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

PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS

Posted By: Jude Feb 04, 2005 - 12:20 am

Having just begun the third rewrite of the first few chapters of my novel I am faced with the problem of regurgitating the story so far to make it more believable scientifically. Where I had space ... I now want to include solar wind...where I had planets and moons...I want to explain about tides and atmospheres with their differences to earth. And my biggest problem is my planet system has no sun as it is entirely encircled by a skin through which light, heat and energy is released through shafts onto the planets and I am at a complete loss about how to explain light rise (our sun rise) and shadowing upon the planets normally caused by the sun. I found it ok to write fantasy because the author has the right to say 'this is' and not prove it, however now that I have made the choice to support the story with scientific information/theory/possibilies I find I am scrambling around in the twilight zone trying to understand the writings of Hawkings, Newton, Einstein and the complexities of a 'shuttle'. Any suggestions?

Posted By: Neurolanis Feb 04, 2005 - 08:28 am

Personally, I think science has no place in Fantasy. If you put science in there, it becomes Science Fiction.

Posted By: talisman Feb 04, 2005 - 11:02 am

This is quite a useful site for the science of world building.

http://curriculum.calstatela.edu/courses/builders/

Posted By: Magus Feb 04, 2005 - 01:50 pm

I don't think that you don't have to justify fantasy. There always has to be some reason for anything. It's just that fantasy can have more "out there" reasons.

Just try your best is what I can say. Try spacing out the description in the text and spread it over action and dialogue... or whatever. Don't simply just take a huge section and describe, as that will drag in a hurry.

You could try posting some of what you have in the Writer's Showcase and see what other people may have to say. It would certainly allow us to give a more accurate and more helpful kind of feedback.

Posted By: woody000 Feb 05, 2005 - 09:23 am

Fantasy and science fiction are styles. Their motivation though is very similar.

My novel is a good example... it's technically a science-fiction story, because if you take away the technology, the story collapses. However, at the same time, I make very little effort to talk about scientific concepts. My focus is on my characters, emotion, and seeing through the eyes of my main character, who doesn't understand such things, this is easily achievable.

Even in science-fiction you dont always have to explain things. As long as you don't say anything that's believed to be impossible without explaining it then there is no problem.

Space travel at fast speeds may seem impossible, but few scientists totally rule it out, they merely say it's improbable. On the other hand, if you jump out of a ship in low orbit around a planet and somehow pull yourself to the moon instead, that's going to raise some eyebrows without explanation. If you craft a story in the right ways, you don't need scientific explanation.

Posted By: Magus Feb 05, 2005 - 10:22 am

That would make it "Soft" Sci-Fi then, if my memory serves.

Posted By: Aldan Feb 05, 2005 - 10:26 am

You're right, Magus. I like to call it "science fantasy" but Soft Science Fiction does the job just as well for a label.

Posted By: woody000 Feb 05, 2005 - 12:43 pm

Yes, but there has been some sci-fi novels that are described as "great" which by that definition would be "soft"... it's not really a nice phrase.

It also bothers me particularly because I am a physicist, so it's not like I don't understand the concepts, it's simply that it's the type of writing I want to do. Soft implys weakness to me... personally.

Posted By: Magus Feb 05, 2005 - 02:53 pm

Well... "Hard" Sci-Fi is the kind that focusses on the scientific and theoretical aspects of the genre. I can see the reasons for both names... but also for the misgivings you take them with.

Posted By: Aldan Feb 05, 2005 - 03:04 pm

That is one of the reasons I use the term science fantasy (fantasies are ALMOST exclusively character-driven).

Posted By: Jude Feb 05, 2005 - 03:10 pm

Thanks for the feedback. I am currently reading 'Red Mars' by Kim Stanley Robinson and it is the writing contained in this book that has, I guess, inspired me to pursue a more scientific approach to my work. I wonder though if this book is not so much plot driven as charactor driven. My aim is to write an action packed space adventure. (I love Mathew Reilly's 'Ice Station but doubt that an author can achieve the same type of fast moving story in fantasy or sci fi given the necessity for at least a certain amount of explanation regarding setting and other worldly charactors) I have heard of the term 'soft sci-fi' before and agree that it sounds like a novel is not powerful or is lacking in some way. As has been suggested I have decided to 'showcase' an extract and ask for constructive criticism. (nervously I might add) Can anyone suggest a basic physics site or textbook that would assist in my understanding? The type of problem I am up against is how to explain the actual transporting of animate objects such as people at high speed through space, drawn by 'some type of beam containing the necessary strength and ability to temporarily arrest the motion of human body particles etc, condense and reform in another place'. My scientist is explaining his discovery to his boss following a malfunction that has caused his boss and a group of space crafts to be transported to the scientist's laboratory on one of the system's planets that resulted in bodies and space crafts being melted together. I have the scientist and his boss staring at a computer screen with the scientist showing him the possibility of this type of transport given time for further development and my mind is quite blank as to what I have to explain them seeing on the screen. I have put something about lines, prism's and the entering of many mathematical calculations into the keyboard and whullah!!! There it is, except I am not even convinced.

Thanks.

Posted By: Magus Feb 05, 2005 - 06:38 pm

Watch Stargate. That was kind of similer... except in truth you only need six points to map any given point, the point of origin not being necesary.

My sister's studying at Purdue to be an Aeronautical Engineer. Maybe I can run this one past her and see if she can help.

Posted By: woody000 Feb 06, 2005 - 12:04 am

I don't really understand the concept in detail myself. :/

I do know that they've managed to transport like... 1 particle or something across a room.

The problem with explaining such a thing is it is very close to impossible in current physics. Any kind of transporter would have to watch every individual particle to make sure it is reproduced in the exact same state as when it started. The uncertainty principle suggests that this may be impossible, but at the very least it would require almost infinate amounts of energy to work.

The thing is it isn't simple physics, it's extremely complex physics that I might never do in my degree depending on what modules I take.

Posted By: Magus Feb 06, 2005 - 05:25 am

Yeah. And the Chaos Theory professes that something would go always go wrong. I'll still ask her if you want me to, but maybe it's best you don't go into vast detail about the scientific reason behind the transportation.

Posted By: Aldan Feb 06, 2005 - 09:36 am

Usually in 'hard' scifi, the author will exhibit that there's a scientific reason behind it. Often that's done in discussions. Perhaps the characters could discuss the scientific breakthrough from back in '90s or whatever time that 1 particle transport was accomplished, and you could even have the MC tell the boss that the Chaos Theory is still in effect, and that Murphy will have his say.

Posted By: Magus Feb 07, 2005 - 12:43 pm

Yeah, that could work to some good effect methinks.