Which of these stances towards science fiction do you most agree with?

I’m with #1.

Ditto on #1.

I’m number #2

#3 You are an ignorant writer when it comes to science and need to pick something else.

I don’t do science fiction, but sometimes I have to alter the facts for the sake of the story. The main point is that you have to know what can be altered and what not. So another vote for #1.

I also want to add a #4: if your story is good enough and the inaccuracies are kept at acceptable number, your readers will be forgiving for the inaccuracies.

I’m a writer, not a freaking scientist for God’s sake!

1. That’s why it’s called science fiction.

Number two I guess. Making a story that revolves around scientific accuracy can’t be too hard if one at least respects the basics. And if the technology you’re writing about expands on what is currently available or doesn’t exist outright, you can make shit up based on the facts you know. Least it comes from something real, or a popular idea, like time travel.
I mean you shouldn’t have to be a scientist to write sifi, but you shouldn’t feel that you have to sacrifice anything for the sake of story. The story is what you’re making up.

Once you mess with the laws of physics, you’re no longer writing science fiction, you’re writing fantasy.

So, #2 if you are writing pure science fiction.

There obviously can’t be a stipulation that the technology must already exist – but it must be possible for the technology to exist.

#1! That’s why it’s called science fiction!

I’m with @Yetanotheruser. It’s the same reason I enjoy fantasy. I know magic isn’t real, but I still like reading about it.

The rule of writing science fiction is that if you do go against the laws of known science, there needs to be a valid explanation to explain away the obvious discrepancy.

How to NOT do it is in the movie, Gravity, in the scene where George Clooney’s character breaks away from Sandra Bullock’s character from the tether. George had stopped moving and there was no force up there to push him away again, but yet.. there he went. I stood up and YELLED at the screen and was pissed off for the rest of the movie. (I think I yelled, ‘That wouldn’t happen!’)

How to handle it well, was in the book, ‘Contact’ by Carl Sagan. (the movie got too ‘spiritual’ for my liking and I wanted to slap Matthew McConaughey’s character in the face a few times.)

I’m fine with things happening in science fiction that we can’t currently explain, but DO NOT let things happen that are obviously breaking the laws of physics under non-suspicious circumstances that can’t be explained away in the plot somehow.

We discuss this often in my science group. If you want more information, you can read about some bad examples here: http://all-that-is-interesting.com/sci-fi-movie-blunders

Instead of making things up when facts can be used to explain, use facts. You may find the facts sound more interesting than what you could make up. A friend recently asked about a free fall from high altitude into a supercell storm and my boyfriend was able to explain how lightening could possibly interact and how updraft would possibly suspend or even push up a falling body and that hail would be more of a threat than lightening. Things my friend writing the story hadn’t thought of but by adding these interesting ‘real’ facts, he could add much more excitement and interest for the reader.

@cazzie
Great answer.
The movie “Interstellar” had similar problems.
Now, I have no issue with all the wormhole, relativity and black hole stuff, or even the alien constructed tessaract inside the black hole.
What I had a problem with was the basic rocketry and orbital manoeuvres they depicted.
– What kind of engine and fuel are they using for the landers and dropships? No mention of that is made in the movie.
– How come the spaceship around the first planet does not start to malfunction after 20 years in orbit?
– And worst of all, why does a small explosion during Mann’s failed docking attempt push the ship into a decaying orbit, and almost immediately no less?

I didn’t see that one. It sounded ‘missable’.

Isn’t the category “fantasy” there for those not willing to labor within the confines of physics? I always figured that was the reason the 2 genres are always lumped together.

There are so many “holes” in the movie “Gravity” that the conversation is boundless, and only a non-scientist would attempt to tackle so many riddles and paradoxes in an attempt at adventure. I can just imagine the technical advisors squirming at the sacrificing of the core learned dictums of their professions to accommodate a 2 hour plot. Still, ambitions aside, the movie deserves credit for at least attempting to visualize some of the great speculations directly ahead of us.

It’s fiction for a reason, picking it apart says more about you than it does the feature.

I am still wondering how the Wilbe-Was drive works and when we will have it available in a hybrid model with “17 lo-pro wheels

Years ago, I was reading a story by Phillip K. Dick, who is widely considered one of the best Sci-fi writers. In this story, which took place in the future, the main character is angry, and decides to write a letter. He wants to keep a copy, so he reaches in the drawer and gets carbon paper… Well, I howled at that. Does that mean he is a terrible writer, since he failed to see one of the first technological improvements? No. He simply lacked the vision to see it.
“Gravity” is just crappy writing. There are dozens of slap-your-head moments, and the story just isn’t compelling.
So, my answer is a combination of 1 and 2. The writer doesn’t need to foresee all advancements, or completely get the theoretical science, but the story must make some sense, and not trip over the obvious.

but then again it’s possible to be a great writer, and suck at science. After all, not one in a 1000 viewing the results can call you on it
.

I don’t really think people should be writing science fiction if they have no understanding of science.

My boyfriend gets phone calls all the time from tv producers asking the dumbest questions about physics and lightning. One of the latest ones was from the History Channel and they wanted to know if American Forces could have used directed lightning strikes to destroy German tanks in WW2. I think he put them on hold so he could headdesk.

@Mariah I agree. But there are people all over the place earning a living from writing on things they know little or nothing about.

@cazzie
let me guess: was it for the show “ancient aliens”?

@ragingloli I don’t think they specified and he was too busy for another idiotic conversation so he didn’t even ask.

@stanleybmanly If it’s just a living for them then fine; if they want to create good art, they need to be writing about things they know. That’s one of the classic rules of writing….write what you know.

Agreed

I mostly agree with #1. Remember Arthur C Clarke’s 3 laws:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

#5) It may be true that sometimes there may be a good reason to bend scientific accuracy. Often scientific accuracy is not needed. But then again, there is a huge range of degree between just being somewhat inaccurate, and being blatantly incorrect, and even further down that path are stories that are not self-consistent or that are almost impossible to make sense of. And sadly, it seems like many people tend to leap straight to the end of that range, sometimes intentionally as if their brain just heard “fantasy isn’t reality” and went straight to “so it’s good if it makes no sense” or “there’s no reason to have anything be at all realistic”.

As for “If you have to sacrifice scientific accuracy for a story, you suck at writing”, that’s also not logically correct, though of course both things could be true, and I may tend to not like what you write if you lean farther than I like down the range I mentioned before. There is however a more moderate thing like this that I do agree with, which is that if you choose to have something be inaccurate, inconsistent, or not make sense in a story, it’d be best to do so for a reason other than “because fantasy”, and if that is the answer, then I’d rather the author owned it and made it blatantly surreal fantasy, rather than having it seem semi-realistic, but just get stuff wrong. So if there is a simple way to get the same desired result in a way that makes sense, and the author chooses instead to just have it not make sense, then I find that to be highly annoying and strikes my as lazy, apathetic, and/or poor quality.

The middle-ground sci fi does tend to really annoy me, where it’s presented as being semi-realistic, but really they don’t care and have many things not make sense when easy changes could make it make much more sense.

Same for non-sci-fi, too, such as action films that pretend to be serious and semi-realistic, but then just have ridiculous things that would never happen happen. Totally undermines my interest in the film and annoys me.