Tag Archives: sci fi

ST:TOS, TAS, TNG, ENT

If you knew immediately what the title of this article means, you are almost certainly a Star Trek fan. You also know that a full list should contain DS9 and VOY. (And that, actually, there should be a ST: in front of each of them.)

If this all seems alphabet soup, here’s the deal. They’re all three-letter acronyms (TLAs) for the six different Star Trek TV series. This first article today begins “Star Trek Saturday” (a one-time event) here at Logos con carne. There are two or three ships still in dry dock… (big voice: …In Space) getting finishing touches for a launch later today.

To tantalize your taste buds, I’ll just mention that they concern galactic energy barriers, transporters and replicators. Those are ships of war; photon torpedoes loaded and primed. There is a third ship with a different mission that may also launch today. (Tantalized? Terrific!)

Continue reading


SF: Distress by Greg Egan

It’s official, I really like science fiction author Greg Egan!

Egan is among the modern science fiction authors; his first SF work, the short story Artifact, was published in 1983, so he’s been writing SF for about 28 years. Like many science fiction authors with a science or technical education, he writes non-fiction as well.

And here’s the thing: If you like your science fiction hard, you want to know about Greg Egan! He writes SF as hard as any I know. For instance, consider a novel (Incandescence) in which a key plot thread involves alien beings discovering (Einstein’s) General Relativity in a completely different way than Einstein did. He reminds me of Hal Clement on several levels, particularly so in the novel I just cited, as part of it is told from the aliens’ point of view (a common device in Clement’s work).

According to Wikipedia, Clement was the “leader of the hard science fiction sub-genre.” I would go along with that. There was a lesser-known author, George O. Smith, who wrote some extremely hard SF back in the day of radio tubes (the 40s). Venus Equilateral, a collection of short stories, is a must-read if you’re a high-tech SF fan, especially if you have any background in radio or electronics. Communications in space. With radio tubes! But I digress. My point is that Greg Egan could easily be the modern leader of hard SF.

And while I’ve only read two of his novels, a couple short stories and parts of his website, I’m hooked. It’s not just the ultra-hard SF; I like his writing and his characters, and I really like his ideas. Some of his stories involve alternate realities with different physics than ours. Others involve extremely advanced civilizations far in the future (for example, when we’ve conquered the galaxy and transcended our physical bodies to live as software).

Recently I read his novel, Distress. It was so engaging I read the entire 454 pages in one day (even missed the start of the ballgame). It’s hard not to get hooked on a novel that begins:

“All right. He’s dead. Go ahead and talk to him.”

That’s an opening that begs for explanation!

It turns out that the mystery behind those lines only serves to introduce the story’s main character. This opening scene involves a bit of science fiction that doesn’t have much direct connection with the main plot; it’s not unlike the opening scene of any James Bond movie.

Yet the level of hard science detail and imagination behind this “throw away” scene is impressive, and it’s what makes Egan’s work so attractive to geeks such as I.

I’m not going to explore the book’s plot; you can get a bit of that from its Wikipedia article (admittedly a scant description) or from Mr. Egan’s site (which also doesn’t have much plot detail). Better yet, just read it and let it unfold.  The Wiki article does at least touch on that this book is no mere adventure. As with all really good science fiction, the adventure is just wallpaper to the social commentary.

For one example, in the novel’s future there are five recognized genders among humans, and Egan introduces the neo-pronouns ve, ver and vis (for he, she, her and his) to accommodate gender-free speech.  I couldn’t help but remember a high school English teacher who offered the class an instant A for the year to anyone who could  come up with decent, useable gender-free pronouns.  I wonder if he would have accepted Egan’s?

There are some other parts of the book I want to mention. The first concerns the role of technology in modern society:

“It was a technical advance worth communicating, worth explaining, worth demystifying. … Once people ceased to understand how the machines around them actually functioned, then the world they inhabited began to dissolve into an incomprehensible dreamscape. Technology moved beyond control, beyond discussion, evoking only worship or loathing, dependence or alienation. Arthur C. Clarke had suggested that any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic…”

While the novel takes place in the future, many people today have no idea how most of the technology that fills their world actually works. No idea at all. It’s not like having some vague idea about how a car engine works (and I imagine many people don’t). It’s seeing your cell phone or computer or TV as—literally—indistinguishable from a magical device.

Another part I want to remember considers the difference between religious and scientific pursuit. A character poses the question, ‘If modern human culture was wiped out, and the human race had to start fresh, what kinds of religious and scientific structures would be build?” That character goes on to suggest that the religious structures would likely differ considerably from those today. One proof of this might be the differences among modern and past religions.  On the other hand, the scientific structures would likely be very similar to what we have today. Mathematics, for example, is a universal language once the meanings behind the specific symbols are communicated.

The author’s point, obviously, is that science is based on the real world, and therefore all scientific structure converges on that reality. Religious structures, however, are deemed purely social inventions, and their structure depends on local social viewpoints.

If we do live in a godless universe, then the above is certainly true.  If we don’t, then one presumes that religious structures would tend to converge on their reality.  And by one account, you can argue they do: As I’ve mentioned before, all religions seem to me to share the twin ideas that (a) there is more to life than all this and (b) what you do in life, how you are, matters.  I might also argue the human tendencies to feel love and awe also reveal the fingerprint of something mystical.

Regardless, science does have the important and progressive feature of converging on the real world over time. Eventually phlogiston and epicycles and mysterious Pioneer accelerations reveal their incorrectness. It turns out that neutrinos do not go faster than light (not that anyone actually thought they did)!

Egan’s background in science gives his work a solid hard-sf foundation that I love. As I mentioned above, Incandescence deals with the invention of General Relativity! How cool is that?  (If you’re an über-geek, it’s mega-cool, even giga-cool.)  Distress involves the discovery of the “TOE” (Theory Of Everything) and what happens when you discover such a thing.

I will say that in the final chapters the scope of the book expands in a way that I have a little trouble with. Just not a fan of that sort of thing, I guess. Still, for any hard-sf fan, Distress, and Egan’s work in general: Two Thumbs Up!


Star Trek vs Star Wars

You may have heard about the recent meme battle between Princess Leia (played by the very interesting Carrie Fisher) and Captain Kirk (played by the equally interesting William Shatner). The battle prize: which is “better,” Star Wars or Star Trek?

It began with a photon torpedo fired from the Enterprise. The warhead contained an anti-Wars payload of roughly one-quarter Mega-grin:

Continue reading


Why I Hated The Holodeck

This is a rant about an aspect of Star Trek that always bugged me: the deadly, dangerous, ridiculous Holodeck! If it seems familiar, you may have encountered it before. I wrote it back when the show (Star Trek: The Next Generation) was still running (1987-1994) and published versions of it then and later in various online venues (FidoNet, USENET, some websites). Long-time friends will certainly recognize the rant if not the writing. If you were on the net before the web, and you hung out in Star Trek places, you might have stumbled over this.

Continue reading


SciFi: Two Important Things

And then there was one.

Last time, I wrote that my definition of science fiction is fiction with science + imagination. And that the science is freely defined to include guesses and completely made up, if not downright illegitimate, physics. In fact, that’s the imagination part of the equation. The fiction part is also freely defined, but basic story telling rules should apply. The science part must also play by certain rules, even when it’s made up science, even when it’s illegitimate

This article is about how I view the science and fiction in science fiction when it comes to playing by the rules. (Keep in mind that science fiction is art, and in art rules are made to be broken.)

Fantasy lovers take heart; in this case, my definition of science includes magic, the supernatural and the metaphysical. This uses the context of speculative fiction, which includes everything beyond current physics. The  fiction canvas is framed by any physics, or metaphysics, the story requires. Warp drive is no more real science than vampires or Norse Gods; all of them are fiction.

Anyway, there are…

Two Important Things (to me) in Science Fiction

The fiction part has to not make me mad.
The science part has to not make me mad.

In the end, it’s that simple; just don’t make me mad. Just don’t force me to recognize that what I am seeing has aspects that are preposterous. My suspension of disbelief is mighty, but not invincible. Don’t cut my cable; don’t take me out of the moment. I’ll do all I can to be a good audience… just don’t make me mad. That ruins it.

It gazes back.

You might object that this a good rule that applies to all fiction (if not all of life). I agree; it does apply, and it’s a bummer when the rule is broken. What might distinguish science fiction is that extension of reality into a not real place. That extension must happen or the story isn’t science fiction. But reaching beyond real physics can so easily put one on shaky ground or no ground at all. Fiction is hard enough without having to reinvent physics!

So, yes, any fiction can go awry, but I think the science part makes it more difficult to get right. Even though science here means speculation and includes fantasy, they all must obey their own internal logic as presented. If they don’t, it’s either cheating or a mistake, depending on whether it was intentional or not. Sometimes cheating is worth it, plus it’s hard to not make any mistakes with imaginary physics, so all-in-all science fiction is tough to write well.

Raquel Welch & other people.

It works the other way, by the way. The presence of the neat new science or fantasy idea can lead to fiction that is just bare scaffolding to support the cool idea (sometimes the scaffolding is ugly). A neat trick concept (like movie special  effects) only goes so far. The fiction should be the core of any story.

The Fiction

From one point of view, fiction is a lie. Where fiction lies, how it lies, why it lies; these are all part of the art of the fiction. The lies are necessary to tell the story. We accept the outer lies to appreciate the inner truths. We agree to suspend our disbelief (of the lies) in order to get the message.

It's PEOPLE!!

And while the text may not be true, it speaks truth. The best fiction communicates truth, even though the fiction itself is, well, fiction.

Another view separates information and story into truths, lies and fiction. In that view, fiction is a third kind of information—a story—that transcends the realm of true and false facts. Fiction contains truth and lies, but is neither. The distinction between information and story is the real distinction; it separates fiction from fact, truth and lies.

NOT the Wizard of Oz!

It is the line between documentaries and movies, biographies and novels, news photos and paintings. The former of each pair is judged as accurate (true) or not true. The latter are judged as stories; they are accurate only unto themselves.

In either view, fiction is highly varied in its creation and reception. This makes it difficult to judge except by general principles and your own tastes. (And, of course, there’s no accounting for taste.)  What remains is to discuss general principles. The principle, don’t make me mad, translates as, don’t push my disbelief too far. Much of what follows traces back to this principle.

Here’s some basic rulers I use to measure (science) fiction:

Ruler #0—Breaking a rule creatively is Good.

Thinking Outside The Box™ is highly sought and frequently punished. The idea is to break the rules in the right way, right time, right place. Story telling has rules. Some are general (“Play fair.”), some depend on the medium (rules about narrative, language, typography, color, editing, and so forth). Breaking a rule is just another artist’s brush.

Never Surrender; Never Give Up!

Ruler #1—Use the Right Rulers!

Stories can be entertaining , educational, both, or neither! Art can be just beautiful in execution or form (opera, poems, photos, sculpture, etc.). A cardinal Rule of Fiction is: Judge a story by its own yardstick. If a story sets out to be a “ripping good yarn” then judge on those merits. If a story sets out to send a message or prove a point, use a different yardstick. If the purpose is a moment of beauty, look at it with the heart. If it meant to make you laugh, did you?

Ruler #2—Follows its own Rules.

A story can make up any kind of reality it wants. But the story should play by the rules of its own reality. The story can break almost any real world rule, but it needs to account for it somehow. This is the one about not making me mad.

Great modern SF!

Ruler #3—Breaks New Ground.

I give extra points if a story takes me some place I’ve never been. The new ground can be an idea or a visual technique or a totally unexpected plot twist. Simply put, points for originality. This ruler is the “inside the box” version of the first one. It implies using traditional elements to explore new territory. The Zeroth ruler measures deconstruction; the last ruler measures exploration.

Of course, regarding all the above: the Zeroth (always) applies.

The Science

I want the science to not be so preposterous it ruins the moment. It’s really just Rule #2 again: “follow your own rules,” whatever they are. Just don’t make me mad.

Klaatu barada nikto

Real Science

As with most (but not all) fiction, most (but not all) science fiction takes place in the real world. By which I mean, this world, this universe, this physics. Stories taking place in this reality must obey—or account for disobeying—the physics of this universe.

For example, science fiction stories may require the ability to travel or communicate faster than light. Our physics considers these impossible, but for some science fiction stories, it’s a given. Star Trek has warp speed and transporters; Star Wars has hyper-drive and blasters. We accept that there is an implicit (or explicit in hard SF) explanation that makes it possible.

It’s all good; just don’t make me mad.

Gandalf before it all began

Magic

Science fiction stories sometimes have a form of science, called magic. Such stories are sometimes called speculative fantasy or speculative fiction, as that allows the new category, but keeps the potent letters: “S” and “F”!

There’s a fairly hard line between real and fantasy stories. Either the story exists in the strictly natural universe or it exists in a supernatural one. I’ve noticed three approaches:

  1. The supernatural exists. Ghosts; vampires; magic powers; all real.
  2. Something that seems “supernatural” turns out to be natural.
  3. The story remains agnostic and never declares itself.

The first two choices (certainly the first) declare an author’s point of view. The final choice leaves it open to the viewer. I’ve seen good stories told with all three views.

What's not to like?

Speculative fiction has its own wide variety of supernatural stories. Vampires are in vogue now, but SF covers a much larger fantasy territory. Wizards and sword-bearing heroes were once very popular. Some of the best comedy SF is fantasy; my very favorite is Terry Prachett‘s Discworld stories. I’ll explore that later along with other funny science fiction.

Stories that extend reality in bizarre ways are okay. Stories about magic are okay. All I ask is that they follow their own internal logic.

All I ask is, don’t make me mad!


What is Science Fiction?

I recently asked the question, “What is Art?” Answering that one is a real challenge, and the answer may be entirely subjective. This time I’m asking a question that is almost as difficult: “What is Science Fiction?” The answer may turn out to be just as subjective, and just as much of a challenge, but I’ve always thought the tough questions are the most interesting to explore.

I may, or may not, be an artist (but I know what I like!), and suffice to say I have only dabbled in art over the years. Science fiction, however, has filled my life as long as I’ve been picking my own reading material. I suspect that, overall, my fiction reading (and I read a lot of fiction) is at least 80% science fiction. It could be more. Most normal fiction leaves me disinterested, no matter how insightful it might be. I live in the real world; I want stories that take me far, far away, be it conceptually, spatially or temporally (if only temporarily). Only authors that bring something newly invented to the table really hold my interest.

Continue reading


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 370 other followers