Sorry Greg, I don't mean to be rude, but that's utter bollocks. You're smart enough to know that everyone does not think the same way, therefore everyone cannot perform the same mental gymnastics required to completely deprogramme themselves. It's like saying anyone can pass a lie detector test, or anyone can resist torture -- people exist who can do this, but it does not follow that anyone can.
]]>I just had a thought sort of about that. Characters in good SF are products of the technologies that make the setting different from our own, so that the stories can be products of the characters.
Technology-->Setting-->Characters--> Story
Good Example: Lededge in Banks' "Surface Detail" is a product of a setting that includes intaglation and reventing. Her personality then contributes to driving the story.
Bad Example: Captain Kirk is in no special way a product of his starfleet world. He's Horatio Hornblower in space. Good stories, but not nearly as deeply science-fictional, at least not on the part of anything coming from Kirk.
Near future SF is slightly different in that the characters are partly products of practically our world. There's less room for them to be science-fictionally (new adverb!) drawn. The technologies that painted her distinctiveness (the world made by the tools available to the police and those they were policing) were less advanced than the entity that created the Toymaker. Making her a science-fictional story driver must have been more difficult.
]]>...(new adverb!) drawn. FOR EXAMPLE LIZ CAVANAUGH IN RULE 34. The technologies that painted ...
]]>The only obvious way that Liz, circa Rule 34, is not a circa present day Edinburgh police officer is the force's apparent reliance on electric 2-wheeled transport for moving officers further and faster than they can run.
RDSouth - Like your comment about Kirk is any secret; Gere Roddenbury originally pitched Star Trek as "Wagon Train in Space". (Source being the original ST writers' manual from circa 1967)
]]>There are actually a few sequels--sort of: Flatterland by Ian Stewart Sphereland by Dionys Burger The Planiverse by A.K. Dewdney, and Spaceland by Rudy Rucker.
One of these days I'll get around to actually reading them. pedantic-book-nerd hat off now.
]]>Stina, Ian Stewart's Flatterland was the one I was aware of and have actually bought and read. Despite all my other science and technology qualified friends, my words can not express how great it is to actually know someone else who is both female and I know appreciates this sort of advanced mathematics stuff.
]]>Technology-->Setting-->Characters--> Story
I have to disagree with that, but am probably going to have trouble explaining why. Just my opinion, but...
A good story should come out of good characters (that is, if you have a good story idea, you need to have good characters to tell it). The technology they deal with ought to be nearly invisible--they use it everyday. There are exceptions--like if the story is about some new tech, and it may also depend on what narrative voice your using. If your characters are using some technology that is so out-of-left-field that a reader will have trouble figuring out what it is from context, then I guess it needs some explaining. An occasional info-dump is excusable, so long as it doesn't get in the way.*
Think of how it sometimes seems odd watching old movies, and no one has a cell phone. Does that get in the way of the story? It shouldn't, if it does that probably says more about the viewer.
And having written that, I realize that I'm guilty of it, and will have to do a little rewriting on some early bits of my novel. Still waiting to hear from my first readers. *Actually already knew that, but was trying not to think about it.
]]>Fortunately for everyone, yesterday was Shabbes and I had to drive my mother to Shul. Or I might have gone on a bit about the practicality of an Eruv, in Shtetl days at least.
]]>I haven't read that person, and not likely to. Assuming I've rearranged the letters correctly--or even if I haven't. But I think I get your point. Maybe. Go ahead and explain, rather than forcing awkward dialogue on your characters. Think I've done that too. Nuts.
]]>