Intersection

[threemonkeys]

There is a cartoon graph on the front cover of Banana Wings 33. It plots "SF Content" against time. There are two lines - one for SF and one for real life. The point where the lines intersect is marked as the death of SF. According to the graph that happened a few years ago. It is an interesting thing to debate whether there is much science in science fiction any more - has the real world made the traditional "hard sf" form redundant. Certainly, there is very little of it published. However I would argue that those few who do publish what I would consider hard SF (rather than space opera) have not let the lines intersect and are pushing their fiction into the unknown edges of science and technology. But, to reiterate, they are a rare breed these days - not like back in "the golden age" when fiction writers really cared bout the science and wanted to explain it to you were dominating the field.

Interesting then that I read Rites of Passage by Alexei Panshin today - a piece of important SF that somehow I have neglected to read over all these years. The book won the Nebula award for best novel in 1968. The author just cannot help explaining things while telling the story. The technology of the ship the book is set in is an obvious target, but it extends to other things. For example there is a scene where various inhabitant of the ship are playing soccer - Panshin explains what soccer is and some (very old-fashioned) rudiments of how it is played. It is the explanation of somebody who has never played the game but still the desire to educate is there as there is no plot or thematic reason to do so. It seems to me that it is this desire to educate is mostly missing from SF these day where it used to be the norm. No longer do the authors wish to push the message of the wonderful things that science can do for us, or just the wonder of learning. Actually, much more likely is that the audience don't want to be taught, or the message is not one that they want to listen to.

One other thing about Rites of Passage. It is written in a clean uncomplicated style that is very characteristic of the best work of the time. It also has a teenage protagonist. Anybody reading this book without the historical context would immediately label it as a YA book. I don't know if it was intended that way - I suspect not.

Comments

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

It might just be that practically every SF writers workshop or advice column for the last 30 years has hammered home the reasons to avoid info-dump, "As you know, Bob...", show don't tell, etc.

[threemonkeys.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree that writers have been steered away from the info-dump. But they don't seem to show the science either - perhaps that is too hard for many of them so they don't do either.

[gillpolack.livejournal.com]

John Scalzi does the explanation thing. It makes for a nice comfort factor in his writing, in fact, - it feels like the SF I keep expecting to find.

[threemonkeys.livejournal.com]

Comfort - yes. I like having stuff explained to me.

[gillpolack.livejournal.com]

I don't read the explanations, mind, but them being there make me feel happy.

[threemonkeys.livejournal.com]

Next you are going to tell me that you don't look at the maps in the front of fantasy novels either. ;-)

[gillpolack.livejournal.com]

I admire them intensely, especially the mountains.

[threemonkeys.livejournal.com]

I agree - gotta love all those pointy bits on a map.

[gillpolack.livejournal.com]

I've been trying to convince Russell of this for a while, but he can't see it. Or rather, he can see it and doesn't like it.

[threemonkeys.livejournal.com]

See, with Russell, the likes of us using such highly technical terms as pointy bits just confuses him. You have to explain it to him in simple terms that he can understand.

[russellk.livejournal.com]

How can there be pointy bits when maps are flat? Explain that to me.

[threemonkeys.livejournal.com]

See what I mean - too technical.

[gillpolack.livejournal.com]

I shall keep trying (and being trying).

[threemonkeys.livejournal.com]

Ssh - he's watching

[russellk.livejournal.com]

Do you mean the corners of the map? They're pointy.

[threemonkeys.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's right. That's why you never see a mountain on a globe.

[russellk.livejournal.com]

Yeah! Never thought of that. Globes don't have corners, so no pointy bits! And that's how we know the earth to be banana-shaped.

[threemonkeys.livejournal.com]

Watch out for the cosmic monkeys...

The flat earth society at University of Canterbury had a dodecahedral earth - it had pointy bits too.

[gillpolack.livejournal.com]

The question is, were there mountains that aligned with them?

[threemonkeys.livejournal.com]

I doubt it - surely the flat earth society shouldn't believe in mountains either. :-)

[gillpolack.livejournal.com]

Not on a round map, they aren't.

[mundens.livejournal.com]

Thing is, so-called "hard" SF now has to take into account the potential for Singularity, and the current fluidity in physics itself.

I suspect that unless you keep up with the latest, half of the hard SF out there today would seem like space opera or fantasy to the hard-sf addicts of the seventies and earlier. But it's actually hard SF by their own definitions, based only on minor extrapolation of current tech in believable amounts and directions.

As to your thesis, exposition makes poor literature, what you see as the "desire to educate" was actually a lack of writing ability, being unable to "show", so having to "tell". The reason little SF does it these days is that we have better writers writing SF now, so you don't notice the education as much! :)

[threemonkeys.livejournal.com]

My point is that there are not many writers even attempting to take on the singularity etc - I can think of a few, I actively seek them out, but they don't represent anything like the numbers, either relatively or in absolute counts, that they used to do.

As I noted to Strangedave, I don't think as many writers "show" either when it comes to scientific content - it can be a big ask to blend it in properly. It isn't really a criticism - I'm happy for them to put their energy into story, character, social environment etc.

[thoatherder.livejournal.com]

Ah the wonderful, wonderful singularity, beloved of those who are feeling death's footsteps coming closer and closer. And who want a scientific basis for believing in Unicorns.

To me, the singularity is wish fulfillment of the highest kind. The general idea is that 'we will develop thinking machines, they will develop better thinking machines ... magic will happen'.

I could rant for a long time about the disconnect between saying 'the brain has 10 to the n neurons, computers will have 10 to the n circuits by 2010 so machine intelligence is just around the corner'.

There is just too much hand waving involved.

But the idea of the singularity is poisoning SF. Writers are taking on board the idea that they can't write hard SF, because they have to write about "the singularity' and they can't. You even have Venor Vinge creating 'slow zones' so he can write stories because he believes in the singularity so much.

Pah!

I'll just go and re-read the Lensman Series to calm down.

[threemonkeys.livejournal.com]

Just to be clear - I'm not an adherent of the idea of the singularity - I was just repeating back the example used. I do actively seek out any author who is prepared to take a stab at extrapolating (aka guessing) what the future may hold and that may include authors who hold to the notion of the singularity. However since Vinge is (imho) rubbish, he is not one I continue to read. Nor am I wildly attached to writing that uses technology to create a "magical" virtual environment - just write fantasy if that is what you want to do.

Russell Kirkpatrick has just had a rambling rant (http://www.russellkirkpatrick.com/blog/index.cfm/2008/3/14/The-approaching-Singularity) about the singularity. Since Russell reads this blog too, I hope I haven't unleashed something. Or than again, debate is good, so maybe I do.

[cupidsbow.livejournal.com]

The stuff about the graph is great -- I love graphs of that nature.

As for the trend, I think it's true enough. It is harder to have a new extrapolative thought now that the sciences are so specialised. It's difficult for an amateur to learn enough to be in the ballpark, let alone be part of the game.

[threemonkeys.livejournal.com]

I wish I could post a picture of the graph, but Banana Wings is steadfastly lo-tech - the cover is even in colours that won't scan well.

[stephanie-pegg.livejournal.com]

I grew up on the SF written in the 60s and 70s, and yeah, there was a real trend to wrap the book around a scientific idea. It doesn't seem so common now - books are longer, but they're filled with people issues rather than science issues, and often it's people issues only being used as set dressing rather than the core of the book. I miss the clarity that you got when the writers thought that 250 pages was luxuriously long.

[threemonkeys.livejournal.com]

I miss the concentrated focused nature of the shorter books from those times too. I loaned my copy of The Forever War to a workmate today. His immediate reaction was to look at its slim size and comment that he usually liked a big book that he could get his teeth into. Sigh.

[thoatherder.livejournal.com]

Big books are for people who find the act of reading to be sufficient in of itself. It doesn't matter as to the quality of the words, only the quantity.

This is my explanation for the popularity of books by Stephen Donaldson, and why the Harry Potter books got longer and longer, Rowling tried to disguise the weakness of the plots by burying it under more words.

People feel cheated if they can read a book in less than a day.

[threemonkeys.livejournal.com]

Sigh - sad but true.