Plevens forbid that someone should enjoy a story that happens to feature faster-than-light travel.
You make me feel bad for enjoying the Infinite Improbability Drive.
I was being facetious to Pointless up there.
And apparently without understanding what I wrote. Faster-than-light travel does not make a story bad. Authors relying on the concept of faster-than-light travel to dazzle inattentive readers so that they don't actually have to write a story with semantic meaning does, though. So do authors stupidly introducing inconsistencies into the very universe they got to define.
For example, the infinite improbability drive is not real, but Douglas Adams conveniently provides readers with many, many correctives that allow us to understand that the universe in which his story takes place is one where sense and logic take a back seat for the sake of humor. Nonsense is part of the humor, and when it exists, it is most often elegant, strict, witty, precise, and original. Douglas Adams is a good author.
An example on the opposite end of the spectrum is J.K. Rowling. In book 3 of her Harry Potter series she introduces the concept of unlimited time travel, having first Hermione and then all three of the plucky protagonists traveling back and forth throughout time at will. That is a huge inconsistency that invalidates everything ever written in the series. If time travel is possible (and indeed, so cheap and easy that grade school students are allowed to make use of it), why is it not used by everyone to accomplish everything? Why are Harry's parents still dead? Whenever anyone fails at anything, why don't they just go back in time and correct it? Why doesn't the Harry Potter universe resemble the Primer universe with an impossible tangling of timelines and copies of people popping in and out whenever and wherever possible? Because J.K. Rowling is a bad author. Because her books are an "empty game" that are neither elegant, strict, witty, precise, nor original. Her fiction is "a very primitive, very naive one parameter process."
And Ms. Rowling, probably after years and years of being hounded by people with half a brain, finally attempted to "correct" her error by mentioning in one of the later books that every single time travel device (the entire world's supply of which were kept in an easily accessible glass cabinet) were destroyed in an accident, and apparently no one knows how to make any more of them, even though they are so trivially unimportant they are passed around to schoolchildren on a whim. The ending to SMB2US was more convincing.
If time travel is possible (and indeed, so cheap and easy that grade school students are allowed to make use of it), why is it not used by everyone to accomplish everything? Why are Harry's parents still dead? Whenever anyone fails at anything, why don't they just go back in time and correct it?
If you'd been paying attention to the book, you'd notice that in the Harry Potter universe time travel can't change anything. Everything that Harry and Hermione went back and did had already happened.
On the subject of time travel, a lot of works use the rule that you can't interfere with your own timeline. And that works perfectly well. And until you build a time machine and prove otherwise, you can't say that that's not realistic.
But even at that, would a small inconsistency like that really ruin the entire series for you? You seem to be really fixated on that one thing.
Also, I'd like you to define "semantic meaning". If I'm going to be arguing against a vague literary term, I'd like to at least have some idea of what it is.
If you'd been paying attention to the book, you'd notice that in the Harry Potter universe time travel can't change anything. Everything that Harry and Hermione went back and did had already happened.
Actually this rule relies entirely on circular logic, as everything that Harry and Hermione went back and did had already happened because they went there and did it. Saying it can't change anything is like saying "I won't go back in time at some point in future to fix a vexatious mishap of Dumbledore being shot to death, but something as important as saving a hippogriff must not be skimped upon, by all means necessary". I dislike this kind of inconsistencies too, in fact, so any book or movie involving time travel that tries to be serious about itself and fails to, is an entirely failed attempt in my opinion.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I get that for some people when they're faced with inconsistencies within the logic of the fantasy worlds within certain books they can no longer keep up their willing suspense of disbelief. It may be stupid to have those inconsistencies, but most people don't care. So if you're aiming at a casual audience, it really doesn't matter. Whenever I'm faced with those inconsistencies I see them as a challenge for me to not go all "omg this makes no sense, this book just sucks", but to somehow tolerate them, read on and try to find out why others may find it so enjoyable still.
Time travel, for example, is in itself pretty illogical. It never makes sense. So does that mean every author who has used it is automatically objectively bad? I really don't get how anybody could argue that way. There are people who enjoy stories that involve time travel a lot, but writing a piece of literature they'd enjoy makes you a bad author?
Joined: 10/27/2004
Posts: 1978
Location: Making an escape
Pointless Boy wrote:
Ferret Warlord wrote:
Scepheo wrote:
Ferret Warlord wrote:
Plevens forbid that someone should enjoy a story that happens to feature faster-than-light travel.
You make me feel bad for enjoying the Infinite Improbability Drive.
I was being facetious to Pointless up there.
And apparently without understanding what I wrote.
Okay, I get what you said. In other words, it's all about how it gets written. How is this any different that virtually any other form of fiction? Why must science fiction be isolated to be beaten up with big, fancy words?
A hundred years from now, they will gaze upon my work and marvel at my skills but never know my name. And that will be good enough for me.
Plevens forbid that someone should enjoy a story that happens to feature faster-than-light travel.
I wonder if any sci-fi story has explored the hypothetical implications of the actual physics of general relativity in this context.
The thing is, from the point of view of the traveler himself, he can go anywhere in the observable universe in an arbitrarily little time. In other words, if you travel with a speed very close to c, you can reach the next galaxy in a few minutes (from your own point of view).
The catch is: If you now travel back to Earth (again, in a few minutes from your own perspective), thousands of years will have passed on Earth. Now you will be thousands of years in the future, everybody you knew will be long dead, and the civilization might well be completely different than it was (if they didn't outright destroy themselves, in which you will come back to a barren post-nuclear-holocaust planet).
This consequence of the theory of relativity actually opens up very interesting possibilities for storywriting. Perhaps some people want to "fast-forward" in time a few centuries or millenia (even at the risk of returning to a destroyed planet). And all this can be done completely within our current understanding of physics. (Basically the only actual sci-fi part is the propulsion system needed to reach velocities close to c.)
Warp: Have you ever read The Forever War by Joe Haldeman? It deals with exactly that sort of thing. Although it wasn't quite to my tastes, I still recommend it.
moozooh wrote:
petrie911 wrote:
If you'd been paying attention to the book, you'd notice that in the Harry Potter universe time travel can't change anything. Everything that Harry and Hermione went back and did had already happened.
Actually this rule relies entirely on circular logic, as everything that Harry and Hermione went back and did had already happened because they went there and did it. Saying it can't change anything is like saying "I won't go back in time at some point in future to fix a vexatious mishap of Dumbledore being shot to death, but something as important as saving a hippogriff must not be skimped upon, by all means necessary". I dislike this kind of inconsistencies too, in fact, so any book or movie involving time travel that tries to be serious about itself and fails to, is an entirely failed attempt in my opinion.
You can certainly go back in time to try to change something, but you'll just fail, because you've already failed. See the Novikov self-consistency principle.
You can certainly go back in time to try to change something, but you'll just fail, because you've already failed. See the Novikov self-consistency principle.
Fair point. I think I underestimated the consistency of time-related events in HP, although the reasons I don't really like it much are completely different. (I don't like the last two books of HHGTG, either, and think that, while the humor is clever and fun at times, the series as a whole is grossly overhyped.)
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Basically, the only reason you would need to travel in time is to gather information or objects. Of course, trying to get an object that doesn't mysteriously disappear during the course of history is pointless. Unless you're intent on bringing it back.
As far as unpopular opinions go; I don't really like Harry Potter at all. The movies of Lord of the Rings were way to long and I found the books a difficult read. Not that there are many big words in it, it's just badly written.
If you'd been paying attention to the book, you'd notice that in the Harry Potter universe time travel can't change anything.
No, time travel didn't change anything. Nothing was said about what time travel could or could not do, as there was no "scientific" basis for time travel given in the books. Readers had nothing to go on. Rowling introduced a concept that absolutely wrecked the entire story, and gave no explanation for the glaring inconsistencies that resulted.
(And please don't argue that magic isn't science. For all intents and purposes, magic in the Harry Potter universe is the same as science in ours, that is, empirical and deterministic. Specific words, or actions, or reagents, or whatever, have predictable results when used or acted upon in particular ways. Sometimes ephemeral qualities such as "skill" or "experience" enter into the equation, and some things aren't fully explained, but nothing in the Harry Potter universe is presented as unempirical. In fact, quite the opposite. Students go to Hogwarts and practice waving their wands and chanting words precisely because magic is an empirical skill that needs to be learned. Screwing up a spell in Harry Potter is akin to an NBA player missing a shot in the real world. Even though we don't have all the variables and would have a hard time measuring all of them perfectly, whether or not the ball goes through the hoop is empirical and deterministic.)
On the subject of time travel, a lot of works use the rule that you can't interfere with your own timeline. And that works perfectly well. And until you build a time machine and prove otherwise, you can't say that that's not realistic.
You miss the entire point. Semantic meaning has nothing to do with what is and isn't realistic. It has to do with what is and isn't consistent within the world defined by the author.
But even at that, would a small inconsistency like that really ruin the entire series for you? You seem to be really fixated on that one thing.
I'm not fixated on it, I just offered it as one obvious example that I thought people would understand. The Harry Potter series is absolutely rife with plot holes and inconsistencies. I could list hundreds more but then I'd have to read the books again.
Also, I'd like you to define "semantic meaning". If I'm going to be arguing against a vague literary term, I'd like to at least have some idea of what it is.
I don't believe the excerpt from Lem was vague in the least, what is confusing to you specifically? Cite whichever part you don't understand and I will try to explain it to you.
Kuwaga wrote:
I get that for some people when they're faced with inconsistencies within the logic of the fantasy worlds within certain books they can no longer keep up their willing suspense of disbelief. It may be stupid to have those inconsistencies, but most people don't care. So if you're aiming at a casual audience, it really doesn't matter.
You are correct that most people don't care. As Lem suggests, we evaluate empty games on the basis of elegance, wit, precision, originality, etc. Most people are simple-minded, irrational, and easily confused and impressed. Most people would also argue that Lem's evaluations are largely subjective, and I won't bother arguing they aren't, even though you can probably guess I personally believe Rowling's stories rarely show any of those desirable qualities.
Is it correct to say, though, that all other things being equal, a story that is internally consistent is objectively better than one that isn't? (Assuming lack of internal consistency isn't an intentional feature of the story, for example, for humor, to confuse the reader, to signify dreams, to show a character's own fractured state of mind, etc.) I certainly think it is correct to say that. Rowling could have written an internally consistent story with everything that HP3 had. Hippogriffs, deatheaters, quidditch, young love, daring rescues, caricatures of good and evil, you name it. Time travel was not a meaningful feature of the story, but rather a crutch that allowed the story to be told lazily. I argue that at least that one aspect of Harry Potter is objectively bad in a way that can be agreed upon by all rational people.
Time travel, for example, is in itself pretty illogical. It never makes sense. So does that mean every author who has used it is automatically objectively bad? I really don't get how anybody could argue that way. There are people who enjoy stories that involve time travel a lot, but writing a piece of literature they'd enjoy makes you a bad author?
No, but abusing time travel in an inconsistent and objectively bad way makes you a bad author, at least in that respect. (Assuming, of course, you both bought the previous argument and agree that the inconsistency isn't an intentional feature of the story.)
Ferret Warlord wrote:
Okay, I get what you said. In other words, it's all about how it gets written. How is this any different that virtually any other form of fiction? Why must science fiction be isolated to be beaten up with big, fancy words?
Umm ... cuz the thread was about science fiction, and science fiction is pretty bad about the "empty game" problem?
petrie911 wrote:
You can certainly go back in time to try to change something, but you'll just fail, because you've already failed. See the Novikov self-consistency principle.
I must have skipped the chapter in Harry Potter 3 where Rowling introduced this entirely fictional concept and suggested it had any bearing in Harry Potter universe. Note that she wouldn't have had to do so explicitly. For example, she could have had someone repeatedly go back in time to change a particular outcome, and fail repeatedly in increasingly fantastic scenarios. A reader would naturally be guided toward supposing the Harry Potter universe innately imposes some sort of deterministic self consistency similar to the entirely fictional concept you mention. Of course, Rowling is a bad author, so she was content to merely construct a universe devoid of internal logic or consistency.
Is it correct to say, though, that all other things being equal, a story that is internally consistent is objectively better than one that isn't? (Assuming lack of internal consistency isn't an intentional feature of the story, for example, for humor, to confuse the reader, to signify dreams, to show a character's own fractured state of mind, etc.) I certainly think it is correct to say that.
I don't think it is correct to say "objectively better" at all, because "better" is a purely subjective category. As objective as you can get would be saying that one story was more consistent than the other.
I would actually warn you against using the word "objectively" in arguments, as in vast majority of cases that constitutes pure sophistry.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
No, time travel didn't change anything. Nothing was said about what time travel could or could not do, as there was no "scientific" basis for time travel given in the books. Readers had nothing to go on. Rowling introduced a concept that absolutely wrecked the entire story, and gave no explanation for the glaring inconsistencies that resulted.
Time travel didn't actually change anything. People in the universe don't use time travel to go back and change things. This is consistent with the idea that time travel can't change things. So where's the inconsistency?
Really, all I'm seeing here is a massive hate-on for Rowling.
I don't believe the excerpt from Lem was vague in the least, what is confusing to you specifically? Cite whichever part you don't understand and I will try to explain it to you.
kk
As in life we can solve real problems with the help of images of nonexistent beings, so in literature can we signal the existence of real problems with the help of prima facie impossible occurrences or objects. Even when the happenings it describes are totally impossible, a science fiction work may still point out meaningful, indeed rational, problems.
This paragraph suggests that "semantic meaning" requires that the work be an allegory of some real life problem. Which is all well and good, however...
For example, the social, psychological, political, and economic problems of space travel may be depicted quite reliastically in science fiction even though the technological parameters of the spaceships are quite fantastic in the sense it will for all eternity be impossible to build a spaceship with such parameters.
This paragraph suggests that the problems be treated realistically, as if actual people were in that situation.
So which is it? The two are very much not the same. If the first definition is what we are going with, so be it. I've never found an allegory that didn't beat me over the head with it's message, though, so I won't claim this is a desirable quality.
If the second definition is what we're going with, then you're going to have to give me an example of such an empty game. Because I don't see it. Any problem can be treated realistically. The fact that I have never encountered the problems the characters face, and may never encounter them myself, does not mean I cannot relate.
So, you know what helps in this situation? Examples. And that's a plural, so I don't want more of your vendetta against Harry Potter. If 98% of Science Fiction is merely an "empty game", you should have no shortage of examples to give me. So produce them.
Time travel didn't actually change anything. People in the universe don't use time travel to go back and change things. This is consistent with the idea that time travel can't change things. So where's the inconsistency?
Really, all I'm seeing here is a massive hate-on for Rowling.
In HP, time travel (maybe) happened to not change anything. That is, perhaps, Harry and friends merely utilized time travel to fulfill their expectations of the past. Nowhere was there any indication that time travel could or could not be used to change past outcomes. It merely happens that (maybe) it was not used thusly. (As an aside, curiously you seem to think that if time travel serves no purpose in HP, that further justifies its existence, when in fact that is just the sort of "empty game" Lem talks about in his essays. Why would an author contrive a major plot component that serves absolutely no purpose, as you have admitted you believe of time travel in HP? And why do you personally think that makes for good storytelling?)
Anyway, as Eco mentions, stories are parasites of the real world. We naturally assume our own universe as the backdrop for any story, and adjust on the fly when given "correctives" to our beliefs about the world by the author. Sometimes correctives can be specific information, such as a character mentioning they are on a space ship traveling faster than light, sitting across from a sentient bug. Sometimes correctives can be as simple as beginning a story with "once upon a time." Whatever the correctives are, they are what give us a window into what makes a story's universe unique from our own. Without proper correctives, we have no reason to believe anything in particular about anything.
You correctly point out that in the real world "time travel can't change things," but that's merely because time travel is not possible in the real world. (Not because of the "Nabokov consistency principle," which is a made up concept about time travel, which is another made up concept.) As there is no "scientific" basis (and I remind you by scientific I mean empirical and deterministic, which "magic" appears to be in HP) given by Rowling for time travel, we have no reason to have any more specific beliefs about time travel in HP other than it is possible. As far as anyone can know, HP appears to be our universe, plus an empirical and deterministic science called "magic," which curiously enough allows for time travel. Again, all we are told by Rowling about time travel is that it is possible. No mention of any limitations are given. It seems you would have readers automatically assume yet another made up concept (in this case, the Nabokov consistency principle) despite no explicit direction from the author. What of readers that have never heard of such a thing? How are they supposed to automatically assume the Nabokov consistency principle? What about people that know of it but don't believe in it? Do you assume all people described as having black hair are black-skinned? No? Why not?
As far as anyone can tell, time travel can be used without limitations in HP. Many people would probably even argue that time travel was used to change past outcomes in HP, and that Rowling only showed readers the "second pass" through the timeline (after correction via time travel) to avoid telling the same story three times. (And so that kids wouldn't have to read about Buckbeak being killed in no uncertain terms, etc.) That is, your assumption of the Nabokov consistency principle is not only baseless, but is simply incorrect, and the equilibrium state reached after correction through time travel was the only portion of the story that was told. Of course, we have no reason particular reason to believe that, either. I was just pointing out how baseless assumptions can go both ways.
All we know is that time travel is possible in HP. Which naturally raises the question, why isn't it used to do anything remotely important? Rowling never addresses this inconsistency, and for that (and many other reasons) her fiction is disappointing.
As in life we can solve real problems with the help of images of nonexistent beings, so in literature can we signal the existence of real problems with the help of prima facie impossible occurrences or objects. Even when the happenings it describes are totally impossible, a science fiction work may still point out meaningful, indeed rational, problems.
This paragraph suggests that "semantic meaning" requires that the work be an allegory of some real life problem. Which is all well and good, however...
Incorrect. The paragraph only states that rational problems can (implied, should) arise from fantastic circumstances. Nowhere does Lem mention "real life" problems as being necessary or even desirable.
For example, the social, psychological, political, and economic problems of space travel may be depicted quite reliastically in science fiction even though the technological parameters of the spaceships are quite fantastic in the sense it will for all eternity be impossible to build a spaceship with such parameters.
This paragraph suggests that the problems be treated realistically, as if actual people were in that situation.
Incorrect. The paragraph only states that fantastic settings can (implied, should) nonetheless represent themselves otherwise realistically. Nowhere does Lem mention integrating "actual people" into a story as being necessary or even desirable.
So which is it? The two are very much not the same.
They aren't the same only to the extent that two lines in one proof leading to one conclusion aren't the same. You seem to have read a lot more into Lem than what he actually said, and followed your misconceptions to demonstrably incorrect conclusions. (Just as you did with Rowling.)
If the first definition is what we are going with, so be it. I've never found an allegory that didn't beat me over the head with it's message, though, so I won't claim this is a desirable quality.
Lem makes no mention of allegories in stories being necessary or desirable.
If the second definition is what we're going with, then you're going to have to give me an example of such an empty game. Because I don't see it. Any problem can be treated realistically. The fact that I have never encountered the problems the characters face, and may never encounter them myself, does not mean I cannot relate.
Many situations can be treated realistically, but are they? For example, is time travel treated realistically in HP? No, of course not. Painfully obvious functions for time travel are overlooked by supposedly (but not apparently) intelligent people, and no explanation is given by Rowling. Empty game! (It also bears mentioning that whether or not a story is portrayed realistically within the context of that story has nothing to do with whether or not you can relate to it. For example, I can't relate to stories about Paris Hilton's various retarded exploits, but I am certainly well-enough equipped to evaluate the realism of many things said about her. I recognize (and hopefully so do you) that any story that claims Paris Hilton starved to death because she couldn't afford food is not realistic, even though I can't relate to her or to the concept of starving.)
So, you know what helps in this situation? Examples. And that's a plural, so I don't want more of your vendetta against Harry Potter. If 98% of Science Fiction is merely an "empty game", you should have no shortage of examples to give me. So produce them.
Name virtually any story in any medium (book, movie, comic, play, opera, ballet, TV show, musical, whatever) and I can show you an empty game. The true challenge is to find a story that isn't empty. As an example, I watched Stargate today with my roommate because we've been watching Boston Legal on DVD and wanted to see some of James Spader's earlier work.
In Stargate, James Spader's character (Daniel) is brought in by the US military to help them translate hieroglyphs (and other symbols) found on an apparent wormhole generator (and associated artifacts.) His major contribution is recognizing that certain shapes represent constellations as seen from Earth, a breakthrough that took him 14 days. (It's mentioned that the military had been working on it for two years without results.) It's extremely implausible no one would have noticed things that looked like constellations over the course of two years of detailed study, but let's just give the writers the benefit of the doubt and believe that military scientists really are that daft.
Before even knowing about the existence of the stargate, Daniel then used the mere existence of the constellation symbols to suppose they were used as some sort of universal coordinate system. In a meeting explaining his findings to military muckity mucks, he explains how in three dimensional space you need six reference points to uniquely define any other point. (It's not clear what that actually means, but any way you look at it, it's patently ludicrous.) When the muckity mucks mention there is a seventh symbol on the particular segment of writing that Daniel is referring to, Daniel nonchalantly rattles off that of course you need a seventh point for the point of origin. Again, that makes absolutely no sense because what makes the point of origin special? Why is one symbol sufficient to define the point of origin, but you need six symbols to define the destination? And since we, as viewers, likely know a little about the general plot of the movie, either from previews, from the TV show of the same name, or simply from the name of the movie itself, how does it make sense to us that a wormhole generator capable of transporting actual matter instantaneously from one point in the universe to another needs to refer to constellations (as seen from Earth and only Earth?!) to locate other places in the universe? Do hyperadvanced races capable of constructing massive wormhole generators not know about phone numbers? Is it easier for stargates to calculate locations based on various constellations as seen from Earth (all of which are moving relative to each other) instead of having the stargates themselves communicate locations to each other as necessary? It makes no sense.
Anyway, Daniel's discovery is a bombshell. The military types immediately tell Daniel about the actual stargate and then run off to try to make it work, since Daniel has finally "found the seventh symbol," which in fact was there the whole time. So they start "dialing" the stargate. Once they dial the first six symbols in (which the military already knew about), someone mentions to Daniel, "This is as far as we've ever gotten before." Ok, so they have a stargate, which they are attempting to operate essentially like a phone. There are 20 or so symbols they can "dial" and they already know the first six, AND they know there are only seven symbols total. Yet no one, over the course of two years, had the bright idea of just trying all 20 options for the seventh symbol? They needed awkward geniusman Daniel to come and tell them which of the twenty to try? Are you kidding me?
I could go on and on, but I think I'm only about 8 minutes into the movie, so clearly it would take me a while. I'll just go ahead and quit now. So there's an example of an empty game.
Now, is Stargate a bad movie? It's certainly chock full of both scientific inaccuracies and baffling examples of huge numbers of "intelligent" people all simultaneously being monstrously stupid and/or irrational. Does it matter, though? The point of the movie is that people discovered a stargate, went through it, and various things happened on the other side. Is any of that negatively impacted by the fact that a bunch of people were too stupid to activate the gate until Daniel came along? Not really. On a whole, the movie continues to follow that formula, where lots of stupidities and inconsistencies fail to undermine the development of the plot or the motivations of the characters. Combine that with nice costumes, good visuals (for the time), and decent acting (except French Stewart), and I personally can't say Stargate was any worse than "decent."
Contrast that with Harry Potter, where many many many many many many many inconsistencies grossly undermine both the plot and the motivations of the characters, and you may begin to understand why I consider HP to be a bad series of books. Combine that with the fact that Rowling's writing (independent of her storytelling) is juvenile and unspectacular at best, and I can't see any reason to appreciate the novels, or recommend them to others.
OK, I think your example may have helped. The idea is that it's not about the setting, it's about people. That the story needs to focus not on your wonderful fantasy world/fictional future, but on the characters that inhabit it. While I'll certainly agree that this sort of thing is a problem that crops up a lot in speculative fiction, it's not nearly as widespread as you propose, and certainly not an issue with the Harry Potter series.
So, in the likely case that the above is also incorrect, all I can say is that you've done an excellent job of telling me what this "semantic meaning" is apparently not. Now how about telling me what it is. From what you've been saying, it seems to be complaining about inconsistencies you don't like. In fact, this was my original assumption about its meaning, but I had wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt.
As for the apparently continued Harry Potter topic, the fact that they already changed the past is explicit in the book, so you can't claim otherwise. Harry's realization of that fact when he saves himself from the dementors is made quite a big deal of, so it's also not something that should have been easily overlooked. The only inconsistency is the one that you've imagined must exist because Rowling is a hack.
Also, the Nolikov self-consistency principle is not "entirely fictional". It was formulated in regards to closed timelike curves, a potentially pathological feature in the very real theory of General Relativity. Perhaps you should actually read the article I linked to. And BTW, it's really not that hard to spell correctly, especially considering you could simply look at my post to check. Unless you're doing it to be clever and subtly dismissive, in which case you've actually made yourself look like an idiot.
OK, I think your example may have helped. The idea is that it's not about the setting, it's about people. That the story needs to focus not on your wonderful fantasy world/fictional future, but on the characters that inhabit it. While I'll certainly agree that this sort of thing is a problem that crops up a lot in speculative fiction, it's not nearly as widespread as you propose, and certainly not an issue with the Harry Potter series.
Incorrect. It is about whether or not the characters behave in a reasonable fashion within the context of the story's setting. So it depends on both the characters and the setting. What happens so often in science fiction (and other genres, but especially in science fiction) is that authors use the setting as free license to inflict the reader with a completely arbitrary, unreasonable, and usually inconsistent sequence of events without justification. (As Rowling does in HP.)
So, in the likely case that the above is also incorrect, all I can say is that you've done an excellent job of telling me what this "semantic meaning" is apparently not. Now how about telling me what it is. From what you've been saying, it seems to be complaining about inconsistencies you don't like. In fact, this was my original assumption about its meaning, but I had wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt.
No, but inconsistencies are one way to rob a work of semantic meaning. (Because any reasonable person would assume, for example, if time travel existed, it would naturally be used for something useful. Time travel isn't used for anything useful in HP, therefore it has no semantic meaning in HP.)
As for the apparently continued Harry Potter topic, the fact that they already changed the past is explicit in the book, so you can't claim otherwise. Harry's realization of that fact when he saves himself from the dementors is made quite a big deal of, so it's also not something that should have been easily overlooked. The only inconsistency is the one that you've imagined must exist because Rowling is a hack.
No, as I mentioned, one view is that Rowling only relayed to readers the equilibrium state reached after correction of the timeline. In this view, Harry didn't realize that the past was immutable, he only realized that it was himself that saved himself, and who cares? It's meaningless with respect to this conversation. It seems that in this scenario (the one absent the consistency principle) you presume that either there are either multiple timelines (in which case nothing was changed in the original timeline, the characters merely came to inhabit a different timeline) or consciousness exists outside of the timeline (in which case even if an equilibrium state was reached, Harry would still remember the original bad timeline.) Again, who cares? You are making all sorts of unjustifiable assumptions about the Harry Potter universe just to get around the fact that if time travel exists, any reasonable person would use it to do something useful. (Which no one in Harry Potter did. Which Rowling never explained.)
Also, the Nolikov self-consistency principle is not "entirely fictional". It was formulated in regards to closed timelike curves, a potentially pathological feature in the very real theory of General Relativity. Perhaps you should actually read the article I linked to.
It is entirely fictional. It is meaningless blather based on meaningless blather that cannot be tested and makes no predictions. Moreover, relativity isn't "real" in the sense you seem to think it is. It is merely a mathematical description of our universe that is mostly correct in certain circumstances. No serious scientist considers it to be anything but that. And no serious scientists considers "closed timelike curves" to be "real" in even the limited sense that relativity is "real" in the domains in which it applies, since they are unobserved, unobservable, and nearly universally seen as artifacts of mathematics. (Again I point out that all of that is immaterial, since you can't blindly assume insanely erudite mathematical trickery about an already more or less inaccessible mathematical description of spacetime in an argument about what is and isn't consistent in a children's book featuring time travel. Any reasonable person would ask "why isn't time travel being used for something important," not scour wikipedia for obscure theoretical errata aiming to desperately explain an obvious error on Rowling's part.)
And BTW, it's really not that hard to spell correctly, especially considering you could simply look at my post to check. Unless you're doing it to be clever and subtly dismissive, in which case you've actually made yourself look like an idiot.
Oh is it? Maybe that's why you just misspelled it? Anyway, it's humorous that rather than make any meaningful arguments, you launch into an ad hominem attack and engage in fruitless name calling. I forgive you.
Something I'd like to add: One thing I've always wondered about, is why, in HP, the characters never use time travel to find Voldemorts horcruxes. Because even if the Novikov self-consistency principle holds, this is a possible way of using time travel.
Joined: 5/13/2009
Posts: 700
Location: suffern, ny
In order to show problems in our world, Science fiction writers put our world on other planets. By pointing out the problems of their world, we point our the problems of our own.
Look more for literature. I do not know if you have a lot of time to read books that could help. I'd recommended I, Robot and The Robot Novels ( about three books) by Issac Asimov. Then hop over to Robert Heinlein with Stranger in a strange Land. A little dated, but good. Then I would suggest Fahrenheit 451, If you cant read anything read this. Then watch 2001:A space Odyssey, Forbidden Planet, and THe 1956 version of the day the earth stood still. Good Luck!
I so wish i had this assignment!
[19:16] <scrimpy> silly portuguese
[19:16] <scrimpy> it's like spanish, only less cool
Something I'd like to add: One thing I've always wondered about, is why, in HP, the characters never use time travel to find Voldemorts horcruxes. Because even if the Novikov self-consistency principle holds, this is a possible way of using time travel.
You expect consistency and logic in a Harry Potter book?-)
(Haven't read the books, just seen the movies, but the whole time traveling thing felt like a one-time gimmick.)
Is it correct to say, though, that all other things being equal, a story that is internally consistent is objectively better than one that isn't? (Assuming lack of internal consistency isn't an intentional feature of the story, for example, for humor, to confuse the reader, to signify dreams, to show a character's own fractured state of mind, etc.) I certainly think it is correct to say that.
No. Theoretically yes. But to make it more consistent, you'd have to make it more logical (o rly?) and leave stuff like backwards time travel out. It restricts what is possible. However, Harry Potter is meant to fuel children's fantasies, and that is done by envoking the totally opposite feeling in the reader (that in the world of Harry Potter (almost) anything is possible). I'd say to make them more consistent would actually make Rowling's books worse for what they are.
What will be perceived as good always depends on the readers' demands and expectations to the book. Usually, it is impossible to fulfill all of them at once, so a perfect book cannot exist. When a book doesn't meet the needs of any reader, then it's definitely a bad book (it may still prove to only have been "ahead of its time" though). But books that at least meet the needs of one certain group of readers are impossible (or at least incredibly difficult) to compare objectively in terms of how good they are. Making something appeal to a broader audience usually makes it less appealing to that subset of the audience that would have been satisfied anyway (because there's less of what they like most in it).
So no, it's not a fair assumption imo.
Also, the Nolikov self-consistency principle is not "entirely fictional". It was formulated in regards to closed timelike curves, a potentially pathological feature in the very real theory of General Relativity. Perhaps you should actually read the article I linked to.
It is entirely fictional. It is meaningless blather based on meaningless blather that cannot be tested and makes no predictions. Moreover, relativity isn't "real" in the sense you seem to think it is. It is merely a mathematical description of our universe that is mostly correct in certain circumstances. No serious scientist considers it to be anything but that. And no serious scientists considers "closed timelike curves" to be "real" in even the limited sense that relativity is "real" in the domains in which it applies, since they are unobserved, unobservable, and nearly universally seen as artifacts of mathematics. (Again I point out that all of that is immaterial, since you can't blindly assume insanely erudite mathematical trickery about an already more or less inaccessible mathematical description of spacetime in an argument about what is and isn't consistent in a children's book featuring time travel. Any reasonable person would ask "why isn't time travel being used for something important," not scour wikipedia for obscure theoretical errata aiming to desperately explain an obvious error on Rowling's part.)
It's not useless blather, it's an ad hoc principle added to a scientific theory to make it consistent. After reading some parts of the articles, it seems that general relativity alone allows in some special cases that objects interact in such a way that would lead to contradictions inside the theory. Thus, they impose such a principle to abolish these paradoxes.
Also, if one would take strictly what you wrote, no serious scientists would consider science at all to be real, since the problem of induction states that causality cannot be observed nor deduced within a finite set of experiments. Additionally, I find it funny how you consider such questions as artifacts of mathematics when they are more closely related to epistemology than math itself.
But to make it more consistent, you'd have to make it more logical (o rly?) and leave stuff like backwards time travel out.
You make a number of assumptions here, namely that consistency in fiction is the same as logic (it is not) and that backwards time travel is necessarily both inconsistent and illogical (it is not.)
It restricts what is possible.
No, it restricts how the author can present the story without alienating the reader.
However, Harry Potter is meant to fuel children's fantasies, and that is done by envoking the totally opposite feeling in the reader (that in the world of Harry Potter (almost) anything is possible).
Such feelings can easily be evoked in a fashion that doesn't alienate the reader, assuming alienation of the reader is not the author's goal.
I'd say to make them more consistent would actually make Rowling's books worse for what they are.
This is almost a tautological falsehood. Consider, for example, a story in which one of the characters is presented as an expert chemist and an MD. He also happens to be a crazed serial killer, and his method of killing is to poison people to death with LSD.
Ok, what's wrong with that? LSD is non-toxic, and both expert chemists and medical doctors would of course know that. Even if the character somehow didn't know that, he'd soon discover it to be the case after he tried to poison his first victim. At least, he would if the story were consistent and crafted so as not to alienate the reader. A good author would simply have the chemist-doctor poison people to death with something that is actually capable of killing people, e.g. heroin. Or if the victims hallucinating hysterically before they die was part of the story, he could use a species of mushroom that contains both psilocybin/psilocin and a poisonous substance, of which there are a few.
Does altering that story for the purpose of consistency and to avoid alienating the reader result in any meaningful change for people who don't recognize the inconsistency, either because they are stupid, ignorant, or lazy readers? Not in the least. It simply makes the story objectively better in every way.
I certainly can't claim this is possible for all stories ever told, but I can say that I've never seen a movie or read a book that couldn't be easily fixed in this manner without making substantive changes to the plot, Harry Potter included. (Granted, HP would require many such changes.) Moreover, in most stories, the actual execution of the plot is rather unimportant, it is only necessary that it is done well.
What will be perceived as good always depends on the readers' demands and expectations to the book.
Part of the reader's demands are, in fact, shaped by the author. For example, when a story starts with "once upon a time," the author has instantly groomed the reader to be prepared for a fantastic, bizarre, and entirely arbitrary fairy tale. Good authors include the correct cues to allow their readers to shape their thinking appropriately, to become what Eco calls a "model reader." An actual reader, whether model or not, may still not enjoy fairy tales, but he cannot deny the author gave a cue to appropriately shape his expectations, and he has nothing to complain about.
Usually, it is impossible to fulfill all of them at once, so a perfect book cannot exist. When a book doesn't meet the needs of any reader, then it's definitely a bad book (it may still prove to only have been "ahead of its time" though). But books that at least meet the needs of one certain group of readers are impossible (or at least incredibly difficult) to compare objectively in terms of how good they are.
Patently false. Changing LSD to heroin in my above example is inarguably an objective improvement. (We assume LSD and heroin have no meaning other than as potential poisons, that is, for example, no character had a mother that died due to an accidental overdose of heroin. If that's not true, then potential changes to the text must also be aware of any additional meaning the text carries.) In my experience, such improvements are universally available, most authors simply don't care to avail themselves of the opportunity to write good books.
Making something appeal to a broader audience usually makes it less appealing to that subset of the audience that would have been satisfied anyway (because there's less of what they like most in it).
Patently false. If you correct an inconsistency that the "original audience" was already incapable of detecting, then the story now appeals to the original audience plus all people that were bothered by the inconsistency. I do not want Rowling to change her stories or her style. I merely want her to write well.
p4wn3r wrote:
It's not useless blather, it's an ad hoc principle added to a scientific theory to make it consistent. After reading some parts of the articles, it seems that general relativity alone allows in some special cases that objects interact in such a way that would lead to contradictions inside the theory. Thus, they impose such a principle to abolish these paradoxes.
No, it is a made up concept that means nothing and makes no predictions. Relativity is not a "scientific theory" in the domains in which the Nabokov/Novikov/Nolikov consistency principle would apply, because in those domains it means nothing and makes no predictions.
Also, if one would take strictly what you wrote, no serious scientists would consider science at all to be real, since the problem of induction states that causality cannot be observed nor deduced within a finite set of experiments. Additionally, I find it funny how you consider such questions as artifacts of mathematics when they are more closely related to epistemology than math itself.
Except I did not consider the question you seem to think I considered. I said that fake fakery is not "real" in the sense that it says nothing about the universe. (It makes no predictions.) We all understand that relativity says something about the universe. (It makes predictions.) In that sense it is real enough, which was eminently clear from my previous statements. In the domain in which the Nabokov/Novikov/Nolikov consistency principle would apply, relativity is not "real" because it says nothing about the universe. (It makes no predictions.)
