Science belligerency towards science fiction

[Tarquelne]

Oops - I should mention that the space opera these days is usually better than the old fashioned pulp-ish stuff. (Some of which was good, most of which just makes you realize why sci-fi got such a bad reputation in lit. circles.) Handwavium etc., is hardly kept to a minimum, but there's usually at least Artificial Hard Flavor added.

Re: Urban Fantasy-

There should be three distinct sub-genre's: Urban Fantasy, and "I can't be bothered to make up a fantasy world so, like - and this is cool! - they walk among us!" fantasy, and "I'm a magically-thinking New Age twit" fantasy.

Obviously the second two would need succinct labels. ATM I usually just say "I loathe urban fantasy." But now maybe I'll say "I am belligerent toward urban fantasy."

 

[Winner]

I am not a scientist, I love sci-fi, but I hate most of what has been written in this genre. What does it say about the author if even an amateur like me can spot plotholes based on incorrect understanding of scientific concepts? When I get the feeling the author is just adding "cool stuff" because it "looks cool" without knowing squat about it (especially with the newer books you get the feeling they just quickly skimmed an article on Wiki when they did their research), I am done with the book.


So, sci-fi isn't really different from other genres of literature (or film) - 95% of it is crap, but the remaining 5% justify its existence.

 

[MrCynical]

Is this observation correct? If this is indeed correct, then what is the reason behind the belligerency? Is this reason a logical reason? Is it rational, or irrational? Why or why not?

This observation seems rather off to me. In my experience scientists are mostly fans of science fiction (and more so than the average person).

It seems to me that it is a "holier-than-thou" attitude, probably triggered by their high intelligence and knowledge, a psychological phenomenon or something. "I'm right, you're wrong, therefore you're an idiot," so to speak. I realize that for some, it is simply personal taste, but I have observed these attitudes to be, apparently, a system-wide occurrence.

Really not sure where you're observing this - clashes rather badly with my observations. Scientists may be somewhat less likely to go for the really soft end of the science fiction genre. If the "science" in the sci-fi is basically just magic by another name, or behaves inconsistently then that can be off-putting.

As a scientist I do find good sci-fi tends to be internally consistent. I've no problem with a time machine or an FTL drive in a sci-fi book, but if they behave in completely different ways at different points in the book that's rather bad writing. Similarly if you introduce an incredibly powerful piece of technology it's important to consider all the potential uses. If the characters have free access to a time machine they should never be in a race against time to get somewhere. If you have a matter replicator that can produce an accurate facsimile of a meal, it should have no difficulty producing tools, weaponry etc. as the characters require. If the technology breaks at every point in the plot where it would be useful, that also tends to look bad as well.

 

[Cutlass]

Oops - I should mention that the space opera these days is usually better than the old fashioned pulp-ish stuff. (Some of which was good, most of which just makes you realize why sci-fi got such a bad reputation in lit. circles.) Handwavium etc., is hardly kept to a minimum, but there's usually at least Artificial Hard Flavor added.

Re: Urban Fantasy-

There should be three distinct sub-genre's: Urban Fantasy, and "I can't be bothered to make up a fantasy world so, like - and this is cool! - they walk among us!" fantasy, and "I'm a magically-thinking New Age twit" fantasy.

Obviously the second two would need succinct labels. ATM I usually just say "I loathe urban fantasy." But now maybe I'll say "I am belligerent toward urban fantasy."

I think there's some pretty good urban fantasy. And there's more of it out there than people realize. But a lot of it is also cheap knockoff stuff, just copying what has gone before. That's an awful lot of what is on the shelves and TV.

 

[Polycrates]

My belligerence is to James Cameron spending a squillion dollars on Avatar and still having Sigourney Weaver using a gilson pipette in the stupidest way possible.

Honestly though, it's really just when it's terrible science for no real reason. If you're inventing crazy science to have really cool lasergun fights or explosions in space or supermutants or just for a deus ex machina or whatever, that's cool! It's just when science gets butchered for no particular narrative/coolness purpose that it's kind of offputting.