The sins of science fiction

It depends on the type of setting, but in most cases it shouldn't really matter if it "might as well be magic". It's still science fiction in genre, because it's not considered to be supernatural, though it obviously can't be "hard" science fiction. Not that the genre should matter anyway. SF and fantasy tell you more about the settings than how the story is told. Half-human hybrids in fantasy are rarely a result of magic spells either, so what makes it more acceptable there? Time travelling to the past is also impossible, but it opens the doors to interesting stories.

Explaining how it works isn't going to affect the plot or characters in any way, and, often, explaining how your unbelievable science works leads to even less believable science. It's enough to just say it happened or you can justify it with whatever made up biotech. process cooked up by your resident mad scientist with technobabble powers you want, but if you spend way more pages than necessary in explaining your made up science, then it's, at best, going to be a complete waste of time.

Now, there are some things that are just too far-fetched, even for fantasy (except in cartoons), without at least some justification, such an ordinary human in a realistic setting walking on a sun like ours without some sort of made-up highly advanced protection, but otherwise we can give the finger to real world physics or chemistry if the story calls for it. Some people will have a problem with it, some will accept it as artistic license, but at least you're telling the story you want to tell.

For we shall slay evil with logic...

Harry Potter got away with a lot of PlotHoles but the narrative flowed so smoothly that it was easy to forgive.

The problem comes from silly or downright Idiot Plot stories that are all "it's science fiction".

-_-

As Sf Debris points out, good ideas do not a story make. Don't insult me with technobabble. Some bad ideas are the result of You Fail Logic Forever or Artistic License - science.

edited 5th Jun '14 9:22:41 PM by TairaMai

All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be on The First 48

Science Fiction isn't "any thing that's not supernatural" it's about exploring the possibilities of real theories and ideas. It's not just fantasy with science instead of magic.

Yeah, not every single element needs to be 100% accurate but the genre still assumes that something in this story is a possibility in the future.

Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian

So I guess Star Trek isn't science fiction then? Or anything involving psychic powers ever?

edited 5th Jun '14 10:18:11 PM by KSPAM

I've got new mythological machinery, and very handsome supernatural scenery. Goodfae: a mafia web serial

I said something not everything.

Star Trek isn't hard science fiction obviously but it still at least makes a partially serious effort to explore what it would be like if we went into space and made contact with alien races.

Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian

The problem is there that your definition treats fantasy like it is never about exploring the consequences of innovations or principles on humanity (or whatever passes here). There is a reason why science fiction, fantasy, alternate history and the rest are collectively called "speculative fiction."

Now, what you have given us is Harlan Ellison's definition of a good spec-fic story, which would be a story that explores the consequences of its more outlandish propositions and settings in a meaningful way.

I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.

I disagree that it has to be based on real theories or that it has to be a real future possibility. I do think that the new technology should be the driving force in the story, but having it be based on real science doesn't really change anything. I agree with JHM here.

There's a good article I read somewhere about the difference between real fantasy and science fiction and what the writer called "wonder fiction". The latter only uses the fantasy/SF elements as the backdrop and can be told in virtually any other setting. It doesn't mean that it can't make for great fiction, but it doesn't do what good spec. fiction does best, which is as JHM says, explore the consequences, particularly on humanity (whether the characters are actually human or not). In my example of a mixed species person, a good science fiction story will tell us about the social and personal implications of the existence of such characters. It may give us details about their struggles and learning to cope and find their place in the world. We might be told about what makes them different for a regular member of their species, but we don't need an explanation as to how they manage to exist in the firs place. The storytelling doesn't change if it's explained with "real science" or not.

edited 6th Jun '14 5:26:21 AM by supergod

For we shall slay evil with logic...

Still, I'd more easily accept FTL travel than I would interspecies sex. At least FTL is THEORETICALLY possible.

Of course, don't you know anything about ALCHEMY?!- Twin clones of Ivan the Great

It would really depend on what is meant by "interspecies" and, well, "sex." Interbreeding with aliens is exceedingly unlikely outside of some truly bizarre biological circumstances—which could be interesting in itself, as noted, but I digress—but assuming mental and physical compatibility, let's just say that humans are weird, weird animals and leave it at that. However, FTL is certainly easier to talk about without making at least some contingent of your audience flinch, the most obnoxious hard SF guys excepted.

I am reminded of the term "hard fantasy" now. I can't remember the author who coined the term, but if I'm not mistaken her intention was to define fiction that applied the same degree of tight internal logic, research, intellectual rigour and verisimilitude to high and low fantasy as one would in writing hard science fiction. It's a very intriguing idea, one that I can definitely jive with despite writing the sort of warped fantasy that is more surrealistic/symbolic than scientific.

I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.

I'm not as big on the idea of "hard fantasy". I'm cool with internal consistency and applying some rules to your magic, but I still like magic to feel, well, magical. But the fact that such a thing exists does illustrate that beyond aesthetics, the differences between sf and fantasy really boil down to "made possible by technology/natural science" and "made possible by magic or some other supernatural element".

For we shall slay evil with logic...

It all depends on the setting. And how much detail. Honestly, I would rather a machine work by vague science that for the science to be detailed and it be horribly wrong.

One of my biggest pet peeves is using science fiction for Doing In the Wizard. Especially if they don't even take out fantasy elements and play them off as scientific. Like traditional vampires, no virus will give super strength and speed, and most of all, it definitely wouldn't have them burst into flame upon sunlight. No, that's stupid. If you want vampires and other monsters in your story, write fantasy.

It's funny how discussions on how to make zombies/vampires/whatever work end up with "How do we Techno Babble the typical example?" instead of actually changing them and make them different.

Vampires doesn't need to burst into flames in sunlight to be vampires. They don't need to be super strong or fast. They don't have to be able to fly or turn into bats. They don't have to be immortal or undead. They can have reflections. They could be able to eat garlic...

edited 6th Jun '14 2:40:41 PM by m8e

They don't even need to drink human blood.

Of course, don't you know anything about ALCHEMY?!- Twin clones of Ivan the Great

Or they could even be Vegetarians.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... not so much, no. Is cheating the universal speed limit by bending space around a craft traveling at sub-relativistic velocities to propel it forward at what would appear to be superluminal speed possible? Yes. But calling that "FTL travel" is more of a matter of semantics, because you're not really "traveling" in the traditional sense.

For that matter, "interspecies sex" is kind of a matter of semantics as well, because we do a lot of things with other members of our species that don't involve insemination or conception that we still call "sex". So you could have sex with an alien depending on how easy it is to find an appropriate orifice/how much work you're willing to put into it, but you could never have intercourse in a reproductive sense.

edited 6th Jun '14 3:21:31 PM by KSPAM

I've got new mythological machinery, and very handsome supernatural scenery. Goodfae: a mafia web serial

Given the whole "bursting into flames in sunlight" crap comes from one bad plagiarisation of Dracula in a vain attempt to disguise the fact that it was a plagiarisation by changing the ending of the original story, I'd say that one should be dropped anyway.

I'd say that the only things you really need for a "vampire" are the "reanimated dead" and "blood-drinking" aspects. Drop the latter for "Revenants".

For a more "scientifically realistic" take I'm doing on vampires, I'm having them a lot more resilient than mortals but many things that would kill us would also permanently kill them - starvation (they can, and have to, consume "normal" food in order to fuel their bodies - they can't get sufficient sustenance and nutrition from blood alone and they probably have quite a sizeable appetite if they can surpass human healing capabilities), thirst, suffocation - like all humans, they need food, water and air.

Yeah, they're "back from the dead" and, theoretically, could continue liv- errr, functioning indefinitely, but if they were trapped in a room with no supplies they'd die (again) of thirst in a few days and start to break down.

They would have a pulse - in order to function, the "virus" would have to reanimate all of the body's function and pump oxygen and nutrients (and the damage-healing symbiote) through the body. They would be warm to the touch, not corpse-cold, as their bodies are restored to their former functions.

They would certainly have a reflection in suitable surfaces.

It's possible that certain plants contain chemicals that adversely affect the symbiotic virus and pose a threat - and those same chemicals from other sources would be just as toxic to them.

edited 6th Jun '14 3:37:54 PM by Wolf1066

Narratively, a vampire is any character who sustains themselves by draining younger, more vulnerable individuals of their life energy, eventually turning them into a weaker version of themselves. Yes, it's a metaphore.

Ultimately, any piece of sci-fi technology is going to have some element of fantasy to it. No matter how detailed the author is, there's always going to be a point where they have to go, "I don't know exactly how this would work, but for the sake of the story, let's say that it does." Without that leap of faith, it's not really fictional science.

@supergod: I'm with you on magic being more enigmatic insofar as internal mechanics, and as weird as it sounds, I think that supernatural horror (and fantasy that draws on such traditions) tends to cleave a lot closer to that conception of magic—and thus lend it a greater sense of awe and alienness—than most more straightforward fantasy. Which is funny, given how spooky and weird magic can be in Tolkien and Dunsany.

But by the same token, to take an example from one of the originators of the term, having a talking wolf act like a dog rather than a wolf without actually justifying it is way more distracting to someone who notices it than the fact that the wolf talks. Verisimilitude is the important part in nearly any kind of fantasy: That you are immersed into a world thoroughly unlike your own. A poor understanding of the world in the author makes for a poor reading experience in the reader.

Of course, absurdist works intentionally violate these rules, but you have to know them to know how to break them, methinks.

edited 8th Jun '14 4:14:43 PM by JHM

I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.