Ah, E.E. "Doc" Smith's
coruscating beams of force ... he introduced these early on, and then every
couple of chapters would want to up the ante, so would have to try and outdo
his earlier description, and they would become ravening beams of unimaginable
pure power…
But
"science-fiction" is just a catch-all phrase for speculative fiction,
not an enforceable limitation. I used to read tons of SF, all the way from
junk/pulp through to the serious hard-science stuff and the only complaint I
ever have about any individual book is if it's badly written. Some of the more
glaring errors and redundant theories raise an eye-brow (I love H. P. Lovecraft
despite plate tectonics being fifty years in his future and all his mentions of
aluminiferous ether...) but what the hell, if it's a good book it's a good
book.
A lot of very
readable and entertaining SF is grounded in Clarke's observation that "any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic." A character who pops what looks like an
aspirin tablet into what looks like a microwave and then retrieves and eats a
vindaloo is behaving as realistically as I am when I order a pizza. If she then
steps into a time machine, she needn't know any more about how it works than I
need to know what really happens when I turn on the lights. In fact, I'd worry
about the success of a book that said "Gwen's
knowledge of farming and baking enabled her to eat a pizza, and since she
understood the principles of electrical transmission, she was able to eat it
with the lights on." If anything, I think that too many SF books try
to explain made up science that their characters, if real, would probably just
take for granted.
Sometimes we
fail to recognise that some of the best SF writing is not very technical at
all. I'm thinking here of the likes of Philip K. Dick, or Walter M. Miller, who
tried to make philosophical points about humanity and our past and future
without alienating readers with scientific mumbo jumbo. The technocratic side
of SF is all well and good, but it isn't the whole story either.
I think there is
something ridiculous about people who try to make links between popular science
fiction and real science. Much science fiction is really magical fantasy
dressed up with scientific language to make it palatable to a modern audience
(Doctor Who with his magic wand, sorry sonic screwdriver, Star Trek with its
cosmic vibrations that everything from psychically gifted therapists to
starship engines can tune into). They are entertainment written by people with
an arts background who have no understanding of science and no interest in it,
except as a source of impressive special effects. A lot of science fiction is
actually pseudo-science that has more in common with Californian new age
mysticism, like Star Wars. I can only think of a handful of works of SF that
are genuinely scientific. Even 2001: A Space Odyssey descended into religious
mysticism. And when Hollywood starts dabbling in time travel any pretense of
scientific rationality goes out of the window. The science is SF is like the
science in adverts for magical bracelets that cure rheumatism and often uses
the same technique, borrowing half-understood concepts like quantum physics to
justify any ludicrous claim a snake oil salesman (or Hollywood scriptwriter)
has dreamed up. That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy SF. One of my favourite
films is “Blade Runner”, but the science in it is laughable.
On the other
hand, we have films like “The Matrix” wherein some of the science is top-notch:
The holographic principal, Mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH) and
Artificial intelligence (AI) for a start.
When it comes to
Star Trek, and as far as I’m concerned, the jury is still out. Were there no
sliding doors before Star Trek? That would be fascinating if so, but it seems
unlikely. I hope I'm wrong!
Oh yes. I almost
forgot. If a whole bunch of equations can’t faze you, you should definitely
read Luokkala’s book. What a blast to watch some of the Star Trek episodes
coming back to life through physics. That was one of the reasons I went into
engineering…
NB: I’m still
fuming from the latest Abrams incursion into Star Trek territory…Watching hours
of constant, confusing and predictable action scenes with an incoherent plot,
cliches and "unamusing" one liners is not my idea of enjoyment. Or value for
money. I really struggle to find any redeeming features. I'm a Trekkie, taking
great enjoyment from trek films. The last two were just symptomatic of
Hollywood’s money maximizing strategy and I mourn the betrayal of gene
Roddenberry’s original vision. It was HORRIBLE!!! Simon Pegg you need to have
you Star Trek Fan Card revoked. The plot made no sense at all and come on the
Beasty Boys saved the day, and, of course, we have to be PC
with the token gay couple!! RIP Star Trek I will miss you and what a present
(NOT) for the 50th anniversary. Well I will go to Netflix and watch some real
Trek now.
NB2: For those
you not mathematically challenged, read the Alcubierre’s article
mentioned in the book about Star Trek’s warp drive.
SF = Speculative Fiction.
