Suspending disbelief in science fiction? (AKA how science-y should my science fiction be?)

[Kirstin]

Hi guys!
I'm starting work on a science fiction story and I've love some advice. I'm no scientist by any means and am really struggling with the amount of "science" I should include. I know this sounds stupid, but please hear me out.

My specific situation:

My setting is ~150 years in the future, set in space. I want to include themes from computer science, cosmology, and the plot is loosely based off of the Brane Multiverse theory. I'm no astrophysicist and while I do know a lot about programming & computer science, there's so much research to be done that it's intimidating and I am positive I will get at least a good portion of the science wrong.

Science and technology change so rapidly! I'm worried that the science I use in my story will get debunked or disproved and THEN where would I be?

In general I'd like to know:
-just how science-y do you like your sci-fi?

• Do most people even care if the science is solid?
• How much can I reasonably expect my readers to suspend their disbelief
  -If the science is solid and well researched how much of it should I explain??

-Is it better to just go full-out fantasy if you don't understand a lot of the science behind your world and are likely to get things wrong?

-Should you even blend fantasy and sci-fi (ex: i loved the movie "gravity" up UNTIL they totally jumped off the sci-fi theme and said the real science is LOVE and it can do anything i mean come ON)

Would really appreciate advice from science fiction authors and readers

[yueu]

I don't know where I saw this (it may have been on this very forum) or the exact wording of the post, but I read a piece of advice that went along the lines of 'if you confidently portray your world and reality without doubting yourself, your readers will not doubt you either.'

Considering I don't read a lot of science fiction you should probably take this with a grain of salt, but I doubt readers will try and nitpick your logic/facts/sci-fi elements? Since it is fiction after all, you're probably free to make up your own laws of science without being questioned too much. Say your sci-fi world is one where they have found a way to switch gravity on and off. I doubt anyone's going to jump in and say, "no, that's not possible!" I would assume everyone is aware that it's a science fiction story and there are going to be elements which are not true to science in the real world, and as a result find that as a perfectly acceptable component of the story.

I've considered writing sci--fi before, and to be honest I didn't research too much into real sciences. I just made up my own imaginary scientific explanations to imaginary scientific occurrences. And about the explaining part; I would only explain how much is necessary for the reader to understand the concept to move on with the story. If the explanation's not needed to advance the plot or contribute greatly to the story, then I wouldn't say there is much point to including it since it can seem tedious and boring.

Of course, this is coming from someone who is more interested in the plot of a story rather than the technical details and actual science behind science fiction. Hope my input is somewhat helpful nonetheless!

[Neila]

"In general I'd like to know:
-just how science-y do you like your sci-fi? "

It depends on the story. Some things work better as more hard scifi with all the science details based on current info and theories BUT some stories can be just as if not more enjoyable as a more flexible scifi where things can be a bit grey. It depends on how you present the story. You may have to experiment to determine which works best for your particular story.

"Do most people even care if the science is solid? How much can I reasonably expect my readers to suspend their disbelief
-If the science is solid and well researched how much of it should I explain??"

Most people, even those with a more science background, are usually willing to suspend disbelief for a scifi story. They know it's not non-fiction. Hopefully they're reading to enjoy it.

The second question here is tough. It is difficult if not impossible to know what a reader will think when they read a story. If it helps, try to find a beta reader or two who can give you some feedback while you work on the story.

If the science is solid and well researched try to not bog readers down with info-dumps. I've tried to read some hard scifi that just loses all momentum because suddently there's three pages explaining how an Alcubierre drive works. If you can space it out within the narrative so the information makes sense as it's being revealed. This also is a good way to introduce readers to the world and characters of your story and something I need to work on more myself.

-Is it better to just go full-out fantasy if you don't understand a
lot of the science behind your world and are likely to get things wrong?

Again, this depends on the story. I have a book about a character from a parallel world who gains supernatural powers while she's on Earth, but only has them while on Earth. Even the people from her world are struggling to understand how the mechanics of that ability work, but they have a solid understanding of nanotechnology, and antigravity tech. You can certainly mix and match scifi and fantasy elements. If you don't understand a lot of the science, try to read up more about it or talk to people who do, but remember when Star Trek first had tablet computers in Next Generation it was initially to save the prop department money rather than to invent a futuristic computer. It inspired people to make a device that fit that niche. Sometimes it's okay to be fuzzy or vague on how the science/tech works.

-Should you even blend fantasy and sci-fi (ex: i loved the movie
"gravity" up UNTIL they totally jumped off the sci-fi theme and said the
real science is LOVE and it can do anything i mean come ON)

I don't see why one shouldn't blend fantasy and sci-fi so long as it works for the story you're telling. I haven't seen Gravity, but it sounds like that was a bit out of left field as a twist so it acted as you're 'Flying Snowman' as it were. For a good example of a similar trope being done a bit better in a scifi/fantasy movie look at The Fifth Element. The real power in it to defeat the evil? Love. The movie is full of aliens and energy weapons and spaceships too. It all depends on whether it works for your particular story.

I hope this helped out! I haven't been very active on the forums but I am going to try to do better.

-Sarah "Neila" Elkins

[solhawthorne]

I find this is a topic that falls to personal opinion most of the time. I personally like my scifi more sci than fi, and my father refuses to watch any movie that has sounds in space, but I think most readers of scifi enjoy literature across the spectrum.

As mentioned above, there are some definitive "don't"s - like explaining to unnecessary detail, whether it's real or fake. Also, don't contradict your own science. If you come up with your own set of rules in a self-contained universe, you better abide by them!

There's also the fact that if it's not a part of your story, you don't need to talk or worry about it at all! World-building should always be second to the story itself. The science can add some cool polish, but none of that matters if we don't care about the characters and their goals!

[Michelle]

The good news is, your story takes place so far into the future that you probably won't to be around to see how wrong you were about technology! Mine's only ~30 years into the future so one day I'll have to face how much I missed the mark on my futuristic ideas :'D

Personally I'm happy so long as the story gets EXISTING technology right. Past that, I can more easily suspend my disbelief. But if they go wacky 90's style hacker tropes, or treat technology like it's magic, it's a little hard to take seriously. I'm far from a technology/science expert, but I do my best to do my homework. So long as you understand how the world works, your readers will likely follow along. Most people don't want a lengthy info-dump on how your spaceship's fuel tanks run, they just want an intriguing story about your characters.

As for fantasy mixing with sci-fi, that's up to personal taste. Some folks like hard sci-fi where everything has a logical/scientific explanation. Personally I find that too limiting; I like mixing otherworldly stuff in. Especially when you have a genre that's so rooted in what can be explained, it makes it more fun to throw in weird paranormal or fantastical elements.

[alaingrey]

At a certain point, science is somewhat close to magic. If you had to explain to someone from 1600 what your smart phone and the internet are, the end result would be essentially "it just works. It's magic."

That said, science fiction is called "science" fiction for a reason- and that's that it should at least have some basis in reality. I think full on fantasy should be avoided, even if some of the science is dubious. Then again, I'm a longtime hard sci fi reader. I don't like space operas or stories that use a science fiction as drapery and avoid telling a story about science. To me, fantasy in science fiction cheapens the experience and feels lazy. On a good side, a lot of readers seem to prefer it, especially younger teenage and female readers like tapastic has. Stereotypically, it's older guys who seem to not like fantasy and science fiction mixing.

Depending on where you post your sci fi comic, there's a lot of readers who won't hesitate to rip things to shreds, but that doesn't seem part of tapastics culture, probably due to the younger audience.

[shazzbaa]

i loved the movie "gravity" up UNTIL they totally jumped off the sci-fi theme

This is key, imo. Literally nobody is mad that Star Wars has the Force, despite its story being dressed up with sci-fi paint, because the Force is a major theme of the story and fits the established feel of the world from the beginning. But if the story had been all about Luke's skill as a pilot of a futuristic vessel and the implications of the sort of technology that can destroy entire planets, and then at the final climax he just put his targeting computer away and Used The Force, we'd be extremely unsatisfied.

If you set up your world as a Very Sciencey world where Following Science Rules matters, then you'd better do your homework. If you set up your world as Science-Flavoured, then folks who aren't pedants will be okay as long as you don't just shove bad explanations in there.

An Example:

• Almost No Explanation: "This story takes place in a world where pills/implants have been developed that can enhance your mental capabilities." -- This is fine! You don't have to know the exact science of it. A lot of times, Sci-Fi focuses more on societal implications of technology rather than the exact workings of that tech, so as long as your depiction of the society that would result from this change in tech is believable and realistic, we'll be along for the ride to see what you have to say about it.
• Poor Explanation: "This story takes place in a world where pills/implants have been developed that let you unlock the other 90% of your brain, enhancing your mental capabilities." -- this is where it becomes cringeworthy: when you've made a half-hearted attempt at throwing some psuedoscience in to justify your tech upgrades, we roll our eyes because we know for sure that's not how this works. We might stick around anyway, but we'll definitely be more nitpicky about it.
• Thorough and Relevant Explanation: "This story takes place in a world where pills/implants have been developed that increase production of [relevant brain chemical] simulating [relevant mental disorder] to achieve increased performance on a number of mental tasks that was previously impossible. However, as would be expected from the use of [relevant chemical], there are potential downsides etc etc etc" -- If you're passionate about the specifics, and the explanation is relevant, then it can be really cool to delve into the science of it. How the teleporter in Star Trek works can matter, because the specific way it works raises questions about whether or not it's really You that beams up on the other side -- a relevant ethical question to ask about that technology!
  But if it's not relevant, the difference between "in the future, we've developed teleporters" and "in the future, we've developed teleporters that work because [exhaustive technical explanation]" isn't really all that significant. If it doesn't have any implications to the way the tech would be used or how it would impact the world, then imo it's not worth spending a whole ton of time on that kind of explanation.

[RobinComics]

Hi!

I actually worked on a Sci-fi comic it was a lot of fun!

-just how science-y do you like your sci-fi?

I've read that there's a scale to measure the hardness of a Sci-fi story.

Example: a character is shown a machine for traveling into the past and asks, "How does it work?"

In soft SF: "You sit in this seat, set the date you want, and pull that lever."
In medium SF: "You sit in this seat, set the date you want, and drive to 88 mph."
In hard SF: "A good question with an interesting answer. Please have a seat while I bring you up to speed on the latest ideas in quantum theory, after which I will spend a chapter detailing an elaborate, yet plausible-sounding connection between quantum states, the unified field theory, and the means by which the brain stores memory, all tied into theories from both Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking."
In really hard SF: "It doesn't. Time travel to the past is impossible."

I personally love Hard SF I love reading and eating up all the science behind the technology in the story.
Though this usually works for movies and video games but for comics it might lead to too much exposition.

So I went with medium SF it allowed me to explain the technology just enough where it didn't overwhelm the reader. It also allowed me to get away without explaining the science behind certain moments without having the readers suspend their disbelief.

Do most people even care if the science is solid?
It really depends on the reader. I think science fiction is a really niche and passionate genre. So generally i think readers really want the science to be on point! Otherwise it's just fantasy right?

**How much can I reasonably expect my readers to suspend their disbelief
-If the science is solid and well researched how much of it should I explain??**

This one is pretty tough again it just depends on the reader. For example Star wars, Mass Effect and Destiny are all Sci-fi with "fantasy" elements and have moments that the reader really needs to suspend their disbelief for a moment. All of them achieve this to a varied level of success but, they all make it out in one piece.

Oh! Science and technology change so rapidly! I'm worried that the science I use in my story will get debunked or disproved and THEN where would I be?

Personally i think you shouldn't worry! There's plenty of Sci-fi stories where spaceships travel through black holes and have other ridiculously outdated premises. Yet they are still a blast to watch/read! Also the story taking place 150 years from now also gives you the opportunity to bend some of the laws of science. It is after all Science fiction!

I hope this was of some help!

[nixxusnibelheim]

I absolutely love sci-fi (i'm no scientist though haha) but I hate when the audience torch a movie because of his (intented for some cases probably most cases though) inacurracy... As long as your setting have this "science" feeling, I don't really care about accuracy probably because I don't know anything about science haha. And I'm more lean toward the "fiction" part, the "it could happens but not really" because it is what ultimately make sci-fi stuff interesting for the general public.
It all depends of the audience you are aiming for.

But I would say, if we can make the comparison with how human behave because we are all kind of expert in this matter. If a character is stupid, stereotypical...well, we tend to not like it. There is so many movies/series/comics that everyone love even the "pseudo smart people" but those stories actually portray human being in a not realistic way but we are willing to look away because it's damn good.

[Mari]

It depends on the tone of your comic, or if it's purely scifi or scifi-fantasy (like star wars etc). If the comic has a light comedic tone to it you could scratch including most of the science (I.E the fifth element, complete nonsense, but it does not portray itself seriously). But if you aim for a serious story you should cherry pick what you include, and be sure to research those bits that you include well, since whenever a scifi story takes itself seriously it ups the expectation on the science crap to be atleast somewhat accurate, or it will flop (like Titan A.E or Wall-e to some extent). For example, if you were to include aliens, it's important to think about what circumstance (cultural or otherwise) would lead the aliens to look that particular way. It's fun to design monsters but why would they ever evolve six legs or tentacles on their nose or whatever else.

Though, I'm definitely in the minority on this, and I'm real anal when it comes to scifi lmaoo.

[hisameartwork]

Hi Kirstin!

I like to do hard science, and I general recommend fantasy writers do hard magic as well. The more thought you put into your work the better, no need to explain it though , just show it. Write tomes of world mechanics just for yourself.

For science yes you can get disprove, but that is ok. Asimov made anotations to his books where he said where he got it wrong. G RR Martin said sci-fi fantasy is just furniture, what is important is to make a compelling story... and the most compelling is in his view " the human heart in conflict with itself".

Hope it helps ^_^

[NullVoided]

I read a few Sci-Fi comics and I generally feel that as long as you stick to the rules you lay down or have some reasonable semblance of a mechanic to work as a reason for what happens, most people will be fine. Just don't push the boundaries too far or it starts to devolve into ass pull fodder.

[Sadko]

Personally, i believe that every source of fiction has a grain of truth to it. So, as long as you dont sit here and rename common science things, like calling beakers floobadoos and chemicals are owiesmellies, i think your ok. Make some of it realistic, have some real science words in it, make it sound smart. Even rick and morty has some real words and science now and then. You can make up stuff, sure, totally, go crazy with that, but dont rename things that already exist. Thats my opinion.