Post by Dimensional Traveler Post by D B Davis Post by Dimensional Traveler Post by D B Davis Post by Michael F. Stemper
why would it be "unsavory" to write
stories about something that the author (and almost everybody else)
Isn't it literally unsavory for authors to "play the Devil's advocate?"
Is it unsavory if the Devil acts as his own advocate?
Does the Devil believe what he advocates?
Of course he does. As his own advocate he earns an extra 15% of the take!
Don't the canons of the bar suggest it is unwise to be one's
own advocate? Surely Lucifer can call on very experienced
outside counsel, except that they'd be "in house" to him!
Assuming one "impossible thing" to be true to make an SF story
is fair, but I always thought it a cheat if there wan't at least
an attempt made to justify it by speculative science that had not
already been disproved, for values of disprove that mean: "This
was once an interesting idea, but it hasn't held up to scrutiny by
experimentation or further observation of the phenomenon." Forex,
your "cold fusion" would have to work differently than the way
Fleischmann and Pons said it would, or you use the F-P experiment,
but refer to what was going on other than "cold fusion."
Otherwise, it is fantasy, or at best an "alternate universe"
story, in a universe with different physical rules, if one
writes based on a "disproved" theory, as originally proposed.