Re: Arthur C Clarke, RIP

Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> Peter Knutsen <peter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in news:47e0e679$0$15885
>>Mine is that the writer must be science-literate. Even if he writes 
>>something that isn't hard science, he has to be able to know when he's 
>>being good and when he's being naughty.
> 
> This is a terrible definition for several reasons. One is that it
defines 
> science fiction in terms of the author, not the material. One is left to


That is one of the more "interesting" aspects of my definition, true.

> wonder why Primo Levi or C. P. Snow were not science fiction authors.
The 

They may well be. Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett obviously are, 
according to my definition, even though none of them have written any 
actual science fiction. The point is that they *could* have, if they 
wanted to. Unlike Bradbury. If you put a gun to his head and said "write 
some science fiction or else...", he's just shrug and wait for you to 
pull the trigger.

> other is that all too often, scientists don't know when they are being 
> naughty. Some of the most egregious scientific blunders in science
fiction 

Well, then they fall outside of my definition.

> have been perpetrated by scientists. Another thing scientists sometimes
do is 
> grossly underestimate how naughty they are being.

Degree of naughtiness is irrelevant to my definition. Behavior is viewed 
as binary: Naughty or not naughty. Some of my favourite science fiction 
authors are *extremely* naughty, but it is im****tant for me that my 
definition does not exclude them.

-- 
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org