Skip to main content

Fiction with science that isn't science fiction

The title of this post sounds like a tongue twister, but that's not the intention. I've just read a novel with science at its heart that claims not to be science fiction. It's Experimental Heart by Jennifer Rohn.

It's kind of a romance, with a dark subplot, taking place in a laboratory setting. There's lots of realistic sounding science, and as far as I can gather (never having been a practising scientist) a strong sense of the atmosphere in a real lab. (If this is the case, I'd hate to work in a lab as they always seem to have a CD on, and I can't concentrate with music playing.)

It was a delight, as is often the case when I read a book of a kind I wouldn't normally pick up. Although to begin with not much happens, it's written well enough that you are sucked into the story and want to know more. Later on, things get positively page turning as the plot thickens.

But what of Lab Lit, the term Dr Rohn gives to this style of book? Does it work as a genre? I didn't find the quite heavy dose of scientific content to the story a problem, even though once or twice I lost track of the different biological labels. (To be fair, Richard Feynman complained of the same problem with biology, so I'm in distinguished company.) Rather it enriched it.

The only problem I had with the scientific content is that it was almost too real. In normal science fiction, I just assume all the science is made up. Here, because it was so close to reality, I wanted to know which bits were real and which were fictional constructs. It would have been really nice to have had a postscript for geeky readers that made it clear which bits were real science.

The other small problem I have is with the division between lab lit and science fiction. As a long time science fiction fan, I know that quality science fiction (as opposed to sci-fi) isn't necessarily about spaceships and monsters - it's about how real human beings react in the face of some difference from normal life that comes out of science, and as such I would humbly suggest that lab lit is a sub-genre of science fiction.

Whether or not you agree - I'm sure Jenny Rohn wouldn't! - what is certain is that this is a fascinating, very readable novel. Knowing the author is American, it was interesting to compare it with Elizabeth George's detective novels featuring Inspector Lynley. In those, the American author always manages to get something not quite right about the UK, but Dr Rohn kept it spot on. What can I say? Get a copy!
Labels:

Comments

  1. Bob O'Hara17 December 2008 at 10:19

    Where I did my PhD they didn't have a CD on, they had Radio 1 all day. In my more subversive moments when I was cutting up leaves, I would change it to Radio 3.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg17 December 2008 at 11:52

    It doesn't matter what style, Bob, I just can't do anything more than pure mechanical work (gardening, say) with music on. It would drive me bananas!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Judith Fitzgerald18 December 2008 at 02:59

    Thank you for this review, BC; now, I want to read JR's book even more. Love the title, especially, already, it's so . . . appropriate; and, speaking of appropriacity, while I tippy-tap, I listen to your voice and manage to put a sentence together without bonkeritis; so, I must add, with all due respect, I can stand anything in the background while writing, working, walking, talking, and chewing food for thoughts. HOWEVER, when I am in the middle of the doing *it*? I cannot bear music nor anything in the background, not even the dog snuffling. Why? Because, as McLuhan said, listening to radio, CDs, et so forthia requires more inolvement than watching TV (which I don't own) and, invariably, when I am having *fun*, I can't concentrate on the act under hand if I am hearing something engaging (unless it's sweet beggings in my ear).

    That said, as the poet-in-residence at Books, Inq., I hereby declare your wonderful "N-N-Night Before Christmas" a group masterpiece. None genuine with this seal of official approval. Thank you all for making this the highlight of one Canuck's festive season. I laughed, tears streamed, I smile through dreams, now (and, it's all your fault).

    Salut!
    --
    http://booksinq.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brian Clegg18 December 2008 at 10:46

    Thanks, Judith, you are very kind (and I do wholeheartedly recommend Jenny's book).

    For anyone who missed 'Twas the night before Christmas/and all through the lab' see http://network.nature.com/people/brianclegg/blog/2008/12/10/get-poetical-now for the gory details of a poem of sorts coming together in a (mostly) democratic fashion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Richard Wintle18 December 2008 at 18:08

    Just visiting via Nature Network... thanks for the review. I'd been thinking of picking up Jennifer's book (to be polite) and am now thinking of it more (since you've reviewed it favourably).

    Blogger's verification word for this comment is 'astroarb', which seems appropriate for your blog somehow. I think.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Frances18 December 2008 at 19:16

    Brian,
    What a terrific review. I want to check this book out. As for the music in the background - can't do it. I have a tendency to dance, or just boogy in my chair when I hear good music. It works when I paint, but not when I write. ;-D

    Frances Drake

    Writing Science Fiction Romance
    Real Love in a Real Future
    http://frances-writes.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  7. laurasdad7 May 2009 at 21:31

    I wish you'd put your review on Librarything and sign up as an LT author.
    You know I'm as keen on that site as I am on yours so some crossover is what creativity is all about - the linking of two previously unlinked items or thoughts....

    ReplyDelete
  8. Brian Clegg8 May 2009 at 09:58

    I have toyed with it - I signed up ages ago and then forgot about it. Having a quick look now, I have a message from LT encouraging me to be an LT author, but apparently I have to list 50 books before I can do this. It's a bit of a faff!

    If I get some time, I'll try to get it done.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more