What separates good science fiction from bad science fiction? What is bad science fiction?

Question

I recently read an article by Mr. Jayant Narlikar (famous Indian astrophysicist) where the author gave an overview of the writings of H G Wells, Arthur C Clarke, Isaac Asimov and Ray Bradbury and said that bad science fiction is the one which creates irrational fear of science among readers and takes irresponsibly big liberties.

While, good sci-fi paves the path for new scientific explorations.

I guess, you have to take certain liberties with science fiction and you have to write about fancy stuff like anti-gravity, faster-than-light spaceships etc.

My question is, how do you draw the line?
And what exactly should a good science fiction writer do?

Any suggested readings?

Answer 1

Sophist and Patienttraffic touch on a couple points that I find interesting.

I think the work needs to be good literature to be good science fiction. Throwing a lot of gimmicks and gadgets our way doesn't make good literature. Developing a story that envelopes scientific changes and causes one to think, feel, or explore new ideas (ex: good or bad, ethical vs. unethical) is important in writing good literature and hence, good science fiction. Also, the work needs to be entertaining or engaging in some way to be "good."

I love The Planet of the Apes by Pierre Boulle. I think it is both great literature and great science fiction. It's a what if scenario where science theory (evolution) and science possibility (time travel) work together with social commentary (entertainment, politics, racism), religious values (sloth, legalism) and philosophy (man's self-fulfillment and self-destruction) to examine a possible future consequence.

Asimov also deals with science and related ethics in his robot novels. (Of course, he deals with this in his non-fiction writings, as well.) **Some of his children's robot books ("Norby", etc.) tend to be a little far-fetched, though, and the science seems to push the plot rather than build a foundation. I don't find those books to be very interesting. However, they intend to speak to a different audience. THAT may raise or lower the bar a bit. (1/4/07)**

An author's ability to get the reader to look beyond what is known to visualize the unknown is key to writing good fiction. Suspension of disbelief on the part of the reader involves a sort of trust that the author will return a good story. Taking irresponsible liberties with science possibility probably distracts from the overall story and would cause the writing to be, well, twoddle.

**You may be interested in a book entitled "Writing Science Fiction and Fantasy" -- which includes writings by Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, James Patrick Kelley, Stanley Schmidt, etc. Follow this link http://www.amazon.com/gp/sitbv3/reader/002-6870145-4372861?asin=0312089260&pageID=S00I&checkSum=YCcK673TH9EKCjQdVTn1g2eIdedz%20pSsSMhcQTrJHPA= to see the chapter "On the Writing of Speculative Fiction" by Robert A. Heinlein. To the left of the page you can click on the table of contents. Follow that link to see the articles included in the book. No, I haven't read the book. (I searched it on Google.) I think it could be helpful, as it includes advice from a number of science fiction/fantasy writers. (1/4/07)**

Answer 2

This is an excellent question. I think there is some credence to the Beauty for the Beholder concept. I often find myself reading a sci-fi book and the concept just clicking with me. When that happens I tend to gloss over poor story and human interactions. The concept of the sci-fi book tends to be the most important and the story and plot secondary.

I know friends who find the story much more engrossing and don't accept the concept unless there is a real human interaction behind it.

While I agree with your inference that there is a high level definition of bad science fiction that creates an irrational lack of acceptance of upcoming inventions, I also feel that even within the realm of sci-fi there are concepts that appeal to different people and good or bad are decided on an individual basis.

I loved the psychohistory concept in the Asimov series. You can get the whole series for about $30 from http://www.ugenie.com/displayBundle.jsp?bundleId=26934 or one of the shopping portals.

Asimov was definitely a 5 stars in my book. I liked the Dune series, but not to the same extent. For me, there was no single large science or math concept to identify with.

Your point about irrational fear is underscored in the way Asimov handles robots for example. He portrays them as guardians and sows enough seeds of doubt to lead us away from the Terminator series way of thinking that they are out to get us.

Answer 3

I have read H G Wells, Arthur Clarke, Isaac Asimov, and Ray Bradbury, and other than Wells, I found most of their writings boring.

Why?
I think what separates good sci-fi from bad is a writer who is capable of imagining a society that is totally different from the way our society is now...that's why I liked Wells and the War of the Worlds...on the other hand most of the other "great" male sci-fi writers wrote novels who's social norms or society sounded very similiar to the way our society is now. If a writer's "world" is made up of aliens but is still sexist, racist, homophobic, and/ or classist like ours is now, with no other view presented, I find the book just a rerun of our society, just with aliens added.

My favorite sci-fi author is Octavia Butler, since each of her works presented a totally different society, that I had to figure out, since it was different from the way ours works now. I also enjoyed Elizabeth Lynn's sci-fi novels for the same reason. It's rare for me to find a sci-fi novel that doesn't bore me to death...

Answer 4

Good sci-fi is thoroughly grounded in scientific fact with some speculation on what is unproven. It always has a "what if" component. Asimov wrote about robots a lot. He created the Robotic Laws that have become de rigor in the sci-fi community. Good sci-fi does not seek to alarm, except in the area of nuclear war, but to explore possibilities. Asimov, along with others, sets The story in the far future rather than the near future. Most near future is now explored in thrillers like James Bond and Matt Helm.

Answer 5

That sounds like a good definition of good and bad cheerleading (or marketing copy), but it's use addressing literature/fiction is dubious at best.

Some of our best science fiction offers cautions about potential futures (Bradbury's "Farenheit 451," Huxley's "Brave New World," "Alas Babylon," etc.)



For me to consider a work as "good" the following questions would need to be answered affirmatively (in addition to being grammatically correct, interesting, entertaining, etc.):

Is the science in the book plausible with our current understanding of the laws of physics, nature, etc. or can we extrapolate the depicted future from present conditions? (if not, it's probably fantasy.)

Is the fictional world logically consistent?

Is the science in the story central to the tale? (If not, it's probably an adventure or western dressing up in science fiction clothing..."Star Wars.")


To be "great" the work would need to not only examine technical/science issues, but would also explore their impact on human beings and their relationships (all great literature is about people and/or their relationships).

Sorry, no suggested readings.

Answer 6

Personally, I can deal with almost any unbelievable occurence if it is written well. However, you will occasionally come across a book in which the author is constantly adding information and contradictions to allow them to advance the plot in a certain way, showing sloppy organization. (Kind of like Pirates of the Carribean)

Answer 7

For me, good science fiction speaks of probability and possibility with believability.