CONTROL was written with a very purposeful hand when it came to making the science accurate, or at least believable. Even the world building--things like transportation or growing crops--was carefully thought out. There had to be a reason behind the design, even if I never explain it in the actual book. I spent countless hours refreshing my understanding of genetics, neurobiology, photosynthesis, olfactory physiology...
But at the same time, I also knew I didn't want the science to take over the story.
In the end, CONTROL is simply about a 17 year old girl who's trying to get back what she's lost. And though the science is not a quiet bystander, it's there. Waving its hand, like a total spaz, from a few rows behind my main characters.
So I'm curious. For you sci-fi readers--how much sci do you like in your fi?
16 comments:
For me it is a matter, how they introduce it. Giant info dumps of science can have me skipping pages, but if done in an interesting way I love the innovation.
I like science (my job) and fiction (my hobby), but I don't like sci-fi. The only exception is the Hitchhiker's Guide books that I found quite entertaining >:)
Cold As Heaven
I am always the one waving back at the spaz behind the main character, so I do like sci with my fi.
I just want enough to make the world make sense. I don't need a lot unless the world needs it. Sounds like you had to do some research into science for yours.
I want enough to be believable but not science-heavy. I don't care how it works - I just want to know that it does.
The science fiction of today is the science fact of tomorrow. I love that SciFi explores ideas and concepts that have yet to happen. For me the science is essential. Obviously I don't want to feel that I'm reading an academic paper - I do enough of that at work, but I do like to see a sound scientific basis to a story. And of course, any science does have to be accurate. :-)
As a former teacher, I know how the eyes of students (and readers) can glaze over when static science is droned on about.
I try to make the science believable and core to the emotions of the characters at the moment.
Should you portray a bound character but inches away from an injection of a "synaptic solvent" which will reduce her to a drooling vegetable -- if you portray her terror realistically, the reader will buy into the science behind the injection -- even if such a thing would not work in that manner in the real world.
As always an interesting post!
I've actually done quite a bit of research for my scifi. I poured through Gurps Space, took a course in Astrobiology, and devoted A-Z to all things scifi. The tricky part is not letting the information overwhelm the story.
You go at everything with such as much creativity as you do the details. I can't wait to read Control. I know it's going to be amazing!
I tend to like my science in science-fiction to be, well, fictional: imaginative, on the outer edge of believability, rather than strictly or literally accurate. But at the same time, it has to be internally consistent, to make sense within the story-world (even if it would make little or no sense in the real world).
I want it to be believable (or at least able to suspend my disbelief) but I'm not overly critical like my hubby the rocket scientist. :P Cant' wait to read CONTROL!
I like a lot of science as long as it's integrated into the plot.
I'm looking forward to reading Control.
I need just enough "sci" to support my suspension of disbelief. Then I'm ready for the "fi".
Believability is key for me, as well as flow. I find that anything that makes me scratch my head too much...is not a good thing. Also, if the author has to slow the pace way down to explain the science...then it takes me out of the story. :)
I love it when grasp-able science concepts are tweaked and enhanced. Bring on flying everyday transports, super plants, holograms, and nano-technology.
While reading I don't want to be lost in Science world. So I just want enough to make it all believable and enjoyable.
Post a Comment