| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| specfiction |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 08:19:30
I started reading “hard” SF as a kid, everything from Tom Swift to HG Wells. For me, naively, I took it to mean that there would be extraordinary possibilities in the “future”—fascinating insights that could actually be real. From the early 80’s to the middle 90’s, I was a practicing particle physicist at many accelerator labs around the world. That grand vision of future possibilities had become real. In 94, the congress killed the SSC (Superconducting SuperCollider). I was a staff physicist there on the GEM detector. At that point, I decided to call it quits. I had a family and postgraduate pay is pretty bad—like being a writer [snic]. Much of the actual work that I did as a physicist was statistical modeling—a lot of AI type stuff. So I went into speech recognition for the next ten years—much better money.
The reason I’ve told you a little about myself is because, from my point of view, SF is a kind of bridge for science into, for lack of a better description, our greater culture. Make no mistake about it, its master practitioners hold Science, at its highest levels, as a cultural worldview, just like political-scientists/economists or the religious leaders consider their worldview central to the culture at large. Many times, if you hang around with certain scientist, especially theorists—they’re my favorites, after a few drinks, they start spinning spontaneous SF—much of it much more amusing or fascinating than anything I’ve read in the popular literature.
SF should be entertaining as well as painting a novel picture of reality. Most people don’t read real scientific papers. I read some of my old papers and don’t understand them anymore. A way of transmitting that science worldview into a society whose members haven’t spent decades learning mathematics (the truest description of the objective world) is to write stories that put a science worldview into a human context. That’s my favorite kind of SF.
I find the descriptor “hard” problematic. For example, some of my favorite SF is that of Ursula LeGuin—Lathe of Heaven, The Dispossessed, Left Hand of Darkness. Some of it defies a category, like Stan Lem’s His Masters Voice, Solaris, or Fiasco. On the other hand, I have also been a long-time fan of writers such as Greg Benford, Greg Bear, and Greg Egan. Greg Bear’s Queen of Angels is one of the best books I’ve ever read, in any category. Greg Egan’s Quarantine, although wrong about some quantum mechanics, was nevertheless fascinating.
I found myself writing SF. I’d had certain stories bouncing around in my head (I’m sure many of us have) and decided to try to put them on the page. I found it hard to find a publisher (big surprise), and although I had a few nibbles, decided to do it myself. |
| 10 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| The Jarillion |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 11:10:19
Thanks for your comments on The Jarillion Mercy. Why should I say ugh to you though? I think I am a lot harder than you on pop culture at present. The problem of remakes and fantasy over Science fiction is a serious one. Fantasy is dominant today I fear because it demands less of the writer and audience, can become a random series of pictures. A fantasy writer requires added self discipline to avoid easy cop outs, even more so than a Science Fiction writer.
I also fear that technology is working against serious Science fiction in pop culture on screen. When real looking monsters were not possible to create, writers were forced to concentrate on intruiging concepts and or realistic characters. The current generation can hide behind SFX, pushing Science Fiction back into the fringes.
www.jarillion.com |
| specfiction |
Posted - 06/13/2007 : 08:43:25
quote:
Originally posted by The Jarillion
The public do seem to be getting less literate on the whole. Longer working hours for the middle class could be partly to blame, like to hear other considerations on that .One big growth area has been with Harry Potter, a childrens book read by adults, while most kids don't even read for pleasure now.
www.jarillion.com
I'm glad that Harry Potter is so successful. I really like JK Rowling. She's got a strong story--out of work teacher, hanging out in coffee shops writing her books, being passionate about her stories and having a innate love of kids, etc. She deserves all the good things that have come her way. I've bought all her books for my two kids. Having said that, it is a fact that the two kinds of books that sell today are: books aimed at kids or YA, and romance novels. We could talk about why that is so, but it is not of great interest to me.
What I'm interested in, and what we have a great deficit of, is creative speculative fiction that casts light and questions issues of the human condition in a reasoned and non-mystical way. You might have read that last sentence and said--ugh. But if you did, it's only because in our greater culture we've been conditioned to: not like education, diss anything that requires thought and patience, and gravitate toward pop trends and personality cults. I know what I've said sounds hard, but the sad part is that it's true.
BTW, I went to the Jarillion website and read the review--I was intrigued. It was an excellent review and the audio play sounds facinating.
____________
Specfiction |
| The Jarillion |
Posted - 06/12/2007 : 19:00:51
The public do seem to be getting less literate on the whole. Longer working hours for the middle class could be partly to blame, like to hear other considerations on that .One big growth area has been with Harry Potter, a childrens book read by adults, while most kids don't even read for pleasure now.
www.jarillion.com |
| specfiction |
Posted - 06/12/2007 : 08:20:26
quote:
Originally posted by The Jarillion
The essential problem I find is that only writers are interested in creating something worthwhile. Agents and publishers are looking to make money, to do that they must aim low. Most people consider Star Wars to be science fiction, the genre is typically mixed in as Sci-Fi and Fantasy in the bookshops, with a teensy sliver of SF to be found among the fantasy TV spin-offs, and TV pours out Space Fantasy, calling it Science fiction, because an awful lot of people are not even aware of the difference.
www.jarillion.com
I agree. My only point is that there is a market out there for what some might call SF literature. That is SF that is written to stimulate thought as well as entertain. The problem is, as you point out, that it isn't "low hanging fruit." So most in publishing aren't interested because they're struggling to stay in business. I don't really blame them. The group I blame is the reading public for not supporting greater options. I have no problem with comics, fantasy, whatever. But the public should support efforts (like SFR) that try to bring them more to choose from.
____________
Specfiction |
| The Jarillion |
Posted - 06/11/2007 : 19:15:46
The essential problem I find is that only writers are interested in creating something worthwhile. Agents and publishers are looking to make money, to do that they must aim low. Most people consider Star Wars to be science fiction, the genre is typically mixed in as Sci-Fi and Fantasy in the bookshops, with a teensy sliver of SF to be found among the fantasy TV spin-offs, and TV pours out Space Fantasy, calling it Science fiction, because an awful lot of people are not even aware of the difference.
www.jarillion.com |
| specfiction |
Posted - 02/24/2006 : 16:53:45
Previous post was deleted by accident
I'm not a stickler--far from it. For example, Ursula LeGuin is one of my favorite authors. Some of her stories I consider brilliant. She is the daughter of a famous anthropologist, and she is an anthropologist. Her writing reflects that.
I think that some of what's considered hard SF is murky on the facts. Much of Asimov's stuff, as well as some of Benford's stuff take many liberties (and he's one of the best hard SF authors), but whenever appropriate, the author should research their material as well as possible and weave it into the story in an interesting way.
And if your MBA has trouble with the facts, be careful before investing!
|
| specfiction |
Posted - 02/24/2006 : 14:45:38
quote:
Originally posted by drfreeze
I'll have to look at Proteus Rising to see what you are talking about. Off hand, I would say the educational component should be subordinated to the story. If I write hard SF, I don't want people to read just to learn something about quantum critical points or ruthenate superconductivity. I want them to be entertained. I like that your book was accused of being "mainstream" since the bulk of what I read is traditional lit fic -- Nabokov, Miller, Cortazar, Proust, Burgess, Greene, Kerouac, Borges, Joyce, etc. I've never really developed a taste for SF or hard SF because of the "fantasy" or "magical" technology element, or because of all the space travel. I do respect Lem's Solaris even though the science there is a little shakey, but Lem wasn't writing a science text book, he was writing an entertaining story first.
That's not what I mean. No, it shouldn't be a textbook but it's better if it's credible and interesting within the context of the story. For example, most good crime, mystery, or suspense novels are accurate and interesting in their depiction of CSI, courtroom procedure, military protocol, etc. I read a novel by Brad Meltzer about intrigue at the White House. He was a Washington lawyer and in the book's credits went on about the accuracy of his descriptions of the upper floors of the WH (interesting historically). It adds realism and credibility to a good story.
It seems almost ridiculous to me that in SF, of all things (science being the most objectively sound accomplishment of man), that people would be worried about the quality of the story given a competent depiction of the science. It seems to me in most other mature lit, anything less would be considered slock.
|
| drfreeze |
Posted - 02/24/2006 : 12:50:48
I'll have to look at Proteus Rising to see what you are talking about. Off hand, I would say the educational component should be subordinated to the story. If I write hard SF, I don't want people to read just to learn something about quantum critical points or ruthenate superconductivity. I want them to be entertained. I like that your book was accused of being "mainstream" since the bulk of what I read is traditional lit fic -- Nabokov, Miller, Cortazar, Proust, Burgess, Greene, Kerouac, Borges, Joyce, etc. I've never really developed a taste for SF or hard SF because of the "fantasy" or "magical" technology element, or because of all the space travel. I do respect Lem's Solaris even though the science there is a little shakey, but Lem wasn't writing a science text book, he was writing an entertaining story first. |
| specfiction |
Posted - 02/24/2006 : 08:41:42
quote:
Originally posted by drfreeze
Back in 2001 I attended a talk by John Cramer at the APS March Meeting in Seattle. He said (roughly) "if you think you can write hard science fiction, then do, there's a market for it, publishers want it, readers want it." I thought seriously about what Cramer said and since then I've read quite a bit of hard SF just to see what it is like. I have yet to write any hard SF, but Cramer left me with the impression that the bar was lower in hard SF publishing (in the form of trade paperbacks) than say in lif fic.
One would think. And by the way, I bought Cramer's book Einstein’s Bridge to support his writing career back in the middle 90's. What caught my eye was that the story unfolded around a group at the SSC where I was a staff physicist.
As to the bar being high or low, let me tell you about my experience last year trying to get Proteus published. First, let me say that Proteus started as a rehab exercise for me. In 2001, I had a serious surfing accident that affected my hands, so Proteus started as a typing exercise. But as the book began to develop, I really got into the story and the science. As a reality check, I sent the manuscript to the most critical people I could think of. Some were my old physics friends.
To my surprise, not only did some of these guys like it, they asked for more! I also gave it to friends who were prolific readers, but not SF. They liked it too. In fact, some told me that if SF were more like this, they'd start reading it.
So I thought, let me get an agent. I sent it to 10 well known agents. About four agreed to talk to me. I was honestly ready to hear a critique of the writing etc, but mostly what I heard were things like: there's too much science in it, people who read SF don't want to learn anything, there's too much detail, it's written too much like a mainstream novel, etc. I was surprised. The book they were looking for was not the book I wanted to write--because it's not the kind of book I like to read.
It's always inflammatory to say this, but what many of these guys are really looking for is a fantasy-like book, written in a particular style. There's nothing wrong with that, but there should be room for something else. A lot of the writers I like the most are those that have been at it for a while. I spoke to some of them and they told me they thought the publishing climate had changed considerably for SF over the last ten years—mostly due to corporate consolidation. That's why I started SFR
|
| drfreeze |
Posted - 02/24/2006 : 03:31:08
Back in 2001 I attended a talk by John Cramer at the APS March Meeting in Seattle. He said (roughly) "if you think you can write hard science fiction, then do, there's a market for it, publishers want it, readers want it." I thought seriously about what Cramer said and since then I've read quite a bit of hard SF just to see what it is like. I have yet to write any hard SF, but Cramer left me with the impression that the bar was lower in hard SF publishing (in the form of trade paperbacks) than say in lif fic. |
|
|
