<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SF Goes MacDonald&#8217;s: Less Taste, More Gristle</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1169" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1169</link>
	<description>New Words, New Worlds</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 08:24:25 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Magento</title>
		<link>http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1169&#038;cpage=1#comment-55740</link>
		<dc:creator>Magento</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Apr 2010 23:57:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1169#comment-55740</guid>
		<description>I agree with ZarPaulus, most of Vampire fans (including myself) don&#039;t see Twilight as a reference or a true movie. In fact it&#039;s even the opposite, it&#039;s really seen as a teenager book and most of vampire lovers hate it.

Anyway great post, I agree that SF was much more better years ago. The world we are living right now is killing imagination with all movies, TV, mangas and junk video games. There is no place anymore for young people to think and evade in their own world and thus to create great SF stuff.

Crazy world we live in. Keep on reading old SF books, they are the references.

Cheers, Jack.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with ZarPaulus, most of Vampire fans (including myself) don&#8217;t see Twilight as a reference or a true movie. In fact it&#8217;s even the opposite, it&#8217;s really seen as a teenager book and most of vampire lovers hate it.</p>
<p>Anyway great post, I agree that SF was much more better years ago. The world we are living right now is killing imagination with all movies, TV, mangas and junk video games. There is no place anymore for young people to think and evade in their own world and thus to create great SF stuff.</p>
<p>Crazy world we live in. Keep on reading old SF books, they are the references.</p>
<p>Cheers, Jack.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Athena</title>
		<link>http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1169&#038;cpage=1#comment-55685</link>
		<dc:creator>Athena</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:50:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1169#comment-55685</guid>
		<description>Thank you for the praise and the interesting points, Amy!  I read and liked both Perfect Stranger and To Kiss the Star.  I also read your article about &quot;bad voice&quot; in BVC.  I agree with it overall -- and specifically for Tor and cyberpunk, as you can tell by reading two more my articles (links below).

I suspect that most of the chaff will be winnowed out by mere (lack of) longevity.  Also, publishing is undergoing a major shift right now.  The landscape will look radically different when that particular dust settles.

And I&#039;m not giving up on writing speculative fiction -- just on making a living out of it!  Sad statement, but...

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1654&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Storytelling, Empathy and the Whiny Solipsist’s Disingenuous Angst&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1959&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jade Masks, Lead Balloons and Tin Ears&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for the praise and the interesting points, Amy!  I read and liked both Perfect Stranger and To Kiss the Star.  I also read your article about &#8220;bad voice&#8221; in BVC.  I agree with it overall &#8212; and specifically for Tor and cyberpunk, as you can tell by reading two more my articles (links below).</p>
<p>I suspect that most of the chaff will be winnowed out by mere (lack of) longevity.  Also, publishing is undergoing a major shift right now.  The landscape will look radically different when that particular dust settles.</p>
<p>And I&#8217;m not giving up on writing speculative fiction &#8212; just on making a living out of it!  Sad statement, but&#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1654" rel="nofollow">Storytelling, Empathy and the Whiny Solipsist’s Disingenuous Angst</a><br />
<a href="http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1959" rel="nofollow">Jade Masks, Lead Balloons and Tin Ears</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amy Sterling Casil</title>
		<link>http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1169&#038;cpage=1#comment-55682</link>
		<dc:creator>Amy Sterling Casil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:04:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1169#comment-55682</guid>
		<description>What you say is pretty much true, Athena.  I was shocked to read a recent Hugo-winning &quot;science fiction&quot; story that contained about the level of scientific knowledge and &quot;speculation&quot; that I recall reading in early &quot;Golden Age&quot; stories, with the exception that the story wasn&#039;t very connected to the science, and it was a downer, to boot.  I never considered myself a &quot;hard science fiction&quot; writer, but I was always inspired by the real science fiction I read growing up.  I naturally made an effort to base everything I wrote on real science and speculation and always researched heavily all areas of science that I was working with.

Now, I have done very few &quot;space&quot; oriented stories, but y&#039;all might enjoy &quot;To Kiss the Star.&quot;  

http://www.bookviewcafe.com/index.php/Amy-Sterling/Short-Stories/To-Kiss-the-Star

I first noticed this problem, where my assumption had been that as a non-scientist, I knew very little science and probably could not understand a lot of advanced science, at Worldcon in 2008.  I had volunteered to coordinate what I thought was the young adult programming, but it turned out to be little children . . . but I digress.  I was on a panel about &quot;genetic engineering&quot; which was moderated by my friend John Moore, who is a chemical engineer, and there were other panelists, one of whom gets lipservice as a &quot;real&quot; female sci fi writer.  And I was ludicrously, by far, the panel expert.  John was merely moderating, and did a good job keeping things going.  But the others . . .?  I&#039;m sure that one of them did know the difference between a gene and a chromosome, but wasn&#039;t able to articulate it at the time.  I know we all probably stayed up too late partying . . .

I can only speak for myself and say that the reason I stopped writing SF was that it didn&#039;t pay, and I would like to receive good pay and have more readers.  It&#039;s not like I didn&#039;t put in my time, or didn&#039;t try.  One person commented online that the story that won the Nebula award the year &quot;To Kiss the Star&quot; was nominated was &quot;exponentially&quot; better than my story.  It was not a science fiction story, and it was also one that I tried hard to finish, but was never able to finish.  I also tried to read other stories by the same author and also could not finish them, mostly because I could not follow them.  If readers (and that was I think, a reader comment) preferred this type of story and writing, it was something that I knew I couldn&#039;t do.  

Many people in science fiction aren&#039;t aware that I&#039;ve written and published over 100 stories, 3 novels, and also a large number of nonfiction books.  My short science fiction has been primarily in F &amp; SF and anthologies, and most interested in &quot;hard science fiction&quot; do not read F &amp; SF - and of course I do not write &quot;hard science fiction.&quot;  I just in the past, have written &quot;science fiction.&quot;  

Anyway, Athena - keep writing - keep working on stories.  Re: the wanking dope with the &quot;sounds can&#039;t be recorded off a ceramic surface&quot; - those guys are everywhere.  Don&#039;t let anything like this bother you, and just focus on the stories.  Also, as the author of a Battlestar Galactica book - I wouldn&#039;t take anything that&#039;s on TV too seriously as far as its attitude toward science and scientists.  It is all truly for an entertainment purpose, exclusively.  Look at the contradictions you&#039;ll see on Science Channel shows.  They will show completely contradictory shows and interviews on the same topic on the same night (usually because one is outdated).  It&#039;s up to us as individuals to use our minds to think critically and seek the truth.

And re: &quot;Selfish Genes&quot; - well, anthropomorphism and fitting the data to one&#039;s assumptions rather than the other way around are endemic in science.  I self-edited myself out of pursuing a career in science because I didn&#039;t want to be an unpopular &quot;geek&quot; girl - so I majored in art and literature.  That was in the 80&#039;s and times have changed.  At the higher levels, fantastic science is still being done, but in the meantime at least in the U.S., the weakening of science and math programs in schools is hurting U.S. kids - however, worldwide, it is good to see others coming forward.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What you say is pretty much true, Athena.  I was shocked to read a recent Hugo-winning &#8220;science fiction&#8221; story that contained about the level of scientific knowledge and &#8220;speculation&#8221; that I recall reading in early &#8220;Golden Age&#8221; stories, with the exception that the story wasn&#8217;t very connected to the science, and it was a downer, to boot.  I never considered myself a &#8220;hard science fiction&#8221; writer, but I was always inspired by the real science fiction I read growing up.  I naturally made an effort to base everything I wrote on real science and speculation and always researched heavily all areas of science that I was working with.</p>
<p>Now, I have done very few &#8220;space&#8221; oriented stories, but y&#8217;all might enjoy &#8220;To Kiss the Star.&#8221;  </p>
<p><a href="http://www.bookviewcafe.com/index.php/Amy-Sterling/Short-Stories/To-Kiss-the-Star" rel="nofollow">http://www.bookviewcafe.com/index.php/Amy-Sterling/Short-Stories/To-Kiss-the-Star</a></p>
<p>I first noticed this problem, where my assumption had been that as a non-scientist, I knew very little science and probably could not understand a lot of advanced science, at Worldcon in 2008.  I had volunteered to coordinate what I thought was the young adult programming, but it turned out to be little children . . . but I digress.  I was on a panel about &#8220;genetic engineering&#8221; which was moderated by my friend John Moore, who is a chemical engineer, and there were other panelists, one of whom gets lipservice as a &#8220;real&#8221; female sci fi writer.  And I was ludicrously, by far, the panel expert.  John was merely moderating, and did a good job keeping things going.  But the others . . .?  I&#8217;m sure that one of them did know the difference between a gene and a chromosome, but wasn&#8217;t able to articulate it at the time.  I know we all probably stayed up too late partying . . .</p>
<p>I can only speak for myself and say that the reason I stopped writing SF was that it didn&#8217;t pay, and I would like to receive good pay and have more readers.  It&#8217;s not like I didn&#8217;t put in my time, or didn&#8217;t try.  One person commented online that the story that won the Nebula award the year &#8220;To Kiss the Star&#8221; was nominated was &#8220;exponentially&#8221; better than my story.  It was not a science fiction story, and it was also one that I tried hard to finish, but was never able to finish.  I also tried to read other stories by the same author and also could not finish them, mostly because I could not follow them.  If readers (and that was I think, a reader comment) preferred this type of story and writing, it was something that I knew I couldn&#8217;t do.  </p>
<p>Many people in science fiction aren&#8217;t aware that I&#8217;ve written and published over 100 stories, 3 novels, and also a large number of nonfiction books.  My short science fiction has been primarily in F &amp; SF and anthologies, and most interested in &#8220;hard science fiction&#8221; do not read F &amp; SF &#8211; and of course I do not write &#8220;hard science fiction.&#8221;  I just in the past, have written &#8220;science fiction.&#8221;  </p>
<p>Anyway, Athena &#8211; keep writing &#8211; keep working on stories.  Re: the wanking dope with the &#8220;sounds can&#8217;t be recorded off a ceramic surface&#8221; &#8211; those guys are everywhere.  Don&#8217;t let anything like this bother you, and just focus on the stories.  Also, as the author of a Battlestar Galactica book &#8211; I wouldn&#8217;t take anything that&#8217;s on TV too seriously as far as its attitude toward science and scientists.  It is all truly for an entertainment purpose, exclusively.  Look at the contradictions you&#8217;ll see on Science Channel shows.  They will show completely contradictory shows and interviews on the same topic on the same night (usually because one is outdated).  It&#8217;s up to us as individuals to use our minds to think critically and seek the truth.</p>
<p>And re: &#8220;Selfish Genes&#8221; &#8211; well, anthropomorphism and fitting the data to one&#8217;s assumptions rather than the other way around are endemic in science.  I self-edited myself out of pursuing a career in science because I didn&#8217;t want to be an unpopular &#8220;geek&#8221; girl &#8211; so I majored in art and literature.  That was in the 80&#8242;s and times have changed.  At the higher levels, fantastic science is still being done, but in the meantime at least in the U.S., the weakening of science and math programs in schools is hurting U.S. kids &#8211; however, worldwide, it is good to see others coming forward.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Athena</title>
		<link>http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1169&#038;cpage=1#comment-55184</link>
		<dc:creator>Athena</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 04:48:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1169#comment-55184</guid>
		<description>There are several layers of fallacy to the term &quot;selfish gene&quot;, some having to do with the default lay interpretation of the term, some with the intrinsic science.  First, genes never act in isolation but in complex interactive networks.  Second, genes are more or less adaptive depending on context.  Third, the selection unit is the organism (organisms leave descendants, not genes).  Fourth, saying genes are &quot;selfish&quot; anthropomorphizes them and puts a teleological spin on their expression patterns.  Finally, many people take the term to justify social Darwinism, which has little to do with genes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are several layers of fallacy to the term &#8220;selfish gene&#8221;, some having to do with the default lay interpretation of the term, some with the intrinsic science.  First, genes never act in isolation but in complex interactive networks.  Second, genes are more or less adaptive depending on context.  Third, the selection unit is the organism (organisms leave descendants, not genes).  Fourth, saying genes are &#8220;selfish&#8221; anthropomorphizes them and puts a teleological spin on their expression patterns.  Finally, many people take the term to justify social Darwinism, which has little to do with genes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: closetpuritan</title>
		<link>http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1169&#038;cpage=1#comment-55172</link>
		<dc:creator>closetpuritan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:24:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1169#comment-55172</guid>
		<description>I was a little confused by your reference to &quot;The Selfish Gene&quot; as a fallacy. Can you explain further? Is it related to equivocation of the meaning of &quot;selfish&quot;?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was a little confused by your reference to &#8220;The Selfish Gene&#8221; as a fallacy. Can you explain further? Is it related to equivocation of the meaning of &#8220;selfish&#8221;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Athena</title>
		<link>http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1169&#038;cpage=1#comment-51647</link>
		<dc:creator>Athena</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:35:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1169#comment-51647</guid>
		<description>Viv, agreed, by Crom!  As I discussed in &lt;a href=&quot;http://crossedgenres.com/archives/008/interview-athena-andreadis/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Crossed Genres&lt;/a&gt;, metamorphosis wouldn&#039;t happen as advertised in Hollywood.  There would be a non-negligible interval of at least helplessness, if not outright liquefaction!  Still, shapeshifters seem to have a strong hold in our imagination.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Viv, agreed, by Crom!  As I discussed in <a href="http://crossedgenres.com/archives/008/interview-athena-andreadis/" rel="nofollow">Crossed Genres</a>, metamorphosis wouldn&#8217;t happen as advertised in Hollywood.  There would be a non-negligible interval of at least helplessness, if not outright liquefaction!  Still, shapeshifters seem to have a strong hold in our imagination.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tigtog</title>
		<link>http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1169&#038;cpage=1#comment-51646</link>
		<dc:creator>tigtog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:21:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1169#comment-51646</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1169&amp;cpage=1#comment-50677&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;@Caliban
&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;I wonder what the most abused biology trope is? Cloning? Real-time evolution (e.g., individuals “evolving”)? We should have a contest.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

My vote definitely goes for real-time evolution, especially the horrid misrepresentations of organisms &quot;mutating&quot; right before your eyes into an entirely new phenotype.

C&#039;mon!  &quot;Metamorphosis&quot; is a perfectly cromulent word!  We know it happens (not to mammals on our world, but at least it happens in other clades)!  Just use the word!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1169&amp;cpage=1#comment-50677" rel="nofollow">@Caliban<br />
</a></p>
<blockquote><p>I wonder what the most abused biology trope is? Cloning? Real-time evolution (e.g., individuals “evolving”)? We should have a contest.</p></blockquote>
<p>My vote definitely goes for real-time evolution, especially the horrid misrepresentations of organisms &#8220;mutating&#8221; right before your eyes into an entirely new phenotype.</p>
<p>C&#8217;mon!  &#8220;Metamorphosis&#8221; is a perfectly cromulent word!  We know it happens (not to mammals on our world, but at least it happens in other clades)!  Just use the word!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mick</title>
		<link>http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1169&#038;cpage=1#comment-50878</link>
		<dc:creator>Mick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:44:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1169#comment-50878</guid>
		<description>Hear! Hear! Once we graduate to a real world (five guys smoking cigars, watching football, and discussing politics), the cacophony is caused not by what they think, but by how they think. Skimming over contradictions like adolescents unaware that there is no wind beneath your wings in space. Spewing nuggets of &quot;fact&quot; like hacking dogs and declaring the result a stew of knowledge. And of course resorting to sexual ad hominem when high reason fails to convince. 

In Joyce&#039;s Voices, Hugh Kenner identifies the Pyrrhonic mode as a quintessential Irish voice, then traces the &quot;discourse&quot; of a pub scene in Ulysses from one red-faced insult to the next. The Irish, he comes near saying, believe in nothing but the power of words (I&#039;m Irish, so I claim sanctuary from charges of racism). Not a great insight, but he goes on to say (paraphrase), If you don&#039;t believe in what the words are about, then the exercise of eloquence is just melodious barking. We have become a nation that believes in nothing. So we howl derision at people trying to think.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hear! Hear! Once we graduate to a real world (five guys smoking cigars, watching football, and discussing politics), the cacophony is caused not by what they think, but by how they think. Skimming over contradictions like adolescents unaware that there is no wind beneath your wings in space. Spewing nuggets of &#8220;fact&#8221; like hacking dogs and declaring the result a stew of knowledge. And of course resorting to sexual ad hominem when high reason fails to convince. </p>
<p>In Joyce&#8217;s Voices, Hugh Kenner identifies the Pyrrhonic mode as a quintessential Irish voice, then traces the &#8220;discourse&#8221; of a pub scene in Ulysses from one red-faced insult to the next. The Irish, he comes near saying, believe in nothing but the power of words (I&#8217;m Irish, so I claim sanctuary from charges of racism). Not a great insight, but he goes on to say (paraphrase), If you don&#8217;t believe in what the words are about, then the exercise of eloquence is just melodious barking. We have become a nation that believes in nothing. So we howl derision at people trying to think.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Athena</title>
		<link>http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1169&#038;cpage=1#comment-50761</link>
		<dc:creator>Athena</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:02:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1169#comment-50761</guid>
		<description>I agree that critical thinking and the scientific method are more important than facts, which change as we discover more.  I also think that scientific companions to SF are a good idea.  At the same time the &quot;science must be fun&quot; mantra holds little water.  Becoming good at the piano or basketball takes much time and effort and involves endless numbing repetition.  And science is more important to most lives and to civilization collectively than basketball, if only because we&#039;re now completely and irreversibly dependent in the technology it engendered.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that critical thinking and the scientific method are more important than facts, which change as we discover more.  I also think that scientific companions to SF are a good idea.  At the same time the &#8220;science must be fun&#8221; mantra holds little water.  Becoming good at the piano or basketball takes much time and effort and involves endless numbing repetition.  And science is more important to most lives and to civilization collectively than basketball, if only because we&#8217;re now completely and irreversibly dependent in the technology it engendered.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Terraforming Tobias Holbrook</title>
		<link>http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1169&#038;cpage=1#comment-50759</link>
		<dc:creator>Terraforming Tobias Holbrook</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:13:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=1169#comment-50759</guid>
		<description>Perhaps schools could start by, instead of teaching people *what* to think, teaching them *how* to think. Instead of teaching them facts and theories, teach them the scientific method. Someone who can design an experiment from square one to measure the speed of sound is more useful than someone who can recite the speed of sound off the top of their head. Someone who can work out why the speed of sound varies with altitude is more useful than someone who simply knows that it does. Besides, being taught the scientific method is a lot more interesting than being given a textbook and just told to answer the questions. No wonder not many people go into science; in high school, it&#039;s boring.

More accurate SF would be helpful, of course. Perhaps a companion to each Hard SF film/book/animation, explaining the concepts to Mr and Mrs A. Joe?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps schools could start by, instead of teaching people *what* to think, teaching them *how* to think. Instead of teaching them facts and theories, teach them the scientific method. Someone who can design an experiment from square one to measure the speed of sound is more useful than someone who can recite the speed of sound off the top of their head. Someone who can work out why the speed of sound varies with altitude is more useful than someone who simply knows that it does. Besides, being taught the scientific method is a lot more interesting than being given a textbook and just told to answer the questions. No wonder not many people go into science; in high school, it&#8217;s boring.</p>
<p>More accurate SF would be helpful, of course. Perhaps a companion to each Hard SF film/book/animation, explaining the concepts to Mr and Mrs A. Joe?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
