Blog Hop follow-up

This is a follow up to my writing process blog hop post. I’m posting links to other bloggers’ entries, and jotting down a few notes about interesting things they’ve written.

James Pailly invited me to the blog hop. I found it interesting that both he and I started writing to focus on something other than our problems. I’ve been bitter lately because a career that I’ve spent the last seven years building has been destroyed, but James overcame something far worse, and I’m trying to keep that in mind. James tagged two additional bloggers for the hop: Michelle Joelle and Linda Frindt.

I tagged Justine Allen. I liked the part of her post where she said she doesn’t try too hard to be “different”. Obviously, readers don’t want to read the same thing repeatedly, but the reason we have genres and sub-genres is that they allow readers to easily find something they’re likely to enjoy. Justine tagged Therin Knite, Rosie Oliver, and Colin Mobey.

I also tagged Sean Munger. The most unbelievably shocking thing in his blog hop post was that he’s gone back to working on a typewriter! This has not inspired me to brush up on my cuneiform. Sean tagged John FD Taff, Julianne Snow, Anne C Michaud, and Steven M Vincent.

Finally, I tagged Robert Paul Gmelin. He is trying to shake up the Young Adult market by writing stories that aren’t full of darkness and despair; check out his post for a full discussion of what he’s up against. He tagged Cheryl Mahoney, Kelly Haworth, and Andrea Stewart.

Nicholas Rossis mentioned that he’s done this blog hop; if you’ve done it as well, feel free to post a link in the comments section below.


  1. What’s with the bad science?, I think it depends of what you like, there’s people that like Star Wars and others that thinks it’s rubbish!!, my writing is different I like the future, without the flying cars, but with more down to earth gadgets sort of speak, I think the main thing with science fiction is to have an open mind

    1. If you’ll read my original blog hop post, you’ll see that I admit my definition of “good science fiction” is subjective. However, I think the absolute worst “bad science fiction” can be identified objectively. If a story is full of grammar and spelling errors, that’s pretty obvious. I know some liberties need to be taken with science, for instance FTL travel, but if an author goes too far overboard I think most readers would call it “bad”. Imagine a story where the entire mass of Jupiter is transported to Earth’s moon, but it doesn’t change the orbital mechanics or tides or anything; for most readers this would ruin the story.

      1. I should have posted my comment as a reply to this. Anyway, see below.

  2. I think there’s a middle ground. There’s a lot of great SF out there that plays pretty loose with the science, and other stuff with very accurate science but lame, cliched storytelling and one-dimensional characters. You can have good story and good science, but my philosophy is, never let the facts get in the way of the story. By the time you get to the end of my book, I’ve touched on Dark Matter, String Theory, Quantum Superposition and the Higgs Field, and I consulted with engineers and physicists (well, one of each) to be sure I knew what I was talking about. But I also have things like flying cars and injury-resistant bodypaint and rayguns that go “pew pew pew!” Rule of Cool trumps all (along with Rule of Sexy and Rule of Funny). Readers will forgive just about anything as long as you do two things: treat your weird science like the most reasonable thing in the world, and follow your own rules scrupulously, so that readers believe it could be real, or, more to the point, they really want it to be real..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: