Psychic powers in SF

SF: discuss futuristic sci-fi series, ideas, and crossovers.

Moderator: NecronLord

User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4144
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: Psychic powers in SF

Post by Formless »

Alerik the Fortunate wrote: If you take a very materialistic view of the nature of consciousness and life, then even fairly modest developments in technologies such as AI, mind uploading/emulating, genetic engineering, and life extension start to lead, in the absence of handwaving, to rapid and deep explorations of the nature of identity, morality, and whatnot, that results in plots, characters, and societies that are more alien than the average viewer or reader is probably comfortable with.
I wouldn't be so pessimistic. It can also lead to stories like the movie Gattaca, AI, Artificial Intelligence or The Matrix, which certainly appealed to the mainstream. Its all about how you handle it, remembering that good drama does not come from transhumanist spank fantasies. It comes from relateable characters in relateable situations, and themes that stem from considering the artistic merit of the piece rather than just coming from what the author has decided is cool shit.

And on the other hand, psionics can also lead to stories that are just as strange if handled the right (wrong?) way. For instance, one could describe the "Instrumentality" plot of Evangelion as a kind of singularity story with a supernatural twist. But most people come out of that film going "what the fuck did I just watch?" :-D
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.
Alerik the Fortunate
Jedi Knight
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-07-22 09:25pm
Location: Planet Facepalm, Home of the Dunning-Krugerites

Re: Psychic powers in SF

Post by Alerik the Fortunate »

"Thank you father, goodbye mother, and congratulations to all the children!" I know. These aren't absolutes, just general trends that I notice. It also has something of a media divide, where it is possible to explore much stranger stuff coherently in books and written fiction in general than on screen, especially movies, which need a fairly self-contained plot that can be understood without excessive exposition in a couple of hours.
Every day is victory.
No victory is forever.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Psychic powers in SF

Post by Simon_Jester »

I suspect it's easier to describe weirdness in words than on screen without confusing people. "I passed through a canyon of flashing images" or "and then the nanites took on an amorphous, tentacled shape" sounds so much less weird than a visual depiction of it would look. Remember the ending scenes of 2001?
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Gunhead
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1715
Joined: 2004-11-15 08:08am

Re: Psychic powers in SF

Post by Gunhead »

Simon_Jester wrote:I do not agree.

The point in science fiction is exploring ideas about the future, or our relationship with science and technology, or even just telling a good story in an environment with the trappings of advanced technology- for art's sake.

I see no reason why 'real' SF shouldn't explore the idea of strange mental powers, along with all the other things it can go into.
Feel free to not agree. Channel72 pretty much said what I was going for. Psionic powers etc. should be treated as just another science in a setting where they exist. This doesn't really prevent people from slapping on religious or other mystical qualities to them. If people leave such a field unstudied, it should be made clear why is it so rather than just go "MAGIC! Science can't comprehend!"
Several reasons exist why mystical powers cannot or most likely won't be studied a competent writer could easily put into his stories. This would in fact be exploring the realm of mystical powers and their place in the setting and would probably make them a better allegory for religion / mysticism or other supernatural beliefs we have today.
Out of popular SF I think Babylon 5 did make an effort to integrate psionic powers into the setting, by showing us their role in commercial transactions and having a scale for the power implying that it was pretty well understood principle and subject of continuous scientific study. They even had a serum to turn off the power. I don't think psionics in B5 really made the series fundamentally better, my feeling is pretty much the opposite but the effort was there.
Comparing to this to say Star Trek where mental powers have a very tacked on feel to them. Then again, I think a lot of SF suffers from this when it comes to psionics or other mystical powers.
They're not really explored as an element of the setting, they're there just to justify mystical ninja monks with energy swords or similar shit. And this is for me the big sticking point. Does the setting need to have mystical mental powers? If you can just yank them out and this doesn't affect the world a whole lot, you were doing it wrong in the first place.

-Gunhead
"In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it."
-Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel

"And if you don't wanna feel like a putz
Collect the clues and connect the dots
You'll see the pattern that is bursting your bubble, and it's Bad" -The Hives
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Psychic powers in SF

Post by Simon_Jester »

Gunhead wrote:Feel free to not agree. Channel72 pretty much said what I was going for. Psionic powers etc. should be treated as just another science in a setting where they exist. This doesn't really prevent people from slapping on religious or other mystical qualities to them. If people leave such a field unstudied, it should be made clear why is it so rather than just go "MAGIC! Science can't comprehend!"
There is a venerable tradition of doing exactly that; see Doc Smith's Skylark and Lensman series for reference. Or Asimov's Second Foundation.

Asimov expected psychologists and sociologists to develop telepathy or what might as well be; to E. E. Smith, telepathy was a thing with wavelengths that you could build cheap, cost-effective artificial shielding devices to block- and wear the thought-screen in your vest pocket to keep the telepathic protagonist from having things too easy for himself. :D

But that was in the 1940s, when people really did think that telepathy and psionics were plausible outgrowths of advances in mental science. So I think what changed is that we stopped viewing psi powers that way, starting in the 1960s. Just as things like portable radiophones stopped being science fiction and started being reality, telepathy stopped being science fiction and started being fantasy.

So it stopped symbolizing the (mid-20th century) belief that Man's powers and understanding were increasing quickly and that the future would be godlike compared to the present. And it then began to align with a (late-20th century) belief that there's an important, irreducible human element to our world even as the technology gets grander- that there really is something special and important about us, which justifies not just turning human beings into cogs in a giant social machine.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Psychic powers in SF

Post by Stark »

Even putting aside the amazing ignorance and narrow-mindedness being expressed, there's a lot of good drama to be drawn from the simple idea of 'man of science faces situation fundamentally unscientific'. Of course, the idea that 'psychic powers' is in some way unscientific is hardly set in stone.
User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4144
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: Psychic powers in SF

Post by Formless »

Gunhead wrote:Comparing to this to say Star Trek where mental powers have a very tacked on feel to them. Then again, I think a lot of SF suffers from this when it comes to psionics or other mystical powers.
Almost everything in popular sci-fi is tacked on. What makes psionics so much more offensive than warp drives and teleporters? Frankly, the way 90% of the genre does world building is to apply popular cliches haphazardly. Why do we follow a single starship that acts as a "hero" unto itself? Because it worked for Star Trek, certainly it will work for us! Why do we so often see Big Space Battles? Because Star Wars made space battles cool! Why do so many Anime contain super robits that transform into airplanes? Because Macross did it, and now its practically a subgenre of its own. Most of sci-fi doesn't strictly need any given element, they choose those elements based on their appeal to the author or audience.

Even "Hard" Science fiction falls prey to this. Why does a story have to take place in space? Because rocketry is the coolest science, of course! Do not underestimate the power of genre staples.

And that's not necessarily a bad thing. World building takes a lot of effort, and trying too hard can actually be a distraction from telling a good story. There is a certain level of detail where I really think an author should sit down and ask themselves whether its a novel that they want to write, or a roleplaying game. :)
They're not really explored as an element of the setting, they're there just to justify mystical ninja monks with energy swords or similar shit. And this is for me the big sticking point. Does the setting need to have mystical mental powers? If you can just yank them out and this doesn't affect the world a whole lot, you were doing it wrong in the first place.
This is getting annoying. First, there is an entire genre dedicated to nothing but psionics and other superhuman powers: Superheroes. Second, we know you're referring to Star Wars, so just say so. Third, in Star Wars the Force isn't just an excuse for action, its a central part of the damn narrative. By comparison, you could also say that The Matrix exists to justify all the wire-fu and it would be just as valid. Hell, you could say that the spaceships in 90% of sci-fi are all there as an excuse to see shit blow up in space and it would be just as valid. Almost everything can be stripped of its plot devices and aesthetics and as long as the basic plot remains the story is still viable. Why is it wrong when its psionics, and not any other plot device?

From the sounds of it, its entirely because you have drawn an arbitrary line in the sand.
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.
User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4144
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: Psychic powers in SF

Post by Formless »

Stark wrote:Even putting aside the amazing ignorance and narrow-mindedness being expressed, there's a lot of good drama to be drawn from the simple idea of 'man of science faces situation fundamentally unscientific'. Of course, the idea that 'psychic powers' is in some way unscientific is hardly set in stone.
I like this. To be honest, the thing that bugs me about Hard Sci-fi as people like to depict it is that its really no more about science than the soft sci-fi the same fans deride. Sticking only to known physics implies we already know everything that will ever be relevant, and dismissing implausible ideas because they don't fit preconceptions about what is scientific is exactly the opposite of what an actual scientist who has just observed an "impossible" event should do. For all the complaints about how psionics are often treated as a religion in SF, these same people seem to be treating scientific knowledge like holy writ. :P

The correct response to seeing an impossible occurrence isn't "that can't possibly happen", its "gee, I wonder how that works..."
User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Psychic powers in SF

Post by Stark »

How much sense does it make to say 'if it can be removed, it isn't important' anyway? You can set 50s cop dramas in space; you can remove cars from many movies, you can sometimes even remove women from a story.

They're still a valid part of the story. The Star Wars example is retarded, but things like Gundam and B5 similarly use mental powers to make points and turn plot events. They're no more thrown in for flavour than laser guns and space fighters.
Channel72
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2068
Joined: 2010-02-03 05:28pm
Location: New York

Re: Psychic powers in SF

Post by Channel72 »

Again, the problem isn't that psionic powers are superfluous - a lot of sci-fi elements are just there for atmosphere. The problem is that SF writers don't often treat psionics as a physical phenomenon. They treat it like something mystical. Although, I admit my argument is based mostly on Star Trek - I don't know if there are other series which treat psionics as more of a physical phenomenon that can be studied/controlled/etc.

On a more subjective note, psionic powers just suck as a sci-fi concept. It's just such pulpy comic-book crap. Mind-reading aliens are boring, and yet for some reason sci-fi writers continue to be fascinated with this shit.

The best science fiction stories are stories that explore the ramifications of future technology and how it affects human beings morally and socially - but the reality is that most sci-fi series are more like space operas or high-fantasy political dramas in space, featuring wizards, elves and orcs, Jedis, Vulcans and Klingons.
User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4144
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: Psychic powers in SF

Post by Formless »

You know, all this talk about Star Trek treating psychic powers as mystic phenomena reminds me of that time when Kirk and Spock came to a planet where the literal greek pantheon was hanging out (I think it was they needed doctor McCoy to help treat Zeus) and decided to torment the Enterprise crew plus their own pet midget who for some reason can't do any of their telekinetic bullshit or fight back... and then Kirk and Spock realize the two things may be related. So they test the little guy's blood and discover that there is a naturally occurring nutrient on that planet that the midget's body has trouble metabolizing which can give Kirk and Spock telekinesis too if they just inject themselves with it.

Hmm...

Oh, or all those episodes of Voyager when Tuvok proposes doing a Mind Meld to help someone with their alien possession of the week or plain old brain damage, and the Doctor insists on monitoring both patients with an EEG so he knows their brain waves at all times--

uuuuhhhh...

or that episode of TNG where Picard is made to live the last days of an alien culture by... by a space probe... that beams it into his head...

Okay, I got nothing. Why are people saying that Star Trek treats psionics purely as a metaphysical phenomenon? Are they working entirely from memory here? Because I'm not exactly the most avid fan of the show and even I know of these counterexamples. Yeah, there are a lot of episodes I didn't mention that don't bother to explain how it works (yeah yeah, anything to do with Q, sue me), but then again considering how nonsensical Trek science is at the best of times it's probably for the best that they don't explain it. :lol:

Also, is it just me or is it really shallow to condemn any kind of mysticism or religion in sci-fi? If anything, I like the power of sci-fi to explore mythology in new ways that Sword and Sorcery-style fantasy cannot because of its romanticism for medieval European culture.
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.
User avatar
Havok
Miscreant
Posts: 13016
Joined: 2005-07-02 10:41pm
Location: Oakland CA
Contact:

Re: Psychic powers in SF

Post by Havok »

I think that being able to analyze the effects of psi powers and be able to keep readings on the brainwave activity why they are happening still doesn't explain exactly why the work in Star Trek. That may be where people are coming from. That and the way that the Vulcans actually seem to treat them in all traditionally and mystically ways, even though that is very illogical.
Image
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it.
Blank Yellow (NSFW)
"Mostly Harmless Nutcase"
Channel72
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2068
Joined: 2010-02-03 05:28pm
Location: New York

Re: Psychic powers in SF

Post by Channel72 »

Formless wrote:Also, is it just me or is it really shallow to condemn any kind of mysticism or religion in sci-fi? If anything, I like the power of sci-fi to explore mythology in new ways that Sword and Sorcery-style fantasy cannot because of its romanticism for medieval European culture.
Shrug. Yeah, a lot of people like that stuff. I enjoy cool space battles and I love Star Wars, but I think we really need a separate genre to describe that sort of thing. That sort of high-fantasy, Flash Gordon stuff is really on an entirely different wavelength than things like Huxley or Asimov. And I'm not just talking about writing quality or "hard" vs. "soft" sci-fi - I'm talking about themes and emphasis. One of my favorite classic movies is Things to Come. Even more than Roddenberry, it explores the future potential of humanity, and emphasizes the triumph of technology and science over superstition, prejudice and tribalism.

Yeah, space opera has it's place. But it bothers me that the large majority of modern sci-fi television is a lot more Flash Gordon and a lot less Asimov. When you look at the majority of popular sci-fi in the last couple of decades, (DS9, B5, nuBSG, etc.) they really focus on politics and religion - with the "sci-fi" elements as more of a backdrop or setting, and a lot of mysticism mixed in. Really, some of these stories wouldn't change that much thematically if they were set in Middle Earth.

I think Star Trek TOS and TNG are somewhat of an exception, which is why they are two of my favorite series. Even though a large bulk of episodes are focused on galactic politics and such, there's also a decent share of episodes focused on exploring the moral and social implications of technology. (To be fair, I guess Voyager does this to from time to time as well.)
User avatar
Gunhead
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1715
Joined: 2004-11-15 08:08am

Re: Psychic powers in SF

Post by Gunhead »

Formless wrote: Almost everything in popular sci-fi is tacked on. What makes psionics so much more offensive than warp drives and teleporters? Frankly, the way 90% of the genre does world building is to apply popular cliches haphazardly. Why do we follow a single starship that acts as a "hero" unto itself? Because it worked for Star Trek, certainly it will work for us! Why do we so often see Big Space Battles? Because Star Wars made space battles cool! Why do so many Anime contain super robits that transform into airplanes? Because Macross did it, and now its practically a subgenre of its own. Most of sci-fi doesn't strictly need any given element, they choose those elements based on their appeal to the author or audience.

Even "Hard" Science fiction falls prey to this. Why does a story have to take place in space? Because rocketry is the coolest science, of course! Do not underestimate the power of genre staples.

And that's not necessarily a bad thing. World building takes a lot of effort, and trying too hard can actually be a distraction from telling a good story. There is a certain level of detail where I really think an author should sit down and ask themselves whether its a novel that they want to write, or a roleplaying game. :)
You are not getting what I'm saying. Everything in fiction is made up. It's not about this and that working for which ever series. It's about what are the integral parts of the story you are telling and what sort of a place you are setting it in. If I'm going to tell a story about a star ship going from star to star exploring, then I probably should feature the ship in the story. If I think the story should have odd mental powers, I should have an idea how and why they work and how they add to the world as a plot element or just as something to make the world around the story more interesting. I could tell the same or at least a similar story by swapping the space ship for a wagon and stick religion in place of mental powers and it would still work. But I wouldn't constantly feature a plot element i.e psionics without having some idea how such powers as a whole work because this is where it feels they are slapped there just to justify the mind control plot of the week. For the most part and again I'm not referring to any particular show, technology, how ever made up, has more consistency to it in terms of power and function. This in mind, it's about as irritating to watch a show where technology is given spectacular new powers out of the fucking blue.
Formless wrote: This is getting annoying. First, there is an entire genre dedicated to nothing but psionics and other superhuman powers: Superheroes. Second, we know you're referring to Star Wars, so just say so. Third, in Star Wars the Force isn't just an excuse for action, its a central part of the damn narrative. By comparison, you could also say that The Matrix exists to justify all the wire-fu and it would be just as valid. Hell, you could say that the spaceships in 90% of sci-fi are all there as an excuse to see shit blow up in space and it would be just as valid. Almost everything can be stripped of its plot devices and aesthetics and as long as the basic plot remains the story is still viable. Why is it wrong when its psionics, and not any other plot device?

From the sounds of it, its entirely because you have drawn an arbitrary line in the sand.
I don't touch superhero shit with a stick if I don't have to. The best experience I've had with the superhero genre is when I traded a bunch of Marvel comics to a friend for a ticket to see Metallica. My appreciation for Marvel rose considerably. But other than that I don't see what the super hero genre has to do with the topic anyway.
And again, great job at missing the point. Psionics or other magic is fine as long as it's used in a consistent manner and the story or the setting is better for it. Same basically applies to all plot devices. But even you should realize mystical ninja monks with, or without, energy swords was used to describe a common stitch in any sort of SF setting that need to have their uber warrior types in one form or the other. The fact that it describes the Jedi is hardly my fault now is it? For the sensitive fan boy types out there, I might add I like the force as a concept, it's the current iteration of the Jedi that's just utter shit. Ok to be fair, you can stick all the other force users into the same pile.

-Gunhead
"In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it."
-Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel

"And if you don't wanna feel like a putz
Collect the clues and connect the dots
You'll see the pattern that is bursting your bubble, and it's Bad" -The Hives
User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Psychic powers in SF

Post by Stark »

Channel72 wrote: Shrug. Yeah, a lot of people like that stuff. I enjoy cool space battles and I love Star Wars, but I think we really need a separate genre to describe that sort of thing. That sort of high-fantasy, Flash Gordon stuff is really on an entirely different wavelength than things like Huxley or Asimov. And I'm not just talking about writing quality or "hard" vs. "soft" sci-fi - I'm talking about themes and emphasis. One of my favorite classic movies is Things to Come. Even more than Roddenberry, it explores the future potential of humanity, and emphasizes the triumph of technology and science over superstition, prejudice and tribalism.

Yeah, space opera has it's place. But it bothers me that the large majority of modern sci-fi television is a lot more Flash Gordon and a lot less Asimov. When you look at the majority of popular sci-fi in the last couple of decades, (DS9, B5, nuBSG, etc.) they really focus on politics and religion - with the "sci-fi" elements as more of a backdrop or setting, and a lot of mysticism mixed in. Really, some of these stories wouldn't change that much thematically if they were set in Middle Earth.

I think Star Trek TOS and TNG are somewhat of an exception, which is why they are two of my favorite series. Even though a large bulk of episodes are focused on galactic politics and such, there's also a decent share of episodes focused on exploring the moral and social implications of technology. (To be fair, I guess Voyager does this to from time to time as well.)
Are you unaware the science fiction is fantasy with robots and spaceships? Speculative fiction doesn't even need to be science fiction. You should stop conflating your genres (and maybe accept that any system of genre tagging that needs three or four tags or sub genres is probably crap).
User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4144
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: Psychic powers in SF

Post by Formless »

Channel72 wrote:Shrug. Yeah, a lot of people like that stuff. I enjoy cool space battles and I love Star Wars, but I think we really need a separate genre to describe that sort of thing. That sort of high-fantasy, Flash Gordon stuff is really on an entirely different wavelength than things like Huxley or Asimov. And I'm not just talking about writing quality or "hard" vs. "soft" sci-fi - I'm talking about themes and emphasis. One of my favorite classic movies is Things to Come. Even more than Roddenberry, it explores the future potential of humanity, and emphasizes the triumph of technology and science over superstition, prejudice and tribalism.
:roll: The phrase "High Fantasy" is already in use to refer to Fantasy that rips off Tolkien and Gygax, not 50's pulp fiction. And Asmiov arguably did have his own mythology-- he even gave it the fancy sounding name "psychohistory". So it is a theme in Golden Age science fiction just as much as it is in Star Wars. It just takes on a more pretentious language and tone.
Yeah, space opera has it's place. But it bothers me that the large majority of modern sci-fi television is a lot more Flash Gordon and a lot less Asimov. When you look at the majority of popular sci-fi in the last couple of decades, (DS9, B5, nuBSG, etc.) they really focus on politics and religion - with the "sci-fi" elements as more of a backdrop or setting, and a lot of mysticism mixed in. Really, some of these stories wouldn't change that much thematically if they were set in Middle Earth.
You're kidding, right? The political scheme of a feudal society is literally worlds apart from the type of nation-state politics that your standard space opera assumes. The way things are negotiated, the way decisions are made, the way people of different races and religions interact, the priorities... You're so fixated on the mysticism that you're missing the other elements that define these shows. The only one you mentioned that might work as a fantasy tale is nuBSG, and even there you lose a critical aspect of the mythology that connects the audience to the show-- the idea that Earth is known to these people and believed by some to be a myth. With the exception of Spelljammer (a setting you have to be immersed in D&D to have heard of), you just can't do that in a Sword and Sorcery setting.
Havok wrote:I think that being able to analyze the effects of psi powers and be able to keep readings on the brainwave activity why they are happening still doesn't explain exactly why the work in Star Trek. That may be where people are coming from. That and the way that the Vulcans actually seem to treat them in all traditionally and mystically ways, even though that is very illogical.
I'm specifically addressing the claim that Trek always treats it as something unscientific and qualitatively different from technology-- its only fair that we apply the same standards here as to Treknology, which is never explained in real science when it is explained at all.
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.
jollyreaper
Jedi Master
Posts: 1127
Joined: 2010-06-28 10:19pm

Re: Psychic powers in SF

Post by jollyreaper »

Personally, I do like the idea of phenomena that as of yet cannot be explorered by science. Psionics, depending on how they are handled, could well be magic like that. The key to making scientists nuts is the inability to isolate all the variables to reproduce the experiment. The kicker is that the wizard can do it but so much of what he knows is idiosyncratic and won't work for someone else.

Many people swear that this could not be. If magic is a thing and real, it should be open to scientific investigation and thus reduced to one more science, the same way Japanese sword making can be stripped of woo and mysticism and described in materialist terms. Here's how the metallurgy works, here's how the alloy is effective, here's things done for tradition that don't really have bearing.
User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4144
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: Psychic powers in SF

Post by Formless »

Gunhead wrote:You are not getting what I'm saying. Everything in fiction is made up. It's not about this and that working for which ever series. It's about what are the integral parts of the story you are telling and what sort of a place you are setting it in. If I'm going to tell a story about a star ship going from star to star exploring, then I probably should feature the ship in the story. If I think the story should have odd mental powers, I should have an idea how and why they work and how they add to the world as a plot element or just as something to make the world around the story more interesting. I could tell the same or at least a similar story by swapping the space ship for a wagon and stick religion in place of mental powers and it would still work. But I wouldn't constantly feature a plot element i.e psionics without having some idea how such powers as a whole work because this is where it feels they are slapped there just to justify the mind control plot of the week. For the most part and again I'm not referring to any particular show, technology, how ever made up, has more consistency to it in terms of power and function. This in mind, it's about as irritating to watch a show where technology is given spectacular new powers out of the fucking blue.
What you are saying, in other words, is that every single piece of gnatshit in the setting needs to have an explanation spoonfed to you, or else it can't possibly serve a function to the plot. Aesthetics and motif are irrelevant considerations as long as the most basic description of the plot can still be applied.

Right. Riiiiiight. :lol:

Also, not every damn sci-fi treats psionics as a stand-in for religion. Can we just stop assuming that the minority of franchises represents the whole genre? Because I'm not convinced you aren't talking about a whole two or three franchises (Wars, Trek, and 40K) at most.
I don't touch superhero shit with a stick if I don't have to. The best experience I've had with the superhero genre is when I traded a bunch of Marvel comics to a friend for a ticket to see Metallica. My appreciation for Marvel rose considerably. But other than that I don't see what the super hero genre has to do with the topic anyway.
I don't like them either, mostly for Aesthetic reasons. Too bad, they still account for 90% of all psionic characters in fiction. :lol:
And again, great job at missing the point. Psionics or other magic is fine as long as it's used in a consistent manner and the story or the setting is better for it.
So tell me, how would you re-write Minority Report without precogs? :lol: Oh, that's right. Your exposure to science fiction is so limited you've probably never heard of Philip K. Dick.

I understood you just fine. Your complaint is that its never explored in the setting, always treated like a stand in for religion, or just as an excuse for superhero action. Except that's a product of your ignorance, plenty of sci-fi explores it just fine without explaining it. And how are you supposed to explain it without sounding really stupid? You don't, and as a writer you shouldn't get hung up on things that can't be explained but make sense for the plot. Which you seem fine with, as long as it isn't psychic powers.
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.
User avatar
Gunhead
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1715
Joined: 2004-11-15 08:08am

Re: Psychic powers in SF

Post by Gunhead »

Formless wrote: What you are saying, in other words, is that every single piece of gnatshit in the setting needs to have an explanation spoonfed to you, or else it can't possibly serve a function to the plot. Aesthetics and motif are irrelevant considerations as long as the most basic description of the plot can still be applied.

Right. Riiiiiight. :lol:

Also, not every damn sci-fi treats psionics as a stand-in for religion. Can we just stop assuming that the minority of franchises represents the whole genre? Because I'm not convinced you aren't talking about a whole two or three franchises (Wars, Trek, and 40K) at most.
Ever try actually reading before you post? You should try it. Helps comprehend what others are saying. The word of the day is.. Consistency. I.e don't go inventing new psychic powers / menaces just to get something to fit the plot you're trying to build then it's forgotten. I just told you as much, but since you have the reading comprehension of a dead mole. Here's the relevant part again.
Gunhead wrote: If I think the story should have odd mental powers, I should have an idea how and why they work and how they add to the world as a plot element or just as something to make the world around the story more interesting.

Which in simplified Formless speak means I'm fine with keeping the mystery of things alive but the author should have a firm idea how the psychic powers and other setting pieces mesh together.
This doesn't mean he should reveal everything to the reader or talk open all his points. And just because there might be authors who get this right doesn't mean I can't criticize popular SF that do this all the time and considering that those popular titles represent a good chunk of all written and even sometimes filmed SF, it's a good place to start. At no point I'm out to criticize the whole of SF, but I can freely criticize a trend that by looking at the most popular titles has been going on for a long time.
Formless wrote: I don't like them either, mostly for Aesthetic reasons. Too bad, they still account for 90% of all psionic characters in fiction. :lol:
Again, so what? Don't read them, don't care.
Formless wrote: So tell me, how would you re-write Minority Report without precogs? :lol: Oh, that's right. Your exposure to science fiction is so limited you've probably never heard of WAAAHH!!! I know names!! Gunhead is a meany WAAAHH!

I understood you just fine. Your complaint is that its never explored in the setting, always treated like a stand in for religion, or just as an excuse for superhero action. Except that's a product of your ignorance, plenty of sci-fi explores it just fine without explaining it. And how are you supposed to explain it without sounding really stupid? You don't, and as a writer you shouldn't get hung up on things that can't be explained but make sense for the plot. Which you seem fine with, as long as it isn't psychic powers.
Again, try paying attention. I just told you. Minority Report as is, works as an example what I'm talking about. It has precog, check. The whole plot revolves around it, check. At no point they have the psychic girl hurl lighting bolts or use telekinesis. They stick with what they originally set up and thus they have a supernatural / technobabble / magic method to predict future events. There Like I just told you "It's fine as long as the use is consistent and the story is made better by it". In short, they're not pulling shit out of the ass to make the plot work.
Since I have to read for you.. again. Here's what I said. I said "A lot of scifi suffers from the problem with psychic or mystical powers that they pretty much are there to fill a certain stitch".
By my reckoning SW, Star Trek and WH40K when combined qualifies as a lot of science fiction. If I was really inclined I think I could dig up more but it wouldn't change what I said since... A lot is not the same as all of it. And even if written fiction by an large avoids this pitfall, it's still pretty much a part of more popular SF both on TV and in writing. Simon_Jester already made your point for you, except he did it with insight and relevant content. You're just wailing like a butt hurt little fanboy because I razzed your favorite bath robe people.


-Gunhead
"In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it."
-Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel

"And if you don't wanna feel like a putz
Collect the clues and connect the dots
You'll see the pattern that is bursting your bubble, and it's Bad" -The Hives
Channel72
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2068
Joined: 2010-02-03 05:28pm
Location: New York

Re: Psychic powers in SF

Post by Channel72 »

Formless wrote:
Channel72 wrote:Shrug. Yeah, a lot of people like that stuff. I enjoy cool space battles and I love Star Wars, but I think we really need a separate genre to describe that sort of thing. That sort of high-fantasy, Flash Gordon stuff is really on an entirely different wavelength than things like Huxley or Asimov. And I'm not just talking about writing quality or "hard" vs. "soft" sci-fi - I'm talking about themes and emphasis. One of my favorite classic movies is Things to Come. Even more than Roddenberry, it explores the future potential of humanity, and emphasizes the triumph of technology and science over superstition, prejudice and tribalism.
:roll: The phrase "High Fantasy" is already in use to refer to Fantasy that rips off Tolkien and Gygax, not 50's pulp fiction. And Asmiov arguably did have his own mythology-- he even gave it the fancy sounding name "psychohistory". So it is a theme in Golden Age science fiction just as much as it is in Star Wars. It just takes on a more pretentious language and tone.
Medieval High Fantasy, Flash Gordon and Star Wars all have similar themes and motifs, which are quite different from science fiction in the tradition of Asimov/Huxley, etc. The former are about a hero's journey highlighted with fantasy politics, mysticism, prophecies, etc. Asmiov, Bradbury, Huxley etc. are all about exploring how technology might alter the human condition and introduce new moral and social problems. In fact, one of the things that sets science fiction apart from everything else written since the Sumerians invented writing 5000 years ago is that prior to science fiction, stories were about exploring the human condition as it is; science fiction is about exploring the human condition as it potentially could be in the future, with an emphasis on how human existence is affected by new technologies. My point is simply that a lot of modern sci-fi television focuses less on the moral and social implications of technology, and more on the political/religious/heroic element, which brings it closer to fantasy thematically.
Formless wrote:
Yeah, space opera has it's place. But it bothers me that the large majority of modern sci-fi television is a lot more Flash Gordon and a lot less Asimov. When you look at the majority of popular sci-fi in the last couple of decades, (DS9, B5, nuBSG, etc.) they really focus on politics and religion - with the "sci-fi" elements as more of a backdrop or setting, and a lot of mysticism mixed in. Really, some of these stories wouldn't change that much thematically if they were set in Middle Earth.
You're kidding, right? The political scheme of a feudal society is literally worlds apart from the type of nation-state politics that your standard space opera assumes. The way things are negotiated, the way decisions are made, the way people of different races and religions interact, the priorities... You're so fixated on the mysticism that you're missing the other elements that define these shows. The only one you mentioned that might work as a fantasy tale is nuBSG, and even there you lose a critical aspect of the mythology that connects the audience to the show-- the idea that Earth is known to these people and believed by some to be a myth. With the exception of Spelljammer (a setting you have to be immersed in D&D to have heard of), you just can't do that in a Sword and Sorcery setting.
Please, nuBSG could easily be set in a fantasy Medieval setting without losing most of the core themes of the story. A nation of people is attacked and destroyed by an invading army, so they flee out into the wilderness, pursued by the enemy relentlessly. There's a prophecy that speaks of a faraway land (named something familiar to the audience) which their ancestors came from, etc. The only specifically "sci-fi" theme that would be lost is the idea that the Cylons were AIs created by man - so we'd lose the theme that man's reliance on technology was ultimately his undoing. But other than that, the major themes of the show would remain intact. And DS9 is basically about an oppressed people recovering from an occupation, a war with a powerful enemy from a faraway land, and Sisko's journey from a skeptic to a Messiah. You're telling me this needs to be set on a 24th century space-station?

Of course, I grant that these changes would radically alter the atmosphere or "flavor" of these shows, but my point is that the themes would remain mostly intact, because these shows are not about how technology affects the human condition. They're about adventures, politics and religion IN SPACE.
User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4144
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: Psychic powers in SF

Post by Formless »

Gunhead, would you please format your goddamn posts properly? No spaces between paragraphs is an absolute eyesore.

But anyway, internal consistency of a world is irrelevant when talking about artistic concerns like theme, motif, aesthetic, symbolism, etc. All of your posts are consistent about one thing-- that in your mind, all these things are slave to consistency. They aren't. For example, just because I don't understand how the self replicating mines in Deep Space 9 work, and in fact they seem like they shouldn't work, doesn't mean they don't serve their purpose to the story. They allow a war to happen on the terms of the Federation heroes, and are a driving force in the plot because the villains want to get rid of them. Who gives a damn if they are an inconsistent application of Treknology? Someone who cares little for the story, and everything for consistency. On the opposite side of the spectrum you can have a very boring story that is quite consistent with itself. I yawn at stories which give an infodump about their technology, because if nothing is happening for a chapter or more the editor has screwed up in his job. Congratulations, you did yout homework. You don't have to show me all of your notes. Ironically, this is one of the reasons I can never get into Tolkien's written work. Too much of the story hinges upon details that you have to look up in the index. What kind of novelist has an index? Tolkien, that's who.
Gunhead wrote:Again, so what? Don't read them, don't care.
If you don't read them, then you can't claim to know how the average sci-fi writer treats psychic powers, dumbass.
By my reckoning SW, Star Trek and WH40K when combined qualifies as a lot of science fiction.
Then you simply need to expand your horizons, because that's a pitiful sampling of Science Fiction. Not enough to qualify as "all", not enough to qualify as "a majority", and the word "a lot" is vacuous and doesn't actually quantify anything. I know semantic games when I see them. But thanks for admitting your ignorance in public. :lol:
Simon_Jester already made your point for you, except he did it with insight and relevant content.
Apparently, you can't understand something as simple as "just because you can remove something, doesn't mean it doesn't change the work and make it unrecognizable." I didn't see Simon make that point, dumbfuck.
You're just wailing like a butt hurt little fanboy because I razzed your favorite bath robe people.
I'm sorry, are you trying to tell me that you are a mind reader? :twisted: That's hilarious. First of all, you can't get me to read Warhammer 40K if you paid me in hookers. Everything I know about 40K comes from a certain friend that likes to chew my ear off about it. Star Wars? Jedi wank is killing the franchise IMO. And all this time, I've been telling you that these aren't representative, but that seems to have gone in one ear and out the other. If its fanboys you want to rage against, rather than an actual discussion about psychic powers, you are talking to the wrong guy. Try again, with less nerdrage this time.
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.
User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4144
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: Psychic powers in SF

Post by Formless »

Channel72 wrote:Medieval High Fantasy, Flash Gordon and Star Wars all have similar themes and motifs, which are quite different from science fiction in the tradition of Asimov/Huxley, etc. The former are about a hero's journey highlighted with fantasy politics, mysticism, prophecies, etc. Asmiov, Bradbury, Huxley etc. are all about exploring how technology might alter the human condition and introduce new moral and social problems. In fact, one of the things that sets science fiction apart from everything else written since the Sumerians invented writing 5000 years ago is that prior to science fiction, stories were about exploring the human condition as it is; science fiction is about exploring the human condition as it potentially could be in the future, with an emphasis on how human existence is affected by new technologies. My point is simply that a lot of modern sci-fi television focuses less on the moral and social implications of technology, and more on the political/religious/heroic element, which brings it closer to fantasy thematically.
Not so. First of all, because they didn't define the genre. They are merely representative of what many consider its Golden Age. Many science fiction before that was about hoe possible discoveries would transform the world, not just technology. And there are themes of talking about the human condition in the present sense that predate Asimov et. al. For instance, you have H.P. Lovecraft's work, which uses science fiction to explore our fears of the unknown, the unknowable, and the possibility that we live in an uncaring and hostile world. His protagonists aren't living in the future-- they live in the now. Science changes their perception of the human condition... but it is a condition that has always been with us in his work. Notably, his work uses science fiction elements explicitly to form an elaborate mythology, with literal gods who see the cosmos as their playground.

So like I said, mythological themes have been around in science fiction since the Golden Age and earlier. Its not the role of technology that defines science fiction in the thematic sense, its the role of science itself. Technology is merely application of knowledge to make tools, no more no less.
Please, nuBSG could easily be set in a fantasy Medieval setting without losing most of the core themes of the story. A nation of people is attacked and destroyed by an invading army, so they flee out into the wilderness, pursued by the enemy relentlessly. There's a prophecy that speaks of a faraway land (named something familiar to the audience) which their ancestors came from, etc. The only specifically "sci-fi" theme that would be lost is the idea that the Cylons were AIs created by man - so we'd lose the theme that man's reliance on technology was ultimately his undoing. But other than that, the major themes of the show would remain intact.
False. You also lose the themes of Humanity surviving or not (and thus whether or not we are worth saving), because you have scaled everything back to fit it into a world where the audience knows there are probably other human tribes and nations still able to take up the mantle of civilization. There are also issues with certain characters, because not all of them are religious or really believe in their religion. However, in a High Fantasy story the audience expects that Gods and supernatural forces are unambiguously real, so there is less room for doubt about whether things like prophesies can come true. That removes much of the tension for the audience, and makes things more predictable.
And DS9 is basically about an oppressed people recovering from an occupation, a war with a powerful enemy from a faraway land, and Sisko's journey from a skeptic to a Messiah. You're telling me this needs to be set on a 24th century space-station?
No, but at the same time I don't think you can just transplant that into a feudal society because of the political nuances that are lost. Any time after, say, the 1940's? Maybe, although you lose the subtext in favor of actually having goddamn Nazis and Communists present in the story. Also, Sisko's journey from a normal Federation officer to a religious man and ultimately messiah of these people has greater impact because we the audience know how much this contrasts with the mostly secular culture Sisko comes from. Which again, is not something that is as easy to have in a High Fantasy world, because the audience expects there to be real deities ruling the sky. As science fiction, we can establish the wormhole aliens, but we can leave it up to the audience to figure out how much of the Bajoran religion is true and how much of it is not.
Of course, I grant that these changes would radically alter the atmosphere or "flavor" of these shows, but my point is that the themes would remain mostly intact, because these shows are not about how technology affects the human condition. They're about adventures, politics and religion IN SPACE.
But they still wouldn't be nuBSG; they wouldn't be Deep Space 9. I can accuse something like Eragon of ripping off Star Wars, but that doesn't mean its the same experience-- in fact, I can say that its a cheapened experience compared to the far more original setting explored by George Lucas.
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.
User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4144
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: Psychic powers in SF

Post by Formless »

Ghetto Edit: For Gunhead: also, there is drama to be had when things are inconsistent that you probably don't appreciate. In the hands of a skilled author, an unreliable character or even narrator can create suspense and tension for the audience because they can no longer rely on anyone but themselves to decide what is true or false.
User avatar
Gunhead
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1715
Joined: 2004-11-15 08:08am

Re: Psychic powers in SF

Post by Gunhead »

Formless wrote: But anyway, internal consistency of a world is irrelevant when talking about artistic concerns like theme, motif, aesthetic, symbolism, etc. All of your posts are consistent about one thing-- that in your mind, all these things are slave to consistency. They aren't. For example, just because I don't understand how the self replicating mines in Deep Space 9 work, and in fact they seem like they shouldn't work, doesn't mean they don't serve their purpose to the story. They allow a war to happen on the terms of the Federation heroes, and are a driving force in the plot because the villains want to get rid of them. Who gives a damn if they are an inconsistent application of Treknology? Someone who cares little for the story, and everything for consistency. On the opposite side of the spectrum you can have a very boring story that is quite consistent with itself. I yawn at stories which give an infodump about their technology, because if nothing is happening for a chapter or more the editor has screwed up in his job. Congratulations, you did yout homework. You don't have to show me all of your notes. Ironically, this is one of the reasons I can never get into Tolkien's written work. Too much of the story hinges upon details that you have to look up in the index. What kind of novelist has an index? Tolkien, that's who.
And you still don't get it. Bravo, your comprehension is truly limited. Consistency in a story to be desired for to me, as a reader or watcher because if there isn't any, it's hard to built expectation. Let me ask you this, did the function or properties of the mines drastically change during the time they played a role in the series? No? Then bravo it's consistent. I don't need to know jack fuck all about X, it's origin or internal function for it to behave consistently in a series you dumb fuck. Sometimes this doesn't happen and that can be bad, sometimes it's even good. This applies to all aspects of story writing since consistency is about building expectation, don't have that and pretty soon things start to look arbitrary.

Formless wrote: If you don't read them, then you can't claim to know how the average sci-fi writer treats psychic powers, dumbass.
Oh please, point to me again where I talked about what an "average" SF writer does or doesn't do? And if your definition of an average scifi writer is someone who writes super hero stories it sure as shit isn't mine. Or anybody else's for that matter. Be happy in your little club of one, I'm sure your right hand will keep you happy as long as you don't cheat it with the left. When they both leave you, you'll have plenty of time to define the average SF writer.
Formless wrote: Then you simply need to expand your horizons, because that's a pitiful sampling of Science Fiction. Not enough to qualify as "all", not enough to qualify as "a majority", and the word "a lot" is vacuous and doesn't actually quantify anything. I know semantic games when I see them. But thanks for admitting your ignorance in public. :lol:
No, you need to stop quoting selectively you dishonest little fuck. Lot is quite apt here, since I don't know how big of a chunk of all science fiction books / other media those three titles are, but neither do you. And since the number is irrelevant anyway, just like I told you, your little shitty name dropping and hand waving doesn't do jack shit to refute what I said. So no, you don't know semantics when you see them.
Formless wrote: Apparently, you can't understand something as simple as "just because you can remove something, doesn't mean it doesn't change the work and make it unrecognizable." I didn't see Simon make that point, dumbfuck.
Unlike you, I also understand taking something out doesn't always mean the work becomes unrecognizable. Since you are slow, I'll again lead you by the nose. He was specifically responding to me about that. I thought a lot of SF does suffer from psionics / mystical powers are there just because and he responded by saying there's a whole host of writers who make them an integral part of their story so you can't really remove them to tell that exact story. Just because he didn't bold, underline the fact, he got where I was coming from and what my objection was. He even got we have have differing views and offered examples that promote his view. So yes he made your point. You're just too stupid to see it.

Formless wrote: I'm sorry, are you trying to tell me that you are a mind reader? :twisted: That's hilarious. First of all, you can't get me to read Warhammer 40K if you paid me in hookers. Everything I know about 40K comes from a certain friend that likes to chew my ear off about it. Star Wars? Jedi wank is killing the franchise IMO. And all this time, I've been telling you that these aren't representative, but that seems to have gone in one ear and out the other. If its fanboys you want to rage against, rather than an actual discussion about psychic powers, you are talking to the wrong guy. Try again, with less nerdrage this time.
Oh wow! The "I'm too cool for popular SF" defense! Get this through your thick fucking skull. It's not about what series exactly is or isn't a representative take of the SF total you dimwit. We were, well me, Jester and others were, discussing about a theme that has and will permutate through out science fiction. I objected to a trend that is related to the theme discussed, Jester pointed out not all do it. You were railing against me missing this point. Now, why it's not relevant how much of SF as a total is affected by this trend I'm objecting to?? Because it's strong enough to make an appearance in all forms of science fiction.
So maybe you're not a jedi fanboy. But you sure miss the point like one and I basically don't care what sort of a fanboy you are, but a fanboy you are. Otherwise the not so subtle points I've been making here would have sunk in from page 1.

-Gunhead
"In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it."
-Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel

"And if you don't wanna feel like a putz
Collect the clues and connect the dots
You'll see the pattern that is bursting your bubble, and it's Bad" -The Hives
User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4144
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: Psychic powers in SF

Post by Formless »

Gunhead wrote:And you still don't get it. Bravo, your comprehension is truly limited. Consistency in a story to be desired for to me, as a reader or watcher because if there isn't any, it's hard to built expectation. Let me ask you this, did the function or properties of the mines drastically change during the time they played a role in the series? No? Then bravo it's consistent. I don't need to know jack fuck all about X, it's origin or internal function for it to behave consistently in a series you dumb fuck. Sometimes this doesn't happen and that can be bad, sometimes it's even good. This applies to all aspects of story writing since consistency is about building expectation, don't have that and pretty soon things start to look arbitrary.
For all your posturing that consistency is sooooo important, you yourself have been very inconsistent with your words. Your original statements indicated that it was the lack of explanation of psychic powers that was the issue for you, and its worth noting that many idiots here use the word "consistency" to mean "explicable". Its not my problem if you've backpedaled since you first brought this up.

And yes, the mines are inconsistency in the series, because they imply that replicators can produce matter from nothingness, whereas the rest of the setting wouldn't work without putting some kind of limit on that kind of thing.
Oh please, point to me again where I talked about what an "average" SF writer does or doesn't do? And if your definition of an average scifi writer is someone who writes super hero stories it sure as shit isn't mine. Or anybody else's for that matter. Be happy in your little club of one, I'm sure your right hand will keep you happy as long as you don't cheat it with the left. When they both leave you, you'll have plenty of time to define the average SF writer.
in your first goddamn post wrote:Usually you have either overt magic i.e the Force from SW the Warp from 40K or you have some technobabble excuse for the same. I don't really care for either. Magic in SF for me was "given" for a long time, then I grew up and my stance has gone more towards "it's just fucking stupid" ever since. Magic powers usually take the place of religion in many cases and I feel this is because it makes the setting more science fictiony as the mystical powers in a given setting have an actual effect.
(emphasis added)

What was all that you were saying about my reading comprehension skills?
Unlike you, I also understand taking something out doesn't always mean the work becomes unrecognizable.
Then I am afraid there is simply no discussing art or aesthetics with you at all.
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.
Post Reply