Hard SF

[Specfiction]

I think that all these points are well taken. The only place where I would beg to differ is on the definition of science. Rhetoric has more or less built cynics out of many of us, but science is a place where proof is more important than words. That integrity must be preserved.

Also, statistics, when done properly, are the greatest truth that humans have achieved because they form the mathematical bridge between science and experiment. Statistics don't lie, but liars can manipulate them. Someone who understands statistics, who can insure the quality of the data and the uncertainties in the data taking can reliably assess the correctness of the conclusion.

[Specfiction]

As far as psychologists dispensing drugs, it's a matter of local. Just like nurse practitioners, who dispense some drugs, there are states like Wyoming that allow clinical psychologist to prescribe drugs. Guam has let psychologists prescribe drugs for some time, etc.

[littlemissattitude]

Well, not here in California, as far as I know. And, actually it sort of horrifies me that they let someone without medical training prescribe drugs. Nurse practitioners have medical training, at least, as do psychiatrists. Unless things have changed significantly, psychologists don't.

[Specfiction]

The most well-know instance of a soft-science portrayed as a hard science in SF is Asimov's Foundation series. In the Foundation, a scientist predicts human history via statistical models for hundreds (thousands?) of years into the future.

[Specfiction]

To change the flow a little, what do people on the forum think of MICHAEL CRICHTON? He's almost never mentioned in SF circles, along with his friend Robin Cook. I once got in touch with his (and Cook's) literary agency and they told me they didn't handle SF writers.

[Coops]

I've read all of Crichton's works. They have to be classified as hard SF with the Andromeda Strain ,Sphere, the Jurassic Park novels, The Terminal Man, Prey, and Timeline covering aspects of biology, time travel, nanotechnology, computer-brain interface and alien visitation.
Congo might be on the edges of softer fiction.

Crighton works the time zone between tomorrow and 10 years from now making his characters as well as his science very believable. A good example of a popular author who writes hard SF.

[j. d. worthington]

On Crighton: If you can find a copy of Harlan Ellison's Approaching Oblivion: Roadsigns on the Treadmill Toward Tomorrow, Crighton provided a foreword to that addressing his anomalous position, and Ellison's original criticism of him as an sf writer. I don't think his position has ever changed, actually.....

Robin Cook tends to be classified as "medical thriller", which certainly sounds like it can fit easily into sf, if it involves any speculation about medical technological advances and their effects on society.....

[Specfiction]

I've got to say, though, that with "State of Fear" Crichton has lost a lot of my respect. The book was so bad, I couldn't finish it. It reminded me of the "global warming" version of reefer madness.

In Prey, I liked the Intro more than the book.

As far as Robin Cook, check out Abduction (I think that's what it was). We're talking Atlantis and flying saucers.

However, after talking to an agent in their lit agency, both Crichton and Cook are very happy not to be associated with the SF genre.

[j. d. worthington]

Addressing a statement I made earlier, I think the following quote might be of interest:

"This hypocrisy, of course, has to do with the new mysticism or neo-metaphysics bred of the advertised uncertainties of recent science -- Einstein, the quantum theory, and the resolution of matter into force. Although these new turns of science don't really mean a thing in relation to the myth of cosmic consciousness and teleology, a new brood of despairing and horrified moderns is seizing on the doubt of all positive knowledge which they imply; and is deducing therefrom that, since nothing is true, therefore anything can be true ..... whence one may invent or revive any sort of mythology that fancy or nostalgia or desperation may dictate, and defy anyone to prove that it isn't emotionally true -- whatever that means. This sickly, decadent neo-mysticism -- a protest not only against machine materialism but against pure science with its destruction of the mystery and dignity of human emotion and experience -- will be the dominant creed of middle twentieth century aesthetes, as the Eliot and Huxley penumbra well prognosticate." -- H. P. Lovecraft, from a letter to James Ferdinand Morton, Oct, 30, 1929 (SL III, p.53)

[Dave]

I didn't even bother to read 'State of Fear' after hearing the plot and reading reviews, yet I've read everything else by him.

He is not the only author who is at pains to avoid the use of the words 'science fiction'.

There are a whole host of more literary worthies who describe themselves as 'speculative fiction writers darling'. We discussed this before in the the {ASciFi} 'Is SF ashamed of itself?' thread. (It has even begun to happen on TV now.)

http://www.chronicles-network.com/fo...of-itself.html

Read any interview by Margaret Attwood.

It is all about how much money they can earn in the end. Booker Prize winner = lots. SF writer = little.

PK Dick struggled for years to throw off his SF mantle and be published as a 'serious' author, and make some money, though I see no difference in his writing.

Notice how Iain Banks/Iain M Banks needs two pen names, though I see no difference in his writing either.

HG Wells never had this problem.

[j. d. worthington]

Yes... on the use of the term "speculative fiction"... I had a lot more respect for it when it first began to be used, as it was to differentiate between those types of writers (and stories) that came out of a "hard" sciences background or perspective, and those that were at best marginally so, but were more concerned with speculating on trends in societies, even if that took the story more into a more fantastic realm, or outright mythopoeia. That the latter were more often influenced by "literary" classics, whereas the majority of the (then) popular sf writers were coming from a pulp-influenced background is fairly obvious; yet most of these "speculative fiction" writers would have been the first to praise the other camp and acknowledge their influence and importance. Only later did it become so invidious a comparison, it seems.

As far as the "real world" and its perception of sf ... blame that on the lower grade of pulps (for which we Americans are largely to blame, frankly, as Uncle Hugo and his congeners dragged sf out of the literary strata and into faux- (or sometimes honest) engineering manuals and a literary ghetto for a good while ... and the audience aimed at didn't help (nor the cover art, for that matter -- for all I've a perverse fondness for the things, I agree with Kelly Freas that it largely consisted of "the three B's: Babes, Boobs, and BEMs". And, of course, Hollywood, which took the crudest route into such fiction, just as they often did with horror. So, yes, this has had its effect on what a writer gets paid -- something Ellison frequently noted in scolding sf fans for idolizing such writers as Fritz Leiber while paying pennies for their work, as opposed to being willing to pay the same price they would for a hardcover by a "mainstream" writer. (I'm reminded of August Derleth's comments about the release of HPL's The Outsider and Others, which was given a pre-publication price of $2.50 through such venues as Weird Tales, and how, when it was published, one "fan" wrote in asking for it for the pre-publication price; when told it was now published and at the intended price of $5.00, he got on his high horse and claimed that he would never pay that much for such a volume. Derleth got a letter from him several years later, when he'd got a copy for -- if I remember correctly -- $25.00, and claiming that he'd got a bargain at that!) Which is a roundabout way of saying that, as far as business practice is concerned, they really are smart to separate themselves from the genre like that... and, frankly, as SFF seems once again to be falling into the trap of hackneyed storylines, particular demands on making a series (or at least a doorstop-sized tome) rather than a modestly-sized book more in keeping with the actual merits of the material, etc., I'm afraid there's more than a little truth to the claim of its insularity.

[Specfiction]

I would add that the publishing industry shares a lot of the blame. Saying this has not made me popular, but my experience indicates that it is true. Marketing requires that you know your target demographic. Complications in consumer's likes and dislikes are swept away by averaging over the least common denominator in a particular category. After talking to agents, I got the distinct impression that unless you somehow develop a following by whatever means, what they can sell in the SF genre is a chapter-book version of a comic book.

The anecdote to all of this is, of course, to have many small or medium size publishers whose tastes and connection to a certain readership vary. With a consolidation of the publishing industry, however, the rush to a least-common-denominator product has accelerated.

A word about Speculative Fiction. Obviously the word “speculative” means different things to different people depending on their backgrounds. There are professions where "to speculate" means to take a situation where facts are known and extend it into scenarios where, at this time, facts are not known but a plausible extrapolation can be made with some non-negligible chance of it being proven later. As in: "Can you speculate on the source of the isotropic signal (fact) that we're seeing in our radio telescope at 3 degrees Kelvin?" The adoption of this meaning, in literary fiction, let’s say, depends on how many people accept it.

[K. Riehl]

I believe the internet will impact the genre sales in a major way. I worked in the book business for a decade and I saw the "market driver" switch from marketing to internet chat rooms and forums. Word of mouth works online and it is the most utilized form of evaluation by prospective readers. Who do you get recommendations from? I get them from this forum and locals who read the same material.

The observation about small to medium size publishers is right on the money. If you want action, high sorcery, etc.. you look for DAW. Military, space battle, you look for BAEN. This is even more evident in small start up publishers who are trying to develop a identity/style and attract authors to their "stable".

I believe the market is going in a different direction altogether. Small publishers like Meisha Merlin which give support to authors with a small following a chance to continue even after being dropped by major publishing houses. i.e.. Steve Miller and Sharon Lee, Phyllis Eisenstein, Diane Duane and so forth. The fragmentation and proliferation of available stories and genres will only continue. When you combine print on demand ability with wide availability the publishing houses will not have their stranglehold too much longer. The technology isn't there yet, but it isn't far off either.

I can see in 2-5 years a new author having 100% control of his/her stories. You read selections from the website, you want to buy, just enter payment and local kiosk print on demand information. Walk down to the bookstore, grocery store, big box store and pick up your brand new book. Who needs a publisher anymore?

[Specfiction]

I agree with you, but digging out of the hole that big publishers have dug is going to be difficult. Over the years they have conditioned the audience out there to expect certain things. Having been in business myself, this is what marketers strive for. How can one reliably forecast ROI, simple--normalize the population you sell to. With the arsenal of TV, video games, and "the like," they have been very successful.

A word about the internet. The internet, as you point out, is the next marketing frontier. I like what has happened in music--new artists have been able to short-circuit the record labels and actually make money. My experience in the book business on line has been harder. As an example, look at anyone who has put word of a new (self-published) book on a forum like "Night Shade." Immediately, the usual suspects show up, not having read a word of the book, and start slamming. Many forums think it's okay to talk up a book by a big publisher, but if someone comes and mentions their own book--instant bad vibes. I think in time the net "might" fulfill it's promise as a tableaux of original work, and peoples’ acceptance to "take an honest look," but marketers will fight you every step of the way because you're essentially cutting them out.

[pyan]

Am I right in thinking that, though hard science fiction in print may be declining, with a corresponding rise in fantasy, the exact opposite seems to be true in the cinema?