• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Future TAM Speakers - Sci-fi authors?

delphi_ote

Philosopher
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
5,994
TAM4 will be my first TAM, and my knowledge of these events is shakey. That said, it struck me as a really cool idea to invite sci-fi authors to speak at TAM. Obviously Asimov was sympathetic to our cause. Why not others? Who better to communicate the imagination and excitement of science?

Particularly, I think Neal Stephenson and William Gibson would very much be interested in this type of event and have a lot to contribute. Perhaps Orson Scott Card. With the Ender's Game movie due in 2007, he would certainly be a "get."

Any thoughts?
 
Well, I love sci fi and sci fi authors but get plenty of them at the con I work at, how they could be worked in would depend on theme of the TAM. Personally, I would say if you want to invite anyone, Harlan Ellison is definitely a great person to invite. He is intelligent and always entertaining. My favorite experience with him was at one Icon when we had a "why people believe weird things" panel with Michael Shermer and Harlan Ellison, a scientist and a magician. The funnest panel I ever saw at the con, I laughed so hard and of course, it definitely made us think.
 
I don't know. His books crossed the line into unbelievability for me because they show religion still existing in the future, and playing a major part in people's lives.

Yea. He's certainly not "hardcore" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, his books are almost more fantasy than sci-fi.

That said, he likes to rant about current events.
 
Personally, I'd prefer a guest who's prepared to keep his religion out of my bedroom, rather than Orson Scott Card.
 
Originally Posted by delphi_ote :
Perhaps Orson Scott Card. With the Ender's Game movie due in 2007, he would certainly be a "get."

I don't know. His books crossed the line into unbelievability for me because they show religion still existing in the future, and playing a major part in people's lives.
He's a devout Mormon, so I guess religion is a big thing. I'm not sure that you could be a critical thinker and believe in all the silly stuff Mormonism is based on.
 
He's a devout Mormon, so I guess religion is a big thing. I'm not sure that you could be a critical thinker and believe in all the silly stuff Mormonism is based on.

Alright. No Orson Scott Card. I'd forgotten about the whole Mormon thing, though I never knew he was devout.

Terry Prachett would certainly be fun. Any other ideas?
 
Pratchett occurred to me, too. It's a real shame that Douglas Adams is not still with us.
I Larry Niven still around? As a hard-science type author, he should have an appreciation for scientific thinking.
 
There's a suggestion I could get behind. Good call, corgi!
Hmmm...any other hard-sci-fi authors. Poul Anderson? David Brin? Vernor Vinge? (gods how I miss Issac Asimov!) He's a mediocre fantasy author, and is too fond of esposing his political views, but Terry Goodkind does seem to be of a skepitcal mindset.

Just some thoughts.
 
David Brin would be a good one since he's wrote quite a lot about future trends in the world.
 
Hmmm...any other hard-sci-fi authors. Poul Anderson? David Brin? Vernor Vinge? (gods how I miss Issac Asimov!) He's a mediocre fantasy author, and is too fond of esposing his political views, but Terry Goodkind does seem to be of a skepitcal mindset.

Just some thoughts.

Unfortunatley, Poul Anderson has also passed away. A shame, he was my favorite.

Harlan Ellison has already been mentioned, and if Niven could come, his writing partner Jerry Pournelle could probably be cajoled into coming.
 
Pratchett occurred to me, too. It's a real shame that Douglas Adams is not still with us.

I went on a date tonight and ended up in a bookstore wandering around the sci-fi section. The young lady had never read any Adams, so I showed her the first chapter of Restraunt and read over her shoulder. It filled me with such a profound sadness when I realized again that he's gone...

One way or another, this is a deeply misleading Universe. Wherever we look it’s beginning to be extremely alarming and extremely upsetting to our sense of who we are—great, strapping, physical people living in a Universe that exists almost entirely for us—that it just isn’t the case. At this point we are still divining from this all sorts of fundamental principles, recognising the way that gravity works, the way that strong and weak nuclear forces work, recognising the nature of matter, the nature of particles and so on, but having got those fundamentals, we’re still not very good at figuring out how it works, because the maths is really rather tricky. So, we tend to come up with almost a clockwork view of the way it all works, because that’s the best our maths can manage. I don’t mean in any way to disparage Newton, because I guess he was the first person who saw that there were principles at work that were different from anything we actually saw around us. His first law of motion—that something will remain in its position of either rest or motion until some other force works on it—is something that none of us, living in a gravity well, in a gas envelope, had ever seen, because everything we move comes to a halt. It was only through very, very careful watching and observing and measuring and divining the principles underlying what we could all see happening that he came up with the principles that we all know and recognise as being the laws of motion, but nevertheless it is by modern terms, still a somewhat clockwork view of the Universe. As I say, I don’t mean that to sound disparaging in any way at all, because his achievements, as we all know, were absolutely monumental, but it still kind of doesn’t make sense to us.

I would've loved to have seen him in a room with James Randi, shaking hands.
 
A humble suggestion: David Brin.

I heard him speak at a sci-fi convention many years ago, and some of his comments lead to me becoming a more active skeptic. The gist of his lecture, overall was how we as a society were hamstringing the education of our children. The specific target of his ire was elderly who vote adamantly against any school taxes.

Nontheless, in that speech he managed to give a collective 'up yours' to UFO's and called the UFO-nuts the biggest waste of lives he'd ever encountered. He also attacked politcally-correct historical revisionists who were determined to villify all the founding fathers. (He did this because he was using Washington as an example of a politician who could see how his actions would have long term consequences.). The audience was held quite rapt.
 
A humble suggestion: David Brin.

I heard him speak at a sci-fi convention many years ago, and some of his comments lead to me becoming a more active skeptic. The gist of his lecture, overall was how we as a society were hamstringing the education of our children. The specific target of his ire was elderly who vote adamantly against any school taxes.

Nontheless, in that speech he managed to give a collective 'up yours' to UFO's and called the UFO-nuts the biggest waste of lives he'd ever encountered. He also attacked politcally-correct historical revisionists who were determined to villify all the founding fathers. (He did this because he was using Washington as an example of a politician who could see how his actions would have long term consequences.). The audience was held quite rapt.
Sounds like Brin is a good suggestion. I'm glad I thought of him first! :D
 
I read most of my Sci-fi from the library, they had quite a few books and collections of short stories, including some Assimov there.
I also remember Jack Vance and Heinlein as some of the authors I read a lot from.

As for the credibility of science fiction, well, it's not always supposed to be credible. I remember reading a definition of Sci-fi once that I really liked.
It's about describing a world or universe, and the beings living in it, with one or a few small details that differ from our own. The story is basically all about exploring that little difference, while keeping it clear that to the beings in the story, that difference isn't perceived at all because to them the world has always been like that.

So credibility has nothing to do with it. It's more about making you think about the obvious by making it not so obvious and then looking at it from that new angle.
 

Back
Top Bottom