How do you write a novel that teaches science, without being "telly"?

Write the story in such a way that understanding the gizmo isn't necessary to understand the plot. If you can substitute "magical lamp" for "electronic frammistan" and the story still works, then non-technical readers can just breeze past those parts. Meanwhile, make sure your frammistan is internally consistent, and technical readers will pick up on it.

You do it by not thinking of it as teaching.

You are here (and in another thread) overthinking this "telly" stuff. Write your story, and worry about the stylistics when somebody else brings it up.

caw

You don't try to teach.

If it weren't feasible to have hard, real science integral to a novel, Andy Weir would not be very, very wealthy.

Make the characters and their arcs be the heart of your story. The people matter most. Think of the science as playing a supporting role, but a crucial one, on a par with the setting.

(I don't have a successful book yet to prove that I know what I'm talking about. Keep that in mind.)

AustinF said:

I'd like my novel to be scientifically interesting while still appealing to genera fiction. How feasible is that?

Click to expand...

Teaching without being 'telly': Get clear in your head just what message you want to prioritize, because you can't do it all in one story. Pick a step you want lift us up on. You can't climb the staircase in one step.

Well, it's been done, so it's clearly feasible.

Write an interesting story that involves science, rather than interesting science tangentially related to a story.

Someone mentioned Andy Weir. The Martian had a strong science core - yet would anyone really have cared about Macgyvering survival on Mars if it was just a dry recitation of hypothetical situations, if there hadn't been an astronaut in danger to make it personal, and people forced to make life-or-death decisions and calculations in the face of long odds? Make your readers care about the characters, give them sufficient stakes, and keep the science as focused on the characters and stakes as possible.

A novel about isolating a new genetic marker? Not likely to be interesting, even if the scientists discussing it are naked in a vat of jello.

A novel in which isolating a new genetic marker means survival or extinction in the face of a pandemic? Now, I'm more likely to listen. Even a novel with smaller stakes can be made interesting with the right characters - say, a more human-based story of an underdog scientist whose future hinges on proving a breakthrough theorem, in the face of fierce resistance from other institutions and possible betrayal by a colleague. If I care about that scientist, I'll care about the theorem.

Figure out what science you want to focus on. Craft a story that makes that science relevant and interesting, avoid infodumps for the sake of showing off research, and readers will follow however deep you want to throw your story in.

I suggest seeking out hard, science-based SF to see how other authors have pulled it off. It may not be as common as softer stuff, but it's out there.

AustinF said:

I asked if it's feasible, not doable.

Click to expand...

AustinF said:

I asked if it's feasible, not doable.

Click to expand...

Yes. As cornflake said, it is feasible. It is also doable. And achievable.

AustinF said:

Sorry if that came across rude. What I mean is... If you want to make a living as an author, are you better off just telling stories or is there time to make them scientifically interesting as-well?...

Click to expand...

The fact that there are plenty of successful scientifically interesting novels is evidence of this.

AustinF said:

...Say for a middle of the road author.

Click to expand...

You'll have to define middle of the road in this context.

AustinF said:

Sorry if that came across rude. What I mean is... If you want to make a living as an author, are you better off just telling stories or is there time to make them scientifically interesting as-well? Say for a middle of the road author.

Click to expand...

The face was because those are synonymous.

If stories couldn't be scientifically interesting and successful, sci-fi wouldn't exist.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'for a middle-of-the-road author either. Do you mean talent-wise? In terms of name recognition? They're not really relevant. Stories can have hard science. Always have.

AustinF said:

By middle of the road I mean enough to get by.

Click to expand...

That number depends on where you live & your lifestyle. The $17,000 median income reported here, may or may not be enough to cover it.

AustinF said:

By middle of the road I mean enough to get by.

Click to expand...

Sadly, authors who make enough off their work to give up their day jobs and live securely are a relatively small subset, even among those trade published by big 5 imprints.

Variables influencing the feasibility of living on a modest and unpredictable income as a writer might include the presence of a spouse with a reliable job that is sufficient to cover basic necessities for both of you and whose job provides health insurance that covers family members (if you live in the US). Also, the cost of housing and other necessities in your community of residence.

My mantra is one step at a time, though. To make any money as a writer, one must write things, submit them, and (for novels) eventually win representation and get offers. Or, if one is going the self-publishing route, invest the time and money into polishing the work yourself, then get people to learn that it exists and spend money on it.

For me, the step that involves writing a second novel after my first one failed to engender any offers from agents or editors is currently tripping me up. I am just so not inspired or enthused by any of my ideas lately, and my confidence in my abilities, in my judgement, and in my sense of what is interesting and marketable right now is shot.

AustinF said:

I hate to be that guy but...

Click to expand...

Then don't be tha...oh, too late.

AustinF said:

Feasible: possible to do easily or conveniently

Click to expand...

And if you click on more at the Google link, you'll see doable as a synonym.

AustinF said:

I mean middle of the road in terms of talent and dedication. Someone who makes enough to get by.

Click to expand...

Those two are not...er...synonymous. You could be brilliantly talented and enormously dedicated and still not make enough to get by. But why would you want to half-arse it, anyway?

AustinF said:

I hate to be that guy but...

Feasible: possible to do easily or conveniently

Click to expand...

I hate to be that alien zebra but...

Doable: Within one's powers; feasible.

(c/o the Oxford dictionary)

AustinF said:

I hate to be that guy but...

Feasible: possible to do easily or conveniently

I mean middle of the road in terms of talent and dedication. Someone who makes enough to get by.

Click to expand...

I don't know where you got that definition of feasible; it's not one I'd give or use.

Middle of the road in terms of talent and dedication has nothing to do with income, when you're talking about writing novels, unless you're already set with a specific thing -- like you're a decently successful specific romance writer with a contract who isn't particularly dedicated to churning.

AustinF said:

I'm not sure how right you guys are on the word feasible. Synonymous just means closely associated. Every word has a different meaning. It's besides the point though.

Click to expand...

er...

AustinF said:

Helix. I wouldn't want to half ass it, I just don't expect to be the next Mark Twain overnight. I may never even publish a successful book, who knows, but surely there's statistics that would point me in the right direction.

Click to expand...

This was your thread opener:

AustinF said:

I'd like my novel to be scientifically interesting while still appealing to genera fiction. How feasible is that?

Click to expand...

To which the answer is yes, it is feasible.