Cringe at the 'science' in SF!

[SkepticLance]

I love science fiction and read a lot. I also read a certain amount of fantasy. However, I have this feeling that a fantasy writer can get away with anything - worlds based on magic. However, a science fiction writer should respect good science, and try and get, at least the basics, right.

 

Current book I am reading shows space aeroplanes flying into orbit with electric coils in their wings to ride on the Earth's magnetic field. Of course that is impossible, so I cringe.

 

I suppose that even the idea of faster than light travel is really an impossibility and a cringe factor. However, I tend to accept at least one such piece of non science per book as a plot devise. Occasionally there is a really great book, like Larry Niven's Legacy of Heorot in which good science is kept to throughout.

 

Do other people feel the way I do? If so, what do you find makes you cringe the most?

[Mokele]

I actually try to avoid explanations at all, and it's fairly easy, since in my current Work In Progress, the only characters with any experience with alien/superhuman/magic phenomena are a moron and a musician. That way, the focus and be on the plot and characters, not on awkward, 3-page expositions of technology.

[swansont]

There's certainly cringe-worthy SF. But the thing is that it's science fiction, so to me it depends on a few things —

 

If the author has created an alternate existence where the laws are different, or has created new materials in an earth-based scenario, that's fine as long as there are no obvious contradictions. You have to be willing to suspend your disbelief to some extent.

 

It's when the creator has just gotten established science flat-out wrong that I cringe, like ignoring conservation of momentum.

[Daecon]

As long as something doesn't contradict it's own in-Universe rules (you'd be surprised how many do) or basic logic, I can tolerate it.

 

However in cases of "plot trumps pre-established reality" is when I want to reach through the pages and punch the author in the face. Or reach through the TV screen and slap Russell T. Davies while watching his Doctor Who fanfiction where he does it all the time.

[Kaeroll]

Russell T Davies can't write for toffee.

 

I'm usually quite accepting. I can't stand Dr Who style 'sci'-fi - "Oh, the temporal continuum has a tear in it! If we don't reverse the polarity of the quantum transducer we'll be sucked into an alternate reality where everyone has big chins!" etc. Big words does not good sci fi make.

[padren]

I actually really like Doctor Who, but I consider it science fiction in the way that Red Dwarf is science fiction. Red Dwarf takes place on a spaceship and all that - but when film developing solution "gets messed up" and turns the photos into "windows in time" where the cast can step back into history... it's not supposed to be hard science fiction.

 

As such it will always fail when viewed from that criteria. Douglas Adams would rewire physics through creating wording: "Anyone can fly, they just have to throw themselves at the ground and miss!"

 

I used to cringe, but now I only cringe when a show purports to have an established set of physical laws to work within and fails miserably. Otherwise I judge it on it's other merits such as characters, plot, humor, creativity, thought provoking ideas, etc.

[mooeypoo]

There are usually two "Types" of science fiction - soft science fiction, where the phenomena are more "realistic" and the science has a bit more basis in reality (For example, "NEXT" by Michael Crichton can fit that definition) and "Hard" science fiction, where the science is not really realistic.

 

I like both, to be honest, I just try to differentiate the two consciously.

 

When I read "Next", I enjoyed the plot very much but the idea of the nanotechnology was so intriguing by itself that it got me interested in actually reading up on what is logical and what isn't in that story. Not all of it is completely realistic, of course, but the *basics* are sound (the 'fear' part is a bit of a stretch, but still).

 

So I think that it'sa matter of preference. I like both of those styles, and picking which one I want to read at a given time mostly depends on my mood. Books don't have to be realistic, they can also convey messages through pure fantasy even if they *are* called "science fiction".

[JohnB]

As such it will always fail when viewed from that criteria. Douglas Adams would rewire physics through creating wording: "Anyone can fly, they just have to throw themselves at the ground and miss!"

Now, after all this time, are you telling me it won't work????? I've been jumping off things for nothing????

[Kaeroll]

I used to cringe, but now I only cringe when a show purports to have an established set of physical laws to work within and fails miserably. Otherwise I judge it on it's other merits such as characters, plot, humor, creativity, thought provoking ideas, etc.

Unfortunately, by my book RT Davies utterly fails at the above too. Roll on Stephen Moffat!

 

mooeypoo - I never got round to reading Next. I wasn't a huge fan of Crichton's last few books. Prey (also about nanotech) was quite predictable. And scientifically bugged me from the moment a character goes: "So we have this molecular factory, right, where we can assemble molecules atom by atom..." Whaaaat?

[SkepticLance]

Anyone else cringe at techno-babble, such as we see all the time on Star Trek?

[mooeypoo]

Anyone else cringe at techno-babble, such as we see all the time on Star Trek?

Depends how bad it is in the specific episode.

 

In general, though, I know more people who got interested in space (and went to do their own mini 'research') out of watching Star Trek than people who blindly believe the technobabble.

 

Besides, I like the idea that they're *TRYING* to make the technobabble "smart" (there are bazillion books analyzing the Star Trek universe), so I think overall they're getting more "good" out of it than bad.

 

So I forgive.

[Daecon]

*cough*Threshold*cough*

 

They even broke their own Star Trek rules in that one.

[mooeypoo]

yeah yeah and theres a wholelot of them

 

But I have to say -- half the fun is to analyze those things, and I used to learn a lot just from trying to figure out what the technobabble MEANS (nothing,usually ) so again, seeing as StarTrek is a *fictional* show that has a lot of messages that dont just touch tech stuff (for example, one of the first lesbian kiss on TV was on StarTrek, as was the first time an Asian character kissed a caucasian counterpart, and more), I really don't think the technobabble issue is such a bad one.

 

I love Star Trek. I know the tech is *mostly* bunk, but there's some in there that opens your mind and some that gets you thinking. I used to even play around (when I was younger) with Role Playing Star Trek universe and I can tell you -- the research you do into what's "plausible" (even within that 'technobabble' world) and what to say in terms of technobabble yourself when you're "in character" in that universe, gets you to learn quite a lot about true science, too.

 

All in all, I really think this entire notion about techno-babble being wrong = the show sux is annoying. The bottom line is that those are fictional shows. I much prefer disliking the ones who promote ESP and ghost-hunting and those whacky pseudoscience twists for "Quantum Physics" crap. *THOSE* actually turn people on the other direction from science. Star Trek's mistakes are at least in the RIGHT direction.

[SkepticLance]

I must agree with that last point. I especially disdain those shows that promote bulldust as if it were real. eg. Mediums contacting the dead.

 

I tend to classify fiction into honest fiction and dishonest fiction.

Honest fiction is the Lord of the Rings type, where there is no pretence. We all know it is pure fiction for entertainment and escapism.

Dishonest fiction is where the author is trying to convince the reader or viewer that what he/she is saying is true, when it is all a lie. Examples would be Eric Van Daniken, Velikovski, mediums, some quack medicine perveyers and so on. Fiction, pretending to be fact.

[Mokele]

Anything involving any prehistorical animal makes me cringe, as it's almost invariably wrong. Sometimes it's minor, like animals from different continents or slightly different times in the same place. Sometimes, however, it's so horrific, I can't help but yell at the TV.

[mooeypoo]

Mokele, I agree but there are, in my view, exceptions. You're probably going to hate me forever for this, but I *LOVED* Jourassic Park. The book itself was better, but the movie wasn't too far behind.

 

Now, I know it's mostly implausible, and it's full of crap, *but* I went to see it as a little girl with my dad and when we left the movies we had a very long talk about what genetics mean and what might be plausible and might not be. Mind you, I was about 10 years old, and this type of conversation wouldn't have just naturally "popped up" in our household, specially since my parents like science but neither of them is scientifically trained at all.

 

I really think that when a movie opens up the door to curiousity, then whatever mistakes it's making in the actual science is negligible. Who cares if Jourassic Park could ACTUALLY happen or not, when the bottom line was that many people started getting curious about genetics, about what it means in both the scientific part and the ethical part.

 

That's also my view about most science fiction books and movies -- even those that treat physics (which is my field), and most of them really are crap-science, but they get people (mainly kids) interested and curious, if they are done right, even if the science itself is a bit too stretchy.

 

Most of Michael Crichton's books are like that for me. "Sphere", for instance, is one of my favourite books (the movie sucked majorly and missed the entire point, so don't even get me started on that one). The science is sketchy to say the least and there are a lot of problems with his 'time travel' / 'entity' issues he's raising in the book - but the philosophical aspect is absolutely brilliant, and it raises questions that are interesting and tough to answer. It made me look at things from a different angle (more specifically, I started thinking about life in other planets and what would happen if those 'life forms' exist in a form we can't quite recognize - would we have to change the meaning of the definition of "life", and would we even recognize such an entity if we see it as life? etc etc). Those are great questions that got me interested in the ideas and thoughts behind exobiology, and although I doubt I'll make it my field, I did go around reading about it more and thinking about the ideas.

 

So, yeah, a lot of sci-fi novels and movies are full of crap, but I think the bigger question is what they're leading you to. If a movie has crapscience but it's raising important questions that might lead people to relate to science better or to think about important scientific (and philosophical) questions, then I can forgive the stretchiness of the science.

 

Besides- the entire point of scifi is to stretch the limits of what currently exists. You can't really write about futuristic stuff without doing some guesswork and stretching the limits of what we currently know; if you could, it would exist today

 

 

 

~moo

[padren]

Now, after all this time, are you telling me it won't work????? I've been jumping off things for nothing????

 

Oh it will work. If you throw yourself at the ground and miss you will be flying - so it is correct. The only issue is pulling off that "and miss" part.

[mooeypoo]

Oh it will work. If you throw yourself at the ground and miss you will be flying - so it is correct. The only issue is pulling off that "and miss" part.

You read the right books, my friend. And a brilliant book it is (though I'm not sure I'd call it scifi ).

[padren]

Anyone else cringe at techno-babble, such as we see all the time on Star Trek?

 

My pet peeve is when they create scenarios that would allow them to deal with an issue if they were consistent, but don't "think to" and you are left following a blundered story line.

 

Battlestar Galactica plot spoiler, just in case you haven't seen it and want to:

[hide]

Case in point: I just had this thought the other day - in BSG they tried to spread that disease to the cylons and space em ages earlier in the story, so they'd be reborn and infect the whole population. They died before they could be in range to download, so it failed. But, they still had the virus, they could still infect any captured cylon and retry... but it was just forgotten. Maybe it was moral reservations but it seemed like "this plot line is done, lets forget about it" and it never came up again.

[/hide]

 

Then in startrek they'll do something so fantastical that it should revolutionize the fleet, but it never does. They never say "hey, if we do this again we'll be outta harms way in a minute" but instead they freak out and have to come up with a completely different McGuyver save.

 

That said - still loved it!

[mooeypoo]

Don't forget that these show live on the drama.. if StarTrek ships could just get out of hazardous situations with no problems, no one would watch the show: P

 

That said, there were a bunch of times that the fleets accepted new technology and they "tweaked" the drama effect by giving the enemy something worse (or finding worse enemies).

 

It's a delicate mix between plausibility and maintaining the drama.

[Mokele]

I really think that when a movie opens up the door to curiousity, then whatever mistakes it's making in the actual science is negligible. Who cares if Jourassic Park could ACTUALLY happen or not, when the bottom line was that many people started getting curious about genetics, about what it means in both the scientific part and the ethical part.

 

Oh, I agree, and some 'fudging' is inevitable. It bothers me most, however, when the fudging is totally unnecessary. Like a movie I just watched, where they mis-quoted the age of the animal *horribly* in a throw-away line that would have been *just* as good if it was accurate.

 

Of course, when it's *really* bad is when it turns up in educational documentaries. Jurassic Fight Club is just awful, loaded full of blatant factual errors.

[mooeypoo]

Oh, agreed, but that goes to another point -- science fiction is science fiction, not "documentary". If a scifi is presented as documentary, it's no different than fraud. I hate those.

 

And yes, I agree on the part of the "small mistakes" too.. I have to say it's not that easy to avoid all of the tiny mistakes but these days it seems shows are more aware of the potential to "fall" into these traps, so they hire actual scientists as advisors.

 

That's why "BSG" was so good, relatively. As much as was possible while keeping the old storyline alive, they did a great job preserving good science. The episode where someone (I won't ruin it to anyone who didn't watch) is thrown out to space from a malfunctioning airlock was brilliant, and the effect afterwards (equating this to rapid loss of pressure like with divers) was great. Good change from the usual premise that bodies "explode" when they are exposed to space.

 

Same goes with the shows "Numb3rs" and "House". Both have actual scientists as advisors, and it shows.

[SkepticLance]

That Hitchhikers Guide business of 'throw yourself at the ground and miss'.

 

Occurred to me that this is what happens whenever anything enters orbit.

 

Prehistoric animals?? Forget Jurassic Park. At least that had a rationale - weak though it may have been. What about 'A Million Years BC' in which cavepeople were running around dodging carnivorous dinosaurs? Mind you, with Raquel Welch in that fetching rawhide bikini, who notices anyway?

[Kaeroll]

House is an interesting one. Despite having medical advisors, they still occasionally make schoolboy errors (like 'zapping' a flatliner). There's a cracking website called Polite Dissent, where a Real Doctor with a Real Degree takes each episode apart. I don't always agree with his thoughts on what he terms the 'soap opera' side but it's interesting to see how much the show's medical advisors either miss or get overruled in favour of drama.

 

I've never seen BSG, but I recall reading in several places that if you were chucked out of an airlock into deep space you would suffocate before you froze, and would certainly not explode. (Though apparently explosive decompression has occurred deep underwater... ouch)

[JohnB]

The only issue is pulling off that "and miss" part.

That's exactly the part I'm having trouble with.

What about 'A Million Years BC'.....with Raquel Welch in that fetching rawhide bikini

There were dinosaurs in that movie? I never noticed.

 

Seriously though;

It's a delicate mix between plausibility and maintaining the drama.

The bottom line is that sci-fi shows are drama and entertainment. That is what they are for. The Great Bird wanted to do morality plays back in the 60s but knew that nobody would fund them. So he set them in space and Star Trek was born.

 

Sci fi allows you to explore ideas and concepts that would possibly offend some quarters if set in modern times. (Even then you can get caught, remember the complaints about Jar Jar Binks accent in Star Wars?)

 

Bottom line for space based drama, they have to mess with the science or nothing happens. Nobody's going to watch a show called "10,000 Years to Alpha Centauri" are they?

 

I can imagine the publicity;

"12 Years into Sci-Fis longest running show and they are nearly at Pluto. Tune in next week when the creww find out.........That they're a million miles closer."

 

Science fiction extrapolates into the future, an inherently risky endeavour. I say just sit back and enjoy it.