Sunday, October 6, 2019

Entry #10: The levels of Sci-Fi

In storytelling, Science-Fiction has been a very popular genre for hundreds of years, and not without reason. Since the dawn of man, humans have attempted to discover what lies in their future. Whether it be via arcane fortune-telling or modern computer simulation, we have always tried to predict what may come, leaving "Sci-Fi" to be quite an intriguing prospect. Within this genre, there are two main categories: soft and hard Sci-Fi.

"Soft Science-Fiction" is likely the more common of the two. It entails little practical explanation of the futuristic technology, equipment, weapons, etc. that are found within the story. It is simply treated as a given that the explanation would be too complex for the audience to understand, and are thus given none.

"Hard Science-Fiction" is arguably the far more interesting of the two. It entails that all or most of the futuristic technology presented is given some form of explanation that attempts to ground the story in some semblance of reality. Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Saga" series, for example, goes into vast detail about the fictional technologies offered in each book. In the third, "Xenocide", for example, therein lies a subatomic particle known as a "philote". These philotes connect to one another, then connect to quarks, then to protons, neutrons, and electrons, then to atoms, then molecules, etc. These philotes are simply a more extravagant way to explain "String theory" to its audience. The philotes are then connected between various machines called "ansibles" that allow near-instant communication with one another, no matter how far said ansibles are sent, making it possible for people thousands of light-years away to have a conversation with no more than a few seconds of lag between each message.


If a story is able to somehow combine the two, it makes for a fascinating world in which to tell a story. Two prime examples would be "Star Wars" and "Star Trek". Both attempt to explain the more mystical side of their technology with an exaggeration of real-life science in order to provide just enough mystery to keep said technologies futuristic and captivating.

1 comment:

  1. Pretty good job with your four new entries, Kenneth. Keep digging into analysis and significance, and perhaps you should keep blogging as well!

    ReplyDelete