Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/43329
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

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](https://brandonsanderson.com/sandersons-first-law/): "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.

Original score: 6