(People in a hurry may want to skip to the IN SHORT section.)
The title is misleading, in that it suggests that scientists are best at writing hard SF. They are not, at least as a group. In fact, experts in any field are handicapped at writing fiction in their field, though it be art or science. They "know" too much. This leads them to lose sight of the forest for the trees. It also leads them to assume as truth what are really theories.
This is especially true in science, especially in the "hard" sciences where so many theories are so well supported and have been for decades, even centuries. Officially every scientist believes that every theory is conditional, based on observational evidence, especially evidence based on carefully controlled often double-blind experiments designed to eliminate observational biases.
In real life, they "know" that outer space is a vacuum because the atmosphere continually decreases in density as height from the Earth's surface increases - a "fact" that has over two centuries of evidence behind it including that of ordinary people. They also "know" that travel at faster than light is impossible, and that time travel is impossible, and that "magic" if real is just superscience not yet understood.
This isn't to say that total ignorance of science is good for writing SF. It's bad, especially if we have any hope of writing SF with hard-science bases. If we write SF that ignores what everyone, even non-scientists, "knows" we'd better have very convincing support for the "impossible" events we portray.
I said CONVINCING. I didn't say TRUE. Our job as writers is not to tell truth, at least directly. Our job (to my mind) is to tell higher truths with fiction: very convincing lies. Especially truths of the heart and mind. Of wisdom, some would say.
In SF, our job is not to predict the future. It is to SPECULATE about the future, to give readers warning about bad alternative futures or to suggest good alternative futures. We do occasionally correctly predict the future, but by the sheer logic of shotgun fire: some pellets by accident will sometimes hit the target even if our aim is badly off.
So what do we do if we want to write hard SF?
Obviously SF writers need to know at least some basic science. Here are some suggestions if you want to brush up on your knowledge. Do you have more, some favorites perhaps?
SF classic writer Arthur C. Clarke wrote a series of essays so profound that many of the ideas in them will resonate for centuries to come. So did Isaac Asimov. They are collected in Profiles of the Future and The Roving Mind. The styles of both writers were entertaining and super clear. And Clarke's style was so simple and lyrical that it approached poetry.
There are lots of magazines to choose from to learn more about scientific subjects. For quick updates on the very latest news I like the following three.
Science Daily
Phys.Org
Science News
Anyone who writes SF and doesn't know a little bit about Systems Theory is profoundly handicapped. Wikipedia is a good place to start. I don't know of a book that I'd recommend. (Maybe some of you do.)
Here are some techniques I've seen in hard SF stories. Maybe you can add more.
Show technical effects, don't explain them. In most stories it's not important if the power unleashed by flicking on a light switch comes from a dam, atomic power plant, or a solar tap. Or if fast space travel comes from a high-powered ion drive, jump into hyperspace, or warping of local spacetime.
In particular, don't give theories behind the effects. Chances are (even IF you're a scientist) you'll get it wrong or woefully incomplete. Knowledgeable people will feel cheated, unknowing ones annoyed by what seems an expository lump.
Show emotional and intellectual effects of technical events. These are what even hard-SF fans care most about.
Carefully choose what "impossible" scientific facts you use in your story. Heinlein suggest using only one. I wouldn't go that far, but the fewer we use the less trouble we'll have with science fans.
The title is misleading, in that it suggests that scientists are best at writing hard SF. They are not, at least as a group. In fact, experts in any field are handicapped at writing fiction in their field, though it be art or science. They "know" too much. This leads them to lose sight of the forest for the trees. It also leads them to assume as truth what are really theories.
This is especially true in science, especially in the "hard" sciences where so many theories are so well supported and have been for decades, even centuries. Officially every scientist believes that every theory is conditional, based on observational evidence, especially evidence based on carefully controlled often double-blind experiments designed to eliminate observational biases.
In real life, they "know" that outer space is a vacuum because the atmosphere continually decreases in density as height from the Earth's surface increases - a "fact" that has over two centuries of evidence behind it including that of ordinary people. They also "know" that travel at faster than light is impossible, and that time travel is impossible, and that "magic" if real is just superscience not yet understood.
This isn't to say that total ignorance of science is good for writing SF. It's bad, especially if we have any hope of writing SF with hard-science bases. If we write SF that ignores what everyone, even non-scientists, "knows" we'd better have very convincing support for the "impossible" events we portray.
I said CONVINCING. I didn't say TRUE. Our job as writers is not to tell truth, at least directly. Our job (to my mind) is to tell higher truths with fiction: very convincing lies. Especially truths of the heart and mind. Of wisdom, some would say.
In SF, our job is not to predict the future. It is to SPECULATE about the future, to give readers warning about bad alternative futures or to suggest good alternative futures. We do occasionally correctly predict the future, but by the sheer logic of shotgun fire: some pellets by accident will sometimes hit the target even if our aim is badly off.
So what do we do if we want to write hard SF?
IN SHORT
Obviously SF writers need to know at least some basic science. Here are some suggestions if you want to brush up on your knowledge. Do you have more, some favorites perhaps?
SF classic writer Arthur C. Clarke wrote a series of essays so profound that many of the ideas in them will resonate for centuries to come. So did Isaac Asimov. They are collected in Profiles of the Future and The Roving Mind. The styles of both writers were entertaining and super clear. And Clarke's style was so simple and lyrical that it approached poetry.
There are lots of magazines to choose from to learn more about scientific subjects. For quick updates on the very latest news I like the following three.
Science Daily
Phys.Org
Science News
Anyone who writes SF and doesn't know a little bit about Systems Theory is profoundly handicapped. Wikipedia is a good place to start. I don't know of a book that I'd recommend. (Maybe some of you do.)
TACTICS
Here are some techniques I've seen in hard SF stories. Maybe you can add more.
Show technical effects, don't explain them. In most stories it's not important if the power unleashed by flicking on a light switch comes from a dam, atomic power plant, or a solar tap. Or if fast space travel comes from a high-powered ion drive, jump into hyperspace, or warping of local spacetime.
In particular, don't give theories behind the effects. Chances are (even IF you're a scientist) you'll get it wrong or woefully incomplete. Knowledgeable people will feel cheated, unknowing ones annoyed by what seems an expository lump.
Show emotional and intellectual effects of technical events. These are what even hard-SF fans care most about.
Carefully choose what "impossible" scientific facts you use in your story. Heinlein suggest using only one. I wouldn't go that far, but the fewer we use the less trouble we'll have with science fans.
Wish it was available on Kindle)
