Do you like Hard Science in your thrillers? > Likes and Comments

My background is in science, engineering, and analytics. I would suspect I would tend to write harder science than most authors. But I try to tone it down, and I know I might lose folks if I get too deep in the science.

What do you think? What do you like? If you are reading a thriller that contains science, do you want 'hard science'?

I always put a glossary of terms in the back of my books. Plus, I use the X-ray feature in my eBooks to help people understand scientific terms as they read.

I am really interested in your feedback as dedicated thriller readers.

Lee wrote: "My background is in science, engineering, and analytics. I would suspect I would tend to write harder science than most authors. But I try to tone it down, and I know I might lose folks if I get to..."
I don't mind some science, but not sure about hard science. If it is any more complicated than Astrophysics for People in a Hurry , I might pass.

Thanks Thomas. If you can’t relate to some of the science, then you can’t enjoy the book.

Lee wrote: "Thanks Thomas. If you can’t relate to some of the science, then you can’t enjoy the book."
You're welcome. Science was a struggle for me in college. I liked
Astrophysics for People in a Hurry
See
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Lee wrote: "My background is in science, engineering, and analytics. I would suspect I would tend to write harder science than most authors. But I try to tone it down, and I know I might lose folks if I get to..."

I think it partly depends what type of book you're writing Lee. A lot of SF readers enjoy some hard, real science in their books, but I think for thrillers, concepts need to be easily explained and not dominate the plot with too much fine detail. When there is too much explanation readers often turn off if they're there for the mystery - and will say so in their reviews. I'm a scientist and for me it's important ant that the science is sound and not flaky!

I like that you use X-rays to explain terms as that gives people the choice of how deep they want to understand the concepts

Carolyn wrote: "Lee wrote: "My background is in science, engineering, and analytics. I would suspect I would tend to write harder science than most authors. But I try to tone it down, and I know I might lose folks..."

Thanks for the feedback, Carolyn. I hope others weigh in.

For thrillers, I like science best when it gives the characters harder choices rather than turning into a lesson. The detail needs to feel sound enough that I trust the danger, but not so dense that it stops the pressure. A glossary or X-Ray note seems like a good compromise because readers who want more can go deeper without slowing the scene for everyone.

Thanks, Vera. It is a balancing act for sure. I have science in both of my books. As you read them, please let me know how I described the science. I know readers will be spread out all across the 'science knowledge spectrum'. I suggest reading The Deep Surge first and see how I did.

That range is exactly why reader-control tools help. I do not need every technical layer explained in the main scene, but I do want enough accuracy that the stakes feel earned. If the glossary or X-Ray material sits outside the momentum, it lets the story keep pressure while still respecting readers who enjoy the deeper layer.

I do like hard science. The glossary and the X-ray helped a lot in The Deep Surge. I was able to keep up, I think. You will be surprised at how much Ben Franklin learns about modern science. He is a quick study. He was very curious about how an airplane worked.

It very much depends on how it fits with the book.

Often some authors get carried away, spending so much detail that you forget the story.

It has to fit the story well, part of the story, and be easy for the reader to understand.

Some thrillers I have read, where authors spend 3 to 4 pages telling you about a gun the assassin is going to use !!

Sean wrote: "It very much depends on how it fits with the book.

Often, some authors get carried away, spending so much detail that you forget the story.

It has to fit the story well, part of the story, and be ..."

I am afraid I may go the other direction. Put out a science term and forget to define it properly. Then the reader says.. "What the heck does that mean"

Maybe, a glossary of short scientific explanations would work for some books, where you don't want to disrupt the flow of the plot with too many facts and details. Then it's up to the reader if they want to check it out or not.

I enjoy realism when it serves the story. In my case, I write around forensic investigations, so I try to use authentic procedures and documentary evidence without overwhelming the reader with technical details. I think accuracy creates tension when it's integrated naturally into the story.

Daniel, that is exactly the balance I look for. Procedural detail feels most convincing when it changes the options available to someone, rather than pausing the story to prove how much research was done. Documentary evidence can make a discovery feel earned.

Good thoughts Vera and Daniel. Thanks for contributing to the discussion.