Thread: Science in fiction

Is it a cop-out to intentionally leave out the explanation for how an advanced piece of technology works?

For instance I'm writing a story involving a time-travel device... the characters in the story wonder about the device's origin but have no way of knowing exactly where or when it came from. It is beyond their capability to completely figure it out. Several of the characters hypothesize that it's from unimaginably distant future humans, but no one really knows. The way in which it operates is explained in detail, but not it's beginnings. I realize it might make my device a "mcguffin" but I think it works better with the story ending with no one having any idea as to its origins. I'm trying to walk a line where the device retains its element of mystery without it sounding like I just couldn't think anything up to explain how it came to be.

No, not a cop-out at all. It's the cost of doing business when writing SF. The most brilliant theoretical physicist on the planet would be unable to describe a working time machine, so why would a writer of a story be expected to do so? Your solution, while technically a 'handwave', is elegant, simple and should work just fine.

And, offtopic, I miss my buddy Mod, who would have answered this in about 6 seconds flat.

A science in fiction. Well, it doesn't have to comply with the science of today, but what you write should appear plausible to the reader. I think this is a trope called AppliedPhlebotinum. Check out the link to find a large list of works that featured science in fiction.

Think of Star Trek and how all the techno babble is now everyday commonplace stuff - cellphones, laptops, widescreen TV, microwave ovens and so on - scientists are actually creating a matter transfer device right now. No more traffic jams. It's best to get some hint that it would work.

Originally Posted by VanishingSpy

Is it a cop-out to intentionally leave out the explanation for how an advanced piece of technology works?

I can't speak for everyone else, but I'd rather have no explanation than technobabble that's obviously fake. However, where time travel is concerned there are a few theories as to how it might be possible, so there are probably opportunities there to find a vague explanation which could actually sound realistic.

As a reader, the explanations should flow and feel like a narrative. If it's a manual, nobody will read it. But whether explained or not I think it all comes to the tone of the work. Let your reader know what's fantastic in the story and what's realistic. You set the rules to your own world, just remember to never betray your own rules. Metachlorians betrayed The Force. Imagine finding out that Harry Potter was special all this time because of an embryonic implant set in by Hogwarts, which gradually altered his DNA over time so he could manipulate local matter through thought. It's actually a pretty tight explanation as far as I'm concerned, and it totally destroys the believability of Potter's world.