Reinvent the scale?: Mohs Scale Of Science Fiction Hardness

On the Discussion page of Mohs Scale Of Science Fiction Hardness, several of us expressed dissatisfaction with how relatively rigorous works get pushed up the scale on technicalities (e.g. FTL, even when exquisitely-detailed) while sloppier works get credited as "harder" because they lack these specific features. The basic proposal to change it is girlyboy's:

1: Rule of Cool : The author is completely unconcerned with realism or internal consistency. New super-science and Applied Phlebotinum is tossed in whenever the plot demands it. Bellisario's Maxim and the MST3K Mantra are in full effect.

2: Magic A Is Magic A : Rule of Cool still trumps Real Life physics, but now the author is putting some effort into keeping their fictional science and Applied Phlebotinum internally consistent. Technology will do impossible things, but it will do the same impossible things in the same way, and with the same limitations each time, and characters will be aware of, and will need to work within, these limits. The laws of physics are still broken all the time, but the laws of logic are at least mostly respected (though the full logical implications of the Applied Phlebotinum will not always be considered).

3: Minovsky Particle : The rules of physics are broken, but only in limited ways, and only with at least some justification. Technology that is, as far as we know, completely impossible will still appear, but the author will go out of their way to justify its existence, and explore the implications of the fictional science behind it. They will also stick to reality whenever they can, and will generally make the setting seem as realistic as possible.

4: Hard Science Fiction : The rules of physics are not broken. Any Applied Phlebotinum that makes an appearance is carefully extrapolated from existing technology, and never, ever does things that current science tells us should be impossible. The realism of the story is part of its appeal.

edited 2nd Jan '11 1:49:40 PM by RobinZimm

Sorry - double-post.

My own comment: I would probably break up "Minovsky Particle" into two halves - one for multiple such and one for a single such - and break up "Hard Science Fiction" into "Worldbuilding Hard Science Fiction" and "20 Minutes into the Future".

Aren't Minovsky Particle and Magic A Is Magic A basically the same thing, but one is sci-fi-y and the other is fantasy-ish? If I had to break up the scale, it'd go like this:

1. Rule of Cool: Things work because it's awesome.
2. Green Rocks: The Applied Phlebotinum gains New Powers as the Plot Demands.
3. Minovsky Particle: The laws of physics as we know them are broken, but in a limited and consistent way. In sci-fi circles, this is called the "one big lie" — in hard scifi, you only break physics once, and everything else is extrapolated from that.
4. Real Life: Things work exactly as they should; often 20 Minutes into the Future, where the only sci-fi bits are logical advancements of current technology.

Level 1 Examples:

• Gurren Lagann
• Futurama
• Mystery Science Theater 3000

Level 2 Examples:

• Star Trek
• Star Wars
• Fallout

Level 3 Examples:

• Mass Effect
• Cowboy Bebop
• Scott Westerfeld's Succession series (which features things like sapient A.I.s arising from planetary computer networks, a cult of superhuman cybernetic warrior women, and brain implants that allow video and audio to be projected directly into your mind, but FTL travel is impossible and FTL communcation can only be accomplished via entangled quantum particles — which have to be shipped where ever you want to talk to at slower-than-light speeds)

Level 4 Examples:

• Planetes (noted for its adherence to Newtonian physics in space, features no technology that isn't already theoretically possible at our current tech level)
• Shattered Horizon (a game revolving around infantry combat in space that, like Plantes, is serious about Newtonian physics, though it loses points for a partial Detonation Moon in the backstory)
• The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress (Other than a sapient computer, which was explicitly designed to be self-learning and self-programming, nothing that we couldn't recreate given a few decades and trillions of dollars.)

Alternate formation of the levels:

1. Breaking physics is part of the fun.
2. Doesn't let physics get in the way of telling the story.
3. Weaves the breaking of physics into the story.
4. Doesn't break physics.

edited 9th Dec '10 10:10:26 AM by NativeJovian

I endorse replacing "Magic A Is Magic A" with "Green Rocks", but I think the hard end still ought to break into two parts:

4: Worldbuilding Hard Science Fiction: The author creates a speculative new world, but bases this world closely on known scientific principles.

Examples: Cowboy Bebop, Dragon's Egg, Nightfall

5: 20 Minutes into the Future: New inventions are extrapolated from present technology, but the world is otherwise Like Reality, Unless Noted.

Examples: 2001: A Space Odyssey, Isaac Asimov's Robot stories.

edited 9th Dec '10 10:49:03 AM by RobinZimm

I don't get what the distinction there is, at all.

That's because Cowboy Bebop is a bad example. It didn't make it's own universe. It's set in this solar system. A better example would be something more like Star Wars where it's set some place completely different with it's own races and no mention of Earth.

edited 9th Dec '10 11:00:54 AM by shimaspawn

Right, of course. The chief reason I proposed for separating them is because 20 Minutes into the Future starts blending into straight fiction, rather than proper speculative fiction. What's the difference between Tom Clancy's military fiction and science fiction?

Two things I'd say: First, I think there should be a category for science fiction that does *not* spend a lot of time writing out fictional laws of physics and stuff as Minovsky Particle would imply (edit: This is based on the category on the current scale. The actual Minovsky Particle trope page does not necessarily demand going into so much detail, but the category description involves "hundred-page dissertations on fictional physics", and that's what I was thinking of when suggesting these names ages ago), but still makes an effort to keep things internally consistent. That's why I suggested "Magic A Is Magic A". Star Trek, for example, never goes into much detail as to how all of its super-science works, but it generally keeps the rules consistent. Of course it bends them time to time, so I can see the "new powers as the plot demands" angle too, but that's not really the defining characteristic. Transporters, for example. How do they work? "Very well, thank you." But they work the same way episode to episode. Sometimes they'll be used to do something weird, but that's not their defining characteristic: generally, they're just a way from getting from A to B, with known risks and limitations that generally stay the same episode to episode.

Something that uses Green Rocks that do new weird things as needed would fit into Rule of Cool, I think. It's breaking and bending its own internal logic for the benefit of plot. I think there should be a harder category that avoids doing this, while still not going into in-depth exploration of its fictional science.

Also, I think there are works harder than this, but still softer than full-out "Minovsky Particle" hardness. For example, Banks' Culture novels. This is something I thought about after writing the four categories out on the discussion page. There's science fiction out there that on the one hand, still doesn't really get all technical with the fictional scientific laws behind its applied phlebotinum, but on the other hand still feels harder than something like Star Trek. Generally this is because, while it may not explore the science behind its crazy inventions, it does explore in depth all their implications for society and technology, and generally tries to keep everything logically consistent. It also generally tries to use "real" science whenever applied phlebotinum is not immediately needed for story purposes. As such, I'd add a fifth category of some sort between Magic A Is Magic A and Minovsky Particle (by the scale suggested in the original post).

Anyway, I actually sort of agree that "Worldbuilding" and "20 minutes into the future" don't necessarily make sense as distinct categories... Just have one category for science fiction that doesn't even go as far as making One Big Lie — sci-fi that uses only extrapolation from known technology, and no violations of laws of physics. Whether it ends up building up an entire world or being set in the near-future on Earth doesn't really seem as important, if what we're after is classifying sci-fi hardness. At the end of the day, is a work set in some distant solar system, but one that breaks no physical laws and only uses plausible technology, any softer than something set twenty minutes into the future of our own world? I personally don't think so. Anything a bit softer would go on the hard end of "Minovsky Particle."

Just my thoughts. Sorry, I kind of originally suggested this breakdown a while ago on the discussion page, and then never took it anywhere. I'm lazy, and a bit fatigued with TV Tropes, lately. :P

edited 9th Dec '10 11:23:19 AM by girlyboy

If it's not sci-fi, it doesn't belong on the scale at all. We don't need to list every Romantic Comedy ever made as "hardest possible" because they all take place on modern-day Earth. I don't know enough about Tom Clancy's stuff to say if it's sci-fi or not, but scifi is generally a "know it when you see it" kind of thing.

Edit — whoops, ninja'd by girlyboy. I don't really thing we need a whole different level for what you're describing; Minovsky Particle basically means "internally consistent sci-fi science", while Magic A Is Magic A means "internally consistent fantasy magic". The Shown Their Work bit is optional — they could bludgeon you over the head with how great their system is, or it could be relegated entirely to the background. As long as it's there, it'd be a level 3; how much it's focused on doesn't matter.

edited 9th Dec '10 11:26:45 AM by NativeJovian

You're probably right. When I originally suggested the scale I was thinking of the description the Minovsky Particle category has on the current Moh's Scale page, which implies in-depth description. If we do away with this, and ONLY imply consistent internal rules for Minovsky Particle, then I'd suggest something like:

Rule of Cool -> Minovsky Particle -> One Big Lie -> Hard Science Fiction.

The idea here, then, is Rule of Cool throws out new super-science as needed, including Green Rocks and New Powers as the Plot Demands. Minovsky Particle uses its crazy phlebotinum consistently, but without necessarily working out a whole system of fictional physics for it, without necessarily exploring all the implications in-depth, and without necessarily limiting how many laws of physics get broken (as long as they're broken consistently!) One Big Lie would be for works that not only try to stay internally consistent, but also both limit how many laws of physics they break, and explore in-depth both the fictional science behind these unrealistic bits, and their full implications for society and technology (perhaps even Two Big Lies or Three Big Lies could be acceptable — the key is just that it tries to *restrict* how many rules it breaks, and goes in-depth when exploring each of the breaks it makes). Then hard sci-fi is basically no broken rules of physics at all, not even one. It can still have cool space-ships and robots, and it can still be set a million years in the future in another galaxy, but all technology will work in realistic ways, and will never, ever do things that modern science doesn't know how to do.

edited 9th Dec '10 11:38:45 AM by girlyboy

To what extent should effects of Science Marches On be incorporated in the scale?

That's a tricky question. I personally think it'd make the most sense to judge stories by the science of their own time. After all, a writer intentionally creating a story that ignores some rules of science for the sake of story-telling is working on a quite different project from a writer who does their best to create 100% hard science fiction, but then finds some of the science they used to be discredited years later. So it might be best to file such stories in the category they would have been in at the time they were created — and then simply include an explanation that science has since then marched on.

Even the current list seems to work this way, listing stuff like Tintin's trip to the moon in the hardest categories, while noting that science marching on "hits hard" in this part of the scale. I think a similar disclaimer, and a brief explanation for the more noticeable examples, would be all that's needed...

Minovsky Particle is the One Big Lie. You posit that Minovsky Particles exist, and have these properties (the one big lie) and then spin everything else off from that.

On the subject of Science Marches On, I'd say that we apply the scale to modern-day science as we understand it, but if it was harder when it was first written, we can note that. Something that describes Venus' surface as a dense jungle would have been fairly plausable at one time, but now is completely bunk. Anyone reading it now would know that it's bunk, so the story is fairly soft — but at the time it would've been a lot harder, which is worth noting.

I think that hard and soft stories are two different flavours of science fiction, though, and science marching on doesn't move stories from one category to the other. If it's obvious a writer intended it to be hard, and did the research, then that is more important than how realistic the science is by today's standards. Ultimately, we at TV Tropes care about stories and authors, not about real-life science or what is or isn't bunk (which is one of the reasons I thought the change might be a good idea in the first place — we need to move the focus from the science and technology to the stories themselves).

That's how I see it anyway.

I am confused about One Big Lie and Minovsky Particle. Minovsky Particle can't be both "any logically self-consistent system of fictional science and tech" and "one single change to real-life science from which all Applied Phlebotinum in the story comes".

Setting aside the names, I think there should be a category for sci-fi in which the applied phlebotinum and other unrealistic science is internally consistent, but not necessarily limited to One Big Lie (or even just a few), and does not necessarily posit just one break from reality, from which all the other unrealistic elements flow. There should be another category, in which the breaks from reality are not only self-consistent, but also limited, and explored in-depth. I don't know what to name them anymore; originally I thought the former could be Magic A Is Magic A, and the latter could be Minovsky Particle; when you said the two are the same, just for different genres, I suggested the former be called Minovsky Particle and the latter be One Big Lie... Now you say they are also the same... But I am fairly sure Magic A Is Magic A is not just the fantasy version of what you described as One Big Lie... so now I am just confused. :P In short, I think having two categories such as I described would be a good idea, but I'm not sure what to name them.

edited 9th Dec '10 1:22:10 PM by girlyboy

I would like some kind of One Big Lie category - it doesn't need to be named for an existing trope.

I was under the impression that Minovsky Particle (fuck I hate spelling that) is One Big Lie for the most part.

edited 9th Dec '10 1:59:42 PM by Deboss

From the trope description and some of the examples, Minovsky Particle is, indeed, basically any internally-consistent system within a story that limits how the Applied Phlebotinum works, forcing it to function within well-defined rules. As near as I can tell, this is a bit different from One Big Lie, which is where the author makes *one* deviation from reality in their sci-fi story, and then all the applied phlebotinum and all other unrealistic elements are extrapolated from that one single "lie", with no other new rules or breaches of realism being introduced.

It seems to me like One Big Lie would necessarily be an example of Minovsky Particle, but not all stories using Minovsky Particles would necessarily be examples of One Big Lie. You could, for instance, have a story with a hundred different kinds of Applied Phlebotinum, each breaking the rules of physics in a different way... But each working within well-defined, restrictive rules. This story would have Minovsky Particles, but would not be based on One Big Lie. The tropes seem closely related, yet separate.

I agree a category for One Big Lie might be good. I really just want there to be one category that's less strict than that, but is still internally consistent, and thus a bit harder than pure Rule of Cool or Green Rocks.

edited 9th Dec '10 2:21:03 PM by girlyboy

I have to agree with girlyboy's points. One Big Lie implies ONE big lie, whereas many Minovsky Particles can coexist in one work.

For example, take Niven's later Known Space works. We've got FTL, reactionless drives, teleportation, invincible starship hulls, and genetic-based luck. I don't remember the exact details of how they all worked, but they weren't really connected and they were all internally consistent. That's Minovsky Particles.

For what it's worth, I also agree that there should be a category in the original #2 spot: soft sci-fi that's still more than just Rule of Cool.

Also, I'd prefer not to use any existing trope names as a category (partially just because I hate having to spell Minovsky).

edited 9th Dec '10 9:37:29 PM by nrjxll

I see what you're saying with Minovsky Particle / One Big Lie — and you're right, you could have a work with multiple non-interacting Minovsky Particles and it wouldn't count as One Big Lie. But I think we should really try to keep the number of categories as low as possible — adding more categories means getting more specific divisions, which means more natter and edit warring about which example goes in which category, which is exactly we're trying to fix, isn't it?

I quite agree. But I think the category I suggest makes sense as one of the few we might need. When it comes down to it, I'd rather not have a category for "One Big Lie" (though perhaps one for a similar, but broader category of works) — to me, it seems a story with several well-thought-out Big Lies is less different from a story with One Big Lie, than a story with internally consistent logical rules is different from a story that changes its internal rules as needed to accommodate the plot...

I think rather than getting hung up on names and fine distinctions we should try to work out which broad categories would be most needed, just in terms of what sort of stories they'd include.

Again, leaving out names and labels, I personally think we need:

1) A category for science fiction where pretty much anything goes: The writer is concerned with telling a cool story, not with being logical, internally consistent, or realistic when it comes to real-world science and technology.

2) A category for science fiction that bends the rules of science, but limits how squishy-soft it is by keeping these bent rules internally consistent. While the actual science itself doesn't have to match reality any more than it does in category (1), the rules of logic are somewhat more respected, and the very fact that the same rules apply throughout the story makes it a bit harder. To put it another way, it's realistic in that the characters can expect the laws of their fictional universe not to change themselves for the benefit of plot, even if these laws are not themselves all that realistic to begin with.

3) A category for science fiction that will bend the rules of science, but in a more limited way — being more thoughtful and deliberate about which rules it breaks, and making a bigger point of keeping at least some of its science quite realistic, and of exploring exactly how the unrealistic bits work in more depth. Here, not only will the fictional rules be internally consistent, but they'll also be limited in their unrealism. The key differences from (2) would be that here, the writer will take time to justify and explore the breaks from reality that they make, and will also logically work out all the consequences of these breaks. Another difference might be that keeping the story at least somewhat realistic will actually be a part of the story's appeal.

4) A category for science fiction that doesn't bend the laws of science at all. The author will make a point of trying to imagine cool technology and possible futures that are completely consistent with the laws of contemporary science. All Applied Phlebotinum will be extrapolated from current technology, or at least will work in accordance with understood scientific principles without taking any liberties with them for the sake of plot.

That's the structure that, in my personal and subjective opinion, offers the best way to divide science fiction by hardness, by focusing on the sort of story we're actually looking at, and without focusing too much on the exact forms of Applied Phlebotinum involved, or requiring ten different categories.

One weakness I do see is that category (2) as I suggest it above might include a bit too many works, because the requirements for getting into (3) are quite a bit stricter... So perhaps a finer sub-division might be needed there. But I'm not sure. I do really think, however, that each of these four categories is a pretty important and distinct class of science fiction, and each is needed in some shape or form. That's just my opinion, of course.

edited 10th Dec '10 12:02:18 PM by girlyboy

I (also) thought Mivonosky Particle was the One Big Lie element (or "Like reality except as otherwise noted") and Magic A Is Magic A applies to both fantasy and sci-fi.

I was actually under the distinct impression that at some point in the past Minovsky Particle was actually written as One Big Lie, i.e. the trope description actually mentioned a work of fiction taking one liberty with the laws of science, and then extrapolating everything else from that. But that's not quite what it says now, and I'm not sure whether the trope was actually re-written at some point, or whether I'm just going crazy.

Bah, let's just not talk about actual names for the Moh's Scale categories any-more, until we settle on what the categories should actually be. :P If there's a problem with Minovsky Particle, that can get its own thread — or perhaps someone should just start a separate trope for One Big Lie. It does seem like a distinct enough concept.

edited 10th Dec '10 12:12:12 PM by girlyboy

I'm cool with the categories girlyboy proposed — they're basically the same as the ones I suggested at the top of the page.

The only thing that confused me about the ones you proposed was that to me, the difference between 1) Rule of Cool and 2) Green Rocks did not seem immediately apparent... :P But yes, they's similar.