Hard SF

[Specfiction]

Any hard SF fans on the forum? The UK has given us Clarke and Benford (although Benford is an American, I sense he likes the SF climate in the UK). Currently the UK has spawn Alastair Reynolds and, of course, there's Greg Egan (from Australia) who is probably the hardest SF author I've ever read.

What's the climate like now for hard SF--and why?

[Thadlerian]

Not me
It's Ursula Le Guin and Doris Lessing all the way

I liked hard SF when I was younger, though. Clarke was the writer introducing me to Science Fiction. But now I've got all obsessed with social science and ideas and theories and all that stuff, and SF is such a great genre for it.

[Specfiction]

Have you read Clarke (and Baxter's) kind-of recent book "Light of other Days?" It's more poignant social commentary than anything else. I mention this one because it’s recent. I think the problem with the word "hard" in describing Hard SF is that it paints the wrong image in many people’s minds. Some of the most powerful social and political commentaries, I think, are in books that "some" might classify as hard SF. Perhaps it could be called SF for mainstream readers because that's where most of the hard SF writers of this kind go.

Another fantastic example of what I'm talking about are the books of Stan Lem like “His Master's Voice,” which I consider a work of genius. Lem considered himself a mainstream writer even though his books had a "Science" fiction theme.

Another (of many) book of this kind is Greg Bear's "Queen of Angels." This is a very difficult book to read, that's why it's not more popular. I think if Bear had made it a little more accessible, it would have been a runaway best seller among people who read things like Brave New World—the mainstream public.

[j. d. worthington]

Generally speaking, "hard" sf has been in a bit of a slump as far as popularity (not necessarily talent) goes; in part, I think, because society as a whole has been going through a reaction to some of the scientific advances of the last century, and has been turning to more fantasy-oriented work, and to things that are more familiar and rely on older superstitions and folk beliefs ... a not uncommon trend in literature, and one that changes over time.

Nonetheless, there's still a fairly good fan base for the harder types of sf; it's just not quite as large as the fantasy base at present.

[chrispenycate]

I suppose I must be considered a fairly "hard" science fiction reader; and yes, I have read"The light of other days", though I haven't yet found the paperback of "Sunstorm" and is "The light of future days" a misprint or something else I should be searching for?) Baxter himself has written some quite hard SF.
And, not british, but have you read any books from the Forward family ( Robert L.plus Martha Dodson & Julie Forward)?

[Coops]

I'm a hard SF kinda guy
Niven, Asimov, Brin, Benford, Bear, etc.
Analog Science Fact and Fiction subscriber for 20 years.

[Specfiction]

...in part, I think, because society as a whole has been going through a reaction to some of the scientific advances of the last century,...

Do you think that the modern world as embodied by western culture has produced a world with greater problems for the individual than the middle ages (the dark ages)? Are the 7th century conflicts reemerging in the 21th century due to scientific advance or to an abandonment of scientific culture by the west?

PS I'm a big fan of Robert L Forward...

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Specfiction

Do you think that the modern world as embodied by western culture has produced a world with greater problems for the individual than the middle ages (the dark ages)? Are the 7th century conflicts reemerging in the 21th century due to scientific advance or to an abandonment of scientific culture by the west?

PS I'm a big fan of Robert L Forward...

Certainly it would be difficult to say objectively that it's more difficult in any obvious sense. But I think that the scientific learning of the past two centuries has tended to hit on a substrata of human thinking, and cause severe questioning of the myths people actually have lived by for most of human existence, without providing anything nearly so comforting to replace it. However lacking in factual basis, this mythology did provide a necessary psychological cushion for dealing with such problems as arise in life, especially in turbulent times. In that sense, yes, I think it has had that effect -- most people simply are neither trained nor interested in learning how to cope with scientific realities; they like the comfort of the ideas they grew up with and what takes away from that is often seen as inimical to the quality of life, at least on an emotional level. Without such myths to fall back on, we become less able to cope with the tensions, causing them therefore to increase rather than be periodically bled off somewhat.

This is not, I hasten to add, the fault of science or of learning, but of our inability to cope with the vision of the universe such learning inevitably brings about. And while, on the surface, we of the west are not abandoning the scientific culture (largely because of the technological conveniences it provides), we are, I think, abandoning the scientific point of view -- never truly embraced by most people to begin with, save perhaps for a very brief period from the latter 19th through mid-20th centuries -- in favor of a strong neo-mysticism to replace the myths that no longer stand up under scientific scrutiny; hence the proliferation of so many pseudoscientific doctrines for the past 150 (or thereabout) years. For all the surface changes we are, underneath, still very much the primitive faced with the unknown in the darkness, and our emotions have not evolved on nearly a par with our technological advances.

One of the best quotes I've ever come across to express this paradoxical situation is from H. P. Lovecraft -- a scientific rationalist (his own term was mechanistic materialist) who nonetheless understood the importance to human beings of myth and myth-making -- and is the opening paragraph to his story "The Call of Cthulhu":

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyag far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

Again, note that it is not the revelations of science but our inability to cope with such because of our innate makeup, that the narrator is commenting on; and this is because of the loss of humanocentrism in the universe, much as the heliocentric view of the solar system replaced the earlier geocentric view and caused immense psychological turmoil in its wake ... among those educated and knowledgeable enough to even think about such issues. Then, as now, the majority of people, though they are aware of being taught that the earth revolves around the sun, do not feel this on an emotional level ... exactly the opposite, in fact. We need to feel that importance, and science leaves no room for doubt that ours is a very tiny place in a very vast cosmos which grows increasingly complex with each new discovery. Certainty has been taken from us, even the positivism of the nineteenth century, and we are left with, at best, probabilities; and that is not at all comforting to human beings, nor something we've ever been equipped to handle at all well.

So, yes, in that fashion, it is a world beset with more problems than that of the 7th or the 14th centuries, or the world of early Mesopotamia, or any other period... because there was something to hold onto that was accepted fairly well by all strata of society as veracious. Now that is gone, at least on an unconscious level -- which is where most of the psychological aspects that control our emotional reactions are processed -- and therefore it's a more troubling world; but it's something we can't turn back from without the collapse of civilization, which brings about a whole different can of worms (vast death tolls among them). Nonetheless, people are seeking those same comforting dogmas, and finding them wanting, yet clinging to them... and, as anyone who understands psychology knows, one resents a loved one who has died (and therefore abandoned you), yet clings to that memory all the more fiercely; and this causes much more free-floating rage and resentment against all things that may be associated with that loss ... both scientific culture and multiculturalism.

There's also the speed with which such ideas are promulgated and spread, something that has never before been the case... and the accessibility of such ideas to all strata of society in industrialized nations, as well -- again, something that has scarcely been the norm throughout history. All of these things tie into what I was stating; there are other aspects, but I think I've gone on far too long as is.

I hope that this provides a useful answer to the question ... and maybe some further story ideas (which would be very nice, I think) arguing from any side of the issue.

[Thadlerian]

Originally Posted by Specfiction

Have you read Clarke (and Baxter's) kind-of recent book "Light of other Days?" It's more poignant social commentary than anything else. I mention this one because it’s recent. I think the problem with the word "hard" in describing Hard SF is that it paints the wrong image in many people’s minds. Some of the most powerful social and political commentaries, I think, are in books that "some" might classify as hard SF. Perhaps it could be called SF for mainstream readers because that's where most of the hard SF writers of this kind go.

Yeah, I read Light of Other Days long ago, during my Clarke craze. Which means I was younger, less patient, less concerned about ideas and more about action (is this what it's like being young? Going just a few years back in time and finding a complete stranger?). In effect, I didn't like the book very much, and (practically) skipped several parts of the ponderous storyline, although I still remember the essence.

A more recent book is The Wreck of The River of Stars by Michael Flynn. This is a book I identify as hard SF, but which deeply explores the relations between the diverse characters who make up the crew of an old, outdated space freighter. Some reviewers critizise the book for this, but I think it makes it all great.

Which leads to the question I should have asked beforehand: What is "hard" SF? I basically associate it with stories in which the writer strives to get his/her physical/technical facts correct. This does, frankly, not interest me much. Of course a strict technical regime in a book could provide very concrete and palpable frames and limits for its society, and establish facts to which the society has to adjust, but does all this really need to be grounded in our physcial reality? As long as the story setting retains a strict internal consistence, I mean?

But anyway, what do other people associate "hard SF" with?

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

Generally speaking, "hard" sf has been in a bit of a slump as far as popularity (not necessarily talent) goes; in part, I think, because society as a whole has been going through a reaction to some of the scientific advances of the last century, and has been turning to more fantasy-oriented work, and to things that are more familiar and rely on older superstitions and folk beliefs ... a not uncommon trend in literature, and one that changes over time.

As always, JD, your posts are a rewarding read, and I wish I had the time and experience to formulate my views through such long, detailed and reflected texts as your latest post. But I believe I might still have something to add, a differing view:

I don't think Fantasy is an antithesis to "Hard" SF, rather the opposite. I think much of what is popularly know as "High Fantasy" (Jordan, Eddings etc.) might, at a closer peek, turn out to be "Hard" SF that has "survived", that has been able to adapt to the, can I call it the paradigm shift in Speculative Fiction from Science Fiction to Fantasy? You see, I believe I can point out certain similarities between HF and, at least, the classic HSF:
- High Fantasy is usually very occupied with providing a very physical and consistent setting. Novelists spend much time to develop detailed maps, measuring out the world in miles and kilometers, and write long appendices about their setting. They establish a definite internal logic in their setting, and they follow it slavishly.
- High Fantasy magic is usually highly institutionalized. It is set within very strict systems of rules and laws, and most importantly, costs and limits of use. Magic is taught at schools and academies, or from old tutors, and it has usually gone through various paradigm/stage shifts through history, like our science. Magic serves the functions of science in Fantasy.
- High Fantasy characters usually strive to follow rationalist behaviour patterns. They have a quest, a goal, which their full conscience is directed at reaching. They have to relate to other characters as either benefactors (will help me reach my goal) or antagonists (will hinder me from reaching my goal). Even their irrational actions (a usual element of "idiot plots", to progress an otherwise non-existent character intrigue) seem to follow a rational pattern. To win, they have to overcome the irrationalism.

But apart from that, I agree with you that we're abandoning the scientific point of view. Although I believe this can be split into at least three distinct directions.
One is Post-Modernism (which we all love to make fun of), a reaction to the inhuman and alienating ideas of Modernism. I believe Post-Modernism today by far has been replaced with Rational Choice Theory, its antithesis.
Rational Choice claims to be science, occupying itself with "solid facts" and rational thinking, but it refuses to take into account the vast ambivalences of the human mind that psychology, sociology and anthropology are constantly unearthing. In effect, it is a pseudo-science.
The third direction is the more popular and basic anti-intellectualism that I feel is becoming prevalent in today's West. Anti-intellectualism might be caused by the vast storages of science and knowledge we have created; completely incomprehensible for the young, unprepared mind. Young Norwegians drop out of High School and College at increasing rates. Academics become more asociated with "dusty, detatched old professors" and "besserwissers", lacking "real knowledge". People gather around affective ideas like religion or the nation.

[Specfiction]

I hope that this provides a useful answer to the question ... and maybe some further story ideas (which would be very nice, I think) arguing from any side of the issue.

Yes, this is one of the most articulate and sober answers to this question that I have seen. Obviously, you are very thoughtful and have a fairly clear understanding of the "subjective" big picture. I think you hit the nail on the head, humans are emotional-subjective animals (I hope this characterization doesn't offend anyone) embedded in an existence that is, at an observational level, orthogonal to our subjective sense.

There is another level of the problem as well. Few people make the very important distinction between technology and science. As Feynman says in one of his essays, "people like the gadgets, but they don't understand what science is..."

Do you think this emotional disconnect is reflected in the popular culture--for example much of sales and media are driven by young people. Here in America, a popular talk-show host asked people on the streets of NY if the moon orbited the sun or earth. 10% of the respondents knew the right answer. Clearly 90% of those answering this question thought that this superficial tidbit of objective knowledge was of no importance to them. And this is not science, this is a factoid derived from scientific analysis.

Now recall the mythical importance of eclipses in the ancient world. Lives were saved or lost, wars were waged or paused on the basis of this completely irrelevant “natural occurrence.”

[Specfiction]

I don't think Fantasy is an antithesis to "Hard" SF, rather the opposite.

If one defines science in terms of the scientific method, i.e. that which requires reproducible proof, and one characterizes fantasy as that which is based on the supernatural and requires faith, then these two things must be dialect opposites.

In Matt Young's book "No Sense of Obligation," he observes, "there are people that think something is true simply because they think it is." However, for passengers on a plane at 40,000 feet, truth is not arbitrary.

[Specfiction]

It's Ursula Le Guin and Doris Lessing all the way

What is hard SF--I don't know, and I've never liked the adjective “hard.” I used that only because people have an idea about it, i.e. "I don't know what he said, but I know what he means..."

I like LeGuin too. Her father was a famous Berkeley anthropologist and she is an anthropologist by training. It shows in her work. I consider her books/stories Lathe of Heaven, The Disspossed, and The Left Hand of Darkness hard SF. Why? Because they purport the rationalist view. I think Asimov and Sagan characterize this well in their ideas of "Rational Humanism."

[Brown Rat]

Interesting. I never thought of Le Guin as writing hard SF. But if we define hard SF as an interest in getting the science right, then she fits: there's no FTL travel in her books, just the ansible, and certainly her anthropological and sociological science is careful and consistent with current theory.

On the other hand, the resolution of the plot in a hard SF novel usually depends on some scientific point rather than on a emotional point--and the resolution of The Left Hand of Darkness is decidedly based on interpersonal relationships, not on science.

[Specfiction]

Yes, that's why I think the designation hard SF is lousy. However, when you say it like that, people sort-of-know what you're talking about. For me, good hard SF is not about gadgets, it's about the human condition in a "rational" universe where some new possibility becomes open to investigation.

BTW Who knows, maybe FTL is possible--I can tell you that no one really knows. You can have FTL and not violate Relativity. The only real constraint for me in hard SF is that whatever it is, can not rely on magic or the supernatural. And like Clarke says, "For a very advanced civilization, technology could "appear" as magic" (but it's not--like the ansible).

[chrispenycate]

Ah. You split it hard (science fiction) rather than (hard science) fiction, the hard sciences being the ones in which we can get repeatable, predictable results to experiments (physics, chemistry, even at times biology and medecine) and the soft sciences being those whre you can't reasonably do an experiment at all, and the results are statistical or descriptive (sociology, psycology, cosmology) There ought to be a class between the two (firm sciences, where you can do the experiments but not control the conditions sufficiently well to get consistent results, like meteology and advertising) and one outside soft (fuzzy sciences, where the experiment is adjusted to get the required result, and any data not supporting the preordained result are not explained away, simply ignored {and we all know "sciences" like that; and the big problem is, they're not nescessarily all bogus, just so ill organised})
And in soft (science fiction) you presumably are allowed magic, and wish fulfilment, provided you apply the right (fashionable) geekspeak (come to think of it you can do that in hard science fiction too, as long as your premises are consistant).