4 ms·
Most of the time writers just don't care about researching what they are writing about - this is not limited to sci-fi. Whenever a writer does any sort of resea
by Paul_S 11y ago
Most of the time writers just don't care about researching what they are writing about - this is not limited to sci-fi. Whenever a writer does any sort of research it's magnificent - see: The Martian. With knowledge readily available and basic facts easy to establish within seconds there is really no excuse.
I have to admit I've never dropped a book because of that so maybe writer's know they don't have to do it.
- icebraining 11y agoThe Martian author, besides being thoughtful about his research, also used a master weapon: he published the whole thing online for every nitpicking nerd¹ to criticize and contribute. It's well known that the best way to get an answer to a question is to confidently give a wrong response. ¹ I say this as a self-identified nitpicking nerd, though I'm too ignorant to do it properly :)
- Udik 11y agoPity that he ended up writing a novel in which the main character is stranded on Mars because of an impossible martian storm; then communicates with Earth by absolutely implausible means (while there were many more obvious, among which the most classic "SOS" written on the sand); that he survives by growing potatoes that couldn't possibly germinate, planted in a highly toxic soil, and raised with a light source that does provide only a small fraction of the energy required to grow caloric food... EDIT: I've already got one downvote, hurray! Would the downvoter(s) be kind enough to point out why and how they disagree with what I've written in the comment? Plus: at least wait to see what I have to say about Charles Stross himself and his novel "Glasshouse". :)
- Paul_S 11y agoI don't think downvoting is fair but when you criticize it's good to provide explanations. So when you say it's "absolutely implausible" and it "couldn't possibly" then you should write why exactly it is so.