I feel there is little point in writing about anything unless you know or at least are familiar with it. I draw my ideas based on stories I've read, movies I've seen, people I know, events in my life, etc. Every part of me can become channeled into a story in one manifestation or another. THAT is why I love storytelling. It literally is a PART of you.
Something that has occurred to me through the continuation of the "pedantic" and "didactic" complaints from those who write, contrasted to those who are readers. The majority of writers are journalists, not scientists or even teachers, to a lesser degree. The writer has an unrealistic idea of how most scientists think. They will very likely not be able to write what a scientist would say or do in a given scenario. The writers of Gilligan's Island, when writing lines for The Professor, had a better concept of how scientists speak than the literary writers of today. A scientist, when he is just killing time, thinks about his work. He may think in terms of math. He may think in terms of physical geometry or chemistry. It would be a very poor scientist or doctor of much of anything who would have the latest episode of Duck Dynasty or Honey Boo Boo running in the background. Think of Indiana Jones. In some scenes he's teaching a class. Scientists are pedantic. They often avoid people who are wanting to discuss the latest Colts game. Most writers I've had discussions with want to shut up the teacher. Of course everyone already knows how the TARDIS works. Certainly every reader of the Star Trek novels has already read The Cosmic Landscape or The God Particle. If they've read Asimov's "I Robot" collection, they've also read his textbook series. To be able, willing and efficient in teaching the science, when writing sci-fi defines the realism of the novel the writer is capable of. Carl Sagan's "Contact" has quite a few pedantic examples. He also disparages the mainstream scientific food chain through the story's implications. Harold Weiner is a key American neurologist. He wrote "Curing MS." In that book he stated that "If you don't dream about your work, you're no good." The best sci-fi demonstrates the author's expertise of the science, even the history, he or she is purveying. If you have an idea for a warp drive, you'd best be able to defend it boldly... or be laughed at.
DrWhozit, Dude, if you're bent on including pedantry in your stories, then by all means do so. But that's as far as your rights extend--you can't force people to like it. Just cater to the people who do (whoever they may be) and you'll be golden. I'm pretty sure this is a non-sequitur. (Sorry if this comes off as confrontational. I assure you that that's not my intention) And plus, what's considered the "best sci-fi" is subjective. I haven't read Asimov and Ellison--I assume these are among the best?-- in a long, long time, but from what I remember, they weren't didactic in the least. I could be wrong though...I'm not particularly fond of sci-fi. :/
I'm bent on portraying the character telling the story as he would be. As to the non-sequitur, I didn't write the book. I read it. That mini-moral stood out. Reading it has been enlightening. I particularly like snippets of science for instance the incompatibility of human and canine spinal fluid (one produces encephalitis in the other) intertwined into the story. Teach me. No better than "Steal This Book" for technology and chemistry, only adapted to a satirical fiction. Sci-fi often wraps itself around some trend. One really should get some outer space steam punk feeling.
No, no, I'm not talking about what the neurologist said. I'm talking about the conclusion you drew from what he said..."the best sci-fi demonstrates the author's expertise of science" doesn't follow from "If you don't dream about your work, then you're no good." You're a strange man, DrWhozit. A delightfully strange man.
