The better faster than light travel works, the less you can do with it in fiction. Want to rescue a spaceship falling into a star or a planet's atmosphere? If you've got amazing FTL that can pop you over, then pop you and the other ship right back over, there's no tension. If your FTL has perfect accuracy over incredible distances, just strap it to some missiles, win every battle before it begins. If it can take you anywhere in the universe without fail, what are the chances of getting stranded in deep space?
Methods of travel shape the story around them. This isn't particularly revelatory. Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express, Snakes on A Plane, and countless other works of fiction all trap characters in a small enclosed traveling vehicle to help establish suspension of disbelief for fantastic plots (a variant of the locked room mystery). Many other stories force characters to race against the clock, making the method of transportation absolutely central to the story. Countless other examples present themselves. Faster than light travel, though, is particularly interesting. It's quite simple to make it resemble any other type of transportation already existing in stories. Timothy Zahn's Night Train to Rigel series even manages to replicate trains in space. FTL is also just much cooler than other forms of transit.
There's an old saying: restriction breeds creativity. When it comes to FTL drives, there are a few restrictions that pop up time and time again- for good reason. If a starship could just jump/warp/teleport away whenever it wanted, you would rarely have any space battles. And that? That's a terrible thing.
First off: starting the drive. Most FTL drives in fiction can't just be used whenever you want, or space battles would never be a thing. Halo, the StarDrive universe, the Tom Swift III universe, and many others solve this by not allowing FTL to be used inside a gravity well, at least without very, very serious consequences. Forcing ships to travel outside of the gravity well gives a timeframe in which space battles can happen without one ship just jumping away at the first sign of trouble.
Other universes, like Star Trek and Star Wars, do allow their ships to jump away whenever they feel like it. Star Trek solves the narrative problems involved by allowing space battles to happen during travel at warp speed- this also runs along with their general 1800s naval warfare theme (with a healthy dose of submarine warfare tossed in). Star Trek transporter beams also cannot go through shields, and have short ranges, making them quite narratively limited. Star Wars doesn't really restrict usage of hyperdrive significantly, except for a short time period required to calculate their jump. They do, however, get really creative with narrative solutions. The majority of Star Wars' space battles involve attacking or defending a stationary target, like a planet. The Empire Strikes Back provides a rare example of other sorts of space combat for the series by giving the Millenium Falcon a broken engine. Battlestar Galactica uses FTL jump calculations to a much greater degree than Star Wars- they're really the only major restriction on it, other than fuel. (Which, oddly enough, doesn't get worried about too much in many other settings.)
A great number of solutions seem to conform to the gravity well rule, though they often aren't phrased as such. The webcomic Schlock Mercenary has teraport denial fields preventing FTL entry into an area- usually around a planet.
Another popular solution is allowing faster than light travel only from specific points. Iain M. Banks' The Algebraist allows faster than light travel only through fixed constructed wormholes outside of gravity wells. Joe Haldeman's Forever War allows travel only through collapsars. There are many other examples like this.
The final variant that shows up most often is an absence of any FTL at all. This brings with it its own set of narrative challenges, of course. It also tends to require a greater knowledge of physics to pull off well.
One interesting challenge lies in using a solution other than the popular ones. What kind of universe, for instance, pops up when you have FTL that only works in a gravity well? At the very least, you can only visit planets and stars, not deep space. What about FTL that can only take you to any given destination once? No return voyages makes every trip pretty high stakes. FTL that takes you to an utterly random destination? You'd better bring everything you could ever need with you, because you're not coming back.
Ultimately, as long as an author has a set of consistent rules for the operation of any FTL transit, the readers will generally accept it. Really, that applies to any part of worldbuilding- though not all of them lend themselves to such easy formalistic description. The more you restrict the use of it, the more interesting it's probably going to be. Even more important than that? It needs to be written well. So long as the author has a clear idea of the specifics of their FTL drive, the reader doesn't need to know anything other than it works consistently. It often doesn't even really have to do that, if the characters and plot are compelling enough.
Still, though. You do want quality space battles, right?
Fiction must be consistent.
Reality has no such constraint.
I'd phrase it as "Narrative has to be consistent, but reality doesn't operate under the rules of narrative," but yeah.
Personally I think that FTL, wormholes, multi-dimensional etc (unless it's REALLY thought out well...Like Mackey Chandler's April Series)....is cheating.
Science Fiction should be constrained by SCIENCE..ya know?
Otherwise it's fantasy.
Not that there is anything wrong with fantasy...but call it that.
Don't lie (like Hollyweird does)..call it what it is.
I don't know, I'm personally pretty alright with differentiating between hard science fiction and soft science fiction. There's something wonderful about going out on a limb and trying to envision a world where the impossible is possible. I consider science fiction and fantasy a continuum rather than strict categories.
different strokes for different folks.
I prefer HARD SF.
It annoys me when Fantasy claims to be SF.
When I was reading dead tree I used to complain to the staff at the bookstore about mixing the two.
I felt that they should be separated in different sections in the bookstore.
All I got were blank stares....
...I don't think they read much.
I wonder, too, how much of what would have been referred to as hard Sci-Fi would no longer be treated as such in light of knowledge that was simply not available at the time of those writings....
MOST of it.
That's one thing about SF (of the hard variety in particular)....you MUST take into consideration when it was written. What was the state of the art at that time?
I recall an Arthur C. Clarke book in which a character took his phone out of his pocket...AMAZING...this was when
was the very latest in mobile communication
In my experience, most bookstore staff read pretty heavily.
I used to spend a lot of time at The Center for Science Fiction Studies at the University of Kansas, and got to meet a lot of scifi and fantasy writers. The topic of whether hard SF was the only true SF came up a lot, and pretty notably almost all of them derided the notion- especially the hard science fiction writers. (At minimum, because soft scifi is a bit of a gateway drug for hard scifi- not a lot of people jump straight in the deep end.)
All that being said, I do love me some hard science fiction.
@everittdmickey don't know if I agree with that distinction. To my mind, it's still Sci-Fi, even if what's possible isn't really 'scientifically probable (currently) or possible (in the future), so long as the narrative relies on some bit of science or technology, real or imagined. Fantasy can rely on magic to propel its narrative.
MHO.
Yeah, I agree more with you on this. Being too hardline on what can and can't be science fiction is bad for the genre.
Good read. As a fan of sci-fi and a writer myself I'd say you discussed this topic well. Have you read much of James S. A. Corey? He handles long distance space travel and other aspects really well. Not sure it would technically fall into hard sci-fi for those that need to sub-categorize, but the technical side of travel, ships, and equipment is very smartly science based and believable. I really enjoy his Expanse series, and now those less apt to read can enjoy it as a television show (books are always better!)
Yeah, James S. A. Corey is great. The hard SF/SF boundary is just as fuzzy as the boundary between SF/Fantasy
Heheheehhe, funny thing about fiction rules is that there's always some clever bastard that can violate them excellently.
Take M. John Harrison's Light for instance: a major plot point of the book was that all forms of FTL are true -- even the ones that contradict each other.
Having said, those rules still exist for a reason and you are completely correct. Internal consistency is key to any good unicorn-in-the-garden but especially in science fiction.
Gotta know the rules before you can break them!
Very comprehensive summary of fiction and FTL. Although I call myself more kind of a soft science fiction fan (Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5, Galactica), I have to say that I like scientific approaches to the technologies imagined in them. I don't like technologies too fantastic to be true.
There's a delicate balance to be found between science and narrative in science fiction!
such posts always stops me and engage me in themselves :D found it interesting.. THANKS!
@sakshi1524
Nice comment...so are you a science person...
i feel too that i am :D
just kiddin.. thank u :)
Welcome @sakshi1524
Find time to check my blog...sure you like the natural remedies too😋
okk sure :D
Thanks dear
Very Nice article
Thanks!
Nice article
Thank you!
wow nice post on steemit
You're right, this post is on steemit.
Forget about "Faster than Light," I want to travel Faster than Newtonian Gravity because that would be FNG fast! ;)
I have always had problems with space battles in some fictions. Not only space battles, but also the new Hollywood Normany landing type of beach battles makes little to no logical sense.
Normandy like battles are quite rare because a naval fleet can easily land invading forces to beaches unguarded by strong military presence. Similarly, with the vastness of space, invading star fleets can easily by-pass an enemy fleet and land forces on an unguarded section of the planet. Englobement of an entire planet would be cost prohibitive as a defensive measure. Logically, if there were to be space war, offensive actions would be the only sane military strategy. Furthermore, hurling one spaceship at near light-speed into an enemy planet would end the war without the need for phasers or photon torpedoes.
Assuming, of course, that your goal isn't seizing the planet.
Knock out the place of central power, and then the rest will wither.
Too many people blur the lines, yet imagination is boundless. Science is empirical. I am not surprised people would be annoyed, but frankly who gives a shit about them. Keep up the good work and be imaginative anyways. Everyone is critic and an armchair professional on the internet. Keep writing. Keep up the good work.
Good advice, and thanks!
@mountainwashere
Great narrative...interesting post. Thanks for sharing this
Thanks for reading it!
Welcome and do check my new blog post
Welcome and do check my blog posts too