Introduction

Have you ever watched a film or read a book and thought something didn't make sense in its universe, only to realize later that, actually, maybe it does?

"Apologetics"?

Apologetics is originally a religious concept: when someone read a sacred text and thought, "wait, that's inconsistent!", be it because it seems to contradict another part of the text or how the world itself works, it is then the job of some exegete to work the contradiction out - often by saying that the text should have been interpreted differently in the first place.

If it sounds like making excuses, that is indeed what the word itself means, after all. It doesn't mean that the effort is pointless, though. Incoherence is one of those things we really don't like, especially in our textbooks. So for the believers, this means that the basis of their faith is actually usable - and it is not only for the religious: ideologies need this to have a chance to work. It is part of the job of judges and lawyers when new cases happen and legislation hasn't had time to catch on, in creating jurisprudence. Similar works is also needed in science, when disparate working theories and models have to be made to work together.

If it sounds like I am doing apologetics for apologetics, well, maybe I am - it seems rather appropriate.

What does any of this has to do with science-fiction?

It may not have the fundamental importance of the aforementioned disciplines, but nonetheless, science-fiction fans, in fact fans of all storytelling shades, often like their stories to be internally consistent. For example, if the sheriff fires his six-shooter eight times in a row, it will feel wrong. And the importance of storytelling shouldn't be underestimated: great science-fiction and fantasy epics are now taking the societal roles that myths had, especially as references shared by society. Metaphorical stories can carry messages with great strength. Anticipation stories can tell about opportunities or, more often, warn about possible dangers.

It should not be surprising that, given what they can offer, they can gather such following.

Then again, I am simply doing this because I like science-fiction, consistency and finding patterns.

Major inconsistencies can break a story. Even minor ones can grate some of the audience, especially when it is about something they are specialised on, like impossible or impractical buildings to an architect, idiotic tactics to a soldier or mangled quotes to a scholar. And don't get me started on blue-themed user interfaces.

After all, a common reaction, upon facing those, is to reject it, and the story with it.

Fortunately, as almost no story is perfect, this is not the only possible reaction. Minor or secondary enough inconsistencies can be ignored for the sake of enjoying the story. Sure, the armour of that Viking in the background is definitely just a biker vest with nails and that wouldn't stop a kitchen knife, but that was a great fight scene so I don't mind.

Or one may assume that the apparent contradiction is in fact justified in some less obvious way. Some character made a stupid decision, but maybe they had another reason for it. Or maybe they were not in their normal state of mind - History has plenty of examples: Napoleon is considered one of the greatest strategists to ever live, and yet he made fatal mistakes at Waterloo, probably due to a serious illness.

In fact, legitimate plot points can be mistaken for contradiction because the audience missed subtle hints - or because the author thought obvious something that wasn't.

Without going as far as the Death of the Author theory, a story has to stand on its own right. If there is an inconsistency because the author made a mistake, even if the intention was there, the story is still flawed.

Conversely, if a story is actually consistent in an interesting way, even in a way the author didn't realize, it deserves praise.

So, what is this blog about anyway?

Searching for justifications for elements of a story that are initially appearing random or inconsistent, mostly (but not exclusively) in science-fiction.

And what is the point?

First, as said before, consistent stories are better enjoyed than inconsistent ones. So this may make stories more enjoyable.

Then, if you are writing stories set in the same extended universe, (official or fan-fiction), this can help, and even be mandatory. In fact, chances are that you have already done it to some extent. This can also help if you are working on similar stories, to understand what worked and why, or what should be made more explicit.

It can also make the story work on more levels, and make it hint at other subjects. A seemingly idiotic tactic being justified can call back to historical events, where idiotic tactics were used, and how this was allowed to happen. Characters making bad decisions can tell us more about their psychology.

Also, as we have already seen, apologetics in general are a useful discipline.

But mostly because that's a fun exercise.

As the name of the blog suggests, science-fiction stories will be the main focus. However, this is not exclusive and fantasy or other genres can be on-topic. In fact, the frontier between science-fiction, especially soft-SF, and fantasy can be rather porous, and similar techniques can be used.

In any story, it is assumed to be working like reality unless noted otherwise. However, consistency doesn't imply realism. So you can expect, say, alternate physics, as long as a consistent set of rules can be deducted.

PS: English is not my native language, so please forgive any bizarre turn of phrase (^،^')