Do I really need to have a scientific explanation for my premise?

Spiderman was bitten by a spider and developed spider-like abilities. Superman is from a different planet and afraid of a glowing rock, even if this human-like creature can shoot lasers from his eyes. The Incredible Hulk is... Hulk...

If you are looking for a non-comic example take a look at the Metro series. Post-apocalpyse after the nuclear war. Everywhere there are creepy mutants wandering around and people are living from pigs and mushrooms in the Moscow Metro. When reading it I wasn't thinking about realism - I was thinking about the interesting story and what the auther did with this unrealistic premise.

I could list dozens of books I have read that don't have a realistic premise. Especially once you introduce superpowers nobody will care. Your readers are not the ones to complain about non-realistic stuff if that is your premise. Nobody can force you to stick to reality.

Heck, I am currently reading something about a great war between dwarves and dragon-riding elves. My dragon army will grill your "physics" :D

There are lots of genres out there that don't care a bit about realism. Post-apocalypse radiation superheroes are definitely in one of those.

posted over 5 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Secespitus‭

550 reputation 9 193 104 11

There is no need to justify your explanation scientifically. But. You must not, under any circumstances try to scientifically justify anything else. In effect, by making a scientifically implausible claim to establish your world, you've shifted from SF to fantasy.

However, fantasy does not have to include unicorns or vampires, or anything else. Just establish your world and get on with the story.

As an example of something very much along the lines of what you're talking about, but even more so, try finding David Drake's "Men Like Us", about a post-nuclear war world, with 3 characters roaming the country making sure that nobody resurrects nuclear power. The trio are ultimately revealed to be immortal, and they got that way by being caught close to a nuclear blast.

So, that's not remotely science, but the story's pretty good nonetheless.

posted over 5 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

WhatRoughBeast‭

40 reputation 0 8 8 0

What you're writing appears to me to be "science fiction".

There are at least two kinds.

Hard science fiction:

Hard science fiction is a category of science fiction characterized by an emphasis on scientific accuracy.

Soft science fiction:

Soft science fiction, or soft SF, is a category of science fiction with two different definitions.

1. It explores the "soft" sciences, and especially the social sciences (for example, anthropology, sociology, or psychology), rather than engineering or the "hard" sciences (for example, physics, astronomy, or chemistry).
2. It is not scientifically accurate or plausible; the opposite of hard science fiction.

Soft science fiction of either type is often more concerned with character and speculative societies, rather than speculative science or engineering. The term first appeared in the late 1970s and is attributed to Australian literary scholar Peter Nicholls.

There are good examples of both kinds in the world.

As a reader of SF I've read and enjoyed both kinds (and Fantasy too).

I tend to have favourite authors (as an avid reader if I find a book I like I might read everything by that author).

But does my story need to be scientifically accurate or plausible?

I don't think accuracy is as as important as with "historical fiction" -- I mean of course the world is imagined, even when it makes an effort to be hard-science (perhaps as a way to make it more interesting to people who are interested in science).

Even supposedly-hard science fiction requires some "handwavium" a story which introduces space elevators to earth orbit, or linear accelerators on the moon, introduces a concept but ignores real-world practical difficulties. It's fiction.

If there's not much science in the book then I'd hope there's something else.

Will I lose readers because all they can think of is "that would never happen"? Can a story like mine with inaccurate/nonexistent science still be appealing?

For example one book I read once was like the one you suggested: i.e. a world with mutations. Society was rural/agricultural, no longer mostly-urban, and any mutants were killed. So anyway, there, some children were travelling alone somewhere with a "great horse" -- a huge horse, a cart horse, I forget whether it was mutated or just bred, a big breed, but its being so unusually big meant that the people in the lands they were passing through would kill it if they found it, so they were trying to stay hidden. And I wanted to know more: about the children, the horse, the land they were travelling through, what would happen, and so on.

Edit to add: it turns out that I was remembering The Chrysalids. The post-industrial characters don't really know what causes the mutations:

The inhabitants of post-apocalypse Labrador have vague knowledge of the "Old People", a technologically advanced civilisation they believe was destroyed when God sent "Tribulation" to the world to punish their forebears' sins. The inhabitants practise a form of fundamentalist Christianity; they believe that to follow God's word and prevent another Tribulation, they must preserve absolute normality among the surviving humans, plants and animals, and therefore practice eugenics.

The scientific cause of the tribulation is hinted at for the reader's benefit ...

Though the nature of "Tribulation" is not explicitly stated, it is implied ...

... but knowing (being told, or seeing from the characters' perspective) that it was "God-sent" makes me dial-back the scepticism and get on with reading the story on its own terms. I guess I was sophisticated reader at the age when I read that, but when the author effectively says, "this is a Deus ex machina") then as a reader I know to treat that as background scenery -- like people watching a play know that they're meant to not see the Kuroko.

It wasn't even a plot-point, it was a fait accompli, past history, no need nor opportunity to explore that premise any further.

posted over 5 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

ChrisW‭

10 reputation 0 2 2 0

No, people won't say that, not even full time working scientists (like me). I know a great deal about genetics; I've published academic articles about it. That did not prevent me from enjoying the TV series "Heroes" for several seasons. Supposedly, their super-powers were due to "genetic mutations" (including immortality, time-travel, psychokinesis, irresistible "command" voice, fire-starting, invisibility, etc.)

That's B.S. to the power of infinity, but I get it: you need an explanation for your fantasy universe, and "radiation" and "genes" are a stock answer, like "quantum" anything.

Personally, I'd embrace the magic. You are writing a fantasy, and in fantasy magic generally exists without explanation (rules of magic are common, magic systems are common, but where the actual "magic" comes from is just an assertion that something exists, like "life force", or "the force" in Star Wars, or whatever). You can do the same; just use your imagination and make something up. Meaning, the radiation isn't causing genetic mutations; it just released some kind of magic into the world and now some people are learning to use it. Maybe all the magic was used up, and now (due to the nuclear explosions) there is a fresh supply of it.

posted over 5 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Amadeus‭

3156 reputation 2 1399 613 37

Without reading the other answers, my answer is that your premise is fine as long as you set the contract with the reader.

The reader is fine with your premise if you do not promise a science-based story.

Imagine this. Imagine you start your novel with the story of the navel-lotus of Vishnu. Or the bush that burned but was not consumed, of YHWH. Or the tale of Icarus, the young woman who aspired to greatness by flying too closely to the sun, and fell to the depths below when the heat melted her wax.

There is truth in mythology. There is a truth in story. Science is distinct, but you can start your story with a commonly held 'truism' that is not scientifically based.

After you establish that you are speaking in layers, within your story, you say something (contract-driven like): Sometimes truth lies not in the facts, but in the ideas beneath the facts. CHAPTER 1.

This sets you up to have a story that is not science-based.

What you do not want to do is promise science... and then deliver nonsense.

Story is a distinct quality of being human that predates the human experience of the scientific method. It's been told from the dawn of language. Hard science fiction, if that is what you're aiming for, has less allowance for nonsense. If you are writing hard science fiction, then you must approach this problem differently. It sounds as though you are not aiming for hard science fiction, so the answer to your problem is straightforward. Set up the contract to fit your story.

posted over 5 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

DPT‭

660 reputation 40 73 114 0

Science is all about establishing rules that helps us understand how the world works. If your work is set in a different world and things in-universe work in a different way, that's fine. But here's the important point: if the science is different, the readers need to understand how the in-universe science works. When authors violate this principle, and have the hero pull out some new trick that has no basis in the existing narrative in order to fix things, it feels like the author is just making up random crap.

Especially if we're talking about the hero's powers, what you need most of all is a consistent explanation. The reason why is Sanderson's First Law of Magics: "An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic."

In laying out the principle, Brandon Sanderson actually uses radioactive superheroes as an example. While the in-universe explanation may not be "magic," from a writing standpoint it does the same things that a magic system does, so the same principles apply:

Narratively, superhero magic tends to be rather specific and explicit. (Depending on the story.) We generally know exactly which powers Spider-man has and what they do. He 1) Can Sense danger 2) has superhuman strength and endurance 3) Can shoot webs from his hands and 4) Can cling to walls. While in the comics, he does sometimes gain other strange powers (making the system softer), he does generally stick to these abilities in the movies.

Therefore, we’re not surprised when Spider-man shoots a web in a bad guy’s face. We’ve established that he can do that, and it makes sense to us when he does it.

posted over 5 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Mason Wheeler‭

55 reputation 2 6 11 0