Science Fiction Categories: A Proposal

[Akykyshka]

~~~~~~~~~

how do you do?

 

[kennychaffin]

Oh, I keep forgetting. SCIENCE is not Real World.

Psik

Science FICTION is not -- it's writing, it's FICTION, it's literature, it's made up. You seem to be wanting to attribute to it the qualities of science itself (a bit of what Joanna Russ does in that referenced essay) but it simply isn't true. All fiction is art, that's the part that seems to not be getting through to you with your attempt at quantization and linking to science. Fiction is MADE UP, it's not REAL so no it's not the Real World.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Science FICTION is not -- it's writing, it's FICTION, it's literature, it's made up. You seem to be wanting to attribute to it the qualities of science itself (a bit of what Joanna Russ does in that referenced essay) but it simply isn't true. All fiction is art, that's the part that seems to not be getting through to you with your attempt at quantization and linking to science. Fiction is MADE UP, it's not REAL so no it's not the Real World.

So I suppose water found on the Moon as portrayed in the third story would not consist of hydrogen and oxygen as described?

psik

 

[kennychaffin]

So I suppose water found on the Moon as portrayed in the third story would not consist of hydrogen and oxygen as described?

psik

That's not the point and you know it.

I'm outta here, carry on.

 

[vrabinec]

That is why I gave three examples for use as reference and said they were only about evaluating one characteristic. I should not have said category. Other books would have to be used showing variations in other characteristics.

There is no escaping some subjectivity but at least this would supply references and characteristics for what people were being subjective about. If someone says some story is AWESOME, how does anyone know what about it he thinks is awesome? What if another reader does not care about that?

psik

So what are your catagories? Plausibility of the science? World building? Character development? Pace? Complexity of the plot? Readability? Quality of the turns of a phrase? Quality of the fictive dream? Sufficiently smooth mental flow of the POV character? Believability of the dialogue? Solid use of tag lines? Avoidance of tropes? Adequate number of characters without using too many? Satisfying end? Quick enough development of the plot lines? Quanity of the science? Comedic interruptions? Right amount of violence? Right amount of romance? What else?

 

[Seli]

The solution is not pigeonholing all books out there, although tags might help.

The solution is knowing how reviewers align to your own tastes. Perhaps with a few reviewers with different priorities. So that you can make your own correlations. If reviewer A likes it, B does not for reasons I don't care about, C hates it, then I probably like it as well. If all like it, I'll probably be disappointed etc.
The problem is you'll need to calibrate the reviewers and using random reviews won't help you.

 

[psikeyhackr]

That's not the point and you know it.

I'm outta here, carry on.

No, I do not understand.You have no idea what I know.

Personally I get the impression that a lot of peo0le who claim they like science fiction do not like science. No one has ever admitted that but I cannot comprehend what they say any other way. So at the very least I am uncertain.

I understand that the stories in science fiction are fiction. But I also understand that writers of that fiction can put accurate science into them. Larry Niven even admitted that he consulted with Isaac Asimov to get things correct in The Mote in God's Eye. I am simply saying that there is wide variation in the quality and detail of the "science" in science fiction and the vast majority of the reviews I read do not mention that aspect of the fiction. Some writers put in a lot of details about their "fictional science" but then make it behave like real science.

That is why I selected those stories and brought up that characteristic.

I admit there are other characteristics which reviewers discuss. But I am only discussing that one aspect at this time.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

So what are your catagories? Plausibility of the science? World building? Character development? Pace? Complexity of the plot? Readability? Quality of the turns of a phrase? Quality of the fictive dream? Sufficiently smooth mental flow of the POV character? Believability of the dialogue? Solid use of tag lines? Avoidance of tropes? Adequate number of characters without using too many? Satisfying end? Quick enough development of the plot lines? Quanity of the science? Comedic interruptions? Right amount of violence? Right amount of romance? What else?

I should have said characteristic instead of category. I am using those three stories as archetypes for how writers implement the "science" in their stories.

Other stories would have to be used to demonstrate other characteristics.

psik

 

[vrabinec]

My bad. I missed the post where you ammended it.

 

[Hitmouse]

I think that several arguments are geting conflated here.

• Categorisation is useful for encyclopedias etc, and for looking up or cross-referencing stories, genres, tropes and what-have-you. The great SF encyclopedias provide good examples of this, with concise essays and critiques as well as helpful references.
  
  
• For most people, the quantity, hardness, and strict accuracy of science in SF does not necessarily correlate with the quality of the fiction. Clearly one's mileage will vary, but I guess that the majority will not judge a work on whether or not the ray guns recoil when fired (as we have done in threads passim.)

 

[vrabinec]

[*]For most people, the quantity, hardness, and strict accuracy of science in SF does not necessarily correlate with the quality of the fiction. [/LIST]

Agreed on quantity and hardness, but accuracy is something that drives me nuts, if it's not there, usually to the point that even a well written book gets a low grade from me. I know it's being anal, but it's not called "science be damned fiction". At least make the effort to do that. No Road Runner physics, please.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I think that several arguments are geting conflated here.

• Categorisation is useful for encyclopedias etc, and for looking up or cross-referencing stories, genres, tropes and what-have-you. The great SF encyclopedias provide good examples of this, with concise essays and critiques as well as helpful references.
  
  
• For most people, the quantity, hardness, and strict accuracy of science in SF does not necessarily correlate with the quality of the fiction. Clearly one's mileage will vary, but I guess that the majority will not judge a work on whether or not the ray guns recoil when fired (as we have done in threads passim.)

I never said the hardness of the science fiction corresponded with anything else about the story. If anything there seems to be somewhat of an inverse relationship in SF in general. People that know science don't tend to be good writers and the good writers don't tend to know science.

But It does relate to the usefulness of science fiction in encouraging kids to read it. Of the 3 stories I selected I "like" @2 the best but #3 has the hardest science but #1 and #2 have the most similar stories but #1 was nominated for the Hugo. So adding more characteristics to be evaluated would seem the way to go to me.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

Agreed on quantity and hardness, but accuracy is something that drives me nuts, if it's not there, usually to the point that even a well written book gets a low grade from me. I know it's being anal, but it's not called "science be damned fiction". At least make the effort to do that. No Road Runner physics, please.

It's not being anal. I think there are plenty of readers who just can't recognize bad science so it doesn't bother them. But they also regard themselves as intelligent and well educated. Personally I think my science teachers were smarter than most of my English teachers. But then they make us take 4 years of English in high school and only two of science and the most we could get was three. In general this society convinces people that knowing science is not that important but if you just look at the changes over the last 50 years you can see that science has pushed a lot of them.

So people who practically object to good science in SF books make no sense to me, like, "What's up with that?"

psik

 

[kennychaffin]

....

But It does relate to the usefulness of science fiction in encouraging kids to read it. ....

psik

Kids don't read fiction to learn. Kids read fiction for entertainment.

Kids who are interested in learning science read science books.

The amount of "real" science in SF books has nothing to do with it being attractive to kids to read, in fact with the current public attitude towards science, it is more likely a repulsive factor rather than an attractive factor. And the market seems to be bearing that out.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Kids don't read fiction to learn. Kids read fiction for entertainment.

Kids who are interested in learning science read science books.

The amount of "real" science in SF books has nothing to do with it being attractive to kids to read, in fact with the current public attitude towards science, it is more likely a repulsive factor rather than an attractive factor. And the market seems to be bearing that out.

I didn't read my first science fiction book to learn either. But that doesn't mean I didn't learn anything. But I didn't have any adults to offer suggestions either.

It seems some people were thinking differently from you in the 50s.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.3730430106/abstract

But then the creators of Star Wars said it WAS NOT SCIENCE FICTION in 1977. So it appears the standards of sci-fi have changed since the 50s. That is part of my point.

I decided to return back to physics Professor Peter Beckmann’s office and finally bring back what he meant by our culture’s lack of language to describe and relate to quantum mechanics, a topic he mentioned in the introductory Quantum Mechanics course last year that went unanswered and unquestioned at the time.

“ Can science fiction be used to teach science? ” I inquired.

“Of course, ” he replied. “Good science fiction looks at all rules of reality, the rules of physics, and breaks [one] rule.”

Although mathematics defines most principles, there remain physics concepts that can be channeled from lab applications to the humanities where they can be taught to a wider public. The laws of physics are invariant with respect to reference frame. In that sense, there must be an agent to drive a change, a cause to an effect. Causality becomes the break to the rule in Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five. As Billy Pilgrim, travels out of order in time, experiencing his death somewhere or sometime during the plot story, he is not experiencing causality which is in violation of physics laws. It would be fantasy, something that is not real and may not be defined or understood scientifically.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/12270

Sounds like you may be afraid kids might learn something and then enjoy it and learn too much.

psik

 

[kennychaffin]

I'm not afraid of anything. I'm just pointing out the problems with your proposal and your reasoning and couldn't let that one pass.

Hmmm..... 50's huh? that's what almost a century ago ... if my math is right...

Wasn't I just saying something about the current public attitude towards science...I'm sure I was.

 

[Hitmouse]

People that know science don't tend to be good writers and the good writers don't tend to know science.
psik

There is a lot of crap written about science by ignorant fools but there is also some fabulous prose (not necessarily SF) written by folks whose understanding of science is unimpeacheable:

Redmond O'Hanlon
JBS Haldane
Richard Dawkins
Jared Diamond
Simon Singh
Ben Goldacre
Jonathon Miller
Arthur C Clarke
Edward O Wilson
Primo Levi
Simon Cox
etc etc etc

 

[kennychaffin]

and of course Carl Sagan
and I'd add Loren Eiseley

 

[psikeyhackr]

There is a lot of crap written about science by ignorant fools but there is also some fabulous prose (not necessarily SF) written by folks whose understanding of science is unimpeacheable:

Redmond O'Hanlon JBS Haldane Richard Dawkins Jared Diamond
Simon Singh Ben Goldacre Jonathon Miller Arthur C Clarke
Edward O Wilson Primo Levi Simon Cox etc etc etc

I think Ray Bradbury was better as a writer than Arthur C. Clarke. But I almost universally prefer Clarke's stories to Bradbury's. I like the writing of Hyperion but I only read it because it is so popular and wanted to know what the big deal was. The sub-story I like best, about the archaeologist ageing backwards, was the most ridiculous scientifically. I would not recommend Hyperion as good science fiction. Mack Reynolds is one of the worst writers that I like but would still sooner read his stuff than Andre Norton.

It is a matter of reader's priorities. In this case I am not interested in the quality of prose that is not SF. But I think the evaluation of writing would be even more subjective that judging the "relevance" of the "science".

So has anybody read or listened to any of the three stories I listed. They are all available as audio books also. I care about the quality of the writing in non-fiction even less than I do about that of SF.

psik

 

[DDCOrange]

The reason I dislike lists, rating systems or even characterizations is that they can't help but be subjective. It's the point of view of the person creating the list. Why a five letter rating system? Why not three or seven or twenty-eight? It all just sounds a little extreme without a primer. Why not just say why you like or dislike a story and I'll try to respect your opinion? That works better for me than some grading acronym.

You obviously have some very strong opinions about what Science Fiction should be. All the science should be realistic and intelligently portrayed and comprehensible. Yet to many, many others if you have interstellar travel, some spaceships and a couple of ray guns, you have Science Fiction. My personal preference is somewhere in the middle but that opinion is subjective also.

If we really want an objective list, define what we are grading (realistic science for example) and have everyone who's read the book or short story submit a score between a low of 0 and a high of 5 and grade the relevance by the average. Subjectivity will creep even into this system but the scoring is likely to be more reliable.