# Accidental Science



## luckyscars (Jun 26, 2019)

A short story I am about midway through writing was supposed to be a bit of space fantasy but turned into a piece of hard-science fiction set in the real solar system, using real locations - in this case the irregular moons of Neptune. I blame the Arthur C. Clarke collection I started reading, but it's too late now.

This is a weird one. I deliberately try to stay away from real science (or pretenses of it) in my work, because frankly I don't know very much. I feel like this is one of those few genres where 'rules' actually matters and you can't, or at least shouldn't, try to bullshit your way through. Except that's 100% what I'm doing. I'm literally writing this with Wikipedia open...so I can crib 'facts' from there and hoping to god it's correct.

Any thoughts on this? I don't really want to dumb this story down by going back and 'Star Warsing' it up with inventing new planets or any of that nonsense, but I also want to make sure the story is salable to the market it is written for.  On the one hand, I think it's a damn good story. On the other, it feels a little dishonest trying to sell this work as a piece hard science fiction when there is minimal knowledge or research put in it.

Any insight as to the priorities of the average science fiction fan? Is robust scientific accuracy something most readers of hard science fiction would compromise on for the sake of an otherwise well-written story? Or worrying about it a classic case of overthink?


----------



## JustRob (Jun 26, 2019)

I think the concept of an "average science fiction fan" is itself fictional. However, I do think that one should try to segregate the fictional science from the factual. In my novel wherever I was uncertain I would attribute the information to a source conveniently not present, thereby placing it in the grey domain of fictional hearsay. So, I would mention that an expert on the subject had told a character something rather than directly stating it as a fact in the narrative. Provided that the truth of it didn't have any impact on the events in the story but only the characters' perceptions of them it didn't matter. I also ensured that uncertain facts were stated only in the dialogue of a character not known for his expertise on the subject. I think this distinction between the plausibility of narrative and dialogue is a useful tool to use without drawing the reader's attention to it. It isn't as though one is writing a strict crime mystery where only the criminal is allowed to mislead the reader.

I think the trick is also not to have too many "factor X" elements in the story to cover up any shortcomings in one's knowledge. Just your personal version of Kryptonite should suffice. Also I think finding out about controversy and the unknown on the edge of science helps. In my novel I mentioned that something was a "hysteresis paradox" according to an alleged expert no longer present to elaborate on what that actually meant. Any reader attempting to work out what I myself meant by it would have a hard time but probably agree that my description was accurate. It's the "Emperor's new clothes" phenomenon at work.

The bottom line is whether your story is actually about science or whether that science is just providing a context for the story. A lot of science fiction doesn't actually have much science of any type in it when one analyses what the story is really about. In my novel I actually wrote directly below the title the words "about something else" because the science fiction was just a useful context for the real story.

Consider the recent novel and film _The Martian_. The initial premise was that an astronaut was stranded on Mars when his colleagues left because of a damaging storm, but the atmosphere is so thin on Mars that storms can't do any damage. Apart from that the story is considered good hard science.


----------



## epimetheus (Jun 26, 2019)

Get a group of scientists to speculate on the future of their specialist interest and you'll get as many visions. I think the important feature is that you pick one of those visions and explore some consequence of it. The science itself doesn't matter as much as a realistic exploration of the consequences of that science.

So in The Martian we explore if and how a single person can survive on Mars - how they became isolated is less important. Artemis is an exploration of what a moon colony would look like with current and near future tech - ignoring the massive capital costs of getting it all off earth.

There are plenty of science forums where you could ask specific questions.


----------



## Terry D (Jun 26, 2019)

If your science is sketchy in a story intended for hard sf readers you will get roasted alive and served with a nice Chianti. IMO it's dangerous to try and BS your way through a story intended for readers who are likely more knowledgeable of the science than you. I'd research the hell out of any topic you are not completely familiar with.


----------



## velo (Jun 26, 2019)

It really depends on the story.  For example, I have enjoyed Star Wars since I was 7 and saw it in the theatre.  (first run, I'm old AF)  Yet SW almost deliberately flouts the laws of physics.  Nothing in SW works in the real world the way they portray it.  

Some stories that do use hard science really excite me.  "The Martian" is a great example of a hard science fiction story.  Even NASA said that if they go to Mars that the way described in that book would be the way they do it.  IIRC the "Gap" series by Stephen R Donaldson described a space battle and relativistic (as in Einstein) compensation for time dilation between two ships moving at significant fractions of C...nerd boner on that one.  

I'm a science geek and so for my crowd you're going to either have to do the research and get the science right or create such an amazing story that I allow suspension of disbelief.  To put it in context, I just bought a book on quantum mechanics to bone up on the current theory...that's my level of science nerding.  Most people aren't going to be as difficult as I am.  Your average reader will be happy with "the rocket went go."  

In the end I think it will come down to your story.  Is your story engaging?  Do I care about the characters?  If so, the rest is just details.


----------



## Terry D (Jun 26, 2019)

velo said:


> It really depends on the story.  For example, I have enjoyed Star Wars since I was 7 and saw it in the theatre.  (first run, I'm old AF)  Yet SW almost deliberately flouts the laws of physics.  Nothing in SW works in the real world the way they portray it.
> 
> Some stories that do use hard science really excite me.  "The Martian" is a great example of a hard science fiction story.  Even NASA said that if they go to Mars that the way described in that book would be the way they do it.  IIRC the "Gap" series by Stephen R Donaldson described a space battle and relativistic (as in Einstein) compensation for time dilation between two ships moving at significant fractions of C...nerd boner on that one.
> 
> ...



But you are discussing very different sub-genres of SF. Star Wars is space opera and no one reading space opera is going to hold a writer's feet to the fire for flouting basic science. Fans of 'hard sf' are often more interested in the science than in the characters (no one ever accused Arthur C Clarke of writing engaging characters). Yes, a great story can trump many of a story's faults, but fans of hard sf will notice the mistakes (the wind-storm which damaged the astronaut's shelter in The Martin would never really happen on Mars -- the atmosphere is far too thin for such a wind). All I'm saying is, be careful in trying to pull the wool over reader's eyes.


----------



## velo (Jun 26, 2019)

True, obviously a hard science story had better get it right.  

re: Wind storm- agreed.  It was one of the major faux passes in the film.  IIRC correctly in the book it was caused by repetitive use of the airlock door that was only designed for 30 sols on the ground.  But I think the book got it right, the film did not, though I'd have to go back and check.  My comments on NASA's comments were about the book, not the film.


----------



## Terry D (Jun 26, 2019)

velo said:


> True, obviously a hard science story had better get it right.
> 
> re: Wind storm- agreed.  It was one of the major faux passes in the film.  IIRC correctly in the book it was caused by repetitive use of the airlock door that was only designed for 30 sols on the ground.  But I think the book got it right, the film did not, though I'd have to go back and check.  My comments on NASA's comments were about the book, not the film.



If I remember correctly the book did get it right. The movie had a few glaring errors, but that's movies for you...


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jun 26, 2019)

Look at it this way, these guys are pretty much in the know, and they are debating, 'book? film?', for each of them there will be a hundred others who enjoyed it and didn't really notice.

Or look at it this way, you only have one lifetime, you can't become an expert in everything, suck it and see, do your best and see what people think; there is always editing.

Another thing, people like the story but get picky about something, so what happens, they discuss it, free publicity.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 26, 2019)

Thanks all!

While I agree that generally research is a good idea, I'm not sure I follow the logic. That might be my lack of understanding, of course.

I should probably have stated, this is a short story not a novel. It's hard SF to the extent it is loosely based on Arthur C Clarke's work, set in a real part of the universe and intended to be realistic. However I'm not getting into huge technicalities as far as geology, chemistry, etc. I'm writing a story, not a term paper, and so I have avoided anything that I am not comfortable with.

I have yet to encounter any SF short story that utilized any established scientific knowledge to a level that went much beyond what is now readily available on a website like Wikipedia in summary form, or through a decent high school education, or both. Not a terribly fashionable thing to say, I know, but the reality is I think probably most subjects used in literature can be (and, in my opinion, regularly are) appropriated into a story by a competent, yet academically unqualified, author without resulting in a pile of stink. 

As somebody who went to law school I have read many a legal thriller and while I do see errors all the time they are usually small or non-disruptive. Most of the writers I know who write these sorts of stories are not trained in law - they muddle their way through it and when something comes up they aren't sure about they have the awareness to stop and look it up or ask.

So why is hard SF necessarily different?

It seems in a lot of hard SF the 'groundbreaking science' lies not in the extent or purity with which knowledge is regurgitated in depth but rather in the creativity of its application and the 'imagine this?' context. Any potential hazards as far as credibility must then be dealt with. As they should be.

To use the Martian example, knowing whether a storm on Mars would have wind or not would actually be fairly easy to figure out, right? The error was not necessarily caused by the (screen)writer not being educated sufficiently on Martian weather - the error was caused by the (screen)writer forgetting to check about something they weren't completely sure about, or just not caring.

As a writer who maintains a high productivity level I can't (and won't)  research the crap out of every subject. Not for a short-story that will, if published, at best perhaps pay for dinner at Red Lobster. That's not a good use of my time. What's a good use of my time is focusing on what actually goes in to my stories and making them interesting to read. 

Now if the argument is that 'your hard SF story is most definitely going to suck unless you research the crap out of the subject matter' I will listen to that argument with keen interest, but I won't pretend to understand nor respect it at this moment where so am unaware of any need. I'm not interested in indulging a fetish for academia for academia's sake. If it is not actually featured in the story, why should I need to research it?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jun 27, 2019)

> Now if the argument is that 'your hard SF story is most definitely going to suck unless you research the crap out of the subject matter'



But it will only be one person's opinion. The other 99 of every hundred people who read it are most unlikely to be better informed than you even if you did no research at all, so they are not thinking it; they are reading a story, not checking up on you. Sometimes stories that suck get read again and again, look at the Swiss Family Robinson on their island with species from different continents, no basic research there, lasted ages, very popular. If anyone get too picky you tell 'em, "It's a story, not a text book."


----------



## bdcharles (Jun 27, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Any insight as to the priorities of the average science fiction fan? Is robust scientific accuracy something most readers of hard science fiction would compromise on for the sake of an otherwise well-written story? Or worrying about it a classic case of overthink?



I think it might be a classic case of overthink. Yes, some readers who like hard SF might pull you up on the details, but as long as others enjoy it (if that's your goal) and as long as you enjoy writing it (again, if that's important to you) then job done, I would say. It's easy to tie oneself in knots trying to appease a hard-to-please crowd, and not always worth the effort imo  Personally I enjoy a degree of flexibility regarding real-world details.


----------



## velo (Jun 27, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Now if the argument is that 'your hard SF story is most definitely going to suck unless you research the crap out of the subject matter'



Not at all.  I think the major thing to keep in mind is that, as with all things, there is going to be a spectrum that both the story and readers' impressions live on.  Worry about the STORY and only provide the details you need.  I find some hard SF can get too hard, with more attention being paid to the science than the story which leads to an boring read.  

You will have a small minority that will pick the science apart no matter what you do, you cant' correct for that.  In the end, write the story you want and damn the torpedoes.


----------



## -xXx- (Jun 28, 2019)

velo said:


> <snip>...that will pick the science apart no matter what you do, you cant' correct for that.  In the end, write the story you want and damn the torpedoes.



when you find any academic area
in complete agreement with all
affiliated individuals, please post pointer.

some readers will be reading your story
_inlieuof_ working through "academic works".
IF they are inclined to present information
by way of response, a footnote or
"future notes file" acknowledging "fact checker(s)
contributions" can create a unique
writer-reader relationship.

_*add one liner disclaimer "based on available info"*_

i read textbooks/studies/theses
AND hybridizations.

fluid.
dynamics.
go with your flow.
_*story arc advocate*
*invite me to explore*
*concept(s) in/out context(s)*_


----------



## Theglasshouse (Jun 29, 2019)

You can ask scientists about questions of the sciences in the stack exchange (website).


----------



## Bmad (Jul 1, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> A short story I am about midway through writing was supposed to be a bit of space fantasy but turned into a piece of hard-science fiction set in the real solar system, using real locations - in this case the irregular moons of Neptune. I blame the Arthur C. Clarke collection I started reading, but it's too late now.
> 
> This is a weird one. I deliberately try to stay away from real science (or pretenses of it) in my work, because frankly I don't know very much. I feel like this is one of those few genres where 'rules' actually matters and you can't, or at least shouldn't, try to bullshit your way through. Except that's 100% what I'm doing. I'm literally writing this with Wikipedia open...so I can crib 'facts' from there and hoping to god it's correct.
> 
> ...




Take this with a grain of salt. 
Write as factual as much as your audience is stupid.

Now we live in an era where people STILL think the Earth is seriously flat, there are more than two genders and people are scarred of Vaccines thanks to fraudulent research. 
...I don't think teaching a few facts as they thumb through twitter and amazon is going to hurt their little brains.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 1, 2019)

Bmad said:


> Take this with a grain of salt.
> Write as factual as much as your audience is stupid.
> 
> Now we live in an era where people STILL think the Earth is seriously flat, there are more than two genders and people are scarred of Vaccines thanks to fraudulent research.
> ...I don't think teaching a few facts as they thumb through twitter and amazon is going to hurt their little brains.



Not that it's got anything to do with anything here, but comparing campaigns to recognize non-binary genders to flat earthers/anti-vaxxers probably doesn't qualify you to call anybody stupid.


----------



## Kevin (Jul 1, 2019)

Mm...They both hold opinions that have zero scientific evidence to back them up other than they say it is obvious to them, therefor it is real. In fact, the observable physical evidence shows the opposite is true. 

I have a digital level which shows the immediate earth in front of me is flat (to a degree), and yet it has been proved, curved. Show me the chemical DNA, or the x-ray, or the Mri/ whatever that shows the different gender inside (like a hermaphrodite is on the outside ) and I will zim, zer, "herr rock" away.


----------



## bdcharles (Jul 1, 2019)

Kevin said:


> Mm...They both hold opinions that have zero scientific evidence to back them up other than they say it is obvious to them, therefor it is real. In fact, the observable physical evidence shows the opposite is true.
> 
> I have a digital level which shows the immediate earth in front of me is flat (to a degree), and yet it has been proved, curved. Show me the chemical DNA, or the x-ray, or the Mri/ whatever that shows the different gender inside (like a hermaphrodite is on the outside ) and I will zim, zer, "herr rock" away.



https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7456588.stm
https://www.pnas.org/content/105/27/9403
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1292983
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7560933
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...ble-those-of-straight-people-of-opposite-sex/

These generally go back to a study by Ivanka Savic and Per Lindstrom at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, which demonstrates that there are similarities in the brains of gay people of one gender and those of straight people of the other. Not seen any disprovals of it yet. So we can look down people's pants all we like but the real meat is in the brain. I'd imagine that there is a pretty broad spread of sexualities, which is kind of what we see in the world today. The gist of it seems to be that more testosterone makes more male brains, as in the brains more typically seen in male bodies.


----------



## epimetheus (Jul 1, 2019)

Kevin said:


> Mm...They both hold opinions that have zero scientific evidence to back them up other than they say it is obvious to them, therefor it is real. In fact, the observable physical evidence shows the opposite is true.
> 
> I have a digital level which shows the immediate earth in front of me is flat (to a degree), and yet it has been proved, curved. Show me the chemical DNA, or the x-ray, or the Mri/ whatever that shows the different gender inside (like a hermaphrodite is on the outside ) and I will zim, zer, "herr rock" away.



Do you want to discuss gender (social/cultural demarcations) or sex (biological demarcations)? As you asking for DNA evidence i'll assume the latter. Genetic science has found 6 viable karyotypic variations (number of chromosomes in eukaryotic cells) that determine sex:



X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people (Turner’s )
XX – Most common form of female
XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people (Klinefelter)
XY – Most common form of male
XYY – Roughly 1 out of 1,000 people
XXXY – Roughly 1 in 18,000 to 1 in 50,000 births

Data from the World Health Organisation (also gives an outline of the biology). From this we can estimate that ~30 million people in the world are not biologically male or female. 

Here's a good article from nature (the premier science journal in the world). It explains the genetic background in a little more detail and contains references for further study.


If for political or religious reasons someone believes that such people should be forced into one of the two more common sexes that is their prerogative and it should be stated as such, instead of pretending science supports the position. The genetic evidence is clear - certainly not comparable to flat-earthers or anti-vaxxers.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 1, 2019)

Gender and sex are totally different things. It’s not hard. Bottom line is a huge number of academics at leading universities including scientists have acknowledged that gender fluidity is either a real concept or at least one that does not violate scientific principles and evidence. That’s good enough for me.

The world is demonstrably not flat. 

Vaccines are demonstrably safe.


----------



## -xXx- (Jul 1, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> *Not that it's got anything to do with anything here*, _but comparing campaigns to recognize non-binary genders to flat earthers/anti-vaxxers _*probably* doesn't qualify you to call <anybody> stupid.



_*checks licensing path*
*does not qualify*
*ceases pointing at mirror image selfrefself*
_



luckyscars said:


> A short story I am about midway through writing was supposed to be a bit of space fantasy but turned into a piece of hard-science fiction set in the real solar system, using real locations - in this case the irregular moons of Neptune. I blame the Arthur C. Clarke collection I started reading, but it's too late now.
> 
> This is a weird one. I deliberately try to stay away from real science (or pretenses of it) in my work, because frankly I don't know very much. I feel like this is one of those few genres where 'rules' actually matters and you can't, or at least shouldn't, try to bullshit your way through. Except that's 100% what I'm doing. I'm literally writing this with Wikipedia open...so I can crib 'facts' from there and hoping to god it's correct.
> 
> ...





luckyscars said:


> *Gender and sex are totally different things. *It’s not hard. Bottom line is a huge number of academics at leading universities including scientists have acknowledged that gender fluidity is either a real concept or at least one that does not violate scientific principles and evidence. That’s good enough for me.
> 
> The *world* is demonstrably not flat.
> 
> *Vaccines* are demonstrably safe.



irregular moons of neptune.
hard science.
gender AS range(s), dynamic over time.
sex AS terminate-and-stay biochem preference set(s),
dynamic/plateau over time.
world shape(s).
methods/models of immune-response.

how short IS this story?
IF the above was explored,
i as atypical SF reader
would grant significant
"suspension of disbeliefs"
to the amazingly crafty author
of well organized word sets.

will there be picture(s)?
_*visual thinker*
*stares 'til afterimage sticks*
*blinks*
*faceplants*_


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 1, 2019)

Probably 5,000 ish words, so fairly conventional as far as word count - and targeted publishing outlet. 
As of right now am at 3,200 words and about to reach peak and hit descent. 

Which has of course opened another can of worms. Up until now I’ve been pretty “hard” with the science but my big reveal as to what exactly ends up being discovered on [extant moon] is straight out of fantasy. Hopefully not a problem...(?)


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 1, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Probably 5,000 ish words, so fairly conventional as far as word count - and targeted publishing outlet.
> As of right now am at 3,200 words and about to reach peak and hit descent.
> 
> Which has of course opened another can of worms. Up until now I’ve been pretty “hard” with the science but my big reveal as to what exactly ends up being discovered on [extant moon] is straight out of fantasy. Hopefully not a problem...(?)



Been there done that to many times. If you want there to be some form of alien life in your book take one of two different approaches. 

A) Make it as realistic as you can without sacrificing it's alien nature. Example: I looked into real world parasites and extremophiles in order to create an alien organism for one of my stories. I made it as realistic as possible but still left some room in there for other more alien abilities such as making to were this parasite could alter a humans and animals D.N.A and splice the two together to create believable monster's. 

Or B) Just say screw the rules I have money! and throw out the whole book and just let your imagination go wild. It's your book make it what you feel is correct.


----------



## -xXx- (Jul 1, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Probably 5,000 ish words, so fairly conventional as far as word count - and targeted publishing outlet.
> As of right now am at 3,200 words and about to reach peak and hit descent.
> 
> Which has of course opened another can of worms. Up until now I’ve been pretty “hard” with the science but my big reveal as to what exactly ends up being discovered on [extant moon] is straight out of fantasy. Hopefully not a problem...(?)



plunkett.
like teflon.
the self-correcting nature
of science _can_ follow.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 5, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> A short story I am about midway through writing was supposed to be a bit of space fantasy but turned into a piece of hard-science fiction set in the real solar system, using real locations - in this case the irregular moons of Neptune. I blame the Arthur C. Clarke collection I started reading, but it's too late now.
> 
> This is a weird one. I deliberately try to stay away from real science (or pretenses of it) in my work, because frankly I don't know very much. I feel like this is one of those few genres where 'rules' actually matters and you can't, or at least shouldn't, try to bullshit your way through. Except that's 100% what I'm doing. I'm literally writing this with Wikipedia open...so I can crib 'facts' from there and hoping to god it's correct.
> 
> ...



Don't write hard science fiction. Ever. Don't try to market it as hard sci-fi. Just let it be it. You don't have to be dishonest about it. No need to slap that tag on it, because that tag is a one-way ticket to Nerd Hell. You will never write "hard enough" sci-fi. If the fans weren't so merciless, maybe they'd have more read. 

The thing that ticks me off about hard sci-fi nerds is that they hold authors to unbelievable standards of prescience. While I can acknowledge that it's great to know as much as you can about a subject, the nature of science and reality lends itself to screwing with us and taking a big long leak on our understanding. In the same way that we look on Victorian science fiction from Jules Verne and H. G. Wells as impractical or impossible, scientists of the future will look at us like uncouth, knuckle-dragging idiots. We just think we're on the shoulders of giants and understand everything now. 

You can't please a snob-nerd. It can't happen. No matter what you write, it will eventually be proven idiotic if it leans more on the science than the characters and worldbuilding. Good stories excuse bad science to a large extent, but great science in a bad story might as well be an outdated textbook. If the hard science inspires you to write a story, go for it, by all means, but expect to be proven wrong eventually and that nerds will rip you a new one no matter what.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 5, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> Don't write hard science fiction. Ever. Don't try to market it as hard sci-fi. Just let it be it. You don't have to be dishonest about it. No need to slap that tag on it, because that tag is a one-way ticket to Nerd Hell. You will never write "hard enough" sci-fi. If the fans weren't so merciless, maybe they'd have more read.
> 
> The thing that ticks me off about hard sci-fi nerds is that they hold authors to unbelievable standards of prescience. While I can acknowledge that it's great to know as much as you can about a subject, the nature of science and reality lends itself to screwing with us and taking a big long leak on our understanding. In the same way that we look on Victorian science fiction from Jules Verne and H. G. Wells as impractical or impossible, scientists of the future will look at us like uncouth, knuckle-dragging idiots. We just think we're on the shoulders of giants and understand everything now.
> 
> You can't please a snob-nerd. It can't happen. No matter what you write, it will eventually be proven idiotic if it leans more on the science than the characters and worldbuilding. Good stories excuse bad science to a large extent, but great science in a bad story might as well be an outdated textbook. If the hard science inspires you to write a story, go for it, by all means, but expect to be proven wrong eventually and that nerds will rip you a new one no matter what.



I am not sure where the dishonesty comes in - can you explain that a little more? 

There’s surely nothing dishonest about a reader or writer saying “there is a lot of tenuous science in space opera and so called sci-fi, I would like to read/write something that at least tries to be as realistic as possible”. I see that as being an acceptable position. 

As far as I know no hard SF fans are forcing other readers to like it. What’s the difference between somebody who prefers high fantasy and somebody who prefers historical fiction set during medieval periods? Is there not room to read and write both? People are always going to be fastidious when it comes to details.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 5, 2019)

epimetheus said:


> Do you want to discuss gender (social/cultural demarcations) or sex (biological demarcations)? As you asking for DNA evidence i'll assume the latter. Genetic science has found 6 viable karyotypic variations (number of chromosomes in eukaryotic cells) that determine sex:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not sure why everyone decided to shout down the newbie who's got all of 17 posts or so, especially when the point was pretty easily made (and kind of nitpicky, depending on how one assumes the poster's intentions and that the person didn't bother to come back and clarify). Forum struggles enough to make ends meet; why not try to avoid piling on new people? Lots of people still mess up gender/sex, but in fairness, the concepts being separated is actually quite new as "sciences" go, and *also in fairness* there's a lot up for debate in that field. 

You know, after writing an enormous post, I realized that perhaps we should take the conversation on Science vs Gender, Flat-Earthers, & Anti-Vaxxers elsewhere. Seems like a total derailment of the OP. If anyone wants to continue said conversation and maybe learn some new things on these subjects, please start another post elsewhere and redirect us there. I've been away from this forum for so long that I no longer where to take such a controversial conversation


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 5, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I am not sure where the dishonesty comes in - can you explain that a little more?
> 
> There’s surely nothing dishonest about a reader or writer saying “there is a lot of tenuous science in space opera and so called sci-fi, I would like to read/write something that at least tries to be as realistic as possible”. I see that as being an acceptable position.
> 
> As far as I know no hard SF fans are forcing other readers to like it. What’s the difference between somebody who prefers high fantasy and somebody who prefers historical fiction set during medieval periods? Is there not room to read and write both? People are always going to be fastidious when it comes to details.



It's dishonest to imply something is "hard" genre fiction if it's not. By not putting the "hard" tag, the author avoids summoning the "hard sci-fi" critique that will certainly come if the tag is there without the research having actually been done. Said author doesn't want to do the research, so my advice was "don't write it." Hard sci-fi requires tons and tons of research. In my experience, there will always be someone to call a "hard" sci-fi author out for being wrong about *something*. 

Readers automatically bring their extra-critical gaze down on any piece purporting to be "hard". Try to pass yourself off as an expert in a field you know nothing about, and you'll see how tolerant experts are with posers. There's no "hard" version of most or any other genres, now that I think on it, though I might've heard "hard vs soft magic systems" before for fantasy works, but this just means that there are internal rules to the system that are strictly adhered to. No PhD required to understand or write fantasy... or any other genre. 

There's nothing wrong with liking hard sci-fi. Not at all. However, they are more likely to be well researched and crucify people who don't get facts strictly right (even if said "facts" are proven wrong at a later date).  I can even enjoy "hard" sci-fi, but for me personally, I'm never going to be so confident in my ability to please all the fans for eternity based on the factual accuracy of my proposals for what the future might be like that I would ever dream of sticking the "hard" tag on my work. I'd rather put effort in other parts and just not tag it "hard".


----------



## epimetheus (Jul 5, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> Not sure why everyone decided to shout down the newbie who's got all of 17 posts or so...



I was responding to Kevin who has several thousand posts and a thick skin. Lucky's response to Bmad seems proportionate and i don't see why newbies should be given a free pass if they are going to wade in with controversial statements. I quite like this forum in that i don't have to tiptoe around people's delicate sensibilities. I'd suggest the forum would struggle more if it also became a safe space (does this forum struggle? - seems vibrant enough).

But yeah, happy to continue the conversation elsewhere if the OP feels it's off-topic.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 5, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> It's dishonest to imply something is "hard" genre fiction if it's not. By not putting the "hard" tag, the author avoids summoning the "hard sci-fi" critique that will certainly come if the tag is there without the research having actually been done. Said author doesn't want to do the research, so my advice was "don't write it." Hard sci-fi requires tons and tons of research. In my experience, there will always be someone to call a "hard" sci-fi author out for being wrong about *something*.
> 
> Readers automatically bring their extra-critical gaze down on any piece purporting to be "hard". Try to pass yourself off as an expert in a field you know nothing about, and you'll see how tolerant experts are with posers. There's no "hard" version of most or any other genres, now that I think on it, though I might've heard "hard vs soft magic systems" before for fantasy works, but this just means that there are internal rules to the system that are strictly adhered to. No PhD required to understand or write fantasy... or any other genre.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with liking hard sci-fi. Not at all. However, they are more likely to be well researched and crucify people who don't get facts strictly right (even if said "facts" are proven wrong at a later date).  I can even enjoy "hard" sci-fi, but for me personally, I'm never going to be so confident in my ability to please all the fans for eternity based on the factual accuracy of my proposals for what the future might be like that I would ever dream of sticking the "hard" tag on my work. I'd rather put effort in other parts and just not tag it "hard".



I think you're being a little hysterical. Surely it's only dishonest if it is done in order to deceive. I am not trying to deceive anybody, I am simply trying to find a market for my work - Unless we want to say that genre rules are entirely nonnegotiable, which is demonstrable nonsense.

 "Hard" is a relative term - some things are 'harder' than others. Diamond is harder than steel, which is harder than wood, which is harder than bamboo, but all of them are 'harder' than ice cream. Does it make a difference if the material is steel or wood to the man getting his head smashed in? It's a pedants quibble. 

 Arthur C. Clarke is hard SF, sure, but what about Ray Bradbury who incorporates hard science with stuff like sea monsters? Crichton's Jurassic Park is  'hard science fiction' but nobody who knows anything about dinosaurs would say it is flawless in its understanding of science. Even I know this. There has to be room for creativity and suspension of disbelief in ALL genres. Otherwise it isn't fiction but an exercise in pedantry.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 5, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I think you're being a little hysterical. Surely it's only dishonest if it is done in order to deceive. I am not trying to deceive anybody, I am simply trying to find a market for my work - Unless we want to say that genre rules are entirely nonnegotiable, which is demonstrable nonsense.
> 
> "Hard" is a relative term - some things are 'harder' than others. Diamond is harder than steel, which is harder than wood, which is harder than bamboo, but all of them are 'harder' than ice cream. Does it make a difference if the material is steel or wood to the man getting his head smashed in? It's a pedants quibble.
> 
> Arthur C. Clarke is hard SF, sure, but what about Ray Bradbury who incorporates hard science with stuff like sea monsters? Crichton's Jurassic Park is  'hard science fiction' but nobody who knows anything about dinosaurs would say it is flawless in its understanding of science. Even I know this. There has to be room for creativity and suspension of disbelief in ALL genres. Otherwise it isn't fiction but an exercise in pedantry.



I think you're entirely too quick to think of other people as "hysterical" and "emotional".  

*I have a high bar for "hard sci-fi"*. I would rather just call my own science fiction works "science fiction" than try to hang the tag "hard" on them. The term has different meanings for different people, and lots of other people have very high bars for "hard" science fiction. I would rather someone pick up a story of mine, read it, and be pleasantly surprised by how "hard" it is than see the "hard" in the tag and be disappointed because it wasn't "hard" enough for them. I prefer to box my works into as few descriptors as possible, though I do understand why readers would want differentiation on some subject matters or tones. "Hard" sci-fi doesn't necessarily have a different tone or subject matter, however, so all it really signifies to me is "I think I've done enough research to try and pass this story off as believable". But flashing that tag brings a certain level of critique--not on the story but on the_ research_. Because I would rather be judged on the story, and I largely view technology as a means to an end, I'm not going to invite extra scrutiny just so I can add a little badge of honor on the work. "Hard" doesn't really mean anything as far as the story goes (except possibly that the *author* finds a story believable). 

Crichton is one of my favorite authors, but frankly, the bibliographies at the back of the books are pretty intimidating since that's basically the benchmark I use to qualify something as "hard". His characters often leave something to be desired for me. Too much dependence on the tech, too little imagination and soul. It's a very common pitfall of "hard sci-fi". Most of his characters aren't so very different from each other or from the generic "reader avatar" set up. It's not the dinosaurs that are flawed in Jurassic Park anyway since there are no dinosaurs in Jurassic Park (if you knew the science, you'd know what I'm talking about). There are plenty of flaws in the work (many of which people only realized trying to prove the concepts presented in the book. I can think of no higher praise as a science fiction author than getting people to suspend disbelief so hard that they would use millions of dollars in grant money to try to do what my characters did), but the "dinosaurs" not being realistic enough has never actually been the issue. As a biology nerd, _Jurassic Park_, _The Lost World_ and _Next_ are my favorites, I think. _Micro_ is kinda fun because I'm a bio nerd and like bugs (and a grad student being ripped in half by a Minah bird =D>), but because he died while writing it, it's bibliography is... underwhelming... and doesn't qualify the book as "hard" enough for me. 

Your point about the hardness of different things just proves my point that there is no universal standard. As soon as a qualifier like "hard" gets stuck on something, everyone's got a different opinion as to what qualifies as "hard" (and I've never seen the kinds of fighting in other genres that I have over science fiction "hardness"). Your standard for "hard" might just be "barely plausible-ish maybe" but mine might just be "certainly likely someday, according to the best the science has to offer at this very second". And both of us would be wrong because science by nature is always redefining our understanding of how the universe works. Regardless of how much research we put into it, the work in question will almost certainly be proved totally bunk on its science (but hopefully a fun ride) within a decade or so (maybe longer, if the book's lucky). Calling something "hard" begs them to argue with you. 

I've seriously known a lot of authors who--in trying to get every scientific fact just right--never finished the darn book. Or they come to the conclusion that the whole concept is totally bunk and would never work and have to restructure everything... and usually throw their hands in the air and give up. It happens quite often. The pressure to live up to "hard" can be really difficult for some authors. Difficulty is largely depending on how "hard" they want the work to be and how difficult the concept is to research and understand. Some subjects have a wider body of research than others. I think it's better to get some of the science wrong and yet inspire a reader to go do the research which proves the concept (or contributes to a body of research on the subject, at least). 

All this talk of "hard"... I'm sorry... but another reason I'm not going to call my only remaining bit of long science fiction "hard"... is because it's a soul-selling venture into the deep, dark world of relatively near-future, first-person single POV literary science fiction bisexual erotica with a male POV who has a penchant for some long-winded purple prose (but the lady readers love how he talks, so I'm keeping him that way). Not about to slap the "hard" tag on it too... I mean, it's already a mouthful without yet another descriptor. Started writing it in 2009 during a spell of unemployment in the attempt to get some cold, hard cash so I could pay bills and feed my kids... Now I'm unemployed again, so I figured I should start writing it again... but I don't want to because selling my soul feels icky (so does "market research", particularly since the kids are home with me all day in the summer, and my autistic son just loves throwing doors open with no warning). It's already "long form" fiction; it doesn't need to be "hard" too. 

If you read mental illness and hysterics into me, you're reading me wrong. The most emotional I'm likely to get reading anything you've written here might be "baffled" and "concerned that some young man on the interwebs has issues with projecting mental illness on bunches of people he's never met".


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 5, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> I think you're entirely too quick to think of other people as "hysterical" and "emotional".



And I think you're making far too many assumptions for no reason and pushing a discussion into being needlessly confrontational.

I never called you emotional. I never called _you _anything. I said you were _being_ a little hysterical - referring solely to the quoted post, meaning I think you are massively over-exaggerating/over-dramatizing the issue with stuff like this (and similar stuff repeated several times through your posts):



> Don't write hard science fiction. Ever. Don't try to market it as hard sci-fi. Just let it be it. You don't have to be dishonest about it. No need to slap that tag on it, because that tag is a one-way ticket to Nerd Hell.




'...one-way ticket to Nerd Hell'? 'Dishonest'? 'Snob nerd'? 'Projecting'? 'Don't write hard science fiction ever'? Is that the register of discussion here? Is that kind of thing supposed to be impressive? Are you the gatekeeper for hard SF? If so, how did you get that job? If not, what exactly is your point? That a story you have never read isn't good enough to meet an imaginary set of standards? Based on what? Why don't you tell me about all the publishing experiences you have had with this genre? That at least would carry the ghost of factual information. But otherwise...this is the same kind of imagined prescience that leads you to assume I am a 'young man', I guess. You have no idea how old I am.  

Anyway, I appreciate your input, siegfried “007”, but perhaps you should take your 'high bar' elsewhere. I don't deserve you. Thanks again.


----------



## Fatclub (Jul 6, 2019)

I'm not confident about the mars/ storm thing. Everything's lighter so the storms/atmosphere wouldn't need to be anywhere near as strong or thick to blow sand and objects about or blow a vessel over which now hardly weighs anything on Mars. I must bow down to the scientists though, but as a fan and reader of _The Martian_, I bought it (no pun intended).

I found the intricate explanations in _The Martian_ initially fascinating and then boring. I don't want to know all the science facts. I want plot, character and a good story. I loved it despite the boring bits. I didn't care about the facts of the science.

The same with _The Gap_ by Stephen Donaldson, mentioned earlier. It was the best series of books I've ever read and I'm a movie sci-fi fan rather than a book one.

I like to think a writer could create an enjoyable sci-fi story without learning too much. Modern cinematic CGI has taught me that CGI is no replacement for a good story - anymore than science facts are a replacement.

Star Trek didn't have to explain the science behind 'beaming someone up'.

I think you can BS it - if the story's good enough you'll win me over.


----------



## epimetheus (Jul 6, 2019)

I've not actually read the Martian, but i did read Artemis. It was an OK story, but it's selling point was an exploration of the technical challenges of a lunar colony. It sacrificed character development to this end. This meant my satisfaction was derived from technical aspects, so any inconsistencies took away from my enjoyment. 

In particular the low pressure/high oxygen environment was well explored from an engineering perspective, but nothing was said from a biomedical perspective. While we don't know much about long-term health effects of non-hypoxic hypobaric environments there are definitely enough to warrant serious attention.

None of which would have mattered, if the story had other strong elements. But the protagonist would literally stop what she was doing and spend some time to explain how the pressure differentials between compartments were maintained. I'm not a hard sci-fi fan, Artemis was my first deliberate foray into the sub-genre, but if you're going to sacrifice some element of storytelling for technical realism, then make sure you get it right. I guess the dream is to have both.


----------



## velo (Jul 6, 2019)

epimetheus said:


> I was responding to Kevin who has several thousand posts and a thick skin. Lucky's response to Bmad seems proportionate and i don't see why newbies should be given a free pass if they are going to wade in with controversial statements. I quite like this forum in that i don't have to tiptoe around people's delicate sensibilities. I'd suggest the forum would struggle more if it also became a safe space (does this forum struggle? - seems vibrant enough).
> 
> But yeah, happy to continue the conversation elsewhere if the OP feels it's off-topic.



Speaking as the forum supervisor I'm in full agreement.  Vibrant and robust conversation is encouraged providing it stays respectful of, and civil to, other users and outside groups.  Controversial topics, especially and specifically as they relate to writing or the writing process, are entirely on the table for discussion and dissection.  However, this isn't a political forum or a social media platform and that's how it's going to stay.


----------



## velo (Jul 6, 2019)

epimetheus said:


> I've not actually read the Martian



I would encourage you to.  It's a really good read and there is a fair bit of character in the MC in the book.  Movies are a more challenging medium, I think, for character development.  I rarely laugh out loud at anything I read or watch...I had multiple LOLs whilst reading The Martian plus all the hard science nerd boners.


----------



## epimetheus (Jul 6, 2019)

velo said:


> I would encourage you to.  It's a really good read and there is a fair bit of character in the MC in the book.  Movies are a more challenging medium, I think, for character development.  I rarely laugh out loud at anything I read or watch...I had multiple LOLs whilst reading The Martian plus all the hard science nerd boners.



I probably would have if i hadn't seen the film. Wasn't bad, but that 'iron man' flying with a glove was a bit much - absent from the book i understand. Artemis was good enough to give The Martian a read though. Actually, since i plan to write a story occurring on near future lunar/orbital habitats i can class it both as market research and light technical research.

Only slightly off-topic: has anyone else noticed that hard sci-fi seems to revolve around physics and engineering, but less so on biomedical sciences?


----------



## velo (Jul 6, 2019)

For an entertaining read as well as something that gives great insights into orbital mechanics Larry Niven's _The Integral Trees_ is a great one-stop-shoppe.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 7, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> And I think you're making far too many assumptions for no reason and pushing a discussion into being needlessly confrontational.
> 
> I never called you emotional. I never called _you _anything. I said you were _being_ a little hysterical - referring solely to the quoted post, meaning I think you are massively over-exaggerating/over-dramatizing the issue with stuff like this (and similar stuff repeated several times through your posts):
> 
> ...



You're missing my point (but proving exactly my point that hard sci-fi fans can be needlessly judgmental and argumentative while you're at it). That post wasn't intended to be serious. I was trying to be pleasant and joking about that "don't write it" bit. It's not hard sci-fi I dislike, it's the tag and the divisions it sometimes causes in the fan base that I dislike. You see, it's actually because I love stories and hate arguing that I encourage an author in doubt to just not use the tag. Not to change the story in question. Not to sub it somewhere else. I jsut don't think someone should add the tag if unsure about it. I'm sorry my sense of humor and genuine desire to be helpful just isn't coming through for you. I'm not trying to be confrontational at all. 

The point is that I don't think that the "hard" tag is necessary. I'm content to just let a story be itself. Since the OP was in doubt as to whether or not something was "hard", my advice was just to let the story be itself and not further define it as "hard". If an author is in doubt about whether a story fits a particular genre, it's a good bet that the genre tag shouldn't be used. That's the whole point. Every reader, author and publisher has a different bar on "hard" (but not on science-fiction, which is why it's safe to call it sci-fi but not always to call it "hard" sci-fi). Since I have higher expectations of something that calls itself "hard" (and pretty much all readers of exclusively "hard" sci-fi I've ever met have much, MUCH higher bars than I have), I just don't think it's worth the effort to add the tag--especially since the tag adds nothing at all to the story. The story is absolutely the same with or without the tag. There's nothing wrong with having a different opinion of what "hard" means. You want to use it, go ahead. Just expect that you're never going to be "hard" enough for some readers. 

I think it's a bad idea to set out to write a "hard" story as opposed to a good one. I naturally feel the burden to get the facts as straight as I can (being a science-minded person myself), so the research is just a fact of life (and can even pave the way for more interesting facets of a story). "Hard" doesn't add anything to the story--unlike other descriptors like "light" and "dark" which illuminate the desired or overall tone of the story. "Hard" isn't a tone; it just means that the a lot of research was (hopefully) done and documented, that (hopefully) the author got his/her facts as straight as he/she could. There's nothing wrong with it, but I've found that it's useless for describing the _story_ itself to prospective readers.

Some readers do get offended if something marketed as "hard" isn't hard enough for them, so I've found it a safer bet just to write a really good story and not state that it's "hard". Calling a story "hard" and not delivering a "hard" enough story can come off as dishonest to such readers. That doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to attempt writing the hardest sci-fi possible (go right ahead!). That doesn't mean an author shouldn't try to get all the details perfect and make the story and technology as believable as possible (go right ahead!) I wholeheartedly encourage every author to do all of that--no matter what the genre, even. I don't think getting all the facts straight is necessarily as important as spinning a good yarn, and I have seen a number of discouraged authors who feel so much burden trying to get everything perfect that they can't even finish a good story. That's a tragedy. I don't think adding a "hard" tag is worth it, in that case (if that's the bar to call it "hard" to that author). Anything that keeps us from writing a good story is a tragedy, as far as I'm concerned. 

It has been my experience with fans of "hard" sci-fi that--more so than fans of any other genre or subgenre--they can be merciless to authors who don't get the facts right. However, if the same author were to have published the same story without the "hard" tag, the same fans might've been... less harsh... about their criticisms. The fan base of hard sci-fi tends to be very educated and passionate about certain fields in science and technology, and given that they have such a wide base of knowledge collectively, and that they have a tendency to call authors out for not getting the facts straight, and that the "hard" tag implies one can read said work with a more critical eye for details, well, no author has ever gotten all the facts straight. Even Michael Crichton with his enormous bibliographies and very near-future tech (which is much easier to guess about than far-future space-travel kinda tech) has screwed something up and managed to offend a lot of people in pretty much every book he's ever written. *Somebody* in the audience is going to be more knowledgeable about the field in question, no matter how hard someone tries to get it right. The more ambitious the project, the more likely something is to get screwed up factually (or even theoretically, as not all theories on some matters are equally well regarded. Science is a hotbed of argument on lots of stuff, and it's never "settled"). 


I've been trying to think of another genre which does this "hard" thing, and the closest I've come to might be erotica vs romance. It's not a very good comparison (because sci-fi is weird as genres go). When reading science fiction, the thing readers have to get is something that doesn't exist yet but could. We have the subgenre "hard", which everyone argues about. In romance, a reader expects a fulfilling emotional bond which is sexual in nature (but not necessarily fulfilled or consummated at all) to happen between two (or more) characters. In erotica, the expectation is on the consummation of that particular bond (it's supposed to be like romance, _and then some. _Erotica _= r_omance+sex, kind of like "Hard" sci-fi i= sci-fi + huge bibliography) but, like with "hard" sci-fi, not everyone agrees on what constitutes "erotic". What turns one person on won't necessarily do anything for more other people, and in the same vein, one person's "hard" isn't another person's "hard", so both situations lead to perhaps unfair criticisms of quality that may have nothing to do with the story in question. The story might be good, even if it didn't have a big enough bibliography to get you where you want to go. Like "hard" sci-fi, there are connoisseurs of sorts who love to tear the works of other authors apart (even if they can't write scenes which are any better and wouldn't dream of exposing their own works to the sort of criticism that they dish out on others). There's a whole awards ceremony of sorts to crown the worst sex scene in literature annually (though it excludes works published as "erotica", which I think is sad because the most comically bad sex scenes are most likely in that genre). This sort of criticism keeps people out of a subgenre with a dedicated readership, so I think it's sad. There are definitely authors who want to write in both of these genres but are afraid to because both are subject to such intense criticism, and this leads to readers who can't find anything "hard" enough for them. It's a vicious cycle of sorts. Like with "hard" however, adding the "erotic" tag implies a highly subjective judgement call from the reader. Unlike "hard", "erotica" implies something to do with the plot and tone of the work, so it's a more informative tag, even if it's still a judgement call tag, and the work tagged thusly cannot fit everyone's definition of the term because absolutely everyone has a different impression of what constitutes erotic/hard.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 7, 2019)

epimetheus said:


> Only slightly off-topic: has anyone else noticed that hard sci-fi seems to revolve around physics and engineering, but less so on biomedical sciences?



YES!

It's pretty well dominated by physics/astronomy/engineering, which often leaves me (as a bio nerd) out in the cold.


----------



## epimetheus (Jul 7, 2019)

Isn't all good erotica _hard_?

What about crime novels? I don't read them, but i understand some people are into the whole police/CSI protocol stuff.



seigfried007 said:


> YES!
> 
> It's pretty well dominated by physics/astronomy/engineering, which often leaves me (as a bio nerd) out in the cold.



Maybe an untapped, if small, market.


----------



## velo (Jul 7, 2019)

I actually came up with a hard science bioology idea for a long story (crikey, maybe even a book) the other day....currently fleshing it out.  (<-- see what I did there?)


----------



## epimetheus (Jul 8, 2019)

I'd beta read that.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 8, 2019)

One thing to remember; it really doesn't matter if the author considers their work hard SF, or space fantasy, or space opera, or space erotica. What matters is how editors and publishers view it. If they try to market the story as hard SF then it _will_ be evaluated as such by readers. But, ultimately, it shouldn't matter much to the writer. Just write your best story and if people quibble about it, great! That would mean it was published.


----------

