Support for Indie Authors discussion
Archived Author Help
>
Sci Fi Too Technical Or Not?
date
newest »
newest »
How long is a piece of string....But. What I will say is you should probably be more concerned with writing your books how you want them to be than 'toning down' for commercial reasons.
One: when you stop writing as yourself you can quickly lose your authenticity.
Two: there's no guarantee at all that the change would be beneficial and if it isn't you will wind up majorly annoyed.
I am a romance reader but a little over a year ago was introduced to scifi. I have to say that quite often the technical jargon goes over my head but it doesn't detract from the story for me. I'm with Jane here and say be true to how you want to write it. I believe that true scifi readers will appreciate your effort.
Mod
- There is a context for what the word means. "I refueled by starship with a healthy dose of Dranasiumcolium." makes it obvious that whatever that word was, was fuel.
- The word is explained somewhere. "Jumbingink'lops are the favourite breakfast cereal of the Travaxian people".
- The reader isn't supposed to know what it is because you are silly (like me) "Get out the shuzwhizzles, we are going in!"
There are other reasons, but still. The string... write for you.
:)
It clearly is working out so far! :D
As Jane and S.J. said before me, think thrice before you change your style.About the actual jargon: Is it real hard sci-fi (ergo scientific/technical) jargon or just geek talk type of jargon? (In other words, is it an Arthur C. Clarke/Andy Weir type or Star Trek type?)
The first is a contet question, the second a style question IMHO. To pick Martian as you brought it up, jargon will be an integral part of the story. Mrtian would be just a funny short story without the tech stuff.
Star Trek on the other hand includes a lot of text where everyone says out loud what they push on the console, connect x to y, synchronize y to z etc. It doesn't REALLY matter what they say, but it's part of what Star Trek is.
So. What is your style? :)
About your other question: The Martian wouldn't have been successful without the jargon and it be just a funny, enjoyable short story. I think, one of the main reasons that it could become a successful hard sci-fi is, that is used knowledge and concepts easily understandable by most.
PS: FYI I write hard sci-fi myself. :)
C.B. wrote: "I think technobabble is fine, if either:- There is a context for what the word means. "I refueled by starship with a healthy dose of Dranasiumcolium." makes it obvious that whatever that word was,..."
Funny because my editor actually put a glossary of terms in my book!
Mod
Think if J.K. Rowling had toned down her use of Muggles. It just wouldn't be tge same without it
Mod
- A Glossary? Wow, you must have really upped the Schahawarzord with the terms. But, if there is a glossary, it works. People can look up words if they want to, and others can just read and explore them!
Zoltán wrote: "As Jane and S.J. said before me, think thrice before you change your style.About the actual jargon: Is it real hard sci-fi (ergo scientific/technical) jargon or just geek talk type of jargon? (In..."
It would be (ergo scientific/technical) as you call it. Karman line, Perigee etc. I started out with the intention of being hard Science Fiction but I soon realized I had to take liberties to get the plot line I wanted. I could be torn apart if current science was fully applied. Even the movie, The Martian, stretched the plausibility to make the plot, though. As far as geek talk, if I put in futurist technology, it was somewhat plausible.
To add, I personally wouldn't have wanted the techno out of The Martian. As someone who started out on Arthur C Clarke I wouldn't have it any other way. The only thing about Clarke is I felt he wasn't top notch at developing human characters.
I think that a "Star Trek" or "Star Wars" approach is better for the vast majority of readers. Some tech wording within action talk is okay.On the other hand, lingering on specific technical/scientific matters (or whole threads of hi-tech dialogue) would affect book readability. Unfortunately this is sometimes unavoidable when you write out of an obsession to inform / teach / make readers think or wonder about specific tech/scientific issues. And that's often the case in SciFi.
Joel wrote: "It would be (ergo scientific/technical) as you call it. Karman line, Perigee etc. I started out with the intention of being hard Science Fiction but I soon realized I had to take liberties to get the plot line I wanted."That doesn't look bad. You can include those little pieces of information that will help the less technical readers and won't bother the hard code ones either. Like: "The rising rocket finally crossed the Karman line, the boundary of what we consider space." Unless you go into relativistic quantum electrodynamics or string theory, you can explain enough for an average sci-fi reader to make the story flow.
Liberties are ok methinks. It is possible to write pure hard sci-fi, but you will usually be limited in many ways. You can loosen up in a few areas, just make sure that you fit everything else to the changes. Sometimes the change is the main point of a story. 'What would happen/be possible of xy was possible?"
Joel wrote: "To add, I personally wouldn't have wanted the techno out of The Martian. As someone who started out on Arthur C Clarke I wouldn't have it any other way. The only thing about Clarke is I felt he was..."Yes, but Clarke's books are not really about character development or the depths of the human psyche :)
He is also among my favourites, but when I think about depths of humans, society and history, Frank Herbert takes the lead. Not surprisingly he's not a hard sci-fi writer...
Although many hard sci fi fans will tell you that the techno in the Martian is bs...and will complain about it. So just to say that you cannot please everyone. Write for you. Write what you think is needed in your story. Changing in the future? In another series if you think it's best but not in the series itself. People will expect the same thing. In my original book I broke the fourth wall. Some people hated it others loved it. In my sequel, I barely used it because the reason it was used in the first had disappeared in the second (no spoilers) anyway, just to say that I had a reader tell me he didn't like the sequel as much for that reason. As I said, you can't please everyone.
As for me, as a sci fi reader, I don't like when there are pages after pages of explanations on how something works. That will put me to sleep. And since I barely ever skim, if I feel like doing it, I am most likely to move to another book. But a little here and there, or jargon as a word for an object or a civilization or whatever, that does not bother me at all as long as we are not introduced to half a dozen in the same sentence. Give us the time to understand one before you add too many. :P
As always, this was just my two cents. It doesn't mean I am right.
Zoltán wrote: "Joel wrote: "It would be (ergo scientific/technical) as you call it. Karman line, Perigee etc. I started out with the intention of being hard Science Fiction but I soon realized I had to take liber..."Funny you mention quantum physics because I did apply it to explain an invention I had no other way to explain. If I knew of a way to invent these things I would be rich! I am a million miles from a quantum physicist.
G.G. wrote: "Although many hard sci fi fans will tell you that the techno in the Martian is bs...and will complain about it. So just to say that you cannot please everyone. Write for you. Write what you think i..." Funny part is I took the 15 YO granddaughter on a road trip and played the novel on a text to voice reader through the car audio system. Nothing like a captive audience. As the technical parts were played her interest would wander but the second a little boy/girl action started, she was all ears.
G.G. wrote: "Although many hard sci fi fans will tell you that the techno in the Martian is bs...and will complain about it. So just to say that you cannot please everyone. Write for you. Write what you think i..."For my reading I agree with you. I want the novel to be realistic, but more on the vision of the larger concepts and not read like a textbook.
I really like CB's explanation. I think that's the best route. As long as the context is there, people will understand at least the basic idea. They may even be sparked to go look it up and learn more about whatever word/term/idea they don't quite understand.
There's also a substantial difference between books and e-books, since the latter can feature interactive dictionaries. Digital editions will therefore allow readers to immediately satisfy their curiosity about tech/scientific terms and matters.
How much deviation from today's "known" physics depends on how far in the future you're writing. My novels vary from 200 years to 2 millennia from now, and I'm pretty sure that in the not-too-distant future, Quantum Physics as we know it will be as outdated as Newtonian Physics. Today's light-speed limit will be tomorrow's sonic boom.
I have read and seen "The Hunt For Red October." It is an awesome movie, but the book is a bit high on the technical detail. Some books are meant to me made for a movie, and the books only for serious math or science geeks. Another one that was an awesome movie but overwhelms with details is "The Martian," which I am reading now.
Duke University has a guide to using scientific jargon that seems pretty good. It's aimed at people writing scientific papers, but can easily be applied to SF as well: twp.duke.edu/uploads/media_items/scie...It suggests that even if used appropriately, jargon can be poorly formed for a given audience if its meaning is unclear, giving misleading jargon, jargon named after a person, excessively long jargon, and jargon that is difficult to pronounce as examples.
Most importantly, it points out that you must take into consideration the intended audience. So if you're writing Hard SF, you could reasonably expect your audience to be better versed in scientific jargon than if you're writing a swashbuckling action/adventure SF book.
So in the examples given thus far, IMO, "perigee" is perfectly fine. It's a technical term, but it's not a weird word and not one that would normally have to be explained in, say, scientific journalism published on a general public web site (like BBC or CNN or something).
"Karman line," however, should either be explained the first time it's used, or just discarded and not used at all. "The boundary between Earth and space" might be used instead.
For made up stuff, it really should only be explained when it is important to the plot that it's understood. Otherwise the context of how it's used should be sufficient for understanding, even if that understanding is limited to "Oh, that's a word he made up to wave off some techno thingy that doesn't really merit explanation."
Especially when the techno thingy is only mentioned in dialog. I mean, most people don't really understand what a serpentine belt does in a car, but when two people are talking about it, they don't bother explaining it to each other: "Had my car in the shop to get the serpentine belt replaced. Cost me over two hundred bucks!" ... what the belt is/does (or whether the speaker understands what it does) is unimportant; it's only important that it's some part of a car and that it cost so much to replace that's important.
Readers of SF generally know they have to ignore some stuff. It's only annoying when terms are explained too much, or not explained at all when they turn out to be plot-important.
Great responses. I am getting a lot of "not my normal genre" readers and it is those that talk a lot about the science. For the most part I try and explain generally in dialog about the terms. When I talk about the Karmen line the reader is probably going to be forever informed about what it is because the plot is about a group of teenagers trying to launch a rocket to the boundaries of space.
I think Andy Weir mastered this perfectly in The Martian - it is very technical but his main character explains the science so well that it is understandable and highly entertaining.
C.L. wrote: "I think Andy Weir mastered this perfectly in The Martian - it is very technical but his main character explains the science so well that it is understandable and highly entertaining."I would certainly add (without diminishing his merits a bit), that he could do it because the story is a kind of 'advanced DIY' or 'space McGuiver'. He didn't have to explain the general relativity background of perihelion rotation. His author qualities AND the appropriate subject was needed to allow an enjoyable and often funny story.
The only thing I don't like in The Martian is that I had to postpone one of my books, that involves a man stranded on Mars. The similarities more or less end here, but for the next couple of years, everybody will think it's a copy before looking into it :)
Zoltán wrote: "C.L. wrote: "I think Andy Weir mastered this perfectly in The Martian - it is very technical but his main character explains the science so well that it is understandable and highly entertaining."..."
Funny! I had some similarities to Weir's work as well and even went back and researched the history of The Martian to make sure I hadn't subconsciously copied parts of his work. Boy was I glad I had laid out and written mine a good 4 years before Andy started publishing the chapters of The Martian on his blog!
I've wondered about this in my own series which is oriented towards tech startups. The technology is the hook, but the mystery (either literal or figurative in solving a tech problem) is what keeps my readers.I keep a lot of notes during development, and sometimes I build quite a separate document after I whittle away the truly deep math. A lot of it relates to Quantum level physics in nanotech that I can only sketch out, not prove on paper.
Trying to put this material into the narrative is called exposition (which in the wrong hands can be mind-numbing).
For myself, I had to describe the significance of Quantum dots without the exactness. To satisfy my more demanding readers who want reporting to a greater depth, I took my notes and made it a companion book. Think of it as a volume made from what might have been a very long appendix to my novel.
This companion book also allowed me to expand into a flood of illustrations that would have choked a narrative.
Hope there's something in this for you.
I don't know...I grew up in a time when anything that was not actually possible in our time (but could be in some other time, under some other circumstances) was called science fiction. When I think about it, it makes sense. If everything is explicable, then it's not science fiction but rather fiction. And before I get swamped by people who'll say that it's called Fantasy for a reason, well...after reading books under that genre for like nearly 50 years, I'm sorry but I can't turn on a dime and change. (I've been reading Science fiction for as long as I can remember reading.)
Sure, I mean this is debatable, but to say that science fiction has to be explained is rather...well...stiff to say the least. When I read posts that says aliens aren't part of sci fi, this makes me wonder a lot about the people who'd say that.
And to call all that isn't explained in the story fantasy is well...not realistic. As I said before in some other post, I don't know how planes actually work, does that mean they don't exist? A protagonist could very well be in a science fiction story and not be able to explain how his ship works. How he teleports to another place or why the planet is pink, or how the food is made from a machine. So that makes it automatically a fantasy world?
Sorry, but that doesn't cut it for me.
G.G. wrote: "I don't know...I grew up in a time when anything that was not actually possible in our time (but could be in some other time, under some other circumstances) was called science fiction. When I th..."
Science fiction means a lot of different things to different people. When I talk about fantasy it is novels like Lord of the Rings, etc. Is it a put down? No. I love the LOTR and played Gandalf as a boy. It is just a personal thing with me that I think they are separate genres.
Joel wrote: "Science fiction means a lot of different things to different people. When I talk about fantasy it is novels like Lord of the Rings, etc. Is it a put down? No. I love the LOTR and played Gandalf as a boy. It is just a personal thing with me that I think they are separate genres..."Exactly! for me, fantasy means elves, dwarves, trolls, fae etc not Starwars.
I think a happy medium is best. Sci-fi tech talk can be great, but it's good if it balances with likable characters with heart. Too much of one or the other can be distracting in sci-fi.
My personal take on this is that you have to have some tech in order to be in an SF universe, and you don't need to explain, as long as you show, not tell, how it matters to the characters.For example:
Arthur was moving the joysticks on Jane's panel. The cabin had now become a vertical pit, over which Jane was dangling by her fingers, fighting for a grip on the slippery plastic seal of the flight deck door.
‘Arthur, listen,’ she shouted, ‘you've got the Powell vectors pointing opposite ways, and there's no interlock. It's gone into artificial gravity. Let go of the sticks and it'll reset itself. If you don't it'll starcrash. Oh hell's bloody teeth!’
There was a deafening crack from the cargo bay, and weightlessness returned.
‘You damned idiot!’ she shouted. ‘You've just caused a starcrash. We can't get out of here without the drive.’
G.G. wrote: "Joel wrote: "Science fiction means a lot of different things to different people. When I talk about fantasy it is novels like Lord of the Rings, etc. Is it a put down? No. I love the LOTR and playe..."Why? Darth Sauron leading his hoard of Borg riding a Worm against drow Honored Mattre witches tricked into a war by Littlefinger and Voldemort. It would be a sure hit :)
Joel wrote: "I am writing a Science fiction series. So far the first in the series has a perfect 5 star rating on Amazon but I am noticing a trend in the review comments. Many readers talk about the technical j..."I'd say first of all, consider that "trend" your are seeing. For us and for sci-fi books for which I have reliable data the ratio of buyers/readers to people who leave reviews is anywhere from 100:1 to 1000:1. So any data you see seeing represents a tiny sample of readers.
More important, the views of people who write reviews cannot be assumed to correlate to the views of readers who don't. My observation has been those two groups are rather different. This is why reviews simply do not provide useful feedback. So ignore them -- they will almost certainly lead you astray.
Also there are no "readers" who would, as group, enjoy specific something more or less. No one knows why Andy Weir (I assume that's a sci-fi author?) had success and why people liked or disliked his work was/is an personal matter. It is not possible to do "better" simply because "better" cannot by tied to measurable criteria.
So write what you want and hope the people who like it will find it, and those who don't like it will find elements they like enough to keep reading.
As sci-fi authors, we catch a lot of flack for the technical details in our books -- in fact we catch a lot of flack about everything in our books. But they still get read and enjoyed. So write what you want and let readers take from it what they want.
And ignore reviews.
Owen wrote: "Joel wrote: "I am writing a Science fiction series. So far the first in the series has a perfect 5 star rating on Amazon but I am noticing a trend in the review comments. Many readers talk about th..."Well thought out post Owen. I appreciate you taking the time to write it.
FYI Andy Weir is the first time Sci FI writer that wrote The Martian that was later made into the movie. Pretty much massive success for a first timer.
Joel wrote: "Well thought out post Owen. I appreciate you taking the time to write it.FYI Andy Weir is the first time Sci FI writer that wrote The Martian that was later made into the movie. Pretty much massive success for a first timer. ..."
Thanks of the insight. I write sci-fi, but I don't read sci-fi. But Andy Weir does not like a create example: an author who made it big out of the gate. And having done that, people will naturally try to rationalize (after the fact) why he had that success so they "learn" from it and "improve". But in fact, studying such events is not much more useful that trying rationalize why dice might roll a 6 on one occasion and a 3 on another.
Owen wrote: " I write sci-fi, but I don't read sci-fi. But Andy Weir does not like a create example: an author who made it big out of the gate. And having done that, people will naturally try to rationalize (after the fact) why he had that success so they "learn" from it and "improve".."Okay, now I'm curious - why on Earth do you write a genre that you don't read? That strikes me as very unusual.
And it isn't random chance - a lot of it is talent. Andy Weir deserved his fame. The book is excellent - very funny and entertaining, and I am NOT a sci fi reader normally. It appealled to a broad audience and it was well done so, whether or not it was a roll of the die, he deserved it.
I think that there IS a reason why some books speak to a broad audience and some don't. I think learning to understand that is part of the journey in learning to be a good writer.
C.L. wrote: "Okay, now I'm curious - why on Earth do you write a genre that you don't read? That strikes me as very unusual.."I don't want to hijack this, but the short answer is that it doesn't help me tell the story I want to tell, and the sci-fi out there is not to my taste.
I have know doubt Andy Weir is talented and deserves his commercial success. But I also know that there are a multitude of other authors, just as talented and equally deserving that have not enjoyed his level of commercial success, especially on his first work.
So trying to analyze why Weir succeeded and learn lessons that can be usefully applied to another author who has not [yet] achieved commercial success I see as labor lost. Weir benefited from his talent combined with a myriad other factors operating in a chaotic system. That specific event -- his success of that specific work at that specific time -- is not a repeatable event. We don't learn anything very helpful from trying to analyze it if we wish our specific work to succeed commercially at some future time under different circumstances.
Yes, there are reasons why some books speak to a broad audience and some don't. But in general, no one understands them in a way that has predictive power. Being a good writer is decoupled from being a commercially successful writer. One cannot test which books do speak to a broad audience (as demonstrated by sales) and which books might speak to a broad audience but have not yet done so, for reasons beyond anyone's control. I might call this the "bestseller" fallacy.
As this applies to the original topic, I think our journey to being better writers involves many things, but questioning what we do or how we do it -- is our story too technical or too detailed or not enough? -- based on what are essentially "black swan" events are pitfalls and detours on that journey, and what we can best learn from them is how to avoid them in the future.
Owen wrote: "trying to analyze why Weir succeeded and learn lessons that can be usefully applied to another author who has not [yet] achieved commercial success I see as labor lost..."
I definitely agree with this. I think that the elephant in the room, and what we really don't want to consider, is that this is basically a lottery. There are winners and (some might say) losers at every skill level. The best way to win, of course, is through quality, because it gets you into a more rarefied strata, where you can achieve staying power once you break through. But there are thousands of writers in that upper quality strata, so it's still a lottery. You play your number and you wait. The advice some have given to write for the love of writing rather than commercial success is the best advice, IMHO, so I write what I want to read, and if other readers want to accompany me on that trip I'll consider myself a winner even with a microscopic sales figure.
I definitely agree with this. I think that the elephant in the room, and what we really don't want to consider, is that this is basically a lottery. There are winners and (some might say) losers at every skill level. The best way to win, of course, is through quality, because it gets you into a more rarefied strata, where you can achieve staying power once you break through. But there are thousands of writers in that upper quality strata, so it's still a lottery. You play your number and you wait. The advice some have given to write for the love of writing rather than commercial success is the best advice, IMHO, so I write what I want to read, and if other readers want to accompany me on that trip I'll consider myself a winner even with a microscopic sales figure.
Mod
Just my thoughts on the matter. ."
Bookwhack deleted.
I write sci-fi as well and use jargon sometimes. If it works leave it in. Not everyone will get it and your book is not for everyone. Also you have hard core readers who need everything exact with the science down to the nth molecule whereas others just enjoy a good story where sci-fi is just a backdrop
K.P. wrote: "I write sci-fi as well and use jargon sometimes. If it works leave it in. Not everyone will get it and your book is not for everyone. Also you have hard core readers who need everything exact with ..."I'm with you on this. H Beam Piper used to slip in words like "carniculture" and not explain them. In fact it's fairly obvious, growing artificial meat to feed the crew.
Who here doesn't know what 'Big Data' is? Or 'Cognitive Computing'? Assuming these words are common jargon now .
R. wrote: "..."carniculture" and not explain them. In fact it's fairly obvious, growing artificial meat to feed the crew. "
Is it obvious? My first guess was the lifestyle, habits, and trends of carnival employees. ;P (but serious too!)
Christina wrote: "R. wrote: "..."carniculture" and not explain them. In fact it's fairly obvious, growing artificial meat to feed the crew. "
Is it obvious? My first guess was the lifestyle, habits, and trends of ..."
In context it is, the characters are discussing where Dunnan might be hiding his private army, and talk about the things he might need.
Joanie wrote: "Who here doesn't know what 'Big Data' is? Or 'Cognitive Computing'? Assuming these words are common jargon now ."Me and about a zillion people like me who find jargon yawn inducing
I use unexplained jargon only if it can be inferred from its context. And I try to stay away from explained jargon as much as possible, unless I find an interesting way to present it.
Jane Jago wrote: "Me and about a zillion people like me who find jargon yawn inducing "We use jargon all over the place. We like inducing yawns. After all, there's no greater blessing than a good night's sleep, right?
It never hurts to cabbage head jargon, the way shows like Star Trek do, so you don't alienate the people who don't know it.
The question I have for the other authors and readers out there is: should I tone down the jargon in later books in the series? Would it make it more enjoyable for the readers? The slice of hard science fiction and plausible science fiction readers is pretty small but at the same time might it take from the authenticity of the novel?
Did Andy Weir have success because of his technical science or the humor and human elements he added to the story? Would he have done even better had he toned down the science?
Just something I though I would throw out there.