Quote:
Originally Posted by Ea
Just remembered something that really irritated me: In George R. R. Martin's "Song of Fire and Ice" there's these flint mountains, and AFAIK it's a geological impossibility. It just kept taking me out of the story and I never got futher than the first book.
|
I don't remember that, but then again, I have no specific professional or personal interest in flint and / or geology, so it might explain why.
Well, if a book contains stupid things about computer science, I'm much more likely to remark them. It might not lead me to stop reading the book, though, because I'm used to it (to be frank, it would depend on the scale of the error).
Ea, it's too bad that this prevented you from enjoying the story, as Martin has created a very interesting setting.
I feel that it depends on the goal and advertised genre of the book.
If a book is hard sci-fi, it HAS to be solid and scientifically credible. There shouldn't be much suspension of disbelief at play, in fact, it should mostly consist in accepting the author's hypothesis about scientific progress.
If a book is *simple* science-fiction without claims of scientific accuracy, then I am much more flexible.
I think I'm even more permissive with fantasy, especially for magic-based stories.
In the end, for me it's more about internal consistency than about compliance with an external set of rules.
The author might have to explain important discrepancies, though, either in the foreword, a footnote or integrating it within the story.
This makes me think about the "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away" intro to Star Wars, it's an easy way (a bit too easy maybe) to give oneself a great leeway for inventing /modifying stuff.