Can we love science too much?

I love science.

In case you hadn’t realised after reading Falling (because of course everyone who reads this blog has, including me… actually, limited to me), it started out as a scary ghost story, and as it evolved it also became an investigation into exactly why and how ghosts can exist according to scientific disciplines from psychology to electromagnetism and everything in between.

I’m actually in the midst of writing a new novel at the moment, which will no doubt rise to and meet the acclaim Falling has enjoyed (ie none). It’s about a young woman who stumbles on a book she suspects might prove one of the oldest theories in physics.

It wasn’t intended to be about physics – the first draft was just the story of a young scientist and her search for an old man (who might not even be around anymore) to ask him for notes or experimental proof that explains a mystery in nature not even Einstein could solve.

It’s about her struggles trying to live her life while being consumed with her search, the connections (romantic, professional and otherwise) she makes on the way and the mess she makes of her life letting the search take over so completely.

But in rewriting it, I’d read and digested so much about the area contained in the novel (field theory) that I’ve come up with theories of my own about how it might possibly work in order to underpin the narrative and ensure the turns in the plot make narrative sense – just like I did about ghosts in Falling.

Here’s the problem; not everyone loves science. I was as careful in Improve Your Bowls (the name of the new book) as I was in Falling to not make the stories about the scientific theories and mysteries themselves. They were only intended to be connective tissue for what characters do and find out.

But I pursued those trains of thought out of self interest. Ask any author and they’ll tell you to write the book you want to read. Don’t chase trends or try to engineer success by pandering to the market. It’ll be dishonest and it’ll come through in the writing. Write about what interests you as a reader and what you think will be cool.

Still, there are trends and market movements and if you get too niche you risk cutting yourself off from them by getting too esoteric, literary or scientific if you’d rather appeal to a mass audience. In infusing stories with so much science – even trying to make sure it’s narrative bedrock rather than visible character action or dialogue – have I done that?

But once again, there are writers who have enjoyed/are enjoying great success while having and effectively conveying a deep knowledge of science. Michael Crichton. Neal Stephenson. Ursula K Le Guin. Arthur C Clarke. PD James. David Brin. Mary Shelley. HG Wells. Margaret Atwood. Frank Herbert. The 20th century is replete with them.

It might be a moot point in an era where you have more chance of being struck by lightning than being a superstar author regardless of your talent. But I still wrestle with it.

By the way, I’m taking advance orders for Improve Your Bowls now. As in, if you want to buy it, email me.

Or just email me. I’ll probably send it to you for free.