Manny's Reviews > Tau Zero

Add to that the idea that they are able to circle around the galaxy. If they are moving along the x axis at .8 c, and then curve so they are moving along the y axis, they must have shed their x axis velocity. There are no banked curves in space, although a tight turn around a black hole might do (thank you, Larry Niven)

Another good point! How this book manages to pass for hard science fiction is something that has always baffled me.

It's hard science fiction if there are bolts on the cover. Duh!

... Or if it name-drops terms from high school physics textbooks or PBS's Nova. No matter how ludicrous or foolish the explanations, that's what makes it hard sci-fi.

I have very little patience for these ambiguous terms thrown around by critics & publishers. The terms are great for selling books but they often do little more than obscure the story for readers. To address your point, though, when assumptions made by espionage and fantastic fiction writers aren't based on reality, it really makes my readerly suspension of disbelief hard to sustain. This doesn't necessarily kill a good story, though. Ex. Tana French's "The Likeness" has one of the most ridiculous plots, but it's really fun, nonetheless. Same goes for Vonnegut and even some of Gillian Flynn's stuff. Btw, love reading your reviews.

David wrote: "It's hard science fiction if there are bolts on the cover. Duh!"

Thank you David, and I approve of your definition :)

It is indeed about the suspension of disbelief. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't, and it can be hard to say what makes the difference. When hard SF fails, it seems to me that it can often be because the main point the author wants to make is some version of "Oh wow, this scientific phenomenon which I've dramatized here is so amazing!" If the phenomenon in question is real, the reader can be left suitably awestruck. If, on the other hand, the phenomenon only reflects the author's poor understanding of science, they will just be annoyed.

Some authors, like Vonnegut and Douglas Adams, don't use science except as an amusing backdrop for their stories. Since it isn't the point, I don't nitpick them any more than I nitpick the history in Shakespeare or Dumas. But I'm afraid Andersen came down on the wrong side of the line here. He thought he'd tell us an amazing story about relativity theory, which he unfortunately didn't understand, and then he tried to hedge his bets by adding some human intrigue. I felt insulted.

An even worse example is Niven's Neutron Star, which I was complaining about just the other day...

I was hoping you'd read this. My grasp of Relativity (special or otherwise) is such that I can easily imagine myself integrating fictional inaccuracies as scientific fact, and I just can't risk it!

It's amazing how many SF writers have got relativity wrong. Someone should do an anthology, in fact...

Poul Anderson doesn't understand Special Relativity - well, that makes two of us. I'm enjoying his novel so far, on the lookout for all the aesthetic properties.

It's scary that we still haven't made the physical discoveries of a century ago part of our standard mental furniture, but maybe that's just the way things happen. I understand that it took a while for the world to digest Newton.

We need to be quicker about learning to find climate science intuitive.

BTW, for everyone who hasn't already found out for themselves, there's a straightforward test for what constitutes hard science-fiction. If it's by Greg Egan, it's hard, and if it isn't by Greg Egan, it isn't hard. Simple as that.

Thanks for the heads-up - next on my hard sf list is Greg Egan, for sure. BTW - I just did post my review of Tau Zero. If anybody asks me questions about the science behind the story, I trust you will not mind if I refer them to you and your review.

Manny I was glad to read your review. Anderson has a degree in physics (apparently), whereas I do not, so I doubted myself for some time and had to check thoroughly. But my instinct, I eventually determined, was correct; there are some very awkward misunderstandings of relativity in this book, and you're absolutely correct that they really ruin it. Quite aside from that, as I point out in my own review, is that the book is trash anyway. I couldn't find a single redeeming quality.

Thank you Huw! I didn't know that Anderson had a degree in physics; all I can say is that I hope none of his teachers ever read this book.

Haha, so on the money with that Egan joke. I'd add KSR too, and some Stephenson.

I'm a purist. Just Egan.

Kee-ryst, it's science fiction, not science fact, people.

Rob wrote: "Add to that the idea that they are able to circle around the galaxy. If they are moving along the x axis at .8 c, and then curve so they are moving along the y axis, they must have shed their x axi..."
If the cyclic universe was toroidal, space time itself could wrap around on itself like magnetic lines continuously converging into the original x-axis of the universal singularity as a big crunch, expelling new universe from the opposite side as a constant white-hole stream as opposed to a big-bang.

If a book is marketed as fiction, it is inappropriate to criticise it for errors of fact.

Actually, a spacecraft can accelerate indefinitely, but it can never exceed c when observed by a stationary observer. That's where the relativity comes in. Otherwise, Newton's third law of motion would be violated.