Poll: How do you like your Science Fiction?

[sh0tgunenclave]

I write post-apocalypse,which I guess is a sub-genre of science fiction. My stories live by the words "the best fiction is the one that is only vaguely plausible." is it possible that a man's cells mutated and diversified due to exposure to the excess energy produced by the cyclotron located in Lawrence Berkeley Labs until the point he could kill or heal with a wave of his hand? (Cancer cells/ Stem cells)
Possible? Not really.
Plausable? Vaguely.

 

[Tilted_Logic]

As an extra question regardless of your above preference (if you have one at all) do you prefer your science fiction has:

• >> Explanation and back-story to give more validity to the incredible technology and futuristic situations? (Sometimes over the top explanations that take time away from the plot to make the environment more immersive)
  
  >> Or no explanations required; an author can write a book from beginning to end with completely unrealistic technologies that almost seem to run on magic, and as long as it's a good story you'll have no problems with a lack of background (More focus on the plot).

Your dichotomy, it is false. I want things in my scifi to run very much according to rigid laws, if not THE laws, but i don't want said laws expo-dumped on me. If the plot calls for one of the characters to learn these laws (and that is not a very common situation, really), then it should be there. Otherwise people must act as either they already know them and have no need to repeat them, or they know that somebody knows them and thus have no ability to repeat them.

Wouldn't that be assuming that you're familiar with every law/rule that could possibly be used in a situation? For some people that's possible, but for the current argument lets say it's unlikely. In that case, a little bit of backstory can be helpful.

Of course, it all depends on what you're reading; if it's in a modern setting it's very likely you'll understand the laws being used - or at least be able to relate - in which case, yes, I am missing a third option in my first post.

For the sake of simplicity I felt limiting it to those two options was suitable. I didn't expect to cover every scope of sci-fi, just the core ways of writting I've found most authors use.

 

[Something Amyss]

As long as it's fun, enthralling, touching, and/or well written, it can be hardcore science fiction or campy space opera.

Still, I think I like something in the middle. I like it to be believable enough that I don't question it, but not so much that the rules get in the way of the fun.

 

[Serioli]

I like portrayals of different cultures, both alien and possible human, and often the aliens themselves. I don't seem to mind if the science part is 'near future' and is based on current theories or way out there like the 'Culture'.

 

[Blindswordmaster]

Shaken, with ice and a splash of coke. I actually like both as each has their appeal.

 

[The Boy in the Hat]

Personally, I don't care what the implausible sci-fi gadget is as long as when it is used it dos something cool.

 

[Halceon]

As an extra question regardless of your above preference (if you have one at all) do you prefer your science fiction has:

• >> Explanation and back-story to give more validity to the incredible technology and futuristic situations? (Sometimes over the top explanations that take time away from the plot to make the environment more immersive)
  
  >> Or no explanations required; an author can write a book from beginning to end with completely unrealistic technologies that almost seem to run on magic, and as long as it's a good story you'll have no problems with a lack of background (More focus on the plot).

Your dichotomy, it is false. I want things in my scifi to run very much according to rigid laws, if not THE laws, but i don't want said laws expo-dumped on me. If the plot calls for one of the characters to learn these laws (and that is not a very common situation, really), then it should be there. Otherwise people must act as either they already know them and have no need to repeat them, or they know that somebody knows them and thus have no ability to repeat them.

Wouldn't that be assuming that you're familiar with every law/rule that could possibly be used in a situation? For some people that's possible, but for the current argument lets say it's unlikely. In that case, a little bit of backstory can be helpful.

Of course, it all depends on what you're reading; if it's in a modern setting it's very likely you'll understand the laws being used - or at least be able to relate - in which case, yes, I am missing a third option in my first post.

For the sake of simplicity I felt limiting it to those two options was suitable. I didn't expect to cover every scope of sci-fi, just the core ways of writting I've found most authors use.

No, it's not about the reader knowing or not knowing said rules. It's just that the characters must have a realistic attitude to the seemingly fantastic. Few people understand every principle of how mobile phones work, that doesn't make them revere it as a survival essential that must be mentioned in every sentence or reverently avoided or something.

What i don't like about your options is that one can focus entirely on the characters and the plot, while still immersing the reader into the setting. Several Asimov's stories from I, Robot spring to mind, very plot and problem-oriented. While the protagonists are specialists of their field and handle the hard stuff of making sure robots handle their 3 rules correctly, they have almost no connection to, say, sales figures and world politics. But from their conversations over the various stories you can glean quite a lot, because those are good in-world conversations. I'm sure it can work just as well with reverse specializations.

 

[Tilted_Logic]

No, it's not about the reader knowing or not knowing said rules. It's just that the characters must have a realistic attitude to the seemingly fantastic. Few people understand every principle of how mobile phones work, that doesn't make them revere it as a survival essential that must be mentioned in every sentence or reverently avoided or something.

What i don't like about your options is that one can focus entirely on the characters and the plot, while still immersing the reader into the setting. Several Asimov's stories from I, Robot spring to mind, very plot and problem-oriented. While the protagonists are specialists of their field and handle the hard stuff of making sure robots handle their 3 rules correctly, they have almost no connection to, say, sales figures and world politics. But from their conversations over the various stories you can glean quite a lot, because those are good in-world conversations. I'm sure it can work just as well with reverse specializations.

(Sometimes over the top explanations that take time away from the plot to make the environment more immersive)

I never claimed it had to be strictly one end of the spectrum. The method you proposed is well used and quite enjoyable, but it does fit under the use of 'explanations'. Stating someone is an expert in a given field is an explanation for their knowledge on the topic.

A story can easily be immersive without focusing on explanations and backstory, which is why my quoted sentence makes use of the word 'sometimes'. I wasn't trying to limit opinion to one method or the other, the statements in brackets are simply an exaggeration of what occurs in certain situations.

 

[Halceon]

I never claimed it had to be strictly one end of the spectrum. The method you proposed is well used and quite enjoyable, but it does fit under the use of 'explanations'. Stating someone is an expert in a given field is an explanation for their knowledge on the topic.

A story can easily be immersive without focusing on explanations and backstory, which is why my quoted sentence makes use of the word 'sometimes'. I wasn't trying to limit opinion to one method or the other, the statements in brackets are simply an exaggeration of what occurs in certain situations.

Ok, sorry. I guess I have too much internet in my mind and assumed a complete one-or-the-other situation.