Space Opera Fans discussion

I'm new so sorry if this is in the wrong place. Excited to be part of the group!

I've read various reviews/opinions that are critical of the science behind Leviathan Wakes (and Expanse series) and I was wondering what peoples thoughts are on science and space opera. Now, something like The Martian (hard science fiction), I think it's fine to be hard on because it's actively trying to be as scientifically plausible as possible. But that is not usually the case with space opera (e.g. Star Trek, Star Wars). And Leviathan Wakes even tries harder than many I would say.

Also, I personally struggle with the hard science books (or even military science fiction) because they often drown in technobabble. I wouldn't want that bogging down my space operas. Of course, that's just a matter of preference, and I realize many like Hard Science fiction which is great. I just get a little tired of seeing science critiques applied to space operas I like.

What do other people think?

Welcome and thanks for starting a discussion! Reader Discussions is a good place for it.

Space Opera is supposed to allow a generous amount of hand waving as far as science goes. Those with strong science backgrounds often have fun discussing whether a story’s hand waving science is possible and poking holes in it. Those who are into hard SF don’t understand the lure of space opera. But then even here in Space Opera Fans we have some members who prefer character driven stories and others that want action with the fate of the human race at stake, and everything in between too.

For the record, one of my college degrees is in physics. I can swallow a lot of hand waving but sometimes I hit something that jars me out of the story. I like some of the engineering details but what I look for in a story is characters that I care about. When I stop caring about what happens to the POV characters, I give up on the book.

I don’t think Space Opera and Hard Science Fiction are opposites. I think they mostly have been because writers and filmmakers are lazy. It’s hard work to get the science right.

The Expanse appears to hew a bit closer to the hard side of the equation but it’s not really any harder than Star Wars or Star Trek. It’s just not *obviously* fantastical as those franchises are, and every now and again they do something that’s straight up science-y (usually having to do with gravity), which lets readers/viewers buy into the completely impossible stuff.

I never considered The Martian to be true Hard SF. It certainly presents that way and focuses on the nuts-and-bolts of Watney’s survival, but whenever Andy Weir had a choice between Something Dramatic Happening and that thing being scientifically plausible, he went for the drama. Case in point: the storm that strands Watney on Mars. That’s literally impossible. The atmosphere is too thin to sustain that kind of storm. But it’s a great inciting incident, so it stayed in.

Side note: Weir’s follow-up book, Artemis, is half-jokingly accepted as canon by Daniel Abraham and Ty Franck (aka James S.A. Corey) for the backstory of The Expanse.

Wow, Trike, you have high standards. What would you consider a good hard scifi book? I didn't know that about Artemis - thanks for the anecdote. Have you read it by the way? I heard it was rather poor.

I think, at the end of day, I'm inclined to agree with Teresa and embrace the hand waiving. Otherwise, we'd never have wookies with crossbows :-)

I enjoyed Artemis, but it was very different from The Martian. However, I don't see how it could be the backstory for The Expanse. It wasn't published until 2017, well after Leviathan Wakes (2011).

Betsy wrote: "I enjoyed Artemis, but it was very different from The Martian. However, I don't see how it could be the backstory for The Expanse. It wasn't published until 2017, we..."

Yeah, they called it a prequel. It was during some Con or something. Then they named one of the ships “Mark Watney” (https://expanse.fandom.com/wiki/Mark_...) after The Martian character. Or maybe the ship came first.

Annnyway... the books might or might not be linked, depending on the whims of the various authors.

Matthew Connell wrote: "Wow, Trike, you have high standards. What would you consider a good hard scifi book? I didn't know that about Artemis - thanks for the anecdote. Have you read it by the way? I heard it was rather p..."

I love The Martian, and I quite like the movie. 5 and 4 stars respectively for me. I’m just saying Weir violates science and fudges facts to tell a more dramatic story. I don’t have an issue with that.

I haven’t read Artemis yet, but it’s in my TBR... along with 300 other books. :p

For my money, the best Hard SF book is also one of the best books ever: Dragon's Egg by Robert L. Forward. It’s so good on so many levels, and Forward was a physicist who designed satellites, among other things.

I think Space Opera has its place; I think Hard SF has its place. The problem comes when a certain type of person starts a discussion by claiming that SF either has to be the one or the other. I find that sort of conversation vexing. One never finds these people, for example, expounding that all horror fiction has to involve vampires, or all detective fiction has to be set in an English country house and end with everyone being gathered together in the library to be told why the murderer is the one they least expect.