Post History
So, in my post-apocalyptic novel, the world was caught up in an international war (basically WWIII), and all the world's nuclear superpowers launched their warheads and killed much of the global po...
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T11:15:09Z (over 4 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/43289 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
by
weakdna says reinstate monica
·
2019-12-08T11:15:09Z (over 4 years ago)
So, in my post-apocalyptic novel, the world was caught up in an international war (basically WWIII), and all the world's nuclear superpowers launched their warheads and killed much of the global population. Ambient radiation from the nuclear fallout has caused humans to develop supernatural abilities. And that is not science. I totally get that radiation just hurts/kills people, it doesn't give someone the ability to manipulate life force or become pyrokinetic like I assert in my story. That's not scientifically possible. But does my story _need_ to be scientifically accurate or plausible? Will I lose readers because all they can think of is "that would never happen"? Can a story like mine with inaccurate/nonexistent science still be appealing?
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2019-03-10T17:59:06Z (about 5 years ago)
Original score: 24