Science In Fiction

Well the electricity thing is based in science. Our brains and nervous system all function through electrical impulses.

In real life? Yes we use electricity to restart people's hearts. There is only a short window of time, however, because the brain will be too deprived of oxygen for too long.

But re-animating decomposing corpses? No. I don't see how science could [or should] do that.

Fiction means it's made up.

Fiction writers can make up anything they want, in any genre.

Mary Shelley made up the Frankenstein story. Dead body parts can't be sewn together and then brought back to life with high voltage electricity.

If the story and characters are interesting then readers will put their disbelief to one side and simply enjoy the tale.

-Derek

At the time Mary Shelley wrote the story, Galvani had made frog legs twitch with electric currents (1771) but cell theory had not been finalized (1830s). Frankenstein was published in 1818 - in a window of time in which it was plausible to believe that electricity could, in some way, bring the dead back to life. Shelley wasn't just making stuff up. When the book was written, it met the definitions of science fiction.

DwayneA said:

When writing science fiction, can authors make it up like fantasy, or do they have to do their research and make it true?

Click to expand...

Star Wars and Star Trek, while categorized as science fiction, both feature many scientifically implausible, if not outright impossible, elements. So my vote is that science fiction authors can 'make it up like fantasy'.

I do a bit of both - in "Blaze of Glory", (yes, blatant plug!) Jo Tanis, the heroine, is able to manipulate the electromagnetic fields around her to do things. Are they all scientifically sound? To a certain degree, since superheroes don't really exist.

In my upcoming steampunk romance, "Wild Cards and Iron Horses" (blatant plug - out from Samhain in August!) I use the technology available at the time and extrapolate that into the mechanical arm brace my hero uses. Same with airships and other steampunk things - they may not be scientifically sound down to the last rivet, but they do the job, as it were.

If the author can make it sound plausible, maybe based on some popular theory at the time, that what whatever they're writing about could happen - then I don't mind, even if it's proven later that it could never, ever occur. However, if it's something that over-the-top ridiculous, that doesn't seem the least bit plausible in any dimension, then I call shenanigans.

I do prefer sci-fi authors try to have some science theory (not necessarily fact) in their writing so it feels realistic and I don't end up arguing with the book on why it's wrong.

Smiling Ted said:

At the time Mary Shelley wrote the story, Galvani had made frog legs twitch with electric currents (1771) but cell theory had not been finalized (1830s). Frankenstein was published in 1818 - in a window of time in which it was plausible to believe that electricity could, in some way, bring the dead back to life. Shelley wasn't just making stuff up. When the book was written, it met the definitions of science fiction.

Click to expand...

Same goes for Charles Darwin.

ha! Darwin-zinger!

It's a good question, there's always a healthy debate about the distinctions between "hard SF" and general SF and ... Science Fantasy ...

But I think there's a difference between 'making up' science and thoughtfully extrapolating upon known science, isn't there?

Doesn't SF sort of demand the readers' acceptance that yes, this is SCIENCE supporting the fiction (meaning Fiction as STORY, not fiction meaning unreal) ... as opposed to Fantasy?

I enjoy both SF and Fantasy. But I'm annoyed as heck when the writer throws some sort of WRONG SCIENCE at us because he just doesn't know what he's talking about, or hangs his whole story on something glaringly MISTAKEN.

Mary Shelley did think she was exploring things that SCIENCE might one day bring.

I assume Sherlock Holmes didn't solve his cases using utter drivel as solutions.

there are rules of fair play, and treating your story and the reader fairly, imo.

The key word you're looking for is 'fiction.' Regardless of what kind of science is used, it's falls into fiction, therefore a degree of implausibility is pretty much expected. Science fiction stories without some sort of implausible science are kind of boring IMO.

gothicangel said:

Well the electricity thing is based in science. Our brains and nervous system all function through electrical impulses.

In real life? Yes we use electricity to restart people's hearts. There is only a short window of time, however, because the brain will be too deprived of oxygen for too long.

But re-animating decomposing corpses? No. I don't see how science could [or should] do that.

Click to expand...

No, no you can't. Not in the way you mean. You can use it to reset a heart, but not to start it again if it stops.

DwayneA said:

In fantasy, authors can make it all up, but what about science and science fiction?

Whenever I come across a scenario that involves science or physics, I ask myself, "It that even scientifically possible?"

For example, in Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", a scientist brings a creature to life with electrical stimulants. I've seen this parodied in cartoons where the experiment is performed during a lightning storm, and afterward, someone exclaims, "It's alive! Mwa ha ha ha!" Yet, I wonder if this can actually be done in real life, bringing dead bodies back to life with lightning.

When writing science fiction, can authors make it up like fantasy, or do they have to do their research and make it true?

Click to expand...

As those in other recent threads have been quick to say, no matter what you "make up", whether in science fiction or in fantasy, it all needs to be consistent within the story. It doesn't necessarily need to be consistent with reality or known science, BUT when it comes to science fiction:

Whenever I read something that's inconsistent with the generally known science (at the time of the writing), I wonder if the author KNOWS what he wrote is inconsistent. If it looks to me so, then obviously he or she intentionally made up something - carefully "broke" some scientific knowledge - to see how the characters would react or to otherwise move forward or help tell the story, and and I'm happy. It may be a different, new or unique way of looking at something "scientific," even though it cannot be true, but that makes it interesting.

If it appears the author did not know something is impossible, then I'm disappointed. I might read on, but I'll be unhappy that the author doesn't know enough science to write this particular story in a convincing way.

And yes, many SF readers (and editors!) are scientifically literate and can tell whether an author is knowingly or unknowing "breaking the rules." Good SF isn't necessarily "accurate" to science, but it has to be "knowledgeable" to science. Specifically, if a story has MANY aspects or details that are scientifically impossible or implausible, it was almost surely written by someone not very knowledgeable about science.

There's one more point I think needs saying yet again: I think other recent "speculative fiction" threads have discussed the (substantial!) differences between science fiction literature and science fiction on TV or in movies, but I just want to point it out again:

smcc360 said:

Star Wars and Star Trek, while categorized as science fiction, both feature many scientifically implausible, if not outright impossible, elements. So my vote is that science fiction screenplay authors can 'make it up like fantasy'.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with this, as edited.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

No, no you can't. Not in the way you mean. You can use it to reset a heart, but not to start it again if it stops.

Click to expand...

You could do it. A normal pacemaker/implantable defib won't do it, but it certainly could work.

That's what happens in lab class when you stick electrodes into frog muscles.

Mac

Myself, two editors, and even the CEO are editing my 470-page SF novel, and we're arguing over every concept-idea-device- used in my book. In a good, constructive way, of course. I adhere to Einstein's theory, as far as light speed limits are involved, and my propulsion devices and hardware on the ship Must be grounded in either known science, or within the realm Proposed in future science. It's so important to get your research and facts correct, and believe me, the more you say about your futuristic science, the more you open yourself up to attack from doubters and skeptics.

I do make up names or terminolgy for my devices and theories. But I must stay with logical boundaries, suspension of disbelief, being the reason.

I actually describe, in a 30-page chapter, the ship's prep, the anti-grav lift, hydrogen main engine propulsion to a safe zone, cryo sleep, a nuclear bang pod drive, to just under light speed, breaking, and arrival at planet destination. Believe me, I wish I never would have done it! But I wanted so badly to describe a realistic space flight that I couldn't help it.

Just be true to known science, tweak it bit if you must, not too much, yet don't let the high tech details get in the way of making it fun for you to write.

Tri

Mac H. said:

You could do it. A normal pacemaker/implantable defib won't do it, but it certainly could work.

That's what happens in lab class when you stick electrodes into frog muscles.

Mac

Click to expand...

No, it's not. The heart requires a constant stream of nerve impulses to beat. If you shock it, you get one beat, but unless you restore the normal nerve impulses, you don't restart the heart. That's why doctors are always doing chest compressions and injecting chemicals during a code, because the defib is meant to fix an abnormal rhythm, while in a code there is no rhythm at all.

With the frog in lab class, you are applying one pulse for one contraction.

Here's a nice link to explain:
http://doctorgrasshopper.wordpress....to-your-home-and-beat-you-with-a-wet-chicken/

There is a difference between SF and soft SF (or even Science Fantasy). Some think all you need to do is take any story and shoehorn it into space or a futuristic setting and suddenly it's SF.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

No, it's not. The heart requires a constant stream of nerve impulses to beat. If you shock it, you get one beat ...
...
With the frog in lab class, you are applying one pulse for one contraction.

Click to expand...

I understand that.

Since you get one contraction per shock, I'm saying that you could get it to beat repeatedly by repeatedly shocking it.

Obviously not via external means - the damage would be too much. Or even the normal system pacemakers use.

But the basics, as you point out, is that you'll get one contraction per shock.

So you get it to 'run' again after it has stopped.

---

However, what you were originally talking about was getting it to run on it's OWN without any continual pulses.

Even that is possible. For example, with open heart surgery it is common to stop the heart completely and then restart it again.

In fact, the link you pointed to talked about that. It talked about how after a flatline the heart can be restarted. Yes- they use the word 'restart'. ie: Start again after it stops.

They also talked about how if you wait too long it is better not to do it at all because even though you'll restart the heart the brain would be basically dead.

(The heart has it's own built in oscillator to beat - it doesn't actually need the brain to do it)

Mac

It depends on the author. My most recent novel is my first entry into sci-fi, and I decided to do the research and make the science every bit as real as Arthur C Clarke would have done.

During the writing itself, I only used the science elements that were essential to the story. I didn't want to lecture my reader on how to build all this stuff. But I know it's all plausible. Likewise, I know a whole lot about my characters that never makes it onto the printed page.

(By the way, I'd call Star Wars science fantasy. With Star Trek, it depends on which incarnation of the franchise we're talking about.)

benbradley said:

Good SF isn't necessarily "accurate" to science, but it has to be "knowledgeable" to science. Specifically, if a story has MANY aspects or details that are scientifically impossible or implausible, it was almost surely written by someone not very knowledgeable about science.

Click to expand...

Someone once made that point with respect to Larry Niven's Protector. The core assumption of the book, that humanity evolved from extraterrestrial sapients, ignores what we know about Earth's fossil record and the common DNA of all terrestrial life. But it's only one "violation," and everything else develops rigorously and logically from there.

Mac H. said:

I understand that.

Since you get one contraction per shock, I'm saying that you could get it to beat repeatedly by repeatedly shocking it.

Obviously not via external means - the damage would be too much. Or even the normal system pacemakers use.

But the basics, as you point out, is that you'll get one contraction per shock.

So you get it to 'run' again after it has stopped.

---

However, what you were originally talking about was getting it to run on it's OWN without any continual pulses.

Even that is possible. For example, with open heart surgery it is common to stop the heart completely and then restart it again.

In fact, the link you pointed to talked about that. It talked about how after a flatline the heart can be restarted. Yes- they use the word 'restart'. ie: Start again after it stops.

They also talked about how if you wait too long it is better not to do it at all because even though you'll restart the heart the brain would be basically dead.

(The heart has it's own built in oscillator to beat - it doesn't actually need the brain to do it)

Mac

Click to expand...

Yes, but not with electrical shocks, that was my point. You're using chemicals.

Most people who object to a story violating the laws of physics actually mean that the story violates the current engineering capability. The only "laws" that we really know are the conservation laws and thermodynamics. FTL and time travel is not impossible, check Tipler cylinders and inflation in the early universe. We just don't know.

Good fantasy is self consistent. Good science fiction is self consistent and does not violate what we know (and we know little). I'll close by citing Clarke's laws:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

I lied about closing. If you need FTL use it. Don't get bogged down in details, wave your hands a bit (not too much) and get on with the story.


Concerning Niven's Known Space works, didn't we all evolve from yeast on the Trint's food planets? So that we all have similar DNA should not be a surprise. And the Pak's were homo habilis (?) an ancestor to humans. But it has been a long time since I read that so I may be a bit rusty.

And yes, many SF readers (and editors!) are scientifically literate and can tell whether an author is knowingly or unknowing "breaking the rules." Good SF isn't necessarily "accurate" to science, but it has to be "knowledgeable" to science. Specifically, if a story has MANY aspects or details that are scientifically impossible or implausible, it was almost surely written by someone not very knowledgeable about science.

Click to expand...

That's something to keep in mind. Another thing to keep in mind is some of your READERS will be scientifically educated and/or trained. My dad was the one who turned me on to sci fi when I was a teen, and he has big fancy ol' degrees . . . if I remember correctly, the ONLY reason he never got his PhD in astrophysics was that he never got around to finishing his thesis or dissertation or whichever.

So . . . if you're writing space fantasy, good, throw in Star Wars style FTL drives and big ol' space battles. But if you're trying to write a good, believable hard SF novel, Don't Assume your readers won't know if you get something wrong. They'll know, and they'll throw your book against the wall. If there are any snarks around, your beloved novel may end up on some nasty blog rant.

It also depends upon what publication and who you're writing for. Analog, for example, has stringent "rules" (which can be broken at Dr. Schmidt's will) which apply to what stories pass muster as "science fiction". The chief among these is that the science in the story has to be rigid enough that without it there is no story.

That, however, leaves a lot of leeway.

Basically, you need to differentiate between "hard" science fiction, "soft" science fiction, space opera, and fantasy, but even in those differentiations you need to create a world that is internally consistent and that is part of what science does.

So, without even realizing it, you might be creating a world which has sound foundations based on "scientific" principles even if those principles are radically different from what we know to be the rules today.

The real differentiation is that hard SF has to be based on stuff we know to be true and can't arbitrarily break the rules. Soft SF can do a little bit more. Space opera can do a lot more, and fantasy can do anything it wants - as long as the "rules" you invent are internally consistent.

Most SF writers don't seem to "get" this nor do most fantasy writers.

QFT above. My publisher has a thing for space opera and the hardware that gets them there. They shy away from future earth or distopian.

Tri

I must admit that although I'm a fan of science fiction in general, the "hard science" part scares me to death as far as trying to write it. I just don't know enough about the various fields or theories within those fields, and I tend to skim over the "technology" parts of SF books.

I am, however, looking at sociological and/or psychological science fiction, which I guess is "soft SF". Those areas I know something about and feel comfortable doing research into.

Richard A. Lovett has a great article called "How to Write Something You Don't Know Anything About." He talks about how to use future technologies in believable ways and such. And he's been published in Analog like a billion times. Read it.