Science-Fictional Shibboleths (antipope.org)

An anonymous reader writes: SF author Charlie Stross has put together a short list of what he considers to be shibboleths for implausible science fiction. (If you're unfamiliar with the term, read the Wikipedia entry first.) So, what tops his list? "Asteroidal gravel banging against the hull of a spaceship. Alternatively: spaceships sheltering from detection behind an asteroid, or dodging asteroids, or pretty much anything else involving asteroids that don't look like [a pock-marked potato]." Another big red flag for Stross is when authors fail to appreciate Newton's second law, having their characters undergo impacts or accelerations that would turn them into a thin, reddish paste on their starship's hull. Some interesting examples from commenters include: futuristic yet manually-aimed weapons, technobabble as a plot device, and science officers with Ph.D. levels of expertise in dozens of fields. One of mine: entire races or planets full of people who behave the same, often based on some keyword. What are yours? Stross's focus is on books, but feel free to bring up movies and TV shows as well.

Comments

BLANK noun.

[khasim]

Earthican ale. Yeah it sounds cute but Earth does not produce just one type of ale.

Earthican coffee. See Earthican ale.

Re:BLANK noun.

[pepty]

Doesn't matter how many styles of ale a planet has if one type is considered prototypical or is the only one that gets marketed on other planets. Columbian coffee. Canadian bacon. Irish whiskey. And Fosters: Australian for Beer.

Improbable assumptions don't really bother me too much in science fiction, especially if they are only serving as background to whatever the story is focusing on. Tropes are running shoes: use them to go someplace interesting. What gets me is internal inconsistency (if you're going to dream up a puzzle, make sure the pieces actually fit together) and bland assumptions. If the author's answer to "what if ...?" is "the same old tired shit as the last 30 people who wrote a space opera" the result might have some merit, but it won't be from being fascinating, thought provoking, or amazing.

Missing a target with a laser weapon

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I'm looking at you, Star Wars.

Your human target is 50 feet away and barely moving and yet SOMEHOW all of your crack Stormtroopers miss with a weapon that shoots at the speed of light.

A gigantic weapons platform (the Deathstar) with virtually NO point defense, virtually NO fighter screen, and practically no close-in, anti-attacker weapon mount points. WTF??

Re:Missing a target with a laser weapon

[Cassini2]

With Darth Vader, why would you need much of a fighter screen?

Only a young Jedi using the force could successfully mount an attack against a Death Star ...

Re:Missing a target with a laser weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

I see. You seem to be under the impression that Star Wars is science fiction.

Re: Missing a target with a laser weapon

[Gavagai80]

anyone hit with a blaster is pretty much fucked, it seems.

No, blaster shots only kill you if you're wearing full body armor like a stormtrooper. If the blaster shot hits bare skin -- say Princess Leia's arm on Endor -- you'll wince in pain but shake it off and be back to full health within a few seconds.

Re:Missing a target with a laser weapon

[PlusFiveTroll]

>Did the Death Star even have an FTL drive? If it did, why didn't it use it to escape attack?

Because one must assume that the smaller ships near it would be in an inertial damping field. It simply has to exist because a light speed jump would mean every person inside a ship would hit the back wall with a few petajoules of energy otherwise. So, ok, there is a 'Mass Effect' field that occurs on the ships, then once a small ship is inside that bubble running away doesn't do any good, much like speeding a plane up to 400Mph to run from a terrorist bomber if the bomber is seating in isle 3A.

Most of the issues with the death star on ones of hubris, it would have never ran anyway, it thought it was undefeatable.

Re:Missing a target with a laser weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. (Who said it was advanced? This was 'a long time ago,' remember?)

With you on themed planets

[O('_')O_Bush]

The whole idea of themed planets or themed races largely turned me off of reading SF, and one of the reasons I won't go near StarWars with a 10 foot pole.

Trying to define an entire race or culture or planet with a 3 word phrase is asinine. Doing that for every race or culture or planet in a galaxy just makes me cringe. I can't read or watch it.

single-climate planets

[jc42]

Why does it seem that most "alien" planets have a single climate everywhere? That doesn't even seem possible in any real (~spherical) world. In our solar system, not even Mars has the same climate everywhere; it has ice caps, and plateaus with visibly different weather than the lowlands. Actual aliens that are physically compatible with humans would be expected to live on planets with variability similar to ours, with visible climate changes every few hundred km or so. Granted, you might expect a single climate if only one spot on a planet is involved in the plot. But usually there's travel on the planet, and usually it's about the same (usually desert or jungle) in all the scenes. Of course, there are few exceptions that are more realistics.

Re:shibboleth

[fisted]

Came here to say that. Extra stupid considering TFS contains that suggestion to read the Wikipedia article first, 'if unfamiliar with the term'.

Re:first

[MisterSquid]

The GP is definitely an example of a shibboleth.

Given the summary, however, it appears that Charllie Stross doesn't know how to use the word "shibboleth" correctly.

In particular, a shibboleth is simply an expression or signal used by someone that helps other members of the in group recognize the signaler's (shibboleth user) membership in that in group. It's not used as a pejorative.

While certainly people (in or out) can react negatively to a shibboleth (like judging people who, for example, "high five" each other), shibboleths are not negative in and of themselves. Designating improbable science fictional mechanisms "shibboleths" really doesn't make sense.

At all.

Re:Deep meaning. As in puddles.

[gumbi west]

You're assuming that just because the author didn't consciously intend to include a theme that it's not there. Other's aren't restricted by that assumption, myself included. I believe that many artists that won't answer questions about their intent basically agree--they are not the authority on the subtext of their work.