SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

I've just finished reading PetroPlague which was very enjoyable and a book I would highly recommend if you enjoy lots of Sci with Fi a la Michael Crichton. I wondered if anyone out there could recommend science based books they have recently read.

Just to clarify, that is not science fiction per se but fictionalized science or books that blend believable science but with lashings of entertainment of course. I've heard it referred to as LabLit and of course SciWithFi.

Anyway suggestions gratefully received.

I think most of the ones I have read are Michael Crichton. Nothing else springs to mind at the moment, but I know there should be something occurring to me.

I personally didn't like it because I felt there was toomuch sci as opposed to the fi, but The Quiet War by Paul McAuley might hit the spot for you.

I'm reading Embassy Town, a great sci/fi novel. More in the mode of Asimov's Foundation than Michael Crichton. The author creates a vivid world by omission ... you don't feel like you know what's going on and yet you do. The book has been building a kind of smothering tension since page 1. I almost finished and not matter how it ends it gets a big thumbs up!

I need to read that badly, Jan.

I happily "swing both ways" when it comes to the hard SF vs. soft SF question and admire Harlan Ellison and Isaac Asimov in generally equal measure. For me it's all about the writing--how is that science handled? I recently read Old Man's War with the Beyond Reality group and criticized it for being too talky in the beginning: too much dry recitation of the engineering parameters of the beanstalk. I've also run across SF that felt too tossed together by the seat of the author's pants: not enough basic research to make it plausible.

I was with you right up until you said "Crichton." There is something like zero science in his books.

Asimov generally had good science if you can get past the writing. (And I say that as someone who owns at least 40 of his books.)

Clarke, of course.

Gregory Benford.

David Brin.

The novel Heart of the Comet by Benford and Brin was very sciencey indeed. I read it when it first came out, so it might feel a little dated now.

Some John Varley and some Joe Haldeman.

How about Ben Bova? Science plays a huge role in his books. His Asteroid War series gives an excellent sense of what the asteroid belt is like.

Edit: Corrected atrocious auto-correct error. Not Nova, Bova!

There's definitely some good science in Asimov.

Anybody here a fan of Mary Doria Russell's book "The Sparrow", or the sequel "Children of God"? Beautiful writing, eloquent and evocative, with wonderful pacing. A good balance between sci and fi (speaking as a music major)!

Crusader wrote: "How about Ben Nova? Science plays a huge role in his books. His Asteroid War series gives an excellent sense of what the asteroid belt is like."

Hi Crusader, remember me? You must mean Ben Bova.

Jan wrote: "Anybody here a fan of Mary Doria Russell's book "The Sparrow", or the sequel "Children of God"? Beautiful writing, eloquent and evocative, with wonderful pacing. A good balance between sci and fi (..."

Yes, like them, Children of God especially. I imagine paleoanthropology is a great background to have for writing about aliens. And I agree with you about the writing.

Jan wrote: "Anybody here a fan of Mary Doria Russell's book "The Sparrow", or the sequel "Children of God"? Beautiful writing, eloquent and evocative, with wonderful pacing. A good balance between sci and fi (..."

While I liked the book very much, the science is somewhat shaky, to say the least.

Although some 15 years ago on Usenet I did hear what is still the stupidest criticism of a science fiction novel ever: some guy said that he didn't buy into the notion that the predators had adopted a similar appearance as their prey because it's never happened here on Earth. Well duh. That's why I read science fiction, to experience ideas that haven't happened down the street. (The "you moron" is strongly implied there.) That whole predator/prey relationship is actually one of the few things about the book that is the most scientifically plausible.

David wrote:
Hi Crusader, remember me? You must mean Ben Bova"

Yes, that's exactly who I mean. Stupid autocorrect on the phone changed Bova into Nova without me noticing!

(And yes of course I remember you)

Trike wrote: "Jan wrote: "Anybody here a fan of Mary Doria Russell's book "The Sparrow", or the sequel "Children of God"? Beautiful writing, eloquent and evocative, with wonderful pacing. A good balance between ..."

Actually, Batesian-Wallacian mimicry (as described in the Wikipedia article on "Aggressive Mimicry") looks like a reasonable parallel to me.

I would strongly recommend Alastair Reynolds for realistic and interesting science in sci-fi without sacrificing good characters and storylines. Particularly the Revelation Space series.

Iain M. Banks is also rather good, although his science is not necessarily explained, nothing seems utterly ridiculous (so far as I've read at least).

I've also enjoyed the world building and aliens in Ringworld by Larry Niven, but I'm in my opinion the human characters are not so good, making the book less enjoyable for me.

Dulac3 wrote: "I personally didn't like it because I felt there was toomuch sci as opposed to the fi, but The Quiet War by Paul McAuley might hit the spot for you."

THanks Dulac3. I will add it to my list.

Jan wrote: "I'm reading Embassy Town, a great sci/fi novel. More in the mode of Asimov's Foundation than Michael Crichton. The author creates a vivid world by omission ... you don't feel like you know what's g..."

Hi Jan - never heard of it. I'll give it a go. THanks for the suggestion.

Trike wrote: "I was with you right up until you said "Crichton." There is something like zero science in his books.

Asimov generally had good science if you can get past the writing. (And I say that as someone ..."

No. Zero Science. Maybe its relative. I am a non scientist so it felt very sciencey to me and, crucially, believable. Have you read Jurassic Park/Prey? There's a ton of science in both those books. Or at least I felt there was.

I will definitely try Heart of the Comet though. Thanks for the suggestion.

Steph wrote: "I would strongly recommend Alastair Reynolds for realistic and interesting science in sci-fi without sacrificing good characters and storylines. Particularly the [book:Revelation Spa..."

Yes I've read a lot of Banks. I like him but it doesn't fit my criteria. It needs to be on earth and explained to the point where you don't where the fact stops and the fiction starts. I'll add AR to my reading list.

Philip wrote: "I happily "swing both ways" when it comes to the hard SF vs. soft SF question and admire Harlan Ellison and Isaac Asimov in generally equal measure. For me it's all about the writing--how is that s..."

Yes there is plenty of tossed together science stuff. THats what I enjoyed about PetroPlague. Felt really well researched and crucially believable. I guess it helps having a science background

I read Timescape recently, and I think that fits your criteria, O.C.. It was a bit of a slog, though.

The most science oriented author I can think of is Robert L. Forward. I've read two of his books a long time ago, Dragon's Egg and Flight of the Dragonfly, that I plan to reread some time this year.
No two-legged English speaking aliens there, he does a really good job at bringing to life sentient species that are very different to what we know on Earth, thriving in environments we call hostile.

Maybe not exactly matching your criteria, O.C., although both stories start with a scientific expedition from Earth sent to a distant star system.

Hi All. I'm an astrophysicist working for NASA. My 1st-contact novel The Metalmark Contract is rigorously science-based, and has gotten some good reviews for the story. Here's a review from a fan of Asimov, Heinlein and Clarke http://lnkd.in/5FrasD/

Brad wrote: "I read Timescape recently, and I think that fits your criteria, O.C.. It was a bit of a slog, though."

How so? Too much science?

Cecile wrote: "The most science oriented author I can think of is Robert L. Forward. I've read two of his books a long time ago, Dragon's Egg and [book:Flight of the Dragonfly|2634..."
THanks Cecile. I'll add them to my reading list.

In my opinion the best science-filled thriller of 2011 was SPIRAL by Paul McEuen. McEuen is a Cornell professor (biophysics, I think) and SPIRAL's plot includes molecular biology, mycology, nanobots, and more. If you enjoy the contemporary thriller format (plot-driven, not the deepest characters, suspension of disbelief required) AND interesting tech, you'll like SPIRAL.

Cecile wrote: "The most science oriented author I can think of is Robert L. Forward. I've read two of his books a long time ago, Dragon's Egg"

Oh, yeah, I'd forgotten about Dragon's Egg. Excellent, excellent book. Talk about true aliens! Sesame seed-sized sentient blobs living on the surface of a neutron star. I re-read it a few years ago and it was still a terrific story.

O.C. wrote: "No. Zero Science. Maybe its relative. I am a non scientist so it felt very sciencey to me and, crucially, believable. Have you read Jurassic Park/Prey? There's a ton of science in both those books. Or at least I felt there was."

If you're without any foundation in science, then Crichton's books probably sound okay. He does make a convincing argument while you're reading his novels. If you look stuff up, though, you start realizing that it doesn't work. Which is weird, because he had a medical degree.

I haven't read Prey because the one-two punch of Jurassic Park (all the science is wrong) and Sphere (it was all a dream) finished him off for me.

O.C. wrote: "Brad wrote: "I read Timescape recently, and I think that fits your criteria, O.C.. It was a bit of a slog, though."

How so? Too much science?"

The slog for me was more about the characters, O.C.. Benford flipped between two different eras, so two different sets of characters, and there was really no one in the book that interested me. That made it pretty slow. But it was good enough to keep going. And the science of "time travel" was as solid as can be in that all it could be used for was sending a message.

Brad wrote: "O.C. wrote: "Brad wrote: "I read Timescape recently, and I think that fits your criteria, O.C.. It was a bit of a slog, though."

How so? Too much science?"

The slog for me was more ..."

OK. The time travel/message bit sounds a little like Pullmans Dark Materials. I think I might give it a go. Its on the reading list. Thanks for the input Brad.

The Sparrow is one of my favorite novels in any genre, and that includes 18th and 19th century British classics. Wonderful dialogue, lovable and fascinating characters, strong plot . . . . I liked Children of God very much, though I don't think it's as great an achievement, viewed by itself, as the first book.

Jan wrote: "Anybody here a fan of Mary Doria Russell's book "The Sparrow", or the sequel "Children of God"? Beautiful writing, eloquent and evocative, with wonderful pacing. A good balance between sci and fi (..."

Amy wrote: "In my opinion the best science-filled thriller of 2011 was SPIRAL by Paul McEuen. McEuen is a Cornell professor (biophysics, I think) and SPIRAL's plot includes molecular biology, mycology, nanobo..."

Yes. I've heard of Spiral. I'll add him to my list. Thanks Amy:)

I'd recommend the works of Hal Clement, considered by many to be the Father of Hard SF. A more recent author with a good bit of hardness is Stephen Baxter.

See also Sigma - The Science Fiction Think Tank

Many SIGMA members are Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers; all are science fiction writers who have spent careers applying their technical and literary talents in exploring the future of science, technology, society and cultures. SIGMA provides a significant pool of talent for volunteer pro bono consultation with the Federal government and other organizations which need the imagination that only speculative writers can provide.

Some big names are member who write hard SF.

I saw "SIGMA" and immediately thought of James Rollins' action-adventure thriller series, which features a group of PhD scientists who are also military special ops. Naturally SIGMA is a top-secret organization that regularly saves the world.

Rollins' SIGMA Force novels are extremely popular because they're tightly written, fast reads with lots of science in them. But the science always gets silly in the end. Don't read if you're a stickler for realism. (Nevertheless, great fun for the reader who is less technically demanding.) If you think Michael Crichton does not do science well, then don't read Rollins. But if you like Crichton-esque science, you might like Sigma Force.

Steph wrote: "I would strongly recommend Alastair Reynolds for realistic and interesting science in sci-fi without sacrificing good characters and storylines. Particularly the [book:Revelation Spa..."

I agree. Reynolds worked as a particle physicist. Plus he's an imaginative and graceful writer. _Revelation_Space_ is great.

I really need to read his stuff.

Wow! My head's exploding from all these great recommendations. Definitely looking into Paul McEuen and Alastair Reynolds for now. Thanks to all!

Greg Bear. Bruce Sterling. Larry Niven. Dean Ing.

Crichton was less about the science, which he mostly approached from a very high level and often incorrectly, than he was about the impact of science and human insistence on making bad decisions. Usually wrote to illustrate some point.

And he did write the best Beowulf adaptation ever :) But again, it was more a treatise on early Northern European civilization and culture than anything else.

By the way, I read Micro, which was finished by Richard Preston. Absolutely terrible.

Agreed on Micro. But I blame Preston, not Crichton. Richard Preston's science-themed fiction has never come close to the quality of his nonfiction thriller masterpiece THE HOT ZONE. He would not have been my pick to turn Crichton's notes into a novel.

Matt wrote: "Greg Bear. Bruce Sterling. Larry Niven. Dean Ing.

Crichton was less about the science, which he mostly approached from a very high level and often incorrectly, than he was about the impact of sci..."

Yes agree on Micro although I am not sure Preston was to blame. It would be an oversimplification to point the finger at him. He’s not even a fiction writer. Most of his stuff is nonfiction and it shows in Micro. The same for the publishers. After all they are there to make money from their authors, both dead and alive. No the blame rests with the estate of my beloved hero who must be turning in his grave. They have sacrificed his legacy and brand for a quick buck and should all be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
The entire Micro project is an abject case study in how not to preserve the memory of a great storyteller.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Maybe techno-thrillers? Anyway, Dan Brown's Deception Point and Digital Fortress both deal a bit with science fiction (however inaccurate) but focuses mostly on thriller aspects. And obviously, it's Dan Brown so you should have an idea of what the prose will be like.

Something like I, Robot might work there too.

The Mars series by Kim Stanley Robinson is very sciency! Lots of politics in there too, if you like that kind of stuff.

Hi Barb, If you like politics with your science fiction, then you would like The Metalmark Contract, my science fiction novel. It is about the geopolitical turmoil when an advanced alien visits Earth. Here is a review or 2 http://lnkd.in/xZweiB and http://lnkd.in/5FrasD

The Mars Series is an excellent series for science with the fiction. I can't believe I didn't think of that one sooner, Barb. Nice.

Here's a list of 'lablit' books I found on Google.

http://www.lablit.com/the_list

Some very recognizable titles in there

Oh I love having plenty of sci in my fi. Mix it in good, i say! Isaac Asimov really did it best with stories like Nemesis and End of Eternity. However, Greg Egan's Incandescence went a bit far with all the science and mathematics. Resulted in a really heavy read and I felt it could have been made a little lighter without missing out no the real science of it all. Still, enjoyed it thoroughly. IncandescenceNemesisThe End of Eternity

Trike wrote: "I was with you right up until you said "Crichton." There is something like zero science in his books.

Asimov generally had good science if you can get past the writing. (And I say that as someone ..."

This like a million times. Crichton is to science like Fox News is to balanced.

All of the authors mentioned are great. I would add Paul McAuley who was a research biologist for some big schools. "The Quiet War" and "Gardens of the Sun" by him are really good.

Justin wrote: "Here's a list of 'lablit' books I found on Google.

http://www.lablit.com/the_list

Some very recognizable titles in there"

Yeah, the LabLit list is a great resource. The focus there is on any books/movies/plays/etc. that portray scientists in a realistic way. So hard SciFi is not on the list, but a classic like Sinclair Lewis' Arrowsmith is.

For the most part, I prefer my sci-fi to be light on technical stuff. The truth of the science itself isn't that important to me, as long as it's not obviously wrong or inconsistent. It's easier to believe in stuff like faster-than-light travel when the author doesn't give me a three-page essay on how it's possible in his universe.

On the other hand, James Rollins puts a fair amount of real science in his books (and then of course takes liberties with it, which he happily admits), and I find that really interesting.

So my answer to the question is "no and yes".