I've been rereading Anathem and was quite annoyed (again) at the disparity of the author Neal Stephenson's accuracy for the book's background.
While the maths and linguistics seem reasonably researched the massive inaccuaracies concerning atoms were glaring.
While I could understand every spec-fic needs some suspension of belief in order to be entertaining (indeed I would say it is almost necessary for stories in general) basing a major plot point on something that a bit of research would show not to be the case is astounding.
I can't say too much more on what I dislike without giving spoilers I am quite annoyed that a writer would research some parts fairly well and then completely ignore other aspects.
So any other books / authors that you feel show up as not having done the research? (ignoring anything marked as obsolete by advances).
Anyone given a planet 2 moons and then not shown the varying tides? etc.
While the maths and linguistics seem reasonably researched the massive inaccuaracies concerning atoms were glaring.
While I could understand every spec-fic needs some suspension of belief in order to be entertaining (indeed I would say it is almost necessary for stories in general) basing a major plot point on something that a bit of research would show not to be the case is astounding.
I can't say too much more on what I dislike without giving spoilers I am quite annoyed that a writer would research some parts fairly well and then completely ignore other aspects.
So any other books / authors that you feel show up as not having done the research? (ignoring anything marked as obsolete by advances).
Anyone given a planet 2 moons and then not shown the varying tides? etc.