- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,072
This isn't, strictly speaking, a "how to write" thing, but it is of interest for a couple of reasons (and not just because it involves Prof Alice Roberts). It's a short book explaining a number of weak or false arguments, and how they work.
https://bookofbadarguments.com/
As such, it's probably quite interesting for aspiring writers, since it is all about clear thinking and making a point properly. However, I think it has a value beyond that.
Over the last few months, SFF has been grappling with "political" issues and "issues of diversity", for want of a better term. While it is important that offensive things are spotted and condemned (and some really quite shocking things do happen), it is equally important to realise that the discussion is not a race to see who can agree the most, but a matter of how the problem can be solved. And there may be a number of solutions to a problem.
If one is going to deal with such issues, it's important to be able to discuss them competently and freely, which is why identifying the various sorts of "straw-man" argument is useful. A particular favourite of mine is this:
A: "Sexism is the greatest threat to literature."
B: "Sexism and racism are the greatest threats to literature."
A: "You don't care about sexism! Your views are worthless, you bigot!"
Anyway, while there are some views (the downright crazy ones, mainly) that are wholly untenable, this is not a matter of being either a "goodie" or a "baddie". To give an example, should SFF anthologies include a certain percentage of stories by women writers? I think this could be argued a number of ways, and while some may be better than others, none of those is "wrong". There is, after all, a difference between a debate and a consensus, which seems to be forgotten at times on the wider internet.
Rant over. Carry on.
https://bookofbadarguments.com/
As such, it's probably quite interesting for aspiring writers, since it is all about clear thinking and making a point properly. However, I think it has a value beyond that.
Over the last few months, SFF has been grappling with "political" issues and "issues of diversity", for want of a better term. While it is important that offensive things are spotted and condemned (and some really quite shocking things do happen), it is equally important to realise that the discussion is not a race to see who can agree the most, but a matter of how the problem can be solved. And there may be a number of solutions to a problem.
If one is going to deal with such issues, it's important to be able to discuss them competently and freely, which is why identifying the various sorts of "straw-man" argument is useful. A particular favourite of mine is this:
A: "Sexism is the greatest threat to literature."
B: "Sexism and racism are the greatest threats to literature."
A: "You don't care about sexism! Your views are worthless, you bigot!"
Anyway, while there are some views (the downright crazy ones, mainly) that are wholly untenable, this is not a matter of being either a "goodie" or a "baddie". To give an example, should SFF anthologies include a certain percentage of stories by women writers? I think this could be argued a number of ways, and while some may be better than others, none of those is "wrong". There is, after all, a difference between a debate and a consensus, which seems to be forgotten at times on the wider internet.
Rant over. Carry on.
