Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer
Sometimes, I find books can be too enamoured by the science. Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy comes to mind. I loved those books as a kid, but I don't think I have the patience any more to slog through some of the longer technology descriptions he inserted.
One relatively recent book I read, In the Mouth of the Whale by Paul J. McAuley, had lengthy technical descriptions that did nothing for the story but take me out of it. I remember one scene in particular where he spent a paragraph or two just describing the molecular composition of dirt. It wasn't part of a conversation anyone was having, it wasn't pertinent to the plot, and it didn't enhance my enjoyment one iota.
There's definitely a fine balancing act for hard scifi authors - just enough detail to create wonder, but not so much that your prose start to sound like you just cut and paste from your research.
|
Hah, I absolutely couldn't be more opposite. The Mars Trilogy books are among my favorite examples of great Nearly-Hard Science Fiction. (unfortunately there are hardly any examples of Actual Hard-Sience-Fiction to site). I love the Mars books but find a few of the more nonsensical bits (like the quantum brain decoherence problem which was pure phebotinum that served only to shape the plot) disappointing as they mar an otherwise excellent work.