Should science fiction literature be plausible?
Isaac Asimov wrote several sci-fi books in the early 1952 under the name Paul French. These novels were primarily aimed at youth, and were moderately successful.
A few years later, Asimov began writing more serious sci-fi under his own name.
A reviewer back then wrote: Astounding reviewer P. Schuyler Miller described it as “fast-moving space opera of a type we all know, with no particular regard for scientific plausibility.”
So my question: Does sci-fi need to be plausible? Are there limits to implausibility?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
58 Answers
I’m uncomfortable with the word “should” being applied to any sub genre of fiction, except maybe it “should be engaging.” That said, I personally appreciate a degree of verisimilitude to my science fiction, but that excludes implausible universes I enjoy like Star Wars (which is arguably more fantasy than science fiction).
I certainly prefer realistically possible, but I’ll enjoy it anyway. Sometimes books or movies make plot turns that are such nonsense I have trouble getting past it.
On the other hand, sometimes writers fail to imagine the future in silly ways. I read a Philip K. Dick story, set in the far off future, where a character gets so angry he decides to send a complaint, so he sits at his typewriter and pulls out the carbon paper so he’ll have a copy.
To answer the Q as presented: not necessarily. Over the last 50 years the genre has expanded so much to include a mass of different styles, philosophies, points of view. If your preference is hard science, there are a number of outstanding authors that cover that, and by the tenor of your question, I am guessing that you know who they are.
If one’s preference is for the more philosophical, again many choices.
Fluffy? Then borderline fantasy is well represented.
Remember, in the beginning, science fiction was called speculative fiction and it took off from there.
I like that there is so much diversity under the basic umbrella called science fiction.
Remember some of the great classics of SF are way more allegorical than science, like Dune, but Herbert also wrote The White Plague, which is much more of a scientific “what if” kind of exploration.
Nope. One of the things about Science Fiction is that it is Fiction. It is bouncing ideas around. To say it has to be scientifically plausible is silly. At one point H.G. Wells wrote a book called First Men In The Moon…a story about a trip to the moon. This was written around 1900. The Wright Bros wouldn’t do their first flight (which lasted 12 seconds) until 1904. Yet we (humans) did go to the moon and out into space. Stories about robots happened long ago…long before the first robot was ever considered to be something that would be plausible. I still remember the Dick Tracy having his 2-way wrist watch…a precursor for what ended up being smart watches. Sci-fi is ideas. Some are totally unbelievable and highly impractical and improbable, but others make someone down the line think “How could that be done?”
There is a big place for plausible and implausible.
I think the word fiction answers the question? If it has techobabble bullshit and it is fiction then….. no, I do not believe it needs to be plausible in order to be sci-fi.
But I hear about “soft” science fiction and “hard” science fiction, and they are two different things.
So “hard” science fiction is probably more plausible than, say, Star Trek, which tries to be way more sci-fi than it really is. (soft sci-fi?)
But you could argue Star Trek is still sci-fi, because even though it is all made up, it tries to offer scientific explainations- some of which is based in reality and is plausible
Of course. It’s called “suspension of reality.” This allows people to imagine it all realistically, and still relate.
It’s an art.
It depends on the reader, and/or what the writer is trying to do.
Plausibility comes in a wide range of levels, and can involve many different mixes of topics.
For example, many people reject much sci fi because they find the characters unbelievable.
Each reader has their own set of sensitivities to the plausibility of different topics. Though, some readers have near-zero concern for plausibility, or, they say they do.
But in sci fi in particular, for many readers such as myself, the appeal is about exploring a fictional situation in a plausible way. So for example I’m interested in a story set in a reality where some technologies that don’t currently exist, do exist, or there are aliens, or magic, or whatever . . . but then I want the rest of it to make sense and follow logic and reality. When authors decide nothing needs to be plausible, I lose interest very quickly.
No, of course not. Most science fiction is not plausible (for example any science fiction that depects faster than light travel is bullshit). It just needs to work in its internal story lines.
It depends.
On SOOOO many variables.
I guess, mainly, I want to be entertained. If something is entertaining, I will allow myself to overlook a LOT.
Other times, the inaccuracies can become a distraction.
I LOVED “The Expanse.” One of the things I loved about it, was that it tried really hard to make everything plausible.
A lot if science fiction, becomes fact. Jules Verne’s books would be an excellent literary example too.
Ask MythBusters to review each book for plausibility or if they consider it Busted..
What is “plausible”?
Warp drive is allowed by relativity. As are wormholes.
The multiverse is allowed by the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
higher dimensions are allowed by string theory.
teleportation has been done in the lab on an atomic scale.
If humanity decides to exist in virtual worlds matrix style, it’s all plausible
@Caravanfan…of course it’s implausible, and that is where a gifted writer shines. They make it SEEM plausible. They suspend reality for the reader.
It has to be internally consistent with the physical laws described therein.
^You mean, like in the movie “Gravity,” where gravity was inconsistent? ;)
All the Physics in that movie were inconsistent.
Yeah. That movie sucked. And it had 2 of my favorite actors in it.
Gravity was a big ol’ metaphor, set in the mind of a person crippled by grief. As such, it was very well done.
^Really?..
I only watched it once, I think I lost interest quickly, and I was around a lot of distraction.
I couldn’t get past the fact Sandra’s hair wasn’t effected by zero G. Since it was a lot of her talking, it was a constant distraction for me.
I’ve not heard, it was a dream or something…I’m not disagreeing.
That would certainly change my opinion of the film.
We should have paid more attention @MrGrimm888, cause I missed that too.
^Thank you!
I’m reevaluating my whole life!
Oh no Mr Grimm! Let us know what you come up with!
Not necessarily a dream, but from her perspective. Hallucinations, overwhelming circumstances and obstacles to overcome, and at the very end she rises from the depths to walk into the sunlight. Pretty heavy handed, there.
I found it interesting that Tyson dissed “Gravity” (missing the obvious) and everybody then thought it was crap, got castigated for that; then he said he liked “Interstellar” and everybody loved it. Cuz, you know, the idea of Love as a means of interdimensional communication is so scientifically valid. Not to mention the interpretation (or lack thereof) of how dramatic tidal forces would affect human flesh.
I was glad when he stopped reviewing movies.
@canidmajor Interstellar is a far better movie than Gravity but I am with you on the science though. I saw Interstellar again a couple of days ago in IMAX and it was incredible.
@Caravanfan I preferred Gravity because I found the complexity of the story line more compelling.
Good thing it’s all subjective so there is an audience for all the work!
That scene in Interstellar with the massive wave resulting from the black hole was one of those moments in cinema that I will never forget.
The Physics and visuals in Interstellar were stellar! The only exceptions were the single stage to orbit spacecraft and the ultimate solution being: love.
Especially on that higher gravity planet. I was thinking single stage might be a stretch also.
@RocketGuy I’m going to majorly quibble with you here on the physics being stellar thing. It was, in fact, terrible. But the graphics were terrific, I agree.
@ragingloli Thanks! I’ll put it on when I am next at a computer for an extended length (maybe during an image processing session)
@ragingloli Those things may be theoretically possible. And in an SF story, it’s ok to make up things that there’s no theory for. But those things are the premise of the story. And, hopefully, they’re interesting ideas. And what’s interesting to a four-year-old, or someone who knows almost nothing about physics, for example, might be quite different from someone who’s a few more years mature, and who has interest/care and knowledge in how things do and don’t seem to work.
To be clear, I don’t mind bad physics in films or stories. As long as the story is internally consistent I’m fine with it.
@Caravanfan Yeah, for example, I quite like original Star Trek, Star Wars, and Doctor Who . . . and I don’t like later most Star Trek, Star Wars, nor Doctor Who!
Partly because the later ones are inconsistent with the ways things worked in the original versions.
And partly because many of the newer ones don’t make sense to me (even if they had been completely new series), and/or are impossibly stupid.
Star trek the next generation was great. There are only three Star wars movies in my mind. The later ones were so bad (In every way) that I just pretend they don’t exist.
Bet Bones wasn’t even a real doctor!
@Caravanfan Oh I know, but scifi is more about the fi than the sci. I want a good story to escape in.
Best one was when they hooked up with Spock as he was growing up on that weird planet.
@Blackwater_Park Then we’re agreeing. I’m okay with bad science in sci fi as long as the story is good. IMO the best Star Trek story ever was the one where Jake Sisko ages and meets up with his dad through the years.
I absolutely LOVE Star Trek.
The science part is bullshit but it at least tries to be more science fiction. I still consider it more scifi than Star Wars, even with the made up bullshit. They pretend to have reasons while in Wars you just accept it for what it is.
It is why it’s called fiction and not science non fiction. But gatekeepers will gatekeep.
I would always take anything science with a grain of salt, because you know…. fiction. So I never understood this debate.
^^ not calling anyone here a gatekeeper, my apologies it came off that way.
I am just more loose with the definition of the genre. I have seen internet debates where people get fired up like you would not believe.
Star wars is fantasy set in a scifi-ish universe. It’s fantasy with technology. Mystical forces, space wizards, struggles of good and evil…
Never seen it to be honest.
Basically just know what I know from 2nd hand information.
@SergeantQueen Most of the Star Wars franchise is crap. The original 2 movies are the only ones worth seeing, although you’ll need to see the 3rd to complete the story even though it sucks. And the problem with seeing the movies is that George Lucas criippled them with his revamping of them. But they’re still worth seeing.
(To be fair most of the Star Trek movies are crap also).
Return of the Jedi crap? Blasphemy
I will say that Empire carries the entire franchise though.
@Caravanfan RotJ had the rancor scene, the speeder bikes in the redwoods, and the redemption arc for Anakin was moving (at least for me). It certainly had plenty of flaws, but “sucks” is extreme.
@Caravanfan big agree. New Star Trek fan. Have seen the first 4 and 2 and 3 were the ones I like the most.
Motion picture sucked. Voyage home is not good but it made me laugh and Chekov asking for directions to the nuclear wessel will always be my fave moment.
Want to talk about Sci-Fi being plausible?
Slingshotting around the sun in order to go back to the 90s and kidnap two whales is peak.
The Wrath of Khan is the only REALLY good Star Trek film. I’m an “original series” guy although I do like TNG, DS9 and Voyager. I’ve hated most of the current Star Trek products, although Strange New Worlds is okay. My one exception is, unlike most Star Trek fans, I do like the JJ Abrams Star Trek.
@gorillapaws Don’t forget the Star Wars Christmas Special. Although the Rifftrax of that is fucking hilarious.
The Wrath of Khan made me cry. Seeing that shortly after losing my mom hit hard. “How we face death is at least as important as how we face life.”
I am halfway through season 5 of TNG, but I agree, OG series has a soft spot in my heart. It got me hooked.
That is all I have seen so far, still new but I am going to watch everything.
It is an escape for me so I do not mind if it is not plausible :)
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
