Synchrotron Gets Sci-Fi Writer In Residence 80
kandela writes "CBC News is reporting that Nebula and Hugo award winning author Robert J. Sawyer is to become the first-ever writer in residence at the Canadian Light Source synchrotron facility (see also their media release). Sawyer will spend two months at the facility, where he is hoping to be inspired by the everyday grind of scientists, 'I spent a lot of time visiting science labs over the years, but it's always the VIP tour,' he said in an interview Wednesday. 'You are in and you are out in a couple of hours, and everyone has shown you all the things they want you to see but none of the day-to-day grind of the work as well. I want to get the flavour of that.' As a scientist who has worked at synchrotron facilities (and occasional sci-fi writer myself (page 4)), I'm excited to see what a professional can do with that environment for inspiration."
Wonder how long (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
inspiration? (Score:2)
...where he is hoping to be inspired by the everyday grind of scientists
What, reading papers, crunching numbers, writing papers and browsing Slashdot? Hmm...think I've already read that story.
Right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Right... (Score:4, Funny)
Why not? It's worked for Blizzard....
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To be fair to Sawyer, he has dealt with alternate universes and aliens in his work. I would expect that he'd continue with that, intermixing the more fantastic elements with the prosaic.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be true if WoW didn't take place in an alternate universe filled with trolls, orcs, and virtual armour and words
Wait... what? Alternate universe? I'm payed in gold and armor how are you payed? And slashdot is already full of trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention full of virtual words...
Re:Right... (Score:4, Insightful)
i guess that's the difference between hard sci-fi and sci-fi/fantasy, or perhaps between real literature and children's books.
most adult readers prefer stories based on life-like characters which they can relate to. that includes characters with realistic jobs and responsibilities. yes, books often offer a relaxing diversion from the monotony/stresses of day-to-day life, but just because a story is fictional doesn't mean it has to be set in an idealized utopian paradise; just because the real world is filled with problems and conflict doesn't mean that a fictional story should be devoid of these things.
it shouldn't be a surprise that sci-fi writers create fictional universes which parallel the real-world in many ways. it adds realism and depth to a story. and even though writers do background research in the real world, they still write stories with creative and original plots. just because you're writing a work of fiction doesn't mean you have to include fairies and unicorns or that you can't include mundane characters like plumbers or office clerks.
even in real life ordinary people with ordinary routines can have remarkable things happen to them or become involved in extraordinary events. there's no reason fiction should be any different. often the most compelling stories are the ones where the unexpected happens to everyday people. and writers frequently base their fictional characters off of people they encounter or observe in real life.
doing a short residency at a place like the synchrotron is a great way to see first-hand how real scientists work/live/talk/behave. that would certainly help an author to create realistic portrayals of scientists and capture their demeanor on paper. besides, the synchrotron isn't exactly a mundane place to work. sure, the researchers who work there probably have their share of tedious work to do, but so do rock stars and star athletes. nothing is 100% glamorous, fun & exciting. if that's what you want then read Harry Potter.
Re: (Score:2)
Potential thread hijack (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll definitly remember this next time I put on my player when I'm flying. I'll probably get a few suspicious looks when I start grinning though.
*renames Kung Fu Fighting to Air Marshall Activation on his player*
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also giving you a "Brilliant!" on the story.
On a side note, you must be really into science fiction. I mean you thought the editors might actually edit your submission.
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks and nice line!
Actually I have had a /. submission edited once. (This one [slashdot.org].) I actually wrote "It seems hell has frozen over and the fashion industry has taken an interest in the space industry," but they edited out the 'hell has frozen over' bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Boring (Score:1, Insightful)
I've worked at a synchrotron, and...
oh my god is it boring. This would seem like a good idea for about 3 days.
Re: (Score:2)
It's fun if you decide to get into mischief. You know those kids who set ants alight with a magnifying glass and the sun? A synchrotron is much better. Muhahahaha!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I bow to you, oh evil one.
I'm a little confused... (Score:2)
Don't sugar crystals open a portal to a giant gummy bears dimension?
should be required of science fact writers as well (Score:5, Informative)
Shouldn't all science fiction writers have some firsthand experience with science, ideally from an actual involvement with science? Well, maybe or maybe not. But more disturbing is the prevalence of people with no knowledge of science in the business of so-called science journalism [badscience.net]. Of course, a few months in a science lab won't cure what ails most science writers. But it would be better than nothing, which is apparently the status quo.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a certain usefulness to being familiar with what a science lab is like and the daily operations of scientific research, but that's not central to science fiction writing.
It is clear, though, that some science fiction writers have no understanding of scientific principles, and some certainly do. When science plays a visible role in a sci-fi story, particularly when the author is intending for the story to be not far from reality, the difference is really clear.
As far as I've seen, there are almost no
Shakespeare Never Met a King in His Life (Score:2)
...and Robert E. Howard never journeyed more than fifty miles away from his hometown in Texas.
There's a certain school of writer (and reader, too, apparently) that craves that super-deluxe gritty no-don't-make-it-a-blue-beaker-real-chemists-would-never-use-a-blue-beaker work-a-day realism, and then there are those focused on the human condition, complex themes, and imaginative notions no one has ever put to paper before. Not saying the twain can't meet, but life is short...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know any readers that crave super-deluxe realism, but I'll take your word for it. Still, I've read many works of fiction that are undermined by the author's ignorance. It comes up a lot in science fiction, but in other kinds of fiction as well. Sometimes ignorance undermines the work, sometimes it doesn't. Shakespeare is not on that list for me, but perhaps I'd feel differently if I knew more about how kings act.
Re: (Score:2)
If real scientists were better writers then it'd be easier for the science journalists to copy-and-paste from their technical papers and conference presentations to tell the real story. There would be more appreciation for science if those conducting it could espouse their hypothesis and experiment results with the eloquence and clarity of professional writers, but the fact is that writing and science are two different proficiencies that are rare to be found within a single individual (both require time an
Re: (Score:2)
If real scientists were better writers then it'd be easier for the science journalists to copy-and-paste from their technical papers and conference presentations to tell the real story.
Easier, but still basically impossible. Scientists write for a specialized audience that's defined by having a background in the field, and journalists for the most part don't have that background. In fact, for science writing to be at fault, we would have to assume that science journalists are at least trying to understand the articles. From what I've seen, most of them barely get through the press release and don't care what their interview subjects say.
I'm not going to claim that most scientists are g
Sadly, in our universe... (Score:2)
Gordon Freeman [imdb.com] is yet another Hollywood douche, who is patiently failing upwards.
Brilliant scifi writer? (Score:2)
from that linked wikipedia entry.
His interest in consciousness studies is also apparent in his WWW trilogy, beginning with Wake, which deals with the spontaneous emergence of consciousness in the infrastructure of the World Wide Web.
Why does this sound familiar [wikipedia.org]
So who [wikipedia.org]is the brilliant scifi writer again?
Re: (Score:2)
When was Wake published? Because that's basically the plot of Serial Experiments Lain.
Meh, there's nothing new under the sun [tvtropes.org].
Re:Brilliant scifi writer? (Score:5, Interesting)
That concept is older than old. Heck, computers randomly gaining sentience was done by Heinlein in 1966 and I doubt he was the first. Going from a single computer gaining sentience to a network of computers does not make it brilliant. Hell, the Sprawl trilogy pretty much created cyberpunk and I think it covered this whole area as well.
The real mark of brilliance in such areas is how you actually treat the subject and what interesting sub-questions you bring to light. There are a hundred different ways to cover some basic ideas and every single one of them can be utterly unique.
I beg to differ. (Score:2, Interesting)
That concept is older than old. Heck, computers randomly gaining sentience was done by Heinlein in 1966 and I doubt he was the first. Going from a single computer gaining sentience to a network of computers does not make it brilliant.
I beg to differ. The difference between Shirow's version and everyone else is the entity was not created by humans. A data trojan inadvertantly interacted with random data on the web in the same way a molecule interacted with others to form DNA.
This is very different from "AI's gone wild" a-la heinlein or t-1000.
The real mark of brilliance in such areas is how you actually treat the subject and what interesting sub-questions you bring to light. There are a hundred different ways to cover some basic ideas and every single one of them can be utterly unique.
and Shirow covers this entire area better as well if you examine the bulk of his work.
Re: (Score:2)
I beg to differ. The difference between Shirow's version and everyone else is the entity was not created by humans. A data trojan inadvertantly interacted with random data on the web in the same way a molecule interacted with others to form DNA.
This is very different from "AI's gone wild" a-la heinlein or t-1000.
What part of "randomly gaining sentience" do you not understand? Heinlein's version simply kept having parts added to it till it simply gained sentience one day from some chance event. It didn't go rogue so I'm guessing you have no idea what I'm talking about either.
and Shirow covers this entire area better as well if you examine the bulk of his work.
So you claim while showing apparently no knowledge of any other work in the field or anything that doesn't have pictures in it. Yeah, I'll consider the value of your opinion to be worth about zero. Likewise anyone who claims an author can cover
Re: (Score:1)
Well I have read what you both refer to and I can say that aside from deeper and more beleivable characters and stories in general, Shirow has a distinctly better explanation for his sentient program than Heinlein's handwaving of "it just had so many parts fitted to it". And more interestingly philosophical to boot.
And attacking someone with "you do not understand books with no pictures" shows that a) you have no appreciation of visual arts and b) you have no valid arguments yet want to find some way of att
Re: (Score:2)
Well I have read what you both refer to and I can say that aside from deeper and more beleivable characters and stories in general, Shirow has a distinctly better explanation for his sentient program than Heinlein's handwaving of "it just had so many parts fitted to it". And more interestingly philosophical to boot.
Heinlein was an example of the concept of self-creating AI and how it predates this all by decades. You apparently lack the reading comprehension to understand that it's possible to make separate points in a single post. Heinlein was aiming for a completely different plot and idea than Shirow so trying to compare the two works together shows you have no idea what you're talking about. I never compared the two, see previous point on reading comprehension. Now the Sprawl trilogy is in the same genre as is pro
Re: (Score:2)
So you claim while showing apparently no knowledge of any other work in the field or anything that doesn't have pictures in it. Yeah, I'll consider the value of your opinion to be worth about zero.
No, I claim shirow covers the subject better if you examine the bulk of his work. Leave the ad hominems at home please.
Likewise anyone who claims an author can cover such an area "entirely" in a single work is an idiot who doesn't understand that certain treatments necessarily contradict other treatments plot wise.
You demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of shirow's work. He uses the same universe for most of his work. Particularly gits is an extension of appleseed, and the new real drive is an extension of gits.
The fact you don't understand the breadth and depth of his work, and that you defend this hack, points to your shortcomings, not mine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sawyer: Incompetent Writer, Attention Whore (Score:5, Informative)
I've only read one Sawyer book, Mindscan.
From what I can see, he likes to get ideas from the public. And I will say there were a couple of cool ideas in that book...but the book itself was horrible.
The emotions were canned, the story forced and the characters unsympathetic. It degenerated into just-plain-silly at times with blatant attempts to be 'socially relevant' with all the subtlety of hammering a railroad spike with a hippo.
I'm not kidding when I say that it almost felt like a 7th grader who just watched Outer Limits sat down and wrote a book for his end-of-the-week project.
I'm hoping his other work is better.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not kidding when I say that it almost felt like a 7th grader who just watched Outer Limits sat down and wrote a book for his end-of-the-week project.
I nominate this for the slap-down of the week.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I wouldn't bother reading his other books then. People keep buying me Robert Sawyer books as presents as I think the Galaxy bookshop (Sydney's big SF shop) recommends him if you like hard SF. I wish they wouldn't. I agree with the comments about his characters and his Canadian inferiority complex is just plain annoying.
Maybe fans of Michael Crichton's characterisation will appreciate Sawyer's works.
Re:Sawyer: Incompetent Writer, Attention Whore (Score:4, Informative)
I've read three of his other books: The Terminal Experiment, Flashfoward, and Calculating God -- Hoping that maybe they would get better. But sadly, they don't.
He takes far too many of his scene descriptions directly from public spaces. If you've ever lived in Toronto, you know the exact locations he's talking about, and you really wish he would shut up about it, and stop using the word Toronto. He goes into such inane detail that you know which subway stop to get off at, how many blocks over to walk, and which side of the street to be on to be standing right where his cardboard characters uttered something absolutely obvious, and then go over to Pizza^H^H^H^H^HFood Food for all their dietary needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I've read Flashforward and Calculating God. Both good ideas, both poorly written. As you say, very dislikeable cardboard characters, and plots that are pretty miserable.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
He's not totally incompetent. Some of his stuff is second rate. The book which won the undeserved Hugo (Hominids), for instance. A lot of it, though, is just plain bad. _Rollback_... a lot of hand-wringing and emoting topped off with an old man's wish fulfillment fantasy. The first volume of (God save us, a trilogy) "Wake"... some good concepts, terrible execution.
He's built a publicity machine based on being a top _Canadian_ SF writer. But if he were American, he'd be lost in the midlist.
Synchrotrons are great environments (Score:5, Insightful)
The scientific environment is electric. Things get done - ideas flourish and are crushed in minutes as a gaggle of intelligent scientists throw ideas around and call on their years of experience. Copious amounts of coffee are consumed and everyone stands there silent when the a-ha moment arrives and all the hard work comes together.
It might be hard for an outsider to appreciate this, and there is a chance this isn't the norm when it comes to the average synchrotron experience.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What's hard for me to appreciate is how a bunch of people who are supposedly so fucking brilliant won't band together and get an alternative to the fluorescent lights put in. I mean, come on, form a fucking union or something. Don't those things give you headaches? I know they do me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's sounds like you're experience is as a synchrotron user. It's a bit different for the guys and gals who make sure the synchrotron works everyday. I do light source R&D so we only have to work super long hours when we are doing an experimental run, in addition it's mostly us grad students and postdocs who are doing the work under better lighting (we got rid of all florescent lighting), but with the same beautiful hum of vacuum pumps.
I really can't for the life of me see what this writer is going to b
Saskatoon, Are you sure you wanna be there? (Score:1)
I grew up in this town.
It's winter there now. And it's F&#$%#$@'n Cold.
http://www.leaderpost.com/story_print.html?id=1145659&sponsor= [leaderpost.com]
Hmm (Score:1)
Exchange of Ideas (Score:3, Insightful)
The CLS Outreach Office (Score:1)
I have to put in a word of praise for my friends at the CLS Outreach Office, who do a creative job of explaining the complexities of synchrotron science to a popular audience. Their work with high school students [lightsource.ca] is a really amazing ongoing project.
I am not familiar with this author, but I can hardly wait to read a novel populated with my CLS colleagues!
Re: (Score:1)
isn't a Synchrotron one of the early particle accelerators, like a poor mans LHC?
Synchrotrons have been around for over 50 years but they are hardly a poor man's LHC. Different types of accelerators are useful for different types of experiments and synchrotrons have been steadily improving in the energy levels. In fact, the LHC is composed of a collection of different parts one of which is a synchrotron see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_Synchrotron_Booster [wikipedia.org] .
In general, there are three most common types of accelerators which have been used since the 1930s. All three are still
Galatea 2.2 (Score:2)
Sounds like the plot for Galatea 2.2 [wikipedia.org]. Ah, humanist-in-residence or writer-in-residence, it's all the same: where can I sign up?