posted
Most of my writing would fall under fantasy -- not just S&S or epic/heroic fantasy, but modern-day fantasy, i.e., something you might find in a Gene Wolfe story.
But recently, I've been thinking about trying my hand at some hard-core science fiction stories. My problem is this: I don't know enough about science to write a hard-core science fiction story.
Can anyone recommend good introductions on (a) chemistry, (b) physics, (c) biology, and (d) astronomy that have been written for the layman?
Is Asimov's THE INTELLIGENT MAN'S GUIDE TO SCIENCE still worthwhile?
Also, are there any good scientific periodicals written for the layman? I've heard of SCIENTIFIC AMERICA (I think that's the name), but I've also heard that it is a bit advanced.
posted
Balthasar, Scientific American is good and I would also recommend Discover magazine, which is geared more to the common person who is interested in scientific advanges etc.
Astronomy magazine is a good one also.
That's all I can come up with off the top of my head...
posted
Science magazine is also good. But seriously, if you want to learn a science -- the best way is to pick up a text book, or enroll in a class.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted
I absolutely agree that you should enroll in a class. If you are going to write a story inspired by real science, then your understanding of science should go below the surface. A little college astronomy, biology, physics, or chemistry would be good. Statistics can be surprisingly inspiring, too.
If you're a sci-fi fan, you might consider Dr. Lawrence Krauss's series of books that teaches science lessons using Star Trek stories you may already know. His first, The Physics of Star trek, taught me quite a bit and really made me think.
I don't sit down to write hard sci-fi until I'm comfortable with the science. So when writing I never use science text books; I use reference books. I already know Ohm's laws, Kirchoff's laws, Keppler's law, etc. When I write I really need lots of tables. I like tables showing the orbital period of Callisto, the conductivity of titanium, the speed of sound in liquid methane, and the size of the magnetic field of Saturn. To me that's great stuff.
posted
The reason why I don't know any science is because of college-level science courses. I'm not asking how to go about learning science -- I already have a method in mind. What I am asking is...
1. Does anyone know of any good introduction books or texts on the aforementioned subjects (my first post).
2. And does anyone know if the "X for Dummies" series would serve as good introductions to the aforementioned subjects?
Nellievrolyk -- Thanks for the magazine recommendations. I'll be looking into them.
Rahl22 -- Which text books? Can you give me some authors and titles?
Doc Brown -- I've never seen any of the Star Trek movies or read any of the novels. However, Dr. Krauss's book sounds interesting. If anything, I can study how science is used in a SF story. Thanks. (Any maybe I'll become a Trekie while I'm at it. )
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited April 12, 2003).]
posted
Rahl22, are you peeking in my window? The CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics is by far the most-used reference book on my writing desk. It hardly ever gets put away, and is usually open to something arcane.
Like many engineers, I also use Halliday/Resnick. Who doesn't have a copy of that?
[This message has been edited by Doc Brown (edited April 12, 2003).]
posted
Rahl22 -- Thanks for the bibliography. I'm not sure I'll jump into any one of those books anytime soon. It's also good to know that any old chemistry book will do.
Survivor -- Why do I want to write hard SF? Primarily because I've been reading some hard SF and really enjoy it, and I would like to try my hand at it.
But I should add that my understanding of hard SF has been perfectly stated by Ben Bova: "Science fiction stories are those in which some aspect of future science or high technology is so integral to the story that, if you take away the science of technology, the story collapses." I don't know if that's the standard definition of hard SF. Nevertheless, I am beginning to really like these kinds of stories and would like to write some.
I really have no desire to study science beyond a cursory way. I want to know enough to be able to develop some good story ideas, and I want to know enough to understand the articles in science magazines (e.g., Scientific American, Discovery, etc.).
I also have another reason for wanting to study science: due to my family situation, I had to recently decline a wonderful Ph.D. package that I was awarded from Marquette University. The upside to this is now I have the time and energy to study whatever I want.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited April 13, 2003).]
posted
Right now I'm writing (actually rewriting) a scene set on Callisto. I've got a team rappelling in a penepalimpsest crater region. I need to know the gravity, temperature, period of rotation, radius of orbit, escape velocity, and lighting conditions.
I must admit that the data about the solar system is my most-used part of the CRC, but I also turn to it frequently to make sure I'm using words correctly in the chemistry and physics of my stories.
Good answer. I asked the question because I think of "hard" SF as coming from the basic inability of a writer to suspend his own disbelief. For instance, I'm working on a fantasy, but all the "magic" is actually the advanced technology developed in the late 3rd millenium on Earth. Not because I want to sell it as a science fiction story...I want this to be a fantasy, but I'm incapable of not basing my speculations on my understanding of science and technology. Using my writerly skills, I will try not to bore my audience with technical details of 30th century technology which are only understood by the "gods" of my fantasy milieu, but those details are necessary for me to be able to create the milieu (I'm not the world's most creative person by nature).
So of course I think of writing "hard" science fiction not as being a matter of actual level of knowledge, but more of creative attitude.
But if you are aiming for "hardness" in the final product rather than the genesis, you can simply ask knowledgealbe persons (note the plural) to scan your work for implausibilities. That process is really no different from what a fantasy or contemporary writer must do, it just involves targeting representitives of a different audience as alpha testers.
quote: So of course I think of writing "hard" science fiction not as being a matter of actual level of knowledge, but more of creative attitude.
YES! YES! YES!
The hard SF I've read and enjoyed has this quality. I'm particularly influenced by Isaac Asimov's Nemesis. He didn't spend pages describing the science in his story, yet, the macro-story depends on an accurate understanding of certain astronomical facts (e.g., Red Dwarfs).
I'm not sure if hard SF is the result of the writer not being able to suspend his or her own disbelief, but I have read SF that doesn't meet the criteria of fiction. Fiction is about people, not things, and too much hard SF that I've read doesn't meet this criteria. And to a certain extent, Asimov falls into this criteria -- at least he did The God's Themselves. But there are hard SF writers out there who write good fiction too -- Nancy Kress and James Patrick Kelly, for example.
So, yes, for me science will be, in part, the origins of my stories rather than the actual substance of my stories. Perhaps the end result won't be classified as hard SF. If that's the case -- [snaps the fingers] -- darn. That's not really my goal anyway.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited April 13, 2003).]
posted
In that case, I think that the best source for hard science fiction is history. Look at times that remarkable events occured in history, and look into why they happened. Then think of a plausible science basis for it happening again. Not to tout myself as a author of all SF creativity, but that's exactly how I came up with my "Aliens upset by TV pollution" idea--I was watching some coverage of the war, and thinking, "what would have to occur for something like this to happen to America--tomorrow?" What are we doing that we know is bad but don't seem likely to stop doing even though it might be completely unacceptable to someone with the power to kick our trash, but not at all in the way we would think they might?
Ultimately, it doesn't really matter whether your science fiction is "hard" or not. What matters is that you believe in the possibility of it and manage to communicate that belief to an audience that cares--same as for all fiction
Printer-friendly view of this topic
)
