Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6180213" data-attributes="member: 177">Here's where we get to the difference between &quot;hard&quot; science fiction, and the rest of the genre.What it comes down to is this:&nbsp; if you're not going to do a good job of the science, don't explain it.&nbsp; Half-assed is bad.&nbsp; I'm perfectly willing to have you leave the science out entirely (like Babylon 5 did), or leave it at technobabble (like Trek).&nbsp; Wave your hand and say &quot;it is nanotech!&quot; just like Gandalf would say, &quot;It's magic!&quot; and I'm fine.&nbsp; But if you're going to speak real science terms, you better get them right.The absolute most galling examples of this are where they *could* have used the real deal, but fail, and if they'd passed a thing in front of a science consultant, it would have been caught and corrected with absolutely no loss to the piece.For example, I have the series &quot;The 4400&quot;.&nbsp; In it, one character, having been missing for years, is returned to his life by whatever forces took him.&nbsp; He goes back to school.&nbsp; He has to write a paper for his biology class.&nbsp; And, clear as day in a couple shots is the front page of his paper, &quot;The Mitosis Phase of Cell Division&quot;.&nbsp; Now, cell division does have phases.&nbsp; But &quot;mitosis&quot; is the name for the entire process, not for one of the phases.&nbsp; This was not plot relevant - it isn't like this paper holds the secret solution of a plot point, or something.&nbsp; They could have put a scientifically reasonable title on that damned paper, and chose not to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6180213, member: 177"] Here's where we get to the difference between "hard" science fiction, and the rest of the genre. What it comes down to is this: if you're not going to do a good job of the science, don't explain it. Half-assed is bad. I'm perfectly willing to have you leave the science out entirely (like Babylon 5 did), or leave it at technobabble (like Trek). Wave your hand and say "it is nanotech!" just like Gandalf would say, "It's magic!" and I'm fine. But if you're going to speak real science terms, you better get them right. The absolute most galling examples of this are where they *could* have used the real deal, but fail, and if they'd passed a thing in front of a science consultant, it would have been caught and corrected with absolutely no loss to the piece. For example, I have the series "The 4400". In it, one character, having been missing for years, is returned to his life by whatever forces took him. He goes back to school. He has to write a paper for his biology class. And, clear as day in a couple shots is the front page of his paper, "The Mitosis Phase of Cell Division". Now, cell division does have phases. But "mitosis" is the name for the entire process, not for one of the phases. This was not plot relevant - it isn't like this paper holds the secret solution of a plot point, or something. They could have put a scientifically reasonable title on that damned paper, and chose not to. [/QUOTE]

Verification