((quote: "facts in science fiction are like punctuation in a good book. the misspelling of words and misuse of grammar has nothing to do with entertainment unless you are reading a bathroom joke book.
science fiction's flirtation with futuristic probabilities while maintaining respect for its boundaries and parameters (science fact) is what science fiction is all about.
just as no one believes or respects a writer who misspells words, sloppy facts in science fiction means the writer didn't really care about his material and worse, doesn't respect the intelligence of his reader."
Hmm. So I take it you find that neither James Joyce (famous for breaking grammatical rules) nor Ray Bradbury (never incorporated a single scientific fact in any of his science fiction stories) are serious writers worth respect?))
ray bradbury (who did use scientific facts in his writing) wrote futuristic fantasy, which is lumped into science fiction because its futuristic. think star wars - not an ounce of more than casual fact, but considered sci fi by everyone except the people that made the movie happen (lucas will tell you "myth" and "fantasy").
to me, a science fiction (real sci fi now, not fantasy) needs credibility and respect for some science. for example, an opening scene in Armageddon shows the shuttle exploding with fireballs in space, which simply does not happen. (nor does a nice pretty "shockwave ring" after a nuke goes off).
sci fi (my fave genre) needs credibility, even to a layman with no scienific knowledge whatsoever, in order to be good.
((quote: "facts in science fiction are like punctuation in a good book. the misspelling of words and misuse of grammar has nothing to do with entertainment unless you are reading a bathroom joke book.
science fiction's flirtation with futuristic probabilities while maintaining respect for its boundaries and parameters (science fact) is what science fiction is all about.
just as no one believes or respects a writer who misspells words, sloppy facts in science fiction means the writer didn't really care about his material and worse, doesn't respect the intelligence of his reader."
Hmm. So I take it you find that neither James Joyce (famous for breaking grammatical rules) nor Ray Bradbury (never incorporated a single scientific fact in any of his science fiction stories) are serious writers worth respect?))
ray bradbury (who did use scientific facts in his writing) wrote futuristic fantasy, which is lumped into science fiction because its futuristic. think star wars - not an ounce of more than casual fact, but considered sci fi by everyone except the people that made the movie happen (lucas will tell you "myth" and "fantasy").
to me, a science fiction (real sci fi now, not fantasy) needs credibility and respect for some science. for example, an opening scene in Armageddon shows the shuttle exploding with fireballs in space, which simply does not happen. (nor does a nice pretty "shockwave ring" after a nuke goes off).
sci fi (my fave genre) needs credibility, even to a layman with no scienific knowledge whatsoever, in order to be good.