Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Rants and Stuff => Topic started by: readerMom on March 03, 2008, 07:19:43 PM
-
I read a book recently where the whole book revolved around a mad scientist type of quantum physics gone wrong thing. It really irritated me, ruined the whole book, even though the plot (except for that little science bit) and dialogue and characters and most of the other writing was pretty good, but the science was so awful I felt like yelling at the characters that they were all idiots. I had to rant at my husband later about how stupid it was, which brings me to the point of this post:
So at what point does science become a stumbling block in a book/movie/TV show for you? I was thinking that there seems to be a spectrum. At one point are things that not everyone knows, but are definitely true. A lot of detective fiction uses those. Then there is the other end where the science is completely out there and may as well be magic. Once you accept the transporter beams and faster-than-light travel, everything else is easy. Where in the middle does it get irritating, and does it matter how much you know about a given topic? For example, does Jurassic Park really irritate biochemists or someone who knows how much work it would take to replicate a dinosaur while those of us who have no idea can pass it by?
Thoughts? Examples? Rants?
-
The science in a science fiction book for me doesn't have to be "real" or "true" but plausible. If I can believe that some strange things/event/devise/mode of transportation could exist if the circumstances were right I'll buy into it. But that's the same with the "magic" system in a fantasy story. A good author will take these fantasical elements and make it real/believable for that story whether it be science or magic.
-
I agree. What is irritating is when someone throws in a few buzz words like quantum or quark and then expect the reader to go along with whatever else they come up with.
-
I don't usually care about the science as long as the story is good. My problem is with bad history. I hate historical fiction that has things blatantly wrong or sets a modern character in a historical setting. Bah! It makes me angry just to think about it. (Specifically, I'm thinking of Ever After. I hate that movie.)
-
I'm with Sigyn on the History bit. Da Vinci Code irritated me to no small degree. Of course, it has other problems, too.
-
I'll take the bait and rant . . .
So at what point does science become a stumbling block in a book/movie/TV show for you?
If, for the sake of the story, light is a particle and they never mention that it also has properties of a wave, I'm fine with that.
I guess it depends on how integral it is to the plot.
Also, unless the POV character is the scientist you can always explain it away as a confused or ignorant POV character. :) Perhaps my hero needs to learn a little more about technology -- "The woman raised her delicate arm and pointed the small plastic object at the TV. I wasn't sure if the TV was mesmerized by her beauty or if the small plastic object was some sort of destructive weapon. In any case I realize that the TV had acquired sentience because it hastened to do her bidding and immediately changed channels."
At one point are things that not everyone knows, but are definitely true.
I'm a doubter. The non-fiction science book I recently listened to bugged me each time the author said, "scientists thought [some out-dated notion] but they now know [current fashionable notion]."
It's like Lord Kelvin a hundred years ago pronouncing that scientific knowledge was nearly complete, just a few loose ends to tie up. Smugness bothers me more than "error."
You say "definitely true" and I say "really?" You say "mostly true like Newton's Law of Gravity" and I'm a little more comfortable with your declaration.
Then there is the other end where the science is completely out there and may as well be magic. Once you accept the transporter beams and faster-than-light travel, everything else is easy. Where in the middle does it get irritating, and does it matter how much you know about a given topic? For example, does Jurassic Park really irritate biochemists or someone who knows how much work it would take to replicate a dinosaur while those of us who have no idea can pass it by?
Seems like the point of SciFi is to extrapolate advances, i.e. things that now seem difficult or impossible are suddenly easy or at least doable, and what are the ramifications of such advances. If you're talking about Space Opera, that's a different matter.
If I wrote a story that included faster-than-light travel I hope I won't have to accurately explain in detail how to actually build a faster-than-light ship. If I was that smart I'd stop writing and start building the ship. However cool my story might be it would be a lot cooler to be zipping through the galaxy. :)
I think that what does bug me (which is probably what you are saying and I was just misunderstanding because of my unconscious need to be disagreeable) is a bunch of hand waving, vague explanations that are supposed to be scientific and are meant to add credibility to the story when it appears that the writer didn't bother to learn anything about the subject. If they had even looked up the subject on wikipedia they'd have realized how inane their "scientific explanation" was.
-
I found a science thing that bothered me, not because I think the science would be impossible, but because they had a change in technology that seemed impossible. In Sharon Shinn's Archangel books, they start out at about a medieval society level with some leftover technologies from a more advanced age. In the second book, which is supposed to be about a hundred years later, an inventor figures out how to fix nerve damage in a woman's limb with a mechanical device. I could see the device as being possible, but not with the level of technology they should have been at.
-
I think that what does bug me (which is probably what you are saying and I was just misunderstanding because of my unconscious need to be disagreeable) is a bunch of hand waving, vague explanations that are supposed to be scientific and are meant to add credibility to the story when it appears that the writer didn't bother to learn anything about the subject. If they had even looked up the subject on wikipedia they'd have realized how inane their "scientific explanation" was.
Yes, exactly, you phrased it better and more clearly than I did, thank you. I recently was given a box full of books that I normally wouldn't read. In addition to the book that caused the above rant I found another one with an Atlantis twist that was extremely disappointing. The author found out one interesting fact about the mantle of the Earth and then put a lot of really old, tired cliches about people living in Atlantis (they are all incredibly beautiful, young, scientifically advanced, etc.). I know they turned out to be evil in some way because it was a thriller but I couldn't get far enough to find out what it was. They probably use regular humans to somehow fuel their advanced society, since that is the cliche that fits in with everything else.
I think I got spoiled by reading good science fiction and fantasy that the author has put a lot of work into so it is internally consistent and makes the reader think, e.g. Brandon Sanderson. Then I read bestsellers/thrillers that are just retreads of stuff already done and I get irritated. I guess I'm just cranky.
-
It is the nature of bestsellers to be horrible, clichéd stuff. Why We Read What We Read points this out.
-
imo if its something that you know is absolutely scientifically impossible, but the author has a good reason and explains it well, i am fine. An example is in the psuedo sci-fi/detective story Alien Taste. The main character is actually an alien that can trade memory for regeneration of limbs. Also if his finger gets blown off it turns into a talking mouse. It was ridiculous but the author did a decent job explaining it so i bought it.
-
I think explaining it well is the key. You have to make me believe something ridiculous, I'm not just going to accept it because you just stuck it in there.
-
This theory holds true with any lie. You can make someone beleive almost anything as long as you put it correctly and back it up with the right amount of information. The back up info doesnt have to be right it just has to provide the illusion that there are facts to back it up. With any good story its not the how or why most of the time I mean in a good fantasy I can be just as happy with a deffinition like "thats just the way it works" Like author David Eddings and the Will and the Word you dont know why it works it just does and you dont really question it because its not a focal point as to why it works. If you cant explain something than at least downplay it
-
Wow Monsta, you just described about 80% of Media coverage in today's society. I believe Colbert dubbed it "Truthiness" - a statement so powerful that it can not be challenged by mere facts.
-
This begs the question, if it is so pervasive in the media, why does it seem lacking in certain areas of fiction? Perhaps not having facts to avoid makes it more difficult.
-
You know Darx I failed to make the connection until you pointed it out but your right. Colbert got it on the nose. Who needs facts any way? I certainly don't!!!
-
Exactly, you need to know the truth in order to twist it, or even avoid it completely. Then, you have to keep saying the truthiness statement over and over, so more and more people who don't bother to do any research, or who are looking for reasons to validate their beliefs (usually the same type of person), will latch on to it as truth and continue to spread it, like a virus. A great example of this is how the same people who think the president is a moron also believe he was somehow able to deceive the General Assembly, 90% of the U.N., and the American public into going to war with Iraq. He must be an idiot Savant! :)