Indeed good science fiction is not at all about science or engineering, but all about the "secondary world" you mention. It's about imagination. Doesn't have to be science, but plausible in its own "scientific" logic (contrary to fantasy stuff). That's what Iain M. Banks was so good at, and what Neal Stephenson is not so good at. As for the moon.... in itself it is of as little interest as the pebbles you brought in, if it wasn't for your imagination.
You've managed to sum up in one paragraph what I was trying and failed to say in a whole essay. Also, that's a good point about the 'science' having to work in the context of the secondary world, rather than having to be real science. One of these days, we're going to have to get you to write something for us, Pete. Also, I kind of stopped reading Stephenson after Cryptonomicon. Are any of his more recent books any good?
Yeah, Cryptonomicon was good reading (but more science than fiction). I read Snow Crash and Diamond Age. Both nowhere close to Cryptonomicon. Don't bother. As for writing something, I actually decided some time ago to write a short essay for you entitled "Great Sex" following Feynman, all about a night with gravitational waves. Didn't get round to it, too busy. May be sometime in the future.
Have to admit that I rather enjoyed Snow Crash in a ‘what if William Gibson wrote a Jack Reacher novel’ way, but you make me think that there’s a good argument that Stephenson is responsible for a lot that’s going wrong with 21st century technology: the obsession with the Metaverse (from Snow Crash) and AI assistants like the ‘The Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer’ from Diamond Age (https://andymatuschak.org/primer/). Anyway, you need to write that piece, it sounds brilliant. Stop being busy & do more ;)
Indeed good science fiction is not at all about science or engineering, but all about the "secondary world" you mention. It's about imagination. Doesn't have to be science, but plausible in its own "scientific" logic (contrary to fantasy stuff). That's what Iain M. Banks was so good at, and what Neal Stephenson is not so good at. As for the moon.... in itself it is of as little interest as the pebbles you brought in, if it wasn't for your imagination.
You've managed to sum up in one paragraph what I was trying and failed to say in a whole essay. Also, that's a good point about the 'science' having to work in the context of the secondary world, rather than having to be real science. One of these days, we're going to have to get you to write something for us, Pete. Also, I kind of stopped reading Stephenson after Cryptonomicon. Are any of his more recent books any good?
Yeah, Cryptonomicon was good reading (but more science than fiction). I read Snow Crash and Diamond Age. Both nowhere close to Cryptonomicon. Don't bother. As for writing something, I actually decided some time ago to write a short essay for you entitled "Great Sex" following Feynman, all about a night with gravitational waves. Didn't get round to it, too busy. May be sometime in the future.
Have to admit that I rather enjoyed Snow Crash in a ‘what if William Gibson wrote a Jack Reacher novel’ way, but you make me think that there’s a good argument that Stephenson is responsible for a lot that’s going wrong with 21st century technology: the obsession with the Metaverse (from Snow Crash) and AI assistants like the ‘The Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer’ from Diamond Age (https://andymatuschak.org/primer/). Anyway, you need to write that piece, it sounds brilliant. Stop being busy & do more ;)