Why do most wannabe SF writers reject science?

[ThomasP]

I lurk on a handful of both sci-fi and writing-oriented boards, and this (per the title) is something that I see all over the place.

I'm not a scientist and don't claim to have any special in-depth knowledge of the topic (though I have taken most of the basics in HS and at a university level), but I've always gone out of my way to try and be as realistic as possible in my world-building; or barring outright realism, to at least understand the implications of the rules I do break.

That's one reason I like this site and others like the Atomic Rocket pages, because they ground things in rationalism and real numbers. I just consider a decent grounding in scientific realism to be good form for anyone that wants to write science fiction.

Browsing around, it seems that many, if not most, of the would-be SF authors around don't agree with that outlook. Not only that, but suggesting a knowledge of and respect for science is sometimes met with hostility.

The usual excuse is that they "want to tell a good story", so they can just ignore any semblance of realism. "Well I don't care that space fighters aren't practical, I want to write a good story, not worry about realism."

Firstly, how is writing a story built on massively overused cliches considered "good"? Copying Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica is what makes for good, innovative SF now?

Secondly, if you don't care about respecting science, why are you writing SF in the first place?

And since when did being educated about the subject mean you couldn't tell a good story?

It's not even that I have a problem with softer SF, either. I think that if it's written consistently, and again with at least respect for real science, it can be done well. It's that these jerks don't even want that. They just shoehorn in whatever buzzwords sound cool and expect it to be taken seriously without considering any implications.

Realistically I know this is just me bitching about the internet giving everyone a voice, and that most would-be writers suck from the outset, but is this really the big trend out there? Or am I just reading the wrong sites?

Is most SF really doomed to be useless fanboy garbage?

(This seemed like the most logical forum to put this, but if it would go better elsewhere please move accordingly.)

[fgalkin]

Most SF writers reject science for the same reason most people reject science. It's complicated and they don't understand it. So, they rant about how its incompatible with good storytelling, much like conservatives complain about the "elitism" of scientists, to cover up for their own ignorance. This applies not only to fan writers, but to some published authors as well.

Not very surprising, really. Writers are people, and people are stupid. So, a large chunk of them have the IQ of beach pebbles.


Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[loomer]

The issue most new sci-fi writers face isn't that they reject science as a whole - it's that they don't know what parts to reject for the reasons of a good story. They go for what's always done, and sure, that can be done well even now, but they don't actually sit down and ask themselves what elements of physics and logic they want to include or do hours of research on lasers/railguns/fusion reactors/whatever.

There is nothing inherently wrong with ignoring certain elements for a soft sci-fi, so long as, like you said, it's internally consistent. I ignore some elements of reality in mine for dramatic reasons, but I don't flat out go 'science can't ever mean a good story!' - in fact, I'll use elements of science for the same reason (or as much as I understand. I don't always quite cotton it, but I do sit down and read the latest understandings of a field before I reject or harvest it.

This issue is not unique to sci-fi, but is also prevalent in fantasy and general fiction writing. Part of it can be attributed to the increased literacy of society since the turn of the 20th century and the growing appreciation of reading as a past time amongst teenagers (as well as disposable income increases allowing such a past time independent of 'big' gifts and such) and the proliferation of writing as a hobby and as a simple education courses. This results in there now being a heightened market for mass produced, 'rule of cool' fiction (and individuals reading only this don't end up with an appreciation for higher literature as well. God knows I love some of my really pulpy shit too, but it has to be part of a balanced literary diet.) which results in the next generation of writers going 'well, look at this crap, it must be easy' and writing in that style.

[B5B7]

The usual excuse is that they "want to tell a good story", so they can just ignore any semblance of realism. "Well I don't care that space fighters aren't practical, I want to write a good story, not worry about realism."

This is irrelevant to your main claim. A good author can provide plausible rationalization for almost any concept. It is quite possible to have a very advanced technology that can create fighters that can defeat big ships of a lesser technology.
Wannabe writers are mainly just going to remain that. Some fan authors you encounter on a forum are not indicative of actual SF authors.
Look at many of the big popular authors of the New Space Opera - they have a knowledge and respect for science.

Of course, what one gets with many movies and TV shows is a lack of scientific realism [especially Star Trek], but they still mainly try to be respectful of science (even if appear to have failed at this).

[Samuel]

It is quite possible to have a very advanced technology that can create fighters that can defeat big ships of a lesser technology.

Except then we use drone fighters. Lets not get into this argument again.

Space fighters exist because people want to tell stories about individual troopers in space warfare and that is the most convinient method. It doesn't work if you think about it (if space fighters were useful, nations would produce them in swarms of thousands and they would matter as much as rounds of ammo- think the Starfire series).

Look at many of the big popular authors of the New Space Opera - they have a knowledge and respect for science.

Could you expand? Who counts as new space opera?

[B5B7]

New Space Opera - Iain Banks, Alastair Reynolds, Neal Asher, Peter F Hamilton, Ken MacLeod, Dan Simmons.

[ThomasP]

This is irrelevant to your main claim. A good author can provide plausible rationalization for almost any concept. It is quite possible to have a very advanced technology that can create fighters that can defeat big ships of a lesser technology.

Ignoring for a moment that said statement was a largely meant to be a trivial analogy -

You disagree that the concept of "space fighters" is at the very least a massively over-used cliche, and one that has little basis in reality?

Consistency is one thing; copying big name franchises because you're too lazy to be creative, or do any research on your chosen genre, is another matter entirely.

I'm not so much talking about the big published authors, either; I was mainly curious as to whether or not the lazy fanboy thinking was really endemic among the "wannabes".

Edited to fix quote tags

[Stark]

To answer the OP; because 'science fiction' is fantasy with lasers. Sorry if you heard otherwise.

[Ariphaos]

Research easily wipes out many possible stories. The more you do, the more you realize that fleshy humans in space is silly without some fantastic backup. And then you have science fantasy. It's awesome, but obviously not 'hard'.

It's also rather difficult - though not impossible - to make transhuman stories. You can take some time to write from the perspective of a more intelligent person than you, but this is only believable so far. It becomes very hard to write believable dramas in a transhuman scenario.

Conflict is also difficult to properly express. Is there a threat? Point your star at it. Congratulations, a winner is you.

Next.

I did write a hard science fiction story about a primitive sentient race having their planet devoured from the inside out by a homogenizing swarm (and frozen as a dyson net was established around their star). So there certainly are stories to tell - just, they become very different.

[Nephtys]

Complete scientific accuracy is unnecessary for telling a story. However, if you're going to use it, you may as well be consistent. If I see a hero wielding a 'ten megaton raygun', I fully expect it to cut clean through all the crates enemies are taking cover behind. Unless of course, those Crates are made from concentrated Invincium. That's at least internally consistant, if stupid. Which is far more important. When the comic relief falls on, and flattens said crate, or when starships are plated in plate steel, that's when things get bad.

A bad SF Writer is just a bad writer. A bad murder mystery writer has the murder occur when the butler, fed up for being mistreated, uses a peanut to assassinate someone with a fatal allergy, but in a previous scene, the victim was eating a nutter butter.

A bad SF Writer creates a wonderful and amazing spacedrive for crossing the stars at near c-speeds. Then has the ships opening up at visual range with cannonball broadsides. Then has nobody figure out that the war is over if someone makes a planet buster missile with the drive.

[McC]

Copying Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica is what makes for good, innovative SF now?

I think this is probably the most important line you wrote. How many wanna be SF authors do you think care about making something innovative? They were entertained by SW/BSG, and want more of that. I think that's the fundamental underpinning behind it. It has nothing (or little) to do with a lack of respect for science and everything to do with, "I want my space adventure story to be like SW/BSG, and if science gets in my way, the fun and adventure version wins."

[Darth Hoth]

Look at many of the big popular authors of the New Space Opera - they have a knowledge and respect for science.

That would depend on your definition of "knowledge and respect". If we take a couple of those you mentioned (those of whom I have actually read some books, rather than merely heard about, so I can judge them fairly), Banks' "Culture" books take science about as seriously as your average TV show (that universe has everything from Ascended Ancients to solid holograms, although he is fairly internally consistent with his pseudoscience, so most people tend to rank it higher on the "hardness" scale), and Simmons has love being one of the fundamental forces of the Universe (as in, right beside gravity, electromagneticism and the nuclear forces) . . .

[Wing Commander MAD]

I believe Stark hit the nail on the head. That said, I'd say it due in part to the fact that people have a hard time wrapping thier heads around the magnitudes of numbers involved with space travel. We generally don't see engagements at great ranges becuase people simply lack a frame of reference for engagements at multi light second ranges. Really the problem is that generally speaking people have a hard time relating to something for which they have no real personal or cultural frame of reference. Why do you think most SF naval fiction ends up resembling wet navies (particularly of WWII-present period)? There is also the issue, particularly in America, of education (especially science and mathematics) not being taught well. You also have to realize that not everyone has the same mental capabilities. Afterall, the numbers of scientists, engineers, etc. is, when compared to the overall population, compartively low. Finally, there's the cultural impetous which at present doesn't put much emphasis in science and scietific accuracy in the general populace. If cultural attitude changes toward science, say more toward what it was at the beginning of the 20th century and during the U.S.-Russian Space Race, I'd expect to see a corresponding increase in the acceptance of science and more writers of the likes of Asimov.

Personally, thats why if I ever do any kind of creative work in SF (be it written or games) I would rather stick to an approach similar to what Star Wars (movie) originally did. Things are kept to scale,measurements like distance and size (ie ship length) are used, or a technology is said to achieve some effect without really explaining how and leave the actual physcis, chemistry, biology, etc. to those with more knowledge of the subject. Essentially, provide the setting and descriptions for getting a ball park on power levels (ie Trek, Wars, B5, etc.), and tell stories. Details of "how and why" are left for the fans (the intelligent ones) to devise explanations for, allowing me to avoid Trek level technobabble (and looking like an idiot as a result) and giving the technical minded fans something to discuss/argue over.

[Covenant]

Again, yes, Sci-Fi is Fantasy with Lasers.

If you want to write actual SCIENCE! fiction then you'll need a sterner grasp of science, but most people don't want to, they just want the fantasy of planet-hopping men with rocket guns. That's what their stories are about. That or the Big Damn Deal they envisioned and wanted to write for some strange reason, like Grey Goo or some other fauxpocalypse.

If people want to take a glimpse into the future and work with the ideas that spin off that glimpse, like of generation ships or far-flung colonies with all of ten people on them, and so forth, then there's still a risk of turning these into traditional fantasy/drama tropes. It takes hard literary work to keep your focus on really what's essential for a sci-fi story to be anything special (IE, the science content) and not just delve into cheap tricks.

[Magister Militum]

To reiterate what others have said, it isn't that amateur (or professional, for that matter) SF authors have a disrespect or hostility toward science per se (although their knowledge of it is another matter), it's just that science tends to take a backseat to story telling when it comes to space opera and other pulp SF, which is really fantasy with lasers.

Frankly, I think you're making this into a much bigger deal than it really should be. I'm not sure which world building boards you've been visiting (by chance have you been to this one, which I am, coincidently, a member of?), but based on what I've seen and my own work as a world builder, the setting and story is the key to having a good universe, and not necessarily how scientifically accurate it is. Can you have an excellent and rich plot and setting and still be grounded in science? Of course (I've seen it). Can you have a fantastic setting that is completely impossible from a scientific standpoint and yet be able to craft excellent stories? Naturally. The point is that, while scientific accuracy can be and has been used alongside excellent stories and settings, it is not indicative of the strength of the author when it comes to storytelling or innovation.

Of course, there is a difference between taking the Star Wars approach (as I do) when it comes to the details, ie, giving a vague explanation of how your magitech works and leaving out the 'how' and 'why', and the Star Trek approach, which tends to throw out buzzwords that make no real sense. And then there is also the simple fact that, regardless of their scientific knowledge, some SF authors are just bad writers.

[Samuel]

I'd expect to see a corresponding increase in the acceptance of science and more writers of the likes of Asimov.

Asimov was a good writer, but his science fiction stories are not exactly what I would call well grounded in reality. Foundation has the good guys making walnut sized nuclear reactors, robots have anti-matter brains, scientific progress stopping in a galactic empire, etc. He wrote stories, not predictions of the future.

[FOG3]

In response to Op:
If people want to read reports they would read a science journal, text or proposition. Hence it wouldn't be filed under fiction.

As for the rest:

"Ninety percent of SF [science fiction] is crud, but then, ninety percent of everything is crud."
-Theodore Sturgeon, 1951

[Peptuck]

Writers are people, and people are stupid. So, a large chunk of them have the IQ of beach pebbles.

Sigged.

I'm going to have to echo a lot of what everyone else has said. Sci-fi is essentially fantasy with lasers. There's nothing terribly wrong with that, until the author tries intruding into territory that they really don't understand, or at least don't put a lot of thought into the implications of the science and the world they are dealing with.

[Ford Prefect]

That's one reason I like this site and others like the Atomic Rocket pages, because they ground things in rationalism and real numbers.

Yeah, but this site was founded on rational analysis of Star Wars which, though I enjoy it, cannot really be said to be scientifically plausible. I know there's a quote from Lucas about him wanting to make sure Star Wars is scientifically rigourous despite being set in another galaxy xyz thousand of years ago, but the actual film has Star Destroyers pulling over a thousand gees in acceleration, artificial gravity and other stuff which is practically magic. The films are quite consistent with each other though, which is arguably much more important that how outright plausible the setting is.

[Batman]

You DON'T need to know science all that well to write a good science fiction story (Asimov, as mentioned before, didn't particularly bother with it all that much, and he's considered on of SF's greatest.) Part of the problem I think is people who don't know beans about science trying to USE science so their stories look more hard SciFi and less like fantasy with lasers (when the vast majority of worthwhile SciFi IS fantasy with lasers), and we have VOY and ENT to thank for that.

[RedImperator]

Part of the problem I think is people who don't know beans about science trying to USE science so their stories look more hard SciFi and less like fantasy with lasers (when the vast majority of worthwhile SciFi IS fantasy with lasers), and we have VOY and ENT to thank for that.

Wait a minute. Are you seriously arguing that scientifically ignorant sci-fi writers didn't try to fake it before 1995? Are you high? What the fuck do VOY and ENT have to do with anything (besides "Batman has an ax to grind")?

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, if you can't be bothered to actually learn any science, then you've got no damn business trying to write science fiction. Even if you plan on writing pure mush, you should 1) be conscious of the physical laws you're breaking, and 2) break the smallest number of physical laws necessary. The second one is especially aggravating, because all this talk about plot necessity goes out the window when you're dealing with simple, ignorant fuckups that do nothing to advance the story. I've never met a story, soft sci-fi or not, which is improved by science gaffes (the hilarious "core of Naboo" fuckup comes to mind).

[Batman]

Part of the problem I think is people who don't know beans about science trying to USE science so their stories look more hard SciFi and less like fantasy with lasers (when the vast majority of worthwhile SciFi IS fantasy with lasers), and we have VOY and ENT to thank for that.

Wait a minute. Are you seriously arguing that scientifically ignorant sci-fi writers didn't try to fake it before 1995?

No. I'm saying that scientifically ignorant writers getting away with it in mainstream TV SciFi certainly didn't help matters.

[RedImperator]

Wait a minute. Are you seriously arguing that scientifically ignorant sci-fi writers didn't try to fake it before 1995?

No. I'm saying that scientifically ignorant writers getting away with it in mainstream TV SciFi certainly didn't help matters.

No, that's not what you said at all. "We have VOY and ENT to thank for that", full-stop, no qualifiers. "Scientifically ignorant writers getting away with it in mainstream TV SciFi certainly didn't help matters" is a much more sensible argument (for which you've provided no evidence, but at least it's conceivably true), but that's not the one you made.

[Batman]

You're right.

[ThomasP]

Even if you plan on writing pure mush, you should 1) be conscious of the physical laws you're breaking, and 2) break the smallest number of physical laws necessary.

This is what I was trying to get at; I think it may have just come out wrong in the OP.

A lot of the "fanboy authors" (for lack of better phrasing) seem to make no efforts towards consistency. I've got nothing against "fantasy with lasers" as long as the author is aware of what the hell he's doing when he's creating the universe. If you're going to break laws, be aware of it and at least make an attempt to think about the implications.

It's when they gloss over it to write BSG kitbash fiction that it gets annoying. It's not only inconsistent for no particular reason, but it's not a particularly good story to begin with. I don't see why you'd want to write SF just to copy something you saw on TV, instead of trying to be at least a little original.