Writing sci-fi without any actual science...

When I first scanned this, I was immediately reminded of Harry Harrison's The 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.

efreysson said:

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?

Click to expand...

Yes.

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!

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.

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.

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

edgyllama said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Shweta said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.)

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.

JoNightshade said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

RG570 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

efreysson said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

RG570 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

efreysson said:

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?

Click to expand...

Another story similar to your idea is Larry Niven's collection of fun titled 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.

RG570 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Dawnstorm said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

FennelGiraffe said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Sage said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

J. R. Tomlin said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.