McAnally's (The Community Pub) > Author Craft
Science-Fiction: How 'real' must a technology be?
Sully:
I don't think things necessarily have to be explained. I've been reading a lot of Elizabeth Moon recently, so I'll use her as an example. In her Vatta's War series, the mechanics of FTL are never even hinted at. They aren't the story, and have nothing to do with setting or character development-it's enough that it exists. Communication is the story. The 'how' for that isn't explained either. The story rests in the chaos of disrupted communication. And it works.
In Heinlein's 'Time for the Stars', I don't think the technology is ever explained either. But the time dilation from traveling at relativistic speeds, and those effects IS, because that is actually plot relevant. The engineering is not.
--- Quote from: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on June 12, 2013, 03:23:07 PM ---Granted, one can't do infinite research and the story has to get written at some point if it's to exist at all. (To a first approximation, so far as I'm concerned, that means never write about guns, horses, or sailing ships; those appear to be the killer topics where no matter how much research you do you will always find readers who know as much or more, disagree with you about technical details and will be vocal online about it.)
--- End quote ---
Don't forget fencing and other martial arts.
--- Quote from: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on June 12, 2013, 04:57:45 PM ---Depends on the real people. You write from the POV of a scientist or an engineer or a programmer working with a problem in their field of expertise, thinking about the technical details is pretty much true to life. (Speaking as a scientist and programmer myself.)
--- End quote ---
If you're writing from those perspectives and delving into their professional knowledge, I suspect you're probably limiting your potential audience just a tad. :P That would be a hard book to pull off.
the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh:
--- Quote from: Sully on June 19, 2013, 08:19:51 AM ---If you're writing from those perspectives and delving into their professional knowledge, I suspect you're probably limiting your potential audience just a tad. :P
--- End quote ---
Well, granted that there's no choice a writer can make that won't appeal to some readers and turn others off, I don't actually think so; lots of people read to enjoy getting inside the head of people with different competences than the reader has and have it make sense to them, Or at least to get a plausible illusion of that, be it as well backed with solid geekiness as Neal Stephenson or as superficial as Dan Brown.
--- Quote ---That would be a hard book to pull off.
--- End quote ---
And yet people who do that sort of thing make bestseller lists.
Wordmaker:
--- Quote from: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on June 19, 2013, 03:59:20 PM ---And yet people who do that sort of thing make bestseller lists.
--- End quote ---
Because the people who can do that sort of thing and still make it accessible to a broad audience are really, really good at what they do! ;)
the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh:
--- Quote from: Wordmaker on June 19, 2013, 04:08:17 PM ---Because the people who can do that sort of thing and still make it accessible to a broad audience are really, really good at what they do! ;)
--- End quote ---
Granted, but what would be the point in aiming to be less than really really good ?
Wordmaker:
Find the style that suits you best. If it happens to be similar to another author, that's fine. But don't get hung up on emulating the ones who've made it to the big time. It's your voice readers will want to hear, with engaging characters and a captivating story. Everything else is gravy.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version