Re: Arthur C Clarke, RIP

Gene Ward Smith <gene@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Peter Knutsen <peter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in news:47e0e679$0$15885
>$edfadb0f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> 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 
>wonder why Primo Levi or C. P. Snow were not science fiction authors. The

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

It seems I must agree with Gene.  This definition is a truly bad one.
Awful.  Like, terrible.

How the heck do you define "science-literate"?  Is being a physicist
enough even if you know garbage about biology?  How about being a
biologist but not knowing your maths?  Do you have to be one of those
jack of all trades and master of many types like Asimov?

So there are, like, seven science fiction authors ever in your world?
Asimov, Clarke, Hal Clement... uh... David Brin knows physics but does
that count?

Your definition would seem to exclude C.J. Cherryh, Lois Bujold, David
Weber, Peter Hamilton, William Gibson, Vernor Vinge (sure he knows
computer science but so what?), Dan Simmons, George R. R. Martin,
Andre Norton, C.S. Friedman, Iain Banks, Ken MacLeod, Charlie Stross,
Bradbury, Williamson, Vance, Zelazny, Pohl... geez

What is the point of a definition of science fiction that excludes
Iain Banks, Jack Vance, and C.J. Cherryh?  Just to be contrary?

-David