Hard sci fi and rule of cool

I always loved averting Sound In Space, actually, as well as having for realistic explosions. Of course, the only sci-fi I have at the moment is currently in comic book format, which makes it easier, but w/e. The characters get to feel that classic Alien-style isolation. I felt that the helmet-makes-sounds thing was a cop-out, but I don't care if other writers use it. I just make the battles flashy to make up for lack of sound. I think the Star Trek reboot did it about right, honestly.

I've always thought that averting the sound in space thing can be used for great effect to demonstrate any number of things like isolation, detachment, or the like. The problem is it doesn't work in mediums without audio, because people assume it's there regardless unless you beat them over the head with it, and that's just not my writing style.

Well, for comics, it's not that hard. Just don't do the sound effect bubble... things... and occasionally have the characters reference it. I use it more for dramatic effect than anything. Also, it's very amusing when a ship goes into atmosphere, because suddenly those nuclear weapons-grade energy weapons make noise... a lot of noise...

Well when you think of it, it makes sense. The human psyche relies on all senses during moments of duress like battle. Take one or more senses away and it does far more damage to the psyche than you think.

Besides, it's still an aversion of Space Is Noisy given that it is established that without it, even the largest bangs are gonna be dead quiet. Plus it makes for less boring storytelling. Comic book form is easy to convey a lack of sound in space and do it interestingly enough, film, animation, games, literature and the rest is not.

Oh, I agree, there is logic to it. I just refuse to use it if I can help it. My rationale was that, without constant noise pollution, crews of various craft in space could focus better and react faster, especially with their AI assistance. I think it's an interesting justification, but I just don't like to use it.

So then why say it was a cop out? That justification is only one when used as a Hand Wave or Retcon.

I feel it is a personal cop out. I would rather do something entirely different (or at least marginally uncommon) rather than justify the trope that represents the current status quo.

Frankly, I find the contrast of the silence of what's happening outside and the noises happening inside really "cool". From your spaceborne camera's viewpoint it's all eerily silent then from the POV inside the ship you've got voices, the subtle undertone of the air system, objects/debris striking the hull etc then back to the silence of space.

I think that conveys their plight a lot better than it sounding like they could open the door, step outside and breathe.

There we go. Thanks wolf, I couldn't think of a way to vocalize that statement, but that's basically what I like about really having space be silent.

I think if, you're talking about movies, rather than the more silent-as-is literature and comic book formats, it's a matter of a director being creative about how he represents stuff. Just because a missile in real life could take 3 days to reach a target doesn't mean that a director of a movie can't still make it happen in just 3 seconds on screen, he just needs to be creative on how to clearly show it and add suspense.

As for using bullets, as much as we like having slugs thrown, I think 500 years from now, if we're still stuck in the gunpowder age of warfare, that's pretty stupid and unrealistic. Five hundred years from now, if you wanted your setting to still use slugfest weapons, then really I expect, at the minimum, there to be automatic rail guns. A rail gun is pretty hefty, an automatic computerised gun on the other hand would indicate significant advances in ten different categories of engineering.

I really hate the whole "hard science fiction" is superior bias among certain SF circlies. I'm in the science field myself, and I like it when there's a degree of plausibility to the science used, but it should not come at a cost of actually telling an interesting story.

My view on a lot of hard SF is pretty similar the dude from the greatsfandf site, though a lot less severe. The guy is a bit snobby for my tastes, but he makes some good points. An excerpt from his ramblings - ""Hard" (and "Mundane") science fiction is, instead, focused not on the fiction but on the science. It is an awful, cockamamie idea of what science fiction, or speculative fiction in general, is all about. It reflects what I have elsewhere called a "Gus's Garage in Outer Space" mentality: it assumes that our interest in reading science fiction is absorbing the author's brilliantly clever ideas of gadgetry and its near future. Boys and girls, ladies and gentlemen, if I want real science, I'll get it from real scientists writing honest science fact, not speculations wrapped in as thin a fictive gauze veil as that of the Gus's Garage stories. If I want genuine speculation on the wonders of the universe, Brian Greene and Michio Kaku and Lee Smolin and Paul Davies and a small army of others have produced stacks of eminently readable and thoroughly fascinating books"

Now unlike him, I'm not against hard SF, and I know that there are several with interesting plots and characters, but I'm tired of people complaining about the "science" (or the lack of it) in science-fiction. Even worse are people who deem all "soft" science fiction as not science fiction at all.

The exact mechanics of the science don't need to be explained (or be theoretically correct) for it to be science fiction. It just needs to seem more plausible then an evil sorcerer summoning demons against a dragon riding demi-god barbarian, with a magical sword of flame, in a giant floating castle. So while The Invisible Man may seem silly to the hard SF crowd, it still is comparatively more believable, than say, The Lord Of The Rings to most people (I'm not saying that being more believable is necessarily better, obviously).

edited 30th Jul '11 3:51:46 PM by brc2000

I love you.

^^ Winnar.

^^^awesome.

An excellent point of view.

Also, how about this for an idea, I was thinking about a sorta 200-300 years into the future sort of world and how you might do a movie in a very cool and exciting fashion without breaking the laws of physics. I was picturing things like "montage" scenes for missile launches or strategic commands being given, so the movie is seamless but you have a little clock that goes fast forward between waiting times (maybe you see a missile launch in normal time, then the clock speeds through 15 hours in the space of a second, time slows to normal again and then detonates near an enemy ship).

@brc 2000: While I mostly agree with your post, I have to disagree that this

is correct, or more precisely, that it's a tolerable status quo (because this is what most people think). I hate info dumps. I hate the valuing of CORRECT SCIENCETM above plot, characterization, or other essential aspects of writing. But I strongly disagree with the mentality that views the difference between science fiction and fantasy as purely about the surface - the kind of mindset that considers Star Wars science fiction because it has robots and lasers and spaceships. I love Star Wars, or at least the original trilogy, but it's space fantasy, not science fiction.

Eh, the problem is that it's very difficult to distinguish fantasy and science fiction on anything deeper than the trappings and aesthetics of the setting. Say I write a story where there's I apply the Clarke's Third Law to simple magnetism, and there is a low-tech civilization that developed differently than humanity—and therefore does not understand magnetism—and it's exposed to this through the crashing of a starship and Imported Alien Phlebotinum.

Let's say they treat it as magic, but only use it for completely plausible things—yet build religions out of it, and incorporate it into every level of society. Even so, they remain a Fantasy Counterpart Culture for some ancient people, so their still using swords and horses and whatnot. Is it fantasy or science fiction?

Thus is why it's simpler to classify it based on setting rather than anything really complicated, like, say, the "hardness" of the science. I would say that's fantasy. Sure, the science might be great, but I would still call fantasy before I called science fiction. It's just that kind of story.

Well, I usually refer to Star Wars as space fantasy, as well (especially to Star Wars fans who think they hate fantasy). I don't really mean Star Wars, Transformers, or whatever, which make no attempt to seem plausible. I'm actually talking more in the lines of Blade Runner, and Gattaca. Maybe even something like The Terminator and Back To The Future, because even though they're more "out there" , they don't feel like fantasies at all.

Even if I'm wrong, truth be told, I'm actually fine with the divisions of science-fiction and fantasy as they are (science fiction is lasers, spaceships, and aliens, and fantasy is wizards, dragons, and goblins), because you know what to expect when you pick up a piece of fiction belonging to either genre. Though I can understand why some science fiction fans may be annoyed to pick up a book, advertised as science fiction, and not find anything remotely scientific in it.

Anyway, the genre distinction is not really important, as long as you can enjoy something that's good, despite being unrealistic or having hack science. It always annoys me when you see people claim that a movie or book is bad because the science isn't precise (some of them like The Core and Armageddon are awful anyway, but that's besides the point). It's not limited to science either (historians and military geeks can be just as bad).

edited 2nd Aug '11 3:14:40 AM by brc2000

Where were you two weeks ago or so when this was a big deal-kind of discussion?

edited 2nd Aug '11 3:16:10 AM by USAF713

I didn't notice the thread before, since I normally post in the comic book section. Stumbled upon it by accident when "searching" for something.

@USAF 713: You've already made it pretty clear that your idea of "science fiction" is what we call Space Opera, which is somewhat narrower then how science fiction is actually defined. I'd call your example story science fiction - maybe not the kind I'd read (I prefer mine in either space or cyberspace) but definitely a legitimate example of the genre.

Really? The point of that idea was that the magnetism was treated as magic. I meant that in a narrative sense. It would be the method of doing hard science fiction that I actually like: lies of omission.

The point was really to note that the difference between fantasy and science fiction is basically a sliding scale of setting decorations, with historical fiction/fantasy somewhere in the middle along with alternate history and, if you want to stretch it, steampunk.

I would still personally qualify that as fantasy. Perhaps if not for its setting, than for the implications. They have horses and swords—which implies some form of government that isn't a modern democracy, because the balance of power isn't the same. They have magic—what does it matter if the magic is real? To them, it's magic. They have a religion that is based in fact—once again, whether or not this is a scientific fact doesn't matter; they treat it as the supernatural.

Actually... I'm not going to lie, that would be a fantastic fantasy deconstruction, if done well. That's besides the point, however. It's about setting description and connotations that go with that. "Knights and swords and magic = fantasy" versus "starships and lasers and robots = science fiction" isn't a bad definition because there isn't a better one.

I'd say it is sci-fi; it is scientific in the way it explains the world. Would you say The Laundry Series is sci-fi or fantasy?

I'm still a bit confused as to how the hardness of sci-fi is measured.

Who says? I'd write it as normal fiction. No explanations of the phlebotinum at length, no droning on about the possibilities. It would be fantasy at heart. Of course, that is an issue of author, so perhaps you will simply discount this argument. I did make the idea, however.

I don't know what that is.

Edit: It's Cosmic Horror with science fiction undertones. However, the Cosmic Horror is the proper genre...

Depends on who you ask, really.

edited 2nd Aug '11 9:37:58 AM by USAF713