语言与文风2015antipope.org
科幻式的语言暗号
Science-fictional shibboleths
导读
这篇文章讨论科幻写作中的“行话/套路”与世界构建可信度：哪些设定能让读者接受，哪些会让人觉得作者在糊弄。对写作者来说，它提醒我们自洽的核心假设比堆砌新奇名词更重要，也要区分物理硬伤与社会制度选择。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
给作品一个可被接受的“免费设定”，但一旦定下就要在整个世界观中保持一致。
- 02
不要每隔一章就抛出一个新设定；新奇元素若无叙事功能，会显得在糊弄读者。
- 03
区分违反能量/动量守恒等硬伤与“太空帝国/巨型企业”这类社会制度选择，别用硬科幻标准否定所有科幻。
- 04
未来不必处处新奇，衣着、交通、饮食和思维方式延续今天也合理；设定瑕疵若服务主题可被容忍。
HN 评论精选
世界观可以有一个核心假设，但必须自洽；不断堆砌无功能的新设定会让读者觉得被糊弄。
对我来说，一本书可以有一次“免费通行证”，用来建立一个看似合理且自洽的宇宙。如果这个设定是“拥有近乎完美时空统治力的友好超级AI”（《文化》系列），好吧，可以，但之后就请坚持它。（剧透：在《Look to Windward》中，文化被指责造成了某个较弱文明的战争，因为它是意外导致的。这显得太不可信，我还以为会是情节反转。）我知道《文化》不是硬科幻（除非你直接假设 Minds 存在且能做到那些事），但它是我读过最振奋人心的作品，是文明应有的理想图景，读它确实能积极影响我的心情。但如果每隔一章就出现某个在宇宙内说不通的新“东西”，我就觉得自己被糊弄了。我读过一本书几乎每隔一页就有新词。然后某艘飞船上出现“清洁工老鼠”，是老鼠，但不知怎么随着时间与飞船赛博连接之类乱七八糟。除了拥有赛博老鼠之外没有明显理由。不行。Greg Egan 是把这类设定做到完美的大师，天哪。他的书可能有点难读。我知道自己没完全读懂，后来发现他说过，你不该指望不拿纸笔做笔记就能读懂一本书。有些书甚至配有教程视频，解释他的[另类]物理之类。
MichaelGG查看英文原文
For me, a book should get one free pass on which they can build a plausible, self-consistent universe. If that one pass is "awesome, friendly AI with near-perfect dominance over spacetime" (The Culture), well, OK, fine. Just stick to it, then. (Spoiler: In Look to Windward, the Culture is blamed for some lesser culture's war, as the Culture did it by accident. This seemed so implausible I thought it was going to be a plot twist.) -- Yes I know the Culture isn't hard sci-fi (unless you just assume Minds exist and can do all that stuff), but it's the most uplifting stuff I've read. A perfect idea of how civilization should be. It literally affects my mood in a very positive way when I read them. But if every other chapter there's some new damn "thing" that doesn't seem to make sense in-universe then I feel like I'm just being snowed. There was some book I was reading with new words every other page. Then, on some space ship, "janitor rats" appear, that are rats, but somehow cybernetically linked to the ship over time or some such nonsense. For no apparent reason other than to have cyber rats. Nope. Greg Egan is the master of making it perfect, holy shit. His books can be a bit hard to get through. I know I didn't fully understand them, then I found out he has said that you shouldn't expect to read a book without a pencil and paper to take notes. Some of the books even have tutorial videos, explaining his [alternative] physics or such.
未来社会不必处处新奇，生活习惯和思维方式延续今天也合理；批评太空歌剧套路时标准要一致。
我有点不解，他为什么质疑这种未来的真实性：我们穿迷你裙和三件套西装，开燃油汽车（或悬浮车：只是兔子/史米尔普式替换），带手枪（或爆能枪：同上），吃今天的食物，按今天的方式生活，最重要的是按今天的方式思考。尤其是在一篇攻击太空歌剧套路的文章之后。坦率说，如果半个世纪前的科幻假设，进入下个千年一二十年后，我们仍住在郊区 Earth 的整洁小房子里，穿西装开（非飞行）汽车上班，吃汉堡，更担心其他国家的人而不是外星帝国，那它会完全正确。
notahacker查看英文原文
I'm a bit perplexed by his issue with the realism of futures in which we wear mini-dresses and three-piece suits, drive gas-burning automobiles (or hovercars: it's just a rabbit/smeerp replacement), carry handguns (or blasters: see rabbit/smeerp), eat the kind of food we eat today, live the kind of way we live today, and most importantly think the way we think today. Especially after an article attacking space opera tropes. Frankly, if the sci-fi of half a century ago had assumed that a decade or two into the next millennium we'd live in neat little houses on suburban Earth, don suits to go to work in our (non-flying) car, eat hamburgers and worry more about humans in other countries than alien empires it would have been absolutely right.
应区分硬物理错误与社会制度套路，别用硬科幻标准搞“真科幻”排除。
当然，tvtropes 已经广泛覆盖了这一点，我提一下“科幻硬度莫氏量表”[0]。作者对某些类型的错误提出了一些好观点。不过我不会把它们称为 shibboleths；这个词通常指某个内群体用来向圈内人识别自己的、相当具体且看似任意的东西。另外，“只有硬科幻才算真科幻”的想法很有“没有真正苏格兰人”谬误的味道。作者的一些例子比其他例子严重得多；我认为，违反能量守恒和/或动量守恒，与选择“太空中的巨型企业或帝国”这类社会/政治制度，有根本且完全不同的性质。[0]: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness
dkbrk查看英文原文
Naturally this has already been extensively covered by tvtropes, I present the "Mohs Scale of Science Fiction Hardness" [0] The author makes some good points about particular types of errors. I would not, however, call them shibboleths, that word generally refers to something quite specific and seemingly arbitrary that an in-group uses to identify itself to others in the know. Also, the idea that sci-fi is not actually sci-fi unless it's hard sci-fi reeks of No True Scotsman. Some of the author's examples were far more egregious than others; I would argue that violating conservation of energy and/or momentum is fundamentally and entirely different to a particular choice of society or political system such as a Megacorporation or Empire, In Space! [0]: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness
设定瑕疵若服务于作品主题和叙事，读者可以接受。
另一方面，氦-3 这个设定给了我们《月球》。氦-3 的说法可能站不住脚，但这部电影本来就不是讲这个的。编辑：哦，别担心 jeryk-cam，那方面节奏非常平稳。https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_(film)
simonh查看英文原文
On the other hand the 3He thing gave us Moon. The 3He thing may not hold water, but the film just isn't about that. Edit: Oh, and don't worry about jeryk-cam, it's very sedately paced in that respect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_(film)
同类还值得读
像说话一样写作
Write like you talk
这篇短文主张写作应像说话一样自然、清晰，避免装腔作势的书面腔。
语言与文风2015 · 647 分 · 272 评4 条写作要点编辑精选法律语言难懂源于写作不佳，而非专业概念
Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language
这是一项认知科学研究：法律文本难懂，主要不是因为充斥专业术语，而是因为写作者把句子写得又长又绕、修饰语层层嵌套、回指距离过远。
语言与文风2022 · 559 分 · 322 评5 条写作要点编辑精选写得简单
Write Simply
保罗·格拉汉姆在这篇短文里主张：好文章应该写得简单——用日常词汇、短句、直白的结构，不为显得聪明而堆砌复杂表达。
语言与文风2021 · 484 分 · 330 评4 条写作要点编辑精选Tortured phrases：科学写作中出现的一种可疑文风
Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science
《自然》新闻报道了一种在科学论文中蔓延的怪现象：原本标准的术语被同义替换软件改写成了古怪说法，比如把 "cloud computing" 写成 "haze figuring"。
语言与文风2021 · 329 分 · 256 评4 条写作要点编辑精选乔治·奥威尔 1940 年对《我的奋斗》的书评
George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)
这是奥威尔1940年对《我的奋斗》的书评。
语言与文风2014 · 305 分 · 240 评4 条写作要点编辑精选