Frederik Pohl quotes:

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).

A good science fiction story should be able to predict not the automobile but the traffic jam.

I'm doing a book, 'Chasing Science,' about the pleasures of science as a spectator sport.

I did that for 40 years or more. I never had any writer's block. I got up in the morning, sat down at the typewriter - now, computer - lit up a cigarette.

My first thought was always a cigarette. It still is, but I haven't cheated.

A lot of the cosmologists and astrophysicists clearly had been reading science fiction.

I was thinking of writing a little foreword saying that history is, after all, based on people's recollections, which change with time.

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.

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.

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.

People ask me how I do research for my science fiction. The answer is, I never do any research.

The head of Fermilab was reading Astonishing Stories when he was ten.

That's really what SF is all about, you know: the big reality that pervades the real world we live in: the reality of change. Science fiction is the very literature of change. In fact, it is the only such literature we have.

That's the method: restructure the world we live in in some way, then see what happens.

The science fiction method is dissection and reconstruction.

Stories where the author has known very little, but run a computer program that tells him how to construct a planet, and looked up specific things about rocketry and so on, really suck.

You don't think progress goes in a straight line, do you? Do you recognize that it is an ascending, accelerating, maybe even exponential curve? It takes hell's own time to get started, but when it goes it goes like a bomb.

Advertising reaches out to touch the fantasy part of people's lives. And you know, most people's fantasies are pretty sad.

I'm pretty catholic about what constitutes science fiction.

What were we doing here? Traveling hundreds or thousands of light-years, to break our hearts?

In terms of stories I would buy for a science fiction magazine, if they take place in the future, that might do it.

For twenty years and more the whole planet had been bombed, raped, ravaged, and gouged by people whose fury had so exceeded their judgment that the only thing they could think of to do to express their discontent was to kill somebody.

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.

You look at the world around you, and you take it apart into all its components. Then you take some of those components, throw them away, and plug in different ones, start it up and see what happens.

You can't really predict the future. All you can do is invent it.

For someone to be taken seriously it was valuable to have the appearance of someone who deserved to be taken seriously.

Science fiction is the very literature of change.

People as me how I do research for my science fiction. The answer is, I never do any research.

On this day I want to tell you about, which will be about a thousand years from now, there were a boy, a girl and a love story.

You can't trust reason. We threw it out of the ad profession long ago and have never missed it.

The future depicted in a good SF story ought to be in fact possible, or at least plausible. That means that the writer should be able to convince the reader (and himself) that the wonders he is describing really can come true... and that gets tricky when you take a good, hard look at the world around you.

It's clear that science and science fiction have overlapping populations.

When I sit down to the feast of life ... I'm so busy planning on how to pick up the check, and wondering what the other people think of me for paying it, and wondering if I have enough money in my pocket to pay the bill, that I don't get around to eating.

That's what life is, just one learning experience after another, and when you're through with all the learning experiences you graduate and what you get for a diploma is, you die.