Technical prowess versus storytelling

[Hadriel]

No, this isn't a rant against ZOMFGCGISEX!!!!11!  When I refer to technical prowess, I'm not speaking of the authors' abilities to produce special effects; I'm referring to the actual capabilities of a fictional civilization itself.  I've been thinking about this, and I wondered what the opinion here was; how much, if any, does the power level in a story impact the actual storytelling, and why?

There exist numerous powerful universes with excellent stories behind them, and there exist equally as many with crappy ones; the same applies to relatively weak universes.  Reading around on some other boards, namely sci-fi/fantasy versus boards, I've found that there are some levels of technology or magical ability beyond which some people feel that it's impossible to get into a story.  There's also the question of whether a universe's realism affects its technological capacity or ability to tell a particular type of story; FTL travel, for instance, is regarded as either "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" or "this might be possible in some interpretations of bleeding-edge physics, but there's no way we can muster up the resources to do it."  Yet it's still accepted as a plot device in sci-fi, perhaps out of necessity, perhaps out of some small sliver of hope that it might be possible to explore worlds far removed from our own one day.  Likewise, magic and sorcery are almost never quantified or given any explanation as to their mechanism.

This thread isn't intended to be a versus debate in the conventional sense (which sci-fi/fantasy civ or character could beat another); it's just interested in discussing the concept of story versus power.

[GrayLensman]

According to general relativity, any path through space-time which allows FTL travel also allows time travel.  Space operas like Star Trek often overlook the effects this would have on causality.  Space craft would return from voyages they haven't started yet.

[Hadriel]

Exactly, hence the "pay no attention to the guy behind the curtain" mentality; the causality problem is often explained away with warp field bubbles or hyperspace mechanics.  But that isn't too terribly relevant to the actual point of the thread.

[GrayLensman]

Exactly, hence the "pay no attention to the guy behind the curtain" mentality; the causality problem is often explained away with warp field bubbles or hyperspace mechanics.  But that isn't too terribly relevant to the actual point of the thread.

Sorry.  Hard science fiction is usually more impressive, even though it is limited by the laws of physics and reason.  An interstellar voyage may take centuries, but an advanced civilization could re-engineer an entire galaxy.  Standard sci-fi doesn't explore the possibilities of transhumanism or artificial intelligence.

Star Trek, for example, introduces a range of somewhat unrealistic technologies, but doesn't consider their full ramifications.  The federation basically has mastered matter-energy conversion.  I'm surprised that they don't make the entire Enterprise a holodeck and use the transporters and replicators to make changes or repairs to the ship instantly.  Miniaturized that technology into some self-replicating nano-machines and you'd be unstopable.

The possibilities of human augmentation are ignored.  There are normal humanoid aliens and superintelligent aliens, but nothing in between.  Human civilization has outlawed genetic engineering for historical reasons, but no other civilizations has used it to, for example, make them 10x as intelligent.  Any cyber-punk story has neural implants.  Except for special instances (Data), there are no artificial intelligences, either.

Star Trek basically adds some incredible gadgets, but limits their application so that humanity doesn't change.

[evirus]

there are a number of physical "laws" or theories nowadays that i find illogical, for example time dilation, basicly the faster you travel the slower other things seem, a lot of people infer from this that time in effect slows down or speeds up for everyone, for example in a text book a comic for example had one brother on a planet and one in a space ship, after traveling at light speed for a while the brother in the ship lands and sees that he is now much younger then his now aged brother who stayed on the planet, come on if that where true then there would be a reproducable figure stating that people who travel frequently have a different life expectence then people who stay in the same place all their life(disregarding enviromental and fitness factors obviously)

also in regards to FTL travel im not sure how that can be bent into time travel, unless the rules of time break down at that speed, you would still be able to travel to the moon and back and not meet your self on the way back because there isnt any backwords movement through time thats occuring from what i see

also the superman thing, where you can roll back time by reversing the spin of the earth, if somehow the spin of the earth dictated the flow of time then there would be some link between all matter, meaning that it would be impossable for a small amount of matter to exert such large changes to all matter, because it would in effect change it self to the point where it would no longer be spinning the planet backwords

[Hadriel]

Reversing the spin of the Earth would hardly turn back time.

As for time dilation, time only begins to dilate to the extent necessary to cause the aging phenomenon at velocities of an appreciable fraction of c.  Time effectively slows down as you approach c, and hits zero at c.  Theoretically, if you were to exceed the speed of light, time would begin to move backwards.

I don't really see how a civilization that takes centuries to reach another habitable world can re-engineer an entire galaxy.  With that level of technology, it's likely that something else will wipe them off the map first, as that would take many millions of years to accomplish.

As for the Federation mastering matter-energy conversion, they've apparently only mastered it on small scales, such as preparing food.  Rendering a ship in real time is apparently beyond their capabilities.

[evirus]

Reversing the spin of the Earth would hardly turn back time.

As for time dilation, time only begins to dilate to the extent necessary to cause the aging phenomenon at velocities of an appreciable fraction of c.  Time effectively slows down as you approach c, and hits zero at c.  Theoretically, if you were to exceed the speed of light, time would begin to move backwards.

I don't really see how a civilization that takes centuries to reach another habitable world can re-engineer an entire galaxy.  With that level of technology, it's likely that something else will wipe them off the map first, as that would take many millions of years to accomplish.

As for the Federation mastering matter-energy conversion, they've apparently only mastered it on small scales, such as preparing food.  Rendering a ship in real time is apparently beyond their capabilities.

or it could theoretecally rip through the fabric of space/time, of course we havent had any "real" observations of things traveling at light speed other then light of course so its not like the theory you stated could be proved or disproved

[Lord J Esq]

Before we get too far away from the topic title into another trite discussion on gimmicks like FTL, I wanted to throw in my two cents. For once, I think I can do it succinctly: A good writer, with a good idea of what his or her story is going to be, can nullify any barriers of the imagination that would otherwise prevent readers (or players) from appreciating a particularly, shall we say, “bizarre” world.

“Realism,” per se, is just a technique and has no innate effect on the quality of a story. But the further away from reality we get, the better—and clearer—our storytelling has to become, so that we can relate difficult ideas and strange imagery in ways that people will understand, much like how the gang tried to explain to Ayla that they came from “way after tomorrow,” or something like that.

People’s imaginations often go unused throughout their lives, but these sorts of capabilities do not atrophy; only the ability to stir them does. A good storyteller can produce some fantastic ideas in an otherwise very mundane person. To that extent, I think the topic question is answered as a function of the tightness of the story. In fact, that’s why Chrono Trigger succeeded so wildly whereas the at-least-as-good Chrono Cross was much more poorly understood, despite including only one time period, and nothing more complicated than a few philosophical ramblings about humanity and the nature of our existence—or, in other words, despite being much less intellectually difficult to digest than Chrono Trigger. It was because Chrono Trigger was told so well, that nobody had a hard time understanding it.

As a writer myself, I recognize that audience comprehension diminishes the further I stray from reality; however, I also consider elements of a story such as the technological power level and other sociocultural vagaries to be wholly subordinate to the story framework, meaning that it really doesn’t matter what a fictitional society looks like so long as I depict it well.

So saith my two cents.

[Ramsus]

As long as the physical laws of the story's setting are consistent, understood, and sensible, the human element is eventually what makes or breaks a story.

Readers suspend their disbelief for storytelling, but within limits. Use any kind of contrived plot device with a sudden explanation to get a character out of a bind, and suddenly the disbelief returns and the illusion disappears.

That is, an explanation of how everything works doesn't matter. As long as the reader knows what is and isn't possible ahead of time and without being distracted from the story, you can make up whatever rules you want.

The danger with using some super fantasy or sci-fi world as a setting is focusing on the world itself instead of the people in it.

Of course, some things are just about taste. People in funny outfits beaming to and from starships and shooting each other with remote controls is... well... kind of lame to someone with my tastes.

That has nothing to do with how "advanced" the civilization in the story is though.

[GrayLensman]

I don't really see how a civilization that takes centuries to reach another habitable world can re-engineer an entire galaxy.  With that level of technology, it's likely that something else will wipe them off the map first, as that would take many millions of years to accomplish.

The whole point is that you can't travel faster than light.  Everyone would take years to get anywhere.  The galaxy is ~300,000 LY across, and re-engineering it into some sort of super-habitat would take millions of years.

Anyway, I was just making an example of Star Trek.

[Daniel Krispin]

I agree with Lord J. He said it all very nicely.

Personally, I tend to prefer realism, but I've scarcely found un-realism to work all to well (just my experience; I'm certain it has been achieved.) Moreover, my own skill (or call it flaw, if you will) is to write in realistic fashion - or, perhaps, it just comes from liking history. When I write, the empires are borrowed in fashion from the likes of Greece, Italy, Scythia, Minoans, etc. As such, I focus very much on realism, and find a lack of realsim to be a problem in much fantasy (I've said before that fantasy is not a license to be absurd.) However, that does not mean that the concept of being fantastical cannot be employed... it just has to be treated skilfully.

Actually, you know, this applies to multiple facets of a story, not just technology level. Another one is battles and the like. I think there's a real tendancy there to make battles bigger - the bigger the better - just like there might be to make super-technology. Now, while both of these work in the hands of a skilled writer, in those incapable of doing so, they often falter, and seem ill-placed. Also, there is an annoying trend these days to try and make things 'bigger' - notice all the 'epic' things? How I despise that. To me epic is not measured by the scale of story or battles, but by the style of storytelling. If not fully poetic, it must at least be somewhat formalized. But enough of that rant, the point is, extremes are only good if they're done for a reason, and not just for their own sake. That goes for battle-scale (in a story with battles), range of impact in the stories (ie. world-spanning consequences often turn out cliche), and also technological scale.

[Hadriel]

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=3581

This SA article is actually a good example of the types of sci-fi stories I wish would be written more often.

[Daniel Krispin]

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=3581

This SA article is actually a good example of the types of sci-fi stories I wish would be written more often.

Why? Okay, it's funny, it's parody. But... why? I mean, Gamesharked CC is pretty funny, too, but it's not exactly high literature.

I still stand by what I said. Storytelling trumps a detailed world, extreme technology, etc. If both can be done, excellent, and all praise to that writer. But if not... focus on the story, as it is the primary.

[Lord J Esq]

Also, there is an annoying trend these days to try and make things 'bigger' - notice all the 'epic' things? How I despise that.

O, well said! When I was a kid it took a lot of razzle-dazzle to command my attention, but as an adult it seems that the beauty of even the simplest things can be impressively hard to fully appreciate. What, then, of all this "epic" stuff that presumably ought to be that much more mind-boggling, but instead gets tossed around the literature of the low mind with tragic overuse and little worth?

That's one of the reasons, for instance, that I tend to dismiss most Chrono fanfiction--it invariably calls upon the same old enemies and conflicts as before, except, you know...bigger, badder, and better. That's about as smart as building a second Death Star...and just as half-baked. As somebody who works with the "epic" as not only a style but a personal literary technique, I too bewail the absence of subtlety, moderation, and attention to the minuscule that we so often find in the domesticated human imagination.

Anyhow, to get back on topic, it really does come down to the talents and vision of the storyteller. The author of a story is god supreme of that story, and, from the perspective of innateness, the elements of his or her creation can no more overwhelm the intentions of the author than we ourselves could overwhelm whatever divine being you choose to believe presides over this universe from a separate and unassailable position. The technological level of a society inside a story is insignificant compared to the story itself--provided that "god" has some writing credentials--and really the only thing to worry about in this regard is not the content but the presentation. Any story can be told, whose author is up to the challenge.

[Hadriel]

Actually, building a second Death Star was a smart move; the second iteration eliminated the annoying exhaust port design flaw and was far larger and more powerful, being able to fire its superlaser once every ten minutes instead of once every day.  If it had been completed, it would have been invincible; the only way to stop it was to destroy it while it was still under construction.  Where the Empire went wrong was in underestimating the Ewoks' terrain advantage, and the more human-oriented addition of fatherly love.  After the Emperor was bitch-slapped, it was all downhill from there.

One thing I dislike in stories that purport to be epic is a lack of attention to detail.  That tends to happen in most fanfiction, and actually most fantasy and sci-fi novels of our time.  Such parody stories make no attempt to be epic, instead choosing to focus on life as it is.  Now, I don't have a problem with sci-fi that attempts to tell a story of what people will be like in the future.  In fact, I quite like it - when it's executed correctly.  I mentioned attention to detail because it's frequently ignored.  I'm not even talking about blatant scientific fallacies like Voyager's "escape from a black hole" rofflefest, I'm talking about a simple, basic failure to actually think the ramifications of a story through on all the levels required to tell it.  A good deal of modern genre fiction is so poorly executed that even parody surpasses it in overall quality; instead of trying and failing at depicting what could be, it simply aims for depicting what is, and succeeds.