For me as long as it's consistent from start to finish, it's all right if there's no scientific accuracy. What draws me in is how well the world is built and whether the characters and plot feel believable within that world. I think creativity and originality often matter more than sticking to real world science and laws of Physics but if there is scientific accuracy, that’s even better like in The Martian by Andy Weir. Also, we only have a finite set of physical laws so our imagination shouldn’t be limited by them. If we stuck strictly to what’s scientifically possible a lot of fiction would end up feeling boring and predictable. What do you think?
by Delicious_Maize9656
3 Comments
It depends. If the story is made out to be technical in nature then I’d like them to be as accurate as current knowledge allows. However if the point of the story is to be weird and mystical and magical but in space than nah I don’t need them to be accurate. The only reason to be accurate would be for time and power scaling in that instance.
What matters to me is verisimilitude rather than scientific accuracy. In the right book accuracy can be utterly fantastic, but it is just a trope being used to tell a story at the end of the day. What really matters is if the events in the book feel like they are part of the world of the book, and that those rules are consistent and sensible for their fictional universe.
Nothing breaks me out of a story faster than inconsistencies in the established world. One I read recently referred to a major event happening about 3 years before the start of the book, but talked about it as if people had been living with it for their entire lives. With some people doing what would be actually decades of science, life and work within those three years. Totally broke the immersion and drove me out of the story.
I just read *Permutation City* and *Diaspora* which are very scientifically accurate (i assume) but my dumb ass didn’t understand what the hell he was talking about 80% of the time, so it was magic to me.