Spider Star
The human colony on the planet Argo has long explored and exploited the technology left behind by an extinct alien race. But then an archaeology team accidentally activates a terrible weapon...
Read More.Praise for Star Dragon
"Seldom does a storytelling talent come along as potent and fully mature as Mike Brotherton. His complex characters take you on a voyage that is both fiercely credible and astonishingly imaginative. This is Science Fiction."
-- David Brin"Star Dragon is terrific fare, offering readers a fusion of hard science and grand adventure."
-- Locus Magazine"Star Dragon is steeped in cosmology, the physics of interstellar travel, exobiology, artificial intelligence, bioscience. Brotherton, author of many scientific articles in refereed journals, has written a dramatic, provocative, utterly convincing hard science sf novel that includes an ironic twist that fans will love."
-- Booklist starred review"Readers hungry for the thought-provoking extrapolation and rigorous technical detail of old-fashioned hard SF are sure to enjoy astronomer Brotherton's first novel."
-- Publishers Weekly"Mike Brotherton, himself a trained astrophysicist, combines the technical acuity and ingenuity of Robert Forward with the ironic, postmodern stance and style of M. John Harrison. In this, his debut novel, those twin talents unite to produce a work that is involving on any number of levels. It's just about all you could ask for in a hardcore SF adventure."
-- Paul di Fillippo, SCI-FI.COM
Search
Should the Big Bang Theory have a Mission? Should Science Fiction?
March 1st, 2011
A friend sent me a link to an article at Physics Today about The Big Bang Theory. The premise of the article was to ask if the comedy could do more than make people laugh, and to propose it could educate them at the same time. Here is the lead:
Could scientists help the cause of science by helping CBS raise its physics situation comedy The Big Bang Theory from the level of Gomer Pyle, USMC to the level of MASH?
Might CBS let physicists help elevate BBT from the level of Seinfeld, a hilarious show about nothing, to the level of All in the Family, a hilarious show about society’s profoundest issues?
I think the Big Bang Theory is already at a level higher than Gomer Pyle, myself, and MASH wasn’t always that deep.
I don’t strongly disagree with the proposal, but let me say a few things about it. Obviously as a science educator, founder of Launch Pad — now accepting applications — and editor of Diamonds in the Sky, I have an interest in reaching the public with good science and I have no problem doing it with entertainment. As a writer, especially one with some success (although far less than the writers of Big Bang Theory), I’d have a huge problem with a group of physicists suggesting I change my formula to pursue their agenda. Personally, I already think there’s a lot of good being done in the proposed direction by exchanges like this:
I think my biggest concern beyond the pushiness is the following. When you intentionally write to inject a message, especially in a comedy, you’re likely to flat on your face if you’re not brilliant. If the Big Bang Theory started to get more pedagogical and ratings dropped, that would end the experiment not just for the one show, but any new show proposals for years to come.
The show already has characters with scientific perspectives, somewhat contaminated with comic books and science fiction, and they make them clear week after week. Exaggerated, funny perspectives sometimes, but ones in lines with science folk. And like in the clip above, Penny is the butt of the jokes sometimes for her lack of science. The physicists are usually the butt of the jokes on social issues…and while there are socially astute physicists, the average physicist puts style a million parsecs behind substance.
Honestly, I’m thrilled with anything that includes science, respects it (but not necessarily individual scientists who can be flaky social outcasts), and doesn’t get it wrong. The cameos by real scientists is especially welcome, too, given that examples like Neil deGrasse Tyson do have social acumen and style.
Let the Big Bang Theory pave the road for the socially conscious and educational science version of MASH. It has shown that mass audiences will watch a show about scientists that touches on real science regularly.
The first day of Launch Pad I usually tell attendees that I’m not out to convert them to being hard science fiction writers, or to try to make them write educational stories. I say that I’d be thrilled if they did, and wish that Harry Potter readers had gotten more of an astronomy lesson and that Twilight readers learned the phases of the moon in order to understand werewolves. Honestly, I’d just be happy if I didn’t see bad attitudes toward science and scientists everywhere, and if the majority of science topics popping up on TV and movies didn’t have major errors. Is that so much to wish for?
So, I don’t think science fiction should have a mission to educate people about science. But I would like it if it did, some of the time, without compromising its entertainment value.
Too much of the time the science on TV and in movies is just plain dumb, the scientists are arrogant and mad or alternatively weird and socially inept, or science is just not a valued part of reality. I suspect that until the public is better educated about science and actually trusts it more than what their political and religious leaders say, shows like the Big Bang Theory will be the exception rather than the rule, and a version with educational value will be laughed out of the water before it’s aired. At least with the Big Bang Theory we often laugh with the scientists, not at them. Except when it’s funny and they deserve it. That’s the way it should be.
P.S. I wanted to add a link to the Big Blog Theory, which discusses the science in episodes of the Big Bang Theory. The show is obviously already getting touches of real science in there, which is not bad for a general comedy audience in 21-22 minutes per episode.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Good take on this. I have always loved The Big Bang Theory, as it does get their personalities close to what I learned from you growing up. I am glad to see that you enjoy it for what it is, and thankful that it is so popular. I applaud you.
I find that Big Bang Theory and Bones (I recently discovered it) are both reasonably hard science shows that are fun to watch. Both cover a lot of issues from the perspective of observed reality which is a very nice contrast from most media.
Both series have issues in individual episodes or even particular blind-spots. Both tend to represent scientists as social misfits. But as a whole they raise the level of accurate science in TV quite a bit. Given the generally declining depiction of science and scientists in popular media I welcome this change. Even if it fights against the current, though my optimism leads me to hope that it is a genuine change in direction.
My limited experience with astronomers (in Munich, with astronomers from the ESO) is that they are not really different than any other smart people in their field. When I lived in Munich my climbing partners were both astronomers at ESO (Jim and Laird), neither was socially awkward and to be honest the level of social awkwardness depicted on BBT would impede careers which require a certain level of political savvy. To succeed at any job requires the ability to negotiate and gather resources (time, equipment, staff, money). Even if you are just working to join the right team social skills are needed.
But social awkwardness is the cliche that sticks to scientists. And it isn’t unjustified as many people in the field develop social skills quite late. From personal experience I had significant issues with interpersonal relations until my early and mid-twenties. So I think we will see this being the standard model for scientists on TV for many years. We can only hope that the media will start averting this trope at some point as being too trite.
BTW, I didn’t manage to state that my wife and I absolutely love BBT and will watch it at any opportunity. It is a great show and we enjoy it for its fun.
Insightful comments, Duncan. I stress to my students how communication skills are essential to success in science. You can be totally brilliant, too, I guess, but good social skills makes everything easy.
I’ve spent time at ESO in Garching and still have collaborators there. I agree with your comments. In general, there are some differences I see between American and European scientists. At the risk of overgeneralizing, I’ll say that Europeans are less driven and place more emphasis on a life outside their careers, and that there is less of a stigma concerning hobbies. Chess and D&D are as valid as biking or going to see plays.
I’ll have to check out BONES. It always looked interesting, but I already watch too much TV.
And, yes, I can believe you Mom, that you overheard some conversations when I was a teenager that sounded a lot like conversations on the Big Bang Theory. For instance, I’d have to take the position that Star Trek II was the best, while Star Trek V was the worst, rather than IV and I, respectively.
“When you intentionally write to inject a message, especially in a comedy, you’re likely to flat on your face if you’re not brilliant.”
Which makes me respect South Park all the more since they do it brilliantly on a regular basis.
I agree — South Park does manage it quite often.
I think the writers should have a show with the four guys off the big bang theory onthe show cash cab thanks