Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Johnny Angel" data-source="post: 3153925" data-attributes="member: 13334">Although I don't have a firm answer as to how to deliver a certain 'hardness' to sci-fi, I have been mulling it over for some time.&nbsp; But what I think is probably premium is to have both the technical and the concrete available to talk about.&nbsp; The technical is the science or technology of how the equipment works, or what the phenomenon is.&nbsp; The concrete is the visual, descriptive form that shows what's it's like to interact with something.&nbsp; Say you have a PL 7 gravitic piton -- How does it work?&nbsp; It doesn't get hammered into the rock, it creates a localised gravitational geodesic that gives it an effective 100 newtons of pull against the surface it's placed on. What's it like?&nbsp; It's a puck-shaped object five centimeters thick with a solid ring mounted on one flat side -- the other is covered with a yellow-and-black aplique saftety warning sticker.&nbsp; You activate it by pressing in a sunken depression switch after the switch cap has been removed, so that it can be placed by one outstretched hand, but won't likely be triggered accidentally in your pack.&nbsp; It will move slightly but suddenly, *CHUNK*, as it establishes its plane, and an amber light tells you it's active.&nbsp; You want even the spazz-tastic scientific gadgets to seem like objects in the world.&nbsp; If the players can feel that *CHUNK* and that sudden solidity, then you've sold them on the science.&nbsp; Without it, the technical explanation is just hand-waving.&nbsp; In literature you have what is know as the 'objective correlative.'&nbsp; You don't provoke an emotion by simply naming it, otherwise we'd walk into bars to find people chanting &quot;Lust, lust, lust...&quot;&nbsp; Instead, you have to find an objective correlative -- objects, situations or events that when properly presented invoke the emotion without it having to be named.&nbsp; It's the lights of the train taking your baby away from you, or the glass you dropped when beyond all expectation she walked back through your door.&nbsp; What I'm suggesting is that scientific concepts, too, should have some objective correlative if they're to be part of a story.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Johnny Angel, post: 3153925, member: 13334"] Although I don't have a firm answer as to how to deliver a certain 'hardness' to sci-fi, I have been mulling it over for some time. But what I think is probably premium is to have both the technical and the concrete available to talk about. The technical is the science or technology of how the equipment works, or what the phenomenon is. The concrete is the visual, descriptive form that shows what's it's like to interact with something. Say you have a PL 7 gravitic piton -- How does it work? It doesn't get hammered into the rock, it creates a localised gravitational geodesic that gives it an effective 100 newtons of pull against the surface it's placed on. What's it like? It's a puck-shaped object five centimeters thick with a solid ring mounted on one flat side -- the other is covered with a yellow-and-black aplique saftety warning sticker. You activate it by pressing in a sunken depression switch after the switch cap has been removed, so that it can be placed by one outstretched hand, but won't likely be triggered accidentally in your pack. It will move slightly but suddenly, *CHUNK*, as it establishes its plane, and an amber light tells you it's active. You want even the spazz-tastic scientific gadgets to seem like objects in the world. If the players can feel that *CHUNK* and that sudden solidity, then you've sold them on the science. Without it, the technical explanation is just hand-waving. In literature you have what is know as the 'objective correlative.' You don't provoke an emotion by simply naming it, otherwise we'd walk into bars to find people chanting "Lust, lust, lust..." Instead, you have to find an objective correlative -- objects, situations or events that when properly presented invoke the emotion without it having to be named. It's the lights of the train taking your baby away from you, or the glass you dropped when beyond all expectation she walked back through your door. What I'm suggesting is that scientific concepts, too, should have some objective correlative if they're to be part of a story. [/QUOTE]

Verification