Submitted by DaveK on Fri, 11/30/2012 - 6:07pm

Guest (not verified)

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 9:12pm

There's hard SF and soft SF and then there's everything in between. I tried watching Revolution but couldn't get through an episode. In other news, congratulations on meeting and beating your November W1S1 goals!



Guest (not verified)

Sun, 12/02/2012 - 2:39am

 I agree, there are different kinds of SF. I much prefer the character-oriented soft SF, over hard SF. But with that, I would like to see a world that "works", where stuff isn't random, but makes sense within the logic of the world. 

Also, congrats on meeting your W1S1 goal!


Guest (not verified)

Mon, 12/03/2012 - 5:16am

I'm with defcon--I can accept all kinds of weird premises, if there's internal logic to it. I think it's John Scalzi who calls this kind of thing the 'Flying Snowman' problem--after a children's story his wife read where a snowman came to life. It walked, talked and drank hot soup, which she was fine with, but when it started flying, she was thrown out of the story--which I can see, because it's one thing to say 'a snowman can have human abilities' -- but when you also give it superpowers, it's a step too far :-)

Congrats on meeting your W1S1 goals for November!

Now what does that title mean to you? Do you take it as a possible true headline? Do you think it is a mix up of cause and effect by some clueless reporter? Is it a straw man set up by some GW skeptic? But this is a blog about writing and SF writing in particular. With that in mind maybe you have concluded that this will be a post about the terrible science that happens in many SF shows. I'm thinking in particular about Revolution. In that show electricity is somehow disabled. Does lighting still happen? How about nerve impulses? Do magnets still work? The earth's field in particular. I'm sorry I just can't suspend disbelief enough to accept the shows premise.

I'm well trained in science and engineering so when I read or see something that violates the laws of physics I tend to get annoyed. Not as much as some, I realize that we (humans) don't know all that much about the workings of the universe but somethings we do know well. Now I should simply say – that's fantasy and move on. Does the line between fantasy and science fiction depend on the readers training? Or does the line depend on the condition of science and engineering when the work was created?

Many like to analyze stories and movies and such to find the errors in the science. I think it is much more fun to try to come up with explanations for the events. Actually that is the scientific method: find an explanation for the currently unexplainable. As I said I was well trained.

As for my position on global warming, I don't think that belongs in a writing blog. It really torques me when bloggers bring their politics into non-political blogs. I won't go there but you should be able to infer it from the second paragraph.

Usually I post here once a month. I don't follow up on comments to my postings but if you want a response let me know. I would be happy to start a conversation.