We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!

PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS

Posted By: T5 Nov 17, 2000 - 01:53 pm

In the golden age of SF, the explanations of stardrives, information systems and weapons weren't necessary.
The important part was the adventure, the atmosphere, the different and strange ideas thought out by the author.
Now it seems like the authors have something to prove to each other and the readers.
"I know more about this stuff, than you do, read in awe!"
The "technobabble" is a sure way of filling pages with words (which means "money" that just slow the story down.
I admit in a few cases it might be interesting to read technobabble (RED,GREEN,BLUE MARS) but most of the time i prefer a good story instead.

Posted By: The Master Nov 20, 2000 - 04:36 pm

I think "Techobabble" has too much of a negative connotation. Shows like Star Trek (and many others) use fake science as a plot device. Warp drives are a convenient way to get around the galaxy, but they have no basis in actual scientific theory.

Hard science fiction relies on actual scientific theory as a central theme. David Brin's Earth, for example, projects a near future world in a scientifically reasonable manner that is consistent with current theories (with a little artistic license and projection for the sake of moving the story along of course!). The science doesn't slow the book down, it serves as its very reason for being.

The SF author's challenge is to create a world where the theory is "real", and to populate it with characters in an entertaining way. In essence, you create a story to go with the science. That's where the adventure, etc. that you rightly admire comes in. Star Trek takes the opposite approach...Star Trek develops a story line, then uses its own brand of pseudo-science to fill in the gaps. (BTW: I love Star Trek so don't think I'm picking on it or anything....even the actors will tell you that they get scripts that say something along the lines of "insert techobabble here" and it gets filled in later, sometimes as ad libs!).

In short, without the science, its just fiction!

Posted By: starhunter Dec 15, 2002 - 08:46 am

I agree that "technobabble" is generally positive. In the 1950s - 1970s, sci-fi dealt with the Zeitgeist of the day (Cold War and Man's self-destruction with Buck Rodgers, Man's Past and Future with Space 1999, racism, agression, world unity with Star Trek, Arthur C. Clarke dealt with the deepest philosophical problems, origin of man, etc.). Early sci-fi didn't have to explain the tech. because most of the futuristic science was assumed to be beyond our wildest dreams anyway.

Now, with the Sol System virtually explored, the shortcomings of SETI, the discovery of Dark Energy, the Hubble and planet-hunting, anyone who writes sci-fi now must accept a certain set of assumptions about our universe (as they can't get away with more nebulous treatment of the technology and physics. The audience is more learned, and the discovery of extrasolar planets will soon confirm or deny the existence of popular sci-fi systems like Eps Eridani and Alpha Centauri. Indeed, the rate of discovery is so accelerated now, that we sci-fi creators are going to have to get used to moving our "empires" around to meet the requirements of newfound realities of discovery!

In conclusion (for now), sci-fi today is a lot more engaging if the tech. is convincing, bridging the gap between our world and the believable worlds of the future.

I love technobabble, and I have written plenty of it myself, when the inspiration is there, I've invented Neutrino Cameras, Super-Inertial Strings (SISies) to explain dark matter, Hypertelemetry (or why interstellar signaling is really an art form), Displacement Field Dynamics (or how starships might actually fold space) and even Quarantine Protocols to explain why humans and my aliens of 58 Eridani can sometimes breathe the same air, but not always, and on and on....

Posted By: Odrade Dec 15, 2002 - 12:36 pm

i think we need techobabble in sci-fi. sci-fi deals with the future so much; in the future new things will be invented/created/developed. These new objects have to have names!!!

Posted By: Sagethai Feb 14, 2003 - 04:25 pm

In the beginning although the scientific devices were used only as plot movers, they weren't seen that way to the readers of the time. Well, sometimes. But for early sci-fi readers the rocketship WAS technobabble. Lucky thing we could imagine expanding gas at such a prupolsion as to send us to the moon. There can be good sci-fi without it, but sometimes it enriches the universe. I have to agree that it gets a little thick during the Mars trilogy, but from reading the first one it was fairly obvious that it would continue. In the end its all fiction, so does it really matter what writers choose to show?

Posted By: RedRosa May 26, 2003 - 01:04 am

I don't have anything against 'tecnobabble,' if the novel takes place in the present, with science that really exists.

If the novel is in 10000 a.d. instead, it's obvious any science there described will be fictional, because a) i can't believe that 8000 years from now science will be the same, and b) any science described in a futuristic environment will not be real, and so what's the point of describing the technology of a flying car if it doesn't exist yet? It's just waste of time and paper, that could be used for better situations in a novel.

Also, in futuristic worlds, i don't like to know everything about it, because it takes the sense of wonder away from it.