Sci-fi actually needs science

[zmunkz]

Really? Space Opera? That rules out half the books in that genre.

I was talking about hard sf, not space opera. I think the details of the science are one of the things that distinguish the two genres.

Usually not.
You don't explain how cars or cell phones work in a detective story unless it's important to the plot.

This is true, you wouldn't want to explain ALL the science (or even the special science you are pulling from genre tropes, like warp drive) but part of what makes hard sci-fi "hard" is that there are science elements that are essential to the plot, and understanding them specifically is part of the story.

But again, all this is in regard to hard sci-fi per the earlier part of the discussion... the thread is about a space opera, which I do not think expects the same kind of emphasis.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

but part of what makes hard sci-fi "hard" is that there are science elements that are essential to the plot,

Only sometimes. The science may just be a McGuffin, to make the setting possible.

 

[zmunkz]

Only sometimes. The science may just be a McGuffin, to make the setting possible.

True... none of these genres have any strict rules

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I was talking about hard sf, not space opera. I think the details of the science are one of the things that distinguish the two genres.

Ah, but the OP was specifically about Space Opera.

@Vertigo, I think there is room for both types of SO. As it happens, for all my protests to the contrary, I do usually go for some level of accuracy (so using the gravity of a planet for space manoevures, that sort of thing), but I don't feel I have to.

 

[ratsy]

I'd probably write a nice, clear list of the technical errors - but I sent a letter to Arthur C Clarke, explaining an error he'd made, when I was about twelve, and got a very pleasant letter back from him agreeing with me.

This...is...awesome! Something to be said for pre-social media times hey?

In response to the OP, I don't know what to say. Does the author want to know he could change some basic things and have a better, more plausible story? Perhaps. Was it self-pubbed or Traditional pubbed?

Personally, I agree with most of the responses here. Space Opera can almost do anything without explaining it too much. I mean, some of it has guys with high-tech space ships, and rifles, or swords, so I mean...who cares. They can fly into space on a dinosaur, while shooting lasers from their eyes for all I care.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Hey, you've seen the hugo noms, right? It can even have sex with a velociraptor....

 

[Vertigo]

Ah, but the OP was specifically about Space Opera.

@Vertigo, I think there is room for both types of SO. As it happens, for all my protests to the contrary, I do usually go for some level of accuracy (so using the gravity of a planet for space manoevures, that sort of thing), but I don't feel I have to.

I agree; that was my point, Jo, that space opera is not automatically pulp just because it's not hard SF. There is a huge range of 'brands' of SF that all, in my opinion, fall squarely under the sub-genre space opera. You certainly can't call the likes of Weber and Bujold hard SF (though maybe Weber pretends to be ) but I'd definitely call them space opera (or at least most of their works; some of Bujold's are rather more planet bound).

I'd also add that there is no hard (sorreeee) distinction between hard and soft SF. It is broad spectrum with most SF probably sitting somewhere in the middle. Even something like The Martian which is lauded as hard SF bends some pretty big bits of the science for dramatic effect.

 

[Cathbad]

They can fly into space on a dinosaur, while shooting lasers from their eyes for all I care.

Hmmm...

Lord Quagmire ran to Aster, his pterydactyl mount. Anger filled his soul, as he considered Hycroft's betrayal. As he reached Aster, the Royal Guard unit found him again! They opened fire, sending blue bolts of energy zinging all around the Warlord and beast.
Brave Aster did not waver as his master leapt into the riding harness. Lord Quagmire looked upon the attackin guard and let his anger explode. His eyes glowed brightly. A moment later, Quagmire's power erupted from his eyes. The super-heated energy blast roared into the attackers, and the odor of charred flesh filled the airfield, as men screamed in agony!
"Up, Aster! We have a ship to catch!" The great ancient beast leapt upward, pumping his wings hard.
Scowling, the Warlord glared upward to the approaching boarder of space. "You won't get away, my brother. I will find you. I will destroy your fleet. Then I will kill you, my brother, with my bare hands!"
He tapped Aster's helmet and it slid down into place over the beast's odd shaped head. Quagmire tapped his own helmet, and it silently covered his face just before they broke the barrier and entered space.

 

[Parson]

The Martian which is lauded as hard SF bends some pretty big bits of the science for dramatic effect.

This peaked my interest. From reading The Martian the only part that I saw as somewhat debatable was the broken wind screen in the Rocket, but I thought maybe Mar's extremely low atmosphere made that possible. --- Is there something I missed.

On thread: The story is the main thing. But the story must be much better than average if I am supposed to believe that you can "coast to stop in space!" No hand-wavem can possibly explain this, unless "coast" is meant in the sense of 30 million years later after some close encounters with stars and interstellar dust.

 

[Vertigo]

This peaked my interest. From reading The Martian the only part that I saw as somewhat debatable was the broken wind screen in the Rocket, but I thought maybe Mar's extremely low atmosphere made that possible. --- Is there something I missed.

On thread: The story is the main thing. But the story must be much better than average if I am supposed to believe that you can "coast to stop in space!" No hand-wavem can possibly explain this, unless "coast" is meant in the sense of 30 million years later after some close encounters with stars and interstellar dust.

Continuing the off-topic just a little This tripped me up actually I spotted it but assumed Weir had it right but he didn't and even admitted it as such with the excuse that he wanted it to be 'awesome.' I'll tease you no more; the storm at the beginning was just wrong. Because of the low pressure 150kph winds on Mars would actually feel (in Weir's own words) like no more than a breeze. They certainly wouldn't be able to pick up anything weightier than the talcum powder like dust covering the surface and they wouldn't even blow you over never mind pick things up and blow them into you. I figured maybe the dust that's been picked up would give more volume and momentum to the wind but apparently not. He actually messes up a little later on, effectively contradicting this earlier view of a storm, when Watney drives into a dust storm but doesn't even realised he's entered it; this one is the realistic one. There were actually a couple more errors but not as critical. I recommend watching this video that @cyprus7 posted over here: The Martian, by Andy Weir Weir is disarmingly honest about it all! He could have started with a different kind of accident but, as the story is fundamentally a man versus nature story he wanted to start with nature having the first blow. In other words for dramatic effect...

 

[ralphkern]

My two pence worth.

If the author has invited feedback, then should be taken at a face value. If s/he doesn't actually want it, they need to remove the comment requesting it. But the key is, feedback should be constructive. If it is constructive, whether positive or negative, then it is a kind gift from a reader who has taken the time to give it. (assuming the author is professional enough to be able to take it)

However,

In the politest possible way, can you offer constructive feedback for them? As indicated by other posters, the novel you describe sounds as if it is rooted firmly in the Sci Fantasy / Soft Space Opera end of the market. This more sounds like you don't like the sub-genre to me.

If the author has purported anywhere on the blurb etc that the book is hard SF, I would suggest limiting yourself to emailing saying you think it may have been mis-listed and misleading. After all, if people are buying it with that in mind and finding it isn't, ultimately it will only result in the book not finding its target audience. That would be valid and constructive feedback. You might also offer that you can provide a critque of the author's science if they so wish.

In addition to some of the excellent selections given above: You may find some of these to be more to your taste:
(I'm assuming you want your SF with a military thrust from the description of the book you're speaking about)

Anything by Peter Cawdron (big big big fan here)
Stephen Moss
Isaac Hooke
(Chrons review for above here: Quality Self-Published Work Review )
Nick Webb (Chrons review here: Review: Nick Webb - Constitution )
David Weber (Honor Harrington)
Josh Hayes

 

[zmunkz]

the storm at the beginning was just wrong.

Yeah, the storm that was threatening to knock over the MAV wouldn't have that affect due to the thin atmosphere, and then he breezed over the radiation that would enter the HAB.

Even hard sci-fi doesn't have need every bit of science to be accurate... there can always be speculative elements (even bordering on fantasy). In the martian specifically, science certainly played a role in many of the conflicts he surmounted in the story, and he was specific about the science he was using giving it a very true-to-life feeling, which is why I think it is lauded, as you say.

 

[ratsy]

I've read a few based on @ralphkern suggestions and have liked them all so listen to the man!

I read My Sweet Satan by Cawdron and it was one of the best, eerie SF books I could imagine. And I'm told he has some better out there too so I have to get to those.
Stephen Moss, Fear the Sky was a super-cool invasion book.
I have devoured the Nick Webb books, and I can see why they are massive best-sellers, just good old fashion human vs unknown alien stories.
And I have Josh Hayes free Novella on my kindle to read. Look forward to it.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Thoughts???

My two pence worth.

And, of course, Ralph Kern's books are also very good! And underpinned by science research:
Review: Endeavour by Ralph Kern
Review: Erebus by Ralph Kern

 

[J Riff]

At least we have this question to ask. Most genres are reality-based, an annoying restrictive little detail.

 

[ralphkern]

And, of course, Ralph Kern's books are also very good! And underpinned by science research:
Review: Endeavour by Ralph Kern
Review: Erebus by Ralph Kern

You're too kind

 

[dreamwalker]

Regardless of the accuracy of the science, I tend to find that it's more important to have rules, constraints on the powers of your characters - . I find the internal consistency of weber, campbell etc more important than if they get the science completely right because it helps me understand the challenges characters face. When they overcome challenges within the constraints of their worlds, it's all the more satisfying.

 

[Nick B]

Don't forget that science fiction, even 'hard' sci-fi will almost always have a speculative element, unless it only uses todays technology.
To be sure though, basic physics should be adhered to unless speculative technology is in play.

 

[Vertigo]

Yeah, the storm that was threatening to knock over the MAV wouldn't have that affect due to the thin atmosphere, and then he breezed over the radiation that would enter the HAB.

Even hard sci-fi doesn't have need every bit of science to be accurate... there can always be speculative elements (even bordering on fantasy). In the martian specifically, science certainly played a role in many of the conflicts he surmounted in the story, and he was specific about the science he was using giving it a very true-to-life feeling, which is why I think it is lauded, as you say.

Don't forget that science fiction, even 'hard' sci-fi will almost always have a speculative element, unless it only uses todays technology.
To be sure though, basic physics should be adhered to unless speculative technology is in play.

I actually think that's one of the key points and is why I brought up the storm in the Martian. The radiation I was prepared to live with. We can't handle it today but we may be able to handle it in the future. It is conceivable that by the time we send someone to Mars we may have a canvas like material such as the hab was covered with that gives adequate protection from radiation; that's possible; that's speculative science. The storm as portrayed can never happen and will never happen; the physics simply doesn't allow it (unless we could somehow greatly increase Mar' atmospheric pressure through terraforming). However I'm prepared to let Weir get away with that one as the rest was, to quote him, so awesome!

 

[J Riff]

Hoo boy. The same stuff is 'speculative' - like going off to Mars, right next door, as was speculative 100 years ago.