OnlineBookClub.org

In Superhighway, Alex is able to travel through cyberspace as a result of an inherited genetic mutation. In my opinion, the author does a great job describing the science behind the fictional power of 'electoportation'. However, I have read many sci-fi books that present awesome powers, namely time-travel, and simply gloss over the science by saying that it would be too complicated to understand or some other deterrent to having to give scientific explanations.
Are you interested in learning science while reading sci-fi?
Do you know any books that give really detailed science explanations to support the fiction?
Are you turned off by sci-fi that does not try to explain the science behind the story? (I know I am )

I think part of science fiction is that some things are so advanced (or impossible in our world) that there is no science behind it. So, I am not turned off at not learning exactly how it's done. Most of that goes over my head anyway.

I'm ok either way. If, for example, the book proposes a theory of how time travel would be possible, then I appreciate trying to understand the author's take on it. If it is just a plot device, then I would rate the book on the story that develops from it rather than the time travel theory itself.

I love real science in my sci-fi!
Want it. Need it. Breath it!
I actually follow a blog for this very reason, and am always looking for books that fit this criteria.

Because sci-fi is not my top genre of choice I tend to prefer it be very "realistic" and based in solid science that at least make it sound plausible.

I would definitely prefer to read a good amount of science knowledge even though it is still fiction. I appreciate when novels are well researched. It is like historical fiction. Even though it is fiction, I do appreciate that someone put in the time to research and study what they are writing about.

I hated science as a child and I'm definitely not a fan of it now. I prefer very little science in my fiction. I know that there will always be some. After all, science is an important aspect of human life. It helps us learn about human life and the earth. In spite of that, I'm still not a science fan.

I am turned off with sci-fi stories which do not really explain the causes and effects of things they're presenting. I believe that sci-fi writters must also research well to support their theme.

To be honest, it would probably be a little helpful to know how its possible, even if its not possible in real life. I am not a huge science fiction fan, so the description really has to stick out to me for me to pick one up.

Maybe, some science-fiction stories without detailed narration or explanation are intentionally left by the authors or directors that way because they want the readers or watchers to patch the missing areas.

Donnavila Marie01 wrote:Maybe, some science-fiction stories without detailed narration or explanation are intentionally left by the authors or directors that way because they want the readers or watchers to patch the missing areas.

This makes a lot of sense. I think that some authors have that in mind when writing but I also think we sometimes accredit a lot of praise to writers when they do something really amazing without having put much thought into it like that.

Jaime Lync wrote:In Superhighway, Alex is able to travel through cyberspace as a result of an inherited genetic mutation. In my opinion, the author does a great job describing the science behind the fictional power of 'electoportation'. However, I have read many sci-fi books that present awesome powers, namely time-travel, and simply gloss over the science by saying that it would be too complicated to understand or some other deterrent to having to give scientific explanations.
Are you interested in learning science while reading sci-fi?
Do you know any books that give really detailed science explanations to support the fiction?
Are you turned off by sci-fi that does not try to explain the science behind the story? (I know I am )

I liked how the author described/explained the science behind Alex's power.

As a writer, I understand why authors gloss over the science sometimes: it may not be the point of the story they want to focus on, they may not have ironed out that part yet, or they may not want to lock themselves in to an explanation that may either be wrong or changed in future books. It may seem lazy, but sometimes the explanation is not where the story is.

As a reader, I like science fiction, but I like my sci-fi to be heavier on the story rather than the science. That is not to say I don't enjoy learning while reading, but sometimes if the book has too much science explanation I skim over it.

I totally understand what you mean Christina, I think I just want enough science in the book to help me understand how key theories came about in the story. It doesn't even have to be correct but I prefer an effort be done instead of the author saying that I won't be able to understand the science so he skips explaining.

I don't like the heavy ones. I hate watching blood dripping or scattered all over and lifeless bodies in a laboratory, but I like stories of aliens saving the earth from destruction.

I like when the science is included to an extent. I don't like extensive explanations with terminology that I can't understand. I just want the fiction to make a little bit of sense. A brief but helpful answer as to how things work in the book is all I need.