They were two lovely choices. One of them meant giving up every chance of a decent life forever...and the other one scared me out of my mind.
I was thinking of writing a little foreword saying that history is, after all, based on people's recollections, which change with time.
People ask me how I do research for my science fiction. The answer is, I never do any research.
The big new development in my life is, when I turned 80, I decided I no longer have to do four pages a day. For me, it's like retiring.
A large fraction of the most interesting scientists have read a lot of SF at one time or another, either early enough that it may have played a part in their becoming scientists or at some later date just because they liked the ideas.
A lot of the cosmologists and astrophysicists clearly had been reading science fiction.
I don't think the scientific method and the science fictional method are really analogous. The thing about them is that neither is really practiced very much, at least not consciously. But the fact that they are methodical does relate them.
I'm doing a book, 'Chasing Science,' about the pleasures of science as a spectator sport.
I'm pretty catholic about what constitutes science fiction.
If you don't care about science enough to be interested in it on its own, you shouldn't try to write hard science fiction. You can write like Ray Bradbury and Harlan Ellison as much as you want.
In terms of stories I would buy for a science fiction magazine, if they take place in the future, that might do it.
It's clear that science and science fiction have overlapping populations.
My old English buddy, John Rackham, wrote and told me what made science fiction different from all other kinds of literature - science fiction is written according to the science fiction method.
Stephen Hawking said he spent most of his first couple of years at Cambridge reading science fiction (and I believe that, because his grades weren't all that great).
The science fiction method is dissection and reconstruction.