The Laws of Science Fiction

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steven Lake

Well, there's two basic "types" of sci-fi if you want to go into what's allowed and what's not. "Hard" scifi is any sci-fi story that sticks as absolutely close to accepted rules and theories of science as possible. "Soft" or "mass media" scifi is any type of sci-fi that goes into the impossible or the extraordinary. IE, FTL, Time Travel, etc.

That's not the definition I've heard and used over decades of being involved in the field.

The distinction lies in sources. "Hard SF", as I and those I know think of it, is SF based on the "hard" sciences, with Physics far out in front as a starting point. It assumes underlying discoveries we haven't made yet, that permit us to do things we cannot currently do, like travel FTL. Soft SF has less quantifiable grounds, and may include things based on linguistics, psychology, or sociology. The basic distinction probably comes down to "Can the underlying science be treated mathematically?" If it can, it's arguably hard SF. If it can't, it's soft SF. (You will find folks who make a justifiable claim that if it can't be treated mathematically, whatever it is, it's not science.)

If we use your definition, an awful lot of what is commonly considered hard SF suddenly isn't, and I don't think that's what you intend.
______
Dennis

[altworld]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

The trick is properly specifying those rules to begin with, and the field is littered with examples where that wasn't done. TV and film are particular Bad Examples, where things are included with no thought to the implications, but written SF isn't immune to it.
______
Dennis

Myself I would lean away from explaining anything, as long as the story is good no one really cares about the tech that backs it up. Battlestar Galactica never explained its tech to anyone, it was just there and the protangonists used it every day. The story itself concentrated on the character developments.

In the end its the authors universe and if he wants to break all the rules (which is an oxymoron because it is scifi) then its up to the author.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Isn't that what this thread is for?

Sure, but I wasn't aware we'd come to any solid conclusions. We're still in the early phases of a Socratic argument where we're defining our terms.

Well, maybe if all SF, hard and soft, is speculation, and even the most unlikely elements are still possible simply because they haven't been proven... what's the use of labels? It's all SF, then. Or it's all Fantasy. Or it's both at the same time. Maybe we should be calling it all Science Fantasy.

The late John W. Campbell considered SF a subset of an overall genre of fantastic literature. For that matter, he considered mainstream fiction to fall under that umbrella.

Seems like there are simply too many unknowns and variations to allow useful labels (or rules, for that matter) to exist. If Star Wars and Solaris can be painted with the same brush, that brush must be awful large. And very gray in color.

There isn't just one brush size or color. To extend that analogy, a painter will begin with an undercoat, then add successive layers to it, adding color and definition till he has what he considers a finished work. You can't classify the painting by the undercoat, and may not be able to classify it till it's substantially finished.
______
Dennis

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Okay, here's my attempt at the first all-encompassing Law of Science Fiction:

Science Fiction has, as a significant part of its setting or trappings, an element or aspect that reflects a scientific theory or technology that has/had not been proven or created at the time of the story's writing.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Okay, here's my attempt at the first all-encompassing Law of Science Fiction:

Science Fiction has, as a significant part of its setting or trappings, an element or aspect that reflects a scientific theory or technology that has/had not been proven or created at the time of the story's writing.

That's a good start. I'd add the proviso that the setting or trappings are critical, and if you remove the arguably SF elements, you no longer have a story.
______
Dennis

[GeoffC]

I'm not too sure Dennis, I would have placed science above settings/trappings - once you have that it matter not where it occurs ?

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

I'm not too sure Dennis, I would have placed science above settings/trappings - once you have that it matter not where it occurs ?

See Steve's definition. My argument is basically "Take out the science, and you don't have a story", regardless of where you toss it in.

If you can take out the science and still have a meaningful story, maybe you aren't really writing SF, and should consider removing the trappings.
______
Dennis

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

If you can take out the science and still have a meaningful story, maybe you aren't really writing SF, and should consider removing the trappings.

I understand what you mean... but it suggests that the SF background is undesirable if it is not critical to the story. I don't wholly subscribe to that notion, I think an SF backdrop is as valid and desirable as a contemporary backdrop, a wartime backdrop, a family home backdrop, etc. It's just a different backdrop.

You can have a story with a couple discussing something in their home. But if no one stops to cook, do you need to remove the story from the home?

I'd rather think that it might not be critical to the story, but that it can (and should) add value to the story nonetheless, much like the ironic juxtaposition of setting a couple's breakup in the middle of a circus, or placing a character's evaluation of his life on a ship at sea. It adds to the atmosphere, provides allegorical or symbolic emphasis, and allows for alterations to contemporary situations and surroundings that can make unreasonable situations... reasonable (or vice-versa).

Of course, plenty of adventure stories use significant amounts of SF elements that turned out to be major parts of the story, and they aren't considered SF (the James Bond movies, for instance). So maybe the proviso is on the right track after all...

Or maybe it means that SF isn't a genre after all... but a sub-genre that can be applied to most any major genre...

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

I understand what you mean... but it suggests that the SF background is undesirable if it is not critical to the story. I don't wholly subscribe to that notion, I think an SF backdrop is as valid and desirable as a contemporary backdrop, a wartime backdrop, a family home backdrop, etc. It's just a different backdrop.

Like I said, "maybe". I'm not trying to draw a hard and fast rule. But I think the background really should be intrinsic to the story, and like the science in SF, if you remove the background, you no longer have a story.

My reference is the late Damon Knight's dictum "If it reads like it could have been set in Australia, it probably should have been!"

I suppose I'm saying that the first thing you have to do is clearly understand what story you are trying to tell, and what the appropriate form is to tell that story.
______
Dennis

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

But in the best cases, the new direction your characters take you in is a better one than the one you planned. The trick is to be able to recognize that and go with the flow.
______
Dennis

Exception to that rule: Laurell K. Hamilton and her Anita Blake.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

Exception to that rule: Laurell K. Hamilton and her Anita Blake.

Save that I don't think that was her character's idea. From what I heard, Hamilton divorced and remarried, and her new husband was a younger guy, seriously into kink.

I'd call it more a reaction to lifestyle changes on her part than anything her characters might have had to say.
______
Dennis

[Steven Lake]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

That's not the definition I've heard and used over decades of being involved in the field.

The distinction lies in sources. "Hard SF", as I and those I know think of it, is SF based on the "hard" sciences, with Physics far out in front as a starting point. It assumes underlying discoveries we haven't made yet, that permit us to do things we cannot currently do, like travel FTL. Soft SF has less quantifiable grounds, and may include things based on linguistics, psychology, or sociology. The basic distinction probably comes down to "Can the underlying science be treated mathematically?" If it can, it's arguably hard SF. If it can't, it's soft SF. (You will find folks who make a justifiable claim that if it can't be treated mathematically, whatever it is, it's not science.)

If we use your definition, an awful lot of what is commonly considered hard SF suddenly isn't, and I don't think that's what you intend.
______
Dennis

Well, I think yours is probably a little cleaner definition of what I was trying to say. ^_^;; Just because I'm a writer doesn't always mean I can explain myself properly on the first draft.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Let's try for another law:

Science Fiction can have Fantasy elements as well as SF elements, provided those Fantasy elements can be suggested to have a scientific explanation as to their existence, in satisfaction of the first law.

This doesn't necessarily mean every fantasy element must have a given scientific explanation in the story, but that it is generally accepted that there is one, and these fantasy elements do not somehow violate the laws of physics that are in place.

[altworld]

Here is my contribution to the law of Sci-fi writing

There is no law...

Why is there always a precedent in human nature to confine things and put them in boxes with labels. Scifi is nothing more than a backdrop to tell the story and if it becomes part of the story it can kill it. I've read amazing scifi stories that talk about tech used as a normal everyday thing and doesn't try to explain it, and I've read really boring scific stories that want to lecture me on the practical physics of FTL drives.

Its a dodgy EPS conduit stuck in a reverted space time continium caused by an inverted tachium field. If we reroute power through the pattern buffers and give it posimatrix charge we should set up a sionic wave to affect the graviton field that will push us out of this causality loop...

Or we could just use the thrusters...

Save us from tech talk

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by altworld

Here is my contribution to the law of Sci-fi writing

There is no law...

Save us from tech talk

Remember, not all SF is "tech talk," nor does the specific science always dictate the elements of the story itself. Authors like Stanslaw Lem and Philip K. Dick have written excellent stories that have SF elements, but are not guided or resolved by those elements.

As to laws: Sorry, but humans live in societies, and societies need laws so everyone understands how the collective world works. Without those laws, one man's tome would be another man's gibberish.

Sure, we don't always have to specifically state those laws (many are just understood)... but in other areas, where laws have been established, they sometimes need editing or clarification...

Besides...

If you're not into laws... why are you in this thread?