Fi I like best doesn't try to cover every aspect of a scientifically plausible future, but instead takes one scientifically plausible idea and runs with it, or expands existing technology to its logical next steps. Futuristic novels may take place in the future, and have space ships or robots, but they don't necessarily base their plots on existing science or plausible technology. Most books shelved in Sci-Fi are "Futuristic" Fiction, rather than Science Fiction. This includes space opera, Star Trek, and any story featuring humanoid aliens or psychic powers. I tend to prefer "Futuristic" fiction over hard Sci-Fi because, as other commenters have noted, hard sci-fi tends to get bogged down in the details, and I read for the story.
I'm a skimmer on the tech stuff,too...maybe not so much that it isn't interesting, but because I've only got so much time for "fun" reading :)
In those "pre-kids" days I loved a good James Michener historical novel, too.
Great post!
~Margo
Post a Comment