Links On Lady Authors, Literary Critics, And Scientific Accuracy in Science Fiction
An interesting article about J.K. Rowling and how she's getting bashed for not being male: "When Harry Met Sexism", via Zen In Darkness. The article details how it seems that all female fantasy writers are treated with less respect than their male counterparts. The article's author is against this, and writes:
"Speculative fiction - whether that is historical epic, space psychodrama or telepathic warrior quest - has always been about infinite possibilities. Why is it so hard to imagine a world which acknowledges the importance, multitude and sheer brilliance of its women writers?"
Frankly, I agree. If lady-writers get short-shift simply for their gender and at the expense of having their works disregarded, then it's a poor basis of judgment.
Some more links that I chanced upon over at The Bibliophile Stalker:
Who Killed The Literary Critic? over at Salon.com
Scientific Accuracy In Science Fiction over at SF Signal
The Stalker says that he finds the Salon.com article "relevant in light of the local literary discussion".
As for the article over at SF Signal, what do you think? Should science-fiction writers make their science accurate in their tales? My initial reaction was "Yes", and then I thought about so many of the science fiction stories I've read over time and wondered about their accuracy vis-a-vis their popularity. It got me thinking about stories whose science may not have been as sharp, but have nevertheless appealed to many people, regular as well as science-oriented.
I thought about Jules Verne, for example, and his novel, Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea. That novel includes a submarine, way before they were invented, and perhaps even inspired the creation of such vehicles. And yet, as has been pointed out to me by a friend of mine who dives (and who is beside me right now and is irritatingly reading over my shoulder as I type--go on, get out of here!), shouldn't the people on the Nautilus have suffered the bends everytime they surfaced too quickly? My friend said Verne's science was wrong, but I defended Verne for writing "speculatively" with the knowledge available to him for that time. "No excuse for factual errors," my friend answered, to which I said Verne might have despaired of writing his novel if he had known of the bends, and the concept of the submarine might have never been presented through his novel.
Or take another classic, H.G. Wells' The Invisible Man. (In fact, take every invisibility power that has ever been used, including but not limited to Sue Richards, Bilbo and Frodo when they're wearing the One Ring, or Harry Potter when he has that cloak draped over him; or maybe not, since these are examples of fantasy and not science fiction).
Putting things very, very simply, the reason we are able to see anything with our eyes is that light bounces off the surfaces of objects around us. That reflected light enters and hits our eyes' lenses, and that information is then processed by our brains to tell us what these objects are.
The Invisible Man is invisible because light can't bounce off of his body; it passes through him. That's why we can't see him. But then, if he is invisible and light passes through him, then that means he should also be blind to the rest of us because light won't be able to hit the lenses of his eyes so that his brain can process the objects around him! And yet, in H.G. Wells' story, he sees just fine.
(I am suddenly reminded of these two earlier blog posts (here and here) about Mundane Science Fiction, because I can see just where this discussion could be headed.)
And now, we soon might have the real thing, a real invisibility cloak, one that can actually bend radio waves and electromagnetic radiation in any direction, a cloak that would not reflect visible light or cast a shadow.
"Speculative fiction - whether that is historical epic, space psychodrama or telepathic warrior quest - has always been about infinite possibilities. Why is it so hard to imagine a world which acknowledges the importance, multitude and sheer brilliance of its women writers?"
Frankly, I agree. If lady-writers get short-shift simply for their gender and at the expense of having their works disregarded, then it's a poor basis of judgment.
Some more links that I chanced upon over at The Bibliophile Stalker:
Who Killed The Literary Critic? over at Salon.com
Scientific Accuracy In Science Fiction over at SF Signal
The Stalker says that he finds the Salon.com article "relevant in light of the local literary discussion".
As for the article over at SF Signal, what do you think? Should science-fiction writers make their science accurate in their tales? My initial reaction was "Yes", and then I thought about so many of the science fiction stories I've read over time and wondered about their accuracy vis-a-vis their popularity. It got me thinking about stories whose science may not have been as sharp, but have nevertheless appealed to many people, regular as well as science-oriented.
I thought about Jules Verne, for example, and his novel, Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea. That novel includes a submarine, way before they were invented, and perhaps even inspired the creation of such vehicles. And yet, as has been pointed out to me by a friend of mine who dives (and who is beside me right now and is irritatingly reading over my shoulder as I type--go on, get out of here!), shouldn't the people on the Nautilus have suffered the bends everytime they surfaced too quickly? My friend said Verne's science was wrong, but I defended Verne for writing "speculatively" with the knowledge available to him for that time. "No excuse for factual errors," my friend answered, to which I said Verne might have despaired of writing his novel if he had known of the bends, and the concept of the submarine might have never been presented through his novel.
Or take another classic, H.G. Wells' The Invisible Man. (In fact, take every invisibility power that has ever been used, including but not limited to Sue Richards, Bilbo and Frodo when they're wearing the One Ring, or Harry Potter when he has that cloak draped over him; or maybe not, since these are examples of fantasy and not science fiction).
Putting things very, very simply, the reason we are able to see anything with our eyes is that light bounces off the surfaces of objects around us. That reflected light enters and hits our eyes' lenses, and that information is then processed by our brains to tell us what these objects are.
The Invisible Man is invisible because light can't bounce off of his body; it passes through him. That's why we can't see him. But then, if he is invisible and light passes through him, then that means he should also be blind to the rest of us because light won't be able to hit the lenses of his eyes so that his brain can process the objects around him! And yet, in H.G. Wells' story, he sees just fine.
(I am suddenly reminded of these two earlier blog posts (here and here) about Mundane Science Fiction, because I can see just where this discussion could be headed.)
And now, we soon might have the real thing, a real invisibility cloak, one that can actually bend radio waves and electromagnetic radiation in any direction, a cloak that would not reflect visible light or cast a shadow.
posted by pgenrestories at 6:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home