Limits in Science-Fiction.

[Mikeyfell]

Science fiction, basically taking massive liberties with theoretical or even certain science.
But what lines can science fiction not cross? What scientific facts just cannot be changed?

I thought of this after having a little debate with someone on the AC forums over the way Genetic inheritance works, a constant argument was that "it's science fiction, they can do what they want" But i think Sci-Fi needs some boundaries, it's the only thing stopping it from becoming utterly insane nonsense.

So where should the line between Reality and imagination be drawn?

One of my favorite lines that this made me think of is
"Ever since scientists invented magic anything is possible."
I believe that was from the Simpsons.

Anyway back to the topic at hand.
Science fiction is lumped together with my favorite genera, fantasy, under the category "Books that teachers don't respect" So I didn't get a chance to read to many in highschool (besides Ray Bradbury's shitty shitty novels.) but I did determinedly read Ender's Game and all it's sequels. A teacher asked me (among other completely inane questions) "Do you think this could ever happen in real life?" My answer was "No, there's a part in that book where a 12 year old does trigonometry of his own accord." I just don't think it's possible that a kid in the future will be that smart (or give a shit).

In movies I think Idiocracy is as close to an accurate depiction of the future as we're ever going to see. But that's closer to a horror film than a Sci-fi movie.

But it is Science FICTION so reality shouldn't have any say over what writers can or can't do so long as it's fun to read.

 

[winginson]

Each (good) work of sci-fi needs to come up with its own universe with its own set of constraints. There has to be limits within the universe so it doesn't devolve into madness or we-can-do-anythingness, but there should be no limits in our universe as to what they are.

 

[MightyMole]

As long as it makes sense within it's universe, it can do whatever the hell it wants for all I care.

 

[Trivun]

I don't care about real boundaries, provided they're explained somehow in-universe in some way (even if said explanation is a load of crap in real terms). Like, in Doctor Who, the TARDIS travels through time and space, things that are deemed impossible by anything according to the laws of physics as we know them IRL. But in the series, it's fine, because the fictional universe gives an 'applied phlebutonium' explanation and then the TARDIS follows the rules set in the series.

What I do hate is when a series sets up rules, then proceeds to break them. Carrying on with the TARDIS example, if the series stated explicitly that a TARDIS cannot materialise inside itself, AT ALL, then proceeded to do so (like in the 2011 Comic Relief shorts, Time and Space), then I'd be pissed off. But if it is allowed within the series rules, as previously stated, then that's fine. And it was. So it was fine.

 

[Nouw]

EDIT:And just when I thought the genre couldn't get any more fucked up.

I'd rather have my science fiction limitless, I can get a dose of hard whenever I want.

 

[coldshadow]

sci-fiction is basically just fantasy with proper explanations for things instead of magic or mythology. that said the science within science fiction is usually tied to its world and only based on ours so most things can change with the exceptions that would make things into magic.

 

[the jellyman]

Well, we can't accurately predict the future, so real life could throw an SF-writer a curveball any time.

Also no matter how smart or imaginative you are, nobody can think all the way outside the box. Nobody knows everything that's possible.

We do know that it may well make more sense than current Doctor Who, though

 

[Titan Buttons]

"fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science Fiction is the improbable made possible." Rod Serling
The word fiction does not mean it gets to be Science Fantasy. In science fiction there is no magic as that would be fantasy.


Wiki articles on Science Fiction and Fantasy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasy

Hmm, ok I can see how I was vague but I was not refering to fantasy at all I was saying that all the ideas that can be used within Science fiction, such as being able to resurect the dead using machines or the human race discovering how to use alchemie and become part of their everyday lives, could be seen as too rediculous even though they make for great stories.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

As a general rule I would agree that Sci-Fi requires limits. Without limits of a sort there is no real capacity for drama. Sure these limits ought to be freely mutable as the situation requires but they need to exist from moment to moment.

 

[Mr Jack]

I don't care that much if Science Fiction is not consistent with what we know about our universe. What is far more important is that it is internally consistent. The author should decide on the rules of their fictional universe, and think through all the ramifications of the set of rules they have decided upon.
The world should be emergent, it should be the logical conclusion of the premises. Too often are worlds created backwards, with the author thinking of a cool thing they just have to use, and justifying it with some technobabble about quantum physics.
Overall, I would settle for authors respecting science a bit more than they do. (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/respectscience.php)

As has been said, Science Fiction and Fantasy are similar, particularly in that many writers have little idea of the science or history related to what they are writing about. If you plan to include knights and men at arms, please, at least research how this sort of thing went down in the real world. If you had two battle lines, they would never charge screaming at one another across and open field in a discordant mass. Generally, the first few hours of a battle are spent with the men in the line getting drunk and working up the courage to join the lines. This sort of thing sticks out as it has people acting outside of behavioural norms.

Well, we can't accurately predict the future, so real life could throw an SF-writer a curveball any time.

Also no matter how smart or imaginative you are, nobody can think all the way outside the box. Nobody knows everything that's possible.

We do know that it may well make more sense than current Doctor Who, though

There are however limits to what can change about our knowledge of the world:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_principle

 

[Lenin211]

For something to be sci-fi, it should be possible and not outlandish

 

[Mad Scientist]

Science fiction, basically taking massive liberties with theoretical or even certain science.
But what lines can science fiction not cross? What scientific facts just cannot be changed?

I thought of this after having a little debate with someone on the AC forums over the way Genetic inheritance works, a constant argument was that "it's science fiction, they can do what they want" But i think Sci-Fi needs some boundaries, it's the only thing stopping it from becoming utterly insane nonsense.

So where should the line between Reality and imagination be drawn?

I think it depends on the skill of the writer. A great writer can get away with a lot of shit you wouldn't take from anyone else. It also depends on the "hardness" -- I'll accept a planet-building civilisation from Douglas Adams but if it was thrown into the middle of a hard scifi story without a damn good explanation I'd put the book down.

I believe the rule of thumb is that you can get away with really huge bullshit once. You can have FTL or perpetual motion or unexplained immortality or psychic powers; more than one and you start to blur the line between scifi and fantasy. But again there are a lot of exceptions; most people would call Star Trek (at least the old stuff) scifi and they had at least 3 of those, possibly all 4. FTL and perpetual motion seem to get a pass a lot simply for story mechanic reasons, in the same way that nobody cares about heat dissipation and cellular function when you shrink somebody down small. Genetic inheritance shouldn't get that sort of pass unless plausibly explained (an alien species may have different inheritance patterns, for instance), otherwise it's poor writing or shitty research.

'Course, if you call your story fantasy instead of scifi, you can do whatever the hell you want so long as it's internally consistent.

 

[Bobbity]

I find that science fiction crosses the line into incredibility not when the author's imagination gets out of hand with a wonderful and fantastical idea, but when an ordinary, everyday thing is pushed as far as it can go.

 

[Aurgelmir]

Science fiction, basically taking massive liberties with theoretical or even certain science.
But what lines can science fiction not cross? What scientific facts just cannot be changed?

I thought of this after having a little debate with someone on the AC forums over the way Genetic inheritance works, a constant argument was that "it's science fiction, they can do what they want" But i think Sci-Fi needs some boundaries, it's the only thing stopping it from becoming utterly insane nonsense.

So where should the line between Reality and imagination be drawn?

I had a similar discussion once, where someone claimed that any sci-fi needed to be rooted in reality, and only based on possible futures of our current technology.

I personally dislike that concept. Sure you can prefer the one to the other, but I do not believe in putting constraints on an author. Let them mess with science as much as they want, that is what makes for good sci-fi plots. Want to have magic in your sci-fi? then go ahead!

In the end it is not the genre that needs constraints, but the audience to make a decision on what they like.