My husband does a killer carrot dish. Cut the carrots into juliennes, mix with julienned ginger, and cook slowly in butter until they're shriveled up into little tiny shreds of carrotty goodness. You have to shred a LOT of carrots first; I think they shrink in volume by about 2/3.

I'm off topic, having nothing to say about carrots, but Ginger you're right, I meant McDevitt. I loved Engines of God, have liked each subsequent novel a little less, and really need to track down A Talent for War.

James P. Hogan is another Big Ideas hard-sf writer. As is Frederick Pohl.

And yeah, Cherryh is consistent with her science, although she varies on whether the science is the primary issue: I agree that it was for Cyteen, whereas in other places, not so much. 40,000 in Gehenna was anthropological fiction, although most of the Alliance novels do deal with the impacts of ftl travel, cloning, and the longevity drugs. The Chanur novels are probably the least hard-sf among her sf, since they're primarily novels of culture clash, political intrigue and adventure, where the science basically dictates the background and travel constraints.

My husband does a killer carrot dish. Cut the carrots into juliennes, mix with julienned ginger, and cook slowly in butter until they're shriveled up into little tiny shreds of carrotty goodness. You have to shred a LOT of carrots first; I think they shrink in volume by about 2/3.

I'm drooling. I hope you're satisfied.

I liked Andromeda Strain well enough, but Congo utterly destroyed any positive feelings I had for the man. I will give him some credit for ER I guess. Other than that, let us never speak of him again.

Tried to read Poul Anderson and couldn't hack it. I just found it horribly boring. In the hard SF vein I like Kim Stanley Robinson and Jack Varley - do they count? Titan series was brilliant.

ETClose my dangling italics tag

They totally count, Arby. KSR is very much a hard-sf writer who also understands the social sciences. Although I have to admit I think I like his lighter stuff best -- Escape from Katmandu is great.

ita may be the poster child for "it takes one to know one".

files this away for later

Isn't the Titan series by John Varley?

Having read the whole series, I cast a suspicious eye on the Gabrielle character from Xena. Hmmm, maybe Dahak should have manifested as Marilyn Monroe...

Yup, Matt. So many Jacks and Johns in sf.

Tried to read Poul Anderson and couldn't hack it. I just found it horribly boring. In the hard SF vein I like Kim Stanley Robinson and Jack Varley - do they count? Titan series was brilliant.

Even Three Hearts and Three Lions, Arby? Maybe not, as I never really had much trouble with any of Anderson's stuff. KSR is one of those writers whose talent I admire more than actually enjoying their stuff. The Varley Titan books, I did like quite a lot.

I love Poul Anderson's fantasies like The Broken Sword - which tend to be quite dark.

Hard Science: Greg Bear does good hard science, I think. I really enjoyed Queen of Angels though it had some flaws in the end (nothing requiring throwing the book at the wall though). Pat Cadigan did great hard science (really well researached) for Synners - which I will continue to pimp until all the science fiction fans have read it. Very absorbing, great three dimensional characters with distinctive voices.

Going back to the "said" debate: I'm definitely with ita on this one. "Said" blends into the background for me, unless it's overused. If the word "said" appears after every bit of dialogue, I'm going to notice it and it's going to distract me -- especially if, as in Chrichton's books, he doesn't try in other ways to let us know how the characters are feeling. In that excerpt I posted, we don't know if the characters are frustrated, or annoyed, or worried -- we just know they're saying stuff. That's not good writing.

I'm a journalist, and I realize we're supposed to use "said" almost all the time. We need to write simply and be impartial, and "said" is a very impartial word because it's not at all descriptive. I don't mind it in articles, and usually journalists don't use the word as often as Crichton does, so I don't notice it anyway. I don't like seeing press style in fiction, though; I don't want my fiction to be impartial and simple (or staccato) unless it's on purpose and adds to the story.

I'm a big fan of dialogue-heavy writing, and I've never had an issue with "said" in anything I've read other than Crichton. I think that's because most writers know when to use "asked" or "replied," they don't feel the need to attribute every bit of dialogue to a character (because often it's clear who's speaking), and they can let us know how characters are feeling by describing their actions or expressions (something skilled writers can do without falling into the trap of overusing words like "whined" or "cajoled" or "shrieked"). Crichton does none of that, and that's why I complained about him.

The only Philip K. Dick I've read is his collection of short stories entitled The Philip K. Dick Reader, and I liked most of them a lot.