How can fiction writers interest children in science?

[Silentknight]

Part of the discussion on overrated books (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=131113&page=3) starting on page 3 got me thinking. Here's the relevant part.

(snip)
Scientists should take note, to get a generation of people interested in reading about science we need to market it like Eragon, and add sexy vampires, or and a emo or two. And we might just be able to get kids interested in science and start beating Asia's math and science scores. Maybe get that Moon Base. Hope someone out there lurking is taking notes.

Susan

I'm not lurking, but I am taking notes. My next manga gets all those things! Wait...you wanted American kids more interested in science. Crap.

That would still be pushing woo, even though it may be in the service of getting kids excited about science.

What about a book about pale scientists who never go out in the sun, are afraid to enter a church (because it would be very boring) and have the power to manipulate bat DNA.

Is that close enough?

It turns out this is something that's been occupying a great deal of my thoughts for a long time as well. The problem as I see it is that another generation of children is going to muddle through school without the least bit of interest in science or mathematics. They find the subjects boring, difficult to understand, and impossible to relate to in any meaningful way. Perhaps they regard the subjects as distilling the world down to harsh uncaring facts and numbers. Whatever the reasons, the interest in science continues to decline among young people (not just in the US either) with fewer seeking careers in the kinds of technical fields for which there are a rising demand.

This brings me back to my question. How can fiction writers plant the seeds of scientific literacy in the next generation? Judging from the popular books out there, fantasy sells. The obvious answer would be science fiction, but my objection would be that most science fiction writers still take a lot of liberties with the actual science involved, to the point where it's of no real use to anyone. For example, if you've got a "rule of cool" based story involving laser weapons, hyperspace travel, sexy aliens, and tons of bright flashy explosions, the disconnect with the audience is still there and the problem remains.

What I had in mind was more along the lines of something that, while taking place in a fictional setting, actually has something real to teach young readers about science and the value of critical thinking. It should spark curiosity about the real world; the one we live in right now. It should encourage them to ask questions and seek answers to the great mysteries of the universe.

Please note that this isn't a debate about whether or not science is the best methodology to use, or any petty objections one might have to the conclusions of modern science. I'm interested in starting a brainstorming session of ideas for how to get young readers interested in science. Cavemonster's post above is a good example (yes I know it was tongue-in-cheek). However, that's okay too. They can be funny, serious, or anywhere in between. They can be character concepts, potential story ideas, or simply scenes or explanations that you would like to see included somewhere.

What are your thoughts?

[gumboot]

I think getting children to read at all is the wrong approach. The way to get children interested in science is not to expose them to science. It's to encourage an appetite for curiosity and discovery.

Getting children to play outside in the real world, and to explore its wonders and learn about them, is the way. Encourage creativity and imagination. That worked for me. :)

[Cavemonster]

I'm actually a big believer in the power of television.
I think a massive chunk of my generation was brought up on, and learned a lot from, Sesame Street.

Television has a low barrier of entry compared to books. It can be distributed at no charge to the recipient too. As you can tell from the amount of money spent on advertising, unless you think they're wasting their money, it's also a great medium for creating a desire.

I was a huge fan of Beakman's World. I think, something like that aimed at a younger audience would be pretty useful.

[wollery]

I'm not going to post about how to get kids interested in science, instead I'd like to make a point about the first post quoted in the OP.

It argues that getting kids interested in science will help bridge the gap to Asian kids science and maths scores. I'd like to note that Asian kids don't get better scores because they are more interested in science than Western kids. It's because they work harder than Western kids, and they work harder because they are forced to by their parents, and their teachers.

In China a student at an average high school will arrive at 7:30am, and leave at 5:30pm. When they get home they'll have at least 3 hours of homework every night, and more on weekends, as well as weekend classes. In a good school they'll arrive at 7am, leave at 6pm and be expected to do about 5 hours of homework every night, often with a full day of school on Saturday, and a full day of homework on Sunday. And this pattern continues in the 'holidays', with some children only getting one work free day in a three week school break. They have almost no social life, and in a good school any kid who consistently fails to make the grade could face expulsion. I know this because my wife tutors several kids in English, and many of my colleagues have teenage children.

I am lead to understand that the situation is similar in many other Asian countries.

So, in response to that first quoted post - if you want kids in the West to achieve grades on a par with Asian kids then all you have to do is deny them a social life and make them work like slaves.

[Ove]

Series like McGyver are great. People solving problems with their mind NOT brute force is a good way forward. Shows like Mythbusters are also excellent in teaching kids critical thinking in an entertaining way. I don't think that the programmes need to be realistic, several of McGyvers stunts have been prooven wrong, it is the way of thinking that matters. I was very taken by Tom Swift stories as a kid and books with a young scientist in the role of the Hero is good inspiration. There were some UK books along the same line too but frankly i don't remember them.
The main job theese days is to get young people to READ in the first place. A lot of people seems to think that you can get everything on "the net" and that you don't need to read books anymore and THAT is a major problem which will haunt the next generation i'm afraid. The very act of reading a book is so terapeutic calming that it should be mandatory for all kids to read books regularely. The one flash of light at the end of the tunnel is JK Rowling who has done more for childrens book reading than anyone else and hopefully her example is a guide for others. That remains to be seen.

[Dunstan]

The obvious answer would be science fiction, but my objection would be that most science fiction writers still take a lot of liberties with the actual science involved, to the point where it's of no real use to anyone. For example, if you've got a "rule of cool" based story involving laser weapons, hyperspace travel, sexy aliens, and tons of bright flashy explosions, the disconnect with the audience is still there and the problem remains.


I don't know that this is such a big problem. I think all you can really ask fiction to do is to provoke an interest, not provide a science education. If a "rule of cool" story leads a kid to want to learn more about lasers and hyperspace and black holes and tachyons, I think it's still done the job even if the result is that the kid learns that the facts don't really correspond to the story.

I suspect there are plenty of scientists today who were inspired as kids by the sci-fi stories of the 50s, 60s, and 70s, even though they were usually as out-of-whack compared to the science at the time as today's sci-fi is compared to today's science.

[Silentknight]

I think getting children to read at all is the wrong approach. The way to get children interested in science is not to expose them to science. It's to encourage an appetite for curiosity and discovery.

Getting children to play outside in the real world, and to explore its wonders and learn about them, is the way. Encourage creativity and imagination. That worked for me. :)
I don't disagree with much of what you said, however I don't think any one approach must be mutually exclusive to all others either. I'm all for taking any approach that works. With that in mind, I'm still interested in anything you'd have to say on the subject of reading.

I'm actually a big believer in the power of television.
I think a massive chunk of my generation was brought up on, and learned a lot from, Sesame Street.

Television has a low barrier of entry compared to books. It can be distributed at no charge to the recipient too. As you can tell from the amount of money spent on advertising, unless you think they're wasting their money, it's also a great medium for creating a desire.

I was a huge fan of Beakman's World. I think, something like that aimed at a younger audience would be pretty useful.
I was a fan of science shows like 3-2-1 Contact and Bill Nye the Science Guy myself. I also remember the series they made out of The Magic Schoolbus, which I didn't follow and thought was kind of silly, but I think they had the right intentions. It's too bad there aren't any good kid-oriented science shows like those on anymore.

So, in response to that first quoted post - if you want kids in the West to achieve grades on a par with Asian kids then all you have to do is deny them a social life and make them work like slaves.
That's a good point. When I was looking up articles on this, I found out that the declining interest is happening in Asian countries, including Japan, as well. I'd still be interested if you had anything to say about the topic though. :)

Series like McGyver are great. People solving problems with their mind NOT brute force is a good way forward. Shows like Mythbusters are also excellent in teaching kids critical thinking in an entertaining way. I don't think that the programmes need to be realistic, several of McGyvers stunts have been prooven wrong, it is the way of thinking that matters. I was very taken by Tom Swift stories as a kid and books with a young scientist in the role of the Hero is good inspiration. There were some UK books along the same line too but frankly i don't remember them.
The main job theese days is to get young people to READ in the first place. A lot of people seems to think that you can get everything on "the net" and that you don't need to read books anymore and THAT is a major problem which will haunt the next generation i'm afraid. The very act of reading a book is so terapeutic calming that it should be mandatory for all kids to read books regularely. The one flash of light at the end of the tunnel is JK Rowling who has done more for childrens book reading than anyone else and hopefully her example is a guide for others. That remains to be seen.
Thank you. This is exactly what I had in mind. Well, except for the mandatory part (unless you were joking) since I know I always hated reading when it was assigned, but loved it when it was something I chose to do on my own time.

I think we need to see more stories, regardless of the medium, where the scientist is the hero (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheProfessor) rather than the villain / bumbling idiot. A lot of old stories have the mad scientist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MadScientist) as the bad guy, meddling with the forces of nature, bringing monsters to life, etc. Fortunately, as science became something that was less feared or misunderstood, this archetype started to get phased out, but there are still plenty of holdouts. In a lot of modern stories, the two types overlap.

I don't know that this is such a big problem. I think all you can really ask fiction to do is to provoke an interest, not provide a science education. If a "rule of cool" story leads a kid to want to learn more about lasers and hyperspace and black holes and tachyons, I think it's still done the job even if the result is that the kid learns that the facts don't really correspond to the story.

I suspect there are plenty of scientists today who were inspired as kids by the sci-fi stories of the 50s, 60s, and 70s, even though they were usually as out-of-whack compared to the science at the time as today's sci-fi is compared to today's science.
I suppose you're right. Regardless of how far-fetched it is, science fiction can still give us a glimpse into what may be possible. I would prefer more cures for diseases and fewer planet destroying weapons though. :p

[Cavemonster]

I'm not going to post about how to get kids interested in science, instead I'd like to make a point about the first post quoted in the OP.

It argues that getting kids interested in science will help bridge the gap to Asian kids science and maths scores. I'd like to note that Asian kids don't get better scores because they are more interested in science than Western kids. It's because they work harder than Western kids, and they work harder because they are forced to by their parents, and their teachers.

In China a student at an average high school will arrive at 7:30am, and leave at 5:30pm. When they get home they'll have at least 3 hours of homework every night, and more on weekends, as well as weekend classes. In a good school they'll arrive at 7am, leave at 6pm and be expected to do about 5 hours of homework every night, often with a full day of school on Saturday, and a full day of homework on Sunday. And this pattern continues in the 'holidays', with some children only getting one work free day in a three week school break. They have almost no social life, and in a good school any kid who consistently fails to make the grade could face expulsion. I know this because my wife tutors several kids in English, and many of my colleagues have teenage children.

I am lead to understand that the situation is similar in many other Asian countries.

So, in response to that first quoted post - if you want kids in the West to achieve grades on a par with Asian kids then all you have to do is deny them a social life and make them work like slaves.

Not to derail, but I just finished reading Outliers and there was a great section on why Asians trample the US at math.

One of the big forces was the amount of hours put in, but there were some hidden forces that set American kids back. Our language for numbers is screwy, it's full of exceptions and weirdness. Whereas in most Asian languages the teens are literally "Ten-one, Ten-two, Ten-three" we have these weird words like eleven.

Not in the book, but it certainly doesn't help that most Americans use the English system in daily life and then need to convert to metric just for science class, another needless confusion.

I have no idea what we could do about the language problem, but I think it's incredibly important that we convert to the metric system.

[Piscivore]

Knight, Check out "The Mysterious Benedict Society".

[Silentknight]

I just checked and my library has it. It sounds a lot like this story idea of my own that I've been working on for some time. I'll be sure to check it out, both to get some ideas for this genre, and also to avoid inadvertently copying anything. (Plus I could use a breather after choking through a crappy juvenile fiction novel.) Thanks. :D

[Piscivore]

I just checked and my library has it. It sounds a lot like this story idea of my own that I've been working on for some time. I'll be sure to check it out, both to get some ideas for this genre, and also to avoid inadvertently copying anything.
There's a sequel too, the name of which escapes me at the moment.

(Plus I could use a breather after choking through a crappy juvenile fiction novel.)
What?

[The Atheist]

How can fiction writers plant the seeds of scientific literacy in the next generation?

Believable young heroes using real science to deal to the bad guy.

Anecdote, sure, but it's what worked for two of my kids. And both cases were accidental discovery - they'd picked books which appealed and got turned on to science as a side-effect.

[Silentknight]

What?

Sorry, remnants of a rant from a previous thread. However, I do try to read both really good and really bad books in the genre I'm interested in. The good ones, to inspire me to shoot as high as possible, and the bad ones, to find out what mistakes to avoid and serve as parody material.

Still, thanks for the recommendation.

[Piscivore]

Sorry, remnants of a rant from a previous thread.

No, I meant, what was the crappy juvenile fiction novel?

[Rairun]

To be honest, I think it's kind of dangerous to start out by thinking, "Okay, I'm going to write a novel to get children interested in science." Unless you are extremely proficient at your craft, unless you know exactly what to do and what to avoid, the chances are that your book will sound too didactic. It will be to scientists what Captain Planet was to environmentalists. No matter how good a cause it is, kids will end up thinking it's lame.

I think a good rule of thumb is to write stories that adults could enjoy too--stories that are interesting no matter what lesson they are trying to impart. Don't try to educate kids, just tell them good stories. It's possible that they will then gain some appreciation for subtler ideas in the book, such as an underlying respect for science. The thing is, it's hard to "plant" those ideas in a novel with the intent of educating and then making it seem like you didn't do it on purpose. You'd really have to know what you're doing. I doubt most good writers--most great writers, even--could make it.

[Rairun]

I think we need to see more stories, regardless of the medium, where the scientist is the hero rather than the villain / bumbling idiot. A lot of old stories have the mad scientist as the bad guy, meddling with the forces of nature, bringing monsters to life, etc. Fortunately, as science became something that was less feared or misunderstood, this archetype started to get phased out, but there are still plenty of holdouts. In a lot of modern stories, the two types overlap.

When I was a kid I wanted to be an evil scientist. :D

[Silentknight]

No, I meant, what was the crappy juvenile fiction novel?
Oh, my bad. I recently finished reading Eragon, which I already ranted about in the other thread. I wanted to see what all the hype was about, plus I wanted to read it for myself to see if all the criticism was deserved. I could go on at great length about everything that was wrong with it, but that's just my opinion.

To be honest, I think it's kind of dangerous to start out by thinking, "Okay, I'm going to write a novel to get children interested in science." Unless you are extremely proficient at your craft, unless you know exactly what to do and what to avoid, the chances are that your book will sound too didactic. It will be to scientists what Captain Planet was to environmentalists. No matter how good a cause it is, kids will end up thinking it's lame.
Well no, of course not. I agree, you should never start with a concept or a plot set in stone, and then reverse engineer characters to plug into the roles. That's what Ted Turner did with Captain Rainbow PSA, as you mentioned. I hate it when stories are way too heavy-handed with their message to the point where they turn their characters into author mouthpieces for the sake of hammering the point in.

I think a good rule of thumb is to write stories that adults could enjoy too--stories that are interesting no matter what lesson they are trying to impart. Don't try to educate kids, just tell them good stories. It's possible that they will then gain some appreciation for subtler ideas in the book, such as an underlying respect for science. The thing is, it's hard to "plant" those ideas in a novel with the intent of educating and then making it seem like you didn't do it on purpose. You'd really have to know what you're doing. I doubt most good writers--most great writers, even--could make it.
That's more along the lines of what I had in mind, actually. A character who's interested in science and uses it to solve problems, like MacGuyver who was previously mentioned. It's going to be a subtler theme, not an overlying Aesop. So it's not intended as an "educational" story, it's just that it would be nice if it were a potential side effect. The main focus is, as you said, on character development and storytelling. This is why I was interested in possible ways to incorporate the theme into an existing story that allows room for it.

I still don't know if I explained that well enough. To spark an interest in science would be something fun to do on the side, not the overall thrust.

[Cavemonster]

How about this, a mystery series where each book ends in a cliffhanger that can be solved by performing a simple experiment at home.

ie. discovering that water expands when it freezes.

I think the real joy of science can be finding out the truth by going through the method instead of having the truth be taught to you.

[kedo1981]

We do need a culture of inspiration rather than one on put downs and ridicule.
Take the Sci Fi channel’s show “Eureka” with its premises of a town where the entire population are geniuses. Every week the “geniuses” do something stupid and dangerous that could “destroy the world” never do they deflect an asteroid with advanced particle physics or wipe out disease with new microbiology tech they invent. Nope It’s always something bad. Science is invariably made to look selfish and evil in nearly all media.

[The Atheist]

Science is invariably made to look selfish and evil in nearly all media.

It's much easier to dismiss than understand.

[Mark6]

Whatever the reasons, the interest in science continues to decline among young people (not just in the US either) with fewer seeking careers in the kinds of technical fields for which there are a rising demand.

Do you have any statistics for that? Because I think "fewer seeking careers in the kinds of technical fields" is just false. Worldwide, anyway -- may be true in US.

[shadron]

I have no idea what we could do about the language problem, but I think it's incredibly important that we convert to the metric system.

You are absolutely right, and I'm afraid it will never happen. Why?

Two of the areas I do software in are architecture and geographics. My architectural software does metric conversion, which is strictly to integer millimeters - simple, no units, just a number. I attempted to do aboutthe same using inches and decimals thereof. I was rebuked for not using the industry standard: feet, inches and binary fractions: 35/64ths and the like.

In geographics, since the advent of GPS, the standard for location is latiude and longitude in degrees and decimals (.00001 degree is about a meter in latitude), but there are still places where locations must be converted into minutes and seconds. Astrophysics is one of those areas!

As for books, I ate up the Tom Swift Jr. series, The Gold Bug, Treasure Island and similar puzzle-stories, Heinlein's juveniles (especially The Red Planet and Farmer on Ganymede), and I remember a very young curiosity called "Danny Dunn and the Anti-Gravity Paint". I knew it was hokey in science, but the premise, settings and plot brought me back to read it again and again. Oh, yeah, and "Watch Mr Wizard" (http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/W/htmlW/watchmrwiz/watchmrwiz.htm).

[Silentknight]

I'm not sure where I stand on the metric conversion idea, even though all of my science classes have used it, and it's the system I'm most comfortable doing calculations with. However when it comes to storytelling, I've found for some reason that I tend to use inches, feet, and miles for rough distance descriptions.

I guess it wouldn't hurt to use both, i.e. "That's about a mile away, or 1.61 km!" :D

Do you have any statistics for that? Because I think "fewer seeking careers in the kinds of technical fields" is just false. Worldwide, anyway -- may be true in US.

I didn't want to derail the topic into that, but I do remember reading about it in the news, so I put "declining interest science" into a Google search. Most of the articles I found were fairly recent, like within the past 5 years, and a couple referred to countries other than the US.

[technoextreme]

In China a student at an average high school will arrive at 7:30am, and leave at 5:30pm. When they get home they'll have at least 3 hours of homework every night, and more on weekends, as well as weekend classes. In a good school they'll arrive at 7am, leave at 6pm and be expected to do about 5 hours of homework every night, often with a full day of school on Saturday, and a full day of homework on Sunday. And this pattern continues in the 'holidays', with some children only getting one work free day in a three week school break. They have almost no social life, and in a good school any kid who consistently fails to make the grade could face expulsion. I know this because my wife tutors several kids in English, and many of my colleagues have teenage children.

I've known Asian people who were extremely smart. Here is the surprising thing. They had a life. Not necessarily a typical life but he did have a life. Last I knew he was working at CERN.
I have no idea what we could do about the language problem,
Make them deal with it. It gets infinitely worst in some fields. I'm taking a class whose title is a commonly used eight word nested acronym.
We do need a culture of inspiration rather than one on put downs and ridicule.
Take the Sci Fi channel’s show “Eureka” with its premises of a town where the entire population are geniuses. Every week the “geniuses” do something stupid and dangerous that could “destroy the world” never do they deflect an asteroid with advanced particle physics or wipe out disease with new microbiology tech they invent. Nope It’s always something bad. Science is invariably made to look selfish and evil in nearly all media.
Oooo please. The scientist is a dweeb stereotype is a more important obstacle to overcome.
How about this, a mystery series where each book ends in a cliffhanger that can be solved by performing a simple experiment at home.

Muahahah.....
Bone Detectives (http://www.amazon.com/Bone-Detectives-Forensic-Anthropologists-Mysteries/dp/0316829358/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231820153&sr=8-1) It was nonfiction to boot. Yeah I did not have a normal childhood either. Was not my parents fault either.

[anticonspiracy911]

The only problem with getting kids interested in science, and it's something that Richard Dawkins pointed out in "Unweaving The Rainbow", is that it could lead to a strict "science is fun" mentality or a populist dumbing down of science. Science can be fun and interesting, but not all the time. If we mislead children into thinking it's strictly fun, then they'll be seriously let down and eventually lose interest. Dumbing down science is worse than no information at all. Most of science can't be bumper sticker pithy and requires a lot of detail. Dumbing down excludes some crucial details that would lead to a full understanding. But since they are omitted for the sake of dumbing down people are left confused.

[Cavemonster]

The only problem with getting kids interested in science, and it's something that Richard Dawkins pointed out in "Unweaving The Rainbow", is that it could lead to a strict "science is fun" mentality or a populist dumbing down of science. Science can be fun and interesting, but not all the time. If we mislead children into thinking it's strictly fun, then they'll be seriously let down and eventually lose interest. Dumbing down science is worse than no information at all. Most of science can't be bumper sticker pithy and requires a lot of detail. Dumbing down excludes some crucial details that would lead to a full understanding. But since they are omitted for the sake of dumbing down people are left confused.

True, but I'll submit that football and especially baseball have a lot of very boring stretches between brief exciting moments and this is what people watch for recreation! Then a huge number of office or service jobs are just unending grind without even the hope of an interesting payoff.

I think that given the motivation Americans in general won't have too much trouble with the patience required for rigorous science.

[wollery]

This may seem like a slightly petty, and possibly arrogant thing to say, but very few people have what it takes to be a scientist. It requires not only high intelligence and patience, but also imagination and a natural inquisitiveness. People with those qualities will tend towards academic science anyway.

In my own field of Astronomy it's easy to see the "wow" factor that can get kids interested, but taking that interest further gets harder and harder all the time. 100 years ago there was no relativity, quantum mechanics, or magnetohydrodynamics to tackle. 50 years ago there were no computers, and little need for them. Today, astronomers need to be competent computer programmers, and understand a vast array of complicated physics concepts before they can do any science. It takes years of hard training, and it doesn't stop once you get your PhD, because you constantly have to look at the problems that need solving, and find new and inventive ways to tackle them.

Science isn't easy, and I think that making it too attractive is the wrong way to go about things. You'll just end up with a lot of kids disappointed because they can't do the things they need to do in order to follow their dream.

Science is already attractive to the sorts of people that are capable of doing it, and I think the answer lies in the hands of educators, not writers. Universities need to be more proactive (I hate that word, but it's the best one in this case) about getting schoolkids, who have the potential, more interested in carrying on their studies. Schools also need to work harder to keep the right sort of kids interested.

My own experience was of teachers who were just doing their jobs, imparting knowledge, and very few who were really passionate about their subject, and of Universities who were only interested in kids when they got close to applying for courses. In the long run these are the people who need to work harder to improve the image of science, and to get kids to think of science as a viable career path, in order to reverse the current trend of falling numbers applying for science courses.

I also think that there's a problem with "Mickey Mouse" courses, which make a mockery of higher education, and encourage kids to think of certain courses as an easy option. Why do a course in Physics, or Chemistry, when you can do one in Golf Management, or Surfing Studies? Don't get me wrong, there's nothing bad about studying these subjects, but why do they have to be degrees, studied at Universities, and given equal status with pure academic subjects? It makes academia look silly, lowers the perceived value of pure academic courses, and attracts students who might otherwise have studied a more traditional subject.

I also think that it's wrong to ask fiction writers to make science more popular, that isn't their job. Their job is to entertain people with flights of fancy. Put too much science in the mix and you just stop entertaining people, and then they stop reading.

As for making a scientist the hero? We get that all the time, but not in the sort of fiction that the majority of people read. Instead it's used in science fiction, a genre that doesn't interest most people, unless they're already interested in science. Which makes the entire argument pretty moot, since you don't need to interest people in a subject that already interests them.

The problem isn't in interesting kids in science, but in getting them to take that interest further.

[Rairun]

Wollery, I completely agree with you. But when I read this thread, I got the impression we were talking about getting kids (and in the long term society as a whole) interested in science, not making them scientists. For example, I'm not a scientist. I've just got a BA in linguistics, but I'm probably not pursuing it any further because I'm not passionate enough about the subject to make a career out of it. Still, I do have a good understanding of science and the scientific method, and it informs many of the decisions I make. I think that if most people had this attitude towards science, things would be better.

[technoextreme]

In my own field of Astronomy it's easy to see the "wow" factor that can get kids interested, but taking that interest further gets harder and harder all the time. 100 years ago there was no relativity, quantum mechanics, or magnetohydrodynamics to tackle. 50 years ago there were no computers, and little need for them. Today, astronomers need to be competent computer programmers, and understand a vast array of complicated physics concepts before they can do any science. It takes years of hard training, and it doesn't stop once you get your PhD, because you constantly have to look at the problems that need solving, and find new and inventive ways to tackle them.
And that's why you become an engineer. You don't need no fancy schmancy PHD to do things that make people go awwwww and you make more money.

[Silentknight]

Wollery, I completely agree with you. But when I read this thread, I got the impression we were talking about getting kids (and in the long term society as a whole) interested in science, not making them scientists. For example, I'm not a scientist. I've just got a BA in linguistics, but I'm probably not pursuing it any further because I'm not passionate enough about the subject to make a career out of it. Still, I do have a good understanding of science and the scientific method, and it informs many of the decisions I make. I think that if most people had this attitude towards science, things would be better.

Seconded, although yes, that's more along the lines of what I was talking about. Having a basic understanding and appreciation of science would go a long way, regardless of what you decide to do with your life. As for why I was asking about what fiction writers could do, the question is one of personal interest, not a mandate that I think ought to apply to all writers.

[Cavemonster]

Seconded, although yes, that's more along the lines of what I was talking about. Having a basic understanding and appreciation of science would go a long way, regardless of what you decide to do with your life. As for why I was asking about what fiction writers could do, the question is one of personal interest, not a mandate that I think ought to apply to all writers.

I don't think kids getting revved up about science and not being able to do the "wow" stuff will ever be a problem. We have a society where kids get into professional football, dinosaurs and wizards and most of them will have nothing to do with any of these things except by consuming entertainment, and they are okay with that.

A generation of kids passionate about science (taught the right way) will hopefully be schooled in the scientific method and have an internalized skepticism and curiosity about the world around them. When they elect and become politicians, they will support research as a priority. Hopefully, they will be smarter consumers, and will be able to read and understand published research, so things like global warming and evolution won't be controversies.

Okay, so that's the starry-eyed optimist version, but in reality I think a generation of kids can move a little farther on all those paths given a good look at what there is to love about science, and that would benefit everyone in many ways aside from having more scientists.

[Ove]

Thank you. This is exactly what I had in mind. Well, except for the mandatory part (unless you were joking) since I know I always hated reading when it was assigned, but loved it when it was something I chose to do on my own time.

I think we need to see more stories, regardless of the medium, where the scientist is the hero (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheProfessor) rather than the villain / bumbling idiot. A lot of old stories have the mad scientist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MadScientist) as the bad guy, meddling with the forces of nature, bringing monsters to life, etc. Fortunately, as science became something that was less feared or misunderstood, this archetype started to get phased out, but there are still plenty of holdouts. In a lot of modern stories, the two types overlap.




Ohh but i meant mandatory in the way "you should read books -period" NOT in the way of "you must read ... ... .. (Catcher i the Rye - The Pearl -etc) ". We need to get kids back to reading again. I believe in encouragement -NOT force.

[Silentknight]

I don't think kids getting revved up about science and not being able to do the "wow" stuff will ever be a problem. We have a society where kids get into professional football, dinosaurs and wizards and most of them will have nothing to do with any of these things except by consuming entertainment, and they are okay with that. (snip)

Again yes, that's exactly my point. Most football fans do not go on to play major league football, and I doubt many of them would be capable. Most kids who are interested in dinosaurs, like I was when I was a kid, do not go on to become paleontologists, but nobody's saying they have to. The Harry Potter books were more about friendship and coping with death than about encouraging kids to become wizards, obviously, but it is of course true that the latter hasn't happened. I was talking about an interest in science in terms of a basic understanding and scientific literacy.

For example, I may or may not pursue a technical career, since I currently lack the means to get the necessary degree. That doesn't mean I can't show an interest in science and make sure I at least know what I'm talking about when it comes to the basics. With that said, I'm still interested in possible ways science themes can be worked into an existing story that allows room for it.

[shadron]

And that's why you become an engineer. You don't need no fancy schmancy PHD to do things that make people go awwwww and you make more money.

Naw, but you do need a grasp of good English grammar :) .

I'm not sure where I stand on the metric conversion idea, even though all of my science classes have used it, and it's the system I'm most comfortable doing calculations with. However when it comes to storytelling, I've found for some reason that I tend to use inches, feet, and miles for rough distance descriptions.

I guess it wouldn't hurt to use both, i.e. "That's about a mile away, or 1.61 km!" :biggrin:

Not that I want to pick a fight, SK, but I think that last statement is an error, and is one of the reasons that metric conversion is such a problem in America. "About a mile" isn't 1.61 km, it's "about 1 km", or maybe "about one and a half km". The reasons are obvious - one decimal of accuracy in the input is one times the conversion factor rounded to the nearest integer, which is one place of accuracy in the result. Trying to pry 3 places accuracy out of "about one" is pedantic and confuses people. It sounds like the old saws about "a miss is as good as 1609.344m", and "if you give him 2.54cm, he'll take .3048m" which I've gotten so often from poli-sci majors and carpenters I've known when I've discussed metric conversion. Taking the context into account is called soft-conversion. Taking the amount of accuracy into consideration is called correct arithmetic.

This is one very good example of the necessity to teach some science to very young kids. Until we get a large group of citizens who are as intuitively comfortable with what a kilometer and a liter are as they are a mile and a quart, this is one fight against itself that the US is never going to win.

[shadron]

Ohh but i meant mandatory in the way "you should read books -period" NOT in the way of "you must read ... ... .. (Catcher i the Rye - The Pearl -etc) ". We need to get kids back to reading again. I believe in encouragement -NOT force.

Hmmmm.... Well, of course, English teachers have a problem in that they have to run a class discussion over the material (one of their goals is to get people to think enough and be confident enough to discuss and to pass the test, after all), and that can be difficult when everyone has read their own favorite book. On the other hand, why should that be a problem when assigning a book review? AFAIK, it is only that the teacher may not have gone there and can't judge what the student is saying. Hopefully more modern approaches to teaching will allow for more individualization and tailoring of material. On the third hand, there is a body of literature that is considered to be basic to our culture. We can all sit here and discuss Catcher in he Rye (it's been done) only because we've all read it, whether we liked it or not - it has become a basic part of culture. Anyone who hasn't finds references to Caulfield or "Love is not love which alters when alteration finds" going right over their head. The Internet fixes that, too, at least at the forum level. :)

(You did get that reference "on the third hand", didn't you?)

[arthwollipot]

This is one very good example of the necessity to teach some science to very young kids. Until we get a large group of citizens who are as intuitively comfortable with what a kilometer and a liter are as they are a mile and a quart, this is one fight against itself that the US is never going to win.Speaking as someone who has been brought up on the metric system, I have to agree. You have to adopt metric into your schools across the country, and I'm afraid to say this is where your federal government has to step in. I understand that education standards are set at the state level in the States (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong), and at the moment there's too much scope for local adoption being overwhelmed by the majority.

You have to have your government declare that all states will be adopting the metric system at the same time, and then you have to have all your states actually do it.

I can't see it happening anytime soon.

Which is a shame, because the metric system is far more logical and intuitive.

[kedo1981]

Remember the Billy bob Thornton movie “The Astronaut Farmer”, not a bad flick as they go, the premise was a little far fetched but it’s only a movie.
I’ve always had a weird inclination to “mentally rewrite” parts of films to, in my mind at least “to make them better”.
The premise was that a guy that who had been in astronaut training went back to live on the family farm when his dad died and missed his chance to go into space. So he builds his own rocket and after many trials and tribulations gets to blast off to orbit.
My ending would have shown how his amazing act inspires the whole planet for decades ushering in a new age of scientific advancement, prosperity brought on by the fore mentioned scientific advancement and peace. (Big ending showing tens of thousands of young people from all corners of the globe all wearing an “Astronaut Farmer” logo on their polo shirt, at a big rally waiting for the first communication from Mars and the astronaut Farmers daughter; who is also Astronaut Farmer, first human on Mars)
Real ending
He goes on Jay Leno and Leno makes a dumb crack about seeing Uranus.

Good Grief

[Silentknight]

Not that I want to pick a fight, SK, but I think that last statement is an error, and is one of the reasons that metric conversion is such a problem in America. "About a mile" isn't 1.61 km, it's "about 1 km", or maybe "about one and a half km". The reasons are obvious - one decimal of accuracy in the input is one times the conversion factor rounded to the nearest integer, which is one place of accuracy in the result. (snip)

Yeah, you're right. It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek though, so I wasn't being very picky regardless.

[technoextreme]

Naw, but you do need a grasp of good English grammar :) .

I forgot who I was imitating when I wrote that. Who said fancy schmancy?

[TX50]

I forgot who I was imitating when I wrote that. Who said fancy schmancy?

"Please, I like America! Fancy schmancy! What a cinch! Go fly a kite!
Cat got your tongue! Hill of beans! Betty Boop, what a dish. Betty
Grable, nice gams. I say can you see! I say can you see! I... I say... "

[TX50]

The premise was that a guy that who had been in astronaut training went back to live on the family farm when his dad died and missed his chance to go into space. So he builds his own rocket and after many trials and tribulations gets to blast off to orbit.


I don't think a working space vehicle is something you can just tinker
together in your garage. Is he a mega-rich farmer (does he grow coca
or something on his farm)?

[Ove]

Hmmmm.... Well, of course, English teachers have a problem in that they have to run a class discussion over the material (one of their goals is to get people to think enough and be confident enough to discuss and to pass the test, after all), and that can be difficult when everyone has read their own favorite book. On the other hand, why should that be a problem when assigning a book review? AFAIK, it is only that the teacher may not have gone there and can't judge what the student is saying. Hopefully more modern approaches to teaching will allow for more individualization and tailoring of material. On the third hand, there is a body of literature that is considered to be basic to our culture. We can all sit here and discuss Catcher in he Rye (it's been done) only because we've all read it, whether we liked it or not - it has become a basic part of culture. Anyone who hasn't finds references to Caulfield or "Love is not love which alters when alteration finds" going right over their head. The Internet fixes that, too, at least at the forum level. :)

(You did get that reference "on the third hand", didn't you?)
Afraid not, but im Danish ;) i don't know your litterature THAT intimate.

I think we agree though, the important thing must be to get children to understand the value of reading. How you do that is another question but it MUST be by reccomending books that kids actually WANT to read, catching books. It is NOT done by forcing kids to read through a lot of "Classics". This could have the adverse effect.

[shadron]

Afraid not, but im Danish ;) i don't know your litterature THAT intimate.

Well, it refers to the science fiction novels The Mote in God's Eye and The Gripping Hand, a pair of novels from Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle in which the ETs have three hands. The reference is to their casual use of a sort of three sided logic based on their morphology.

I think we agree though, the important thing must be to get children to understand the value of reading. How you do that is another question but it MUST be by reccomending books that kids actually WANT to read, catching books. It is NOT done by forcing kids to read through a lot of "Classics". This could have the adverse effect.The thing is, though, while this may be a good idea some of the time, it isn't always. Some themes are heavy and unpopular, but perhaps sill should be explored by anyone who wants to claim to be educated. Catcher in the Rye, A Separate Peace, Lord of the Flys, Cannery Row, MacBeth and The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man are typical downers (in English lit) that still say something about the human condition that needs to be said. And how are they going to handle those inches-thick technical manuals on the job if they never struggled through Wuthering Heights? :)

So it's tough. The recommendations are going to be just as far afield as it is possible to get. Is Dune good? How about its increasingly boring offspring? Jules Verne, or HGWells, if only for their venerability? Some like Asimov, some like Jordan. Or Pratchett, who seems to be a local hero on this forum. How about Stranger in a Strange Land? Good luck in making decisions.

[Roma]

You've got to think like a kid and know what they like.
My daughter made a fantastic grade eight science project last year called a "Mother Blaster".The pharmasist at Shoppers Drug Mart supplied the little darling (at no cost) with all of the supplies to construct a device that would propel rockets at me whenever I opened her bedroom door.

[Chaos]

Well, it refers to the science fiction novels The Mote in God's Eye and The Gripping Hand, a pair of novels from Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle in which the ETs have three hands. The reference is to their casual use of a sort of three sided logic based on their morphology.

I remember. They keep arguing "On one hand... on the other hand... on the gripping hand...".:boggled:

The thing is, though, while this may be a good idea some of the time, it isn't always. Some themes are heavy and unpopular, but perhaps sill should be explored by anyone who wants to claim to be educated. Catcher in the Rye, A Separate Peace, Lord of the Flys, Cannery Row, MacBeth and The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man are typical downers (in English lit) that still say something about the human condition that needs to be said. And how are they going to handle those inches-thick technical manuals on the job if they never struggled through Wuthering Heights? :)

Let them struggle through Lord of the Rings. That´s literary enough.

So it's tough. The recommendations are going to be just as far afield as it is possible to get. Is Dune good? How about its increasingly boring offspring? Jules Verne, or HGWells, if only for their venerability? Some like Asimov, some like Jordan. Or Pratchett, who seems to be a local hero on this forum. How about Stranger in a Strange Land? Good luck in making decisions.

Make them take a peek at many different things, then let them make up their own minds. As they say, you can lead a kid to the bookstore, but you can´t make it read.

[Aurelian]

Children's science TV: Bill Nye the Science Guy (why isn't this still on the air?), The Magic Schoolbus series, newer for younger kids: Sid the Science Kid (which is for the preschoolers) Sesame Street has some good content. TV conveys science faster than print, though some older mystery reads had some science like Encyclopedia Brown might be worth a look. I'm trying to think of "hard" science fiction, Madeleine L'Engle blended some in (mitochondria anyone?) but right now my kids are tots and much older teens, so the atrophy is showing.

[Aurelian]

And how are they going to handle those inches-thick technical manuals on the job if they never struggled through Wuthering Heights? :)

Gah! Hated that book. A young lady in a class I was auditing said it was her favorite book of.all.time. She said it defined her. It was like announcing "My family has serious, inheritable mental illnesses." (to me)

May the technical writers for those inches thick manuals be blessed with crisper, brighter writing!

A.

[Silentknight]

Children's science TV: Bill Nye the Science Guy (why isn't this still on the air?), The Magic Schoolbus series, newer for younger kids: Sid the Science Kid (which is for the preschoolers) Sesame Street has some good content.
Agreed. I might have mentioned some of these before. Bill Nye did produce a short public TV series aimed at older audiences, but I hadn't heard of it until I just looked it up now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye#Post_Science_Guy_career

TV conveys science faster than print, though some older mystery reads had some science like Encyclopedia Brown might be worth a look. I'm trying to think of "hard" science fiction, Madeleine L'Engle blended some in (mitochondria anyone?) but right now my kids are tots and much older teens, so the atrophy is showing.
My original question had to do with if one is writing a story that happens to have scientific themes though, not so much TV vs. print. For instance, a pet peeve of mine is writers who fail to do the relevant research (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DidNotDoTheResearch). A lot of science-themed stories do this, or even worse, they mangle what little science they have.

[Bristow42]

I think before you can get children interested in Science, they have to establish what is fact and what is fiction. We all grow up in different backgrounds, environments, with Religion, peer pressure from other children, advertising and government education systems. Most people use personel experience eg what inspired them to enter into a choose field. But to with hold information or distort the truth, to a child is a crime. As a child you think like a child. And the world of fantasy can inspire and destory an interest in a subject, when the child discovers he or she has been lied to. Which comes back to your background and expriences in early life.

[Bibbly]

Scientists should take note, to get a generation of people interested in reading about science we need to market it like Eragon
Now this should be noted... the guy who wrote Eragon had literary agents for parents. Accomplished people with enough money and professional knowledge to push a book.

That being said...

The problem as I see it is that another generation of children is going to muddle through school without the least bit of interest in science or mathematics.
The problem as you perceive it is an incredible generalized assumption created out of your own bias to further sciences.


They find the subjects boring, difficult to understand, and impossible to relate to in any meaningful way.
Again you generalize children and people abroad with this statement. I'd say it would be the individuals lifestyle that would have the greatest impact. Whether this lifestyle is more to do with the parents.

Perhaps they regard the subjects as distilling the world down to harsh uncaring facts and numbers.
That is a very harsh and very mature assertion that I'm sure most children do not make.

Whatever the reasons, the interest in science continues to decline among young people (not just in the US either) with fewer seeking careers in the kinds of technical fields for which there are a rising demand.
Education standards and educational inequality... on top of that... it could be financial inequalities. It could be disparaging parents or it could be a trend of people who either out of weakness or choice do not go down such illustrious career paths.

How can fiction writers plant the seeds of scientific literacy in the next generation?
Science fiction. More so... have you ever heard of Teen Titans. Science is all over that show. Technology like nobodies business... biology... incredible abstracts. Really. And that's a shot in the dark. Incredible amounts of media aimed at children have put a spot light on chemistry, biology, programming, engineering, and mathematics ... Take a very critical look at some T.V. listings, programs for children, and look, really look- like watch a few.

Judging from the popular books out there, fantasy sells.
Generally because you can rehash it so easily. Check it out I'm going to make a two sentence epic fantasy.
-In a world not unlike our own humanoid reptiles live in stone caverns. They are under constant attack from other tribes and the trials and tribulations of the elements.

Standard epic fantasy. You say "O.K. a world." and then you say "O.K. people-like." and then "O.K. add complications." and then expand on it like concentrated orange juice. The end result is sometimes very watered down... it's not that easy to do.

The obvious answer would be science fiction, but my objection would be that most science fiction writers still take a lot of liberties with the actual science involved, to the point where it's of no real use to anyone.
Futurology > Science Fiction

For example, if you've got a "rule of cool" based story involving laser weapons, hyperspace travel, sexy aliens, and tons of bright flashy explosions, the disconnect with the audience is still there and the problem remains.
Do you have any examples that covers any of this criteria?
. . . Tripping The Rift? I don't know... plus that show was purposely made like that. Most of media you seek to describe is usually poop that usually sells decently, at least for awhile.

What I had in mind was more along the lines of something that, while taking place in a fictional setting, actually has something real to teach young readers about science and the value of critical thinking. It should spark curiosity about the real world; the one we live in right now. It should encourage them to ask questions and seek answers to the great mysteries of the universe.
Bucky-O-Haira, CyberSix, Delta State, Atomic Betty, Dexters Laboratory, Batman, X-Men, Ghost-Busters, Transformers, The Magic School Bus, Bill Nye, The Sectaurs, The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Dinosaucers, ... especially Mighty Max watch any end episode of Mighty Max.

Please note that this isn't a debate about whether or not science is the best methodology to use, or any petty objections one might have to the conclusions of modern science. I'm interested in starting a brainstorming session of ideas for how to get young readers interested in science. Cavemonster's post above is a good example (yes I know it was tongue-in-cheek). However, that's okay too. They can be funny, serious, or anywhere in between. They can be character concepts, potential story ideas, or simply scenes or explanations that you would like to see included somewhere.
What are your thoughts?

It's prominent and as society grows it will become increasingly prominent as will all minorities. This doesn't seem like an area that needs concern. You can draw inspiration from anything.

How about... general outlooks on common place appliances dealt with an a very generalized and exaggerated manner.
I've seen picture books of the like for light sabers, automobiles, airplanes...

[Silentknight]

The problem as you perceive it is an incredible generalized assumption created out of your own bias to further sciences.
Did you even read the rest of the topic or just the first post? I admitted in that statement itself that it was my opinion, not an asserted fact. That's why I said, "as I see it." Secondly, after someone else asked me about it, I did name the search criteria I used to find the articles I remembered reading about this issue, even though I didn't post any of them myself. It's not a made-up issue the way you're implying it is.

I tried to clarify what I had in mind as the discussion in this thread progressed. There's no reason for you to be misinterpreting my arguments like this.

Again you generalize children and people abroad with this statement. I'd say it would be the individuals lifestyle that would have the greatest impact. Whether this lifestyle is more to do with the parents.
See above. I didn't just make this up based on personal bias.
http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=declining+interest+science

Science fiction. More so... have you ever heard of Teen Titans. Science is all over that show. Technology like nobodies business... biology... incredible abstracts. Really. And that's a shot in the dark. Incredible amounts of media aimed at children have put a spot light on chemistry, biology, programming, engineering, and mathematics ... Take a very critical look at some T.V. listings, programs for children, and look, really look- like watch a few.
Where did I ever assert that this focus is completely nonexistent? If you'd read the rest of the topic, you'd find that we did discuss examples of existing media that focus on science. This was in fact part of what I wanted to discuss, including what they did right, what they could do differently, etc.

Bucky-O-Haira, CyberSix, Delta State, Atomic Betty, Dexters Laboratory, Batman, X-Men, Ghost-Busters, Transformers, The Magic School Bus, Bill Nye, The Sectaurs, The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Dinosaucers, ... especially Mighty Max watch any end episode of Mighty Max.
Now we're getting somewhere. Yes, several of these have already come up. Yes, I've seen a lot of these growing up, and am familiar with the way they incorporate the themes I'm interested in.

[Bibbly]

I see an overabundance of technical themes for children.
Maybe it's not about the theme maybe it's about something else.

Like stimulating emotional context or gender roles.

Maybe something easily definable is at the roots of this dissuasion.

[Silentknight]

Well, the reason I even asked this question is because it's something I'm interested in personally as someone studying creative writing. In other words, it's more for myself rather than something I think all fiction writers should do (or have to do). The reason I broadened the scope of the question, rather than asking what I alone could do as an amateur writer, was in case anyone else happened to be interested in the subject. I want to make science accessible to young readers because that's how I became interested in it myself, growing up with a lot of the media and educational shows covered thus far.

Also yes, I'm aware that themes (like science) are secondary to the plot, which itself emerges from the characters, which are of paramount importance among fiction elements. So I'm not implying that one should deliberately set out to write something that will educate kids in science. I'm saying that if there so happens to be room for it, that it's something I'd like to include.

[Piscivore]

If you are still interested in works of this nature I just finished "Gideon the Cutpurse" by Linda Buckley-Archer. Some discussion of physics (which may take a few liberties to advance the plot- I don't know enough cosmology to know) but the history is dead on balls accurate. I recommend it.

It is also published in the US as The Time Travelers.

[Silentknight]

I did read a good historical fiction novel recently. "Wolf Hunt (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312875959/shapeshiftere-20)" by Gillian Bradshaw, who has done other historical fiction stories. It's about a good werewolf (one of my favorite genres) who must contend with people's prejudices and the scheming of his spiteful wife. It's got a lot of content involving the feudal system in medieval France.

[arthwollipot]

I did read a good historical fiction novel recently. "Wolf Hunt (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312875959/shapeshiftere-20)" by Gillian Bradshaw, who has done other historical fiction stories. It's about a good werewolf (one of my favorite genres) who must contend with people's prejudices and the scheming of his spiteful wife. It's got a lot of content involving the feudal system in medieval France.Sounds interesting. I read the Strongbow Saga (http://www.strongbowsaga.com/), which had a lot of well-researched historical content. I'll see if I can track down Wolf Hunt. I suspect we already have it.

[Bibbly]

Well, the reason I even asked this question is because it's something I'm interested in personally as someone studying creative writing. In other words, it's more for myself rather than something I think all fiction writers should do (or have to do). The reason I broadened the scope of the question, rather than asking what I alone could do as an amateur writer, was in case anyone else happened to be interested in the subject. I want to make science accessible to young readers because that's how I became interested in it myself, growing up with a lot of the media and educational shows covered thus far.

Also yes, I'm aware that themes (like science) are secondary to the plot, which itself emerges from the characters, which are of paramount importance among fiction elements. So I'm not implying that one should deliberately set out to write something that will educate kids in science. I'm saying that if there so happens to be room for it, that it's something I'd like to include.

Very noble.
Reincarnate the spirit of what sparked your interest, by doing what generations of media makers have done... REHASH SOMEONE ELSE'S FORMULA. Like tracing over another artists photo (but not entirety) to learn shapes and forms, direction and flow.

It almost grantees an audience and it gives your breathing room for personal spins and quips.

[Piscivore]

Very noble.
Reincarnate the spirit of what sparked your interest, by doing what generations of media makers have done... REHASH SOMEONE ELSE'S FORMULA. Like tracing over another artists photo (but not entirety) to learn shapes and forms, direction and flow.

It almost grantees an audience and it gives your breathing room for personal spins and quips.

Are you being sarcastic?

[Silentknight]

Very noble.
Reincarnate the spirit of what sparked your interest, by doing what generations of media makers have done... REHASH SOMEONE ELSE'S FORMULA. Like tracing over another artists photo (but not entirety) to learn shapes and forms, direction and flow.

It almost grantees an audience and it gives your breathing room for personal spins and quips.
Fail.

I don't think anyone has deliberately misunderstood my arguments as much as you have from the beginning of this thread. It's almost as if you're seeking to take everything out of context and twist what I said, just so you can invent a point of contention to rail and scream against. The term for that tactic, in case you don't know, is the strawman fallacy.

Perhaps you're incapable of discussing the themes and merits of existing works of fiction without stealing from them wholesale, but that doesn't mean that everyone else does the same. I haven't actually told anyone here the specifics of what I'm interested in working on, so there's really no justification for your jumping to those conclusions.

[Bibbly]

Fail.

I don't think anyone has deliberately misunderstood my arguments as much as you have from the beginning of this thread. It's almost as if you're seeking to take everything out of context and twist what I said, just so you can invent a point of contention to rail and scream against. The term for that tactic, in case you don't know, is the strawman fallacy.

Perhaps you're incapable of discussing the themes and merits of existing works of fiction without stealing from them wholesale, but that doesn't mean that everyone else does the same. I haven't actually told anyone here the specifics of what I'm interested in working on, so there's really no justification for your jumping to those conclusions.

Maybe you're just reading my responses in a twisted way?
Also, seeing as how this is the internet sarcasm and emotional attachment are completely lost. I'm not saying you can't see an underlining emotion in someones text based response, but, I will clearly say that it's the assumption of the reader to attach those personally interpretive details.

What I was going on about was more of a suggestion on how archetypes that are adaptable examples of how a rehash isn't necessarily a cope out or 'wholesale' as you had put it of someones work, can be applied to a new theme, concept, or expression. And this example is across the board for all different kinds of media. There are really no restrictions when it comes to adaption or crossover so it really doesn't matter how vague or unjustified your medium is.

[Silentknight]

Then you should have said that in the first place, instead of making condescending statements with phrases in all-caps. Your previous post in no way followed my line of reasoning and had little to do with my arguments. I would have given your statements the benefit of the doubt in terms of implied sarcasm, had it not been for your implication that I was talking about stealing from existing works. The point was lost.

However, I agree with the second paragraph of your above post. Assuming this was just a misunderstanding, it might help for future reference to clarify and support your claims the first time around.