The Laws of Science Fiction

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Steampunk is an interesting type of SF: On one hand, it mostly applies technology that could have existed, but didn't, making most of it "hard" SF; On the other hand, it represents an alternate reality, which is "soft" SF, and as my 3rd law suggested, it is usually considered "soft" based on its alternate reality element.

Media and TV shows that like to suggest that the SF stories of the past actually happened (Warehouse 13, Planetary) tend to adopt a "steampunk" look to its old tech. It's kind of hard, though, to categorize those premises as being part of our reality, but with past events that were simultaneously fantastic, and hidden from public awareness... would that be considered an alternate reality? If not, it makes those premises "hard" SF, or, at least, harder than steampunk.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

It occurs to me: Maybe we should take the old stories set in, for instance, underwater cities on Venus, and instead of calling them Fantasy, consider them Alternative Reality, a parallel universe where Venus did not succumb to global warming, retained its water, and supported alien life.

There may be a number of old stories that could be considered this way, as well as all recent Steampunk stories.

Do we need a fourth law to cover Alternate Reality SF?

[GeoffC]

Alternative or Alternate? You've used both in your post.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

It occurs to me: Maybe we should take the old stories set in, for instance, underwater cities on Venus, and instead of calling them Fantasy, consider them Alternative Reality, a parallel universe where Venus did not succumb to global warming, retained its water, and supported alien life.

We could, but do we need to bother?

To successfully do that for the example "domed cities under the oceans of Venus", you would need some plausible explanation for exactly how Venus avoided the "global warming" and became simply a planet wide tropical environment under the clouds. Given what we currently surmise about the development process, that would be a neat trick.

"Alternate history", presuming that some critical event had a different ending and all subsequent history was affected by it is one thing. The natural laws are still in place. "Alternate science" where the natural laws we are accustomed to aren'tn place is a rather different matter.

There may be a number of old stories that could be considered this way, as well as all recent Steampunk stories.

Do we need a fourth law to cover Alternate Reality SF?

What might that be?
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Steampunk is an interesting type of SF: On one hand, it mostly applies technology that could have existed, but didn't, making most of it "hard" SF; On the other hand, it represents an alternate reality, which is "soft" SF, and as my 3rd law suggested, it is usually considered "soft" based on its alternate reality element.

Yes and no. Steampunk normally assumes a roughly Victorian level of technology, with steam as the primary motive power, supplemented by things that might have been developed but weren't, like mechanical computers based on Babbage's Analytical Engine. (The Analytical Engine never got made because British industry of the time couldn't make parts with the required tolerances. There was one instrument maker who could, but he had a falling out with Babbage over money. And in any case, wider use would have required more than him.) Those stories can be seen as a branch of Alternate History.

Others can't. Jay Lake is doing a series of steampunk novels set in a clockwork universe, where the Earth is a node on a cosmic orrery, implying a cosmic instrument maker to construct it and set it in motion. The characters in his novels are well aware of the nature of their universe. These can only be called "Alternate Reality".

So Steampunk straddles several sub-genres, and we may be dealing with a case of "Steampunk is what I'm pointing at when I say the words."
______
Dennis

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Alternative or Alternate? You've used both in your post.

I hadn't noticed... I suppose I was using them to mean the same thing... I should have been more specific, as I agree there is a difference.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

To successfully do that for the example "domed cities under the oceans of Venus", you would need some plausible explanation for exactly how Venus avoided the "global warming" and became simply a planet wide tropical environment under the clouds. Given what we currently surmise about the development process, that would be a neat trick.

Neat... but not necessarily impossible for speculative science to accomplish. An alteration to Venus' orbit... early impact by asteroids carrying the right elements to alter the atmosphere and stabilize it into a waterworld... terraforming... I'm just saying that within the bounds of SF, it is possible.

I think alternate realities would be included among the SF concepts that are considered part of SF tropes only because of their long-term acceptance by the genre. Since I think we need a law to include the tropes:

Science Fiction includes various "special concepts" that have been accepted as SF elements, regardless of their actual likelihood or possibility of being proven, such as: Warp drives; psi powers; humanoid aliens; inter-species communications; alternate realities; parallel/alternative universes.

Please to point out any I've missed.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Neat... but not necessarily impossible for speculative science to accomplish. An alteration to Venus' orbit... early impact by asteroids carrying the right elements to alter the atmosphere and stabilize it into a waterworld... terraforming... I'm just saying that within the bounds of SF, it is possible.

Sure. But in the stated case, why bother going through the effort? If you are going to go through the effort, there are probably better uses for the labor than retconning domed underwater Venusian cities.

I think alternate realities would be included among the SF concepts that are considered part of SF tropes only because of their long-term acceptance by the genre. Since I think we need a law to include the tropes:

Science Fiction includes various "special concepts" that have been accepted as SF elements, regardless of their actual likelihood or possibility of being proven, such as: Warp drives; psi powers; humanoid aliens; inter-species communications; alternate realities; parallel/alternative universes.

Please to point out any I've missed.

Time travel, for one. And "alternate realities; parallel/alternative universes". overlap enough to be considered one overall category.

We can talk about the likelihood of various things. Humanoid aliens aren't all that unlikely, for example, if we assume similar settings will produce similar evolutionary results. There's a branch of theory that does make that assumption, and postulates that Earth-like worlds with life based on long-chain carbon molecules and DNA might very well produce something human-like. There's a reason humanity evolved and rose to the top of teh food chain here on Earth, and no reason why something similar shouldn't evolve under similar conditions elsewhere. The alien doesn't have to be something unlike anything we've seen to exist.
______
Dennis

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Sure. But in the stated case, why bother going through the effort? If you are going to go through the effort, there are probably better uses for the labor than retconning domed underwater Venusian cities.

I'll buy that.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Time travel, for one. And "alternate realities; parallel/alternative universes". overlap enough to be considered one overall category.

We can talk about the likelihood of various things. Humanoid aliens aren't all that unlikely, for example, if we assume similar settings will produce similar evolutionary results. There's a branch of theory that does make that assumption, and postulates that Earth-like worlds with life based on long-chain carbon molecules and DNA might very well produce something human-like. There's a reason humanity evolved and rose to the top of teh food chain here on Earth, and no reason why something similar shouldn't evolve under similar conditions elsewhere. The alien doesn't have to be something unlike anything we've seen to exist.

Most of the theories I've come across point out that an enormous set of coincidences, lucky breaks and random choices have led to humans developing as they have, and rising to the top of the food chain... it could easily have become any one of a half-dozen other species, or if it was Man, could have looked very different today. But I'll buy the possibility of aliens being humanoid, however slight IMO.

So, if we make some amendments:

Science Fiction includes various "special concepts" that have been accepted as SF elements, regardless of their actual likelihood or possibility of being proven, such as: Warp drives; psi powers; inter-species communications; alternate realities; time travel.

(Actually, the wording allows for some leeway in the chosen concepts, not specifically stating that they cannot be proven at all, and leaving space for other concepts to be added.)

[nyrath]

Amusing classification system invented by James Nicoll
http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.ar...3bdb1751?hl=en

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by nyrath

Amusing classification system invented by James Nicoll
http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.ar...3bdb1751?hl=en

He should have included authors on the "gets the science right" axis (if I'm reading that right). I suppose the optimism axis is defined as "It might be unlikely, but we will/will not figure it out"?

[nyrath]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

I suppose the optimism axis is defined as "It might be unlikely, but we will/will not figure it out"?

Well, I read the optimism axis as more of a the future will be a utopia -- the future will be a dystopia axis.

X-axis is "does the author get the science correct?" Left is "D'oh! it's all wrong" while right is "Aha! it's all correct!"
Y-axis is "optimism". Bottom is "blah, the future is going to be miserable", top is "Whoo! the future is going to be lots of fun"

In James Nicoll's opinion:
Steven Baxter is in the D'oh-blah quadrant
Larry Niven is in the D'oh-Whoo! quadrant
Hal Clement is in the Aha!-Whoo! quadrant
and he could not think of an author for the Aha!-blah quadrant.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by nyrath

Well, I read the optimism axis as more of a the future will be a utopia -- the future will be a dystopia axis.

I see it more as "use of this technology will have a positive effect/use of this technology will have a negative effect" axis, since the tech itself is inherently neutral. But the end result could be utopia or dystopia.
______
Dennis

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by nyrath

and he could not think of an author for the Aha!-blah quadrant.

Neal Stephenson?