Hard science fiction recommendations after reading Farside

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
54 replies · 11K views
Physics news on Phys.org
say_cheese said:
Ditto on the Martian. Did you know that it was a manuscript rejected by publishers and the author published on the web and became an instant hit and in a year or so, the moviee is going to be out soon.

Hilarious, serious, "down to Mars" movie with everything in it from present day NASA science.

I find it strange that that book is so popular.

Why? I'm writing a SF novel--trying to learn the ins and outs of the craft--and I was told by countless "experts" about the concept of the "data dump" and that it was without question a no-no that would turn off readers. My story had some science in it and several critiquers claimed "too much exposition"; and RUE--resist the urge to explain. Now David Weber is extremely popular, and he has chapters of exposition of his "science", but it took years for him to build his somewhat quirky following. So I toned down on it in subsequent drafts.

Then I hear about this fabulous book The Martian. There are chapters after chapters of science "stuff"! And it is a NYT best seller, and all I hear is kudos about it.:confused::wink:
 
Last edited:
I guess that's the trick. Technical sci-fi is a niche audience. But get popular enough and even a niche is pretty big. :wink:
 
Well, I got fooled into reading The Martian by the name and a recommendation (assuming it was actually about a Martian, not a stranded astronaut) . I then kept reading it because the story flowed well, and the science was not distracting. That's the trick, weaving the technology into the story so they are well integrated. Like the Clancy books. If you still have a story without the science, then you put in too much (a "data dump" as you described it).
 
"Red Mars", "Green Mars" and "Blue Mars" are excellent HARD SF, but at the top of my list is "Mission of Gravity" by Hal Clement. It was originally serialized in Astounding/Analog SF magazine.

Mike
 
Seeing he hasn't been mentioned yet in this thread (or so I think) I must give a startled mention of the late great Arthur C Clarke. For me at least he remains the yardstick by which I measure the works of all other "hard" SF writers. "The Songs of Distant Earth" is possibly Arthur C's most accomplished novel - certainly his swansong among his decidedly uneven later works. Other standout writers for me include Isaac Asimov and Larry "Protector"* Niven. But I wish (and it pains me to admit this) I wish I could say the same about Robert Heinlein! Amazingly enough, despite having recently re-read such relentless dialogue/monologue ridden novels of his as "Double Star" and "The Door into Summer" (both of which ended up in charity shops), despite too my distant memories of the epic-like "Stranger in a Strange Land", I keep coming back to Heinlein's wonderful juvenile SF novels - "Starman Jones" and "Have Spacesuit - Will Travel" especially. No one in the SF field has written for younger folks quite like RH.

Currently, I'm stumping my way through Kim Stanley Robinson's "MarsTrilogy", whose sprawling mythic qualities I do admire, but which I find somewhat wordy and hard going in places. Meanwhile, waiting on my bookshelf to be read is "Diaspora" by Greg Egan. I've not read any of Egan's novels before, but I'm assured this is true hard SF by those whose opinions I value. Finally, it's hats off to Robert Forward and his remarkable "Dragon's Egg" novel. Yes, the narrative is wooden in places and the human characters are forever paper-thin ciphers (even for SF). The cheela never fail to shine through, however, and the novel concludes with a moment of sheer magic. . . a close encounter of utter poignancy, and one that suggests to the reader just how truly strange and mysterious an encounter with intelligent aliens could be like in reality. And all this in a typically hard SF novel. Long may the genre thrive. . . and I am looking forward to getting to grips with "Diaspora".

*Why in heaven's name haven't they (Hollywood producers etc) got round to making a film of this amazing novel? (And why isn't there a sequel?)
 
hmmm --- I see Pushing Ice in this thread in posts #27 and #37, your post being #38. How are you getting different post numbers?
 
And here's a fourth mention of 'Pushing Ice'. I recently came close to buying this novel as a result of all the positive reviews it's received. I shall now order it straightaway and see what all the fuss is about. Love the title too. . . cool, what? :)
 
Dr Wu said:
And here's a fourth mention of 'Pushing Ice'. I recently came close to buying this novel as a result of all the positive reviews it's received. I shall now order it straightaway and see what all the fuss is about. Love the title too. . . cool, what? :)

I'm really interested in what you think after you read it. Post on this thread, or PM me.
 
Let's see:
  • Kim Stanley Robinson: 2312 (Nebula award)
  • Greg Bear: Darwin's Radio (Nebula)
  • Charles Stross: Halting State
  • Arthur C. Clarke: The Fountains of Paradise (Hugo)
More later...
 
Greg Bear is the best. I'm working on The Forge of God, by Greg Bear. I loved his take of Asimov's Foundation.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: chasrob
Neal Stephenson's Seveneves is pretty hard. Interesting so far, if a bit over-descriptive.
 
meBigGuy said:
Well, I got fooled into reading The Martian by the name and a recommendation (assuming it was actually about a Martian, not a stranded astronaut) . I then kept reading it because the story flowed well, and the science was not distracting. That's the trick, weaving the technology into the story so they are well integrated. Like the Clancy books. If you still have a story without the science, then you put in too much (a "data dump" as you described it).
Aaaand there's an XKCD for that...

http://xkcd.com/1536/
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: meBigGuy
My Faves

Niven
Egan
Asimov
Clarke

Hard to beat Chrichton's 'Adromeda Strain'. And Clarke's 'Rama' books

As for Ben Bova...plots ok but can't stand his cliche characters.
 
chasrob said:
... I'm writing a SF novel--trying to learn the ins and outs of the craft--and I was told by countless "experts" about the concept of the "data dump" and that it was without question a no-no that would turn off readers. My story had some science in it and several critiquers claimed "too much exposition"; and RUE--resist the urge to explain. Now David Weber is extremely popular, and he has chapters of exposition of his "science", but it took years for him to build his somewhat quirky following. So I toned down on it in subsequent drafts.

Then I hear about this fabulous book The Martian. There are chapters after chapters of science "stuff"!
It's the current #1 NYT bestseller.http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/2015-06-28/trade-fiction-paperback/list.html:)). Now I'm really confused. I've been led astray by the "experts".:smile:
 
How have you been led astray? The Martian is a chocked full of science, well written, story. The science is well woven into the storyline, and doesn't feel like a "data dump". Sometimes it gets just a bit hard to visualize, but not as bad as Neal Stephenson's latest "Seven Eves" . The only thing I didn't like about "The Martian" was that it wasn't really about a "Martian". Just another stranded space traveler story. But that's not really pertinent.
 
I was led astray by (I guess well-meaning) experts on how to write science fiction. RUE, resist the urge to explain, they told me. Over and over again.:smile:
 
Ahhh... I understand. There is a fine line between explaining, and intelligently weaving the technology/science into the story (making it integral to the story). The story becomes about interacting with the science, not about explaining the science. Using the science to make a story is different from "explaining". If you can leave it out and not disrupt the storyline, then you should leave it out. (Just my opinion, as I am not a writer).

Neal Stephenson in "Seveneves" does WAY too many long boring descriptions. Be interesting to see how that is received (but, it is a worthwhile read in spite of "too-dense-technical-detail" in some places, along with boring back stories and a typical Stephenson-esque get-it-over-with ending.
 
David Weber does a good job with hard science fiction, also, Johnny Ringo, Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle. The latter two collaborated on several excellent books, including
The Mote in God's Eye. Heinlein called that one "possibly the finest science fiction novel I have ever read". That's a damn good recommendation. Written in 1975, but nothing is dated. They even have tablets.
 
AgentSmith said:
David Weber does a good job with hard science fiction, also, Johnny Ringo, Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle. The latter two collaborated on several excellent books, including
The Mote in God's Eye. Heinlein called that one "possibly the finest science fiction novel I have ever read". That's a damn good recommendation. Written in 1975, but nothing is dated. They even have tablets.

I think the OP referred to Science Fiction, not Science Fascism.

Not hard in science, but hard in humanity, PK Dick is a great antidote to Pournelle et al

Up on the hardness scale would put Alastair Reynolds, hard to think of any other HSF writer that can actually write as well as he can
 
meBigGuy said:
Ahhh... I understand. There is a fine line between explaining, and intelligently weaving the technology/science into the story (making it integral to the story). The story becomes about interacting with the science, not about explaining the science. Using the science to make a story is different from "explaining". If you can leave it out and not disrupt the storyline, then you should leave it out. (Just my opinion, as I am not a writer).

Excellent advice, that. A more shouty way of putting it might be thus: Don't Try To Explain Everything!

BWV said:
Up on the hardness scale would put Alastair Reynolds, hard to think of any other HSF writer that can actually write as well as he can

Having (finally) got round to making a start on one of Alastair Reynolds' SF novels - 'Pushing Ice' - that seems a very fair comment.
 
If had had to pick the two novels that were the most fun for me to read, I would pick "pushing ice" and "snow crash". Not sure I can explain why though.
 
BWV said:
I think the OP referred to Science Fiction, not Science Fascism.
(edited)

Your biased opinion not withstanding, these authors are science fiction writers.