When does tech become "wank-tech"?

[Darth Wong]

We've all used the term "wank-tech". Generally speaking, it's assumed to apply to technologies in sci-fi whose powers are so comprehensive that they are considered to be a form of literary masturbation.

But no one has ever sought to provide an actual definition of how one determines whether something has entered the realm of wank-tech.

Does it have to do with the scientific ignorance of the writer? Excessive use of technobabble? Technologies that are presumed to have "no limit" behaviours, such as Borg "adapt to anything" or "assimilate anything" wankers?

[NecronLord]

When it becomes completely incomprehensible to modern science? EG teleporters, hypermatter, ETC.

[Darth Wong]

When it becomes completely incomprehensible to modern science? EG teleporters, hypermatter, ETC.

Problem: that's virtually all sci-fi. Just try concocting a FTL propulsion system which is not either scientific jibberish or (at best) based on a ridiculously unworkable mathematical abstraction, like warp drive or instant tachyon transition.

[Lord Zentei]

Does it have to do with the scientific ignorance of the writer? Excessive use of technobabble? Technologies that are presumed to have "no limit" behaviours, such as Borg "adapt to anything" or "assimilate anything" wankers?

Scientific ignorance of the writer would incriminate just about all "mainstream" science fiction. Technobabble is more indicative of a lack of writing skills than anything else.

The "no limit" behaviour is more appropriate an indicator for technowank, IMO: including in particular the idea and overall theme that technology can overcome anything and everything. Also, power levels that are outrageously and implausibly astronomical. This latter bit is of course a matter of degree, so it really depends on what one is used to. Perhaps "unneccesarily powerful" would be better (in this case, using 1e22 megatons to destroy a planet when 1e10 megatons are sufficient to kill it would be an example).

[consequences]

Technology concocted just to create the authors chosen environment, with no thought given to consistency. When the author puts gratuitously large beam cannons of death on his ships, has them common as dirt and able to shatter moons, but doesn't apply the power generation needed to use them anywhere else in the universe, that's when I'll start calling wankfest.

Arbitrary jumps in technology in specific areas that far exceeds the general technological level, just because the writer thinks it would be cool.

[Stravo]

The way I view wank tech is that it provides an ability or set of abilitiues that is so beyond the veil of our understanding that you have to go "Why?"

For instance I have never read a Culture novel but having read some instances of the tech levels and other story elements on the board I consider the Culture to be wank level tech. I mean what is gridfire exactly? Why is it so uber? Why does it have to be so uber? Where is the drama in a society that can vaporize worlds or more with ease and whose technology is so advanced that any obstacle must be contrived? These culture minds are like little gods that can extrapolate entire universes in seconds. So why does it have to be that way? What does the audience get out of that? Now I may be over stating the case or exagerating but that is the impression I get whenever I hear about the Culture. (When someone can trot out the Culture to trump every known Sci-Fi universe that's pretty damned wanky in my mind)

Star Wars on the other hand, for all its planet busting capaibility in the Death Star is not wank tech because the tech level is still on a scale that we can accept as fantasy. For all the uberness the EU folks can sometimes masturbate over the films themselves present something a little more believable and understandable. I guess its all about scale.

Wank Tech robs the drama of much tension and just smells of an author pleasuring himself to his own creations. The key component here is audience credibility and understanding. An audience can imagine a clone army of thousands fighting on a single world. An audience can accept the concept of a transporter. Once you start scaling up to universal weapons and such it gets a bit much.

[Darth Wong]

Some people would call the Death Star wank-tech, but the fact that it has to be so huge to accomplish what it does strikes me as the reason it should not be considered wank-tech, despite the mathematical implausibility of it. A Death Star beam from a hand-held device, now that would be wank-tech.

[Thirdfain]

For instance I have never read a Culture novel but having read some instances of the tech levels and other story elements on the board I consider the Culture to be wank level tech. I mean what is gridfire exactly? Why is it so uber? Why does it have to be so uber? Where is the drama in a society that can vaporize worlds or more with ease and whose technology is so advanced that any obstacle must be contrived? These culture minds are like little gods that can extrapolate entire universes in seconds. So why does it have to be that way? What does the audience get out of that? Now I may be over stating the case or exagerating but that is the impression I get whenever I hear about the Culture. (When someone can trot out the Culture to trump every known Sci-Fi universe that's pretty damned wanky in my mind) .

I strongly suggest you read the Culture novels, then. I'd say that the Culture novels are, collectively, far better in every respect than Star Wars in movie or book form as sci-fi and drama.

[NecronLord]

I'd say when Suspension of Disbelief becomes a chore, it is wank tech. I don't consider wank-tech inherently un-enjoyable. I've always found some tech wank rather cool. The Tardis from Dr. Who is definately wank-tech, but it is not obnoxious wank-tech.

For instance I have never read a Culture novel but having read some instances of the tech levels and other story elements on the board I consider the Culture to be wank level tech. I mean what is gridfire exactly? Why is it so uber? Why does it have to be so uber? Where is the drama in a society that can vaporize worlds or more with ease and whose technology is so advanced that any obstacle must be contrived? These culture minds are like little gods that can extrapolate entire universes in seconds. So why does it have to be that way? What does the audience get out of that? Now I may be over stating the case or exagerating but that is the impression I get whenever I hear about the Culture. (When someone can trot out the Culture to trump every known Sci-Fi universe that's pretty damned wanky in my mind)

To an extent, the Culture is an idealised communist state. In another way, it's a satire on the traditional Space Opera issues of scale. Mostly it's just a matter of whim. As for Drama, try to recall that while the Culture is a big fish in most ponds, it's a minnow in its own. Many of the issues the Culture books explore are about imperialism in some way, thus, the highly advanced nature of the Culture lets one imagine the issues of Imperialism on a galactic scale.

One thing about it is that Banks does write less advanced Sci-fi.

[Slartibartfast]

I think what differentiates "wank-tech" is more of intent than the actual power scale of the technology. You can always have a bigger gun, and it's understandable if you have a bigger target. But when your gun can disintegrate, stun, burn, heat, cook, and be used as a flashlight (plus a lot of more uses if you can only think of the necessary technobabble) I'd call that wanktech.

When you write about tech just because "it's what you dreamed technology should do" like toilets that let you poop and you never have to wipe afterwards, or self-disposing candy wrappers, or guns that totally PWN the other guys, etc. You're wanking, because you're not making them out of necessity in your particular universe, or at least you don't make a justification other than "you're bored" or "it sounds kewl".

[buzz_knox]

Would "gigaton in a soda can" be a good rule of thumb? If the techonology is the type that it routinely produces devices of unbelievable capability in ridiculously small packages, I think it'd be wank tech.

[Morat]

Personally, I define it as technology that is arbitrarily made more powerful than it has to be to tell the story. For example, consider two very powerful sci-fi civilizations: The Culture, and the 5th Imperium.

I would not consider Culture technology to be an example of wank-tech. The Culture is at basically the right level of technology needed to tell the stories that Banks wanted to tell. Primarily, the AI and extreme power generation allow for an economy of abundance to be created. Also, the Culture is intended to show an optimistic, objectivist future society, and AI's that live peacefully alongside humans (and aliens) is an important part of that. Finally, there's also the issue of removing humanity from the central role, as shown by the following quote from Consider Phlebas:

He looked for the Culture ship, then told himself not to be stupid; it was probably still several trillion kilometres away. That was how divorced from the human scale modern warfare had become. You could smash and destroy from unthinkable distances, obliterate planets from beyond their own system and provoke stars into novae from light-years off . . . and still have no good idea why you were really fighting.

Now, compare that to the 5th Imperium, from David Weber's work. Personally, I consider that civilization to be the perfect example of wank tech. I read Mutineer's Moon, and I was constantly bombarded with grand descriptions of how powerful the technology is. But why? Why make Dahak super-intelligent, and yet show that he's utterly unable to come up with any way out of its situation? Wouldn't it have been more believable if Dahak was of sub-human intelligence? You can't tell me that the Post-Dated Check Loan wouldn't have come up with a way to end the stalement. Maybe Weber's fans know of a good reason why the 5th Imperium are able to destroy planets with ease, and why their shields cover a vast number of "hyperspace bands", etc. However, when I was reading the story, I got the distinct impression that Weber wanted to make the tech extremely powerful, just so that it could be powerful. To me, that's tech wanking.

[Darth Wong]

I think that in fiction, if an author spends too much time writing about the grandeur and awesome power of the technology, then he's definitely wanking. That doesn't necessarily mean that the tech itself is wank-tech though. I've seen Trek novels written by wankers and I've seen Trek novels written by decent authors. The two types of authors are working with the same tech, but only one of them is wanking to it.

But I do like some of the definitions offered up so far. Interesting point about making tech more powerful than it needs to be for the purposes of the story.

[Murazor]

Has been said before, but: when some creature grown in tanks by an advanced civilization outperforms in space the mechanical creations of a similarly advanced civilization there is some wank in the environment.

[Lord Zentei]

Some people would call the Death Star wank-tech, but the fact that it has to be so huge to accomplish what it does strikes me as the reason it should not be considered wank-tech, despite the mathematical implausibility of it.

OK, I agree that it would be inappropriate to label the Death Star as being tech wank. However, I'll point out that my earlier point referred to it's purpose of causing planets to explode as a bomb, as opposed to simply sterilizing it or shattering it. Secondly, super large structures are considered by some to be wanky in their own right. Thirdly, even with a diameter of 160km, the energy density of the DS is outrageous.

Seeing that high power levels are insufficient, I submit that Stravo's point regarding drama and Necron Lord's point regarding the Suspension of Disbeleif possibly becoming a chore may be a better indicator. The point of sci fi is the invention of an imaginary technology in order to tell a story. If the story serves as little more than a means to display as outrageously powerful a super tech as possible (look at what big guns we have!!1) it becomes wank tech. The tech should serve the story, not the reverse. In this case, the DS is not tech wank, as the drama of an exploding planet is part and parcel of SW's style of grandeur.

A Death Star beam from a hand-held device, now that would be wank-tech.

That reminds me of a short story I once planned but never got round to writing: it included a hand held superlaser called the Super-Blast-O-Mat. It was a parody, of course.

[Murazor]

I would also say that the relative state of technology in the universe should be considered when talking about wank tech. The Culture is a powerful, although not exceedingly so, faction of its universe, but in most other universes it would be extreme overkill. The insane production capabilities of Total Annihilation civilizations also fits nicely in the background of a galactic-wide war lasting thousands of years, but hardly anywhere else.

In the other hand, the Xelee are wank in its purest form, but used in a way similar to that of the TARDIS mentioned above. It shows that humans in that universe are, in spite of all their might (that seems to be quite insane on its own right), are but bugs for the true masters of the universe. That is wank used as plot device (another use of this would be the Monolyths in the Space Odissey series). There are some similarities in the Rendezvous with Rama series, where in spite of being quite unimpresive for normal sci-fi universes, the caretakers are inmensely more powerful than humans (and any other civilization in the universe, in fact).

[Falkenhayn]

A handheld device that propagates a cee plus quantum distortion that fries/deoploarizes neurous or disrupts synapses or something along those lines.

But Dan Simmons and Ian Banks are both fantastic writers. Why wank?

[Aeolus]

The way I view wank tech is that it provides an ability or set of abilitiues that is so beyond the veil of our understanding that you have to go "Why?"

For instance I have never read a Culture novel but having read some instances of the tech levels and other story elements on the board I consider the Culture to be wank level tech. I mean what is gridfire exactly? Why is it so uber? Why does it have to be so uber? Where is the drama in a society that can vaporize worlds or more with ease and whose technology is so advanced that any obstacle must be contrived? These culture minds are like little gods that can extrapolate entire universes in seconds. So why does it have to be that way? What does the audience get out of that? Now I may be over stating the case or exagerating but that is the impression I get whenever I hear about the Culture. (When someone can trot out the Culture to trump every known Sci-Fi universe that's pretty damned wanky in my mind)

Star Wars on the other hand, for all its planet busting capaibility in the Death Star is not wank tech because the tech level is still on a scale that we can accept as fantasy. For all the uberness the EU folks can sometimes masturbate over the films themselves present something a little more believable and understandable. I guess its all about scale.

Wank Tech robs the drama of much tension and just smells of an author pleasuring himself to his own creations. The key component here is audience credibility and understanding. An audience can imagine a clone army of thousands fighting on a single world. An audience can accept the concept of a transporter. Once you start scaling up to universal weapons and such it gets a bit much.

I dont really think the Culture is Wank Tech..But Stars Wars most certainly is. I dont have any hard and fast rules to say this, it's kind of like Porn...I cant define it but I know it when I see it

[brianeyci]

Hrm.

Wank-tech is anything which does not have an appropriate counter in the universe. For example, Death Star has a small weakness and DS2 was partially constructed.

I really don't see the problem with having a handheld device that can blow up a planet. Somewhere this probably exists (probably in Anime), but I digress.

Wanking is creation of technology/magic that does not have an appropriate counter, either direct or indirect, in the universe. That narrows wanking to people who say shit like "phase cloak uber" but oh well, I just don't see how you can not call EVERYTHING wanking if you have a more narrow definition.

For example, Gundams in Gundam Wing were definitely wanking, because their opponents were at best slightly disadvantaged when fighting a Gundam.

Brian

[Darth Wong]

I dont really think the Culture is Wank Tech..But Stars Wars most certainly is. I dont have any hard and fast rules to say this, it's kind of like Porn...I cant define it but I know it when I see it

This is a fucking retarded contribution to a thread whose entire purpose is to seek workable definitions.

[Darth Wong]

Wank-tech is anything which does not have an appropriate counter in the universe.

That is a pretty good proposal for a definition, although a "rock, paper, scissors" type of universe where A is unstoppable except if it encounters B, which is unstoppable except if it encounters C, which is unstoppable except if it encounters A would come off as wanking too.

[Lord Zentei]

Wank-tech is anything which does not have an appropriate counter in the universe. For example, Death Star has a small weakness and DS2 was partially constructed.

Anything that cannot fit into a story without imbalancing it, then? Still, that leaves out fanboy wanking in fanfics and such.

I really don't see the problem with having a handheld device that can blow up a planet. Somewhere this probably exists (probably in Anime), but I digress.

Come to think of it, the Autobot Matrix of Leadership from Transformers: the Movie did destroy Unicron.

[White Haven]

Personally, I define it as technology that is arbitrarily made more powerful than it has to be to tell the story. For example, consider two very powerful sci-fi civilizations: The Culture, and the 5th Imperium.

I would not consider Culture technology to be an example of wank-tech. The Culture is at basically the right level of technology needed to tell the stories that Banks wanted to tell. Primarily, the AI and extreme power generation allow for an economy of abundance to be created. Also, the Culture is intended to show an optimistic, objectivist future society, and AI's that live peacefully alongside humans (and aliens) is an important part of that. Finally, there's also the issue of removing humanity from the central role, as shown by the following quote from Consider Phlebas:

He looked for the Culture ship, then told himself not to be stupid; it was probably still several trillion kilometres away. That was how divorced from the human scale modern warfare had become. You could smash and destroy from unthinkable distances, obliterate planets from beyond their own system and provoke stars into novae from light-years off . . . and still have no good idea why you were really fighting.

Now, compare that to the 5th Imperium, from David Weber's work. Personally, I consider that civilization to be the perfect example of wank tech. I read Mutineer's Moon, and I was constantly bombarded with grand descriptions of how powerful the technology is. But why? Why make Dahak super-intelligent, and yet show that he's utterly unable to come up with any way out of its situation? Wouldn't it have been more believable if Dahak was of sub-human intelligence? You can't tell me that the Post-Dated Check Loan wouldn't have come up with a way to end the stalement. Maybe Weber's fans know of a good reason why the 5th Imperium are able to destroy planets with ease, and why their shields cover a vast number of "hyperspace bands", etc. However, when I was reading the story, I got the distinct impression that Weber wanted to make the tech extremely powerful, just so that it could be powerful. To me, that's tech wanking.

Read Armageddon Inheritance and you'll get a better idea of just why the Imperium and the Imperiumverse has that level of technology. As for wanktech...I'd have to go with the 'stretching suspension of disbelief' definition. Having a counter doesn't necessarily make tech less wankful. The Excession from, oddly enough, Excession clearly counters Culturetech quite effectively, but I don't think anyone's arguing that the Culture stops becoming wanktech as a result.

[Aeolus]

I dont really think the Culture is Wank Tech..But Stars Wars most certainly is. I dont have any hard and fast rules to say this, it's kind of like Porn...I cant define it but I know it when I see it

This is a fucking retarded contribution to a thread whose entire purpose is to seek workable definitions.

My point is. I dont think we can really come up with a workable definition that we can all agree on. It's a matter of perception. In Starwars I dont believe the Death Star is wanking. But the Turbolasers are. I mean really they are insanely powerful for what they are supposed to do. It's just unneccesary.

[The Prime Necromancer]

My definition really doesn't have as much to do with power as it does with prescence. In my opinion, tech becomes "wanky" when it usurps the story away from the rightful focus: plot and characters. So, if the author focuses on the tech and its capabilities to the detriment of the greater story, to the point where the technology is now the main attraction rather than in the background, that's when it becomes "wank-tech".