How to Address Bad Tech that Works In Universe

[Imperial Overlord]

There's a number of books that feature technology that we simply know won't work or won't work as advertised (Stone Dogs, Footfall, etcetera.) Unfortunately, the authors often have these technological aberrations work like wonders. How do we handle that for the purposes of comparisons, after we are finished snickering at the writer? With Trek its easy to dismiss the character as not knowing what he's talking about and the device simply working as shown, but things aren't so simple with an omniscient narrator.

[Setzer]

I have this image of a character who's like a 40k ork in reverse. He sees something that works in universe, even though it shouldn't. He makes it stop working through sheer conviction that it shouldn't work. Might be interesting to write a story with a character like that.

[Stark]

I'd simply suggest putting the book down and walking away.

Seriously, it really is down to the nature of the information. As you say, a narrator isn't as easy to dismiss as a statement by a character, but the full body of evidence must still be considered: upper and lower limits are often less silly than the number one upper limit of stupidtech. Also flowery language is necessarily nonspecific and subjective, and is thus open to reinterpretation or dismissal. In other words, try and wrestle some sense out of the lazy writing.

On the other hand, when you reach a certain point of inconsistency or illogical technology analysis becomes essentially impossible. This is at it's worst when a STORY is good, but the author has put in mastubatory nonsensetech to draw in the 40k crowd and it is stupid, inconsistent, and poorly used.

[The Yosemite Bear]

open a wormhole to a universe where pgtsucs holds sway, and let it rape them mercilessly,

[Connor MacLeod]

I suppose it depends on the universe. Sometimes its not always an "omniscient" narrator (that sortt of conclusion can be hard to reach. It depends on who is the narrator.) Its generally not wise to simply "assume" the narrator is omnisicent even when it seems likely.

In most cases, since the nature of the narrator isnt specific, and if the tech isn't well defined (as it usually isn't) then there's some wiggle room to allow you to deal with the apparent inconsistencies.

Sometimes the tech can still be analyzed or measured in some way despite being technobabble (most FTL and even drive systems can be measured in terms of acceleration or velocity.)

Worse comes to worse you just either ignore the author, or it just remains unquantifiable/unaddressable.

[darthbob88]

open a wormhole to a universe where pgtsucs holds sway, and let it rape them mercilessly,

Eh? Is that of any relation to Shub-Internet?

[The Yosemite Bear]

open a wormhole to a universe where pgtsucs holds sway, and let it rape them mercilessly,

Eh? Is that of any relation to Shub-Internet?

sorry physics, I was typing with a fever...

[Junghalli]

It depends on the technology and how it's presented. Could you give some examples? I usually use one of two approaches.

(1) Assume the character or narrator doesn't know what they're talking about.

(2) Assume the technology involves some undisclosed technobabble that makes it work.

Alternately, for purposes of vs debating you can just ignore the fact that it doesn't make sense and focus on its demonstrated capabilities.

[Junghalli]

Also, for implausible tech developments, like in an AH series, I usually assume either

(1) It's very unlikely but just happened that was as a fluke.

(2) There are "behind-the-scenes" reasons things happened that way which aren't spelled out in the book.

[Lord of the Abyss]

If it's logical but contradicts too much known science ( without plausibly explaining why the science was wrong ), I try to think of it as happening in an alternate universe where the laws of physics do work that way. That even works for many versions of magic, not just funky technology.

If the technology has internal contradictions I try to ignore it and pay attention to the story, but it detracts from the story. And if the story isn't good enough to distract me, I put the book down and read something else.

[Lord Relvenous]

There's a number of books that feature technology that we simply know won't work or won't work as advertised (Stone Dogs, Footfall, etcetera.) Unfortunately, the authors often have these technological aberrations work like wonders. How do we handle that for the purposes of comparisons, after we are finished snickering at the writer? With Trek its easy to dismiss the character as not knowing what he's talking about and the device simply working as shown, but things aren't so simple with an omniscient narrator.

emphasis mine

If it is an accepted fact that the said technology would not work in any circumstances, then really no comparisions should be made involving the technology. Sometimes authors crap tech onto a page and call it science. If this the case and everyone agrees the author was off their rocker, then disregard completely.

[Junghalli]

If it is an accepted fact that the said technology would not work in any circumstances, then really no comparisions should be made involving the technology. Sometimes authors crap tech onto a page and call it science. If this the case and everyone agrees the author was off their rocker, then disregard completely.

The problem with this approach is if we're talking science fiction virtually all SF universes have many fundamental technologies that would not work under our understanding of physics. Let's take Star Wars for instance. 200 gigaton turbolasers? Gone: they can't possibly work with real physics; they'd melt themselves with the first shot. Accelerations in the thousands of G for the ships and fighters? Likewise gone. The Death Star? Gone. Shields? Gone. Repulsorlifts? Gone. You get the picture. I'm sure you can see how easily this logic just begs to be horribly abused in a vs debate.

It's one thing if the technologies capabilities are only talked about, but I'd be very reluctant to throw out stuff that's actually shown to work as advertised in universe. Usually I think it's best to just assume there's some undisclosed technobabble involved.

[Sikon]

Junghalli makes a good point above.

Actually, Footfall was relatively more hard sci-fi than most universes, so I'm not sure why it was a particular example of "bad tech" in the opening post. Of course, it wasn't perfect realism, as is difficult for a story, such as there being various unlikely aspects of the aliens, their lack of some technologies probable before interstellar travel, and the general scenario. But the author tried more than most to depict mostly scientifically possible technologies as opposed to ones violating physics as far as all current knowledge indicates. For example, the humans building and launching to orbit an Orion ship for attack was a lot more realistic than most sci-fi ships using antigravity, repulsors, or the like. Even the Bussard ramjet of the aliens, while probably utterly unworkable in practice, is at least closer to possibility than FTL. Indeed, while net acceleration from a Bussard ramjet is unlikely, a more conventional fusion starship might be able to use the principle of the Bussard ramjet for deacceleration at the end of its voyage ... maybe.

[Gil Hamilton]

Besides, even if Michael was impossible, Operation Archangel gets major points for being fucking awesome.

[phongn]

Besides, even if Michael was impossible, Operation Archangel gets major points for being fucking awesome.

I'm surprised that they didn't put at least an aerodynamic shell around her for the atmospheric transit phase - not like she's hurting for thrust

[Imperial Overlord]

Junghalli makes a good point above.

Actually, Footfall was relatively more hard sci-fi than most universes, so I'm not sure why it was a particular example of "bad tech" in the opening post. .

Because converting a wetnavy battleship to an Orion vessel and bomb pumped lasers work perfectly, first try. Not only do they work, they work well enough to kick the ass of an entire alien fleet when bomb pumped lasers are a dubious piece of tech at best (the only tests had fudged results and were inconclusive).

[Connor MacLeod]

Maybe this would be much easier to deal with if we have some specific examples to discuss. I don't suppose you could do that could you Overlord?

[Sikon]

Junghalli makes a good point above.

Actually, Footfall was relatively more hard sci-fi than most universes, so I'm not sure why it was a particular example of "bad tech" in the opening post. .

Because converting a wetnavy battleship to an Orion vessel and bomb pumped lasers work perfectly, first try. Not only do they work, they work well enough to kick the ass of an entire alien fleet when bomb pumped lasers are a dubious piece of tech at best (the only tests had fudged results and were inconclusive).

I certainly don't think that the human defenders would realistically have been able to defeat a substantial alien fleet, particularly not with the kind of alien technology and capabilities far beyond that in Footfall that would be probable before interstellar travel from my perspective. However, I can't see Footfall as much of an example of implausible technology compared to much other sci-fi.

If the above illustration corresponds to the ship Michael described in the book, the Orion vessel is a lot more than a modified wetnavy battleship. It is able to be referred to as a battleship but in the sense of a space battleship. If I had the book with me, I would look through it to search for references to the Orion ship's construction, as it has been a while since I read it. In any case, nuclear pulse propulsion like the real-world Orion project proposal is a workable method of reaching orbit, unlike the ships in Star Trek, Star Wars, Stargate, and most other sci-fi universes which come to mind, not depending upon scientifically impossible technology.

In general, it might help if you gave some examples of sci-fi universes which you view as having much more realistic technology overall than Footfall, as that would put this in better context.

I'm no particular fan of bomb-pumped x-ray/gamma lasers and would be skeptical of them being the best weapon. Nuclear bomb devices definitely can be destructive at close range (of course!) and may be somewhat directional, but bomb-pumped lasers being able to take out targets beyond some number of kilometers distance would seem more uncertain. I don't recall the particular effective range they were supposed to have in the book. However, even if the figures were high, I suspect trying to rationalize them while minimizing deviation from the laws of physics and heat transfer would be a lot easier than the observed capabilities of phasers, turbolasers, etc.

From the opening post, you mentioned the question of handling technology for the purpose of comparisons. Unless one is restricting oneself to whatever rare sci-fi universes may have less far-out technology than even Footfall, the main practical way to do versus scenarios at all is to treat the "observed" effects of technologies as real, even when one ends up dealing with FTL, repulsors, and more for average sci-fi.

[Imperial Overlord]

Well, I was thinking in generalities, to form basic principles but here's a few, mostly from the Draka verse because a lot of people will be familiar with it:

1) Road not taken tech: It tends to work really, unrealistically well, fulfillling the pie in sky predictions without any drawbacks or problems. Ramjets and scramjets in the 60s, bomb pumped lasers, etcetera.

2) Just weirdly improbable stuff like the radio activated virus in Stone Dogs.

3) Things like Footfall where the untried and untested systems are developed in ultrasecret and everything works and works perfectly the first time they are used. Star Wars has a lot of realism problems, but it was based on established in universe technology and had a signifigant development history and testing.

[Beowulf]

Although the Orion drive system has problems, being unworkable isn't one of them. The bomb pumped lasers are a bit more iffy, but essentially everything on the ship was extra. If nothing else, ramming the Michael into the mothership would have ended the war favorably for the humans. The difficult stuff is making the devices powering the whole shebang, and that's a relatively solved technology for the US.


Ramjets in the 60's is eminently doable. See for example, the Talos missile, which first flew in 1952.

[Gil Hamilton]

I'm surprised that they didn't put at least an aerodynamic shell around her for the atmospheric transit phase - not like she's hurting for thrust

It might have had it in the book, rather than that artists conception. After all, they were passing it off as a giant greenhouse, so having the space shuttles in plain view wouldn't have been exactly productive.

[Imperial Overlord]

Although the Orion drive system has problems, being unworkable isn't one of them. The bomb pumped lasers are a bit more iffy, but essentially everything on the ship was extra. If nothing else, ramming the Michael into the mothership would have ended the war favorably for the humans. The difficult stuff is making the devices powering the whole shebang, and that's a relatively solved technology for the US.

Its the all together working together without any testing or prototyping, first try, perfectly and kicking the ass of an entire fleet. that really sticks in my craw.

Ramjets in the 60's is eminently doable. See for example, the Talos missile, which first flew in 1952.

True, its the more the "miracle tech uberness of instant domination" part that of the equation that I have problems with.

[kinnison]

Regarding the aliens' lack of probable tech in Footfall; did anyone notice that part of the plot was that the aliens were using stolen/legacy technology that they didn't really understand and hadn't developed?

It's relatively easy to get someone trained well enough to drive a car, and even to maintain it given the parts. Even if said someone has no technical background whatever, it's possible.

However, taking a New Guinea tribesman as an adult, without the benefits of twenty years of Western education, and expecting to be able to educate him well enough to design a new engine, working on a totally different principle (maybe Stirling?) - that's rather more difficult.

One of the plot threads in that book was the advisory council of SF writers - soaked to the bones in science and technology. And that's why humanity won, in the book.

if you didn't work it out for yourself, you don't really understand it. Whatever "it" is.

I do, however, agree that the apparent lack of need for testing was a bit unbelievable. However, I suspect that another approach might well have worked, if a bit less of a good story. Bioweapons, perhaps. After all, they did have a few captives and no lack of tissue samples.

Or even just a big rocket full of scrap metal? After all, all you have to do is get the thing into orbit (other side of the planet, perhaps?) in such a way that the aliens don't see it lift.

[Junghalli]

Well, I was thinking in generalities, to form basic principles but here's a few, mostly from the Draka verse because a lot of people will be familiar with it:

I'll try to tackle some of these.

1) Road not taken tech: It tends to work really, unrealistically well, fulfillling the pie in sky predictions without any drawbacks or problems. Ramjets and scramjets in the 60s, bomb pumped lasers, etcetera.

The best explanation here is probably that the people in this universe threw enough resources at these things to make them work despite being rather impractical. Basically they went to the engineers and said "I want an orbital death star missile platform or you're fired! I don't care how it works or if it's shit, just get it up there! and here's your blank check!" Sure, it's totally irrational and implausible as hell, but at least it can be sort-of explained as in-universe political bullshit.

2) Just weirdly improbable stuff like the radio activated virus in Stone Dogs.

It uses technobabble to make it work. Just approach it the same you'd approach artificial gravity or warp drive.

3) Things like Footfall where the untried and untested systems are developed in ultrasecret and everything works and works perfectly the first time they are used. Star Wars has a lot of realism problems, but it was based on established in universe technology and had a signifigant development history and testing.

Sheer dumb luck their recklessness didn't bite them in the ass.

[PainRack]

However, there are times when the author is just speaking bullshit.

Micheal Stackpole in one of the Btech novels had this gem. Dr Lear felt that a man was "lucky", with a good prognosis of survival from a gunshot wound because he was not allergic to penicillin and had O- blood.

It even made the blatent statement that O-Blood was good to have, suggesting that it was the universal recipient blood ground. This as opposed to its universal donor group, and being utterly unable to accept any other ABO RH type blood.

A retcon here would had have the medical centre having just received a large supply of O- blood, IOW, using the unknown facts approach.