The Laws of Science Fiction

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by 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.

So that puts Anne McCaffrey's books firmly into SF; rather than fantasy....

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

So that puts Anne McCaffrey's books firmly into SF; rather than fantasy....

If you're referring to the dragons... I don't see why not. Scientists have indicated that there may be no intrinsic reason that dragons could not have naturally evolved on Earth, flying, fire-breathing and all; and they readily admit that are fossil records are very incomplete and unrepresentative of all past species.

Anyone else have problems with this law? Maybe there's a "critical mass' of fantasy elements that pushes SF over into Fantasy? If there are no conventional SF elements, but scientifically-explained Fantasy elements, does it become SF, or stay as Fantasy?

[GeoffC]

Science Fantasy ? neither truly one, nor the other ....

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Science Fantasy ? neither truly one, nor the other ....

Star Wars!

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by 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.

I like that one, and agree. There's a fair bit of work that explores that sort of boundary, and revolves around Clarke's "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

I'd think there's a deeper underlying premise, which might be stated as "You can't break your own rules". You can mix SF and fantasy elements, but they exist in the same setting, and are governed by a common set of rules and constraints. You need to think through what those are and what the effects will be on your story. You don't have to explicitly state them to the reader (and indeed, part of the attraction of the story may be the mystery of what is going on), but you need to be aware of them. If you break your own rules, the reader is likely to notice. They may not be aware of what put them off, but are likely to feel put off and thrown out of the story.
______
Dennis

[altworld]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

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

Because I have an opinion on this subject

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I'd think there's a deeper underlying premise, which might be stated as "You can't break your own rules".

Consistency is key, I agree. However, is that a law helping define SF, or is that a good storytelling constraint? IOW, does inconsistency mean it's no longer SF, or does it mean it's badly written SF?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by altworld

Because I have an opinion on this subject

So, does that make you an "anything goes, who cares if it's explainable science" kind of guy, or are you a "genres are meaningless" kind of guy? Or something other?

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

So that puts Anne McCaffrey's books firmly into SF; rather than fantasy....

The Pern series always was SF. Pern is a lost colony, whose human (and dolphin) inhabitants got there by starship, and the dragons are the product of genetic engineering on the indigenous fire lizards. Humanity is knocked back to a pre-technological level and forgets its origins in the periodic fall of the parasitic Threads that the dragonriders exist to fight.

The problem is that a lot of folks come to the series partway through, where the back story isn't really mentioned. They see a feudal society, medieval level of technology, and fire breathing dragons, and say "Aha! Fantasy!" because those are the visible tropes.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Consistency is key, I agree. However, is that a law helping define SF, or is that a good storytelling constraint? IOW, does inconsistency mean it's no longer SF, or does it mean it's badly written SF?

Since it has broader application than SF, I'd call it "a good storytelling constraint". And for the second question, I'd say it could mean either or both, depending upon the story and the inconsistency.
______
Dennis

[altworld]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

So, does that make you an "anything goes, who cares if it's explainable science" kind of guy, or are you a "genres are meaningless" kind of guy? Or something other?

Well to a degree genres are meaningless, because if the story is good and the character compelling then who cares when, where or how it is set.

Since we are talking about Science Fiction I am more of a free wheeling anything goes reader. If the story is grounded by your Characters who cares how that FTL drive works because to them it would be no different to starting a car would be for us.

In the end the Authors story is set in his universe, if up is down, and down is up that is up the Author. If we spent out time making everything hyper realistic then we lose the whimsy and the fantastical.

I've read hard science scifi that frankly stank as the author is more interested in telling us how that photon laser death ray worked than actually telling a story. The best scifi I've read doesn't get hung up on that - Starship Troopers is a good example of concentrating on the characters journey rather than all the tech surronding him. Sure Rico tries to explain how the powered suits work, but its from his stand point of the user and doesn't get bogged down into the science of it. Of course Starship Troopers is also a good social satire as well.

In my collection of One Year War stories not once is the focus on the tech, granted it cheats because of the borrowed genre, but the reader in the end doesn't care how a fushion reactor works, or how the giant mech really walks.

The Law is there is no laws

And that is one Authors, and one fan of scifi's opinion.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Anyone else have problems with this law? Maybe there's a "critical mass' of fantasy elements that pushes SF over into Fantasy? If there are no conventional SF elements, but scientifically-explained Fantasy elements, does it become SF, or stay as Fantasy?

Good question. I'm not sure about the "critical mass", but an example of what you mention is Randall Garrett's "Lord Darcy" series. Darcy is Chief Criminal Investigator for His Grace, the Duke of Rouen, brother to the King, in an alternate history where Richard the Lion Hearted settled down after being wounded in the Crusades to become a very good king indeed, and founded a Plantagent dynasty that still exists, locked in a quest for dominance with the Polish empire of King Casimir.

Magic has been developed instead of science, and theoretical thaumaturgists use sophisticated mathematics to define the structure of spells that working sorcerers will cast. (Casting spells requires the Talent, which is genetically based and possessed by a minority.) Darcy's partner, Master Forensic Sorcerer Sean O'Lochlain uses magic to uncover clues Darcy will use to solve the crime.

It was all worked up in best "hard SF" style, and originally published in Analog magazine by John W. Campbell.

It's one of the edge cases I use for things that straddle the boundary and can be arguable classed as either one.
______
Dennis

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by altworld

Well to a degree genres are meaningless, because if the story is good and the character compelling then who cares when, where or how it is set.

Since we are talking about Science Fiction I am more of a free wheeling anything goes reader. If the story is grounded by your Characters who cares how that FTL drive works because to them it would be no different to starting a car would be for us...

Okay, I follow all that. SF stories can be either type: They can absolutely depend on how the science works, and so you must explain it (Michael Crichton-type stories, for instance); and they can function independently of the science forming the background or trappings of the story, in which case, explaining the science is pointless. I can enjoy either.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Randall Garrett's "Lord Darcy" series... It's one of the edge cases I use for things that straddle the boundary and can be arguable classed as either one.

Yeah... that's a good case for simply saying, "Aw, heck... it's all SF, it's all Fantasy, do what you wanna!"

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Going for three:

Science Fiction is subdivided into layers, defined generally as "hard" and "soft," or "SF" (hard) and "Sci-Fi" (soft). The level of "hardness" or "softness" depends on the likelihood of the science/physics in the story to be considered (or proven to be) accurate, with "hard" applying to higher likelihood, and "soft" applying to lower likelihood.

The use of the word "likelihood" is key here, as SF is essentially a speculative genre, and often deals with concepts that cannot be proven, or may not be proven for decades or more. Without using the word "likelihood," basically any unproven SF would automatically be "soft" or "Sci-Fi."

Generally speaking, when SF elements of various likelihoods are present, a story's "hardness" is usually rated down to the SF element that has the lowest likelihood of accuracy. These labels, as indicated by others, depend solely on how much detail (if any) is given to the science/physics of the story, and in some cases, may not apply to an SF story at all.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Okay, I follow all that. SF stories can be either type: They can absolutely depend on how the science works, and so you must explain it (Michael Crichton-type stories, for instance); and they can function independently of the science forming the background or trappings of the story, in which case, explaining the science is pointless. I can enjoy either.

If the story depends on the science, you probably have to provide some explanation, but you probably don't need to provide equations and engineering drawings. After all, the point of the science is what it lets the characters do, so you need just enough explanation to provide a hook from which you suspend disbelief.

Yeah... that's a good case for simply saying, "Aw, heck... it's all SF, it's all Fantasy, do what you wanna!"

It occurred to me that I could classify it as steampunk, too. While it's set in what would be the 1960's, the technology level is roughly Victorian. Steam power is in full use, with locomotives and steamships. Gunpowder is certainly used, in rifles, pistols and cannons. (In one story, Darcy loses a treasured custom made pistol in the course of solving the crime. The King provides a replacement, with the stern admonition that it is to be used as a tool of Darcy's trade, and if the King learns it's sitting in a display case "We will personally come over and take it back from you!". Magic provides long range communications, with the teleson performing the functions we use a telephone for. (But the teleson requires wires to connect the devices. Wireless transmission doesn't exist.) In one story, Darcy is provided with a top secret device being developed by government researchers, which we would think of as a battery operated flashlight. The people of Darcy's timeline are beginning to explore natural law to supplement what can be done via magic.
______
Dennis