gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) (03/16/86)
In article <12365@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> gsmith@brahms.UUCP (Gene Ward Smith) writes: >In article <8603092000.AA25082@s1-b.arpa> lcc.todd@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU (Todd Johnson) writes: >> There's been a lot of trashing of science fiction on this net. I >>don't like it. Arthur Clarke is a VIP at NASA. So is Robert A. Heinlein, >>Larry Niven , Isaac Asimov and who knows else. Why? Because among other >>things they explored the possible outcomes of numerous (including some >>as yet unplanned) space missions. That's why Heinlein was required reading >>for the Apollo astronauts. The majority of people who write science fiction >>KNOW what they're talking about or have contact with people who are more than >>willing to supply them with copious detail. For people on this net who >>haven't even tried science fiction is suggest "RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA" by >>Arthur C. Clarke. > Speaking as one who has been reading sci-fi since starting on Lucky Starr >at a very tender age, I have to say that the vast majority of sci-fi authors >*do not* know what they are talking about. The four authors quoted are better >than most (and Clarke sometimes even writes well) but Heinlein & Niven have >plenty of BS, and most sci-fi authors much more. I *like* sci-fi a lot, but >I refuse to fool myself into thinking that it is much good either as science >or as literature. Sometimes the science is pretty good (Rama or Black Cloud) >sometimes the literature is good but the science awful (C.S. Lewis). Often >both are bad; sometimes the literary merit is less than nil but the science >purports to be good, and isn't (R.L. Forward: read my review in net.sf-lovers/ >net.math). In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].851856.860315.KFL> KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes: > Your [i.e., my] ignorance is obvious from your calling SF by that despicable >term. ["sci-fi"] No other comment is necessary. Your ignorance of both literary criticism and the most elementary standards of logic and argument is shown by your remark that "No other comment is necessary". For your information, I have been reading SF (at your insistence) for 30 years. I have met a number of SF authors. (Berkeley is a good place to do that; I don't need to go to conferences or belong to Chowder societies). A famous SF author once took me to dinner, since she thought I might be a useful character study for her next book. A film director famous for his SF films (among others) was once a pretty close friend. We had many long talks about SF, films, and SF in films. I have some knowledge of the SF cult, and in particular am aware that people object strongly to certain terms. Since I think this is stupid, I don't pay much attention. Tough noogie. What are YOUR oh-so-wonderful credentials? Every time I post to this newsgroup, someone thinks I am an ignoramus. The case has yet to be proven, either about astronomy or SF. First you criticize my knowledge of SF, then you write your own: In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].851959.860315.KFL> KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes: > Once we colonize space and make extensive use of the resources of >the solar system, we won't have to choose. We will be able to have a >trillion trillionaires. >population, I forsee an economy where the major occupations are >writer, programmer, philosopher, scientist, architect, artist, >entertainer, musician, etc.. All of these have nearly constant cost And I will continue to call SF sci-fi whenever I feel like it. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 Imagine what the world would be like if football was a worthy ritual performed in stadiums but mathematics was a misunderstood activity ignored by almost all.