Write On! :: Discuss the art and craft of writing

Making Science and Technology Writing Believable

by kinger
Posted to Science and Technology, Musings on Fri May 14, 2004 at 07:31:23 AM PST
[Print]

Science writing has evolved quite a bit from such speculative fiction masters as Philip K. Dick and Ray Bradbury and the stories they wrote long ago. While I still read their stories adamantly, I tend to think that writing more from a Science perspective, where fact is more important than imagination, is becoming increasingly harder, and more important, as mainstream media makes concepts like Quantum Physics, Criminal Forensics etc. available to the masses.

So how does this affect characters? Well, I think it has a huge impact in that with the reader audience having a better understanding of certain science and technology topics, the writer has to make it more believable that his character is smart enough to not only survive being the protagonist but also to impact the story in the way they need to get the job done. A great example of this is with characters like Dr. Alex Cross (James Patterson) or Jack Ryan (Tom Clancy). These types of characters have enough knowledge and experience to prove very effective and convince the reader that they are the right person for the "job"; Cross' specialty being the science of the mind and psychology and Ryan's being the science of politics and international espionage. Of course, the main character doesn't always have to be a scientist or the knowledgeable party concerning technology. In Thomas Harris' The Red Dragon, the Will Graham character relies heavily upon the forensic scientists to help him solve the case by processing evidence and analyzing clues. Harris tends to use Graham's instinct and cunning as an FBI agent more than knowledge of criminal science to help him find the killer. In this example, the main character is smart enough to employ help.

Which brings me to another point, what is even more interesting about Harris' writing is that he makes the whole forensic process very believable and probably did a lot of research up front to ensure that he knew the facts. When I read the Red Dragon I couldn't put it down more than anything out of fascination at how the science and technology was helping Agent Graham catch Francis Dolarhyde. As a software architect, I have always been disappointed when writers and movie makers try to push off a fake cyber version of what is reality. Case in point, in the movie Swordfish when Hugh Jackman's character was assembling the virus code was so unbelievable I could hardly watch. I do think that characters have to be more believable in their skills, even with something like computer science, for the reader not to think that what you have done is just plain corny.

My main point to all of this is that I think it is extremely important for you to do at least some research when they decide to write on a topic concerning science or technology. I am certain that will be what separates you from the rest of the pack.

Make a new account

Related Links

Making Science and Technology Writing Believable | 17 comments (17 topical, 0 hidden)

Disregard and laziness (5.00/2) (#7)
by Brad Johnson on Tue May 18, 2004 at 08:15:29 AM PST

I think that the crux of the problem lies with the fact that most authors believe that because they are creating a fictional work, which is bound to contain some incredible elements, then it is not necessary for them to adhere to the the world of reality in every aspect. This is more prevalent in short media, such as movies and television, but it is true in many cases.

For instance, think of The Matrix. Here, we are presented with a purely unrealistic concept -- that the world around you does not truly exist -- and the writers are content for the story to exist in that realm of fantasy. However, when trying to explain how this could happen, they stay do not travel out of that realm, but rather use the impossible "human energy source" device to fall back on. Physically, it's not even in the realm of possibility to absorb a substantial amount of energy from the human body, but the Wachowski brothers seemed to accept it anyway, simply because the movie was already grounded in fantasy.

The second problem lies in the fact that most writers are lazy individuals (myself included). The old adage is to "write what you know," and people tend to stick to that. However, instead of doing hours of research in order to better understand technology or a philosophy that your writing is dependent upon, you tend to rely on what information you might already know and fudge the details on the rest.

Tom Clancy is one of the hardest working writers alive today. He spends months doing research for each of his books, making sure that each detail is an accurate portrayal of the exact practices of the military or espionage groups. Chuck Palahniuk (the author of Fight Club), is also known for a similar amount of research, although his tends to lean towards quirky information such as ways to create napalm, or methods of removing bloodstains.

Will we ever see the movie writers go to these same lengths to produce their screenplays? Probably not, considering that they cannot even be bothered to completely research events when making a movie "based on a true story" such as JFK. In that example, there were two sources referenced, and no opposing views were even considered. That's not to say that I didn't enjoy Oliver Stone's film, just that I realize it is not an accurate portrayal of the truth, like so many other movies (and various other writings).

-- The world is quiet here.

The Unreal World is not so Unrealistic... (3.00/0) (#8)
by Martooni on Tue May 18, 2004 at 02:09:22 PM PST

The "Matrix" is heavily based on the ideas of Descartes, a 17th century philosopher who raised some very important questions regarding knowledge, existence and reality. He was most famous for the phrase "Cogito, ergo sum", or "I think therefore I am", but more importantly, he was heavily into solipsism -- the belief that one's self is the only person in the universe. He argued -- very well, actually -- that the differences between dreams and reality are insignificant. According to Descartes, there is no way to definitively know whether what you are experiencing at a specific moment is a dream or reality.

I'm not trying to defend the film -- honestly, I could give a flying faq -- but the idea that the world (as we perceive it) is not real is not a new one, and (depending on your personal philosophy) not necessarily "out there". I may not buy into the idea of "human batteries" as a feasable foundation for the Matrix, but I thoroughly enjoyed the philosophy behind it. I'll also be the first to agree that the dialog was about as interesting and moving as a dead slug, but it *was* a movie that made people think. If you ask me, I'd rather see more half-assed-but-thought-provoking movies like the Matrix than the typical crap Hollywood puts out.

[ Parent ]

That's different... (3.00/0) (#9)
by Brad Johnson on Wed May 19, 2004 at 04:03:50 AM PST

From a philosophical standpoint, The Matrix and its successors are excellent movies. There are few other mainstream films that can provoke quite so much thought out of its viewers. Movies tend to go for blind emotion rather than intelligent thought processes.

I was just using this as an example to point out the technological flaw, that it isn't physically possible to syphon energy out of human bodies. When Morpheus explains this to Neo, he's trying to reach out and grab a little bit of reality for the viewer to tie himself to, but even that is shaky ground.

I, too, enjoy more thought-provoking movies. But then again, I can really get into an occasional stupid comedy. Sometimes we need to laugh for no reason.

-- The world is quiet here.
[ Parent ]

People thinking after Matrix? (3.00/0) (#10)
by pkej on Wed May 19, 2004 at 03:25:01 PM PST

Perhaps, but it doesn't amount to more than some comments over a few too many beers.

I do agree, though, that the dialogue in the movies were wooden. Nah, I'm lying, they are the worst ever commited to film, wooden doesn't cut it.

I'd also like to defend Hollywood; there are movies just as, or even more, thought provoking, way better dialogue and not least also realistic. At this point I should list some movies, so that you all can axe me for my poor taste in movies and daring to call them thought provoking at that:

Oh Brother, Were Art Thou - Ok, perhaps not realistic, but good acting and it made me, and others, think.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest - Actually, not all adaptions made by Hollywood are that bad. How Hollywood this movie was I don't know; I was hardly out of diapers by it's release year.

Se7en - Surprise selection here, it is a movie which I often return to. Morgan Freeman is one of my Fav actors, btw, together with the late Jessica Tandy (both appeared in Driving Miss Daisy).

Well, there are a lot of just as good, and often better movies, out of France, but that ain't Hollywood, and Japan (ain't Hollywood either).

My main point is that I really, really, despise the Matrix movies, they have the most wooden "acting" seen outside abmysal action flicks by action stars (I'd almost go as far as saying something nice about Jan Claude van Damme, Steven Segal or another hopeless action star (I actually like the guy from Rocky and Schwartznegger in a few Philip K. Dick adaptions) whoops, almost forgot a closing bracket, there it is), the dialogue is non-existant; most of the characters preach, they lack any form of humour or self-irony, there aren't any redeeming features of these movies except their special effects, which were waaay dated by the second movie. Ah, ok, there are a few cool costumes in there; no, not the trench coats, and the opening titles of the first movie (the Matrix trade mark green scrolling glyphs) where cool the first time, since we didn't have a clue of what was going to happen.

And I need to tell everyone who has positive stuff to say about the movies, especially about their philsophical bend, that I don't agree, that I strongly disagree. Just to spite everyone I will say that a movie like...Battlefield Earth is better in all respects (philosophy, acting, plot, music, etc), though I haven't seen it. (And if you haven't seen it, don't go see it, spend your money on something better.)

--
When in doubt,
turn around,
cry and shout

spdyvkng - my homepage
[ Parent ]

: Not Battlefield Earth! (3.00/0) (#11)
by Russell Dovey on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 09:47:39 AM PST

Even hinting to someone who might be choosing what to watch that Battlefield Earth is a better movie than any of the Matrix films is some kind of a war crime in any fair universe.
Oh, and you should check out the Animatrix. Lightyears better than its parents.
_ "Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light" - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

As a software engineer myself... (4.00/2) (#1)
by Drog on Wed Apr 28, 2004 at 05:29:27 AM PST

I can't remember EVER seeing a movie that I thought portrayed the capabilities of computers and programmers in a realistic, plausible fashion. I'm also from a physics background, so I'm simiarly irked by the science in films--not so much in sci-fi novels, though, because the authors typically do their research.

I don't know why Hollywood can't get it right. I can understand that most screenwriters aren't programmers, but why can't they get some experts to advise them and review their work for errors? Or perhaps it's because Hollywood thinks that most people in the audience won't know if it's realistic or not so why bother? It always irks me though because I firmly believe that there is never an excuse for story flaws, whether it be in a novel or a screenplay. When you're spending millions of dollars on a feature film, not making sure that the script is bulletproof first is, to me, unconscionable.

The World Forum - Discuss world issues with people from all over the planet.

The audience. (3.00/0) (#2)
by RandomAction on Sat May 01, 2004 at 07:14:18 AM PST

You hit the nail on the head with this: "Hollywood thinks that most people in the audience won't know if it's realistic or not so why bother?" People reading Carl Sagan, for example, are going to expect a certain level of accuracy. In general SciFi readers have an interest in science, whereas Star Trek fans seem able to put up with a lot more, reversed polarity, widgets in order to propel the plot. The level of factual accuracy and detail should be tailored to the audience. Just my 2 cents.

[ Parent ]

Abstract Work (3.00/0) (#3)
by pkej on Fri May 14, 2004 at 07:08:12 AM PST

A programmer does very abstract work. Looking at someone coding is almost as boring as looking at someone writing a letter. The same can be said about computers. They are boring, what they do is contained in a box with just a viewport to view it. Boring, boring, I don't want to see that in a movie. Unless it is a course in programming or similar, of course.

I think the same is true of other abstract labor, and those with the skills in a field will always feel that movies gloss over their interesting field and work.

Movies could do with better science and accurate portrayal of how things really are, I agree with you there, but we need to look at how an accurate portrayal would be perceived by the audience.

As a fellow software engineer I can relate to all the bull shown on screen, and not least what is expected by friends and family who come to me to get help with their hopelessly outdated computers, software, anti-virus engines etc. I know how to fix it, but it isn't because I'm a software engineer, but because I'm curious and like to know how to build my own tools (so to speak).
--
When in doubt,
turn around,
cry and shout

spdyvkng - my homepage
[ Parent ]

Realistic != Boring (4.00/2) (#4)
by Drog on Sat May 15, 2004 at 04:50:25 PM PST

I do not think that portraying a particular career or technology/science accurately necessarily means that the script must become boring. It just means that the writer has to be aware enough of the technology/science so as to write an exciting script that does not include impossible situations and especially does not rely on impossible situations for key plot developments. I don't want a movie to see a programmer hunched over the keyboard for hours on end, nor a scientist deep in thought scribbling equations on papers for most of the movie. All I desire is to NOT see impossible things. Like Lieutenant Data getting past a simple security keypad combination lock just because he's a computer--it's still a random number that you have to guess, right? Or a computer screen that looks like no OS you've ever seen in existence. Or "hackers" that can do in seconds what we know would take hours--why not just show the audience that hours have elapsed?

So my point is that if the writer understands what he/she is writing about, then the writer will never rely on inaccuracies to further the plot or provide excitement. Both can be found in other realistic ways.

The World Forum - Discuss world issues with people from all over the planet.
[ Parent ]

Good point (4.00/1) (#5)
by janra on Sun May 16, 2004 at 11:19:46 AM PST

After all, isn't "keeping the script interesting" the mark of a decent writer?

I'd like to add that in many ways, computer programming, science experiments, and other abstract work that pkej mentioned could be handled in much the same way that I've seen letter-writing handled in some movies - start off showing the writer hunched over the paper, scribbling madly, then fade to what is essentially dramatic exposition showing what he's writing about. Or just cut to another scene happening at the same time, once you've established that the writer/programmer/scientist is going to be busy for a while.

There are so many ways to handle a long, boring to watch task in a movie already. They could be adapted for new long, boring to watch tasks.
--
Who needs to be big and burly when you can just apply physics?
[ Parent ]

The audience expects it. (4.00/1) (#12)
by kitten on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 05:22:43 PM PST

Part of the problem in screenwriting "realistic" things like computer programming, decryption, and so forth, is that Hollywood has dug itself into something of a hole. By this point, they've seen hundreds of movies where the guy says "Uh oh, these files are encrypted, this could take a few minutes!" and moments later he's unscrambled the top secret enemy plans or whatever it is.

You're dealing with the masses; these are the same people who can barely manage to open Internet Explorer half the time. They don't know how computers work, and they accept as fact what they've seen on film. If they saw the real way, they'd think it looks ridiculous and far fetched. How come our hero has to work for hours to break into a system, when everyone knows hackers can crack a supercomputer in a few seconds?
kitten .
[ Parent ]

: This is one reason... (3.00/0) (#13)
by ana on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 04:54:21 AM PST

that when there was a technical problem, or a hint of one, in my November Novel, I spent pages watching the ship's engineer working through the possibilities, trying to figure out what was going on. In one case, when she'd had but one hour's sleep. I thought it would be useful for readers to have some inkling of how such things really work; and besides, when writing on a word budget like the NaNoWriMo thing, it was easy to write about it at some length.
Exploring dark places since last Thursday
[ Parent ]
: I don't know... (3.00/0) (#14)
by Drog on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 06:39:44 AM PST

Somehow I think that even if I weren't computer savvy, if I saw a movie in which the hacker said something like, "This isn't the movies. This is pure number crunching. Give me a thousand PC's working non-stop for a month, and I'll unencrypt it for you," I'd love it. It would be a breath of fresh air, and would instantly give me more respect for the film as being more intelligent than all the others. But maybe most moviegoers would not feel the same way, I don't know.

The World Forum - Discuss world issues with people from all over the planet.
[ Parent ]

Hollywood scripts (3.00/1) (#6)
by pkej on Mon May 17, 2004 at 06:21:11 PM PST

Trouble with them is that the first version might do exactly as described by Drog, but then the exec's need the script doctors, people whoose only job is to butcher stuff and make them entertaining. I bet these doctors go from script to script in an never ending deluge and concentrate only on making the script "work".

But I hear your argumetns, Drog and Janra, and agree that with you, there are ways to do it better which works for other "boring" tasks.
--
When in doubt,
turn around,
cry and shout

spdyvkng - my homepage

Science Fiction Accuracy (3.00/0) (#15)
by AzureMarker on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 11:53:56 AM PST

Hi,

I, Noob.

There is an anthology (called -Dreammakers-) that compiles interviews with highly-regarded Sci Fi writers from the 50's and 60's. It addresses the theme of this thread rather well.

: Sounds interesting! (3.00/0) (#16)
by janra on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 01:48:44 PM PST

Do you happen to have the editor's name for that anthology? I couldn't find it on Amazon using just the title.
(Also, welcome to the site!)
--
Who needs to be big and burly when you can just apply physics?
[ Parent ]

www (3.00/0) (#17)
by baozhier on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 07:32:29 AM PST

Making Science and Technology Writing Believable | 17 comments (17 topical, 0 hidden)