(urth) Wolfe Vindicated Again!

[Jeff Wilson]

On 12/16/2011 10:51 AM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
> Jeff Wilson wrote (16-12-2011 16:43):
>> On 12/16/2011 9:53 AM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
>>> I think I should say what I think regarding GW's science (and history
>>> and mythology).
>>>
>>> Some apparently believe GW to be some sort of expert physicist and
>>> biologist (and historian, and mythographer), who cannot make any
>>> mistakes or ignore any facts. That's obviously untenable. NOBODY can
>>> know everything Mankind knows today, and never make mistakes, and even
>>
>> However, it is possible for an educated person to stay abreast of general
>> established science, available popular science literature, and the
>> abstracts
>> of past and new developments in their fields of interest. I would hope
>> that
>> the science relevant to a science fiction story they plan to sell would
>> count as within those fields of interest.
>
> Which is different from being an expert in those fields, able to come up
> with ideas the researchers themselves aren't.

I don;t follow you here.

>>> For instance, the Sun's visibility from
>>> Blue may or may not agree with current astrophysics, but our knowledge
>>> of astrophysics is not only seriously in its infancy, but the only way
>>> it will progress significantly is if most of it is wrong [and we come to
>>> be able to observe more of the Universe than it allows us today].
>>
>> Star visibility isn't astrophysics, it's just plain physics. We have very
>> well worked out distances and apparent vs absolute magnitudes of nearby
>> stars and have had for over a century now. This of course does not
>> restrict
>> a writer of fiction, but a writer of believable science fiction needs to
>> have a bit more care with its inherent appeal to the authority of science
>> for suspending disbelief and at least suggest by implication a reason for
>> deviating from science as the astute reader is likely to know it.
>
> I'll have to disagree here, both on the existence of an appeal and the
> restrictions imposed by current knowledge.

Scienceless science fiction? Good luck with that.


 > Otoh, there are cryptic
> references to 'far away' worlds, and reasonable evidence that the
> narrator may not be interpreting facts correctly, so there.

An unreliable narrator is a start, but he has to be shown to be 
unreliable in certain ways that allow the deviation but not in others, 
lest the story lose coherence entirely and dissolve into aimles fabulation.

How can you have science fiction without authoritative science?

-- 
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com
Computational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana
< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >