How Scientific do Science-Fiction stories need to be?
210 views
Skip to first unread message
Crumbly Writer
Aug 23, 2015, 2:58:59 PM8/23/15
to storiesonline
I saw this on a Quora discussion, and thought you might like it. It as essentially just someone asking how much science do you need to have in a science fiction story.
Everyone agreed that you need to build a consistent universe in the first several chapters, as you won't get a chance to build it anew later, but no one could really answer the question beyond that. However, I saw it slightly differently.
In my opinion, science-fiction is popular because of people's interest in science. There are a LOT of people who have little actual science background, but who love reading the science headlines in the paper (OK, I'm exaggerating here, as no one reads papers anymore! 'D). But what brings authors and readers to it, is what each new scientific detail means. Thus sci-fi authors will take one point (say artifical intelligence, or faster-than-light travel) and they'll write about that exploring how it challenges modern life.
In such a case, assuming you buy my model, the author's main responsibility is to get THAT detail right. You've got to research the hell out of that one issue, then you've got to build a universe to support the story (within a couple chapters), then you've got to cover it in enough detail to satisfy the science nerds, and THEN you've got to explain it simply enough for the non-science people who may stumble across it (although this usually means people who aren't up one that particular area of science).
That's a pretty heavy suitcase for each story to carry around, and it's hard to get the mix just right. But if you get that mix just right, you don't have to worry about whether including explosions in space. You need to focus on the main element of the story, and that should carry you through the rest of the 'believability' issues. If you get the mixture wrong, then nothing will come across as 'authentic'.
So, now the question is, how much science do each of you aim for, whether reading or writing? What makes you quit an otherwise good book, and what does a great book get you to ignore?
Everyone agreed that you need to build a consistent universe in the first several chapters, as you won't get a chance to build it anew later, but no one could really answer the question beyond that. However, I saw it slightly differently.
In my opinion, science-fiction is popular because of people's interest in science. There are a LOT of people who have little actual science background, but who love reading the science headlines in the paper (OK, I'm exaggerating here, as no one reads papers anymore! 'D). But what brings authors and readers to it, is what each new scientific detail means. Thus sci-fi authors will take one point (say artifical intelligence, or faster-than-light travel) and they'll write about that exploring how it challenges modern life.
In such a case, assuming you buy my model, the author's main responsibility is to get THAT detail right. You've got to research the hell out of that one issue, then you've got to build a universe to support the story (within a couple chapters), then you've got to cover it in enough detail to satisfy the science nerds, and THEN you've got to explain it simply enough for the non-science people who may stumble across it (although this usually means people who aren't up one that particular area of science).
That's a pretty heavy suitcase for each story to carry around, and it's hard to get the mix just right. But if you get that mix just right, you don't have to worry about whether including explosions in space. You need to focus on the main element of the story, and that should carry you through the rest of the 'believability' issues. If you get the mixture wrong, then nothing will come across as 'authentic'.
So, now the question is, how much science do each of you aim for, whether reading or writing? What makes you quit an otherwise good book, and what does a great book get you to ignore?
Soronel Haetir
Aug 23, 2015, 3:51:27 PM8/23/15
to storie...@googlegroups.com
I would say it doesn't need to be very 'sciency' at all, consistency
is vastly more important. The other item I would say is important is
to not have too many impossible things. It's okay to use unobtainium
but if you do that too often the story is likely to be less for it (I
would use Mike Cropo'S A Spartan's War Chronicles as an example of a
story that suffers for having too many impossible things).
A well written book can get me to ignore just about anything. I would
say this is actually Stephen King's main power as a storyteller
(admittedly he didn't write sci-fi but the premise still holds of
needing the reader to ignore impossible things), by the time the
really freaky shit happens in his books I'm just nodding along going
"okay, that makes sense."
I would also disagree with you on the idea that people read sci-fi for
the science. Whatever science is used is generally only present in
order to provide the scene. A murder mystery on a space station is
still a murder mystery. Sci-fi can provide settings far from that of
mundane reality but the story still needs to be something other than
just explaining (or even exploring) that setting.
On 8/23/15, Crumbly Writer <crumbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I saw this on a Quora discussion, and thought you might like it. It as
> essentially just someone asking how much science do you need to have in a
> science fiction story.
>
> Everyone agreed that you need to build a consistent universe in the first
> several chapters, as you won't get a chance to build it anew later, but no
> one could really answer the question beyond that. However, I saw it
> slightly differently.
>
> In my opinion, science-fiction is popular because of people's interest in
> science. There are a LOT of people who have little actual science
> background, but who love reading the science headlines in the paper (OK,
> I'm exaggerating here, as no one reads papers anymore! 'D). But what brings
>
> authors and readers to it, is what each new scientific detail means. Thus
> sci-fi authors will take one point (say artifical intelligence, or
> faster-than-light travel) and they'll write about that exploring how it
> challenges modern life.
>
> In such a case, assuming you buy my model, the author's main responsibility
>
> is to get THAT detail right. You've got to research the hell out of that
> one issue, then you've got to build a universe to support the story (within
>
> a couple chapters), then you've got to cover it in enough detail to satisfy
>
> the science nerds, and THEN you've got to explain it simply enough for the
> non-science people who may stumble across it (although this usually means
> people who aren't up one that particular area of science).
>
> That's a pretty heavy suitcase for each story to carry around, and it's
> hard to get the mix just right. But if you get that mix *just* right, you
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "storiesonline" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to storiesonlin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
Soronel Haetir
soronel...@gmail.com
is vastly more important. The other item I would say is important is
to not have too many impossible things. It's okay to use unobtainium
but if you do that too often the story is likely to be less for it (I
would use Mike Cropo'S A Spartan's War Chronicles as an example of a
story that suffers for having too many impossible things).
A well written book can get me to ignore just about anything. I would
say this is actually Stephen King's main power as a storyteller
(admittedly he didn't write sci-fi but the premise still holds of
needing the reader to ignore impossible things), by the time the
really freaky shit happens in his books I'm just nodding along going
"okay, that makes sense."
I would also disagree with you on the idea that people read sci-fi for
the science. Whatever science is used is generally only present in
order to provide the scene. A murder mystery on a space station is
still a murder mystery. Sci-fi can provide settings far from that of
mundane reality but the story still needs to be something other than
just explaining (or even exploring) that setting.
On 8/23/15, Crumbly Writer <crumbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I saw this on a Quora discussion, and thought you might like it. It as
> essentially just someone asking how much science do you need to have in a
> science fiction story.
>
> Everyone agreed that you need to build a consistent universe in the first
> several chapters, as you won't get a chance to build it anew later, but no
> one could really answer the question beyond that. However, I saw it
> slightly differently.
>
> In my opinion, science-fiction is popular because of people's interest in
> science. There are a LOT of people who have little actual science
> background, but who love reading the science headlines in the paper (OK,
> I'm exaggerating here, as no one reads papers anymore! 'D). But what brings
>
> authors and readers to it, is what each new scientific detail means. Thus
> sci-fi authors will take one point (say artifical intelligence, or
> faster-than-light travel) and they'll write about that exploring how it
> challenges modern life.
>
> In such a case, assuming you buy my model, the author's main responsibility
>
> is to get THAT detail right. You've got to research the hell out of that
> one issue, then you've got to build a universe to support the story (within
>
> a couple chapters), then you've got to cover it in enough detail to satisfy
>
> the science nerds, and THEN you've got to explain it simply enough for the
> non-science people who may stumble across it (although this usually means
> people who aren't up one that particular area of science).
>
> That's a pretty heavy suitcase for each story to carry around, and it's
> don't have to worry about whether including explosions in space. You need
> to focus on the main element of the story, and that *should* carry you
> through the rest of the 'believability' issues. If you get the mixture
> wrong, then *nothing* will come across as 'authentic'.
>
> So, now the question is, how much science do each of you aim for, whether
> reading or writing? What makes you quit an otherwise good book, and what
> does a great book get you to ignore?
>
> --
> So, now the question is, how much science do each of you aim for, whether
> reading or writing? What makes you quit an otherwise good book, and what
> does a great book get you to ignore?
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "storiesonline" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to storiesonlin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
Soronel Haetir
soronel...@gmail.com
Dem Gnomes
Aug 23, 2015, 4:05:27 PM8/23/15
to storiesonline
I would argue that you don't have to be scientific in your story. But it should be obvious throughout the story that YOU, the author, understand the world you are describing.
For a specific example, look an an author called Susan R. Matthews, who wrote what is called the "Jurisdiction" series. The protagonist is a super-talented medical doctor assigned to serve as a torturer/executioner. It's clearly space opera. There's an "empire". There are multiple species, multiple worlds, there are giant spaceships and enormous guns and a rebellion. And NONE OF THAT is the subject. It's all mentioned in passing, or as one-liners explaining why this or that prisoner is being tortured.
There is some science. There are some amazing things. And they only get mentioned when they are being used, and only their use is mentioned. If you read David Weber, there are entire pages of exposition. If you read David Drake's "Hammer's Slammers" books, there are entire CHAPTERS dedicated to pure exposition. Matthews, by contrast, mentions some key property of whatever thing it is, and that's that!
"The Jurisdiction record cannot be changed after it is written. It can only be appended to." Really? How does that work? Nope, that's all you get, just two sentences!
So, she writes about these characters (and IMO does an excellent job) and she casually mentions enough stuff that you KNOW there's a star-spanning empire, rebels, giant spaceships, and all the rest. But she doesn't actually talk about any of it. She talks about her characters. There's very little "science" at all, despite it being very much a science fiction series. (And despite the protagonist being a doctor!) But there's enough "casual name-dropping" that you, the reader, are convinced that the author has a giant world-building document somewhere with all this crap written down.
And that's enough.
Dem Torturous Gnomes
For a specific example, look an an author called Susan R. Matthews, who wrote what is called the "Jurisdiction" series. The protagonist is a super-talented medical doctor assigned to serve as a torturer/executioner. It's clearly space opera. There's an "empire". There are multiple species, multiple worlds, there are giant spaceships and enormous guns and a rebellion. And NONE OF THAT is the subject. It's all mentioned in passing, or as one-liners explaining why this or that prisoner is being tortured.
There is some science. There are some amazing things. And they only get mentioned when they are being used, and only their use is mentioned. If you read David Weber, there are entire pages of exposition. If you read David Drake's "Hammer's Slammers" books, there are entire CHAPTERS dedicated to pure exposition. Matthews, by contrast, mentions some key property of whatever thing it is, and that's that!
"The Jurisdiction record cannot be changed after it is written. It can only be appended to." Really? How does that work? Nope, that's all you get, just two sentences!
So, she writes about these characters (and IMO does an excellent job) and she casually mentions enough stuff that you KNOW there's a star-spanning empire, rebels, giant spaceships, and all the rest. But she doesn't actually talk about any of it. She talks about her characters. There's very little "science" at all, despite it being very much a science fiction series. (And despite the protagonist being a doctor!) But there's enough "casual name-dropping" that you, the reader, are convinced that the author has a giant world-building document somewhere with all this crap written down.
And that's enough.
Dem Torturous Gnomes
Crumbly Writer
Aug 23, 2015, 4:22:21 PM8/23/15
to storiesonline
I guess I'm talking about myself, rather than referring to historical science-fiction. My stories are only marginally about science, but they qualify as 'hard science fiction' because they're based on science. My first, "Catalyst" series is about a young man leading a religious movement, but the entire series is based upon a scientific explanation of telepathy. My second, "Great Death" series is a post-apocalyptic story, but it's based upon how could a disease possible kill so many people found in most PA stories. Yet it was mostly about how people deal with death (the characters focused on survival, despite the odds they were fighting against). My next story was about aliens, but the aliens play a minimal role, as the story is about protecting the innocent from government forces who are only interested in profiting from them.
Thus in my stories, the science is the story. There's a strong central element based upon science and speculating on how things occur, the characters invoke the scientific principal as they try to figure out what's happening on their own by proposing theories and trying to test them out.
But yeah, there's a LOT of sci-fi which doesn't fit into my perspective at all. So I rescind my theory on the subject. Let's say that sci-fi is about world building, regardless of how much is based on science.
Thus in my stories, the science is the story. There's a strong central element based upon science and speculating on how things occur, the characters invoke the scientific principal as they try to figure out what's happening on their own by proposing theories and trying to test them out.
But yeah, there's a LOT of sci-fi which doesn't fit into my perspective at all. So I rescind my theory on the subject. Let's say that sci-fi is about world building, regardless of how much is based on science.
Deadly Ernest
Aug 23, 2015, 5:35:19 PM8/23/15
to storiesonline
As little or as much as you want. Some sci-fi authors have a lot, some have none. In the Pern series we see no actual science in most of the books beyond the legends of people traveling across the stars to Pern, while a few have a lot of science. The same is true of many sci-fi books and stories. It's all about what you see as needing for the story. I've a couple of stories that fit the sci-fi genre and not said a word about how the science aspects work, just that they exist for the purposes needed, and then drop them.
Ernest
Ernest
rbhol...@charter.net
Aug 23, 2015, 5:38:44 PM8/23/15
to storiesonline
The science doesn't have to be completely accurate or current in order to work. Use it sparingly as background information not as the story itself. Jules Verne used it in his stories which at the time he wrote them would have made them Science Fiction without going into so much detail as to ruin the story.
James Lloyd
Aug 23, 2015, 5:42:54 PM8/23/15
to storiesonline
It depends on the reader. David Weber describes the science behind Everything in excruciating detail. Some people love that stuff, but I personally skip over it. I'm convinced that he does it because he greatly enjoys working it all out. If an author doesn't enjoy that kind of thing he can be very minimalist about explanations as far as I'm concerned. Especially when he's writing free online stories.
BTW, if you know what I'm talking about when I mention David Weber's info dumps, you really must Google "how David Weber orders a pizza." It's positively one of the best pieces of satire I've ever read.
Switch Blayde
Aug 23, 2015, 7:17:51 PM8/23/15
to storie...@googlegroups.com
Stephen King wrote SciFi under the pen name Bachman. The novels didn't sell until people found out it was him.
I used to love SciFi. I don't anymore. I think one reason is there's too much emphasis placed on the science.
Switch
["Sexual Awakening" (full length novel) at: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L1VHIZC ]
I used to love SciFi. I don't anymore. I think one reason is there's too much emphasis placed on the science.
Switch
["Sexual Awakening" (full length novel) at: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L1VHIZC ]
[stories at http://storiesonline.net/auth/Switch_Blayde ]
[Twitter at https://twitter.com/swblayde ]
[discussion group/blog at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/switch_blayde_group/ ]
> Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 11:51:25 -0800
> Subject: Re: How Scientific do Science-Fiction stories need to be?
> From: soronel...@gmail.com
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: How Scientific do Science-Fiction stories need to be?
> From: soronel...@gmail.com
> To: storie...@googlegroups.com
Soronel Haetir
Aug 23, 2015, 8:34:14 PM8/23/15
to storie...@googlegroups.com
I wouldn't call any of 'The Running Man', 'Rage' or 'The Long Walk'
science fiction, "depressing futures" sure but there is nothing in any
of them that is (or was at the time of writing) at all speculative
science-wise. I never did read 'Roadwork' so can't speak to whether
that is science fiction or not. I think there is one more he published
under the Bachman name but can't recall the title and have no idea
what it might be (or even if it actually exists).
science fiction, "depressing futures" sure but there is nothing in any
of them that is (or was at the time of writing) at all speculative
science-wise. I never did read 'Roadwork' so can't speak to whether
that is science fiction or not. I think there is one more he published
under the Bachman name but can't recall the title and have no idea
what it might be (or even if it actually exists).
Crumbly Writer
Aug 23, 2015, 8:52:50 PM8/23/15
to storiesonline
I have the same genre problems with PA (post-apocalyptic) stories. Despite being set in a dysfunctional future, they have about ZERO science in them (besides the make and model of every single gun in the MC's possession).
I suspect any story set in the future (or time travel into the past, with or without scientific help) is considered 'science fiction'. Paranormal is considered the same (i.e. no science involved but still classified as sci-fi).
I suspect any story set in the future (or time travel into the past, with or without scientific help) is considered 'science fiction'. Paranormal is considered the same (i.e. no science involved but still classified as sci-fi).
Soronel Haetir
Aug 23, 2015, 9:12:01 PM8/23/15
to storie...@googlegroups.com
Time travel (in either direction) is a different beast than stories
that are merely set in some unspecified (but generally 'near') future.
I would not call psychological drama science-fiction merely because
the setting is not 'now'.
that are merely set in some unspecified (but generally 'near') future.
I would not call psychological drama science-fiction merely because
the setting is not 'now'.
> I have the same genre problems with PA (post-apocalyptic) stories. Despite
> being set in a dysfunctional future, they have about ZERO science in them
> (besides the make and model of every single gun in the MC's possession).
>
> I suspect any story set in the future (or time travel into the past, with
> or without scientific help) is considered 'science fiction'. Paranormal is
> considered the same (i.e. no science involved but *still* classified as
> being set in a dysfunctional future, they have about ZERO science in them
> (besides the make and model of every single gun in the MC's possession).
>
> I suspect any story set in the future (or time travel into the past, with
> or without scientific help) is considered 'science fiction'. Paranormal is
> sci-fi).
>
> Soronel Haetir wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn't call any of 'The Running Man', 'Rage' or 'The Long Walk'
>> science fiction, "depressing futures" sure but there is nothing in any
>> of them that is (or was at the time of writing) at all speculative
>> science-wise. I never did read 'Roadwork' so can't speak to whether
>> that is science fiction or not. I think there is one more he published
>> under the Bachman name but can't recall the title and have no idea
>> what it might be (or even if it actually exists).
>>
>
>
> Soronel Haetir wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn't call any of 'The Running Man', 'Rage' or 'The Long Walk'
>> science fiction, "depressing futures" sure but there is nothing in any
>> of them that is (or was at the time of writing) at all speculative
>> science-wise. I never did read 'Roadwork' so can't speak to whether
>> that is science fiction or not. I think there is one more he published
>> under the Bachman name but can't recall the title and have no idea
>> what it might be (or even if it actually exists).
>>
>
rbhol...@charter.net
Aug 23, 2015, 9:28:08 PM8/23/15
to storiesonline
I have found in my reading that most stories could be labeled under several different genre labels, so I personally take the genre label with an open mind. A writer also has a potential of being type cast for a particular genre as well. Even Louis L'amour had that happen. Yet he had at least one book which could have been labeled as either Scifi or Fantasy along with the Western label it was published under.
Just about any story that has any kind of Romance in it could also be labeled as a romance story for example even if the romance is only a portion of the theme. To me the listed genre is only the tip of the iceberg of a good story. I like to look deeper finding all those possibilities a good to great story has for a reader.
Just about any story that has any kind of Romance in it could also be labeled as a romance story for example even if the romance is only a portion of the theme. To me the listed genre is only the tip of the iceberg of a good story. I like to look deeper finding all those possibilities a good to great story has for a reader.
Soronel Haetir
Aug 23, 2015, 9:33:23 PM8/23/15
to storie...@googlegroups.com
I see this as being more a elimination set than inclusion. Regardless
of how many genres a story might fall under (and even quibble over)
there are bound to be far more that there is agreement on that the
story is _not_.
>> considered the same (i.e. no science involved but *still* classified as
>> sci-fi).
of how many genres a story might fall under (and even quibble over)
there are bound to be far more that there is agreement on that the
story is _not_.
>> sci-fi).
Crumbly Writer
Aug 23, 2015, 10:04:47 PM8/23/15
to storiesonline
Most self-publishing sites (Amazon, lulu, smashwords, createspace and d2d) allow you to select multiple genres, and most author's pick the closest match available. Genres are really a relic of the past, but fans still rely on them to discover new stories. Luckily, search terms are more specific and you can add more of them of your own choosing.
I've also noticed bookstores establishing their own genre categories, instead of the more traditional categories, but they don't have to room to get too free with them.
I've also noticed bookstores establishing their own genre categories, instead of the more traditional categories, but they don't have to room to get too free with them.
Sagacious
Aug 23, 2015, 10:49:48 PM8/23/15
to storie...@googlegroups.com
How accurate or scientific a sci-fi story is depends upon what the focus of the story is. If the story is another planet or a future it can be classified as sci-fi. There is no need to describe how the characters got there as long as they don't go anywhere else.
On the other hand, with a story like "The Maintenance Man" currently being posted, the tech is deeply into the story line and must be described in some manner.
As far as classifications, Fiction and Non-Fiction is good enough. The fine tuning can be done on the dust jacket. Most fiction has numerous types of story lines going on during the tale.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "storiesonline" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to storiesonlin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Rock on into the night.
Soronel Haetir
Aug 23, 2015, 11:02:55 PM8/23/15
to storie...@googlegroups.com
rbhol...@charter.net
Aug 23, 2015, 11:30:11 PM8/23/15
to storiesonline
That is the reason I try to go by how well the story appeals to me. I seldom even look at the listed genre unless I am looking for a particular type of story. As a kid I used to read up to 10 books a day (blew the librarians minds). I found out early that I had to read a wide range of topics in order to keep maximum interest in reading.
On topic the only time I get picky over any science or tech in a story is when its presented as fact and not as fiction. Everyone has to keep an open mind not just readers, but editors and critics alike.
On topic the only time I get picky over any science or tech in a story is when its presented as fact and not as fiction. Everyone has to keep an open mind not just readers, but editors and critics alike.
Kim Little
Aug 24, 2015, 3:42:00 AM8/24/15
to storiesonline
Hence an entirely different genre called "speculative fiction". Neal Stephenson springs to mind, as does some of William Gibsons's later work (after the Sprawl and Bridge trilogies).
massivereader
Aug 24, 2015, 3:56:54 AM8/24/15
to storiesonline
The primary issue is to avoid breaking the reader's suspension of disbelief. If science is essential to some part of your story, you damn well better get it right! That means researching the state of the art and running it past a practicing professional.
On the other hand, if it's background and the plot doesn't key on any specific scientific priniciples, you should be ok if you follow the established tropes of the genre. If you're really concerned, just run it past someone with a functional understanding of the science involved, like someone with a BS or engineering degree from the past decade, or someone with an older degree who has kept up with advances in the feild. A lot of this stuff has changed significantly in the past twenty to forty years.
On the gripping hand, if you are making up science, technology and material science, the key is for it to be used in a consistent manner, and for the posited scientific advances to be internally consistent. Not all advances in science are linear or intuitive so there is a lot of wiggle room here.
To be safe you have to use the same rules that apply to the use of magic, psionics and other 'pseudo-sciences'. If you break the pattern you have established early on without a damn good explanation, you risk the loss of the suspense of disbelief.
John
Tim Merrigan
Aug 24, 2015, 8:18:19 AM8/24/15
to storie...@googlegroups.com
One minor nit. It's not explosions in space that are a problem
(they happen all the time from supernovas to matter and antimatter
atoms colliding), the problem is with HEARING explosions in space
(nothing the carry the sound).
Tim Merrigan
Aug 24, 2015, 8:45:03 AM8/24/15
to storie...@googlegroups.com
"The Jurisdiction record cannot be changed after it is written. It can only be appended to." Really? How does that work? Nope, that's all you get, just two sentences!
The California constitution is like that. Nothing can be
removed. It can be struck out but it can't be
removed. (The California constitution is the size of a pre cell
phone, pre e-mail big city phone book.)
Crumbly Writer
Aug 24, 2015, 11:15:27 AM8/24/15
to storiesonline
Not really, Tim. In many, many sci-fi movies (ex. Star Wars) you see ships blowing up. However, flames and explosives generally require oxygen, which wouldn't exist in outer space. Explosions of a dying star are massive different than of a small/large ship carrying rocket fuel.
Deadly Ernest
Aug 24, 2015, 12:42:56 PM8/24/15
to storiesonline
CW,
The basic rule in sci-fi films is the oxygen for the explosion is what was inside the ship when it blew up, which is why the explosion is so short lived and is logical. But it doesn't explain why Hollywood has to have the people watching from another ship 'hear' an explosion when the ship goes up.
Ernest
The basic rule in sci-fi films is the oxygen for the explosion is what was inside the ship when it blew up, which is why the explosion is so short lived and is logical. But it doesn't explain why Hollywood has to have the people watching from another ship 'hear' an explosion when the ship goes up.
Ernest
Mad Nige
Aug 24, 2015, 2:40:16 PM8/24/15
to storiesonline
On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 5:42:56 PM UTC+1, Deadly Ernest wrote:
But it doesn't explain why Hollywood has to have the people watching from another ship 'hear' an explosion when the ship goes up.
Of course not, that's because Holywood aims the story at a level to be followed by a two-short-planks audience. It'a also why an explosion at a distance is heard with the fireball rather than seconds later, even if it's a dozen miles away. Especially so for non-SF.
The basic rule in sci-fi films is the oxygen for the explosion is what was inside the ship when it blew up, which is why the explosion is so short lived and is logical.
Of course, an energetic fuel-oxidiser flame would be a pale blue, not orange (think shuttle main engine vs solid booster) but the lowest-common-denominator audience expects a big ball of orange flame. If you could get a fusion motor to go bang rather than fizzle, you'd get an expanding ball of plasma which would cool as it expands though it would be very diffuse by the time it cools to yellow-orange hot. If that was realisticly portrayed, the LCD audience wuldn't understand what had happened (I suspect the directors wouldn't, either).
On Tuesday, 25 August 2015 01:15:27 UTC+10, Crumbly Writer wrote:Not really, Tim. In many, many sci-fi movies (ex. Star Wars) you see ships blowing up. However, flames and explosives generally require oxygen, which wouldn't exist in outer space. Explosions of a dying star are massive different than of a small/large ship carrying rocket fuel.
The real reason I've posted is because this reminded me of a story, and I CAN'T REMEMBER what it's called. I'm pretty sure it's a Larry Niven; the scene I'm reminded of is a spaceship hovering over a frozen planet, and the exhaust eventually cuts down to the Oxygen ice layer after previously cutting through a Methane layer (or vice-versa, or similar) and the whole planet catches fire. I've got a feeling it may be 'World of Ptavvs', but I can't find my copy to check.
Sagacious
Aug 24, 2015, 3:28:51 PM8/24/15
to storie...@googlegroups.com
Reminds me of a movie called "Ice Pirates" with an overrated male lead. A society with the ability to travel space cannot make H2O?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "storiesonline" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to storiesonlin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Crumbly Writer
Aug 24, 2015, 5:48:25 PM8/24/15
to storiesonline
Hey, hey! Let's be fair here. The society could make plenty of H2O, they're just unable to build a freezer for it! 'D Still, you'd think they could get one from a local 'rent-to-own' shop, even if they couldn't purchase one themselves.
Sagacious
Aug 24, 2015, 6:41:25 PM8/24/15
to storie...@googlegroups.com
Just hang the container out the spaceship window, that should cool it enough.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "storiesonline" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to storiesonlin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Crumbly Writer
Aug 24, 2015, 7:58:47 PM8/24/15
to storiesonline
That's what I do anytime I want to have a mid-rendezvous smoke.
perv...@gmail.com
Aug 26, 2015, 11:46:54 PM8/26/15
to storiesonline
As far as I know this is known as "hard" science fiction versus "soft" science fiction. I'm actually a little fuzzy on the details because this sort of thing always falls to personal taste and terms meaning whatever any given person wants them to mean. But as I understand it, "hard" science fiction tends to include a lot of detail on the science with focus on realism, possibly bordering on excessive amounts of world-building detail. Whereas "soft" science fiction tells some adventure story primarily and tosses out some technobabble gibberish when it wants something cool to happen. Hard science fiction tends to be older scifi novels, most stuff today and just about everything made by Hollywood falls under soft science fiction.
I like to compare Star Trek, which often sets up and solves their problems with technobabble, to Star Wars (the movies only), which uses scifi as a setting only and never bothers trying to justify or explain any technology. Yet both of these I think would be considered soft scifi in the hard/soft scale.
I think all styles have their place, and it really depends on what the author's goal is with any given story. You can ask things like, is the core of the story the characters, and the scifi setting is just where they live, or is the core of the story some aspect of the setting, and the characters are just there as a tool to explore it?
I like to compare Star Trek, which often sets up and solves their problems with technobabble, to Star Wars (the movies only), which uses scifi as a setting only and never bothers trying to justify or explain any technology. Yet both of these I think would be considered soft scifi in the hard/soft scale.
I think all styles have their place, and it really depends on what the author's goal is with any given story. You can ask things like, is the core of the story the characters, and the scifi setting is just where they live, or is the core of the story some aspect of the setting, and the characters are just there as a tool to explore it?
Crumbly Writer
Aug 27, 2015, 4:03:36 PM8/27/15
to storiesonline
Perv, you're absolutely right. I tend to write 'hard science' stories, because the entire story is based on specific science concepts (like how FTL travel works, or by explaining how a meteor shower can provoke a world wide plague). The story doesn't need to get bogged down in details, but the story needs to pay attention to the specifics. These stories tend to get written like Law & Order episodes did. Some writer sees a news/science article, says "That would make an interesting story", and they write the entire story based on a fictional interpretation of the story/idea. Essentially, they create an entire universe, just so they can explore how a particular aspect of physics works (ex. stories that rely on worm holes). In one story, I had an entire chapter dedicated to how a space ship flew (using slower versions of faster-than-light travel), by showing how a small shuttle could run rings around military jet fighters. However, those stories tend to require 'reflective' periods where they explain what's happening (i.e. the participants will see it happening, but then in a later chapter, they'll have to guess about how what they saw was even possible).
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages