Screaming When There is Sound in Space: Unrealistic Science and the Reception of Narrative Fiction A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of The Australian National University By Jarrod L. Green © Copyright by Jarrod Leigh Green 2017 All rights reserved ii Declaration This thesis is my original work completed between March 2013 and December 2016. I personally completed all of the data collection, transcription, analysis, and writing described herein. To the best of my knowledge, this thesis contains no material previously published elsewhere, except where acknowledgement is made in the text. No part of this thesis has been previously submitted for an educational qualification at any university. A preliminary version of Chapter 6 was presented as a paper titled, “Who screams when there’s sound in space? Why audiences discuss unrealistic science in fiction,” at the March 2016 Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association (PCA/ACA) National Conference, Seattle, Washington. I was the sole author and presenter. Jarrod L. Green June, 2017 iii iv When a work is acutely consonant with the facts which it adduces, it is praised for fidelity; when it lapses from its claims, the idea of infidelity is held to be farcically solemn and inadmissible. This is not criticism but public relations. Christopher Ricks, “Literature and the matter of fact,” 1996 v vi Acknowledgements My first thanks go to my research participants. This thesis is indebted to your contributions. To Dr Lindy Orthia, my research supervisor, you have been both a champion of my work and a discerning critic. Thank you for your ongoing support. To my friends, thank you for the fun times and for being there. Special thanks go to Jacqui Hoepner and Matt Dunn, with whom I have shared this journey most closely. To the wider CPAS community, thank you for your camaraderie and for lending a hand. And to Monique, for encouraging me during the final climb. I am grateful to have received an Australian Postgraduate Award Scholarship. I would also like to acknowledge CPAS and the Vice Chancellor’s Travel Grant program for funding me to present my research at an international conference. Finally, to my family, I would not be where I am without your support. Thank you for everything. vii viii Abstract Sound in space. Featherless dinosaurs. Physics-defying stunts. Unrealistic science in fiction is often the subject of commentary and critique. Existing audience research on science in fiction focuses on the possible effects of unrealistic science on the audience; however, there is limited research investigating how the audience evaluates and discusses unrealistic science. This thesis reports on the outcomes of an audience research project investigating the role of unrealistic science in the reception of narrative fiction. Qualitative data drawn from focus group discussions and interviews with 55 participants were used to explore why the realism of science in fiction can be personally important to the audience, when the realism of science in fiction is most relevant to aesthetic evaluation, and what motivates audiences to discuss the realism of science in fiction. Participants reported scientific realism to be personally important for its effects on the narrative experience, its effects on the evaluation of narrative as rhetorical communication, its effects on perceived authorial respect for science and the reader, and its perceived effects on the public’s understanding and support of science. These findings illustrate how a concern with scientific realism can be both a routine and deeply personal aspect of responding to science-themed fiction. The aesthetic acceptability of unrealistic science depended on four key principles of aesthetic evaluation: subservience (unrealistic science is acceptable because it is subservient to the narrative’s aesthetic goals), satisfaction (unrealistic science is acceptable because the narrative is aesthetically or ideologically satisfying), salience (unrealistic science is acceptable because it is unimportant to the narrative or to the audience), and severity (unrealistic science is acceptable because it is an understandable or innocuous error). The framework introduced in this study provides a catalogue of evaluative moves that audiences may deploy in response to unrealistic science and serves as a tentative guide to predicting when unrealistic science is aesthetically acceptable. Discourse about the realism of science in fiction served nine self-reported functions, including catharsis, critique, conciliation, continued engagement, curiosity, communication, change, competence, and connection. These self-reported functions underpin three latent discourse functions identified in previous research. Discourse ix about scientific realism is a form of boundary work that not only maintains the epistemic authority of scientists (credibility) but also asserts authority over public discourse about socio-scientific issues (control). Furthermore, by highlighting media effects concerns, this discourse may perpetuate and legitimise the practice of blaming fiction for public opposition to science and technology (concern). The framework introduced in this study highlights how discourse about scientific realism can serve diverse functions for diverse audiences. Any audience can participate in and benefit from discourse about scientific realism. However, the benefits and rhetorical affordances of this discourse are ultimately most accessible to audiences with self-assessed scientific competence. This study contributes to science communication and audience reception research by introducing new frameworks for understanding how audiences evaluate and discuss unrealistic elements in fiction. These frameworks can inform science communication practice as it relates to the production and reception of narrative fiction. x Table of contents Declaration ............................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. vii Abstract ...................................................................................................................... ix Table of contents ....................................................................................................... xi List of tables and figures .......................................................................................... xv 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 The research problem .......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research questions ............................................................................................ 4 1.3 Research design in brief ..................................................................................... 5 1.4 Research scope and limitations ........................................................................ 5 1.5 Synopsis .............................................................................................................. 7 2. An introduction to the perceived realism of science in fiction ............................ 8 2.1 Definitions of key terms .................................................................................... 8 2.1.1 Fiction ...................................................................................................................... 8 2.1.2 Text ......................................................................................................................... 8 2.1.3 Readers and reading ............................................................................................... 8 2.1.4 Authors ................................................................................................................... 9 2.1.5 Narrative: Discourse, story, and plot ..................................................................... 9 2.1.6 Story elements: Events and existents ................................................................... 10 2.1.7 Themes, theses, and ideology ............................................................................... 10 2.1.8 Discourse ................................................................................................................ 11 2.2 What is perceived realism? ............................................................................... 11 2.3 What is unrealistic science in fiction? ............................................................. 25 3. Methodology ......................................................................................................... 29 3.1 Overview ........................................................................................................... 29 3.2 Ethical approval ................................................................................................ 31 3.3 Recruitment and participants .......................................................................... 31 3.4 Focus groups ..................................................................................................... 35 3.5 Semi-structured interviews ............................................................................. 36 3.6 Transcription .................................................................................................... 37 3.7 Analysis ............................................................................................................