Sci-Fi Techno-Babble

As I both read and write science-fiction, I find myself wondering how much readers get that a great deal of the “science” is bullshit.  There’s no way to actually go faster than light, no one knows what travel through a wormhole would safely look like, there’s no such thing as a matter transporter, and bombarding living beings with radiation usually results in death rather than awesome genetic mutation with superpowers.

Obviously there has to be an enormous suspension of disbelief in science-fiction.  The real question is just how much effort the writer puts into trying to make the science behind the story believable and based on real scientific knowledge, or if the writers are just hoping most folks are too scientifically illiterate to notice.

There has to be some flair, because true science is not only very technical, but extremely dry to read.  Lasers are cool as a concept, but reading about how refraction arises from directional change as it propagates from one transparent homogenous medium into another is enough to make anyone want to drive rusty nails into their eyes just for a level of excitement.  Instead, better to write about using refractive crystals to create intense energy weapons that rip through a titanium alloy.

But just how much techno-babble does science-fiction need?  Some sci-fi novels read like technical manuals, and although fun for some, are not my cup of tea.  I tend to like it when the technology enhances the story rather than becomes the primary framework for it.  That said, the science-stuff also needs to be consistent, ie – cyborgs that can interface with computers don’t suddenly need to be able to access human brains unless that is established early on.  And keeping track of this techno-babble is as hard as remembering which characters did what in Chapter 1 when you’re writing or reading Chapter 24.

Although there are leaps of faith in sci-fi, the science involved at least needs to be believable on a surface level.  Faster-than-light travel isn’t going to fool an actual astrophysicist, but throwing in tachyon emissions or opening up wormholes will at least stave off disbelief rather than just pushing a button and the jet engines suddenly have you at Proxima Centauri by using gasoline.  Taking advantage of the reader’s ignorance is a staple of good sci-fi.  However, throwing in too much can turn off readers who just want to see where the story is going.  I don’t need a 15 page treatment on genetic resequencing, or a whole chapter on the particulars of matter/energy transport.  What I really want to know is how that resequencing leads to uncontrollable mutants, or whether or not a machine malfunction reassembled the story’s hero into an unrecognizable being or transported him through time by accident.

Of course, I’m sure sci-fi drives real scientists crazy, much like I can’t watch or read military fiction written by people with an obvious lack of experience in military operations.  Maybe those scientists would be happier reading detective novels.