Most Popular Posts
Search
-
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
What Is Science Fiction Starlinks, Value Added
November 25th, 2008
In response to my post about science in science fiction, or just coincidently posted this week, there have been a number of things of interest to me on the topic of science in science fiction, and just how do we define science fiction. It’s an old question without a clear answer everyone can agree to, but I think it’s interesting to discuss and see the modern perspectives, especially in contrast to some older ideas.
Going old school, from sfsignal.com, Harlan Ellison leads a discussion about “sf” vs. “sci-fi” and some distinctions between the terms. Sci-fi has become a nasty label in some quarters, referring to the dumb science fiction in movies and tv, if used at all. Funny how labels can so easily take on an emotional charge.
The Crotchedy Old Fan discusses this, and talks about my post on the science in science fiction and some of the comments we left there, specifically my horrifying (to me) idea that the Hollywood version of The Forever War could be gutted in the name of a mass audience. The premise of the Joe Haldeman’s award-winning book is based on how relativity makes people moving at close to lightspeed age slowly, and can in principle make a war last forever for the soldiers conducting it as they become time travelers into the future. It occurred to me that relativity is tough to explain to a mass audience who may not be familiar with the concept. It would be easier to just use suspended animation instead and skip the relativity. Which would be a crime. Haldeman’s story is based on how the universe really works. Really strange, cool stuff, that we should all know about living in the 21st century over a 100 years since Einstein first published his paper on special relativity.
James Wallace Harris weighs in on defining science fiction. Interesting thoughts, but I disagree with his conclusion that science fiction is a “belief system.” He argues that a science fiction story is a science-based reality put into book form, the same way you can have Christian music or an account promoting a particular philosophy. Science isn’t a belief system. It’s a tool that informs about reality. Not about my reality, or the Mormon’s reality, or William Shatner’s reality. Reality. It doesn’t matter who conducts an experiment — if properly done, that experiment yields the same results for everyone. You can try to spin them, but you can’t change them. Science gets us closer to this true reality than any other technique. The only belief required is that the experiments keep providing the same results, which, while an axiom, hasn’t been found to be incorrect and has been tested repeatedly.
Has science fiction lost its “sensawunda?” I don’t think so, but I think any decent science fiction should have some. I mean, if you’re only reading for literary style, characters, and plot, you can read any genre. Science fiction is about something more. It’s about our relationship with science and technology, the future, and things that are plain different from the way they have been. Different doesn’t have to be wonderful, but I think there’s a sense of wonder present even in the horrific, if it’s different enough.
And finally, here’s an article giving some concrete examples from movies in which the “sci-fi” doesn’t work, meaning, it doesn’t have the science despite its appearance that it does. One contentious point here might be that “sci-fi” fans are not too discriminating to care when the science is wrong. I agree with that point when it comes to mass audiences, and think it’s a shame that scientific literacy is so poor that film makers can get away with this. It does not speak well for us as a people, let alone the most powerful nation on Earth with the best college-level educational system.
Related Posts
Related Posts
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
<
November 25th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Well Mike, I was careful to point out that science fiction and science are different. I agree, science is not a belief system. Although, that’s not perfectly true either. I, and people like me, have to believe in science because we can’t understand it completely. Many people can study particle physics, but few understand it, and most just have to believe what the scientists tell them.
Science fiction writers have often created concepts that people end up believing in. In fact, I think science fiction has created a lot of concepts that have been added to the world culture.
I think when the average person uses the phrase “science fiction” sometimes they are pointing to the art form, and sometimes they are pointing to the concepts created by science fiction.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Sure, but a concept is not the same as a belief system. And the worst case of “science fiction” as a term being abused is when scientists and others use it derogatorily to dismiss some idea so wacky it can’t be true. I’d like to see THAT change, but as long as we keep getting dumb “sci-fi” that gets the science totally wrong (read that as getting reality totally wrong) there will be no headway.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
We believe in all kinds of things. Whether they have any relationship to reality is another matter altogether. I have all kinds of weird beliefs about women, but I wonder what my women friends would say?
You will find scientists that sneer at artificial intelligence, but plenty of scientists believe the idea is possible and are working to make it happen. A lot more people accept the idea it will happen. I believe intelligent robots could exist and assume they will someday. I have no evidence for that whatsoever, I just believe it.
I also believe in the manned colonization of the Moon and Mars. So do millions of other people. Just because we believe in the concept doesn’t mean it’s practical, doable, or even desirable.
I don’t believe in heaven, hell or angels, but if you talk to the billions that do, you will see what I mean by a belief system.
Of course, us hard-core science fiction fans like to think we’re just visionaries predicting what the future will bring. I’m saying some of us are really true believers who want to make it happen.
Just because there’s more of a realistic chance to create intelligent robots than interviewing an angel on TV, doesn’t mean it’s any less of a belief.
What I’m trying to point out is science fiction the entertainment system, is also an idea generator, cranking out all kinds of ideas. It’s not science making discoveries, but something else. Take for instance downloading. I don’t know who had this idea first, but the idea of recording our personalities and downloading them to a machine is a very popular growing belief.
See what I mean?
November 25th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
The thing is, Jim, that tossing out scientifically motivated ideas like downloading minds into computers, is not the same as a belief system. I’d buy sf as an “idea generator” in a way that other genres are not. But I’m a “believer” in science fiction as much as anyone, and don’t have any strong opinion on whether or not downloading human minds can ever be done.
Then we have those who are pessimistic about the future, and write stories of doom about abuses of technology. And those optimistic, who see technology solving our problems. You seem to be talking about one of these groups, but isn’t the other also part of sf just as much?
What is the coherent “belief system?” Saying that science and technology will affect us is about the most general correct statement that I think can be part of a belief system. From there, everything shatters.
SF is not a belief system, philosophy, or religion, at least not without making a much more detailed explanation. I could see different philosophies being expressed in different branches of sf, but the general form itself is independent of those.
How I see it anyway. Interesting discussion with you, as always. Have to hit the road for the holiday…
November 25th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Yeah, each individual idea doesn’t make up a belief system on it’s own, like downloading minds. But collectively, I’m saying the public refers to a large group of those ideas as “science fiction” and thus the term science fiction has two meanings. One, an art form, the other a belief system. I’m suggesting, and I know this isn’t scientific, that there’s enough people that believe in a general package of science fictional ideas that we can now consider calling it a belief system.
Religious believers pick and choose between an array of religious concepts and ideas. A belief system doesn’t have to be consistent, rigid, or filled with exact rules.
The riff I made on my blog is essentially about observing people. I’ve noticed that most people are religious believers, but I’m starting to see a lot of science fiction believers. Now science fiction fans of the art might not like me using that label in a dual purpose, but I think society has already started using it that way, and have been for awhile.
Sadly, many non-science fiction concepts like vampires, ESP and UFOs are also lumped into this belief system by the public. Any weird idea now is often considered science fiction by some people.
Yes, yes, I know, we’re more discerning, but other people are not.
Hope you have a nice trip.
November 26th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
I entirely agree Mike. If Gladiator had introduced submachine guns into the arena, the audience would be laughing or leaving. But not so when they gaff the science issues.
have a great holiday
you too Mr. Harris