Being that some of this thread has spilled over from where I am (SRC) to
r.a.m.d-f, we really don't have a good overview of (classical)
"literature" and its relevance to the scientist going to screen-writer
theme. I'm not sure, but I'd have to ask some questions.
1. What is the average per capita time spent seeing movies (which is in
the newsgroup name to which some people are responding).
2. What is the average per capita time spent reading books (I'm thinking
of Tom Clancy, Danielle Steel, etc., which is a very large market).
3. Considering the large number of fiction book (not to mention
non-fiction) titles published per year compared to the number of movies
published per year (we can think about video tapes, too?)...
..why is screen-writing coming up as a targeted new profession/career?
Just write a book (manuscript) and avail yourself of one of many avenues
of publication (OK, so, yes, its not that easy, but then, again, how many
screen-writer jobs are out there compared to free lance authoriing?)
===== no change to below, included for reference and context =====
Post by Pete
Post by Remail@example.com
This may generate many irrate responses correcting me, :-) but
IMO in a word, no, if by scientist you mean an active professional
not just someone who got a degree in some field of science
[.....] There are one or two exceptions whose names I don't
recall, but I wouldn't say many Sci Fi writers are scientists. A few,
Nothing irate here, I hope... (:-/) And in fact you're probably right
about the majority of SF writers not being scientifically oriented --
especially these days, and if you include all the hacks and virtually
However, I think a lot of the 'classic' SF was written by people who
*were* scientifically trained, and many were or are working in science
Fred Hoyle, of course [OK so his prose was hardly classic,
but his stories were fun!]
Asimov and Sagan have been mentioned, and Heinlein was an
engineer for a while, wasn't he?... Clarke of course is
extremely technologically informed, studied at Kings College,
and has written at least one classic paper, but I guess was
never a full-time academic.
Charles Sheffield and Greg Benford, I believe [somebody
I suspect even more these days are science journalists, though I
can't name many names. Richard Lovett, though, shows up with about
equal frequency in the pages of NewScientist and Analog.
-- Pete --
The address in the header is a Spam Bucket -- don't bother replying to it...
(If you do need to email, replace the account name with my true name.)