Last week I picked up a book called “The Maintenance of Headway” – terrible title, by the way – and found myself completely absorbed by page three. The protagonist was fixing a broken escalator on a space station, and the author spent half a page describing how the rubber handrail felt slightly sticky from decades of palm oils and cleaning solvents. It was such a mundane detail, but it made the whole impossible setting feel… real. Like I could smell that faint chemical tang.
That’s the thing about great sci-fi stories – they don’t work because they’re utterly alien. They work because they feel like our world, just tilted sideways.
The best ones take something familiar and ask: what if this one thing was different? What if gravity worked backwards on Tuesdays? What if your kitchen appliances started gossiping about you? What if that weird neighbour really was from another planet?
I’ve been thinking about this balance a lot lately, especially after spending three hours last Sunday trying to build a “futuristic” lamp out of PVC pipes and LED strips. Spoiler alert: it looked more like a medical device than anything from 2150. But the failure taught me something about why certain sci-fi ideas stick and others don’t. The lamp failed because I focused entirely on making it look “alien.” I forgot that people still need to, you know, use it to read books.
The stories that really grab me are the ones that remember humans are still human, even when everything else changes. Take Andy Weir’s approach in “The Martian” – yes, Mark Watney is growing potatoes on Mars, but he’s still cracking jokes, getting frustrated with bureaucracy, and jury-rigging solutions with duct tape. The extraordinary premise works because the character reactions feel completely ordinary.
I remember reading Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars trilogy years ago and being struck by how much time he spent on mundane details. People arguing about zoning laws. Committees discussing water rights. Romance drama in research stations. At first, I thought: this is supposed to be about colonising Mars, why am I reading about housing disputes? But that’s exactly what made it believable. Of course people would bring their petty grievances to Mars. Of course there’d be politics and paperwork and someone hogging the good coffee.
The science helps too, obviously. When I was studying physics, my professors always said the best science fiction isn’t about the technology – it’s about what happens to people when technology changes their world. That’s why “Black Mirror” episodes hit so hard. They’re not really about social media or brain implants or rating systems. They’re about how these things amplify existing human behaviour. The tech is just the magnifying glass.
I’ve noticed that stories which feel both strange and familiar often use what I call “emotional anchors.” They’ll introduce some mind-bending concept, then ground it in feelings we all recognize. Loneliness. The frustration of things not working properly. The satisfaction of finally understanding something complicated. That moment when you realise you’ve been doing something wrong for years.
You Might Also Like
Recently I picked up Martha Wells’ Murderbot Diaries, and here’s this artificial construct designed for security, but it’s basically experiencing social anxiety and would rather binge-watch TV shows than interact with humans. Brilliant. The AI part is the hook, but the social awkwardness is what makes it relatable.
There’s also something to be said for the “one step removed” approach. Instead of jumping straight to “humans meet aliens,” maybe start with “humans receive mysterious signal from space.” Instead of “time travel adventure,” try “person finds objects from their future self.” It’s like… easing the reader into the deep end rather than throwing them off the diving board.
I learned this lesson the hard way when I tried writing a short story about sentient buildings. My first draft was all about the architectural consciousness and urban telepathy and complex structural emotions. Nobody cared. Then I rewrote it from the perspective of a janitor who slowly realizes his building is trying to communicate through the pattern of burnt-out light bulbs. Much better. The weird concept worked because it was filtered through someone doing a completely normal job.
The visual aspect matters too. When I was working on that game mod I mentioned, I spent ages trying to design “futuristic” interfaces that looked nothing like anything we’d recognize. They were awful. Then I started thinking: what if future computers still had some familiar elements, but just… evolved? What if screens still looked basically like screens, but the way you interacted with them was subtly different? Suddenly the designs felt more believable.
I think this is why shows like “The Expanse” work so well. The spaceships have that worn, industrial feel. People still argue about money and politics. The technology feels like a natural extension of stuff we already have, just pushed a few hundred years forward. It’s not clean and sterile – it’s grimy and practical and people complain about the coffee quality.
The trick seems to be finding that sweet spot where readers think “I could see this happening” rather than “this is impossible.” Even when the premise is completely impossible.
It’s about emotional truth, not scientific accuracy. Although scientific accuracy doesn’t hurt – it just can’t be the only thing holding the story together.
Sometimes I test this by describing a sci-fi concept to my sister (yes, the same one who used to mock my weird notebook). If she immediately starts asking practical questions like “but where would they get food?” or “what about the bathroom situation?” then I know I’m on the right track. Her questions mean the scenario feels real enough to worry about logistics. That’s exactly what you want.
The best sci-fi stories don’t ask us to leave our humanity at the door. They ask us to bring it with us, wherever we’re going.
0 Comments