Poll: Calling readers of Sci-Fi - A focus group exercise

[Weresquirrel]

Hi there.

I've recently came up with the fool's notion of writing a sci-fi style novel. I became interested in the Culture novels from Ian M Banks, and felt like taking a crack at the genre myself. I'm most of the way through writing a fantasy novel as well, but those are a different beast altogether. One of the principal reasons is the cause of this topic. In a fantasy novel, you don't generally question how things work because it's well... Magical. You don't need to know how the wizard casts fireballs, it's because he's a wizard. But science fiction tends to lean towards needing explantions.

Admittedly I don't have a huge amount of experience with sci-fi books. Films and games yes, but the only other sci-fi novel I tried reading didn't really do much for me because there was too much science, not enough fiction. 200 pages in and the plot still hadn't gone anywhere because the author insisted on introducing all the factions, technologies and players even before they became relevant to the plot. The fact that it was bogged down with all this stuff left me completely cold, but I am accutely aware that there are some folks who like to understand how the universe they're reading about works.

So, the boiled down point is, should I follow a more Star Wars-like approach where the setting is science fictiony, but the technology can run on fairy dust for all we know. Or try and go the more Star Trek style of having everything explained with long sciencey sounding words that may or may not work how I think they do. Or should I pack it in all together?

 

[Shock and Awe]

For me any science fiction explanation should be mostly real science and take inspiration from real science theories. The best ones I've seen take directly from hypothesis about the application of cutting edge discoveries. It bothers me when shows just throw around impressive words to make it sound technical. Instead it'd be best to either root it in modern science theories and hypothesis, or just leave it untouched or hinted.

 

[tippy2k2]

This is going to go down completely as a personal preference.

Personally, it drives me nuts when they try to explain all the things. I don't care how the super lazer works, I just want to know that it just cut that other spaceship in half like butter! I don't care how your ship can go past light speed, just let me know it goes past light speed and that let's it run away really really fast. When they attempt to explain it, I kind of get that glass-eyed "What the fuck are you talking about. Are you done talking yet? Can we just get back to the damn story please?" look.

The technology can work on the farts of fairies for all I care as long as you don't attempt to explain it to me.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Admittedly I don't have a huge amount of experience with sci-fi books. Films and games yes, but the only other sci-fi novel I tried reading didn't really do much for me because there was too much science, not enough fiction. 200 pages in and the plot still hadn't gone anywhere because the author insisted on introducing all the factions, technologies and players even before they became relevant to the plot. The fact that it was bogged down with all this stuff left me completely cold, but I am accutely aware that there are some folks who like to understand how the universe they're reading about works.

Question... what was that book?

Anyway, ask yourself three questions: is an explanation of the technology necessary to the smooth telling of the story; is any of the technology central to plot-developments or plot devices; and are you capable of explaining the technology that will be both entertaining and appealing to layman/technical specialist alike?

I personally don't bother. FTL travel gimmicks tend to piss me the hell off, especially when they try using 'real science' to explain how it works. Science fiction written by scientists tends to be the best, rather perversely (Isaac Asimov, even if he was a biochemist, I don't care, he was a brilliant author). Also, even though I have a good working knowledge of all three sciences, whenever I write stuff attempting to justify technology or methods used (whether it is weaponry, transport, genetics, materials/metallurgy or w/e), I end up poking holes in it and you can bet some part of your audience will do likewise. Plausibility is what must be considered. So if the technology is possible by cherry picking current scientific knowledge that can be applied to a suitable scale, then by all means go for it, but if it isn't, then just roll with it and don't try to explain it or you'll end up digging yourself a literary hole. *shrug*

 

[Doclector]

It's difficult.

It being sci fi, you're going to have some incredible technologies on display and in use, and unless this is a near future setting, it's not going to be something that somebody can easily figure out the progress from current tech with. Thus, you need to explain. It needs to be enough that it doesn't feel like a "because science" explanation, but not so much that you spend entire pages explaining how one thing works, as it quickly becomes difficult to read more.

Personally, I like it when something is explained in a way that makes it "logically plausible". This means that even people who don't know much about science can understand what's going on without not explaining it at all, or explaining it with the aforementioned "because science" excuse.

 

[Starnerf]

How do you feel the story would be best served? I personally like to read at least a little about the process the characters are supposedly using, but it's not necessary in every work.

This may help: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness

 

[Mike the Bard]

How much you tell about the tech in your sci-fi universe is a very fine art. How much you explain is more or less based on your theme. If too much is explained .If the tech is an integral part to your theme, then go in more depth about it. best example i can think off from the top of my head is the finite improbability generator from hitchhikers guide to the galaxy , we had to know how it worked to fully get the joke.

If your theme isn't focused on a certain tech but the society as a whole or an action film, then you only need to say what it does, not how it does it. Futurama is a good pop culture example that does this very well.

Two things you need to watch out for. If you explain too much (no matter what your theme is) then you destroy the sense of wonder the reader had about our universe. The second is only explain something when it is relevant to the situation and helps the story along. otherwise you will boor you readers to death.

I could go on and on about this kind of stuff. But the best way to learn how to do this, is to see it in action. I suggest Issac Asimov's Foundation Series as a start. His books are so beloved because he is a god at this concept. Learn from the master, and become one.

Good luck!

 

[targren]

Personally, I'm good at the two extremes. Either come up with a plausible (with sufficient but not excessive suspension of disbelief) explanation (Babylon 5 and Farscape, e.g., were pretty good about this, Star Trek never was), or leave it the hell out entirely (Firefly's approach).

Try to dance around in the middle and you either end up with technobabble, or something that's less "Science Fiction" and more "Wankers derping around in space."

 

[Heronblade]

Never, ever attempt to explain something via bullshit. If you do not know and cannot find information on a plausible means to explain tech, don't mess with it, you will just end up making an ass of yourself.

Take Mass Effect's FTL travel for example, Bioware's explanation for how it worked would indeed help ships travel much faster than would normally be possible while using less energy, but would not actually allow you to match or exceed the speed of light.

Also try to limit any detailed explanation to pieces of technology that are vital to the story, rather than peripheral items that are simply there and occasionally used.

 

[FalloutJack]

Explanations have their place and sometimes they don't. It depends on where, how, and why. I don't need to know how a Gauss Vulcan Cannon works, though I could probably tell you. I might want to know how other things work, because I love a bit of science. To explain, I love Michael Crichton's work. Brilliant sci-fi writer. Half of what made The Andromeda Strain or Sphere interesting was the science. He did research for it and I've seen him cite his sources in the books.

 

[Womplord]

As a lover of Isaac Asimov I'd say I love a good scientific explanation. I really enjoy novels that are heavy on it, not to say that there's no good sci-fi that doesn't have it.

 

[Weresquirrel]

Question... what was that book?

It was Seeds of Earth, by Michael Cobley.

Anyway, in terms of the book, the book will be light-hearted, and slightly comedic in nature (as it's the style I'm most comfortable writing in). It tends to focus more on the characters than the world they inhabit. Thusly I'm leaning more towards not really explaining how things work, just what they do. Consistancy in capabilities is the cornerstone in both science and magic works in these scenarios (in my mind at least).

At the moment it's just in the very early planning stages. I'm doing what I did for my fantasy book and writing down important details on what the world has so that I have a reference for things later. As of right now, I have 1 character vaguely defined, a little bit of the earth society worked out and one piece of technology defined. I want to finish the fantasy book before I launch into this full-scale (I've been working on that one for far longer than I like, but problems keep arising).

 

[JesterRaiin]

There's Hard SF and there's simply "SF". First is more Science than Fiction and latter, well, we can call it "Space Fantasy".

As a fan of both styles (or sub-genres) i'm ok with either one, however Hard SF (of good, old Russian/Eastern European design) is what i consider superior. There's something wonderful in observing the little gearwheels working unisono in perfect harmony.

the boiled down point is, should I (...)
Never ever ask people what they want. Do what you do best instead and hope for big results. If readers tag along, good for you, if not, f*ck them, at least you'll do things your way. ;]

 

[Esotera]

Explaining the technology in sci-fi is an easy way to make the book look dated. For example, using hormones/pheromones in Brave New World to produce all those changes in the population seems absolutely ridiculous now in its simplicity, but would have seemed reasonable back then. Then again, it can actually help the story if you know how something works. For example, there's a story by Bruce Sterling (I think) about 3D printing taking off in a big way, and Western corporations suing on copyright infringement (which incidentally, is happening now). He went into a fair amount of detail but didn't make any specific predictions about how it worked. That's the best kind of explanation, as it allows the reader to have a bit of imagination and scientific speculation.

Alternatively, you can explain away and make it sound as stupid/nonsensical as possible. An example of this is the FTL-processor in Exultant by Stephen Baxter. In order to solve computationally hard tasks that require the computer to consider a lot of different options, only one of which will be the right one, he attaches a FTL-drive to a miniature ship, which travels forward to a timeline where the processor has completed its result. It then returns with the result, meaning the processor never actually has to do a single calculation, and it might as well be a banana or rock.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I dunno...a well built science fiction story with science in it can work very well.

And I really, really hate stories that stick stuff in to look sciencey, but don't use them. For example, setting your story "IN SPACE!!!", only space in your story is completely different from space in real life, and most of the story is set somewhere that is totally identical to Earth anyway. What was the point?

 

[Hoplon]

Phillip K Dick said "Great science fiction is when the idea is the hero" Banks tends to be discussing philosophical concepts, Grief, Survivors guilt, Duty, Moral relativity and the like.

The science has just enough actuality to anchor it with out being over described, a good example of this is laser (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation) weapon systems called CREWS Coherent Radiation Emission Weapon System. Which describes a laser but doesn't limit it to visible light. Clever, not overly complicated and as accurate as they need to be.

If you have to explain, do it simply and briefly.

 

[kurupt87]

Question... what was that book?

It was Seeds of Earth, by Michael Cobley.

Anyway, in terms of the book, the book will be light-hearted, and slightly comedic in nature (as it's the style I'm most comfortable writing in). It tends to focus more on the characters than the world they inhabit. Thusly I'm leaning more towards not really explaining how things work, just what they do. Consistancy in capabilities is the cornerstone in both science and magic works in these scenarios (in my mind at least).

At the moment it's just in the very early planning stages. I'm doing what I did for my fantasy book and writing down important details on what the world has so that I have a reference for things later. As of right now, I have 1 character vaguely defined, a little bit of the earth society worked out and one piece of technology defined. I want to finish the fantasy book before I launch into this full-scale (I've been working on that one for far longer than I like, but problems keep arising).

Gosh, that was too Hard for you? Wow then, really don't try and go down the Hard SF route; because that series is very much toward the Soft end as far as I can remember.

Neither Star Wars or Star Trek are good examples to follow if you want to write SF imho. Star Wars is not SF, it is Future Fantasy (unless that is what you want, in which case go nuts); while Star Trek is one of... hell, it's probably the worst offender ever when it comes to the abuse of technobabble.

What Banks and other SF writers do is give their technology a veneer of plausibility, concentrating on the what and not the how. Off the top of my head the only thing Banks goes into any detail about is Hyperspace, and that was more because I think he liked the image he conjured up. He then also used the Hyperspace he created as a fuel for weapons and other things as he wrote more books; internal consistency is a vital aspect of any good book but SF more than most.

The difference between Future Fantasy and SF is, imo, how the things work. Future Fantasy is basically magic, in Star Wars we have The Force. This is magic, even after Lucas tried to explain it with midochlorians; he completely made that up, might as well have said sausages do it. SF would have something like an anti-gravity machine do the pulling and pushing of Star Wars' The Force; nano-machines in the Jedi granting them their increased strength and speed etc.

Hard SF would then take that further and present you with the in-depth hypothesis, that we have now in the real world, of whichever device and make it real.

Edit: Banks' Hyperspace is of course complete hogwash, but as an SF writer you are kind of required to have far flung space travel going on. Which is, as far as we currently know, impossible. So, in this area the author is largely free to just make shit up. The only constraining force on this is that of internal consistency and whether the book is SF or Future Fantasy.