The Future of Hard SF

specfiction · Apr 20, 2006

I thought this would be an interesting forum to ask whether technically oriented readers are still interested in what has been euphemistically called hard SF. By hard, I mean not fantasy (in a loose sense). By fantasy, I mean stories that are centered on magic, or stories whose central elements are based on historic human societies (castles, swords, etc), but purport to mix that up with other planets or technologic props. And, to really flesh this out, let’s not include anything that has to do with games, TV, movie, or comic books. What I’m really looking for is people’s feelings on promoting a new crop of Greg Bears, Arthur Clarkes, Stan Lem, Greg Benford—that ilk. Writers that take the real world and produce intellectually interesting scenarios where we can explore the intermix between the real world, as we are beginning to understand it, and the future of our society in a multi-dimensional way, i.e. politics, religion, exploration, etc. _______________________ Speculative Fiction Review

qso1 · Apr 21, 2006

specfiction: What I’m really looking for is people’s feelings on promoting a new crop of Greg Bears, Arthur Clarkes... Me: I say go for it, I don't read much myself as I'm more a visual person and like watching movies about the future etc. A lot of people do read and I think there is an untapped market for this type of Sci Fi, I should say I hope there is as I wrote this type of book myself. One of my biggest inspirations was A. C. Clarke, not so much the Author as I don't really get into the people behind the work that much. But the movie "2001, A Space Odyssey"...at least the first part of which was excellent sci Fi IMO. Though I still liked what was esentially the LSD trip, it sort of became sci fan at that point. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

specfiction · Apr 21, 2006

I think most good SF movies begin as books. Books are a great source of visual material because they have a greater ability to explore scenarios in detail. Within the pages of a book, an author can present not only hard to visualize ideas, but also the impressions and thoughts of characters, thus the ability of presenting a more moving connection to the reader. More importantly, good SF is an important bridge to the culture of science, something I believe we are losing in the US. Excellent SF books by scientists or people interested in science served to inspire an entire generation of people, who in large part, brought about many of the miracles you see around you today. I think it's critically important for those interested in science to present fascinating, realistic, and entertaining SF as a bridge to the next generation of people who are going to make it real.

summoner · Apr 21, 2006

Great list of writers. But it looks to me like they put just about everybody who writes scifi in the hard scifi group. Hamilton and Weber are probably my 2 favorite writers at the moment, but I don't think I'd classify either one as hard scifi. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

specfiction · Apr 21, 2006

The reason there may not be as much hard SF, and the point of this thread, is that many publishers are really not looking for it. Also, and this can get me in trouble, but the rise of fantasy and TV and movie SF (at least Lucas calls his stuff space fantasy, not SF) has discouraged many from writing the kind of SF Clarke et. al. used to write. For example, have you even heard of Benford's Martian Race? It's pretty good stuff, but the only time it's ever discussed, in my presence at least, is by people who are really interested in science. The thing that bothers me is that good SF (literature with a science bent) should be of interest to the mainstream reader, as was Lem, Clarke, Verne, etc.

tom_hobbes · Apr 21, 2006

Stephen Baxter is has been having a good stab at being the future of hard SF over the last decade. Have you read any of his work? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

specfiction · Apr 21, 2006

Yes, I read his (Baxter's) Manifold Series, and just recently, "The Light of Other Days"-- very eerie. But remember, he's been writing for many years. Most of the guys we usually talk about when thinking hard SF (I prefer realistic SF because I think some authors like LeGuin write the kind of cultural stuff I like to include in good SF) started publishing years ago when science seemed more interesting to people in general.

specfiction · Apr 21, 2006

Foxbat: If you've written a SF book you feel passionate about, take a look at my site. It's in my profile.

tom_hobbes · Apr 21, 2006

What's your name? Have you published? I’m not entirely surprised by your experience to be honest. Many who should know better (Margaret bloody Atwood for one) still seem to find every opportunity to sneer at SF despite in many cases clearly writing what is inarguably SF while it may packaged and marketed as something else. The only advice I can offer is to be persistent. There must be agents out there who specialise in genre fiction. (I loved The Handmaids Tale by the way but I can’t understand her expressed attitude to science fiction. Orwell’s 1984 for example is by any reasonable definition, science fiction. Now I wouldn’t for a moment argue that Orwell sat down to consciously write genre fiction. My point is that science fiction is simply a form. How much or how little a writer may do with it is due to the limitations of the writer, not the form.) I hope you keep at it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

tom_hobbes · Apr 21, 2006

Forgive me. I remember illustrating one of his stories when he was still establishing himself and writing short fiction for Interzone... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

qso1 · Apr 22, 2006

I think for most readers, books have the advantage of allowing the reader to have some input into their own minds as to what is descriobed in the book as far as characters or settings. As a graphics type, I illustrate my stuff and the disadvantage is that there is little for a reader to use in the way of imagination. The advantage however is that for something like hard sci fi, technical props such as spacecraft can be shown allowing the reader to focus on the story and characters rather than trying to visualize spacecraft or other tech devices on description alone. I started one of my ideas back in 1974 right outa high school. Even then I knew it wasn't publishable traditionally because it would be a niche market rather than mass market work despite efforts to make it mass market at the time. Once the internet came about, that changed the equation theoretically. Operationally however, the internet is largely the domain of big buck advertisers where making money is concerned. If you don't have the bucks, you cannot advertise effectively on the peoples medium. I hope through people such as yourself that this will change. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

summoner · Apr 22, 2006

The one thing the net does is allow people to show their work without being published by the big houses. I've found quite a bit of good reading looking around and try to support these people if they show some promise. Here's one guy that I've found to be pretty good: A.R. Yngve <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

qso1 · Apr 22, 2006

Thats the biggest advantage offered by the web which is why I call it the peoples medium. People can show their work. I had hoped to go one step further and make a living off my stuff. Instead I toil away in the workworld like most folks but thats the way it is eh. I checked out the link, good stuff, thanks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

specfiction · Apr 22, 2006

Good discussion. The dirty little secret about the web is that, as you've correctly pointed out, it is the domain of big buck marketeers, as is most (all?) other media. The sad thing is that the net was created, originally, as a government (public bucks) funded research program--the corporations, even at that time (and it's much worst now) don't have the vision or passion to create anything truly innovative (this is mostly true, there are very occasional exceptions). Then physicists at CERN created www (hyperlink graphic tech) that's why it's free (patents are held by MIT with stipulation it be free). But once this stuff was in place, the marketeers took it over, and as usual, many of the people out there (consumers) were convinced that anything legitimate must be put in the absurd lingo of market-speak. The "net" result is that too many people on the web are torn between thinking that anything innovative is either a scam or something sub-par. It's all very sad. And even worst, instead of the web being an outlet for creativity--much of it is just a hyped marketing channel.

specfiction · Apr 22, 2006

>I had hoped to go one step further and make a living off my stuff. Instead I toil away in the work world like most folks but that’s the way it is eh... I think that if someone can break through--provide a service where good stuff actually makes money for the people who create it--authors in this case, then we might start to see the web fulfill some of its promise. What is needed is for people looking for stuff (to buy) not only consider those outlets that reject anything that isn't in the least-common-denominator category, then hype their stuff with more resources than they used to find truly different and interesting voices. At the time when, for example, Asimov was getting started, he could actually walk into the office of an editor at a reasonably well-know publisher, plop is manuscript on their desk, and pitch his stuff. And, if his stuff was any good, actually have a reasonable chance of having that editor have enough discretion to accept it! One would hope the web would offer such possibilities, but so far, I don't believe it has--with bad consequences for what's generally available (not the quality, but the diversity in most cases).

qso1 · Apr 23, 2006

A good reason to bypass the traditional pub industry altogether if only web publishing could take off. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

specfiction · Apr 23, 2006

All that you say is true. However, my point is that today, not only is it hard to get an agent or editor to look at your stuff, but the tenor of publishing has changed quite a bit. In Asimov's day, the public was more accepting of SF as a genre read by the mainstream. Although it was called a ghetto by many writers in the past, the situation is much worst now. That is why many SF writers, including Greg Bear, are now writing "Thrillers." It's not because they don't like writing SF, it's because book marketing has pigeon-holed SF into a strange category that many "mainstream" readers don't visit. My own experience has been quite telling. I’ve written a book (SF) and several novella length short stories. I got several agents to read my stuff. Also, I’ve published many scientific papers in premier science journals, like “Physical Review Letters.” The response of one agent was he liked the manuscript because his son, now at Carnegie Mellon, was doing some of the stuff I talked about in the story. However, after apologizing, he told me he had a small agency and my manuscript would be too hard to sell because it was a SF written in a mainstream style and had too much science in it! I paired it down. The next agent told me, and I quote, “people who read SF don’t want to learn anything!” Then, the pace-de-resistance, an agent sent me a rejection letter—okay. I sent an email asking why. I got their assistant, a graduate of Columbia working for the agency. She told me she didn’t know why, but would review my manuscript because the agent was out of the office. Three days latter, she sent an email saying she liked it and didn’t know why it was rejected, but would talk to the agent when she returned. A couple of days later, she sent me an email saying she was told not to talk to the writers and apologized. My only point in telling you this is that publishing is a business—we all know that. But many publishers today feel that SF, as I understand it at l

JonClarke · Apr 23, 2006

As an illustration of what you say, a significant fraction of SF books in major shops these days are movie or TV series spinoffs, which I find very depressing. What real creativity can there be in taking someone else's ideas (often 2nd rate compared to what is available in literature) and the writing a story about them? Almost as depressing is the tendency for writers to build on other's books. I think there are many issues here. SF is essentially a literature of the modernist world view. With the rise of post modernism SF may not be so interesting to the readership. The other is that as a genre it may have a limited life, rather like thwe western. how many new westerns are being written these days? One last observation. The supposed golden age of SF was when it was not mainstream, when it was published in pulp magazines. Maybe it is time it got back into the gutter. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

tom_hobbes · Apr 23, 2006

Bravo! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

specfiction · Apr 23, 2006

Any worthwhile art form is multidimensional. There is high literature, that in one age is considered of low moral content--of low significance and in another age considered far-sighted. What I'm saying is that western civilization has had a constant association with science. Western philosophers from the time of the Ionians to the present have been mostly concerned with what we now call science. Footnote: Ionians may not be considered western, but western civilization, as we know it, most strongly resonated with their ideas. SF, at least in some forms, is the cultural expression of these ideas. So while pulp serials are nice (I read them as a kid), there is a more serious literary form that SF can take. It encapsulates the vision of where we might go as a people and as a species. And some of it has been strangely prophetic. In fact, the best SF I've read lately have been novels marketed in the mainstream. Far from being in the gutter, I'd like to see writers like Stan Lem nominated for a Noble Prize in Lit.

darth_elmo · Apr 23, 2006

If you think about it in the proper light, many 'mainstream' novels are SF. Ranbow Six was SF. So was The Boys from Brazil; The Stepford Wives; Carrie; Lightning; Watchers... The list goes on and on...

qso1 · Apr 24, 2006

Thats a good point, sometimes Sci Fi is not where you normally expect it to be. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

darth_elmo · Apr 24, 2006

So, you're coming down on Star Wars? Just because SF has swords and sorcery doesn't make it bad SF! I refer you to John Brunner's highly readable and definitely SF work, The Compleat Enchanter in Black. Very entertaining and thought-provoking.

yevaud · Apr 24, 2006

Star Wars isn't properly SF - it's Space Opera, with very "by the numbers" aspects to it. It's quite literally Saint George against the Dragon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

jmilsom · Apr 25, 2006

To wade into the discussion here. I think the debate between 'hard' and 'soft' SciFi is irrelevant. All literature set in the future deals with changes in our society, technological or otherwise in different degrees. I think the debate is more between good and bad literature in the genre. I love SciFi as it gives us a less constrained window to explore issues of relevance to the future of our society and humanity. The 'hard' aspect, being the science and technology is but one of many fields that can be utilised by the writer and feeling that SciFi should be limited to such treatises constrains the genre. JonClarke makes a beautiful point. Many of the SciFi writers of the 50s and 60s were writing well outside the mainstream and found it difficult to publish. Many works published as series in pulp SciFi magazines are now published as novels and are considered important literary works. I think many of Philip K. Dick's works are absolutely brilliant - and they do exactly what you say give insights into our society and where we are going, yet he was a pulp writer for years before he was published. We are seeing a trend today where mass marketing is drowning out serious young writers (I have a friend in the same boat). A lot of 'bad' SciFi is being put out that is linked to movie series or comics that is little more than glorified adventure tales and tell us nothing about our society, ourselves, where we are going and what our current choices or lack thereof (social apathy) may imply. Bring the pulps back - so many of today's brilliant writers started through this medium - it may be a way to give exposure and recognition to new writers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

The Future of Hard SF

specfiction

Guest

qso1

Guest

specfiction

Guest

summoner

Guest

specfiction

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

specfiction

Guest

specfiction

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

qso1

Guest

summoner

Guest

qso1

Guest

specfiction

Guest

specfiction

Guest

qso1

Guest

specfiction

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

specfiction

Guest

darth_elmo

Guest

qso1

Guest

darth_elmo

Guest

yevaud

Guest

jmilsom

Guest

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page