Factoring Progress into our stories.....

[iwatchus]

While you may consider X or Y to be a failure, you cannot discount how they encourage others to seek something better. Would SpaceX exist without the Shuttle? Would Boom exist without Concorde?

Boom would absolutely exist without Concorde. Concorde was such an abysmal failure that it discouraged further work in the area for a generation. It's biggest contribution was showing what not to do.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

A whole load of knowledge about supersonic flight.


One moment you compare Concorde to military aircraft, and the next you don't. Make your mind up.


Yes, you would, but that is the risk of writing about the future. Does it mean that 2001: A Space Odyssey is a bad film? I mean Pan Am was bust by then!

No, my point was consistent.
YOU made a claim about comparing military aircraft was irrelevant because they are unprofitable.

Oh, "a whole boatload of knowledge", is that a precise engineering term? Can you be specific about what is in this boatload? How is the information specifically learned from the Concorde relevant 60 years later with thr changes in modern material science?
You really have no idea. You're just sure it is because of your emotional attachment.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I was challenging your point about government funding.

I didn't make a point about government funding.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Boom would absolutely exist without Concorde. Concorde was such an abysmal failure that it discouraged further work in the area for a generation. It's biggest contribution was showing what not to do.

Exactly, nobody at Boom (or anywhere else) is digging through the Concorde archive saying "we can build on this!"

 

[filthytrancendence]

Seems like a good time to drop an anti-capitalist grenade...

It's just a categorical mistake to conflate profitability with progress. To some extent, profitability is orthogonal to sustainability, in that something that is profitable will generally be self-sustained in a market economy. But that's an extremely limiting bar.

It makes no sense to argue about whether the space shuttle or what SpaceX has going is 'better' or whatever. I'm not an engineer, I'm not going to act like I understand either program, but it's undeniable that SpaceX had the knowledge of the space shuttle program to build upon. And... nearly all of SpaceX's funding comes from... public funding.

The cold, undeniable fact is that most of the technological advancements of the 20th century were not achieved via the profit motive. The idea that the profit motive drives innovation is pure myth-making courtesy of the worst ghouls on the planet. The profit motive drives profit. Sometimes there's innovations in making profit. Usually those suck really badly for regular humans.

(I'm not saying anybody here is explicitly making this argument. It's just lingering prominently in the subtext of this discussion so I am voicing an opposing view)

Subscription models, SaaS, microtransactions, gig labor, stock buybacks, mortgage backed securities, leveraged buyouts, cryptocurrency, NFTs, multilevel marketing...

Those are the innovations of the profit motive. Pretty much everything else that's being discussed? Those came from governments (and very occasionally corporations) paying scientists and engineers to follow their curiosity.

The only major exception I can think of is that time when companies like Xerox and Bell followed the government model and just poured enormous parts of the their profits into pure research. That's where we got the GUI and touch screens and most of the shit that FAANG pretended like they invented 20+ years later. And there's just not a single company doing that anymore, because look what happened to Xerox and Bell... they made the mistake of sharing human knowledge with amoral profit-motive worshipers and dun did got out-competed in the free marketplace of intellectual property horseshit.

 

[ElectricBlue]

No, the Concorde wasn't the only successful supersonic aircraft. The military was successfully flying supersonic aircraft decades before Concorde.

No, they had an emotional attachment to the PROGRAM which isn't the same as an emotional attachment to progress.

They're not passenger aircraft. Now you're being obtuse.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Exactly, nobody at Boom (or anywhere else) is digging through the Concorde archive saying "we can build on this!"

How do you know? That's like saying no-one paid attention to the Comet window fatigue, which has resulted in oval or round windows on passenger aircraft ever since.

 

[PapaRomantic]

Fuck......

I should have kept quiet.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

How do you know? That's like saying no-one paid attention to the Comet window fatigue, which has resulted in oval or round windows on passenger aircraft ever since.

And how does anyone know that Boom couldn't exist without the Concorde? It's pure unfounded speculation based on emotion.

The Concorde first flew in 1969, do you really believe that the research that went into it is anywhere near cutting edge?

 

[Kelliezgirl]

They're not passenger aircraft. Now you're being obtuse.

The technology to make an aircraft go Supersonic is the same if it's carrying 300 passengers or 300 Bombs.
Aerodynamics don't care what your cargo is. So, yes, the research that went into successful military Supersonic aircraft is very much relevant.

 

[dirk2024]

So what began as a helpful thread in the AH to help authors with their work, has devolved into political quibbling much more suited to the Politics section.

Does anyone want to help get us back on topic?

 

[iwatchus]

So what began as a helpful thread in the AH to help authors with their work, has devolved into political quibbling much more suited to the Politics section.

Does anyone want to help get us back on topic?

As someone who (I think) contributed positively to the original discussion, and also undoubtedly contributed to its descent into the abyss, I agree with this sentiment.

I will try to at least partially atone for my sins, by asking a question about the original topic.

As I said earlier, I think we should look at anything contemporary pieces we do as future period pieces, should we be so lucky as to have them still being read. But many write period pieces now. @MelissaBaby talked about someone complaining about her (correct) usage of a ball point pen in a story in the 40's. Even if she was wrong (and I am sure she wasnt), the story was credible as it was written. Should we write for the pendants or the average reader. Obviously, where possible, write for both. But how much responsibility do we have for the 1 in a thousand who are aware of an anachronism? I know their comments burn, especially when they are right and you screwed something up for no reason. If a story has 10K+ views and a rating above 4.8 -- which describes most of MB's stories -- should we care about the one complaint. We will, or at least I know I will, but should we?

I guess I am saying, how much should we beat ourselves up over details that might be wrong or might not age well (back to the OP) if almost no one notices?

 

[Writer61]

As someone who (I think) contributed positively to the original discussion, and also undoubtedly contributed to its descent into the abyss, I agree with this sentiment.

Well said.

I guess I am saying, how much should we beat ourselves up over details that might be wrong or might not age well (back to the OP) if almost no one notices?

Again, I agree. Unless there is some glaring error (say, a mobile phone turning up in the Victorian era), we should not worry. That sometimes means I have to defeat my inner pedant. Artistic license applies.

 

[Voboy]

As someone who (I think) contributed positively to the original discussion, and also undoubtedly contributed to its descent into the abyss, I agree with this sentiment.

I will try to at least partially atone for my sins, by asking a question about the original topic.

As I said earlier, I think we should look at anything contemporary pieces we do as future period pieces, should we be so lucky as to have them still being read. But many write period pieces now. @MelissaBaby talked about someone complaining about her (correct) usage of a ball point pen in a story in the 40's. Even if she was wrong (and I am sure she wasnt), the story was credible as it was written. Should we write for the pendants or the average reader. Obviously, where possible, write for both. But how much responsibility do we have for the 1 in a thousand who are aware of an anachronism? I know their comments burn, especially when they are right and you screwed something up for no reason. If a story has 10K+ views and a rating above 4.8 -- which describes most of MB's stories -- should we care about the one complaint. We will, or at least I know I will, but should we?

I guess I am saying, how much should we beat ourselves up over details that might be wrong or might not age well (back to the OP) if almost no one notices?

I was reading a nonfiction history book once, years ago, by a very well-regarded author named Nathaniel Philbrick. Buried within some of his exposition was a clear error, obvious to the five or six nerds like me who happen to know about the way British Army officers received their commissions during the 18th century.

That did not, for me, spoil the whole work. But I’d be lying if I didn’t say it led me to question some of his other facts. I’d have a similar reaction to a story here, I assume, which is one of the reasons I’m pretty careful to try and get such things right when I do write historical pieces.

It’s exciting to me to think anyone will read my stuff long enough after I die that it will be viewed as any kind of relic. For one thing, it’ll mean Laurel and Manu will have figured out a succession plan.

 

[Writer61]

I was reading a nonfiction history book once, years ago, by a very well-regarded author named Nathaniel Philbrick.

I think you are entitled to expect complete accuracy from such a book.

 

[Voboy]

I think you are entitled to expect complete accuracy from such a book.

I thought so, too.

I wrote an email to Philbrick about it through his publisher. He was gracious, but I doubt the error was ever corrected in subsequent editions. It’s a very small error, but obvious to those of us who’d know.

 

[iwatchus]

I thought so, too.

I wrote an email to Philbrick about it through his publisher. He was gracious, but I doubt the error was ever corrected in subsequent editions. It’s a very small error, but obvious to those of us who’d know.

Do you know the story about Neil DeGrasse Tyson, James Cameron and Titanic?

The two men were apparently at a dinner party together somewhere and Tyson complained to Cameron that the sky they used in the nighttime shots was wrong. The wrong constellations were visible or something. Tyson said that everyone at the table laughed at his pedantry. But a few years later, someone from Cameron's camp reached out to Tyson about it and a revised version was released (maybe the director's cut or something), but it had the stars fixed.

 

[Voboy]

Do you know the story about Neil DeGrasse Tyson, James Cameron and Titanic?

The two men were apparently at a dinner party together somewhere and Tyson complained to Cameron that the sky they used in the nighttime shots was wrong. The wrong constellations were visible or something. Tyson said that everyone at the table laughed at his pedantry. But a few years later, someone from Cameron's camp reached out to Tyson about it and a revised version was released (maybe the director's cut or something), but it had the stars fixed.

I'm the kind of pedant who'd have been bothered by that, too, though not bothered enough for the movie to be ruined. I forgave Philbrick because the error was small and esoteric, not like the time in Pearl Harbor where they call a guy "lieutenant" even though he's plainly wearing captain's bars. That one is unforgivable.

More to the point of this thread, @MelissaBaby and her ballpoint pen would have been another thing I'd have noticed, if I were a Pen Nerd. I would have gone to find out whether she was right, and I'd have been pleasantly surprised that she'd paid that level of attention to her work here, on a free smut site. Might have even commented favorably on it at the end of the piece.

I don't know how many people are like me, but we're out there, and I write for them because I write for myself. Once, when I set a story on some Maine islands among a group of puffin researchers, I was extremely meticulous about researching the layout of their main camp so that I'd get the tent locations correct. I do that sort of thing because I enjoy it, but I'll admit that in the back of my mind I was thinking, what if some future reader is an alumnus of this puffin program? They'll know I put the OPs in the wrong places!

So? I put the OPs in the right places. I hope I take similar care in making sure my other stories age well, too.

 

[iwatchus]

I'm the kind of pedant who'd have been bothered by that, too, though not bothered enough for the movie to be ruined. I forgave Philbrick because the error was small and esoteric, not like the time in Pearl Harbor where they call a guy "lieutenant" even though he's plainly wearing captain's bars. That one is unforgivable.

More to the point of this thread, @MelissaBaby and her ballpoint pen would have been another thing I'd have noticed, if I were a Pen Nerd. I would have gone to find out whether she was right, and I'd have been pleasantly surprised that she'd paid that level of attention to her work here, on a free smut site. Might have even commented favorably on it at the end of the piece.

I don't know how many people are like me, but we're out there, and I write for them because I write for myself. Once, when I set a story on some Maine islands among a group of puffin researchers, I was extremely meticulous about researching the layout of their main camp so that I'd get the tent locations correct. I do that sort of thing because I enjoy it, but I'll admit that in the back of my mind I was thinking, what if some future reader is an alumnus of this puffin program? They'll know I put the OPs in the wrong places!

So? I put the OPs in the right places. I hope I take similar care in making sure my other stories age well, too.

I went to see the sequel to National Treasure (I took my son -- he loved the first one, which was fun).

The movie started out well for me. The ancestor from the civil war ear is using a PlayFair cipher (the historically correct choice for the time and the sender and receiver) and doing it correctly, which I was thrilled to see. Much better handling than almost any movie does with modern security things. It primed me to have high hopes for the movie, hopes that were completely dashed of cours of course.

I like to tell my students that story when I teach a unit on the history of cryptography. If they had any lingering doubts that I was a nerd through and through, they are dispelled.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Such as?
The promise of the Space Shuttle was cheap, reliable, reusable access to space. It was going to be reliable and cost effective.
It wasn't.
I realize a certain generation has a romance with the Space Shuttle, but it was over sold and under delivered by any reasonable metric.

I'd see it as more of a first iteration, but it was oversold and they failed to keep working to build on it, amd it's really ony been Elon Musk that has done that, finally. His iterative approach to design and build shows what can be done with a can do mindset and enough $'s - espen you compare it to the Boeing boondoggle.

 

[ChloeTzang]

I was reading a nonfiction history book once, years ago, by a very well-regarded author named Nathaniel Philbrick. Buried within some of his exposition was a clear error, obvious to the five or six nerds like me who happen to know about the way British Army officers received their commissions during the 18th century.

.......I’m pretty careful to try and get such things right when I do write historical pieces.

THAT is right on target in my opinion, when you are doing anything historical. That's why I like writers like Patrick O'Brien, Georgette Heyer and a few others. They get the little historical details right, and some of them are so obscure you would have no idea unless you looked them up. Georgette Heyer's Regency novels are almost a source in themselves - slang, dress, periodicals, manner of speech, attitudes, lifestyles, food - everything she writes is accurate for the period. Her book on Waterloo is used as a textbook - now we'll never get to that sort of accuracy with the future.

Robert Heinlein is a great example, as always, as someone who turned out to be wildly optimistic about human progress and the directions it would take - one of his novels has startship pilots doing course calculations with manual tables and slide rules for example, which always cracks me up. William Gibson is already starting to go that way.....but that's future projections...

Actually that's why I like alternative history, because you can write your own future, but as an alternative history future it really doesn't matter if yu get it wrong because it's an alternate world where you expect differences. Same thing with steampunk - which I love. They let you play with things and nobody is thrown out by discrepancies because ot's "alternate" right from the get go and expectations have been set.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

THAT is right on target in my opinion, when you are doing anything historical. That's why I like writers like Patrick O'Brien, Georgette Heyer and a few others. They get the little historical details right, and some of them are so obscure you would have no idea unless you looked them up. Georgette Heyer's Regency novels are almost a source in themselves - slang, dress, periodicals, manner of speech, attitudes, lifestyles, food - everything she writes is accurate for the period. Her book on Waterloo is used as a textbook - now we'll never get to that sort of accuracy with the future.

Robert Heinlein is a great example, as always, as someone who turned out to be wildly optimistic about human progress and the directions it would take - one of his novels has startship pilots doing course calculations with manual tables and slide rules for example, which always cracks me up. William Gibson is already starting to go that way.....but that's future projections...

Actually that's why I like alternative history, because you can write your own future, but as an alternative history future it really doesn't matter if yu get it wrong because it's an alternate world where you expect differences. Same thing with steampunk - which I love. They let you play with things and nobody is thrown out by discrepancies because ot's "alternate" right from the get go and expectations have been set.

Heyer is great. I should read some more - I inherited about 60 of them a while back. O'Brien and Hornblower are also great for their detail, and authors like PD James or Dorothy Sayers - they convince you with the small details so you believe the big story.

I do have a soft spot for Heinlein, most for being the first author I read where women actually wanted sex and expected to enjoy it, not to mention the polyamory. More recently I gave a teenager The Door Into Summer, written and starting in the 50s, but most of it is a tine travel story to the future - the year 2000! Which he found incredibly funny, given the random technology but mostly the incredible patronising of women, treating them almost like pets or children. Which explained to him why people go on about feminism.

 

[iwatchus]

I do have a soft spot for Heinlein, most for being the first author I read where women actually wanted sex and expected to enjoy it, not to mention the polyamory. More recently I gave a teenager The Door Into Summer, written and starting in the 50s, but most of it is a tine travel story to the future - the year 2000! Which he found incredibly funny, given the random technology but mostly the incredible patronising of women, treating them almost like pets or children. Which explained to him why people go on about feminism.

I grew up a huge Heinlein fan, back when he was an active writer. I re-read several of his a few years ago, including Doorway and Harsh Mistress at least. He was this odd mixture of having very strong, intelligent, self-empowered women (from my understanding, all based on his sister), but he had a very parochial view of women at the same time. His work has not aged as well as I would have hoped, in my mind at least. His odd treatment of women just doesn't work fifty years later.

 

[Writer61]

It is not just technology that can catch us out. Language changes, too.

My current WIP is on a film set in the early 90s, which means referring to actresses. Something that I would not do for a modern-day equivalent.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

THAT is right on target in my opinion, when you are doing anything historical. That's why I like writers like Patrick O'Brien, Georgette Heyer and a few others. They get the little historical details right, and some of them are so obscure you would have no idea unless you looked them up. Georgette Heyer's Regency novels are almost a source in themselves - slang, dress, periodicals, manner of speech, attitudes, lifestyles, food - everything she writes is accurate for the period. Her book on Waterloo is used as a textbook - now we'll never get to that sort of accuracy with the future.

Robert Heinlein is a great example, as always, as someone who turned out to be wildly optimistic about human progress and the directions it would take - one of his novels has startship pilots doing course calculations with manual tables and slide rules for example, which always cracks me up. William Gibson is already starting to go that way.....but that's future projections...

Actually that's why I like alternative history, because you can write your own future, but as an alternative history future it really doesn't matter if yu get it wrong because it's an alternate world where you expect differences. Same thing with steampunk - which I love. They let you play with things and nobody is thrown out by discrepancies because ot's "alternate" right from the get go and expectations have been set.

I actually learned what a slide rule was because of Heinlein.