1/ Many people have described my novels as "hard science fiction", which I find slightly odd. I fudged things, like energy storage density in gyroscopic batteries, etc. I started out having dates in the novel, but removed them because was too lazy to check all the orbits.
-
-
5/ My take: Once upon a time science fiction had stories based on - and, please stay with me here, this is tricky - "science". Which is why packaging things like this as "science fiction" pisses me off https://www.amazon.com/Book-M-Novel-Peng-Shepherd/dp/0062669605 …pic.twitter.com/mdmv83g1LM
Show this thread -
6/ I have no problem with fantasy and fluff being published. Let a thousand market niches bloom. What I hate is that SF has keen killed and female-written SJW-friendly YA fluff has flensed it and is wearing its skin around like a floppy Stop Making Sense era David Byrne suit.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm somewhat inclined to accept the PulpRev contention that since state of the art changes, tracking "hardness" sub specie aeternitatis is kind of pointless it's an interesting writing exercise, but doesn't necessarily bear on the overall quality of the work
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You read any of
@gregeganSF books? Probably the most detailed, hard sci-fi of all time, publishing today. -
For instance in one novel, set in an alternate universe, he created an internally consistent variant of special relativity: http://www.gregegan.net/ORTHOGONAL/04/EM.html …
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.