Novel Science Talk in Novels?

Hi,

I’m thinking of writing a sci-fi novel, which focuses on a superbug. I want my novel to be scientifically accurate. One of my main characters will be a scientist. I’m not sure how much science I should add. I don’t want to dumb the topic down to the point that the story turns shallow, but I also don’t want to overburden the reader, who probably won’t know too much about genetics, viruses, bacteria, etc. I myself know more about the topic than the average layperson, which makes this difficult for me to asses.

Do you have any suggestions on how I can explain science to the average reader? Or how to know when a story turns scientifically too complicated or too “dumb”?

How much do you (if you haven’t studied this at university) know about genetics and bacteria?

 

I can't suggest anything, but try reading The Moral Virologist for inspiration (the author is a diamond hard sci-fi writer and it seems right up this alley).

 

The thing is that sci-fi readers tend to be fairly well versed in science. While they may not be completely aware of what's right and what is hand waving, they'll very easily pick out bullshit, so make sure that you know what you are talking about.

Fans of science fiction have probably read The Martian by Andy Weir or Contact by Carl Sagan, so if done right, we don't mind the science exposition.

 

I'd place a bet that the average reader is quite willing to learn things they don't know. Even more so the average sci-fi reader, as the "science" part of the genre would suggest. And you can always take example from all those sci-fi books published so far. Some are quite dense and some are quite easy to grasp, so you have a choice of anything in between. What sci-fi have you been reading lately?

 

It depends on the level of complexity you want. If you read Michael Crichton, for example, he went easy on this sort of thing, including just enough scientific underpinning to make things sound good. Greg Egan, on the other hand, goes 100 miles an hour in the opposite direction. Read his novel Diaspora. Great book. Not for the scientifically faint of heart.

 

My favorite author is David Quammen, and one of his recent books I've read is "Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic." I'm always amazed at his brilliance - he seems to know exactly when to explain things in laymen's terms, and he uses perfect and sometimes humorous analogies and metaphors. But he definitely assumes the reader is well-versed in his subject. So I would say always assume the reader is knowledgeable.

I have a degree in geology, which is "not a real science" according to Sheldon Cooper on Big Bang Theory. I really should have gone into biology. I believe I'm infected with "biophilia," - an obsession and passion with life on earth. I love reading about viruses, bacteria, and genetics. They allow us to "see" evolution right before our eyes. I remember how blown away I was to find out our DNA is comprised in part by ancient viruses, and the earth's ecosystems are underlain by viral grids of ridiculous diversity. What incredible little buggers they are, and completely unaware of themselves (we suppose) so when we catch the flu, we can't really be angry at them - they are just doing what they do!

Since a story about a superbug is not not exactly new, it would have to be unique, I'd say. And yes, assume your reader is on top of it. Write with passion about your subject, like Quammen - check him out if you're not familiar already. His "Natural Acts" are collections of short pieces you can pick and choose.

 

Robin Cook might be an author to look into also. He write a lot of books involving diseases and biology. He was a doctor by trade, so he really knows his stuff. Outbreak sounds a little like what you want to write. It was about Ebola being purposefully spread throughout the USA.

 

I recently finished this book. It was a master class in balancing character and information in hard science fiction:

 

My opinion: science the fuck out of 'em if you want. Just don't forget the story and wind up turning it into masturbatory self-indulgence. I'll put up with quite a lot, writing wise, if the story moves along.

 

I consider myself an "arm-chair" physicist and the one thing I would like to say about scientific fact is that there isn't any. Remember the planet Pluto? My current area of interest is electrical theory and from my researches etc. I am confident in saying that scientists have their heads up and locked. I would recommend mentioning the hard science to add flavor, but not make it a major plot point.

 

This is a good question, and every SF writer probably has to pick a level of technical detail along a continuum based on their expected audience.

newjerseyrunner speculated that most SF readers would have consumed The Martian or Contact, but I think this is not the case: these books are a subgenre of SF called Science Faction, which is relatively unpopular these days. I think the type specimen was Clarke's 2001, which spun off a brief interest in realistic SF. Star Wars killed that blip pretty quickly.

Just as a personal anecdote: I read The Martian based on the hype, but found it so boring that I have no interest in reading Weir's next novel. And I'm not sure I can describe Contact as very technical, actually. The pivotal tech is imaginary.

Greg Behr's Blood Music, David Brin's Uplift series, Larry Niven's Ringworld... some biology and engineering porn by authors with scientific credentials. Probably a good example of Science Faction today would be the Expanse series. One of the authors is an astrophysicist.

But none of this is saying you must write to a specific degree of technical detail - write the story you think is best, and it will find its audience. I think all SF has to ask the reader to suspend at least one element of known science in order to take that speculative leap to awesome. (*cough* light sabers *cough*)

 

This is true. Science by definition deosnt prove anything, it can only falsify things.

Bad example, that’s simply categorization which science doesn’t really care about. Astronomers really don’t care if something is a planet, dwarf planet, or big comet, they only care about its properties.

As in QED? What irks you about QED? It’s rediculuously accurate and elegantly mends QM and SR.

They’re very much looking for new equations so solve the major issue in physics that QM and GR use different kinds of maths. Nobody’s figured it out yet.

 

I assume that this book will be for either YA or adult audiences? If so, my suggestion is to explain it like a high school honors science teacher. Most if not all of your readers will have gone to high school or be in high school, so they should know what they learned in there. I say honors because you probably don't want to make them feel like they're sitting in a science class, and they would probably appreciate learning something new.

I know what they teach in high school biology courses, and even then, I didn't retain all of that information, so I don't know a lot.

 

I think this hits the nail on the head. Even if your science goes over the heads of some of your readers, that is a good thing as long as your story moves along nicely and engages your readers. A little "over-the-top" science will make your story all the more believable. Readers won't care if they don't quite get it. They'll just incorporate the crazy science into the great story. They may not quite "get it" but they'll feel it!

 

As someone who had to switch degrees because they failed chemistry twice, I say use as much science as you want. I've read science heavy fiction and non-fiction and have enjoyed them for the most part; sometimes I even learn something new. As long as the story continues on and is intriguing then I'm fine with it. I do like when the author does "dumb" something down, though, after they spout out the scientific sentence. This is mostly selfish because I may not always understand what was written (and I won't if the author won't give context around the science being spewed). The Martian did a good job of this and while it took me a little bit to fully get into the book once I was past the first two pages, by the time I was half-way through I was enthralled.

 

Thank you all for your answers. This has really helped me. The majority of you said “use as much science as you want and fits well into the story”, so that’s what I’ll be doing.
Plus I got a lot of good recommendations for books

 

I'm not trying the hi-jack this thread with a pointless argument but... I think the bit about Pluto was a valid point. From 1930 -2007 every school child was taught that there was a planet Pluto, it was scientific fact. That turned out to be nonsense. As for quanta... I think the jury is still out on that. Even the Atomic model of matter is starting to fade from general acceptance. As for "Head up and locked" I offer one word. "Grounding." Here, the real question is does it make a good story?

 

This is where analogies come in. Science geek says authentic techno jargon, and sees the rest of the cast staring at her like deer in headlights. Introduce folksy analogy.

Star Trek excelled at this. Uhura, in Undiscovered Country: "It's gotta have a tailpipe."

And I'll take accurate science that's above my head over the tedious"[Try reversing the polarity]," trope any day.

 

I'm just going to take the personal liberty to call it a planet. The thing is absolutely beautiful, especially from the perspective of someone with a geology background - anyone out there agree? I fantasize roaming on Pluto's surface in a space suit, gazing at the features the same way I gazed at ice sculptures on Mnt. Rainier when I climbed it in '86.

 

The thing is, if the science is accurate, it's not handwaving if you don't explain it all. If there are holes in your science, the educated will spot them whether or not you've gone into detail, and those less educated in the topic will probably gloss over a lot of the explanations anyway. See if you can find a high school biology textbook, look at how things are explained there, and when it's necessary to do so, try and write to that level.

 

Be very careful with high school level books though. Complex scientific things are taught heuristically in school. That means that while the information is correct, it is incomplete.

Evolution for example is way more complicated than most people realize.

 

Also, they teach some bits that are wrong because it has no practical effect, and is easier.

 

Point taken about the purpose of a high school textbook, but I'm referring to the level (vocabulary, fine details) of the texts. OP says (s)he knows more about science than the average person, but the average person (even a college-educated "average" person) probably hasn't had much in the way of science education after graduating high school. My bachelor's is a liberal arts degree, but I've got an Associate's in Science, which means about nothing but may be above average. I loved The Martian, but there were sections of it (mostly the computer ASCII, IIRC) that I just basically took the author's word for and glossed over. If OP has a strong science background, I think they should write to, or just slightly above, the high school level to maximize their audience.