Science Fiction by Scientists

> He's the only author I can think of who uses academic style citations for hard scifi credibility.

Greg Egan. He writes mostly "one big lie" hard sci-fi, but it is always grounded in hard science or math and often extensively cited.

You might enjoy "Echopraxia", his sequel to "Blindsight."

Robert Forward. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Forward

In the preface to Timemaster (which features time travel and various paradoxical events), he states anyone who wishes to argue against his hard science use of time travel must first have a published article in a peer reviewed journal refuting a particular paper.

I usually agree with other posts here that too much science makes for fiction that I enjoy less. Blindsight was an exception for me. I liked the science ideas and the fiction.

If you like this kind of thing you may also like Darwin's Radio by Greg Bear. He wrote an article about the science ideas here: http://gregbear.com/pages/newbiology.php

I didn't enjoy this one as much, but the hard-science part was done fairly well.

+1 for Blindsight.

However, as a non-native English speaker, I found it to be hard to follow at times.

I very much enjoy anything by Vernor Vinge, who's a computer scientist. He explores the idea of a universe where, in some areas of space, p=np. But it's not a dry read, it's fun stuff.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/77711.A_Fire_Upon_the_De...

fred hoyle wrote a couple of good novels back in the day.

also my favourite anthologist, groff conklin, put together a collection of sf shorts by scientists that is really good: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1179648.Great_Science_Fic...

Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan obviously come to mind, but maybe they're exceptions that prove the rule. I agree that authors working with scientist advisors can produce excellent results. I think that's how Neal Stephenson works a lot of the time.

Have a look at the work of Alistair Reynolds.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alastair_Reynolds

What no love for Knuth's Surreal numbers? https://cs.stanford.edu/~knuth/sn.html

I think if you're not into sci fi, you've discovered what most call the distinction between hard and soft sci fi. Soft sci fi is the usual boring eternal "human condition" story thats been told a million times before, but maybe if I put space ships in as my gimmick I can sell more copies. Hard sci fi is what if this really thought provoking component datasheet or speculative theoretical physics paper were true, maybe I could sell more copies if I put some humans into the story as filler for my gimmick. I'm personally pretty bored with human condition stories; I've read them all or lived thru the experience myself over the decades, but sci fi still delights me with glorious creativity even if the bolted on characters are sometimes one dimensional cardboard cutouts.

The system you suggest of a human story teller deferring to the scientists is usually screwed up by one side or the other; when it isn't, its noteworthy. One example of an English Lit major not screwing up the science would be KSR's famous Mars Trilogy from around the turn of the century. That's a really good trilogy! Proving that at least theoretically your system is possible, having been successfully implemented at least once historically.

I think it really depends on what you're looking for when you read SF.

For me, I usually don't care very much about the characters or excellent prose or a lot of the typical 'literary' qualities of a work. When I go to SF I typically am looking for exploration of interesting ideas, settings, or premises. So I find myself being more forgiving of 'bad fiction' if it's the only place where I can find a particular idea being explored.

The way I see it, "someone who writes stories deferring to actual scientists for review" tends to end up treating science as something to throw onto a story to give it a veneer of legitimacy -- like various fantasy/space-opera shows that have 'science advisers' to supply the technobabble needed to make it sound plausible. Interstellar was probably the best example of this going right that I can think of, with the feedback from scientists playing a big part in how things were portrayed and explored.

In general, though, I think that what makes a lot of good SF interesting is the focus on ideas that may only come from having a writer who obsesses so much about such ideas anyway. It's why I'm frustrated by a lot of recent popular SF TV/movie series that tend to gravitate into the typical "character-driven serial drama" format that everything becomes.

Others have suggested some very good counterexamples. David Brin is another. He's won the Hugo, Nebula and several other awards. Startide Rising is worth a read. You know an author is good when he can turn genetically altered dolphins and apes into compelling, realistic characters.

Primo Levi wrote great science fiction in the literal sense, his 'The Periodic Table' is a memoir around elements of the table.

Greg Egan has a BSc in mathematics, but hard to tell how much he works in science, he's so reclusive.

A lot of legendary science fiction writers were also semi-professional scientists; Clarke was a real astronomer and physicist, and Asimov was a professor of biochemistry (odd, as there's so little biology or chemistry in most of his famous works!) Of course, those exceptional cases: it may be that most scientists are poor writers, most writers are poor scientists, and if you happen to be good at both, you'll be one of the greatest sci-fi writers of all time.

Stating a movie is based on an actual account from witnesses/survivors/etc generally makes it sell better.

I recently read Dragon's Egg - quite thought-provoking and well-written, except for the somewhat clichéd human characters.

I would like to think that I am exceptionally well read in SF... and I have never heard of any of these folks.

They may be great. I dunno.

I was expecting:

Asimov (biochemist), Sagan (physicist), Brin (astrophysics, space science), Forward (physicist), Czerneda (biologist), Watts (biologist), Benford (astrophysicist), Taylor (physics, space science), Brotherton (astrophysicist), Asaro (physics and chemistry), Kondo (astrophysicist), Landis (physics), Rajaniemi (mathematical physics)... those are the ones off the top of my head, I'm certainly missing many.

I can vouch for all of the above authors being able to tell a story.

Revelation Space is excellent! I came here to recommend it.

Chasm City is good but it almost felt like a mediocre action movie. The hero wielding the big guns, flat dialog, an obligatory and passionless sex scene... but the environment and society really make it interesting.

The two main sequels, redemption ark and absolution gap. Especially absolution gap.

Yes, Alastair Reynolds is excellent.