Wolfe Vindicated Again!

António Pedro Marques · 16 Dec 2011, 18:49 · from 2011-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gUGVkcm8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:49:00 +0000
Subject: (urth) Wolfe Vindicated Again!
In-Reply-To: <4EEB80FA.40305 at clueland.com>
References: <CAJ8=rti-8wG+pqEwmcTbNejRojomnZOeV2N2DmEidy5Mpu_Pdg at mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEB6975.8010208 at gmail.com> <4EEB7546.3000308 at clueland.com>
	<4EEB7709.3090400 at gmail.com> <4EEB80FA.40305 at clueland.com>
Message-ID: <4EEB929C.6070104 at gmail.com>

Jeff Wilson wrote (16-12-2011 17:33):
> On 12/16/2011 10:51 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
>> Jeff Wilson wrote (16-12-2011 16:43):
>>> On 12/16/2011 9:53 AM, Ant?nio 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.

You don't? Some people think that not only an sf writer has to know 
everything there is to know about the plausibility of time travel and green 
men, but also be able to explain to an unlimited degree of precision how 
those things are to come about.

>>>> 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.

What's 'scienceless science fiction' got to do with what I wrote?
What appeal to the authority of science to suspend disbelief is there in the 
narrator's assessment of the position of the Red Sun in his night sky?
With daily news about galaxies that look older than possible, neutrinos that 
may or may not travel ftl and 'habitable' planets 600ly away which nobody 
had seen before, what's a red dot in the sky?

>> 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?

What's authoritative science? Where is it in sf?

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net