Limits in Science-Fiction.
- Thread starter AlkalineGamer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
See, here's the thing though. You need to remember Clarke's law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Literally anything is feasible, given enough of a technological increase. We don't know enough to know what is possible or not, to be perfectly honest.AlkalineGamer said:
The boundaries are made by the writer, not the genre. The proper way to do this is to write a story and have some other asshat decide what genre it is. If you write the story without explaining the rules of whatever super power/tech that you've given your characters it's usually not as good. The best books I've read have all had an excuse as to why the magic works. Wheel of Time has a general energy flow you tap into and make forms with, Sword of Truth treets it like a science.
And the beauty of going out into space is that there's so many alien worlds, an infinite amount, with an infinite amount of unknown materials, and if we jump into alternate dimensions there are even new rules that work nothing like that rules in our world.
Besides that, science changes often enough. Theories are always being altered to take in new discoveries and as more experiments are made more discoveries are made and new possibilities abound. One hundred years ago nobody knew computers were going to be so big, and the internet would have seemed like insanity.
And the beauty of going out into space is that there's so many alien worlds, an infinite amount, with an infinite amount of unknown materials, and if we jump into alternate dimensions there are even new rules that work nothing like that rules in our world.
Besides that, science changes often enough. Theories are always being altered to take in new discoveries and as more experiments are made more discoveries are made and new possibilities abound. One hundred years ago nobody knew computers were going to be so big, and the internet would have seemed like insanity.
Depends...
If you aim to create a suspenseful thriller or horror, you can restrain it quite a bit. Like Alien. It made space a place where you are all alone in a tin can and no one can save you. Kinda like real space.
But if you look at a more unrealistic movie/series like Startrek, you need the silliness, or it won't work. Exploring new planets isn't as exiting when you spend twenty years of getting kidneystones and dying from cancer to get there, just to end up on an endless plain of sand.
If you aim to create a suspenseful thriller or horror, you can restrain it quite a bit. Like Alien. It made space a place where you are all alone in a tin can and no one can save you. Kinda like real space.
But if you look at a more unrealistic movie/series like Startrek, you need the silliness, or it won't work. Exploring new planets isn't as exiting when you spend twenty years of getting kidneystones and dying from cancer to get there, just to end up on an endless plain of sand.
I don't think their should a a universal limit of whats aloud in science fiction, that just limits the possibilities and humanity achieving impossible feats is one of the main things science fiction is about, if we had limits like that we could never have Gurren Lagann or Doctor Who.
This is pretty much the line i was talking about.Agayek said:
I'm fine with changing things we know little about.
But i don't think they can really change things we are completely certain about.
The distinction of Science-Fiction and Science-Fantasy is something people forget too often. Science fiction is where it is improbable, but is possible and could be explained. Science fantasy is the kind of stuff that isn't possible- like the engines in star wars and star trek. Star trek goes into great detail mapping the limitations and how the engines and worlds work in that it could be possible, whereas in star wars the engine of a single X-wing can go from tatoinne to degobah (sorry for poor spelling), and that isn't a problem in star wars- but it isn't possible and so is filed under science-fantasy 
That says it all imo....although it should supply some sort of explenation of how something works...doesn't matter if it would be possible in the foreseeable future as long as it isn't "A wizard did it" ;PAlkalineGamer said:
Really the boundary between science fiction and fantasy is very blurred. There are valid arguments that Star Wars fits both genres.
First, readers will assume that the world is like reality unless noted. That is, people behave like people in the real world, they have emotions and believable reactions. Gravity pulls you down, people breathe air, and if you get injured badly enough you will die.
Second, whenever you cross the generally-understood boundaries of reality, you need to provide some sort of explanation, even if it's just a vague handwave. "The Force gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things." Oh, OK. That's why you can sense people and move objects with your mind. Or, "Our FTL drive can transport us instantly, but if you go too far in one jump you risk destroying the ship."
What irritates the audience is when the reality of the fictional world is different from ours without any explanation, and when the fictional rules the author creates are applied inconsistently. If gravity or the sun is different, then you can explain it by saying, "The story takes place on another planet." Or if time travel exists in your world, then it needs to be consistent in how it works (88 miles per hour, 1.21 gigawatts of electricity) and the effects of it (changing your past can cause you to erase your own existence).
First, readers will assume that the world is like reality unless noted. That is, people behave like people in the real world, they have emotions and believable reactions. Gravity pulls you down, people breathe air, and if you get injured badly enough you will die.
Second, whenever you cross the generally-understood boundaries of reality, you need to provide some sort of explanation, even if it's just a vague handwave. "The Force gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things." Oh, OK. That's why you can sense people and move objects with your mind. Or, "Our FTL drive can transport us instantly, but if you go too far in one jump you risk destroying the ship."
What irritates the audience is when the reality of the fictional world is different from ours without any explanation, and when the fictional rules the author creates are applied inconsistently. If gravity or the sun is different, then you can explain it by saying, "The story takes place on another planet." Or if time travel exists in your world, then it needs to be consistent in how it works (88 miles per hour, 1.21 gigawatts of electricity) and the effects of it (changing your past can cause you to erase your own existence).
OP, I think you may be missing the point. It sounds like what you're describing is "hard science fiction," which in most cases is either so limited that it's very dull or has to by its very nature take some artistic liberties with the science.AlkalineGamer said:
As long as there is an understood set of theories and laws specific to the "universe" that the work of fiction is set in, and they don't drag down the story and characterization with info dumps ala Tom Clancy, sci-fi works. Hell, I loved District 9, but why the Hell would the alien fuel also turn people into Prawns? But I loved the movie anyway because it was original, compelling and moving. I had no idea when I saw it that it would turn out to be a movie about racism, and ultimately it was more important that District 9 portrayed this aspect of human existence realistically than it was to realistically portray science (although the racism felt at certain points a bit overblown).
I find that if you approach science fiction with a closed mind, you won't enjoy it at all.
That is to say, if you go into a sci-fi game, book or film with set notions of what is and isn't possible, then you'll be disappointed when the creators decide they want to play around with it a bit.
That is to say, if you go into a sci-fi game, book or film with set notions of what is and isn't possible, then you'll be disappointed when the creators decide they want to play around with it a bit.
The only limit should, in all honesty, be those self-imposed by people themselves. More people should use their imagination and creativity. Having said that though, as CrunchyRay points out, there needs to be consistency when utilising ideas and concepts instead of using them and/or ignoring them willy nilly. It just makes the more plausible regardless of how mind-boggling they are.
It's up to the author and consumer what the rules are. Even the comment @Slycne made, whilst true for authorial discipline and self respect, is not true for the consumer. You may lose fans by changing but you may also gain some.
Personally; it's better to stick with whatever formula you have that you are happy with whilst also garnering a community, rather than trying to appeal to the widest possible audience.
A relevant example would be Peter F Hamilton's Nights Dawn trilogy compared to his Commonwealth Saga. One is, to me, Science-Fantasy whilst the other is Science-Fiction. Both are extremely enjoyable (if perhaps overly descriptive, not unlike JRR Tolkien) but my key point is that the line is different for each person.
Edit: Re-reading @Slycne 's comment I realise s/he was talking about within an established universe/set of rules (required!) and not seperate novels. Sorry for misunderstanding and suggesting, through implication, that you meant what I thought you did. Again, sorry.
Personally; it's better to stick with whatever formula you have that you are happy with whilst also garnering a community, rather than trying to appeal to the widest possible audience.
A relevant example would be Peter F Hamilton's Nights Dawn trilogy compared to his Commonwealth Saga. One is, to me, Science-Fantasy whilst the other is Science-Fiction. Both are extremely enjoyable (if perhaps overly descriptive, not unlike JRR Tolkien) but my key point is that the line is different for each person.
Edit: Re-reading @Slycne 's comment I realise s/he was talking about within an established universe/set of rules (required!) and not seperate novels. Sorry for misunderstanding and suggesting, through implication, that you meant what I thought you did. Again, sorry.
Don't confuse science fiction and fantasy.AlkalineGamer said:
In general what makes science fiction sci-fi is that it involves some kind of theoretical model at work, and the story is about the theories as much as the characters and whatever adventures they might be having.
There is good science fiction, and there is bad science fiction, however reality does not limit it so much as consistincy. It's a valid approach to science fiction to come up with the idea that there might be something that violates normal laws of physics, or allows them to be violated, and then to follow that to it's logical conclusion. It's also valid to say "well, what if this bit that we accept as fact happens to be wrong" and then run with that as a theoretical concept. It all comes down to internal consistincy and a certain focus on theory.
The thing is that real scientists are disproven with some regularity. What is taken as an undeniable law of reality now, could be a joke in a century as more information comes to pass. What makes science fiction interesting is that in some cases (though by no means all) writers who were laughed at for the ridiculousness of their ideas at the time wound up becoming prophetic to an almost scary degree as certain assumptions fell by the wayside.
Right now we consider guys like Einstein sacred cows, but they are really no differant than what other scientists that had been disproven were before they had parts of their work refuted.
Now "Space Fantasy" doesn't even bother with any kind of theory of internal consistincy, stuff happens because it's cool, and that can be obnoxious when people try and present it as science fiction... largely because of the space ships and ray guns. That leads to a lot of problems when people look for some kind of underlying logic, where there isn't any, things largely being determined by whatever sounds good at the moment, and covered under techno-babble if something scientific is supposed to be taking place.
That's just it though, there isn't anything we're completely certain about.AlkalineGamer said:
We can be reasonably sure of many things, but there are very few things that have been conclusively proven in all circumstances. The best example of that is the force of gravity. It hasn't actually been proven in all cases, especially at the quantum level (where essentially all of known physics gets thrown out the window).
Almost all of the physical sciences are like that. We can be reasonably sure that the information we do have is accurate and valid in all cases, but that has yet to be proven, so it's not unreasonable for something to completely violate whatever physical laws you'd like.
A halfway decent example from the real world is quantum teleportation. Someone just recently managed to send a stable particle. It's not unreasonable to state "Someday, we will know how to do this on a macro scale", and if you can do that you've basically broken Newtonian physics.
I was about to go on a similar rant, but you covered most of my points. Well done sir.CrunchyRay said:
exactly what i was thinking, there's no limit, putting limits to science fiction is like putting an iron bar to the wheel of a bycicle !BonsaiK said: