hirai@swatsun.UUCP (10/17/87)
In article <172@yetti.UUCP> oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) writes: > > technical ones. Some of the CyberP authors do well, and but I am > convinced that many authors who will inevitably jump into this > category know zip all about computer science/technology (you need to > know a great deal to extrapolate properly) and its possible > sociological impact. It would be sad to see the field degenerate into > Techno-Nonsense, or CyberFantasy. I had a conversation with a fellow SF enthusiast about the effect of knowing something about computer may have on an author's willingness to write extrapolative fiction about computer technology. We obvserved (but didn't conclude as such) that quite a few authors who write about the future in which the development of computer techonology is involved in at least a moderate amount don't know much about computers at all. I have heard (unsubstantiated) that Gibson knows didley-squat about computers. I suspect that some of the well-received CyperPunk novelists also are not really familiar with the field of computer science. So why do these people write about computers in the future? Also, why aren't there many more SF authors who are familiar with computer technology and who write about computers in their stories? I know of some but not many. James P. Hogan worked for DEC (I think) but most of his novels (except _Two Faces of Tomorrow_) don't deal heavily with computers or don't extrapolate much into the future of computer technology. What we tentatively supposed was that people outside the field of computers (people unlike us :-) ) are fascinated with all the glitz and fanfare that accompanies the coverage of the field of computers in the general media. They cannot readily see the limitations and theoretical questions that face those of us who study the field. This may be why non-computer authors like to write about the "wow gosh" computer developments, while hardcore hackers and CS professors may be more reluctant to do so. Also, imagine being afraid of getting flamed for all the technical flaws in a SF novel if you're a CS professor and you wrote about computers! :-) Hey, Gibson's image of an AI is a bit hard to take in if you examine it bery bery closely. It's more in the line of the popular image of an AI being a smart living computer that's had to figure out, with a pesonalitiy all it's own, etc. His novels are bery interesting to read I heartedly admit, but why can't real CS people write Cyberpunk novels? Corrections and comments are eagerly awaited! (Hmmm, I should be doing my CS homework instead of reading news...) -AG Hirai -- Eiji "A.G." Hirai @ Swarthmore College, Swarthmore PA 19081 | Tel. 215-543-9855 UUCP: {seismo, rutgers, ihnp4}!bpa!swatsun!hirai | "All Cretans are liars." ARPA: cbmvax!swatsun!hirai@rutgers.rutgers.edu | -Epimenides Bitnet: vu-vlsi!swatsun!hirai@psuvax1.bitnet | of Cnossus, Crete
brothers@paul.rutgers.edu.UUCP (10/17/87)
Unfortunately, most of the writers who DO know about computers are
really not such good writers (Vernor Vinge, Jerry Pornelle, for
example)*. Oh, they're competent at connecting sentences, but not in
Gibson's class. Hogan, BTW, as I recall, was a DEC salesman. Not to
detract from his abilities, but we all know computer salesman, right?
I didn't really find Neuromancer and Count Zero's use of computers
that far-fetched. Of course AI today has very little to do
with intelligent machines, but if there WERE intelligent machines,
no doubt we would call them AI's. Whether or not Gibson really
has deep knowledge of computers, I found it laudable that he has
obviously done a lot of research on his own into random bits
of esoterica such as the history of net.
*"Raise the flame-retardant shields, Mr. Spock."
--
Laurence R. Brothers
brothers@paul.rutgers.edu
{anywhere}!rutgers!paul.rutgers.edu!brothers
"...and I don't know why I'm here, or how I came..."