Adding Some ‘Hardness’ to your Science Fiction.

Clarissa K  
Adding 'hard science' to your stories without being a Ph.D.

Since you like writing science fiction, you know the hard/soft distinction. You may think of hard sci-fi as having all that ‘science stuff’ with all the nerds endlessly arguing about it. You like writing soft sci-fi because it gives you a rich tapestry to set your stories. However, you might get ‘gate-kept’ by those same readers who insist, sometimes rudely, that your work isn’t really science fiction. That your story could just as well be in Atlantis or some other place, and it wouldn’t have mattered. You may have dismissed their observations as being irrelevant or overly anal. Still, in the back of your mind, it bothers you, and you’d like to do something about it, but the thought of taking the science part more seriously intimidates you. You don’t have a science degree or any actual knowledge of it. So, you don’t touch it. If you see yourself like this, then the following is for you.

First off, there is nothing wrong with pure soft science fiction. You don’t need to concentrate on science. You have a story to tell! An example of this is Jules Verne versus H. G. Wells. Jules Verne is about as hard as a science fiction author can get. The Nautilus? He knew exactly how everything worked, including the equipment, in excruciating detail. This guy predicted which nation would land on the Moon and which state it would be from, not from pure guessing but from logic. H.G. Wells, on the other hand, had no clue how a Martian Tripod worked and didn’t care, which irritated Jules Verne. The tension between nerds and artists goes back that far. If H.G. Wells wrote sci-fi without worrying about science, you can too.

But Clarissa, you say. I want to harden up my stories. Not as fanatically as Jules Verne, but at least a little. Can I do that without getting flayed alive by my readers and laughed out of the room?

Yes, you can. Let me introduce you to the concept of “Handwavium.” (Name credit to Wendyg)

Handwavium is where you give enough information so that the reader gains confidence in that you know what you are doing, but leave the hard or impossible parts vague. It sounds like hard-core readers would reject this, but they won’t. They know that you don’t know how it works! Nobody knows. What they want is to think about it and go “Hmmm, that has possibilities”. That’s all they want.

An example is likely the best way to show this. In the 1984 movie The Terminator, a man from the future is talking to a woman from our present, and she is quizzing him about time travel. In the middle of it, this exchange happens:

Woman: Look, I am not stupid. They cannot make things like that yet.

Man: Not yet. Not for about forty years.

Woman: Are you saying it’s from the future?

Man: One possible future… from your point of view. I don’t know tech stuff.

That’s all it takes—pure handwavium! The author needed to know or research this line, which led them to the theory about multiverses and time travel. If this exchange hadn’t happened, the story would have been poorer for it. Just one line tells the hard-core watchers that the writer knows about time travel and its complications. They realize the story may be deeper (or harder sci-fi) than they thought. And this is one line. Imagine if you had a little more.

If you decide to add handwavium, you need to consider it carefully. In the example above, the line added gets at a debate about how time travel would work if it existed. Part of that is the multiverse splitting theory. The author must know this to craft an acceptable handwavium that will ‘stick to the wall.’ This requires some research and someone more knowledgeable to give it a smell test and tweak or reject it.

Handwavium, for its own sake, is a waste of potential. When you devise your handwavium, do so in a way that enriches the fabric of your world-building, one that not only hints at deeper science but also gives potential for interesting plots and scenes. That line in The Terminator is not only essential to the plot but is the driving theme of its successful sequel.

Another example is the Star Wars movie ‘The Empire Strikes Back’. In this movie, the author needs a spaceship not to escape the bad guys by just hitting the faster-than-light (FTL) button. The problem is, why can’t they? The writer, in his/her creativity, came up with a way that added to the plot. The ‘hyperdrive’ (FTL) continues to break down, creating dynamics, conflict, and even humor in the story. It works well. However, could they do that again? If they did, the audience would reject it, saying it's been done before. Come up with a completely new reason? Probably.

Why not stop this with handwavium? The author had to know that in a space drama, there will be times when he wants people to fight and not be able to press a button and escape. That’s boring, so the author spends a little time researching FTL travel.

In my WIP, there is FTL travel. The problem is that if one has FTL travel, one can use it for time travel. You need a ‘third party,’ but it can be anything that fits the bill. FTL is such a staple of sci-fi that even hard-core readers will accept it, though likely with an eye-roll. In my WIP, I know enough about special and general relativity that I can come up with a probable universe that has FTL but no time travel. However, the explanation is boring to most and, more damning, adds nothing to the plot except plug a hole that 90% of readers don’t care about.

However, when I thought about it, I found a way that fits into that useless explanation but also prevents spaceships from warping away from conflict. There's no need to come up with the hyper-drive spinning down or not working when trying to escape. It’s now part of the fabric of world-building.

The supreme experts at Handwavium are the writers of Star Trek, and we geeks love it. Star Trek is not hard sci-fi, but it feels much more up the scale of hardness than Star Wars. They use handwavium to set up plots, conflicts, and solutions to conflicts. I’m not going into specifics on Star Trek because you all are intimately familiar with it. If you are a sci-fi writer and not, well…

In conclusion, don’t be afraid to add some ‘hardness’ to your science fiction. You don’t have to get a science degree or spend weeks researching. Learn some about what you want to harden up so that you have a basic understanding. Make handwavium exciting and find a knowledgeable person to give it a smell test. Your stories will be richer, and you might get those geeks defending your writing rather than lifting their noses and dismissing it.

There are innumerable resources to use for your research—too many great ones to list. However, I am a rabid fan-girl of the highly prolific Isaac Arthur. Link: (128) Isaac Arthur - YouTube. Also, I live for giving handwavium a sniff test, so feel free to contact me. Keep writing!


 

15 Comments

Nicolaysen

That’s all it takes—pure handwavium!

I just died. :skull_and_crossbones: That’s perfect. :rofl: :sparkling_heart:

Sep-23 at 00:25

Marisaw

Interesting discussion. It reminds me of an argument I had with another CC member, years ago. I wish I’d had this article to refer her to!

Her novel was about a future where the Earth was about to become unliveable and an expedition was planned to find another planet. It focused on one woman who cared for the plants onboard the ship and developed a telepathic relationship with them, which then helped the colonists survive when they reached their destination.

Most of the novel was a beautiful fable about the evolution of humans and their relationship with nature. But I couldn’t enjoy it, because I kept tripping over the science.

They were retrofitting an old spaceship on a disused airport on Earth. There were 300 colonists. There were cabins for everyone (four to a cabin), because they’d all be spending the first three months awake (for orientation). Then there were enough suspended animation pods for everyone for the rest of the voyage. There was also a seed bank and a garden full of living plants, a wellness centre, gym, canteen, stores of food and essential supplies, and a huge equipment store for the prefab dwellings, vehicles and tools they’d need on their new planet.

All very well thought out and, you might think, a good example of ‘hardening up’ soft sci fi by providing some sciency details. Except, as you’ll no doubt have noticed, there are all kinds of problems with that ship!

I tried to persuade her to have the ship built in orbit, at least, and have far fewer people needing to stay awake on the trip, but that would’ve meant losing scenes she wasn’t prepared to lose. The result was that she got a couple of bad reviews early on, because of the science.

Checking on the book now, it’s had a lot of positive reviews from people who ‘get’ the book for what it is, a fable – but even one of those reviews mentions the fact that anyone with a science background will find it hard to suspend disbelief.

Less science and more handwavium would’ve made all the difference.

Sep-23 at 00:52

Paulpowell

H’umm. In general I suppose I agree but I ponder whether HG Wells fits the author’s argument very well.

Never heard anyone assert that HG Wells was short on ‘practical know-how’. I’ll have to mull that one over. May be, only in comparison to someone like Verne? Or maybe, only because Verne focused on crafts and vessels?

I remember admiring Wells’ explanation (given from Griffin to Kemp) as to how Griffin, ‘bleached his blood’ to become invisible. Short, but credible enough. I agree he didn’t belabor the technology of it, but I don’t recall craving any additional detail.

Then, the methodological destruction of the earth culture in ‘The Shape of Things to Come’ or ‘War in the Air’.

He wrote on a great many other societal topics. ‘The Outline of History’ (two volumes) describing human evolution since the hominid stage. No mean feat. Something like 1,400 pps? 1,800? Can’t recall.

I’d go as far as to say that Wells was Aristotle to Verne’s Plato. Wells understood innately, the hidden functions of the existing world around us.

Sep-23 at 01:10

Stoppelman

Hi Clarissa,

Thanks for that, it is a helpful point to make and I’ll look at it for my story. Technology comes out in the third chapter of my story, which isn’t up for review yet, so I can see what I can do to improve it.

Thanks again.

Sep-23 at 05:42

Vidyut

Interesting blog, @Clarissak

@Wendyg’s handwavium is going places :smiley:

Good explanation on how to use handwavium and exploit what readers are already willing to buy, like FTL.

This happened in my book 1 rough drafts, when it took a bit of info dumping and setting up to get the readers to understand the symbionts but also not feel like they are reading a science text. Took me dozens of edits to make the info dumps invisible. What amused me all through was that nobody objected to the agrav (anti-gravitational) vehicles peppered all through the book without ANY explanation - there is an explanation, but very late and very brief. Easy to miss altogether. It has NOTHING to do with establishing the vehicles, which are just plonked on the page right from the prologue and not a single person asked how these hoverboards achieve antigravity. Not one person. People are just used to seeing flying vehicles in sci-fi.

My contribution to this bag of tricks:

I establish a few concepts in robust detail, show the math, explain the science, etc, so the reader knows the science is well thought out. For a few. Then, you can dump in a dozen more, and the reader ASSUMES they will add up without you having to explain anything, because they now have an idea of the science as being well thought out.

Also, once you’ve reached that take off velocity, the more concepts you interweave, the more “solid” the fake science gets. Sheer numbers and consistent use make it believable, because the reader bases their understanding on other invented concepts without needing explanations for everything.

Sep-23 at 06:11

Wendyg

Handwavium!
Umm no, I can’t claim credit for the term. It was used by a long-term member of the site long before I joined. The classic example they gave me was Back to the Future’s flux capacitor.
Handwavium needs to be based on credibility, even if that credibility is only via logical imagination.

(Yes, @Clarissak, I do have a beautifully logically imaginative theorem basis for using diatom coal as a catalyst for quantum-based FTL! :rofl::rofl::rofl: Why else is something based on unicellular organisms called ‘di-atom’? :innocent: )

In regards to adding ‘hardness’ in science, I think people focus on the physics side of science too much for sci-fi. There’s a lot of good sci-fi stories on CC that fail on things like basic physiology and anatomy even before they reach any handwavium futuristic stuff. But then, movies don’t try for accuracy in those aspects either so it’s not surprising that books (copying things like movie fight scenes) follow suit.

I’m not saying that either movies or books have to be accurate in the existing science to be enjoyable. They don’t. But if people are trying to increase the accuracy of science in any book (sci-fi or not), or even their accuracy within the logical imagination of handwavium, then it pays to also have a quick whizz through things like physiological pathways and cell reactions.

By the way, why didn’t I know until today that the Earth pulses every 26 seconds!!! I have a duology which is on hold at the moment, because no more scenes came into my head when halfway through book 2. However, this info has just triggered some biological logical imagination and kickstarted the next scenes in the story!

No, of course that pulse isn’t going to be related to ocean waves, volcanic activity, or cracks in the seabed sedimentary layers – what a waste of handwavium those solutions would be!!!

Sep-23 at 08:51

Cwarkentin

As someone who actually has a PhD, I know there’s always been handwavium in SF. The problem is this: The more tolerance for handwavium, the harder it is to say SF has something to really distinguish itself from fantasy. Where does handwavium turn into techo-wizardry? What’s still “hard” about “hard SF”? I see a lot of people picking up things – often just words – from the popular science press and running with them, without any understanding of the underlying science.

In the 20th century (you know, olden days!) the line between “hard SF” and the rest was about a sort of pretence. “Hard” SF took some effort. You’d be expected to check for basic science, you’d get criticised if you didn’t. And there was a lot of “toxic nerdity” to it. Fantasies, “soft” SF, “social SF” – that stuff wasn’t for serious people. Hard SF was for Real Men, serious people who cared about the future and used their brains to solve problems.

Some well-known SF authors were hard core nerds of various kinds. As I recall, they were generally terrible at writing about people and society, had the most ridiculous beliefs ever about history, and the less said about how they wrote women the better. They also usually had their science wrong.

So look, I don’t care about technobabble or even SF that’s just time-honoured SF tropes instead of showing off your science skills. Tell me a story I like reading. But: Sometimes, you might have a story to tell that’s all about the science and tech. For example, my WIP, which is totally about how the implausible thing it’s about is really terribly plausible.

@Clarissak , I’m actually curious how you explain having FTL without time travel. I’ve had some thoughts along those lines too. There’s a draft chapter in Cambelle in which Collie the Elf explains the mysteries of the universe to Cambelle, including how humans managed to develop FTL in the far future, realized they couldn’t use it for time travel, and drew exactly the wrong conclusions from that.

You also don’t actually need a third party. I read a proof a while back about how you only need one trip to effect tacit time travel, but I’ll have to look it up for you.

Sep-23 at 10:08

5711write

What I’ve loved about sci fi and fantasy is building the plot around the rules. My current series has a gradual jump in human technology and the plots follow the conflict that arises from it.

Some fit to the laws of physics stricter than others and that works well too. Two movies I saw were “Passengers” and “Aniara” which the characters were trapped on a space ship in transit. Because of the many years it takes to reach another system, even at light speed, they live out the rest of their lives without seeing firm ground again.

I grew up playing Halo and Wing Commander, so i like my space battles and jump drives, even if they are unrealistic.

Sep-23 at 16:12

Jjemerald

image

Nice article!
I often think of writing as a sort of magic trick. The intricacies of how the trick works are far less important than maintaining the illusion that the magic is real. What you’re describing, handwavium, is like the misdirection that a magician uses to conceal their sleight-of-hand. I think it exists outside of hard sci-fi too. Like in a horror story, there’s usually some handwave-y explanation for why they can’t just call for help. Mobile phones are to horror what the speed of light is to sci-fi; a pain in the ass.

Sep-24 at 02:09

Dougp

Sure, you can set your sci-fi story in space and declare your ship has artificial gravity because of “Reverse Graviton Photosynthesis.” Throw in plenty of sciencey-sounding words, and… if you’re a good writer and can tell a good story, you can be successful!

But why are you so interested in avoiding real science when the universe we live in is chock full of fascinating stories waiting to be told (or integrated into the story you want to tell). For example, find out why Earth’s sky is blue. It’s not hard to learn about Rayleigh scattering, about how light bends through a prism, and why shorter wavelengths (like blue) bend more than longer wavelength (like red). Cool! Now you know something you didn’t know before! Now, you can dream up a faraway planet with skies that are salmon or vermilion (and know why). Your descriptions suddenly improve. Your imagination soars. Maybe you’ll add clouds that form Z shapes because you read about wind shear. Maybe you’ll invent floating puffballs that live at a particular height in this atmosphere because you also learned about density gradients.

My point is your fictional world can be so much richer if you’re curious about our real world. And that’s what science is: curiosity.

I started writing sci-fi in 2016 because I was tired of the fantasy, superheroes, dystopian futures, and alien battles that comprised 95% of sci-fi at the time. I decided to write what I wanted to read. Today, my newsletter goes out every month to thousands of happy fans, and it uses this heading: Science Fiction Begins with Science. For me, real science doesn’t just make my writing better or earn me more readers, I get to learn something new with every book. We are privileged to live in an amazing universe. Embrace it!

Sep-25 at 02:46

Vidyut

Agree that knowing science and using it in a book is exciting.

Also get that many aren’t driven by curiosity. They can have a philosophical speculation.

We all bend rules in unscientific ways. For example your aliens, my symbionts, somebody else having perfect gravity on a spaceship without explanation (that one gets me too), people finding planets that are automatically breathable, and their aliens end up sounding very human, have armies, translators for a species they’ve never encountered before (or worse, just speaking English), superpowers, dystopian cities where stuff “just happens” normally when needed (I read tissue paper in one - who the heck manufactured and distributed it to a secret hideout when society was starving?), time travel…

What I like about your writing is the curiosity as a driving factor rather than conflict. Puzzles. Weird experiences in the cosmos. The constant focus on what could be out there. What could happen one day.

Sep-25 at 03:28

Rodrigocr

To each their own, but I tend to favor authors that are not that into physics or other ‘hard’ sciences. Le Guin, Mieville, Banks, Gibson, Cherryh, Dick, Smith, Leckie, Wells, Martine are all more concerned with linguistics, politics, sociology, anthropology, cultural studies, psychology, etc.
On the other hand, I DNFed The Martian by the second or third chapter…

Sep-29 at 02:44

Stoppelman

I think that science fiction has to be plausible, which is down to the author’s ability to make it plausible. I often see a lazy approach by just making up a fancy scientific sounding name, but making no attempt to making it plausible. We rejected that some time ago in films, and made jokes about it.

Science fiction also easily becomes dated, because real inventions are better than the portrayal in books and films. That is why it is difficult to write. The description and function of a contraption lasts longer if it does actually have some science behind it.

In a way, it is like actors and actresses have to make their adopting a role that is completely opposite and in contradiction of their true character believeable. It is a sign that what is presented is skillful.

Oct-02 at 09:23

Jacksavage

Any of you wrting slick intelligent psychological sci-fi along the lines of Event horizon, Arrival, or Annihilation?

Oct-02 at 09:47

Stoppelman

I found Arrival to be very good, but the short story it’s based on, Story of Your Life by Ted Chiang is very different and I liked both, but it is an ingenious story in both cases.

Oct-02 at 13:38
Click here to reply
Member submitted content is © individual members.
Other material ©2003-2024 critiquecircle.com