Weaving in Science
This week I came across the 20-minute science fiction film called Loom. It’s set in a type of dystopian future and tackles the subject of genetically grown food, and from that sprouts the power of creation. Now this is not a review of the film. As much as I liked the film itself and have no doubt that Luke Scott has the talent to become great director, like his father Ridley, this post is more about the fascination we have with science in books, film, art and gaming.
There have been different reactions to the film and after viewing lots of comments over several different sites people seem divided. Some say it’s engaging right from the beginning. Others had no idea what the film was about. Several comments say it’s “dull and meaningless” And some just couldn’t let go of the fact that the pipette didn’t have a tip. And there’s always the one comment that addresses the nudity “Boobs” complete with 
straight after. I often read the comments and don’t dismiss any one view. Everyone’s opinion has a place in the world. Either way it’s an interesting melting pot of people’s likes and dislikes. We are all different after all.
Which brings me to the point of this blog post. When should science be included and if so how detailed should it be? Do we run a risk of alienating viewers or readers if too much science is included? In my post The Purity of Hard Science Fiction I asked a few questions. What is the definition for “Hard Science Fiction”? Can we say that Hard SF is more purely classified by scientific engineers who cite those books that are based on true scientific work and plausible technology? Is the term “Hard SF” a marketing term used to entice readers? Or should it really be left up to the reader to decide? I did conclude with “there’s definitely relevance in the idea that the use of real science theories gives this type of science fiction depth, and usually delivers a more believable story. But perhaps the term itself is used more by the purist of the genre.”
I’m sure Hard Science Fiction fans will say “it’s important to get the details right so it’s necessary to include real science.” Soft Science Fiction fans will say “I don’t need to know everything. Too much science is boring.” There are countless examples of works of fiction where too much science is used, leaving readers asking questions. What does germinal mutation mean? What is mammary gland extract used for? And then there’s the opposite, not enough science leaving the reader questioning everything. What were the scientists doing? What was that black gloop? What’s a subatomic machine do exactly? Then you get some writers that get the mix of science just right. That’s true a talent indeed.
Here’s a list of books. Some have a lot of science included and others have only a little. I’m not going to single out any books as having too much or not enough. That’s up to you!
- The Martian Chronicles – Ray Badbury
- The Black Cloud – Fred Hoyle
- Dune – Frank Herbert
- Neverness – David Zindell
- Neuromancer – William Gibson
- Dhalgren – Samuel R Delany
- Foundation – Isaac Asimov
- A Fall of Moondust a novel – Arthur C. Clarke
- Jurassic Park – Michael Crichton
Of course science will always have a place in fiction to some degree. We can think about that even harder outside the genre of science fiction because these days crime novels have a need to include good science in solving many kinds of horrific acts of criminal activity. Science and technology are an active ingredient and often a critical part of solving crimes today. And just to place added emphasis on the subject of science it has indeed cleared people of crimes they didn’t commit in the past but were wrongfully convicted many years ago. Ah, the use of DNA. Those genetic instructions that make us who we are, and have the power to single us out from a crowd of suspects.
Here’s where we jump to genes and genomes. In the film I mention above, Loom, the central character says, “the human genome is not proprietary.” Meaning the complete set of chromosomes, those inheritable traits, don’t belong or aren’t owned by any establishment or organisation. Which I think gives rise to the concept of creation being explored in books, films, games and art today. While this is by far not a new concept it is one of the more intriguing of subjects in science, and this is why we as writers, film makers, game designers and artists will always pose the question. Will we one day in the not so distance future be the creators of a new genetically engineered species? Or will we just continue to weave science into our fictional world and leave it at that? While trying to the best of our ability to include just the right mix of science, so we keep our readers and viewers on the ride with us.
What about art and science? What links are being explored today? Is there such thing as too much science in art? Ma Arts and Science – meet the course director. Personally, I think collective collaboration is an exciting approach to learning and developing wonderful works of art. Note when you watch the link (Ma Arts and Science – meet the course director) the art reflecting “The Human Genome” exploring the same human sciences just like the short film, Loom. And be sure to check out the Welcome Collection.
What about games? When is there a need to weave in science and why should they do it? Ever heard of the game Mass Effect? Well, here’s a bit of quick science behind the game. The Science of Mass Effect: Red Shift/ Blue Shift
Have you ever heard ofAngry Birds? Oh come on… everyone knows Angry Birds use a slingshot and not wings to fly. Well now they travel to 60 interstellar levels on planets and in zero gravity. Hmmm, is that space science being used? Check out Angry Birds Space
Now here’s the science behind my favourite game, Halo. The science behind the Halo series.
Note how all of the games have some form of science in their game design and gameplay. Perhaps the attention to science does provide the games with real a sense of condition, futuristic perceptions that only these physical laws can help explain, and therefore, constructing believable virtual atmospheres.
Perhaps the real future is being written, painted or designed as we speak, and maybe it’s science that has to catch up with the creator’s imaginations. So until next time. Be brave and bold in your chosen field of creativity. And never be afraid to explore new techniques.
9 Comments
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- The scientific attitude of hard and soft SF and their sci-tropes | Olsen Jay Nelson's SF Author Blog - [...] attitude of a hard SF author should evidently be scientific as a commenter on a recent post about making ...
About Gold Coast Speckies
Lol. I think science is always trying to catch up with creative imaginings. Most scientists I’ve ever known have been sci-fi fans.
But on the subject of what makes sci-fi “hard”, I think the secret is in the attitude of the writer. A hard sci-fi author takes the science seriously. By that I mean they accept that the way science gathers evidence makes that evidence uniquely compelling, and the fact that scientific theories have requirements on them for internal and external consistency (i.e logical consistency and consistency with all known evidence) makes them powerful explanations of reality in a way that no other explanations can be. The actual science invoked and the amount that is presented are of much lesser importance than this attitude towards knowledge, an attitude that considers all other ways of knowing the world of lesser, or even negligible importance. This is what makes Arthur C. Clarke and Alastair Reynolds and the rest hard sci-fi writers, and why I love the genre.
Hi Graham. I think exactly the same thing. Science may never catch up with creative imaginings, because creative minds are always asking questions. Most of the artists and game designers I know today all over the world are indeed sci-fi fans too. In fact some musicians I know personally are also exploring the use of new scientific techniques in their music. I do like to include all the creative arts when I write about science and creativity. And while I paint “space” myself in many different forms I sometimes use questions to spark the concept to be painted. That “what if?”
You love your science and I do too. For the readers of this blog Graham would you mind explaining this a bit more? When you say “the actual science invoked and presented are of much lesser importance” do you mean that knowing and understanding the subject well, prior to writing a novel, building a platform for the science and then using this knowledge within the story itself? Do you like readers to learn something when you write Hard SF? I better stop there. I think I’ll have to do an interview with you.
It’s a wonderful subject and very dear to my heart. Science, Latin scientia meaning “knowledge” is one of the most fascinating disciplines known to man. Of course, that’s just my opinion.
Hehehe Always happy to do an interview – if you think anyone would be interested in reading it
What I meant by that quote was just that hard sci-fi can be difficult to spot if you are looking at the particular scientific discipline the author uses, or how prominent scientific explanations are in the text. You have to look for that attitude I mentioned. One of the all-time best sci-fi novels (IMHO) is Ursula le Guin’s “Left Hand of Darkness”. She hardly mentions science and gives no explanations of how anything works, yet you can tell she is a True Believer in the ability of science to explain the Universe. (Another great sci-fi writer who is very like this is Sherri Tepper, and I suspect Margaret Atwood qualifies too.)
I’m not a hard science or even science writer, but I have technology in my books that has evolved from Earth-based scientific principals. I think Authors should certainly strive for accuracy but if the story and characters are compelling enough – most readers will be forgiving of blimps – and they’re the readers who will continue to love and follow your books. My glass is certainly half-full
Thanks Graham for explaining that further. I know several writers who like to understand the science, prior to writing a novel, building a platform for the scientific knowledge. But then tell me, they usually never place the detailed scientific explanations in the story, preferring to allow the knowledge to flow seamlessly into the story. Yes, I think Margaret Atwood qualifies too. I haven’t read Ursula le Guin’s “Left Hand of Darkness” I must put that on the list above.
Hi Cheryse. Thanks for your comment! The Speckies love people who comment.
I like to encourage opinions and ideas because we are all different. It gives everyone a chance to reflect on the different opinions. I do think writers should be true to themselves and how they approach their craft should always be individual to themselves. That’s what gives them their own unique writing voice. And I think you also have a point “if the story and characters are compelling enough – most readers will be forgiving of blimps” Yes, I would think your glass in half-full. 
I read and write hard SF, amongst other things. I agree with Graham, but I also think that there is hard SF in gradations. While your attitude towards science might determine the tone of the book, you still decide how much weight you are going to give to those pesky laws of physics. In my case, some times a lot, and sometimes I just sweep the calculations off the table and go “what the heck, I want to tell this story”. I find it funny that a lot of books that pass for hard SF contain aliens, telepathic, god-like aliens even. Yet they are still considered hard SF.
In the list, you failed to mention what I consider the hardest-of-hard-SF series out there: the Mars series by im Stanley Robinson. Stan has, of course, a degree in English literature
Hard SF is in the mind. It’s wanting to know why (whether those reasons are made up or real). A while ago, I decided that for this reason, hard Fantasy is also a thing.
Hey Patty, thanks for your wonderful comment. Yeah, Graham is a great writer and he knows his stuff. I’ve done the same in some short stories I’ve written, like you stated above “sweep the calculations off the table and go “what the heck”.
Yes agreed, I should have included Stanley Robinson, but I didn’t in this one, because I had already included him in a previous post called. The Purity of Hard Science Fiction. Have a read and see what you think. 
http://www.gcspeckies.com/the-purity-of-hard-science-fiction/
Hi Patty. I love the idea of “hard fantasy”. There are definitely a lot of fantasy writers who take enormous pains in getting a consistent set of the “laws of magic” together for their work. For many it’s as big a fetish as it is for hard sci-fi writers like me!
And, yes, definitely include Kim Stanley Robinson. For “Galileo’s Dream” alone, I can politely pass over the Eng Lit degree
Finally, it’s true that there are godlike aliens and telepathy and such in many great hard sci-fi books, but you have to make allowances for the date at which they were written.
“Psy powers” seemed quite plausible to many scientists until the evidence against them began really piling up in the seventies and eighties. Some of today’s scientific speculations are going to look like voodoo in a few years time, too. So I like to cut Golden Age writers some slack. (And Clarke still has a lot of people bamboozled with his “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” malarkey.) Even Jurassic Park (mentioned above) is showing its age, since recent evidence on the “half life” of DNA puts the figure at a mere 11,000 years!