I have thought about this fiction/sci-fi dichotomy a lot and come to my own conclusions… I probably should have done more research, as you did fantastically here. Great thoughts.
My go-to is to ask, "Which rules am I breaking?" as opposed to "Which rules am I adding?" If I can answer the former, it often gives a more 'science-fiction-ey' justification (and sometimes answers the latter).
faster-than-light travel is one example. If I just say to myself "I can travel past light-speed," it ends up coming off as magic. But when I pose it as, "The light speed barrier can be broken," I end up asking "How?" and come at it from a science perspective.
Not foolproof, but it's a shorthand way that helps now and then.
I'm adding that John Barnes article to my reading list, sounds like a good recommendation.
For my "AI takes over the world" novel, I did some research into both the development of Artificial Intelligence thus far (as of around 2020) and the projections from experts of how it might advance to the level of sentience/sapience in the future. I was thinking I had to make everything as plausible as possible. Then at some point, for probably whimsical and not technical or scientific reasons, I decided sentient AI is simply an impossibility. So my novel is more science fantasy, and certainly not hard sci-fi. As AI has advanced in astounding ways over the last couple of years, that assessment hasn't really changed, and I didn't update the creation of my sentient AI based on those advances.
You're right that many fans don't really care about plausibility, especially in the movies and on TV. Star Wars and Star Trek wouldn't be as popular as they are if viewers demanded that the TIE fighters and the Enterprise moved as if they really were in space. Novels are different, because there is that contingent of hard sci-fi fans that will find flaws even in an Andy Weir novel.
I always like a good story and good characters first, but I do like SF in which real physics becomes part of the story and structures the choices available to the characters. My favorite is The Expanse, both the books and the TV series. There are a few "techno-magical" elements, but the writers tried to stick to physics laws for the movement of ships, on-board gravity, and more. It's not just that it feels more "real," but it forces difficult choices on the characters, which then influences the plot in all sorts of interesting ways.
I definitely agree with you about The Expanse and am hoping to approach that level of plausibility at least in terms of the space travel aspects. (I read a whole slew of arguments on Reddit about how plausible that even is.) Interesting that you concluded that sentient AIs are an impossibility. I researched this for an earlier post and came to the conclusion that it's still an open question. https://speclectic.substack.com/p/sentient-aisyes-no-when.
Thanks for that! Thinking about it some more, if AI ever does develop self-awareness, it will probably be as mysterious as human consciousness. Or to turn that around, if people ever create self-aware AI, they will probably also have figured out the mystery of human self-awareness. In my novel, I leave it mysterious, so the AI doesn't even know why it's self-aware. I'll be posting the first chapter that directly involves the AI next week. I plan to unlock it from the paywall so we can discuss this further.
I enjoyed reading your exploration of this question, which was plaguing me just yesterday! I prefer to read science fiction and would like to write space opera. That's my favorite genre! But then I'm also a historian and my strengths in 16th century science and religion mean my world building can have a fantasy feel. Have fun building and exploring your space opera!!
a very interesting and relevant problem for discussion, and it was great to learn from your research. I suppose it might also be said as conventional wisdom, that science fiction becomes itself (as opposed to fantasy) over the passing of time, as technology advances or scientific problems are solved to make it less fantastical. Then again, Good luck with the new story!
I have thought about this fiction/sci-fi dichotomy a lot and come to my own conclusions… I probably should have done more research, as you did fantastically here. Great thoughts.
I like this question, Jack. I’m thinking now the ability to bridge multiple categories is a priceless effort. Good for the soul. AND for the mind!
My go-to is to ask, "Which rules am I breaking?" as opposed to "Which rules am I adding?" If I can answer the former, it often gives a more 'science-fiction-ey' justification (and sometimes answers the latter).
faster-than-light travel is one example. If I just say to myself "I can travel past light-speed," it ends up coming off as magic. But when I pose it as, "The light speed barrier can be broken," I end up asking "How?" and come at it from a science perspective.
Not foolproof, but it's a shorthand way that helps now and then.
I'm adding that John Barnes article to my reading list, sounds like a good recommendation.
For my "AI takes over the world" novel, I did some research into both the development of Artificial Intelligence thus far (as of around 2020) and the projections from experts of how it might advance to the level of sentience/sapience in the future. I was thinking I had to make everything as plausible as possible. Then at some point, for probably whimsical and not technical or scientific reasons, I decided sentient AI is simply an impossibility. So my novel is more science fantasy, and certainly not hard sci-fi. As AI has advanced in astounding ways over the last couple of years, that assessment hasn't really changed, and I didn't update the creation of my sentient AI based on those advances.
You're right that many fans don't really care about plausibility, especially in the movies and on TV. Star Wars and Star Trek wouldn't be as popular as they are if viewers demanded that the TIE fighters and the Enterprise moved as if they really were in space. Novels are different, because there is that contingent of hard sci-fi fans that will find flaws even in an Andy Weir novel.
I always like a good story and good characters first, but I do like SF in which real physics becomes part of the story and structures the choices available to the characters. My favorite is The Expanse, both the books and the TV series. There are a few "techno-magical" elements, but the writers tried to stick to physics laws for the movement of ships, on-board gravity, and more. It's not just that it feels more "real," but it forces difficult choices on the characters, which then influences the plot in all sorts of interesting ways.
I definitely agree with you about The Expanse and am hoping to approach that level of plausibility at least in terms of the space travel aspects. (I read a whole slew of arguments on Reddit about how plausible that even is.) Interesting that you concluded that sentient AIs are an impossibility. I researched this for an earlier post and came to the conclusion that it's still an open question. https://speclectic.substack.com/p/sentient-aisyes-no-when.
It’s just a feeling I have. Or maybe a lack of imagination.
"Lack of imagination"? Looking at your profile page, I'm sure not!
Thanks for that! Thinking about it some more, if AI ever does develop self-awareness, it will probably be as mysterious as human consciousness. Or to turn that around, if people ever create self-aware AI, they will probably also have figured out the mystery of human self-awareness. In my novel, I leave it mysterious, so the AI doesn't even know why it's self-aware. I'll be posting the first chapter that directly involves the AI next week. I plan to unlock it from the paywall so we can discuss this further.
I enjoyed reading your exploration of this question, which was plaguing me just yesterday! I prefer to read science fiction and would like to write space opera. That's my favorite genre! But then I'm also a historian and my strengths in 16th century science and religion mean my world building can have a fantasy feel. Have fun building and exploring your space opera!!
a very interesting and relevant problem for discussion, and it was great to learn from your research. I suppose it might also be said as conventional wisdom, that science fiction becomes itself (as opposed to fantasy) over the passing of time, as technology advances or scientific problems are solved to make it less fantastical. Then again, Good luck with the new story!