McAnally's (The Community Pub) > Author Craft
Research Blues
Blaze:
If you message me with your email I will forward it to him and ask him if he would contact you directly.
He was my hubby's dorm mate at college long long ago! We stay in touch, and he is such a great guy. Brilliant, too.
Yeratel:
--- Quote from: eviladam on May 25, 2007, 05:44:15 AM ---I'm affraid I just don't understand qauntum mechanics, and physics and that kind of thing. I can say things that sound smart like string theory, and e=mc sqaured, but I probablly sound like an idiot.
--- End quote ---
Other than Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke, the vast majority of science fiction writers have little or no science background. The truth is, it's the characters and plot that make good science fiction, the pseudo-scientific plot elements are just things the characters use: positronic brains, neural implants, trans-warp drives, time travel portals, "The Three Laws of Robotics", etc. As long as the technology is consistent within the story world you create, it's fine. I don't expect Steven Hawking ever read a piece of science fiction and said to himself, "Why didn't I think of that!"
the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh:
--- Quote from: Yeratel on May 25, 2007, 02:52:47 PM ---The truth is, it's the characters and plot that make good science fiction, the pseudo-scientific plot elements are just things the characters use: positronic brains, neural implants, trans-warp drives, time travel portals, "The Three Laws of Robotics", etc. As long as the technology is consistent within the story world you create, it's fine. I don't expect Steven Hawking ever read a piece of science fiction and said to himself, "Why didn't I think of that!"
--- End quote ---
I disagree, deeply and profoundly.
Yes, you need good characters, but if good characters are all it takes to tell your story, then it does not need to be SF. Good SF also needs ideas, the best of it are things that could not happen in a contemporary mundane setting and human reactions that also could not happen. Sometimes even the plots could not happen.
I would offer as recentish examples Ted Chiang's collection Stories of Your Life and Others, most of Greg Egan's work in particular the collection Axiomatic and the novels Permutation City and Diaspora, and Charles Stross' Accelerando. All of whom are scientifically literate.
Blaze:
If it doesn't have science in it, it is space opera or fantasy. Even if the science is outdated, it has to have sciencein order to be science fiction.
Personally, I can't stand authors who insult me by not doing their homework. Even movies that have what I call "idiot plots" turn me off. (Unless they are designed that way in order to be hilarious.) If I can think of a solution before the so called scientists in the story, or a better solution, I figure the author did think it through enough.
redneckwitch18:
*singing* Ohhh, I got them researching blues... can't find nothing but q's...
Um, sorry bout that. Got a lil' carried away. I have such a hard time with my research because my mind finds something interesting and goes off on a tangent. Which means I don't get back to my original research until hours later when I'm tired and blurry-eyed.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version