This month’s Authorly Love featured David Luna and his dystopian sci-fi novel The Collector. If you missed my introduction or review, you can visit them here:
Luna’s book The Collector is a dystopian novel that has various elements of science fiction throughout. The cause of the disorder in his book is the lack of water. It’s a setting in which water shortages were already at a dangerous low, pushing people to wall off their cities to salvage the little they have left.
While the shortage of water has become a very real threat throughout the world (especially my home state of California), I was curious as to whether Luna decided to stick to accurate studies or theories on how the water shortage would affect the world. So, I asked him how he feels about being accurate with scientific fact in novels. His response was:
“…believe it or not, I try to keep the science aspect in my writing grounded in some sort of reality, though in my opinion, stories aren’t academic papers so I definitely don’t feel like science has to be 100% accurate. However, I do try to start from a small kernel of truth and then expand on it (or blow it out of proportion) as I feel this adds a sense of authenticity to the story.“
This got me thinking: How much do I care when it comes to scientific accuracy in novels? How much do you guys care when it comes to scientific accuracy in novels?
Fiction is a genre that literally means that it is a story about imaginary events and people. So does it matter if an author doesn’t get certain real-world, already researched facts right? Is it even noticeable to us? Do we want authors to do extensive research if they are including any real-life aspects in their novels?
Personally, it doesn’t matter to me either way. As Luna said, even if you start with some kernel of truth, a story opens you up to the option of expanding on it or completely blowing it out of proportion. Or, there’s another option, don’t even start with a kernel of truth. That’s the beauty of storytelling. That’s the beauty of being an author. You get to build a world around whatever is in your imagination. Even if whatever you include in your story is completely out-of-the-box, completely insane, or even an alternate version of something that already exists — it’s not an academic paper. You can even take the truth and create a whole imaginary story around it. That’s the point of fiction.
Let’s say an author does some sort of real version, or is 100% accurate, in regards to science in their novel. How much of that science do you prefer as the reader? Do you just like enough to scratch the surface to get to the point, or do you like full-detail that explains how something happens? For example, in The Collector, Luna goes into some detail of how the shortage of water progressed. He gives just enough to get to the point, advance the plot, then moves on. Personally, that was enough for me. Any more, like how they specifically ration the water, how they store the water, how they clean the water, may have been some unnecessary details. Yes, it’s world-building, but it’s not information that provides to the story. Apply that same example to other science fiction novels, which method of storytelling would you prefer?
Other novels based around science like Illuminae or Starflight (both set in space), are obviously based on fictional worlds, but how much research did the authors do prior to writing them? Did they research sound in space? Did they research what would happen if an explosion went off in space? Would that even be something we, the readers, would know they researched? I know I wouldn’t, but maybe some of you would.
So…
- Do you like when novels are rooted in scientific fact and stay there?
- Do you like when authors play a little and twist their story into a world they would want?
- Do you like a blend of the two?
- Do you even notice?
8 Comments
Hm this is a really interesting topic. I’d love to read novels that have a grain of truth there, but like you said, it doesn’t have to explain everything. As long as it gives solid world building, than I’m fine with that. We don’t have to get into too many details and scientific explanation. I do enjoy if the authors could blend and twist the reality into their own world, it shows creativity and possibilities for our own world too, no matter how far fetched that is. Great post Molly!
I agree with all of that! It definitely doesn’t have to be 100% accurate, but it sometimes adds some enjoyment if there is a bit of truth with a mix of their own creativity (as long as it’s done right, like you said, solid world building).
I generally land on to the side of realism when it comes to books. I prefer it when things make sense and mostly that it doesn’t contradict things we now know to be true, unless here is a good explanation for that. Ofcourse it is fiction and not everything has to be 100% realistic, but I do want things to make sense. And if something strange happens I do want to know why.
It does depend on the book how much details or explanation is necessary. But the things that do get explained have to make some sense to me. Ofcourse I don’t know everything myself, but if I read something in a book that too strongly contrast with what we currently know I feel like that can really throw me out of the story at times.
That’s interesting! I’m usually the opposite or don’t mind either way. I like reading about completely made up concepts, but I also don’t want it to just be made up out of convenience to progress the plot. There’s a delicate balance between the two
This is such an interesting discussion topic! Putting science in fiction is definitely about the balance. Too much science and it feels like you’re drowning in facts, but too little science and the story seems unrealistic and not well researched. Thanks for sharing and, as always, fabulous post! <3
Yes, I agree. There is a balance. It can get so boring when an author puts too much in, but so mediocre of they don’t put enough. Sorry authors, we’re complicated lol
Cool topic!! I don’t read a lot of Sci-Fi, but I think it depends. Like if something sounds totally fake and like the author is just making things convenient just so they don’t have to do the research… that’s annoying and can totally kill the book for me. I also don’t want anything TOO technical because BLAH!! So boring. But books like The Martian, definitely need to be checked to make sure the things that happen have at least SOME chance of actually happening.
There definitely is a balance that has to happen sometimes. I don’t mind of an author kind of makes up their own “science” but if it’s obvious that it is just for convenience, then yeah, it’s kind of a turn off haha