The saying goes like this, It's not what you *don't* know that is going to trip you up, it's what you know that isn't so. I believe that the first lady might possibly have been feigning helplessness, just a little bit. She already had concept art and visuals, so I think she'll be okay. But someone might truly be so new that they know nothing about science fiction as a genre or how it works in the world. That person, the truly "new" person, might not realize that the second lady, no matter how assured she seems to be that she's passing on vital Wisdom, is wrong. So lets unwrap her backpack a little (to steal a metaphor). Stories about space pirates are Space Opera, generally. "Soft" science in science fiction usually refers to sociology or psychology, social "science". A story about space pirates might be "soft". But that's picking nits. The first big boo-boo is this: "not as popular *because* it is women
I had something to say about what happens if we lose our doubt, our suspicion, and our ability to look for a lie because we have been conditioned to expect that everything around us has been certified safe? And then I clicked through to the article. I'll link it here and I won't quote the whole thing, just representatives of the points made. You can go read it all if you still maintain a skeptical nature. https://bookriot.com/let-these-publishing-trends-die/ First point: "Publishers of nonfiction should have built-in, on top of the author’s fact-checking, a review process by people trained in fact-checking." The author begins with an example of a book suggesting that sunning your...butt hole every day was healthy. I agree that this is utterly absurd. I disagree that we need a ministry of truth to ensure that no one publishes such a silly health suggestion. What we need is a developed and maintained skepticism, not an assurance that if something is in a "n