SCIENCE IN FICTION
PANEL AT NYCC 2015
AMBER LOVE 12-OCT-2015 I was in the second to the last row for the SCIENCE IN FICTION panel at New York Comic Con so the audio is a bit low and I started recording about 10 minutes into the discussion. Below are some notes and the author information. You can sponsor the show and the site for as little as $1/week at Patreon.com/AmberUnmasked.
Download on iTunes, Stitcher or listen here.
Mindy McGinnis, author of In a Handful of Dust, Not a Drop to Drink, and A Madness So Discreet. https://twitter.com/mindymcginnis https://www.facebook.com/MindyMcGinnisAuthor
Jordan Stratford, author of The Wollstonecraft Detective Agency series (I said The Case of the Missing Moonstone was book seven, but that’s book one and he’s up to writing book seven) https://twitter.com/jordanstratford https://www.facebook.com/worldofwollstonecraft
* You can listen to my past episode of Vodka O’Clock with Jordan
Ian McDonald, author of tons of books including Dervish House, winner of the Campbell Memorial Award Best Novel and British Science Fiction Association Award Best Novel. His most recent book is called Luna: New Moon. https://www.facebook.com/ianmcdonaldauthor
“When you write a research-heavy book, you throw away 80% of your research. You never use it. Unless you do the research, you won’t know which 80% you don’t need use… It is a wonderfully fun black hole you can fall into especially because writers love prevaricating. Writers will do anything rather than write. You have the cleanest houses, the neatest gardens. I’m quite sure The Great Wall of China was probably built by writers.” ~ Ian McDonald
There’s a lot of discussion on how they research and when they reach the limit of fact and begin crafting the fiction part of their story elements.
“I think that there is a fear and a valid point when you are creating science that can make so much sense, that you removes mystery from the equation, it removes and shatters that suspension of disbelief. I call it The Midichlorian Problem.” ~ Jordan Stratford
The panelists were fantastic in both knowledge of their subjects and in having enough humor to keep the discussion rolling with lighthearted anecdotes. None of the speakers spoke over each other and appropriately waited for their turn at the mic. The only discernible problem was that the moderator was late so someone substituted at first and when Clines showed up he basically asked the same question as the other person who started them off.
Audio: it’s a little squelchy but not really that bad compared to other on-site recordings I’ve done. The audio questions are sometimes hard to hear because they didn’t have a crowd mic. And as typically happens, the questions sometimes don’t seem thought-through and focused; people get nervous and ramble.