2 comments /

An article from Hard SF.

Not everybody has the same strengths and weaknesses. I'm not a good fiction writer.

Writing SF in strict adherence to science isn't easy unless you know a lot more science than most people. And SF doesn't just use one sub-discipline of science. There are several you might need to know to be familiar with what science says about every aspect that could come up in a story. What can you do without being an expert at everything?

Here are some suggestions that I hope will make it easier to stay in tune with science more of the time.

* If your story involves something which you know doesn't or may not comply with known science, don't belabor the point. If you want to have a time machine, tell us the character enters the machine and comes out at a different year. Don't say how it works.

* Distinguish between science and non-science. Time is an aspect of the universe to one degree or another understood by physics. Physicists have devices that do some incredible things. A time machine may not be possible because of physical laws, but it is not unscientific for a phsysicist to explore ways one might be possible. Magic spells that transport peope in time have no connection to science and there is no reason why a physicist should explore the possibility.

* Internal consistency. It may not be scientifically sound to picture a being who walks through walls because it does not interact with solid matter. But if you choose to write about such a being, don't have it walk on the floor as if it interacts with the floor's solidity.

* The supernatural, ghosts, spirits, psychic powers, magic, etc. are not scientifically founded. Not to mention the fact these elements are already overly-common in SF.

* If you are considering having people in a story use "mind powers" or the like, use this test to consider its likelihood of being valid. A human body is a relatively small object with relatively low energy storage and it works with a low voltage. If you can think of a small, portable, battery-powered device that does something, it might be possible for a human body to do it. For instance, the laws of nature might allow a body to have an organ that did the job of a cell phone. If you can't think of a small, battery powered device that can fly without a propeller, jet/rocket engine or flapping wings; move heavy objects using an invisible force; or such; there's a good chance the human body can't do it. Future technology might make small devices that fly without propeller, engine or wings once a tiny large energy storage, high-voltage fuel cell is developed, but humans will still be low-voltage, limited energy beings.

* Use sites like www.hardsf.org as sources to give you brief info on what are questionable technologies or elements.

* When you are considering a new idea, for instance an alien with wheels rather than legs, ask yourself if you can think of any reason why evolution has not provided wheels to any animal on Earth. Maybe you'll think of a reason, maybe you won't; but see what you come up with.

* Assumptions are hard to avoid. Trust me, assumptions are the main cause of computer program bugs. Just as we programmers have to make an effort to minimize our assumptions, try to minimize yours. Assuming the scientific laws of the future will make similar conclusions about the universe as ours is reasonable for those concerned with science (but nothing is guaranteed). Assuming that aliens that communicate using radio transceivers will have radio transceivers compatible with ours is another thing. Of course, the less you know about radio transceivers, the less basis you will have to realize radio transceivers could be incompatible. That's one of the reasons assumptions are hard to avoid. All one can do is try.

* Arthur C. Clarke said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. If you are writing about a technology that seems like magic, ask yourself some questions: Am I writing about far enough in the future for "magical" technology? Do I want a world that "feels" magical? Am I keeping in mind that not every "sufficiently advanced technology" in fiction is feasible in fact?

* Try to refer to fictional technology and such only as much as necessary. Don't include contraptions that do things devices today don't do unless you have a clear reason for needing it. If you need to include numerous gizmos to create a sense of being surrounded by hi-tech, describe gizmos with a hi-tech appearance and give them hi-tech sounding names, but don't say what they do. Or say something without any specific scientific meaning, like "it integrates the advanced reaction rhythms". If you say nothing about what "reactions" or "rhythms" they are, one can't even know what scientific discipline it does or does not conform to.

* Be as aware as possible of your strong and weak science areas. Be more cautious when you think you're at or beyond you limits.

* Try to keep up with science to some degree by reading reasonably short material intended for non-scientists, such as Scientific American.

* A good orientation could be Lawrence Krauss' book The Physics Of Star Trek (written for non-scientists and under 200 pages) and the 'sequel' Beyond Star Trek.

* When in doubt, seek the advise of an expert. If you have a job at a university or other place where scientists work, try to find one you can ask questions to. Otherwise, the Links section at www.hardsf.org includes science and SF sites with web forums where you could seek answers.

By David Brandt
www.hardsf.org