The Sword and Laser discussion

I'm in the middle of reading Earth Unaware and I keep getting distracted by the poor physics in the book. The book keeps talking about the dangers of traveling at a certain speed as if the characters where on a speed boat in the middle of the ocean. I'm assuming they don't have enough fuel for constant acceleration. At one point there is even a reference to traveling 7,000 kph. I immediately thought "relative to what?". There are a number of good sites out there specifically for readers so they can get their physics right.

My first impulse to the question you initially pose is "story first - always!", but as with any absolute there is a caveat. Whenever it affects the readers' suspension of disbelief it becomes a problem. The same with movies (Prometheus, anyone?)

A lot of SF writers feel the need to include scientific-sounding jargon to make it feel like SF but I think that in this age of readily accessible information stupid mistakes are pretty unforgivable. It isn't like you need a physics doctorate, just simple fact checking, as you would writing about any subject in which you aren't an expert. Hopefully, someone who had never been to Venice setting a story there would do some research rather than just make it up. And you can leave it out, as many authors do - Sheri Tepper springs to mind.

Or make shit up and have it work like magic, as long as it's internally consistent - wormholes, FTL drives and anti-gravity are SF staples, after all - but leave out the details that will destroy the illusion.

I guess a lot of stuff is very much of its time and you have to give it a pass. I remember reading E. E. 'Doc' Smith's Lensman books in my early teens and when he described the operation of the 'inertialess drive' just blinking and taking a moment to make room for it to be feasible.

I believe that scence fiction or fantasy do not have to be "realistic" or "naturalistic" but it has to be convincing

When we see a illusionist on the stage we all know he does not really cut his assistant in half, but it is no excuse to not to make an effort to make it more belivieable. Suspension of disbelief is a delicate balance, created both by reader and the writer.

We, readers come with a mindset ready to be convinced the moment we start reading. To make it a smooth ride, writer should make the necessary effort, build a sound structure of make-believe reality from (not necesserily facts but at least) semi-logical probabilities that fit together.

Depends.

I think this is what we call the infodump and there are elegant ways to present it and blunt ways to present it.

And even presuming the latter, some people, for good or for ill, read SF for those qualities.

I'm very much a story first kind of guy. If I want to read hard science and physics, there are plenty of peer-reviewed journals out there to cure my hunger. Give me good story. I'm not going to get hung up on a few misplaced decimal points or the bending of certain laws of physics.

Of course everyone's different. For example, I am a huge lyric person when it comes to music but there are many people I know that could care less about the words.

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."

I am more than willing to forgive technical liberties taken if the story is there. And as an engineer, I can spot lots of technical errors in books (and movies). I tend to just ignore them for the most part. But of course, there are always limits to what can be accepted or not. So it just depends on the extent to which the so-called "rules" are being bent or broken. If you go too far outside the bounds of reality, even a good story can be ruined.

Of course, it also depends on how serious the story is trying to be. I don't think anyone faults The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy for being scientifically inaccurate. :)

Rasnac wrote: "I believe that scence fiction or fantasy do not have to be "realistic" or "naturalistic" but it has to be convincing"

I would say the same.

However, I think it must be said that what is convincing to a reader like me (someone with a limited education in science), may not be convincing to a more specialized reader (someone who has the scientific background).

Being a scientist (ok, I'm an engineer, but my training is in science as opposed to engineering), I get distracted when a story's science is overwhelmingly bad. I prefer that the story comes first but also want the science--if not consistent with the laws of physics as we know them---to at least be self-consistent within the novel. If a novel is telling me that it's taking place in some parallel universe, I'm OK with the physics being different. If they're telling me it's earth 50 years from now, it needs to not contradict basic physics.

I find infodumps distracting. I also find it distracting when scientist characters don't act like scientists (see: Prometheus or Flashforward).

In Greg Egan's Clockwork Rocket he has an alternative universe with different rules of physics. I assume it's consistent.

I think books with bad science can be doubly fun if they're still well written. You can enjoy them the first time for the story, then you can enjoy poking holes in the bad science. Double the fun!!

I don't mind accurate science in my sci fi but at the same time I don't want lengthy dissertations on how something works.

For instance in Leviathan Wakes there is something called the Epstein drive that powers ships around the solar system. It clearly is fast enough to get people around the solar system in a matter of weeks but its staying in the bounds of probable science by not creating some sort of fantastical thing like warp drive or wormholes. And best of all when someone asked the authors how it worked they simply answered "very efficiently."

I appreciate that in LW they put story over the science even while keeping science in mind.

I don't expect writers to go an invent a working FTL drives just for their novels, but it wouldn't hurt them to try to be a little more inventive and imaginative, being influenced with current technologic advancements and to come up with interesting ideas. Victor Hugo did it and his imaginary machines turned out to become realities of 20th century; same goes for A.C.Clarke. Today's science-fiction seem to be stuck with some sort of hyperdrive-wormhole-hyperspace pattern. Most writers just recycle old ideas for robotic technology, interstellar travel, energy weaponry,post-apocalyiptic earth, cybernetics and posthumanism, cloning and genetic manupulation,virtual reality and cyberspace. I only see a few new ideas about nanotechnology. Sci-fi writers should beware that future is already here, they should be more daring to imagine even further ahead and come up with new concepts.

I believe in story first and foremost, but the science behind the scenes needs to make some amount of sense. Or, as others have said, at least be consistent. (For example, I have no problem at all with the physics of Discworld.) I appreciate it when author has put some thought and time and effort into the background, even if they don't spell it all out for you.

John Scalzi talks about how he tries to make his science "two questions deep". You can ask him about something, and then one followup question. Then anything deeper than that he doesn't worry too much about. Here's a post where he talks about it: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/08/21...