When writing a story covering technical aspects of any given trade, what percentage of handwavium should be used to avoid confusion?
When writing a story covering technical aspects of any given trade, what percentage of handwavium should be used to avoid confusion?
It makes no difference either way. Readers are keen to claim things do or don't work some way, even when the author actually knows first-hand what they are writing about...
"He is a great painter because all his pictures contain 12% red ochre..."
The answer is whatever percentage is right for the story.
Writing stories to a formula stifles creativity and rips the soul from the story.
Do you really mean handwavium? My understanding is that it means glossing over something that is scientifically impossible.
As to the answer, it depends on your story and its target audience. If you're aiming for competence porn, it's probably desirable to get every single 'i' and 't' dotted and crossed. If you're aiming for light entertainment, you should probably skip almost all the really technical stuff, particularly when it involves terms or acronyms most readers won't be familiar with.
AJ
handwavium?
From Urban Dictionary:
"handwavium
a term used when a science fiction writer "waves his hands" at reality and hard science for the sake of the plot. Refers to all unrealistic or impossible technology, such as faster-than-light travel, teleportation, artificial gravity, etc.
Handwavium is extensively used in movies, more so than in literature, due to the need to mass market movies to a scientifically ignorant public and because filming realistic space travel is relatively expensive.
Star Trek is fun, but it's loaded with handwavium.
Armageddon sucked for many reasons, one of which was overuse of handwavium.
Apollo 13 didn't have any handwavium tech, it was all historically accurate hardware."
From Urban Dictionary:
"handwavium
a term used when a science fiction writer "waves his hands" at reality and hard science for the sake of the plot. Refers to all unrealistic or impossible technology, such as faster-than-light travel, teleportation, artificial gravity, etc.
From Urban Dictionary:
"handlavium
a term used when someone "washes his hands", killing 99.9% of all known germs including Covid using unrealistic or impossible technology such as soap and water.
AJ
I'm currently trying my hand at a space/star ship story, and there is so much handwavium going on, that it looks like the outside of Buckingham palace with the royals on the balcony...
Only provide sufficient details as you think are needed for that part of the story or the plot. In some stories I go into more detail than others because it's important, while others have little detail of the technical side.
handwavium
Handwavium is something we don't know how to do yet, but is a common part of your story. (The Romulan ship used a stable black hole for its power source.)
Unobtanium is any substance that's critical for the story but doesn't actually exist.
I normally don't quote wikipedia, but their article is sort of funny. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium
As for an actual story, if you're going to get into discussing a trade and how something happens, either do a simple surface skim (they checked the fuel on the airplane) and just ignore ALL of the technical stuff, or get it right (when she pulled the dripstick, she stood back so she didn't get a light shower in fuel as it flowed out like it always did). In that sentence, dripstick is the correct word, because it was on the bottom of the wing, not a dipstick which would be on the TOP of the wing, and I correctly described what happens when you pull one. Which is one reason they don't use them anymore, but they WERE on the 737 in the 1980's.
The Romulan ship used a stable black hole for its power source.
IIRC: The cannon information is that it was an artificial "naked" (too low mass to have a true event horizon) singularity, not a true black hole.
A lot or Unobtanium went into the SR-71. Materials were specifically engineered that didn't previously exist to make that bird fly.
yer and there was a really interesting game of cloak and dagger by the CIA and shell companies to import the Titanium from the USSR, only to return it at mach 3.2
mach 3.2
The top speed of the Black Bird is still classified, but 3.2 is a bit slow to create the heat necessary to seal up the leaks on it. The actual is probably in the 5-6 Mach range.
Back in the day, a lot of that CIA titanium transhipped through Venezuela as Venezuela is the second largest producer in the world. From the Ural mountains, to Punto Fijo, to Bogata, to San Diego. The paper trail never showed the first leg. Imagine the cold war black eye if that had leaked back then.
In fact it did leak, but you had to be in Europe or South America to hear about it.
The top speed of the Black Bird is still classified, but 3.2 is a bit slow to create the heat necessary to seal up the leaks on it. The actual is probably in the 5-6 Mach range.
Not quite that fast. The actual top designed cruise speed was Mach 3.2, at Angels 80. It could hit much more than that, and even the famous Aspen 30 Speed story inadvertently reveals that.
In his comedy piece, Major Brian Shull, USAF (RET), mentions that his plane is at 89,000 feet. As we all (should) know, air temperature and air density decrease with altitude. As they do, the speed of sound, which at ground level is 761 mph, decreases to 660 mph - meaning if you're doing 761 mph at ground, doing 761 means you're doing Mach 1.15 at 89,000 feet. The OTHER key thing he mentions in his comedy piece is he gives their ground speed. He's sneaky, because he gives it in knots - NOT in mph. Everyone things of the speed of sound in mph.
So when he has the tower tell them they're showing his ground speed of 1,992 knots and his backseater, Walter, says he shows them to be closer to 2,000, he's revealing something important. 2,000 knots is 2,300 mph. Everyone goes, okay, that only translates out to Mach 3.02. AT THE GROUND. At 89,000 feet, they're doing Mach 3.4. That 17 miles in altitude makes a difference.
Amusingly enough, the actual engine designs are no longer classified, and they show the engine itself was designed for Mach 3.2 as the regular cruising speed at altitude. I know it could hit somewhere slightly about Mach 3.6 at altitude, but it couldn't hit Mach 5. And yes, it did leak like a sieve at what we consider regular air speeds. Mach 3 was actually enough to seal the leaks on it. (Actually, Mach 2.5 at altitude was enough.)
Now, some chapters of my current story go into great technical details about yacht racing. Initially I thought it would be too much, but the feedback and scores indicate readers appreciate the attention to details.
but the feedback and scores indicate readers appreciate the attention to details.
This is what I'm seeing as well. There are some complaints, but the concensus is to keep the technical element.
There's no set amount as a lot will depend on the target audience, but if you want the story to be read by a wider audience I'd suggest that you want to balance two factors:
1. Explain things in enough detail that people completely unfamiliar with the subject understand what's going on, but not so much that it is grating to someone who knows more than you; and
2. Don't do this only with one or two subjects.
Two is the one that most people forget. Describing specialised subjects in detail is a style of writing. Some authors do it, some don't. Some readers like it, some don't. This is hard to predict in advance unless you already have a core audience.
But what's going to piss off the most readers is inconsistency.
If you want to spend three pages going into detail about the ammo loadout of your specially-modified shotgun that might be a bit overkill, but it's fine if that's your writing style. But if you follow that up with a high-speed car chase in Italy and don't explain the EU speed laws, that's an issue.
Either you're an explainer or you aren't. Your reader base will develop around that style. Changing your style mid-book is a good way to fracture or lose the base.