Poll: How do you like your Science Fiction?

[Eclectic Dreck]

Yes I understand probability but that still doesn't explain how it translates the probability into movement which is probably because that's just stupid... and then there's also this. http://www.earthstar.co.uk/bistro.htm

And that's why Douglas Adams is the greatest human being ever.

While the "science" isn't really all that good, the premise is basically this: any given quanta of matter only has a probability of existing at a particular intersection of space and time. While the probability of this quanta existing elsewhere is incredibly tiny, it is fair to say that it is non-zero. Since this quanta (literally matter so tiny you cannot sub-divide it further) is so incredibly small, then it would stand to reason that an object as a whole has a probability of being somewhere else but formerly infinitesimal probability becomes even less likely by an unimaginable magnitude and yet, it is still not quite zero (it is however, effectively zero as it becomes so unlikely that it is unlikely to happen in the entire history of the universe).

Basically, by manipulating this probability in some fashion, the ship manages to exist at all places at the same time. Then, magically, it determines exactly what probability would have them arrive at a given location and the ship arrives there.

Is it good science? Certainly not. There is no reasonable explanation for how the drive manipulates the probability in the first place. There is no explanation for how it distinguishes which spot is "right" as, at infinite improbability the ship literally exists at every possible point at every possible time simultaneously and everyone one of those points is equally correct. But the explanation as a whole at least seems plausible in a universe where god is banished in a puff of logic and there are brain wave eating fish that perform universal translation services in exchange. In short, it is a suitable explanation for the universe because it at least hints at something scientific, doesn't bother getting bogged down in the tedious details (as such would almost certainly harm the humor in the story) and doesn't result in an answer that makes you immediately say "well, that's not right at all!".

Science Fiction is, rarely, based on actual science. Generally, it endeavors to deliver an explanation that is reasonable for just long enough to move past a given part of the plot. Is a Heisenberg compensator a reasonable explanation for teleportation in Star Trek? Sure, as long as you don't demand to be told just how a Heisenberg compensator works. Basically, what we have is something fantastic because, currently, we have no way of knowing how to overcome a very persistent problem (you can know the position or the direction and rate of travel of a particle, never both at the same time). This problem makes teleportation, as we see it in Star Trek, impossible. The resolution is simply to say, well we can ignore that problem because of a mcguffin that resolves this sticking point. This works because the important problem (teleportation) was resolved in a satisfactory method, even if a lesser problem (the uncertainty principle) was resolved without explanation.

 

[Snake Plissken]

Alien and Aliens are the ultimate in science-fiction. So to answer your question, Aliens. I like my sci-fi like Aliens. I know it's dodging the question. But, dude...ALIENS!

 

[Delock]

Similar to fantasy, I like both the realistic and the completely out there.
I appreciate the amount of work the realistic does, and often it's easier to jump into a world designed that way. At the same time, there's sometimes a bit lacking in the imagination department when this happens.
I love the out there stuff when it goes full on creative, making worlds I would never imagine, and meeting things that go beyond my wildest dreams. However, there's the risk that the AWDI excuse will run dry, or that something will break the suspension of disbelief at anytime.

 

[PayneTrayne]

Seeing as my favourite Sci-Fi's are Firefly and Altered Carbon (I know it's cyberpunk), I'm going to go with things that are imaginable. Sure there's a smattering of things that are hard to imagine, but that's about it. Also, really love Niven's SciFi universes!

 

[mumakurau]

I like my sci-fi to be a graceful blend of both the realistic and the out-there, with no particular side having the advantage. A recent example of this is "The Risen Empire" and "The Killing of Worlds" books by Scott Westerfeld. He's a talented writer with a knack for my particular brand of sci-fi. This series has out-there elements like hyper-sleep, black hole engines, psycho-empathic powers, artificial gravity, but it goes through lengths to detail realistic things like death-by-decompression, how falling into higher pressure atmospheres actually causes you to brake when falling, and, believe it or not, how people are still not able to go faster than the constant (if you don't know what this is, then you aren't a sci-fi fan).

It doesn't have to be the future to earn my love, Scott Westerfeld's "Leviathan" series is another one of my favorites. The setting basically a steam-punk world that takes place in an alternate reality where World War I was a battle between the Darwinist, those with industries based around genetically engineered creatures (e.g. whale blimps, flechette-shitting bats, and cart-pulling giant wolves... YES! flechette-shitting bats!!!), and Clankers, those with industries based around advanced machinery (e.g. walking tanks, superior artillery, and fancy gadgets).

 

[Halceon]

As an extra question regardless of your above preference (if you have one at all) do you prefer your science fiction has:

• >> Explanation and back-story to give more validity to the incredible technology and futuristic situations? (Sometimes over the top explanations that take time away from the plot to make the environment more immersive)
  
  >> Or no explanations required; an author can write a book from beginning to end with completely unrealistic technologies that almost seem to run on magic, and as long as it's a good story you'll have no problems with a lack of background (More focus on the plot).

Your dichotomy, it is false. I want things in my scifi to run very much according to rigid laws, if not THE laws, but i don't want said laws expo-dumped on me. If the plot calls for one of the characters to learn these laws (and that is not a very common situation, really), then it should be there. Otherwise people must act as either they already know them and have no need to repeat them, or they know that somebody knows them and thus have no ability to repeat them.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Pretty much all of them, I have no clear preference in the matter.

I thoroughly enjoy the almost fantasy-like SF universe of Star Wars, the incredibly alien yet so strangely plausible universe of Dune, the nitty grittyness of Deus Ex and the zany, cheesy adventurous Doctor Who-verse.

While medium levels of realism upwards towards completely implausible settings tend to result in better television, I'd really like to see some ultra-hard SF for once, the sort of science fiction which rigidly sticks to plausible science and relies on characterisation to provide the intrigue, rather than the special effects.

It's possible, I believe, without being completely boring. We just haven't seen that many good writers in that field. I tried relatively recently, but then again, I'm not a good writer.

Then again, what's the point of SF in fiction in that case? In what way would it be important in the story? I wonder what kind of stuff you have in mind.

Anyway, I found Battlestar Galactica at least having your latter point; relying on characterisation to provide the intrigue, rather than the special effects (even though I loved the space battles). The SF setting in BSG was 'just' a background for a very interesting story about humanity, a very different post-apocalyptic setting.

 

[A random person]

I'm not experienced enough with sci-fi to give a certain answer, but I'd say either hard sci-fi that explores the workings and implications of technology grounded in real-world physics, or science fantasy that's more-or-less fantasy in space.

A lot of why I like the former is that seeing awesome shit in fiction is one thing, but seeing awesome shit that could potentially be done is downright inspiring. As for the latter, my thought process is somewhere along the lines of "epic fantasy is cool, space and lasers are cool, what's not to like?"

 

[voetballeeuw]

With a big helping of cosmic horror. Cthulhu anyone? That counts right?

EDIT: Didn't read everyone's messages, if I ninja'd you have my deepest apologies.

 

[Zakarath]

I like everything from hard sci-fi to sci-fantasy... but I tend to shy away from the edges. I can't really get into the books that go on about weird gravitational phenomena with a level of detail that seems to expect that the reader has a physics/mathematics degree... and on the other hand I con't really get into the books where some new deus ex machina appears on every third page and causality gets violated while they're at it. (Unless its a parody... I do enjoy the Hitchhiker's guide).

 

[sh0tgunenclave]

I write post-apocalypse,which I guess is a sub-genre of science fiction. My stories live by the words "the best fiction is the one that is only vaguely plausible." is it possible that a man's cells mutated and diversified due to exposure to the excess energy produced by the cyclotron located in Lawrence Berkeley Labs until the point he could kill or heal with a wave of his hand? (Cancer cells/ Stem cells)
Possible? Not really.
Plausable? Vaguely.

 

[Tilted_Logic]

As an extra question regardless of your above preference (if you have one at all) do you prefer your science fiction has:

• >> Explanation and back-story to give more validity to the incredible technology and futuristic situations? (Sometimes over the top explanations that take time away from the plot to make the environment more immersive)
  
  >> Or no explanations required; an author can write a book from beginning to end with completely unrealistic technologies that almost seem to run on magic, and as long as it's a good story you'll have no problems with a lack of background (More focus on the plot).

Your dichotomy, it is false. I want things in my scifi to run very much according to rigid laws, if not THE laws, but i don't want said laws expo-dumped on me. If the plot calls for one of the characters to learn these laws (and that is not a very common situation, really), then it should be there. Otherwise people must act as either they already know them and have no need to repeat them, or they know that somebody knows them and thus have no ability to repeat them.

Wouldn't that be assuming that you're familiar with every law/rule that could possibly be used in a situation? For some people that's possible, but for the current argument lets say it's unlikely. In that case, a little bit of backstory can be helpful.

Of course, it all depends on what you're reading; if it's in a modern setting it's very likely you'll understand the laws being used - or at least be able to relate - in which case, yes, I am missing a third option in my first post.

For the sake of simplicity I felt limiting it to those two options was suitable. I didn't expect to cover every scope of sci-fi, just the core ways of writting I've found most authors use.

 

[Something Amyss]

As long as it's fun, enthralling, touching, and/or well written, it can be hardcore science fiction or campy space opera.

Still, I think I like something in the middle. I like it to be believable enough that I don't question it, but not so much that the rules get in the way of the fun.

 

[Serioli]

I like portrayals of different cultures, both alien and possible human, and often the aliens themselves. I don't seem to mind if the science part is 'near future' and is based on current theories or way out there like the 'Culture'.

 

[Blindswordmaster]

Shaken, with ice and a splash of coke. I actually like both as each has their appeal.

 

[The Boy in the Hat]

Personally, I don't care what the implausible sci-fi gadget is as long as when it is used it dos something cool.

 

[Halceon]

As an extra question regardless of your above preference (if you have one at all) do you prefer your science fiction has:

• >> Explanation and back-story to give more validity to the incredible technology and futuristic situations? (Sometimes over the top explanations that take time away from the plot to make the environment more immersive)
  
  >> Or no explanations required; an author can write a book from beginning to end with completely unrealistic technologies that almost seem to run on magic, and as long as it's a good story you'll have no problems with a lack of background (More focus on the plot).

Your dichotomy, it is false. I want things in my scifi to run very much according to rigid laws, if not THE laws, but i don't want said laws expo-dumped on me. If the plot calls for one of the characters to learn these laws (and that is not a very common situation, really), then it should be there. Otherwise people must act as either they already know them and have no need to repeat them, or they know that somebody knows them and thus have no ability to repeat them.

Wouldn't that be assuming that you're familiar with every law/rule that could possibly be used in a situation? For some people that's possible, but for the current argument lets say it's unlikely. In that case, a little bit of backstory can be helpful.

Of course, it all depends on what you're reading; if it's in a modern setting it's very likely you'll understand the laws being used - or at least be able to relate - in which case, yes, I am missing a third option in my first post.

For the sake of simplicity I felt limiting it to those two options was suitable. I didn't expect to cover every scope of sci-fi, just the core ways of writting I've found most authors use.

No, it's not about the reader knowing or not knowing said rules. It's just that the characters must have a realistic attitude to the seemingly fantastic. Few people understand every principle of how mobile phones work, that doesn't make them revere it as a survival essential that must be mentioned in every sentence or reverently avoided or something.

What i don't like about your options is that one can focus entirely on the characters and the plot, while still immersing the reader into the setting. Several Asimov's stories from I, Robot spring to mind, very plot and problem-oriented. While the protagonists are specialists of their field and handle the hard stuff of making sure robots handle their 3 rules correctly, they have almost no connection to, say, sales figures and world politics. But from their conversations over the various stories you can glean quite a lot, because those are good in-world conversations. I'm sure it can work just as well with reverse specializations.

 

[Tilted_Logic]

No, it's not about the reader knowing or not knowing said rules. It's just that the characters must have a realistic attitude to the seemingly fantastic. Few people understand every principle of how mobile phones work, that doesn't make them revere it as a survival essential that must be mentioned in every sentence or reverently avoided or something.

What i don't like about your options is that one can focus entirely on the characters and the plot, while still immersing the reader into the setting. Several Asimov's stories from I, Robot spring to mind, very plot and problem-oriented. While the protagonists are specialists of their field and handle the hard stuff of making sure robots handle their 3 rules correctly, they have almost no connection to, say, sales figures and world politics. But from their conversations over the various stories you can glean quite a lot, because those are good in-world conversations. I'm sure it can work just as well with reverse specializations.

(Sometimes over the top explanations that take time away from the plot to make the environment more immersive)

I never claimed it had to be strictly one end of the spectrum. The method you proposed is well used and quite enjoyable, but it does fit under the use of 'explanations'. Stating someone is an expert in a given field is an explanation for their knowledge on the topic.

A story can easily be immersive without focusing on explanations and backstory, which is why my quoted sentence makes use of the word 'sometimes'. I wasn't trying to limit opinion to one method or the other, the statements in brackets are simply an exaggeration of what occurs in certain situations.

 

[Halceon]

I never claimed it had to be strictly one end of the spectrum. The method you proposed is well used and quite enjoyable, but it does fit under the use of 'explanations'. Stating someone is an expert in a given field is an explanation for their knowledge on the topic.

A story can easily be immersive without focusing on explanations and backstory, which is why my quoted sentence makes use of the word 'sometimes'. I wasn't trying to limit opinion to one method or the other, the statements in brackets are simply an exaggeration of what occurs in certain situations.

Ok, sorry. I guess I have too much internet in my mind and assumed a complete one-or-the-other situation.