Appealing to hard sci-fi vs indulging in science fantasy

Is it even worth it to maintain a semblance of plausibility in spacefaring fiction? I mean hell, space is big. I think most of us think we understand that, but then someone reminds you of things like the Laniakea Supercluster and it reminds you just how ludicrously inadequate our sense of perspective is when it comes to space.

I mean, even assuming you keep your story within some small fraction of our own galaxy only a few hundred to a few thousand light years in length, the distance involved requires the existence of FTL drives ridiculously more efficient and powerful than even the most fringe, theoretical science suggests is possible. And any remotely realistic means of travel that could get you there, from alcubierre drives to wormholes, involves such vast scales of energy that warfare in space would be incomprehensibly ridiculous (try having a star war when every Imperial warship can destroy a planet just by dropping out of warp speed).

So is it even worth it to go the extra length to add a degree of plausibility to your Star Wars and Star Treks and Stargates just for the added spice it brings to a story, or is it the narrative equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot and something that's best left alone? And just how alone, exactly? I don't think anyone wants to completely abandon reason, but that's almost what it feels like it'll take to build a cohesive world in a scifi epic involving the usual massive times and distances.

Well, the first Star Fox game tried that a bit, that "G-Diffuser" system they talk about that allows Star Fox to pull off all those aerial stunts without suffering from severe gravitational strain is basically, they cut off their legs. No lower extremities means less blood rushing out of the brain after a loop, and thus, the chance of blacking out from G-forces is significantly diminished.

You're assuming that you don't have to create some level of rules. One of my favorite examples of this is Free Space; we don't know what the rules regarding when you can use a subspace drive are, but we know that rules must exist. If it was as ruleless as it appeared, the majority of the engagements in the game would not be fought.

You do not have to share the rules, but if you're going to write a story involving a starship scuffle you will actually need rules, if only to explain why either of them elected to fight/continue to fight rather than flee. Similarly, rules can dictate the setting; Battle Tech is semifeudal due to the fact that messages can travel across but simply going one system over takes a 7 day burn to the jump point, the instant jump (plus any recharge time for the jumpship), and another 7 day burn to reach the planet in the next system you want to go to. Planets must fend for themselves without the support of a centralized government, or at least be able to buy time for reinforcements to arrive, encouraging a semifeudal and militarized system of government.

Do the rules have to make sense to modern science? No, but it helps to make a nod to it; hence "warp" was based on the idea that if you can't go FTL in normal space, make a bubble of space that's not normal; hence Mass Effect's taking the concept of "negative mass" bodies and running with it. (On the other hand Battle Tech and the Kearny-Fuchida Drive are explicitly based on the fact that Professors Kearny and Fuchida snapped causality and thermodynamics over their knees; a jump arrival flare, for large craft, can be observed at their destination before they have decided to jump.) Do they have to be internally consistent? Absolutely.

edited 18th Nov '14 1:41:32 PM by Night

I agree with the rest of your post, but I actually do think there's a real question of what the benefit is of "nodding" to real science when you're making up fictional science. Sometimes it seems like the only people who would actually care are the same ones who'd be able to immediately tell that it doesn't make sense. I mean, I've said in the past and maintain to this day that a lot of fictional "science" is just pure laziness rather than actually necessary for the story it's in, but when it is necessary, I think sometimes it might be better to just tell the audience that these are the rules and move on, without bothering with a veneer of real-world plausibility.

edited 18th Nov '14 4:34:50 PM by nrjxll

I'm more of a Science Fantasy guy, so I'll refrain from any grandiose preaching outside my area. Still, since sci-fi is Speculative Fiction, Sanderson's laws of magic are at least partially applicable in general to whatever sci-fi supertech or phlebotinum you're using. I'd reckon as a general rule of thumb, the softer you go, the more important they become. If you're a guy with a doctorate in physics and engineering who is just expanding on modern knowledge to 20 Minutes in the Future, just keep doing that. If you've decided there's Mad Science and Sufficiently Advanced Aliens bouncing around, though...

Not sure I follow. Care to expand on that?

edited 18th Nov '14 4:34:33 PM by KillerClowns

Well, basically I think there some cases of made-up science that are absolutely necessary for a story, such FTL travel in most space operas. But there are also cases where it wouldn't make a difference either way, and authors just fall back on standard fictional science tropes rather than bother to put in the effort to use the real science. This isn't always bad - it's not like authors have limitless time - but I'd still call it laziness.

edited 18th Nov '14 4:38:29 PM by nrjxll

"Is it even worth it to maintain a semblance of plausibility in spacefaring fiction?"

Yes, because that is the defining feature of science fiction (even the soft variety seems plausible, at least in the vast majority of cases, parodies notwithstanding). There is a huge audience that enjoys a systematic yet speculative extrapolation from known science (including myself). Part of the pleasure of reading sci-fi is watching the characters solve puzzles, and use those solutions to resolve the major conflict of the story. In fantasy, characters win because they are braver, stronger, more pure of heart. In science fiction, more often, characters win because they are smarter. You pretty much have to maintain a level of plausibility to pull that off.

I'm actually averse to science fantasy. I'd rather prefer to use true fantasy where needed and then use hard sci-fi for everything else. Nobody really seems to take that route all that often.

My Black series is Science Fantasy in the way Warhammer40000 and Spelljammer are. I took science fiction standards and made them fantastical, keeping as much of that sci-fi inspiration as I could manage. I treat demons, magic, and ether like aliens, technology, and space. The worlds of the cosmos are essentially solar systems in a universe with seven known galaxies. I use magic to Hand Wave a lot of things, because I'm neither a physicist nor an astronomer, and science is SUPER complicated once you leave our cozy little planet. The best I can do is use what I know, learn more and use that, then write it well – I may not know a lot of science, but I know storytelling. (I think)