Looking for feedback on how the scientopics are presented in my story

[EmileJ]

I wrote a homage to Asimov's story "The Last Question".

I tried to use modern insights on the topics that were touched upon in the original story.
Those are, amongst others, Pernrose's CCC, Carols's suggested related relation between entropy and time and several others.

I wonder if I represented those topics faithfully enough for readers without scientific background or made some glaring errors. I guess I should have asked before publishing, but perhaps better late then never.



I originally posted it in r/HFY, but I guess any more in depth discussion about the topics in the story would better fit the IsaacArtur subforum.

Also, I am not looking about feedback on the theories (ideas?) used in the story. While I might find it entertaining, it is probably way over my head to discuss the scientific merrits of those ideas.

 

[nomadreid]

Since most of the topics used in your story are not really science, and that the scientific concepts which are used as their bases are too complicated to properly explain without committing errors, I suppose your question is more of a literary one: does the use of the technical terms which are not understood by most readers appear as technobabble, or do they flow nicely?

I take 2 examples:
(a) your mention of Hawking radiation -- the average reader has no clue what that is, and no explanation is given, so I would rate that as technobabble.
(b) Your notes at the end are not part of the story, and it is unlikely that a non-physicist reader would make the connections between image and concept that you explain: for example, it is only clear what you meant by "wink" after you explain. This is thus like the adage that a joke that you have to explain loses its humor.

That said, it is good that you avoid the temptation to explain too much, as most sci-fi readers are not really interested in the (real) science part, and of course if you explained too much you would also have to explain the deviations from the science which are (by definition) inherent in science fiction.

 

[EmileJ]

Thanks for your reply. I guess I overestimated how well Hawking radiation is by the average Sci-fi reader. I assumed many would know,

As for the wink, it is feedback that I got before from a few persons, but many did not comment on it. I guess the joke should have been a bit less subtle.

While the ideas of Penrose and Carrol are not exactly science,, they still have a basis in science and as such I hope I portrayed those ideas close enough to the original concepts.

From your last paragraph, I understand I struck a reasonable balance between using those ideas and the speculative nature of sci-fi and kept it readable. Kinda happy with that, by forcing myself into the template of "The Last Question", it was hard to explain every topic as well as it could have been. Similar to the original, some questions are left to the reader to ask,

Thanks again, and I'll give the last few lines in the story some extra thought. Perhaps I can clarify the wink a bit more.