Sci-Fi, fantasy and speculative Indie Authors Review discussion

The last time I submitted a novel to a Trad Publisher I noticed the editors made it clear the Science Fiction they published had to be based on Hard Science (the publisher's term not mine).

As I had thought would happen, my manuscript was rejected, more due to length rather than quality coupled with my being one of those dreaded 'unknowns' who think they can write.

In looking over books previously released by that publisher I've noticed most of the 'Science' is of the soft fluffy doesn't-have-to-be-possible type.

The funny thing is my father-in-law is a scientist and the calculations I sent him on a fictional world blew him out of the water (as the saying goes). Many hours of work go into my worlds.

In your Sci-Fi, do you work out planetary orbits and periods (among other details) well enough to satisfy the most ardent Klingon reading and speaking reader, or do you just wing it?

Interesting, I'd have to assume a more elliptical orbit where the inclination is more rotisserie-world (horizontal) than perpendicular (terrestrial), but then again I'm not an astronomer.

Since Terrestrial extremophiles can survive some pretty extreme environments, and humans can function under fairly extreme conditions, perhaps the concept isn't so hard to answer.

R.F.G. wrote: "In your Sci-Fi, do you work out planetary orbits and periods (among other details) well enough to satisfy the most ardent Klingon reading and speaking reader, or do you just wing it?..."

I don't worry too much about details of planetary orbits unless it's unique, or figures into the story. In my current novel I have a lot of different planets, including one with a highly eccentric orbit that freezes for part of the year. But the only ones I did intensive calc for was a double-planet system of two Earth-like planets orbiting each other.
You might try these websites for your calcs
planetary orbits: http://www.1728.org/kepler3.htm
angular size: http://www.1728.org/angsize.htm
gravity acceleration calc: http://www.calcunation.com/calculator...

I don't see the point of obsessing over details like orbital dynamics unless it plays a key role in the actual plot. It's unnecessary. It's like Peter Jackson obsessing over making sure every race in his movie versions of Lord of the Rings have their own style of arrowhead when he's just going to film all the action scenes in jittery, one-microsecond-per-camera-shot speed where you can't see any of the detail anyway...while taking a big dump on the plot and characters of the story.

Even in hard SF such things are extraneous unless pivotal to the plot. If you're not careful, adding such detail will bore even advanced readers to tears and make it seem as if you're just interested in proving your science bona fides rather than telling a tale.

Like if you've got rotating space stations, just stating that there is a counter-rotational docking port is enough. you don't have to spec out the entire docking hardware.

Form follows function.

I've read some hard SF, but (depending on people's definition) I really prefer works that are softer. Rendezvous with Rama, for example, I've tried reading like 4 times and I get bored stiff in the first page and a half. But I've read all of Kim Stanely Robinson's Mars trilogy and found it to be OK. Could have been better.

When it comes right down to it, I prefer idea-driven works over meticulous attention to scientific verisimilitude. I don't think enough SF concentrates on blowing your mind with weird crazy imaginative ideas. In part I blame this on the desire to raise SF out of its pulp origins. I mean, I don't want to return to the vapid Buck Rogers pulp fiction stories of the past--we actually have far too much of that in the form of superhero, zombie apocalypse, blah, blah, blah stuff that permeates modern consumer culture--but I long for the no-holds-barred experimentation and social/psychedelic madness of the 60s and 70s...writers like Philip K. Dick and even Frank Herbert who just really let their imaginations run wild.

I'd say that maybe I'm just old...but I do tend to read a lot of fairly new works (aka living writers) rather than swimming in the SF of days gone by.

Some people are going to get upset if you use the F word once. Some will get upset if you use a female lead. Some will get upset if the protagonist has blond hair. Some people will just get upset. I don't see much point in putting in hours of work to please a few people who sit around calculating if you've got your planetary orbits wrong.

The fundamental stuff is easy: the moon is not full every night (or 3 nights in a row); there is no sound in space; you can't see laser beams unless they're passing through some kind of medium like smoke, water vapor or dust; if you shut your engines off while in zero-g your ship will continue traveling in a straight line at its present velocity...etc.

I can understand calculating travel time according to whatever propulsion system you're using. I've done that. But seriously, any reader who stresses out over you not getting the orbital path of a fictitious moon right is really stretching the limits of pedantry. This is fiction, not a doctoral dissertation.

BTW, if you enjoy doing all that work, fine, I can understand that. But I wouldn't count on anything but a super-minority of people noticing or caring about it.

It's nice to work all the nitty-gritty stuff out, if you enjoy that sort of thing, but it is rarely necessary. Unless you give readers a bunch of parameters, they can't reproduce your calcs to see if you are right or wrong, and if you do, a bunch of readers are going to be bored stiff. I might say that (again, unless this is the point of the story) if readers are worrying about the orbital dynamics, they aren’t engaged in the story (which is not necessarily the author’s fault).

I find the bigger bugbear to be consistency. Readers may not care so much whether a your science is “right” but they will notice if it’s inconsistent.

We try to keep the science kind of light in our books (although I'm not sure our readers agree on that point) and so far I've had to look up one problem: what does it take so that it snows frozen CO2 on a habitable planet? That turned out to be tricky, but doable under local conditions, and it wouldn't last a long time. (We do sneak in deliberate blunders from time to time, just to see if anyone is pay attention. We intend to hand out prizes to people who notice.)

Rob: why did you need highly elliptical orbit and heavy objects? COMSATs (I take it you mean those at GEO?) are not robust. A 1-cm bolt head in a slight crossing orbit (not even elliptical, just inclined) will punch a nice hole in one.

I just wing it.

But this is because my stories do not depend on the science being "hard", as you put it. The stories are more about the characters, the characters' impressions of what they live around, and how they grow. If the story will be served by the readers understanding the science behind what they do, I will explain as is necessary. But there's a lot of difference between writing an impressive science treatise and writing an enjoyable fiction.

Adding essays about the raw science as a supplement can work, too.

Rob wrote: "@Owen, basically for the other 75% of the readers, I guess ;-) The high lower-orbit kinetic energy of highly elliptical object swarms has a much higher scare factor IMHO."

It's true. Bits of debris moseying about don't sound that scary.

The hard-science aspect is extremely important for me. I have a space colony in the asteroid belt, which is cut off most of the time because of orbital mechanics. I used a simulation of the Solar System to work out possible orbits, and never let my characters make a trip without working out delta-V's and the like. It presents big challenges for the writing because realistic space travel takes months, but that adds to the fun for me. I also try to think through the way a colony could be sustained using local materials.

Luckily, I'm not trying to make a living at this. A small number of people have understood what I'm trying to do and really find it interesting, but a lot of people used to warp-drives and electronic gravity and such like find it frustrating. Of course, I'm not the greatest writer in the world, so that also puts some people off ;-).

The trick, if you do want to write this way, is to connect with space-enthusiasts. They do get the idea, and even if they feel you made mistakes, they'll be interested.

I suspect the misunderstanding with the publisher was based on their lack of understanding of the real science. People who think movies like Gravity or Star Trek use accurate science would not know the difference. I suspect they meant they didn't want unicorns or vampires in the stories, not that they'd be checking the science.

My favorite review, from someone who looks out for this kind of book, is here: http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/ne...

I got about twenty sales in two days when that came out, so there are people out there!

Micah wrote: "Some people are going to get upset if you use the F word once. Some will get upset if you use a female lead. Some will get upset if the protagonist has blond hair. Some people will just get upset. ..."

Hey, I resemble that remark! I've never had complaints about language, but my young blond female lead attracted some derision... from my daughter. She's not in my core readership though.

A nice set of interesting responses, and well appreciated believe me.

Personally I do the world building part, planet specs, barycenters, bits of alien genetics and history to keep myself more or less on track then turn the background material into appendices, for those interested in the nuts and bolts.

I actually had someone with an interest in astronomy who looked at the appendices first, checked the data on the star, the planet, and so on who congratulated me for being one of the few amateurs who took the time to get it right.

I seriously doubt I could write a scientific treatise if my life depended on it. But it is nice when someone who had a bias against reading Sci-Fi reconsider that bias after finding out some of us do try to ground our work on something realistic.

Watching a movie featuring a terraformed Mars with a breathable oxygen enriched atmosphere, still a pink sky, as well as Phobos and Deimos depicted as large spheroidal moons, that just had me cracking up.

i enjoy hard science and will dutifully research for my sci fi tales. but its background matter as i dont make the hard science the forefront. i tend to focus on character development. however, i always make sure the science i drop on readers is *accurate as possible*. some folks get off on hella hard science and want to know about all the tech and how it works from the inside out. some dont care as long as the technobabble makes it sound plausible. it's a matter of preference.
i had a manuscript i thought was ready for a publisher, but the science for my mechas was off and took quite a bit of adjustments. at this point, my military hardware needed an overhaul due to deep space dynamics. at least my planets (ecosystem, seasons, etc) were for the most part correct... (was off by 4 degrees, but 4 degrees can impact quite a bit... >_>)

lolz i have a computer program to crunch the numbers for me called weather master. i used to do the numbers myself, but if i had more than two moons or a longer rotation about the star, or changed the star type, it got messy... as for calculating planets, i used to have an old star system/planet populator for windows 98. i cant recall it now but it helped me get a rough outline of how to get my systems & planets working. doing the math yourself will burn you out...

just came to me. one of them was stargen i think it was. i cant recall the other i used to plot the system entire, but if you can still find either program go nuts

K.P. wrote: "just came to me. one of them was stargen i think it was. i cant recall the other i used to plot the system entire, but if you can still find either program go nuts"

Star Gen is still out there, but I don't know if it will run on Linux or the newer iterations of Windows.

From the stargen web page:

Quote: "Copies of StarGen can be downloaded here in several formats. Pre-compiled executables are available for both the Macintosh and Windows. A source kit is also available, which should work just about anywhere. There are project files for both Code Warrior and Visual C++, and a make file that is known to work with the GNU tools (make and cc) on Mac OS X, Linux and Solaris."

But I bet you stargen doesn't come out with any of the freaky star systems astronomers have been seeing...like with huge hot Jovians really close to their sun. Or planets in a 4-star system.
http://kepler.nasa.gov/news/nasakeple...

Micah wrote: "But I bet you stargen doesn't come out with any of the freaky star systems astronomers have been seeing...like with huge hot Jovians really close to their sun. Or planets in a 4-star system.
http:/..."

In cases where an author had a world set in one of the weirder stellar systems I'd have to say if the mechanics were reasonably close to accuracy, then the readers who want plausible backdrops would be mostly satisfied.

If you can imagine a system that doesn't violate numerous laws of physics then it's likely out there, somewhere, even if it seems improbable.

K.P.,
Ditto on where to find that particular tool.

R.F.G. wrote: "If you can imagine a system that doesn't violate numerous laws of physics then it's likely out there, somewhere, even if it seems improbable..."

Yeah, I'm not one to sweat over such details. Interesting thing is, though, if you had written about such solar systems 20 years ago, serious minded astronomy geeks would be scoffing and huffing and puffing that no such systems are possible. I don't think many expected to find hot Jupiter planets like Kepler-7b orbiting near-sun sized stars at like 0.06 AU. (Yet something like 1/5th of all exoplanets discovered are hot Jupiters...that ratio will change as detection gets better and better.)

Truth is stranger than, you know?

That's one reason to not always play by the known rules. Reality is stranger than anyone ever expects it to be.

Trouble with hot Jupiters is, well, they're hot. So not so good for habitability. The red dwarf planets at similar distances look more promising. Expect you'd need your aliens to see infra-red, though.

Some rules can be bent with relative impunity, others not so much.

I sweat over weird details, but then don't go into detail about them. Usually the characters involved don't fully understand the tech or science behind all of it anyway. But if it is important to the plot or the character, then absolutely. I think near-future sci-fi is more dependent on solid, provable science. If you're dealing with things that are beyond our best scientific and technological understanding (such as faster than light travel) then you can bend the rules somewhat. (I prefer alcubierre drives, but never go into that explanation.)

Some of the best sci-fi from the early 20th century revolved around absurd technology that no one thought was possible at the time.

I believe the only true master is the story, however. And second behind that is it should be enjoyable to read.

holy crap the old program isnt rotting anywhere anymore. imma put it on dropbox & google drive fer ya once i sort through these 18 externals...

K.P.,

Thank you.

I think I have an antique AI on an external somewhere in all the hardware...

no problem! these old prgs are awesome and it pains me when no longer made. i keep an old puter running xp & 98se for this very purpose...

What about an open source physics engine?

http://www.compadre.org/osp/

Its way too complicated for me to mess around with, but it does come with some nifty tools:

http://www.compadre.org/OSP/filingcab...

Modeling the History of Astronomy

This folder contains software and activities to help students learn about the Ptolemaic, Copernican, and Tychonic models of the solar system and use that knowledge to create models of a fictitious solar system from observations of the night sky.

The Simulations and Activities folder contains computer simulations and activity handouts to guide students through observing the night sky and exploring the Copernican, Ptolemaic, and Tychonic models for the solar system.

The Student Projects folder contains computer programs that simulate the night sky for 30 fictitious solar systems. These programs serve as the foundation for a series of students projects in which students observe their fictitious solar system and construct Ptolemaic and Copernican models of their system. Handouts and grading rubrics for these projects are provided.

Here's the link... https://www.dropbox.com/s/70r8m5boada...

Here's the original webarchive, if it still works...
http://web.archive.org/web/2005030512...

K.P. wrote: "Here's the link... https://www.dropbox.com/s/70r8m5boada...

Here's the original webarchive, if it still works...
http://web.archive.org/web/2005030512..."

The webarchive worked, and thank you.

Richard wrote: "Trouble with hot Jupiters is, well, they're hot. So not so good for habitability. The red dwarf planets at similar distances look more promising. Expect you'd need your aliens to see infra-red, tho..."

Well, yeah, but they make for interesting solar systems and that could be fodder for interesting exploration SF.

The implications of having the gas giants close to a system's star (as far as the development of other planets in that system) are far reaching. No large gas giants in the outer parts of the system means they aren't there to diflect meteors away from potentially habitable inner, solid worlds. It also means they might well deflect Earth-like worlds closer to the sun, or farther out, making those systems uninhabitable by humans.

But they'd still be interesting systems to play with, speculating about alien life that might arise in them.

Another possibility is there are other gas giants in the system containing a hot jovian, with terrestrial worlds sandwiched in between. An interesting dynamic to be sure.

They've also found planets circling double stars, which is something we always assumed would be unstable. It is a fertile field, for sure.

Richard wrote: "They've also found planets circling double stars, which is something we always assumed would be unstable. It is a fertile field, for sure."

Double? They've actually found them in four-star systems. (Well, circumbinary planets in a 4-star system. 4-star...sounds like star systems already have Zagat ratings!)

I think they're watching a black hole eat a star right now. And also think that our galaxy original formed in the Sagittarius galaxy, which is in the process of being consumed by the Milky Way.

Lots of new theories and discoveries lately.

Sometimes, I think that some of the best story ideas can come from watching physicists try to win more grant money. The wildest theories seem to pour out when someone needs a new grant. Physicists can be very, very creative when that happens.

Now if some of those theories bore good fruit...

lolz i had a response but... i cant even.... XD
yeah when money is involved and you need it for your dept bad hellas, you will think hard (or smoke/eat something) to wring out something "so crazy it might work" type idea. i love it

Back in the day we called it the "Dog and Pony Show" where those in charge of writing funding proposals trotted out all the neat shiny critters to bedazzle and justify the next round of money to the rubes holding the purse strings.

Rob,

Some of them do produce works of fiction when they aren't producing other works of what amounts to fiction. :)

R.F.G. wrote: "The last time I submitted a novel to a Trad Publisher I noticed the editors made it clear the Science Fiction they published had to be based on Hard Science (the publisher's term not mine).

As I h..."

Specifically, for me, I consider real world events that can be translated into concepts rather than does the planet spin at x miles per hour and does its mass cause knees, hips and spine to crunch where all my characters are crawling around like worms in a fisherman's tin. Eluding to detail rather than spelling it out is far more fun for a reader and writer. e.g. You Could elude to technology that has to do with gravity in one paragraph, talk about the dynamics of a planet and its mass in another part of the story way down the line and make no attempt to link the two. I guarantee those who know their physics will make the link and be satisfied by it, while those who do not probably don't care. If you know your stuff or have done a little research to make something scan within the real world perspective, then why waste time on exposition and spoon feeding. Is it showing off? Do fans really demand that you wink at them in knowing what really happens to a world caught between binary stars in a solar system? Iv'e had my own intensive thoughts regarding the movie conventions of say, expulsion of air through an airlock where the movie says its minutes when really there's no time at all; a split second. Not to mention the design of the space craft or stations reaction to changing atmosphere's, where likely the whole vessel would just go pop like a balloon from a single fragment of aluminium travelling fast enough, which on its own could punch a hole in your space craft with some ease let alone missiles or whatever. How far do you go until the point that something that should be one sentence becomes a page due to self indulgence from having either researched or knowledge from previous interests. Usually anything I double check or learn in order to keep things from being absurd or to keep things accurate takes some time only for it to be translated into the context of the story as little more than half a line. If your'e keeping it real fair play, but as with all aspects of writing, econamise all the same.

The more technical the text, the narrower the target audience, and the lower the ceiling for sales. There are exceptions (Crichton, Weir), but the trend I notice is that the real successful sci-fi novels aren't very technical in the way you are describing.

The only recent exception I can think of is The Martian.

The scientific foundation, in terms of hard or soft, isn't really a factor when I decide to read something. I enjoy both. As long as there is a degree of plausibility, it works.

I thought I had replied to this thread. Apparently it was another.

When I read, I want it to be a story as entertaining as possible. If I have to stop every page to try to understand the physics of something, it'll more than likely put me to sleep. So unless it's short and sweet, such as a SMALL paragraph here and there, I'll end up skimming or most likely grabbing another book.

I've lived on Earth all my life (and I bet you did too!) and while I marveled at the sun, the stars, the volcanos, earthquakes, hurricanes, orange and blue lakes and I'll even read to learn more about them, not knowing the whys wouldn't have prevented me or them from existing. In other words, I don't need to know why the people on so or so planet are blue or green, are 7 foot tall or have 4 legs and 6 arms. They exist in the story and for me that's enough.

If I'd wanted to study physics or whatever, I'd buy a book that's exclusively about it for I'd know the facts are accurate. I wouldn't risk going around opening my big mouth about a certain guy i've read in a book that was purple because of -insert reason here-. :P

When I read, whatever genre I chose, it's for entertainment before everything else. I agree the facts must at least feel plausible/possible but that's it. If the ship goes faster than the speed of light, so be it. After all, sure it's a fact (for us Earthlings at least) that nothing can go faster than that, but who really knows? Not so long ago, people didn't think flying was possible unless you were a bird or an insect.

(I can already hear the hard science fiction fans mumble that it is impossible. Sorry guys, but that's my point of view.)

There are theories that suggest the possibility of faster-than-light travel, so having FTL in your book doesn't preclude hard science. SF is in part about extrapolating the theoretically possible, or at least the theoretically not-completely-impossible. It would be 'soft science' if you had FTL without bothering to even suggest how it was achieved, or instantaneous communication across distances where light takes time to travel.

I rather like hard science stories, like some of Charles Stross' space operas, for example, because the difficulties imposed by real science become part of the story. Or Elizabeth Moon's Vatta's War novels, where the realities of space battles at relativistic speeds with only lightspeed communication between vessels shapes the narrative.

To me, if the book isn't asking why or seeking to explain, it's not only not hard SF, it isn't SF at all.

SF: Extrapolating the Theoretically Not-Completely-Impossible for 381 Years (Debatably)

Matthew wrote: "To me, if the book isn't asking why or seeking to explain, it's not only not hard SF, it isn't SF at all..."

In other words, a science fiction cannot be written in first person POV, UNLESS that character is knowledgeable and can explain everything around him (or her). Is that what you're trying to say?

Even at that, let's say our protagonists know everything. What reason would you give for them to explain things most people in their world know already?

Call it soft SF if you must but by all means, it would still be SF.

I was just thinking something similar. What if none of the characters care how these things operate and you're working from within them, and not outside?

G.G. wrote: "Matthew wrote: "To me, if the book isn't asking why or seeking to explain, it's not only not hard SF, it isn't SF at all..."

In other words, a science fiction cannot be written in first person POV..."

SF must by necessity explore scientific ideas or it isn't SF, it's just F. There are no rules on how you can do that. I don't see why you couldn't write in a first-person voice from the perspective of someone who couldn't understand what they were observing if, through what they observe, the reader gets a sense of how it works. It could be fun to try. Maybe some readers wouldn't get it. That's fine. Maybe some would. That's fine too.

Micah wrote: "SF: Extrapolating the Theoretically Not-Completely-Impossible for 381 Years (Debatably)"

Let's not get into that debate again... ;-)

But I'm getting T-shirts made with that on it.