Breaking down the sci-fi genre

[BeccaPrice]

Resurecting a slightly old thread, to give the following url:

http://www.cthreepo.com/writing/laws.shtml

10 Laws of Good Science Fiction

pretty good, I think.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

Resurecting a slightly old thread, to give the following url:

http://www.cthreepo.com/writing/laws.shtml

10 Laws of Good Science Fiction

pretty good, I think.

Indeed, it is a very good summary of the elements that help make good SF good. (Besides the usual good writing skills of characterization, exposition, etc)

I was ready to debate a couple of points (number 9 mostly) but the zeroth rule is a good enough catch-all. I would also point out that rule number one can be honored by *warning* of nightmares to come. Cautionary tales have their uses.

BTW, there is some amusement to be found in the comments. (I rather liked the defense of spontaneous human combustion as a proven reality.)

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Nice list... though I noticed it sidestepped the "FTL drive" issue, even as it shot down the Trek/Wars conventions pretty thoroughly.

[bill_mchale]

I was rather shocked that they would consider the worst of Star Trek to be better than anything else that has ever been on Television. Obviously it is a question of taste, but as far as I am concerned "Spock's Brain" or the "Man Trap" are far worse than a number of good shows (And I would rate them considerably lower than that).

--
Bill

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Nice list... though I noticed it sidestepped the "FTL drive" issue, even as it shot down the Trek/Wars conventions pretty thoroughly.

Well, it's pretty much a list of *guiding* principles.
Good writing practices.
That's why I focused on their zeroth law; it allows relaxing the other laws as necessary in service of the narrative. Implied is that the less relaxation and the more rigorous the science, the more SF-like the story. Equally implied is that what constitutes valid SF elements will depend on the narrative and what is known at the time.

For example, they devote a lot of thought to intelligent technological aliens and first contact--correctly pointing out (by implication) that ALIEN is horror, not SF--even though by current factual science they are actually *less* likely than human FTL travel. (In fact, the case for humans being the only technological civilization at this point in time grows incrementally by the minute.: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47134963...science-space/)

I also noticed they dismissed telepathy out of hand, even though pretty much anybody can come up with multiple scenarios that would allow telepathy, telekinesis, and even (yes, ) pyrokinesis to be used in a rigorous *hard* SF story. (Niven and Pournelle did technological telepathy beautifully in OATH OF FEALTY with zero handwaving.)

One thing they hammer conclusively is that the Science (and pseudo-science) needs to be *integral* to the story.

Telepathy may not be real in our world but that doesn't stop Bester's DEMOLISHED MAN or THE STARS MY DESTINATION from being good SF. Nor does Time Travel's dubious scientific status keep Poul Anderson's THERE WILL BE TIME from being a great read.

The bottom line stands: following the "laws" is good, but telling a good story is better.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Well, my observation stands: As such a prominent and defining trope of the genre, FTL travel should have been addressed in some way (even if it was to say, "Yeah, we know it's pretty much bogus, but everyone's so used to it that we just let it ride.").

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Well, my observation stands: As such a prominent and defining trope of the genre, FTL travel should have been addressed in some way (even if it was to say, "Yeah, we know it's pretty much bogus, but everyone's so used to it that we just let it ride.").

A direct reference wouldn't hurt, but FTL isn't bogus.
It is merely speculative.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/te.../warpstat.html

I'd say there's enough hints at the fringes of physics that it's about as fair game now as neuronic whips and death rays in the 30's-40's.
(Of course, I don't really fancy picking a fight with Marc Millis and his gang. )

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/

As I said, I'd rather pick a fight over the Drake equation.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

A direct reference wouldn't hurt, but FTL isn't bogus.
It is merely speculative.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/te.../warpstat.html

From that article:

The bad news is that the bulk of scientific knowledge that we have accumulated to date concludes that faster than light travel is impossible.

And I believe NASA's scientists are pretty good. My take is that there may be a way around the limits of light speed, but the amount of energy required to accomplish such a thing would be on the scale of a star's output... a level of energy that mere humans cannot hope to command, ever.

As to the Drake equation, it's one flaw IMO is lack of consideration for the odds that multiple intelligent races will exist at the same time relative to each other.

[QuantumIguana]

A Science Fiction writer should never put beings into a story that are so far superior to men that we cannot understand their motives, we cannot overcome their will or we cannot meet them face to face in a fair fight. It is not interesting that there is a being out there who can simply step on us like an ant.

I can't fully agree with this. You can have aliens who are so far advanced from us that we can't understand them, and can't defeat them. You're not going to defeat them, but who says you have to? There are other ways of dealing with a problem than my defeating the opponent. If you cannot understand the alien, perhaps you can get the alien to understand you. Perhaps the alien could squash you like an ant, but perhaps the alien might take notice and step somewhere else.

And the idea that Star Trek is not good science fiction is a matter of preference rather than a rule.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

As to the Drake equation, it's one flaw IMO is lack of consideration for the odds that multiple intelligent races will exist at the same time relative to each other.

Exactly.
They also presupose that intelligence race = technological civilization.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

From that article:

As to the Drake equation, it's one flaw IMO is lack of consideration for the odds that multiple intelligent races will exist at the same time relative to each other.

Huh? That is what the Drake equation is trying to figure out. Ok, technically civilizations, and they have to be capable of sending us (intentionally or not) a signal we can detect, but it factors in the life time of the average civilization (obviously a guess for alien civilizations) to figure out how many we might expect at any given time.

--
Bill

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Exactly.
They also presupose that intelligence race = technological civilization.

NASA scientists might (though I doubt it) but the Drake equation does not. It includes terms for both the chances of intelligent life developing and the chance of such life developing a technological civilization.

What the Drake equation is really trying to do is give us a rough estimate of whether there is a reasonable chance we will ever detect signals from an alien civilization; that does presuppose technology.... or aliens who communicate directly using really powerful E/M radiation.

--
Bill

[QuantumIguana]

It really is a way of organizing what we don't know. One of the factors in the Drake equation is how many stars had planets. When the equation was formulated, we didn't know how common planets were. Now we know that they are common, but we still don't know how common Earth-sized planets are, because they are currently much harder to detect than Jupiter-sized planets.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Huh? That is what the Drake equation is trying to figure out. Ok, technically civilizations, and they have to be capable of sending us (intentionally or not) a signal we can detect, but it factors in the life time of the average civilization (obviously a guess for alien civilizations) to figure out how many we might expect at any given time.

How long a civilization lives is not analogous to when it lives. Two civilizations can be a million years old, but if they came and passed a few billion years apart, they will never meet. The Drake equation doesn't address that.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

How long a civilization lives is not analogous to when it lives. Two civilizations can be a million years old, but if they came and passed a few billion years apart, they will never meet. The Drake equation doesn't address that.

Rationale and Justification for the Search
Estimates of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations
in our galaxy rest upon an elegant but simple
heuristic known as the Drake Equation. This states
that the number of extraterrestrial civilizations existing
simultaneously with our own depends upon a
combination of physical, biological, and social variables
(Drake and Sobel, 1992). These are the number
of suitable stars in our galaxy, the fraction of those
stars that have planets, the fraction of those planets
that give rise to life, the fraction of life forms that
evolve into technologically advanced civilizations,
and finally the average longevity of advanced civilizations.
(Longevity is important because it affects the
chances that civilizations will exist simultaneously.)

From http://www.futurefoundation.org/docu...m_pro_wrk1.pdf

Also: http://space.about.com/od/frequently...Our-Galaxy.htm