SF don'ts

[Trogdor]

Don't fucking preach should be a big one.

That's more like a general fiction don't, however, not a sci-fi don't. It's perfectly possible to preach in a high fanasty setting for instance (see Goodkind's the Sword of Truth series). The point is still a good one, however.

[The Nomad]

Or the French language "Je suis plein" translated directly means "I am full", but in French means "I am pregnant".

Hum, no, just no . Unless you're talking about animals, that is . Besides, speaking of a female animal it should be "pleine" .

[Adrian Laguna]

1. "Humans are special!"

I believe this dates back to when John W. Campbell, jr. was the editor at Astounding magazine. He put his stamp on an entire generation of SF authors.

Among other things, he would refuse to publish stories where humans were inferior to aliens. In the stories he would publish, humans always has some special superior ability that would allow them to triumph over those uppity aliens.

The wikipedia article you provided doesn't seem to support your statements. Not saying you're wrong, just that it wasn't the appropriate link to give. Though I think it would be more accurate to say he had a problem with aliens defeating humans rather than aliens being superior to humans. "Write me a creature that thinks as well as a man, or better than a man, but not like a man."

Interestingly enough, the article says that it's Campbell's fault that the girl dies in The Cold Equations, not the author's. Godwin kept thinking-up of innovative ways to save her and had his story rejected three times because of it.

The guy also apparently managed to talk the FBI out of pulling an 1944 issue that had a story where the workings of a uranium fission bomb were described accurately and in detail. Campbell told the Feds that pulling the issue was tantamount to admitting that the US was pursuing such a project. I bet he wasn't surprised when Hiroshima and Nagasaki went up in smoke.

[Exileman]

Because Darth Wong's page on brainbugs doesn't begin to cover it all. Feel free to add your own. For mine...

1. "Humans are special!"

What's odd, is that in comic books this tends to be revearsed. Just about every alien I can think of that winds up on earth ends up being superpowered. We never see "Regular" aliens. Kryptonians, the Skrulls, Thanagarians, etc. I can think of only one comic book where a human goes to another planet, in comic books, and ends up THEIR hero.

[Sidewinder]

There's limits to that too. It's fairly certain that they wouldn't be speaking English, but in the interests of readability they don't write the whole book in the setting's language. It would be like reading a WH40K about inquisitors (for example) written in High Gothic, instead of the "translation" that the English used by the author is. I communicated my point adequately, I have a feeling that the above wasn't all too coherent.

Precisely.

Just because it's another language doesnt mean you cant "translate" it. In fact, one scifi novel actually mentions this, saying in effect "We're presuming you're speaking English so this has been re-writen in your native language".

I had the opposite problem with 'Battlefield Earth', in which the author claims that, due to the limitations of 20th century printers, "A, B, C" has replaced characters of the Psychlo alphabet. He was too damn lazy to make up an alien alphabet and have that spelled phonetically, e.g., write "Go, Shek, Nob" as characters of the Psychlo alphabet instead of fucking "A, B, C."

[Gullible Jones]

Interestingly enough, the article says that it's Campbell's fault that the girl dies in The Cold Equations, not the author's. Godwin kept thinking-up of innovative ways to save her and had his story rejected three times because of it.

Notably, that the girl's death in The Cold Equations is exactly the kind of contrived death-by-morality-play that I dislike in fiction. It may be a "powerful" story, but if you look at it harder you find huge, gaping, unrealistic holes in the plot.

[Gullible Jones]

1) "The death of one is a tragedy. The death of one million is a statistic." (or something like that, and I forget who said it, but I think it might if been Stalin.)

I'm arguing that that's one of the things that should be avoided. Show people that a million deaths are not just a statistic. Show them snapshots, on a scale they can relate to. If John Brunner could do that, others can too.

[Ghost Rider]

1) "The death of one is a tragedy. The death of one million is a statistic." (or something like that, and I forget who said it, but I think it might if been Stalin.)

I'm arguing that that's one of the things that should be avoided. Show people that a million deaths are not just a statistic. Show them snapshots, on a scale they can relate to. If John Brunner could do that, others can too.

That all depends on scale.

If you're using a large enough scale the deaths of trillions upon trillions may be nothing more then at best local planetary tragedy that doesn't even warrant a blip on the affairs of galaxies.

Really it's easy to make don'ts, but ultimately the one thing that should be paid attention is whether or not does it make for good story telling. You could do everything everyone says not to do and make a story drier then three year old turkey.

[General Zod]

Probably the biggest number one "don't" is time travel. Don't fucking use it as a deus ex machinae for the love of Cthulhu. If you must use it, use it as a plot device and nothing more.

[The Grim Squeaker]

1) "The death of one is a tragedy. The death of one million is a statistic." (or something like that, and I forget who said it, but I think it might if been Stalin.)

I'm arguing that that's one of the things that should be avoided. Show people that a million deaths are not just a statistic. Show them snapshots, on a scale they can relate to. If John Brunner could do that, others can too.

Actually, it'd probably still not work.
The human brains is less affected (less "Sad", emotionally affected) by multiple cases/scale , emotionally at least.
It's been proven in fact, I can dig it up if you want, but the basis is that people will give LESS for a picture of 2 starving africans than they will for one.

[Gullible Jones]

Even so, it's something writers could do to learn. Perhaps, if people were made to think about it a little harder once in a while, they wouldn't be throwing off casual suggestions to glass entire countries.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Even so, it's something writers could do to learn. Perhaps, if people were made to think about it a little harder once in a while, they wouldn't be throwing off casual suggestions to glass entire countries.

As opposed to quick, painless military strikes and bombings?
History shows that if something is easy to do, and painless then it will be done casually, If you can bomb your opponents into the mud then do so, (There weren't that many complaints about, say, Iraq when the US was pounding Sadam's armies into scrap metal the first or second time around, it's only when a long, hard and bloody situation developed that complaints started and moral dropped).

Imagine that you have a nuke that costs as much the fuel of a Bradley for a week, and that you have plenty of space to live in, and can use the nuke on your opponent without fear of harm. Why aren't you nuking everyone into ash again? . [Analogy for Spaceship blasting].

[Adrian Laguna]

A very big "do not" in sci-fi is: Do not make it evident that you would be unable to pass a basic science class. It's annoying when authors misuse terms that are taught to fourteen year-olds, or utterly igonore basic things such as Newton's Laws of Motion or the Laws of Thermondinamics. I don't mind if they screw-up relativity, that's complicated shit, hell I barely get it myself. But please, get the High School level things correct.

Notably, that the girl's death in The Cold Equations is exactly the kind of contrived death-by-morality-play that I dislike in fiction. It may be a "powerful" story, but if you look at it harder you find huge, gaping, unrealistic holes in the plot.

No actually I would say there is no huge gaping unrealistic hole in the plot. Not conducting checks for stowaways before launch, or carrying any sort of extra supplies in case of shit (it's bound to happen), is the sort of silly bureaucratic oversight that occurs every so often in virtually any organization. Some pencil pusher somewhere realized that a stowaway could be a problem, made a rule that all stowaways are to be ejected, and thought nothing more of it. Similarly, some other pencil pusher decided that safety margins weren't necessary, and nobody bothered to show him otherwise. It's quite realistic. The problems is that the story becomes less powerful when you realize the girl died not because of cold uncaring mathematics and physical laws, but because of a cold uncaring bureaucracy.

Actually, it'd probably still not work.
The human brains is less affected (less "Sad", emotionally affected) by multiple cases/scale , emotionally at least.
It's been proven in fact, I can dig it up if you want, but the basis is that people will give LESS for a picture of 2 starving africans than they will for one.

This is probably born out the drive to survive. Helping a person in need is good for the species, and being social animals, humans have a natural drive to do it. However, as the number of people in need go up, the more the strain on your resources to help them. What's more, humans are limited to LOS in the wild. If you can see hundreds in need, then you are in deep shit and just not feeling it yet. Not giving anything, in order to conserve resources, makes perfect sense.

[Gullible Jones]

A very big "do not" in sci-fi is: Do not make it evident that you would be unable to pass a basic science class. It's annoying when authors misuse terms that are taught to fourteen year-olds, or utterly igonore basic things such as Newton's Laws of Motion or the Laws of Thermondinamics. I don't mind if they screw-up relativity, that's complicated shit, hell I barely get it myself. But please, get the High School level things correct.

Notably, that the girl's death in The Cold Equations is exactly the kind of contrived death-by-morality-play that I dislike in fiction. It may be a "powerful" story, but if you look at it harder you find huge, gaping, unrealistic holes in the plot.

No actually I would say there is no huge gaping unrealistic hole in the plot. Not conducting checks for stowaways before launch, or carrying any sort of extra supplies in case of shit (it's bound to happen), is the sort of silly bureaucratic oversight that occurs every so often in virtually any organization. Some pencil pusher somewhere realized that a stowaway could be a problem, made a rule that all stowaways are to be ejected, and thought nothing more of it. Similarly, some other pencil pusher decided that safety margins weren't necessary, and nobody bothered to show him otherwise. It's quite realistic. The problems is that the story becomes less powerful when you realize the girl died not because of cold uncaring mathematics and physical laws, but because of a cold uncaring bureaucracy.

The shuttle is supposed to make a return trip. If it has enough fuel to do that, chances are it has enough to make a safe landing, even if that means the pilot gets stranded.

[His Divine Shadow]

Since most of the other aliens are peaceful, they may be more open to those "suggestions the Amplitur give em, while humans, being more aggressive can resist those suggestions?

No, it's not like that - it's a completely unconscious reaction.
There's a part of the human brain that, when telepathic contact is made, causes a sort of feedback effect. Think of all the basest parts of the human psyche - rage, anger, all that sort of thing, in an unconscious and overwhelming mental assault. The humans aren't even aware of this effect - it's all in the subconscious. No explanation as to why we developed this thing in our brains, although later in the series the Amplitur design a way around it, which then leads to telepathic humans...

A question, are these books any good or are they shite?

[Teleros]

I rather liked them myself (particularly the 1st book), and by the look of it Overlord does too.

[Setzer]

What is so wrong with linguistic evolution? I doub't people in the year 4000 will be speaking English. Sure, you don't have to translate every word into the combination of Chinese, Russian, German and English that replaces said launguages by the 27th century, but what is so damn wrong with adding a bit to the vernacular.

Besides, in the French Revolution, you did not adress one as Madame or Monsieur, it you adressed them as citoyen. So gender neutral pronouns are not so odd.

Zor

There was one book I read where "food" was replaced by "edibles." Problem was, it was set in a dismal post-Apoc junkyard world. I can't imagine people like that favoring a more complex term.

[Beowulf]

The shuttle is supposed to make a return trip. If it has enough fuel to do that, chances are it has enough to make a safe landing, even if that means the pilot gets stranded.

Actually, no. The shuttle is a one way trip until a scheduled freighter comes along and picks it and the pilot up.

[Sarevok]

Linguistic evolution adds great deal of authenticity to a scifi verse. Consider SW or LOTR for the moment. Many of their made up words define these stories. Problem is most writers are not as good and unnecessarily concentrate on normal everyday words to give their story extra "future cred" or something. One of the few instances I recall seeing doing everyday conversations in future English realisticaly was Firefly. In Firefly changes English underwent in centuries seemed natural as progression of victorian to modern english. An expert could probably find holes in it but it does not make an average person squirm like when reading "buggers" or "peeps".

[Lord Revan]

personally I got no problems with "future speak" as long as they're a) understandble (from context for example) and b)don't come in the way of the story.

[General Zod]

Linguistic evolution adds great deal of authenticity to a scifi verse. Consider SW or LOTR for the moment. Many of their made up words define these stories. Problem is most writers are not as good and unnecessarily concentrate on normal everyday words to give their story extra "future cred" or something. One of the few instances I recall seeing doing everyday conversations in future English realisticaly was Firefly. In Firefly changes English underwent in centuries seemed natural as progression of victorian to modern english. An expert could probably find holes in it but it does not make an average person squirm like when reading "buggers" or "peeps".

Victorian English wasn't too long ago. In centuries languages can change drastically to the point that they're almost unrecognizable, though that becomes less problematic when you have things like the internet and global communication.

One of these is Old English (400-1000AD or so) the other is its modern equivalent literal translation. The differences are fairly staggering. (For reference it's a translation of one line of the Lord's Prayer).

and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum.

and forgive us our guilts as also we forgive our guilty(lit. guiltants).

[Bladed_Crescent]

That always bugged me about The Cold Equations; the entire situation comes across as completely contrived. The shuttle carries just enough fuel to get where it's going, and not a jot more? What if it collides with a micrometereoite and gets damaged/knocked off course?

What if the ship suffers some other kind mechanical problem?

What if there's some problem with the intended landing site on the planet and the pilot has to set down somewhere else - his entire approach is now shot. What if he can't land on the planet at all, for whatever reason and needs to park in orbit or on another world until the 'hyperspace cruiser' comes back?

Giving the shuttle just enough fuel, where the presence of a sixty? seventy? pound girl is enough to screw everything up and consign it to a fiery death assumes that the mission will go absolutely perfect and that nothing unforseen or unexpected can or will happen.

Actually, no. The shuttle is a one way trip until a scheduled freighter comes along and picks it and the pilot up.

Which also brings up another point; the shuttle has to be able to make orbit again to meet the hyperspace cruiser, (unless the cruiser sends down a second shuttle to fuel up the first which is needlessly wasteful), so the pilot should have had more than enough fuel to land safely. When his carrier returns, he could have just asked for a top-up.

Long spiel short, The Cold Equations is a good theme, but a contrived story.

More to the original topic of sci-fi don'ts:

1. Our audience are idiots. (I'm looking at you, Kevin Sorbo.)

This is kind of a generic one I'll admit, but I've most often seen it espoused by people working on or overseeing science fiction, who insist that it needs to be dumbed down to appeal to a fanbase that was enjoying the less stupified version. You don't need to throw in pseudo-scientific buzzwords in an attempt to sound intellectual (and we all know where that gets us), but there should be middle ground between that and throwing in random fistfights.

2. Humans are nothing special aka Some of us are born better; the rest of you can just lay down and pray for mercy.

This one mostly comes across in comics and anime. Where legions of ordinary humans - usually soldiers - are unable to accomplish the same thing that one superhero can with a single punch. After a while, you have to start wondering why they even bother. It would be quicker - and with just as much chance of success - to shoot yourself in the head rather than actually try and fight a metahuman.

[Stuart]

Introducing new elements with amazing properties. In particular, metallic elements lighter and stronger than steel. For those who hadn't noticed, the periodic table is full all the way up to Meitnerium, which means no more metals. Nothing like a trinium dart to kill suspension of disbelief...

You forget Roentgenium and Darmstadtium.

"Yes, we killed three billion people. But we only did what needed to be done."

You know, I've said that. Seriously. Planning strategic warfare is a cold, cold business.

[Sarevok]

I think what Gullible Jones meant was it is more important for a storyteller to explore the aftermaths and consequences of pragmatic warfighting. The job of explaining why numbers are more important than emotion falls to technical books. Trying to preach this in a novel about without sounding like jingoistic is difficult.[/i]

[General Zod]

I think what Gullible Jones meant was it is more important for a storyteller to explore the aftermaths and consequences of pragmatic warfighting. The job of explaining why numbers are more important than emotion falls to technical books. Trying to preach this in a novel about without sounding like jingoistic is difficult.[/i]

That depends entirely on what the point of the movie is. If it's supposed to be about the horrors of war, then sure. But if the point of the movie is swashbuckling-style adventure or Horatio Hornblower in space then it doesn't make as much sense. I don't want to go to every sci-fi movie and walk away depressed because they spent 30 minutes focusing on how horrific the battle was.