TTFeb: STEM depictions in fiction

[superborb]

cortue prompted: Do you have any feelings about sci-fi as a person working in STEM? Do you want things to make actual sense or prefer they don't even try? Is there any way you'd like STEM stuff to be depicted differently in fiction?

I think my main feeling about sci-fi is that it ought to be internally consistent. So, I can roll with soft sci-fi or hard sci-fi as long as it doesn't ret-con how technology works in universe. (If your explody improv weapon could not explode earlier, it is not nice to have it be so when plot convenient.) I have higher standards for hard sci-fi though, I want it to follow through and be correct. Otherwise, what was the point? For soft sci-fi, I prefer no gibberish, just take the fantasy 'this is how it works' matter of fact approach.

Of course, the works that really try to imagine the world within the bounds of science, either of the future or of the 'one thing is different' version, deserve extra praise for the attention to detail and research, but I guess it's not really what I'm reading fiction for, you know? I'm here for the story.

It does annoy me when basic things are wrong and it's clearly the author / producer / whoever not paying enough attention. Most commonly physics because it's the one most likely to be violated in this way-- when the ship loses propulsion or stops spinning or whatever and then it abruptly comes to a complete stop and slams people into walls, that sort of thing. But I guess this does tend to be more common in movies, probably because books have different sets of fact checking norms?

The 'internally consistent' preference also extends to other forms of fiction; it doesn't bother me that much when they're like, doing the enhance on four pixels or getting results from forensics ridiculously fast because it's blatantly for the plot. It does pose a problem when people think that science works that way IRL, but I think most people understand that it's fiction, and the science is just as much fiction as the characters. Though I do think it's funny when e.g. in ReGenesis, which had pretty good fact checking, a work is so focused on being accurate for that time period that it becomes obsolete as technology improves.

I guess I don't really have that many broader thoughts on this! I mostly get annoyed at one-off inaccuracies hahaha. 

Back to masterlist

Comments

[likeadeuce]

Most commonly physics because it's the one most likely to be violated in this way-- when the ship loses propulsion or stops spinning or whatever and then it abruptly comes to a complete stop and slams people into walls, that sort of thing. But I guess this does tend to be more common in movies, probably because books have different sets of fact checking norms?

In a book if you're not sure how something is supposed to look you can avoid describing it :D

[superborb]

LOL true!!

[tetralogy]

I'm in STEM too, but not in a field that has as much utility for sci-fi as, say, physics. That said, I distinctly remember a line in A Memory Called Empire where doors are described opening "like valves between atria." I study the heart for a living, and I can definitively say that there are no valves between the atria lol. If you have a connection there, that's an atrial septal defect, and you should probably get it checked out :p Just say "like heart valves," Arkady Martine! It'll still sound cool!

[superborb]

Hah, on rereading, maybe I shouldn't have put that bit about physics being most violated-- but I guess the difference for biology is that it mostly falls under the gibberish science problem, which hits differently to me! In a still annoying, but easier to tune out as gibberish way...

[chestnut_pod]

I love sci-fi gibberish biology, myself. Yes, TELL me how this creature speaks without lungs.

[superborb]

LOL I just glaze over once it reaches a certain level of 'I'm not sure I'm meant to think about this too much'.

[rekishi]

Ah, I never met anyone else who had seen ReGenesis!

And agree on "when the basics are wrong", ugh, that tends to drive me up the wall and I have abandoned canons for it.

[superborb]

I liked it at the time, though I haven't rewatched at all recently! And I uh, think the science hasn't always held up :P

[rekishi]

I will not rewatch it. That way lies madness.

[superborb]

I had been considering it bc someone was asking for accurate depictions of science, and I wasn't sure if it held up with my greater understanding of science :P

[cortue]

Huh, I have not heard of or seen ReGenesis, but it's interesting to think of something which tries to be correct science wise and so becomes obsolete. I prefer soft sci-fi in general, because I feel like hard sci-fi goes into so much detail of the cool science idea that I don't get the story. Unless it's something like The Martian, where all the science details are the story.

[superborb]

I think it especially hit ReGenesis hard because it was focused on an area of science right when huge strides were being made.

I generally also prefer soft sci-fi, and yeah, I think it's because it is more focused on telling a story! Hard sci-fi often misses that.

[cortue]

Ooo yes, that sounds a bit like Fringe - not in the realness of the science but in terms of that was a show that was trying to take what it thought was cutting edge science and make it ~weird~. They had this opening sequence where random words would pop up and you were meant to go 'ooo, what will the scientists do next!' Except one of the words was like, nanotechnology, and I work with nanomaterials so the effect fell a bit flat for me.

I'm curious if you read, and if so if you enjoyed, Andy Weir's books (The Martian, Artemis). I felt like that was science fiction that was close enough to the real world that the author didn't have to explain a lot of made up stuff, and was written by someone who genuinely seemed to enjoy science a lot and so I had a lot of fun with his discussions of science within the story.

[superborb]

LOL Yeah, I can see how that would be a bit ???. ReGenesis was more in the lines of generic crime drama, except for science-adjacent problems, but their consultant was clearly a biologist lol.

I haven't read them, but bf did, so they're on my TBR. Since bf said he was decent at the science, but the characters were weak (just self-inserts, which is more of a problem for Artemis), and I'm definitely here for the story first! But Project Hail Mary is highest on the list, since bf said it was the one he liked most, even though it was a little 'softer' sci-fi, because the story was best and depicted the scientific method well.

[cortue]

Oo, this reminds me that I haven't read Hail Mary yet! I'm glad he's improving on character. I do agree it's on the weaker side for the previous two.