Do you like Hard Science in your thrillers? > Likes and Comments

My background is in science, engineering, and analytics. I would suspect I would tend to write harder science than most authors. But I try to tone it down, and I know I might lose folks if I get too deep in the science.

What do you think? What do you like? If you are reading a thriller that contains science, do you want 'hard science'?

I always put a glossary of terms in the back of my books. Plus, I use the X-ray feature in my eBooks to help people understand scientific terms as they read.

I am really interested in your feedback as dedicated thriller readers.

Lee wrote: "My background is in science, engineering, and analytics. I would suspect I would tend to write harder science than most authors. But I try to tone it down, and I know I might lose folks if I get to..."
I don't mind some science, but not sure about hard science. If it is any more complicated than Astrophysics for People in a Hurry , I might pass.

Thanks Thomas. If you can’t relate to some of the science, then you can’t enjoy the book.

Lee wrote: "Thanks Thomas. If you can’t relate to some of the science, then you can’t enjoy the book."
You're welcome. Science was a struggle for me in college. I liked
Astrophysics for People in a Hurry
See
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Lee wrote: "My background is in science, engineering, and analytics. I would suspect I would tend to write harder science than most authors. But I try to tone it down, and I know I might lose folks if I get to..."

I think it partly depends what type of book you're writing Lee. A lot of SF readers enjoy some hard, real science in their books, but I think for thrillers, concepts need to be easily explained and not dominate the plot with too much fine detail. When there is too much explanation readers often turn off if they're there for the mystery - and will say so in their reviews. I'm a scientist and for me it's important ant that the science is sound and not flaky!

I like that you use X-rays to explain terms as that gives people the choice of how deep they want to understand the concepts

Carolyn wrote: "Lee wrote: "My background is in science, engineering, and analytics. I would suspect I would tend to write harder science than most authors. But I try to tone it down, and I know I might lose folks..."

Thanks for the feedback, Carolyn. I hope others weigh in.

For thrillers, I like science best when it gives the characters harder choices rather than turning into a lesson. The detail needs to feel sound enough that I trust the danger, but not so dense that it stops the pressure. A glossary or X-Ray note seems like a good compromise because readers who want more can go deeper without slowing the scene for everyone.

Thanks, Vera. It is a balancing act for sure. I have science in both of my books. As you read them, please let me know how I described the science. I know readers will be spread out all across the 'science knowledge spectrum'. I suggest reading The Deep Surge first and see how I did.

That range is exactly why reader-control tools help. I do not need every technical layer explained in the main scene, but I do want enough accuracy that the stakes feel earned. If the glossary or X-Ray material sits outside the momentum, it lets the story keep pressure while still respecting readers who enjoy the deeper layer.

I do like hard science. The glossary and the X-ray helped a lot in The Deep Surge. I was able to keep up, I think. You will be surprised at how much Ben Franklin learns about modern science. He is a quick study. He was very curious about how an airplane worked.

It very much depends on how it fits with the book.

Often some authors get carried away, spending so much detail that you forget the story.

It has to fit the story well, part of the story, and be easy for the reader to understand.

Some thrillers I have read, where authors spend 3 to 4 pages telling you about a gun the assassin is going to use !!

Sean wrote: "It very much depends on how it fits with the book.

Often, some authors get carried away, spending so much detail that you forget the story.

It has to fit the story well, part of the story, and be ..."

I am afraid I may go the other direction. Put out a science term and forget to define it properly. Then the reader says.. "What the heck does that mean"

Maybe, a glossary of short scientific explanations would work for some books, where you don't want to disrupt the flow of the plot with too many facts and details. Then it's up to the reader if they want to check it out or not.

I enjoy realism when it serves the story. In my case, I write around forensic investigations, so I try to use authentic procedures and documentary evidence without overwhelming the reader with technical details. I think accuracy creates tension when it's integrated naturally into the story.

Daniel, that is exactly the balance I look for. Procedural detail feels most convincing when it changes the options available to someone, rather than pausing the story to prove how much research was done. Documentary evidence can make a discovery feel earned.

Good thoughts Vera and Daniel. Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

Lee wrote: "My background is in science, engineering, and analytics. I would suspect I would tend to write harder science than most authors. But I try to tone it down, and I know I might lose folks if I get to..."

Your post is very interesting. I think science can play an important role in a thriller, especially in crime stories, where scientific processes can show how an investigation is solved piece by piece. Technology can also play an important role in crimes, and digital forensics can potentially add suspense and creativity to a thriller.

Personally, I have not studied digital forensics yet, but I am interested in the subject and plan to begin studying it in January. When I write about technology and crime, I try to avoid making the technical aspects too complicated so that readers who are unfamiliar with the subject can follow the story without becoming confused. I think the science should support the story and create suspense rather than take over the story.

I love science in thrillers; and I really appreciate authors who take the time at the end to explain what is real science today and what is science fiction (but may be real science tomorrow). Authors like James Rollins, Greig Beck, and even the late Clive Cussler come to mind.

Great question.

I appreciate a bit of hard science in a story to shore up a central plot point, but for me it ultimately needs to be a 'high concept' explanation that I can carry in my head through the rest of the book. If there are too many details to remember in order to keep up with the storyline, your book is in danger of being DNF'd by me.

The “carry it in your head” test is a useful line between science that creates suspense and science that becomes homework. A strong high-concept explanation can make later complications feel earned without asking the reader to keep a glossary beside the plot. Do you find diagrams or brief chapter-openers helpful, or do they usually signal that the story is already overexplaining?

Vera wrote: "The “carry it in your head” test is a useful line between science that creates suspense and science that becomes homework. A strong high-concept explanation can make later complications feel earned..."

Science was never my strong suit. So if we're into diagrams or being spoon-fed bits and pieces at the beginning of every chapter, this is not the book for me.

Hunter wrote: "I love science in thrillers; and I really appreciate authors who take the time at the end to explain what is real science today and what is science fiction (but may be real science tomorrow). Autho..."

Yes, I do a lot of that in all my books.

Mike the Magnificient wrote: "Great question.

I appreciate a bit of hard science in a story to shore up a central plot point, but for me it ultimately needs to be a 'high concept' explanation that I can carry in my head throu..."

That is hard for me to comment on since I wrote it and follow everything. I tried not to make the science too complex. Everyone's background is different, so I understand your comment.

A writer’s own fluency is the hardest complexity test because every step already feels connected from inside the work. The useful outside question may be whether a reader can carry one governing idea through the plot without remembering every technical explanation.

Lee, I’ve just had a practical example of why an outside reader matters. One of my beta readers spotted a problem with the way a paralytic worked in a scene and explained why it wasn’t credible as written. I’d been too close to the manuscript to see it, but once it was pointed out, I was able to fix it.

For me, that’s the balance: the science shouldn’t overpower the story, but it must be credible enough that an informed reader isn’t pulled out of it.

Steven wrote: "Lee, I’ve just had a practical example of why an outside reader matters. One of my beta readers spotted a problem with the way a paralytic worked in a scene and explained why it wasn’t credible as ..."

I get it. Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees. But you have to find the right beta reader. Not everyone would have had the knowledge to spot that.

Vera wrote: "A writer’s own fluency is the hardest complexity test because every step already feels connected from inside the work. The useful outside question may be whether a reader can carry one governing id..."

If I understand you, I agree. The plot should be followable without the science overwhelming it. The science should be interesting and contribute to the understanding of the plot. Otherwise, why have it?

Exactly. Scientific detail earns its place when it changes what the reader understands about the danger, the choices, or the solution. If removing an explanation leaves the plot unchanged, the detail may be accurate but still be structurally unnecessary.

I have a science background, so I don't mind being faced with some science in the fiction I read. But as is the case with any factual background forming part of the text, I prefer that the author deliver it on an as needed, just in time basis. I don't want to have to jump to a glossary of defined terms, and like most readers, I get bored when faced with lengthy info dumps. It's not necessarily easy to pull off, but the skill the author needs to have is in finding the right way to deliver the science background in a way that supports the story without detracting from it.

BookMark888 wrote: "I have a science background, so I don't mind being faced with some science in the fiction I read. But as is the case with any factual background forming part of the text, I prefer that the author d..."

Thanks. I agree. But, as an author, you might pull it off for one reader but not for another. I hope everyone reads the story from beginning to end and doesn't jump to conclusions. Sometimes, and I do this, some things get tied up in a bow in the end.

This is such a great discussion. My own books lean into research-lab and covert-program science, and I've found the same thing works best: give readers just enough for the danger to feel real, then get out of the way and let the tension do the work. The moment an explanation stops changing what the character can do next, it's probably better cut.

Miles wrote: "This is such a great discussion. My own books lean into research-lab and covert-program science, and I've found the same thing works best: give readers just enough for the danger to feel real, then..."

Yes Miles. For sure. We do the best we can do. I wish I could get more readers to read my book The Deep Surge and see how I did. Did I include too much science? Did I explain the science at the right level for most readers? Did you get enough thrills? Etc.

Hard science works for me when it changes the choices available to the characters. I want enough detail to believe the danger and understand the consequences, but once the explanation stops affecting the story, it starts slowing the thriller down. Accuracy matters; a lecture doesn’t.

Steven wrote: "Hard science works for me when it changes the choices available to the characters. I want enough detail to believe the danger and understand the consequences, but once the explanation stops affecti..."

Excellent qualification.

Steven wrote: "Hard science works for me when it changes the choices available to the characters. I want enough detail to believe the danger and understand the consequences, but once the explanation stops affecti..."

I also think there's a learning perspective. I try to teach readers some scientific concepts. Not a lecture, just a few important tidbits. I hope they'll say, "That's cool."

Agreed. A well-chosen detail can give the reader that “that’s cool” moment without turning the story into a lecture. It earns its place twice if it also changes the danger or the character’s next decision.