Hardy Science Fiction

For the last decade or so I have seen a change how some consumers view science fiction and fundamentally misunderstanding it. The core argument is that something isn’t science fiction after all, despite being labelled so for numerous years, if not decades prior, because it’s not realistic, or the science that it supposes simply couldn’t happen. Sidelining Clarke’s law about Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, for now, this is a patently false view on science fiction. It does, however, fit hard science fiction, a sub-genre of science fiction that is all about diamond-hard fiction without breaking the current understanding of science. By their very nature, their view on science will be obsoleted in a few years as science advances, they’ll turn what some people call soft science fiction.

Haldeman’s Forever War is a personal choice of work if I need to recommend a book with power armours and time dilation

The audience knows that the science presented in a science fiction work is largely fictitious. It’s part of the silent agreement with the author, where the viewer has been presented more or less a world where some elements are more believable than others regarding science. Some stories, like The Andromeda strain, stick extremely close to the guns and doesn’t veer away from possible reality. The suspension of disbelief happens with the whole point about a virus coming from outer space and being able to evolve like it does in the book, the rest what science fiction is at its core; it asks the question What if… SF handles concepts more than straight fantasy does, though SF in itself is a branching genre from fantasy. While fantasy is about grand themes and builds upon those themes, SF explores concepts. For example, in Asimov’s short story Jokester a question was passed to Multivac, a Superintelligent computer, where do jokes come from as they seem to be something that everyone tells, but nobody truly invents. To spoil over this sixty-year-old short story, the end result Multivac ends up coming with is that all jokes humanity tells are by some other extraterrestrial power that is implementing jokes into humanity as a control device. It also came to the conclusion that when the first human figures this out, jokes and humour would cease to be implemented as the testing has now been sullied and a new factor would replace it. Multivac in itself isn’t the science fiction element in this short story, nor are the god-like extraterrestrials, but the concept of humanity being used as lab rats. Asimov took a look at the concept and wrote a small story around it with a humorous, even if dark, angle. Similarly, Haldeman’s sequel novel Forever Free to his masterpiece Forever War was ultimately about the same concept with completely different kind of approach and realisation.

Asimov’s Foundation follows this the same kind of path. To describe the works shortly, it is about how to shorten the Galactic Dark Age that follows after mankind’s Galactic Empire falls. How the Galactic Empire, or how it has formed, how people interact across the planets and so isn’t the science fiction part, neither is the fall itself. The fall, in actuality, is merely background material and is based on the fall of the Roman Empire. That parts historic, not SF. The part that makes the Foundation series pinnacle of science fiction literature, something that makes it practically unadaptable, is psychohistory; a fictional field of science that combines statistics and psychology. Through psychohistory, one can make accurate predictions on how large groups of people will act based on those people and surrounding events, as long as they remain unaware of the analysation. The modern field of Big Data largely follows the same ideas, but in practice, the two are very different entities. Psychohistory is the fictional science element that in itself is a concept worth exploring. It opened more doors for Asimov to explore from how one group of people could control others through representing technology as a kind of religion to how it all can be taken down by one element that isn’t in the calculations. Asimov is famous for setting rules and regulations to his works with Laws of Robotics being his most famous. What most people don’t realise is that Asimov extensively explores these concepts and their failings to the point that his works alone are the best arguments why the Laws of Robotics are flawed. Similarly in the Foundation series, he explored how one inhuman element, a mutant, can throw a monkey wrench to otherwise perfectly working system. He then proceeded to explore how such things could be prevented or perhaps even corrected. Space travel and all that is merely flavour and the background to which the main dish is served.

While many news has stated teleportation to be science fact, its practical uses are still extremely limited, if not completely impractical

Similarly, Star Trek is often seen as a science fiction show because there are people in space going swish in a space ship. A hard science fiction writer wouldn’t be placing any space vessels outside our own solar system, as the science we have now doesn’t give any realistic methods to achieve even proper portions of the speed of light. We’d run out of time if we’d begin to travel interstellar space, the distances are just too large to get across. Star Trek could be said to be the archetypical positive work of science fiction, asking what if humanity had socially evolved to be a benevolent entity. Much like Asimov, many episodes question the Federation of Planets’ standards and ways of living to creator Roddenberry’s chagrin. Star Trek as the wagon show set in space itself could be regarded as science fiction, though much like with other popular SF works of the time, it gathers science facts of the time and makes assumptions in order to build that veneer again. The science in itself may be spotty, yet the function of science was aimed to be valid. The writing team employed some NASA members to ask what was possible and what wasn’t, but as with anything, the story comes first. Captain Kirk fighting a giant green lizard may seem hacky and laughable, yet at the core, the episode is about two completely alien cultures being forced to face each other to the end. The episode takes the initial What if… about humanity being able to become a force of good and reach the stars, challenging it in face of death and destruction, then given the possibility to destroy this malevolent force. Little things in Star Trek have become reality in a way or another, like the whole thing about portable phones and communicators. In the same manner, Orwell’s 1984 is effectively the opposite of Star Trek‘s positive view and explores the possibility of the world becoming a totalitarian hellhole akin to the Soviet Union. The telescreen technology is a possibility, but that is simply a tool to be able to tell the story through, much like how thought policing is.

While Mobile Suits may be unrealistic, FLAG’s HAVWCs are probably the mos realistic depiction mechas to date with their own specific applications on the field

Mecha, giant robots, is often taken as a method to tell an SF story. However, just like Star Trek, mecha is the framing device for the main dish. It’s the flavour something is painted in. One of the best examples can be found in Mobile Suit Gundam, in which most people would coin mechas and space set to be the whole SF thing. However, the main SF element in Gundam is exploring the next step in human evolution; the Newtypes, humans with an extra sense of space and time that they are able to share among each other. The space setting is necessary, as the show asks What if humanity would need to evolve in space, and how it would proceed. Then it explores what political and social implications it would yield to mankind in the guise of a war story. You could change the mechas Gundam to something else, powered armour or space tanks, and it’d work just as well. However, remove Newtypes and the core structure that holds both the setting and show’s concept together falls apart wholesale. Much like how Asimov explored the faults of his concepts, Gundam has seen numerous entries questioning the validity of humanity being able to share their thoughts across space and time. Yes, everybody knows mechas like Mobile Suits are impossible, impractical at best. That doesn’t take away the fun and interest in building on the idea and enjoying the flavour, basking in the intricate designs and history built on the already set up fiction.

As mentioned earlier, science fiction will always grow old. If SF work emphasize is mainly in the science or how it works based on then-current understanding, it’ll always be out of date. Giving a fictitious explanation based on the scientific method will always age better. Simply leaving something important unanswered often leads to weak world-building. Jurassic Park is an example of a work with extremely detailed and well-maintained world-building and explanations for its science. It is also an example of a work that, despite being heavily rooted in science that was possible, it is now an example of a work where we know about dinosaurs and cloning so much that the book is out of date. Nevertheless, this doesn’t take anything away from the story itself, or from the question What if humans were able to bring dinosaurs back. It brings more than just that on the table and explores more than one concept, like certain applications of the Chaos Theory. SF Debris did an excellent series on Jurassic Park this summer, which I wholeheartedly recommend watching.

The Lens itself could be considered a true and tested SF trope in itself, it being a sort of shared supercomputer

Even older works of science fiction seem rather weird to our modern eyes. For example, the classic Lensman series of books by Doc Smith has no computers in them despite an extremely advanced form of space travel that can cross galaxies and even dimensions. Everything is done by a slide rule, which is an analogue calculator. Or if you want to use the term used for people who used to compute numbers, an analogue computer. Some of Asimov’s earlier works lack computers as we understand them as well. Some of Asimov’s works began to include the aforementioned Multivac supercomputer but described some of them taking the size of whole planets. This was as according to science as understood at a specific time when it was assumed that only a few computers would be built due to their sheer size. Nowadays we have computers in our pockets every day that would have been considered impossible half a century ago. If science doesn’t have answers at the time to a problem a writer has, fiction has to take its place. The writer has to come up with a fictional explanation to the issue that hasn’t been solved or doesn’t have an answer. We can imagine many things based on popular culture and relevant science, but if neither presents any relevant information, we can’t imagine such things existing. There are things we can’t imagine existing because they haven’t been invented yet, nor has the science they’re based on. To use Lensman as an example again, it plays with the concept of negative matter. Not anti-matter, but negative matter, which would react the opposite it as it was interacted with. For example, if you pushed it, it would move back towards you. Anti-matter would be detected only later and its properties were found to be wildly different, but Doc Smith had some foresight into a concept of opposing matter. Lack of any kind of knowledge on the papers, however, forced him to use his artistic license. Even things like warp drive have been suggested to be a possibility, namely with the Alcubierre drive, but even in this, some elements are missing. The drive would necessitate negative energy and anti-gravity, neither of which Einstein’s theory of relativity considers impossible. In practice, it may be, but there hasn’t been any conclusive evidence to either direction.

Science fiction expects the science found in the work to be fictitious. Unless it is hard science fiction, the science itself does not have to be real, merely consistent with itself and the established scientific method. However, it is always taking back seat the moment the story needs it to. Star Trek, despite its science mostly bullshit, is largely consistent with itself. Nevertheless, what the scientific concept ultimately truly is often isn’t all that clear. Spaceships, lasers and all that we consider as old tropes in the genre used to be new and cutting-edge ideas. A raygun was a valid concept in the form fiction often describes it, before further exploration in the technology ultimately deemed it more or less impossible due to materials and physics involved. Material science, science overall, evolves at its own pace, always improved by necessity in burst-like motions. Many times we don’t even consider small things in our lives to be the end result of massive leaps and bounds in technology and science. The fact that we have a small diode, smaller than the size of your fingernail, now being able to be brighter than the sun and lit up a whole room. I’m looking at an old lightbulb on my desk I found today in my mother’s storage and wondering how this more than twenty-year-old bulb can last less time than my LED bulb, how it eats more energy and yet gives less light. The concept of itty bitty lights in a torch from fifty years ago is now a reality. The way science fiction, in general, represents its impossible science doesn’t matter, but what it does with its concepts and how it tells its stories, is.

Does fiction have the right to be fictional nowadays?

Around a year ago I had a discussion with my friend about his upcoming book. The book’s going to be about humanity in space to continue his ongoing series. He aims to stick with realism with the spaceship, as in no fighters, high speeds and the ship was supposed to a have ship-long cannon that shoots stuff. Of course, there wouldn’t be hyperdrive because faster-than-light travel is unrealistic. Ohwait.

At one point we began discussing jet fighter designs in fiction, or rather what we had scribbled during our free time. The difference in the designs was that his was (arguably) more rooted on realism, whereas mine was more fictional. The arguments went from me having variable geometry wings that swept front and back as well as having them “the wrong way” ie. forward swept. His design was basically a flying wing, a tailless delta. Sure, Boeing has given out some concept art on what the next generation of fighters might look like, but we can’t really know what the next gen fighters are until they’re here. Chinese J-20 is a delta configuration fighter, and the Sukhoi PAK FA follows the suit, but the thing was that the design he had proposed was… well, to put it bluntly, it was uninteresting and rather ugly without any of the interesting bits  real jet fighters have.

I felt really bad at the end of that discussion. He had clearly put a lot of work and thought behind his plane drawing, but so had I. The difference was just that I did something fictional in a fictional setting, and he was aiming for realism and didn’t like my approach at all. This was the second time I had to ask myself whether or not fiction can actually stay fiction nowadays? Why can’t fantasy be fantastical? Should different fictions become tales of series of facts? From science-fiction to science-fact…

The same question lifted its head last Sunday when I was watching Skyfall, the newest James Bond film. There’s a scene where the new Q says that they don’t do exploding pens anymore. Why don’t theydo them? Are they too expensive to manufacture? Have they been too hazardous? Why would they take away a piece of equipment that has saved lives of their agents multiple times around? Then, sitting there, I realized that what the film was saying to me was that it was too silly for this hardcore realistic setting. I liked the film alright, but my countering reaction to this one scene pointed every un-Bond characteristic of the film to me; less actual spy action, the wholly grim and dirty way certain things were made, the movie logic of finding an unchained chain on top of a moving train and discarding a handgun when there wasn’t any reason to do so. While Skyfall might be arguably better a film than its predecessors, its worse as a Bond film by far. Drop the British accent and change the main characters’ names, and you’d most likely end up thinking that it’s just another spy flick we’ve seen during the last ten years.

Is it that the skill to suspense one’s disbelief has been lost? No, people still watch more traditional fantasy movies and do not complain about anything. While I do like sword and magic stuff, I’m always bothered how certain points are presented. Magic especially, which has very few and rare good examples how it works in any given franchise outside certain video games. I do like how Final Fantasy VII presented them as power summoned through gems that are connected to the very life of the planet. Kalevala is my favourite over all in that it is the skill of singing that determines what happens and how strong. [Editor’s note: And the skill of using the power of words, too, in general. I always liked that too.] Then we have something like the Lord of the Rings, in which magic basically allows you to light up a light in your staff. Actually, Gandalf didn’t have to stay back on that bridge at any point. If we go by the movies, the bridge would’ve given away because it clearly wasn’t strong enough to carry a hulking hellbeast.

While some things just bother me in fiction, I can say “OK, this works as explained.” Why should I think more about it? Within the universe of this story this things exists like this, and there’s an explanation. Good, I’m content that they gave a reason for things to be. Now let’s see what the story does with these things.

I find extremely jarring when people ask me Why thing X exists in the story when thing Yis more realistic. Not because I don’t like to explain and give out information, but because most of these people are already in the point of not accepting any explanation because of their own idea what should be in their stead. Open mind is a golden virtue I do recommend for everyone to have, as it will not strain you or your conversation partner. There are also people who simply do not like something, and only wish them to go away within a setting, like the mentioned magic in some cases.

Overall, I found it dumb to complain about something that is fictional. Giant robots will never be reality or realistic, and yet we have loads of stories about them. Actual deep space travel will most likely never exist and yet my friend is writing about one. Vampires, werewolves and all other mythological things are not realistic at any point and yet we have dozens of franchises surrounding these entities. I never complained about Twilight having vampires because vampires are unrealistic to have and yet I’ve always wondered why the hell are vampires portrayed so badly in them. Truth to be told any author has a “right” to portray fictional characters as they please within their own works, even if it’s completely stupid. They design the characters and entities to work the way they do, and the audience has the final word whether or not the designed characters were good.

I don’t bitch about wuxia movies for having completely unrealistic fight scenes, rather I’ve sat down and enjoyed what’s going on in the scene.

There are some stories that are badly written and do not explain a thing. In stories there always needs to be a proper reason forwhy something exists, but even then the reader needs to have the suspension of disbelief to accept the explanation. Yet, it’s still fiction. If the explanation flows well in the story, why should it matter any further? Are we in such a sad point in history that we can’t enjoy what’s presented in front of us and ask something to be completely tied to realm of reality?

If so, then why are some of the most popular TV-shows so unrealistic in their approach to realism? For example, House would’ve been fired long ago from his job because of how he acts, no matter how good he is. Dexter has even less reason to actually go as long as it has, as there is no perfect murder, especially the way Dexter shows them. That, and the police investigators are not nearly as clueless as the show makes them to be. Don’t let me start with CSI or similar shows that just make my head hurt.

Honestly, I’m a bit pissed off now. I was completely calm before writing this and now I want to strangle a kitten. If you want your damn realism and things always making every kinds of sense, watch the news and go to the real world… and even then there’s far too many things that just don’t seem to work like they should.

Just… just accept what the story is giving at the time, and go with the flow. People should just enjoy stories first before starting to analyse them from every and all angles. This is rather difficult overall, when we’re taught to analyse everything from the ground up and pick thins apart bit by bit. It has become… well, the main way people can enjoy things any more. If you would start analysing Dredd 3D, you’d find it rather lacklustre film, but if you just enjoy it without starting to pick every little detail and error here and there, you’ll see that it’s a damn entertaining movie that has pretty kickass 3D effects (opinions way vary on that.) Enjoying things the way they are rather than thinking through them is a skill we lose as we grow. I wish more people would re-learn this skill a 4-year old has.

As such, fiction may still be fiction. We just need to stop thinking in limited way of it and start allowing the impossible to be possible. After all, that’s the case most of the time.