Writing sci-fi without any actual science...

[efreysson]

While I'm still trying to get my dark fantasy series published, I've gotten a crazy urge to to write less serious stuff when I'm not doing anything else. A near-future kind of thing, set in a decrepit noir city on Mars, featuring a female mercenary and a female vampire getting into over-the-top, action-packed adventures. The focus would be on cheesy fun, rather than the dark plotlines and deep character involvement I've done so far.

Thing is, I'm pretty damn ignorant and incompetent with REAL-LIFE technology, let alone future tech. Does it turn you off a sci-fi story, when the author obviously didn't really do any research, and just threw in hovering motorcycles, space-passenger ships, genetically engineered soldiers, fully intelligent I.A's and robots? I'm really much more of a fan of gritty, down-to-earth tech like in Cowboy Bebop and Firefly, rather than super-tech in stuff like Star Trek.

I might be able to phrase this better if it wasn't so late past my bedtime, but this idea is starting to take root in me, and I'd really like some opinions on the subject.

[Pthom]

When I first scanned this, I was immediately reminded of Harry Harrison's The Stainless Steel Rat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stainless_Steel_Rat). The series takes place in a rather distant future, and is, I suppose, what you might call "comedic space opera." Harrison doesn't dwell all that much on technology, but doesn't ignore it either. You might check those out.
Does it turn you off a sci-fi story, when the author obviously didn't really do any research, and just threw in hovering motorcycles, space-passenger ships, genetically engineered soldiers, fully intelligent I.A's and robots?Yes.

[Storm Dream]

Actually, nothing in a story drives me battier than when an author spends pages qualifying his science. I think it's a variant of technoporn and I've put down books because of it. :)

I think your idea sounds fun -- go for it!

[JoNightshade]

It doesn't bother me at all. Ever read Martian Chronicles? Not a hint of real science anywhere. Well, I believe Bradbury considers it fantasy so take from that what you like. But I believe what you're describing is more commonly called "space fantasy." Basically, the story isn't about the science; it's just a story with a futuristic setting. I think if you're just using some of the basic elements of a lot of sci fi-- hovercraft, robots, spaceships-- you don't really have to explain anything and people aren't going to look at it too much. But if some PLOT ELEMENT in your story rests on a piece of technology, THEN you have to make sure it sticks.

[Pthom]

efreysson didn't ask about not including any science. He asked if we'd mind if it was obvious the author failed to do any research "and just threw in hovering motorcycles, space-passenger ships, genetically engineered soldiers, fully intelligent I.A's and robots."

SF stories needn't be crammed full of technobabble (or as Larry Niven termed it "bolognium") to be good. But to forgo any research to support what technology the story does include is pure folly. It's one thing to say the action takes place in star ships that can travel faster than light--and leave it at that--and it's another thing entirely to say you can make genetically engineered soldiers by mixing salt with a dust of aluminum-gold alloy and energizing it with a shot of tequila.

UNLESS you intend to write a comedy. ;)

[Shweta]

If I see science that clearly doesn't work, and the author clearly doesn't know enough to know that, I lose faith in the author. It's a sign of incompetence, to me, just like if they can't write proper sentences, are tone-deaf to their prose and character's voices, etc. Enough faith lost and I give up on the book and the author.

But a silly/fun over-the-top story in which the author is throwing things in because they're funny... well, that's a different matter entirely. And it's one that might work for me. Depends entirely on how much panache you handle it with.

[efreysson]

But to forgo any research to support what technology the story does include is pure folly. It's one thing to say the action takes place in star ships that can travel faster than light--and leave it at that--and it's another thing entirely to say you can make genetically engineered soldiers by mixing salt with a dust of aluminum-gold alloy and energizing it with a shot of tequila.

UNLESS you intend to write a comedy.

But a silly/fun over-the-top story in which the author is throwing things in because they're funny... well, that's a different matter entirely. And it's one that might work for me. Depends entirely on how much panache you handle it with.

Well, that's sort of what I'm going for here :). A combination of gritty noir and violence, the occasional moment of drama, driven by a sense of intentionally pulp-like, over-the-top, don't-take-this-too-seriously fun. A spiritual relative to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I guess, with a self-aware sense of humor. It's okay to be cheesy if you do it on purpose, right? :D

[ChaosTitan]

A near-future kind of thing, set in a decrepit noir city on Mars, featuring a female mercenary and a female vampire getting into over-the-top, action-packed adventures.

Regardless of your level of explained technology, the inclusion of a vampire will likely knock your story out of the SF category and into some realm of Fantasy. Unless you have a scientific explanation for the existence of vampires. ;)

[edgyllama]

You can certainly put the technology in the background. In fantasy, you dont have to explain how a horse works, you just ride one. The story is more important than the trechnical details.

[Marlys]

You can certainly put the technology in the background. In fantasy, you dont have to explain how a horse works, you just ride one. The story is more important than the trechnical details.
Well, yes and no. You do need to know the horse's top speed, how far it can go without resting, how often it has to eat, and the number of miles it could logically cover in a day. Of course, in SF you could genetically engineer it to keep up a 30 mph pace for 24 hours at a time on only a couple of HayRiffic EnergyTabs. Or in fantasy you could cast an equivalent spell on it. But you'd still have to do the baseline research on what a horse naturally should be capable of.

[Danthia]

From my understanding, the definition of science fiction is a story that could not happen without the science. So if you take out the science, you're not writing science fiction. That doesn't mean you don't have a great story, it just won't be a science fiction story. Star Wars is not science fiction even though it takes place in space. It's Space Opera. The "story" could have happened in a fantasy, western or any other setting. Lightsabres becomes magic swords and Vader is a dark sorceror, and it doesn't affect amything but setting. Frankenstein in science fiction. Without the science (re-animating dead flesh) the story doesn't work.

Also, the reason you don't have to explain how a horse or a cell phone works is because these are known technologies to the reader. Science fiction fans know science. They have a pretty good understanding of how things work and know all the tropes of the genre. But if you have fake sceince that isn't based on anything, your readers will likely lose faith in you and know you're full of bunk. Even made up fantasy magic and technlogy has rules. Whatever the genre, break the rules, and your reader stops trusting you.

Personally, I stop reading when a science fiction writer flubs the science. I started reading a fun end of the world novel a month ago about the moon being destroyed by a coment, and when the only thing the entire scienctific community was worried about was falling debris, I stopped reading threw the book away. Not one mentiuon of how the moon affected the tides or seasons. That's pretty basic elementary school science. It viollated what I knew as fact and that made it hard for me to read on. Science fiction is fun because it *could* happen.

If you have a fun story that uses basic science fiction tropes (like being on Mars with antigravity plating and artificial atmosphere) you're probably fine. (Though I'd caution against relying too heavly on un-original stuff). If your story itself is compelling, and you set up your rules and stick to them, your reader will accept a lot. Just don't fly inthe face of what they know as fact without giving them a good and believable reason for it.

[Dawnstorm]

If I see science that clearly doesn't work, and the author clearly doesn't know enough to know that, I lose faith in the author. It's a sign of incompetence, to me, just like if they can't write proper sentences, are tone-deaf to their prose and character's voices, etc. Enough faith lost and I give up on the book and the author.

Are you thinking of a faulty description of science methodology, or of insufficiently explained impossibilities?

I could use a character PoV to gloss over glaring implausibilities (my favourite instance of this is how Victor Frankenstein refuses to tell the Arctic Explorer Whose Name Escapes Me how he created the creature for fear of his mistake being repeated).

Or I could make up new tech-terms and add them to the scientific roster (see Star Trek; just recently I had to grin at "chroniton particles").

Different perils perceived differently by different audiences. (The Jules Verne vs. H.G. Wells debates are always fun.)

[RG570]

SF authors, even the "great" ones, didn't have much real science on their side. They just made it boring enough to make you think that it just had to be accurate.

I don't see why anyone nowadays would delude themselves into thinking science fiction has ever been the scientific authority it makes itself out to be.
Write the damn story however you want and just make it consistent within its own rules.

[WittyandorIronic]

It doesn't bother me at all. Ever read Martian Chronicles? Not a hint of real science anywhere. Well, I believe Bradbury considers it fantasy so take from that what you like. But I believe what you're describing is more commonly called "space fantasy." Basically, the story isn't about the science; it's just a story with a futuristic setting. I think if you're just using some of the basic elements of a lot of sci fi-- hovercraft, robots, spaceships-- you don't really have to explain anything and people aren't going to look at it too much. But if some PLOT ELEMENT in your story rests on a piece of technology, THEN you have to make sure it sticks.

I second this. Space fantasies are great... and that sounds like what you are looking at. It is your version of the future, without a readers expectations of the technoporn.

[WriterInChains]

SF authors, even the "great" ones, didn't have much real science on their side. They just made it boring enough to make you think that it just had to be accurate.

I don't see why anyone nowadays would delude themselves into thinking science fiction has ever been the scientific authority it makes itself out to be.
Write the damn story however you want and just make it consistent within its own rules.

Ditto.

I love scifi, but wouldn't know & don't care if the science it's based on is accurate. Tell me a good story & I'm happy.

[Sage]

This is a very interesting thread. I was just wondering how much of a problem it was going to be that in my NaNo project (YA) one MC wants to study to build an android and the other MC is a cyborg when I don't have any inkling of the science that would go behind these things. It's interesting to see the range of opinion on this subject.

[FennelGiraffe]

You as the author need to know at least ten times as much as you will explicitly mention in the story -- about the setting, about the science, about the culture, about the characters, about everything.

To put it in contemporary terms, if your character gets in a car to drive to the store, you don't need to know, and certainly don't need to describe, how an internal combustion engine works or how the up-and-down motion of the pistons is converted to rotary motion of the axle or what the chemical formula for gasoline is or even that gasoline is made from petroleum.

However, you do need to know (but probably still won't have any reason to mention) how a car "works". You need to know it can't do 500 MPH or travel 2000 miles between fill-ups or hold 150 passengers or tow 10 tons or drive across the bottom of a lake. You also need to know that most developed countries have rules about who can or can't drive a car and where the cars can or can't be driven and specific procedures to follow when driving. Your story would be pretty absurd if you wrote a scene violating any of that.

The strictest definition of science fiction is that the author is allowed to make one assumption contrary to known science but must work out the consequences of that assumption with scientific rigor. That's not the only definition, nor (in my opinion) the best. But it is a useful benchmark to keep in mind. You need to know some basic science to write proper science fiction. You don't need to be a professional scientist. You don't need a PhD in physics or chemistry. You do need to know at least as much science as someone who took more than the minimum required science classes in high school. You do need to know at least as much science as someone who enjoys reading about science.

[Higgins]

While I'm still trying to get my dark fantasy series published, I've gotten a crazy urge to to write less serious stuff when I'm not doing anything else. A near-future kind of thing, set in a decrepit noir city on Mars, featuring a female mercenary and a female vampire getting into over-the-top, action-packed adventures. The focus would be on cheesy fun, rather than the dark plotlines and deep character involvement I've done so far.

Thing is, I'm pretty damn ignorant and incompetent with REAL-LIFE technology, let alone future tech. Does it turn you off a sci-fi story, when the author obviously didn't really do any research, and just threw in hovering motorcycles, space-passenger ships, genetically engineered soldiers, fully intelligent I.A's and robots? I'm really much more of a fan of gritty, down-to-earth tech like in Cowboy Bebop and Firefly, rather than super-tech in stuff like Star Trek.

I might be able to phrase this better if it wasn't so late past my bedtime, but this idea is starting to take root in me, and I'd really like some opinions on the subject.

This all sounds great to me. However, I'm not an editor or an agent. If I were you, I would read Iain M. Banks because in many ways Darkly Comic space opera is exactly what he is writing. His verbiage on technology is pretty slick, but it is not all really all that heavy in terms of explanation, though there is enough rigor to hold the plot ina reasonable range of possibilities. I'm re-reading his stuff from Use of Weapons and Against a Dark Backgound forward.

It's just how dark his comedy is, I guess, that tends to confuse people about what he is doing. Gruesomely darkly comic given what we now know about the range of possible crazy fascist regimes (featured in Excession, The Player of Games and the Algebraist)....but actually classic space opera.

[Danthia]

Dawnstorm, I'm talking about science that is clearly "wrong" to what is commonly known. Writers make up science all the time, but they base it in fact or speculate from the known to what might become fact at some point in time. If the science is so far in the future that it doesn't matter (a la Star Trek, though I just heard Diane Duane say that al the sciene in Star Trek was actually vetted by real scientists) or such an accepted trope for the genre (light speed, ansibles, anti- or artificial gravity) then it doesn't bothetr me at all. That stuff is "known" to the reader at this point. As long as the writer has rules for the stuff and sticks to the rules. If you're makng up science stuff just to be cool chances are you're going to run into a credibility issue. But that's true even with fantasy.

[Sage]

You don't need to be a professional scientist. You don't need a PhD in physics or chemistry. You do need to know at least as much science as someone who took more than the minimum required science classes in high school. You do need to know at least as much science as someone who enjoys reading about science.
Of course, the proper science is also important. I am a lab technician with an environmental studies degree, but I doubt my ability to test water for toxins will help me understand how to put together an android ;)

[J. R. Tomlin]

SF authors, even the "great" ones, didn't have much real science on their side. They just made it boring enough to make you think that it just had to be accurate.

You ever heard of someone named Asimov? That was a PhD in chemistry he had. And he is not the only one by a long shot. Many of the big names in SF have had scientific backgrounds of one kind or another. What that means is that they have a respect for science being represented in fiction and expect a good deal of verisimilitude. It has to be something that in some stretch of the imagination COULD work.

[Pthom]

Well, that's sort of what I'm going for here :). A combination of gritty noir and violence, the occasional moment of drama, driven by a sense of intentionally pulp-like, over-the-top, don't-take-this-too-seriously fun. A spiritual relative to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I guess, with a self-aware sense of humor. It's okay to be cheesy if you do it on purpose, right? :DAnother story similar to your idea is Larry Niven's collection of fun titled Rainbow Mars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Mars). The science (such as it is) is pretty goofy, but it all works to further the equally goofy exploits of Agent Hanville Svetz. Even if it isn't what you're doing, it's a lot of fun to read.

[Pthom]

SF authors, even the "great" ones, didn't have much real science on their side. They just made it boring enough to make you think that it just had to be accurate.

I don't see why anyone nowadays would delude themselves into thinking science fiction has ever been the scientific authority it makes itself out to be.
Write the damn story however you want and just make it consistent within its own rules.
As J. R. Tomlin points out, your first sentence is just not based in fact. Your second and third sentences show that reading science fiction is probably not something you enjoy very much.

But your final advice is good and valid, and should be followed by every author of fiction.

[badducky]

Comedians need just as much knowledge as a dramatist.

You have to know what you're spoofing to spoof correctly.

Comedy might be harder than drama. Killing people is easy. Comedy, that's hard.

[Shweta]

Are you thinking of a faulty description of science methodology, or of insufficiently explained impossibilities?

Mostly the former, though with the latter it'll depend on... sorry this is handwavy... how much I can trust the author. You can get away with a lot with a sufficiently compelling character and voice.

And, here's a Clarion moment, one of the instructors said science fiction is about the edges of technology, the various effects it has, rather than about the tech itself. So what's interesting about cell phones is not how they work, but the ir effects on the culture. So for example, you can't tell the crazies talking to themselves from the people on earbud cellphones any more. And you have to go a long way into the mountains before you can really get lost and not be able to call home. And the obvious thing to do in a dark city street where you're being stalked by a werewolf is now to call 911.
And, for example, during the southern california wildfires when the govmint instituted a reverse-911 call to warn people, they needed a website where you could enter your cell phone and address. Or they couldn't have gotten to most people, because area code and actual location aren't necessarily connected any more, and some people have no home phone number.

If I can explore the effects of technology, while reading, better than the author does, then I lose faith.

You as the author need to know at least ten times as much as you will explicitly mention in the story -- about the setting, about the science, about the culture, about the characters, about everything.

I think this is what lets you figure out those spreading effects that are so interesting :)

However, you do need to know (but probably still won't have any reason to mention) how a car "works". You need to know it can't do 500 MPH or travel 2000 miles between fill-ups or hold 150 passengers or tow 10 tons or drive across the bottom of a lake. You also need to know that most developed countries have rules about who can or can't drive a car and where the cars can or can't be driven and specific procedures to follow when driving. Your story would be pretty absurd if you wrote a scene violating any of that.

And you need to know that when things are spread out, people tend to have more cars, so there are traffic jams which affect people's temper. And you might have to hunt for parking spaces. (And there are parking spaces; imagine a world with cars and no parking, because the author hadn't thought it through) The end result is that cars aren't always going at top speed.

The strictest definition of science fiction is that the author is allowed to make one assumption contrary to known science but must work out the consequences of that assumption with scientific rigor.

Ah so, this is close to what I was saying, I think. I'd say you need narrative rigor rather than scientific rigor -- the sciences often think more precisely and less broadly than you'd want :)

Of course, the proper science is also important. I am a lab technician with an environmental studies degree, but I doubt my ability to test water for toxins will help me understand how to put together an android ;)

But so long as your story isn't about putting an android together, it doesn't matter. So long as you figure out sort of how they work, and then the consequences of that.

You ever heard of someone named Asimov? That was a PhD in chemistry he had. And he is not the only one by a long shot. Many of the big names in SF have had scientific backgrounds of one kind or another. What that means is that they have a respect for science being represented in fiction and expect a good deal of verisimilitude. It has to be something that in some stretch of the imagination COULD work.

Yes, but Asimov seldom wrote about biochemistry (which was his field). And I've talked to Vernor Vinge, who has a PhD in mathematics, and says there's a really good reason he writes about things entirely outside his field. Because a mathematician writing about math is only going to appeal to mathematicians; a lay person's understanding would be boring to the mathematician, and vice versa.

And more to the point, I suspect, nobody's accusing Douglas Adams of having been a rigorous scientist, are they? That seems closer to the OP's intent than serious hard-sf is.

[J. R. Tomlin]

Yes, but Asimov seldom wrote about biochemistry (which was his field). And I've talked to Vernor Vinge, who has a PhD in mathematics, and says there's a really good reason he writes about things entirely outside his field. Because a mathematician writing about math is only going to appeal to mathematicians; a lay person's understanding would be boring to the mathematician, and vice versa.

And more to the point, I suspect, nobody's accusing Douglas Adams of having been a rigorous scientist, are they? That seems closer to the OP's intent than serious hard-sf is.
First, my comment was in response to the comment that SF writers were never scientist. It is simply incorrect.

And there is a point beyond that.

Whether in their own field or another, scientists bring a RESPECT for science to their writing. They expect what they write to be logical and not stretch the bounds of logic. The scientific method and the kind of thinking that scientists bring to any topic does not change from one field to another.

And if you think that Adams was not respected on the topics of technology and the environment, you are mistaken. He was not a scientist, but he was knowledgeable, and he respected the sciences.

I think the kind of writing that the OP was talking about is more along the line of The Stainless Steel Rat. This doesn't require much in the way of scientific knowledge and can make for an amusing read. I still have a copy of that on my bookshelf. But some care should still be taken to make the science that is in it logical, because otherwise SF fans CAN eat you alive.

Edit: Since obviously I meant TO make the science logical rather than the opposite, I just corrected that. :) Sorry.

[efreysson]

And more to the point, I suspect, nobody's accusing Douglas Adams of having been a rigorous scientist, are they? That seems closer to the OP's intent than serious hard-sf is.
It is, yes. I just want to take a bunch of futuristic dystopia tropes, throw them in a blender with some of my own stuff, and just have some fun with it.

[efreysson]

I think the kind of writing that the OP was talking about is more along the line of The Stainless Steel Rat. This doesn't require much in the way of scientific knowledge and can make for an amusing read. I still have a copy of that on my bookshelf. But some care should still be taken to not make the science that is in it logical, because otherwise SF fans CAN eat you alive.
I haven't read that one, but judging by your description, you're probably right. And thanks for the advice.

[J. R. Tomlin]

I suggest picking it up if for no other reason than that you'll enjoy it. :)

It's total fluff but fun.

[Shweta]

Whether in their own field or another, scientists bring a RESPECT for science to their writing. They expect what they write to be logical and not stretch the bounds of logic. The scientific method and the kind of thinking that scientists bring to any topic does not change from one field to another.

Yes, fair enough, and I would love to see more of this in supposed hard-sf these days.

I'd argue that the understanding of the scientific method does change somewhat from field to field though; my PhD if it ever gets done will be interdiciplinary, and my experience is that professors in different areas (mainly psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science) certainly have very different ideas of experimental methodology and what counts as proof.

And if you think that Adams was not respected on the topics of technology and the environment, you are mistaken. He was not a scientist, but he was knowledgeable, and he respected the sciences.

Sure, and that's clear in his writing -- he knew what he was poking fun at. But he didn't have a major scientific credential.

...And it sounds like the OP wants to poke fun at a number of sf themes, rather than the science behind them? So familiarity with the literature is more important than familiarity with the science. Though I always like when people are familiar wth the science -- it leads to more original jokes. Terry Pratchett is a really good example of this, too.

The main reason I think it's a good thing you don't need a hard-science PhD to write science fiction is that well, writing is also a skill that needs time and energy to develop. And there's only so much one can do in one lifetime, neh? We need writers who respect literature as well as the sciences, and I think Adams did that admirably. By being something of a generalist.

[Dawnstorm]

If I can explore the effects of technology, while reading, better than the author does, then I lose faith.

Thanks, that does make sense. So does Danthia's post about the destruction of the moon (which wasn't there when I started typing mine up; I took over an hour to type this simple post? Yikes!).

I'm not sure that's about faulty science so much, though, than it's about "selective attention".

Bear with me. In novels, you don't usually address taboo subjects. A cliché in this direction is that fictional people don't go to the toilet (used to humorous effect in the film Pleasantville, where two teenagers are sucked into a sitcom, and when entering a restroom they find nothing behind the door). Now, I can very well imagine such oversights outside of science fiction (say, a woman gets stranded in an inaccessible and remote place for over a month and no mention of her period). The world is infinitely complex; can we ever think of everything?

For example, Danthia's example ("I destroyed the moon and all they worry about is debris") may be an example of too linear thinking rather than bad science. If you asked the author what's responsible for the tides, s/he'll probably know the answer. But these results lie outside the parameters the story has set, and the author simply doesn't make the connections. The science may be intricate, complex, and working out, and yet a simple glaring oversight (or "narrow view") might ruin the "event".

I don't even know if the moon example is very extreme. It's hard to compare the stuff you don't notice to the stuff you do notice, because, well, you don't notice it. (I suppose the editors of the "moon-story" didn't catch the oversight, either, or they ignored it for practical reasons.)

(And there are parking spaces; imagine a world with cars and no parking, because the author hadn't thought it through)Good example. I wonder whether there are stories or stories out there that forgot to include toilets in office buildings (when the thieves go over the building plans, for example). I wouldn't be surprised. The question is: what percentage of readers would notice such an ommission.

Lack of parking lots may not be a problem to the story, if parking isn't topical in the story. So the question, I think, is one of attention: is parking "marked for topicality" because this is science fiction? If parking isn't topical, you'd have to calculate the lack of parking lots from the absence of space to accomodate them, which in turn is only possible if a huge amount of mundane detail is present. Does the tag "science fiction" encourage such calculations in a reader?

[Ex.: I think Skolnick/Bloom's article (http://pantheon.yale.edu/%7Edls73/Assets/skolnick&bloom-cosmology.pdf) is interesting in that respect. The linked paper isn't relevant to this discussion throughout, perhaps. Scroll down to "Errors versus Alterartions" for an interesting discussion of the subtleties about reader intuition. Here's actual research (http://www.yale.edu/langcoglab/papers/skolnick&bloom%20cognition.pdf) along these lines.]

[Kentuk]

Science is much more then collecting facts, it involves proving or disproving hypothesis. Part of my job as a science fiction writer is providing scientists with theories they can disprove (or not). So dudes and dudettes keep churning out those faster then light theories. We are the hope of tomorrow!

[edgyllama]

Faster than light is possible. Einstein said nothing could accelerate faster than light but if you start out going faster, that's fine. But starting out faster than the speed of light is the trick ;)

[Dawnstorm]

Science is much more then collecting facts, it involves proving or disproving hypothesis.

That's an interesting point and very relevant to stories where the most interesting innovation is never explained (such as Arthur C Clarke's 20XX series, or Lem's Solaris). There is a place for mystery in science fiction. Lack of scientific explanation doesn't necessarily mean "fantasy".

[benbradley]

It occurs to me that "Dr. Who" is an example of "science fiction" without any science in it. I never enjoyed it myself, but I think one thing that makes it tolerable is it doesn't try to explain any of the technology it uses.

If you don't "push the boundaries" as far as the laws of physics and such, you won't get into (much) trouble with hard SF fans, but ironically you have to actually know the laws of physics to be sure you're not breaking them. I think more socially-oriented SF (as in what if there were changes to rules of society, as opposed to what if this neat technology were available) such as "Farhenheit 451" would be easier (and better) to write if you don't have much knowledge of science (though in that case you'd still have to look up the ignition temperature of paper for the title).

[J. R. Tomlin]

Yes, fair enough, and I would love to see more of this in supposed hard-sf these days.

I'd argue that the understanding of the scientific method does change somewhat from field to field though; my PhD if it ever gets done will be interdiciplinary, and my experience is that professors in different areas (mainly psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science) certainly have very different ideas of experimental methodology and what counts as proof.



Sure, and that's clear in his writing -- he knew what he was poking fun at. But he didn't have a major scientific credential.

...And it sounds like the OP wants to poke fun at a number of sf themes, rather than the science behind them? So familiarity with the literature is more important than familiarity with the science. Though I always like when people are familiar wth the science -- it leads to more original jokes. Terry Pratchett is a really good example of this, too.

The main reason I think it's a good thing you don't need a hard-science PhD to write science fiction is that well, writing is also a skill that needs time and energy to develop. And there's only so much one can do in one lifetime, neh? We need writers who respect literature as well as the sciences, and I think Adams did that admirably. By being something of a generalist.Well, you can argue that the understanding of the scientific method varies from field to field. I might argue differently but then I am a writer and not a scientist and that IS why I write fantasy rather than SF. As sure as I write something about science, I'll get it wrong. Hell, I almost flunked bone-head chemistry.

Truthfully every hard SF writer I personally know has at least to some degree a scientific background or is unusually knowledgeable and well read in the sciences. I have also seen authors ripped to shreds in reviews for getting the science wrong. Personally, I won't go there.

But that is hard SF. There are other types of SF that are less stringent. I never said the OP needed a degree in science to write SF, quite the contrary. I do suggest some care to not get science wrong which irritates people, but if you're not putting much science in your SF, just writing a story in a future setting that probably isn't much of a problem.

I have written a couple of short stories poking fun at fantasy trope. Nothing wrong with poking a little fun.