Sci-Fi, fantasy and speculative Indie Authors Review discussion
Your genre of choice
>
Sci-Fi: Hard Science or Soft?
Matthew, you hit the kernel when you said "academic study of the genre." The folks here are mostly indie authors, concerned with finding ways to steer interested readers towards their books. Academics and professional critics don't look at our work, so their perspective is not important to us. Just like the arguments about awards shows, it's a parallel universe., inaccessible to mere mortals like ourselves.
Richard wrote: "Matthew, you hit the kernel when you said "academic study of the genre." The folks here are mostly indie authors, concerned with finding ways to steer interested readers towards their books. Academ..."Sure. I was studying SF as I was beginning to write it, so I've always had that perspective. But I've never felt the two things were as divorced as all that, but if we have a particular purpose here then I'm happy to stick to it.
Mod
While I agree that academic study of the genre is rather removed from the writing of, I'm going to have to add that the allowable differences as to what science fiction 'is definitively' has less to do with indies looking to steer readers to our work and more to do with the mutable changes that have taken place since the very idea of 'science fiction' was conceptualized. To me this is no different from the issue that was argued a while back on whether or not language should remain static or if the rules of grammar should change as the world does.
And just like that one, there was a difference of opinion and heads being butted against heads, but ultimately, there were no winners because everyone is entitled to their own opinions and if the advent of internet forums has taught me anything, it is that no one has ever managed to change someone else's mind by arguing online.
I thank you all at least for remaining civil. That right there says a lot as compared to most internet forums.
And with that, I'm bowing out and taking my opinion with me. I've got a new book idea to work on... Somethimg about hot chicks and ray guns. ;)
Matthew wrote: "I meant *exploring* scientific ideas, which admittedly I didn't spell out this time but have said repeatedly before..."I think grasp your point there. I didn't miss the "exploring" but I didn't take it in the sense I think you mean it, since fiction in general can explore scientific ideas their impacts, and the moral and social implications. (I think some Japanese authors have done this, since scientific ideas have had a more profound impact on the society -- in some ways -- than most others. I'd have ask my friend who teaches literature in Japan for details.) But this fiction is not speculative in the way sci-fi is.
"Who do you think invented science fiction? Isn't it fair that those people get a say?"
[Oops!] I missed part of Matthew's early post, so I'm redacting this.
I write soft science fiction and sff (aliens bah). I could do hard sf (I make sure my science is right) but I focus more on character development and action while science is in the background. I know I wont be in any magazines any time soon but I enjoy a few hard titles (not too much. some get super technical. If I wanted a manual on a flux capacitor I'd look it up lolz). write what you enjoy to read. if you try too hard to impress audiences it'll show
I try to mix both. I write what I'd call hard scifi, technology that might be possible centuries from now, but I also try to give the characters life, and a life, full of family and everyday relationships. Where it gets difficult is if the characterization or the technology start to get in the way of the story, or slow it down. Often, however, characterization helps to build the suspense and the risk, and some explanation of the technology gives it plausibility. It's a fine line.
you're right. it is a fine line between being technical and entertaining. I still hadnt found that balance yet.
When introducing technology, what are you trying to do?Is it meandering in a random direction or is there a definite goal in mind?
Publicizing alternative ways of doing things, choice of good or bad.
Pointing out potential problems or benefits by direct application or by misapplication.
Providing gratuitous entertainment along with the story.
Making a framework for a story, either as the main driving force or to provide background material to wallpaper empty hallways.
Robert wrote: "When introducing technology, what are you trying to do?
Is it meandering in a random direction or is there a definite goal in mind?
Publicizing alternative ways of doing things, choice of good or ..."
Yeah, all of that. But for that last one, you don't want the wallpaper to be too gaudy, because it distracts, unless gaudiness is essential to the story.
Is it meandering in a random direction or is there a definite goal in mind?
Publicizing alternative ways of doing things, choice of good or ..."
Yeah, all of that. But for that last one, you don't want the wallpaper to be too gaudy, because it distracts, unless gaudiness is essential to the story.
K.P. wrote: "just came to me. one of them was stargen i think it was. i cant recall the other i used to plot the system entire, but if you can still find either program go nuts"I used an online orrery for my first sci-fi novel in order to find an exact time in the future when my characters could travel between Neptune and Earth without running into Jupiter or Saturn. It bugs me now when I'm watching sci-fi on screen and the ship always passes one of the two when it enters the system on the way to Earth. The solar system is so big, the odds are tiny of finding either planet in your path unless you're seeking them out for the gravity boost (which is never explained that way)
The usual problem with sci-fi planetary travel is it's just too quick. Any reasonable rocket is going to take months to years to get out there. And an unreasonable rocket with super-quick fantasy engines wouldn't need a gravity boost.
Richard wrote: "The usual problem with sci-fi planetary travel is it's just too quick. Any reasonable rocket is going to take months to years to get out there. And an unreasonable rocket with super-quick fantasy e..."Not necessarily. My current WIP I'm using a fantasy drive that has a negative influence on surrounding space, so while the characters will engage the drive within a star system, it's generally a bad idea. I've already written where they altered a moon's orbit and almost tore apart several ships by initiating it too close.
Even Star Trek TNG mentioned it was a bad idea to go to warp within a star system, which is why they have impulse drives.
But one thing that I find too convenient with these FTL drives is at those speeds, it's unlikely for a ship to leave FTL exactly where the crew wants to be, especially when a lot of times, the action remains in human hands. "Sub light" engines are a far more useful convention than we generally realize.
And that's why I read to relax and don't go for hard science where people feel the need to explain everything. If the story is enjoyable and entertains me, who cares if they jump from planet to planet or if they warp, teleport, go FTL or whatever. To me it's as relevant to the story as telling the readers the protagonist is going to the bathroom.
Mod
Exactly. This is why I invented alien technology that is faster even than Star Wars travel. Sitting around a spaceship getting old does nothing to advance the plot. I'll keep the hard scifi in my earth bound stories about vampires and allow my space tale to be not just soft, but squishy. ;p
Hard Sci-Fi doesn't have to use huge info-dumps to explain things. For FTL in my current novel I usually made vague reference to an occasional component used for it, if a character encountered it, but I also explained components and the reason for certain events by having a couple of FTL pilots explain it in a couple of sentences to an 18-year-old who was deep into a mysterious event he didn't quite understand. It's not really in what you explain about something like FTL drive, so much as whether or not you can make it plausible with a little entertaining and scattered info here and there. If someone from 200 years ago hitched a ride in your car, would he need an explanation of how it works, or would he just mentally and verbally express comments about some of the characteristics and more noticeable components of the car? Good hard sci-fi is not supposed to bore you by over explaining everything.
"good hard sci fi is not supposed to bore you by over explaining everything " THIS is what they need painted on the walls. I try to explain that to folks and get scoffed at. you're right Ken and not a lot realise that can be possible. how else would Heinlein and Asimov would've been popular if they weren't also entertaining? enough hard science that we know it's plausible but squishy enough for us to care. that's my goal. and that's what I have in mind when I look for new books.
I agree, Ken. There are other things involved than just the technology. I don't know how a car actually works, so if I were a protagonist, there's no way I would go into details, even if someone would ask me. I'd say, here's the manual. See for yourself. That's kind of how I solved that problem with mine. The alien can't talk about it because, we, Earthlings, aren't meant to learn the technology for many centuries. So nothing he says/does is explained in details.
The thing is, and why I said that, is that many hard science writers seem to think that if it's not explained it's not science fiction at all. It's fiction. I say if it is explained too much, it's not science fiction anymore. It just becomes science. ;)
G.G. wrote: "The thing is, and why I said that, is that many hard science writers seem to think that if it's not explained it's not science fiction at all. It's fiction. I say if it is explained too much, it's not science fiction anymore. It just becomes science. ;) ..."
Unless the definition has changed (and it may have since the last time I was in any real discussion of definitions about it) hard sci-fi is sci-fi that uses no magic, no werewolves, vampires, or zombies, unless those things can be explained technologically and made plausible by technology. Hard Sci-fi involves only technology now available or advanced technology extrapolated into the future, keeping in mind that unexpected breakthroughs may make everything we know today obsolete. Someone a couple of years ago tried to convince me that hard sci-fi uses only technology in use today or technology reasonably expected from technology we have today, but I didn't buy it.
K.P. wrote: "enough hard science that we know it's plausible but squishy enough for us to care. that's my goal. and that's what I have in mind when I look for new books..."
That's a good way to write, and how hard sci-fi should be written.
Unless the definition has changed (and it may have since the last time I was in any real discussion of definitions about it) hard sci-fi is sci-fi that uses no magic, no werewolves, vampires, or zombies, unless those things can be explained technologically and made plausible by technology. Hard Sci-fi involves only technology now available or advanced technology extrapolated into the future, keeping in mind that unexpected breakthroughs may make everything we know today obsolete. Someone a couple of years ago tried to convince me that hard sci-fi uses only technology in use today or technology reasonably expected from technology we have today, but I didn't buy it.
K.P. wrote: "enough hard science that we know it's plausible but squishy enough for us to care. that's my goal. and that's what I have in mind when I look for new books..."
That's a good way to write, and how hard sci-fi should be written.
Writing science fiction that is only a short distance into the future is no easy feat. It can be difficult to stay within the confines of what is practical when one is trying to invent things that could actually be made with today's technology.A lot of people like to know how things work and some of them enjoy reading about it. The fact that they do not not represent the vast majority of book buying readers doesn't mean stories like that will not be read.
With 7 or 8 billion people roaming around, even the smallest of groups can be quite large compared to yesterday's standards.
Before motion pictures a person had 3 basic ways of seeing the unknown wonders of the world, in person, listening to another person's accounting, or reading a detailed book or journal.
After motion pictures, people were able to see all kinds of things they never knew about without even having to search them out.
Now everyone has seen everything and they don't need detailed explanations of what things are or how they work. That has all become background props used to provide a framework for the dramatic plots which people use as proxies to deflect the real slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
If Jules Verne was writing his stories today he would probably be told to simplify everything, cut out all the explanations, and cease those endless descriptions of every living thing that crawls across the pages.
A funny thing about Jules Verne is that the fabulous machines he invented were usually a single machine, not mass produced, and operated by a person not interested in sharing them with the world. The machines sold more books but they never stopped anyone from wanting the machines so capable of mass destruction mass produced around the world. That's progress for you.
Ken wrote: "G.G. wrote: "The thing is, and why I said that, is that many hard science writers seem to think that if it's not explained it's not science fiction at all. It's fiction. I say if it is explained to..."I am more than fine with this explanation. In other words, zombies created by a virus could be hard science? But zombies as alien from outer space would not be because there might not be any explanations for it because...well...we don't know.
Truly though, my problem is not with the hard sci fi or soft sci fi. There was a discussion a while ago stating that if there were no explanations it was NOT sci fi at all, it was just fiction...I'm more than fine calling it soft sci fi because in the end, I think alien zombies (or vampires, or werewolves) sound more sci fi to me than a plain zombie story WITH explanations.
I am going to make this short, but sweet....soft sci-fi all the way. Can't be doing with all the technological stuff.
I like to imagine what it would really feel like to live in space. Not the fantasy space of the Star Wars/trek media, but real space. Where you're weightless unless you're in a spinning habitat. Where it takes many months to get anywhere in the solar system, so people are physically isolated while still getting Internet. I describe things as little as I feel I can get away with, but I do want the reader to understand how fundamentally different the space environment is.I write with the hope that people will be inspired to do the things needed to make that happen. If there's an audience for that, I don't think I've found it. Tagging my work "Hard Sci-fi" creates the expectation of zippy-zappy space opera and boldly going to new star systems. And anything I write to describe what I'm doing sounds negative. But luckily, I'm motivated more by a desire to write than a desire to sell books!
GG: And that's why I read to relax and don't go for hard science where people feel the need to explain everything. I guess there are two general types of SF : Science Fiction and Speculative Fiction. At the 'hard' end it is more science, and at the 'soft' end it is more speculative. There is a gradual gradation from the one to the other, which is how the confusion arises; it's all called Science Fiction. But it's a shame to miss out on the 'hard' stuff when it has a good plot and characters. Just skip over the 'explanations'!
PS: If anyone has read "Space Scout", the sequel, "Space Scout - The Peacekeepers" is now available. Not too much 'hard' stuff, I promise.Space Scout - The Peacekeepers
Oh I know. I don't say no to a good plot. I'm just a bit worried when I hear it's hard science fiction. I've been burned a few times with it but it was not really the over explanations rather than the repetition in other things. Give me a good protagonist, and I can live with about anything. :PI added the first book on my already too large to-read book (I had added the sequel but hey, let's not jump the horses too quickly...first book first. :P)
Yeah - there is, unfortunately, a great deal of dross out there in the 'Indie' world. That's why Goodreads as a platform for writers comments is so valuable to us all. Read them when you can - I'd appreciate all comments. (although I may not agree with some.)
Everyone has a different idea of what science fiction is. I can see hard science fiction on one end and soft science fiction on the other end and speculative fiction being able to pop in at any point along that line.I look at speculative fiction as something that is trying to guess what the truth is going to look like, good or bad, though in the reading I do it's mostly bad. I wouldn't call it relaxing, as it's making me think about more than what is on the page, how it interacts with reality.
I don't think the use of too much repetition is a product of hard science fiction, that can happen anywhere. That sounds like the author's style. Maybe repetition is easier to avoid in regular fiction when real things are used such that the author can get away with hardly mentioning the item/situation as everyone already knows what it is.
If I keep hammering away on the same mini theme I try to change the wording so each time it is a different way of explaining the same subject. That can be boring after awhile if it doesn't continue to open new avenues of thought.
Andrew wrote: "Yeah - there is, unfortunately, a great deal of dross out there in the 'Indie' world. That's why Goodreads as a platform for writers comments is so valuable to us all. Read them when you can - I'd ..."You're talking to the wrong person here. I prefer Indies over trad pubs because the story they tell is much more refreshing. As for more dross out in the indie world.. maybe... but there are some in the trad pub too, but hey, they are trad pub so they MUST be good. :/
Sorry, I'll stick to my indies.
Comments? Anymore specific? There are tons of groups on Goodreads, meaning tons of comment to read. No way one can physically read them all. :(
Ran across an interesting quote from Vernor Vinge (Vinge rhymes with "stingy" according to Vernor!) yesterday that reminded me of this thread.It comes from a piece he wrote in 1993 about the technological, so-called Singularity after which it became almost impossible to extrapolate the future of society and technology because its pace of change will be so great:
After all, the "hard" science-fiction writers are the ones who try to write specific stories about all that technology may do for us. More and more, these writers felt an opaque wall across the future. Once, they could put such fantasies millions of years in the future. Now they saw that their most diligent extrapolations resulted in the unknowable ... soon. Once, galactic empires might have seemed a Post-Human domain. Now, sadly, even interplanetary ones are.
The point that caught my attention was how he allows Hard SF to be (small "f") fantasies. I think where a lot of people err while trying to pen the SF genre down to specifics is when they equate small "f" fantasies with the big "F" Fantasy genre. Any extrapolation of science beyond the terminus of known scientific application is a fantasy, but that doesn't necessarily make the work Fantasy, anymore than including a love story in a SF tale puts it in the Romance genre.
In an interview he also said:
Q: Is it important for fiction writers to ground their stories in real science?
VINGE: No. Hard science fiction is a cool subgenre within science fiction, but the edges of hard SF are blurred and debatable. For instance, I think some people figure that faster-than-light travel would disqualify a story from being hard SF (but not me).
I like to hear well established writers talk about this stuff too. It doesn't prove one view is correct (argument from authority logical fallacy), but it's interesting.
GG wrote: As for more dross out in the indie world.. maybe... but there are some in the trad pub too, but hey, they are trad pub so they MUST be good.I get the sarcasm, and I agree - I've been trying to read 'Existence' by David Brin - you can't get more trad pub than that, and I think it's utter dross. And there is a lot of it about.
The harder the science, the more restricted the imagination. The mushier the science (star trek, star wars, etc) the more the story is just a work of fantasy, with no connection to the real world, and not even the internal consistency of good fantasy writing (Tolkein). The only reason mushie scifi is considered scifi is because it has spaceships and ray guns rather than dragons and enchanted swords, i,e. different tropes. Science, such as physics and astronomy, and engineering problems of real rocket science challenge the writer to fit his or her story within specific guidelines. For one thing, the universe appears a far more hostile, alien, and frightening place if we consider the vast distances between the stars, space as bathed in hard radiation, the rareity of planets suitable to life, the difficulty of maintaining a viable biosphere within a restructed system like a ship, the way that weightlessness causes the human body to deteriorate.
As a science fiction writer (work still in progress) I find this a far more interesting universe to work with than the crowded, life friendly galaxy of the standard space opera setting, which is nothing more than the modern world imagined as a galaxy, everything is close together and all worlds are like earth, most aliens are humanoid with the same biochemistry etc.
That doesn't mean you have to be chained to hard science. What I love about the original star wars is that George Lucas introduced a mystical, fantasy element in the Force. God knows why he later threw this away in favour of some materialistic explanation (midichlorions), but that basically destroyed the romanticism of Star Wars for me.
Each genre contributes something. I'm a science type nerd so I love hard science, but I find thatbtoo often hard SF tends to be dry, concerned with problem solving at the expense of character development. The ideal is to integrate the real science of hardSF, the protagonist character depth of high brow literature, the craziness of pure imagination, the Rule of Cool of popcorn Hollywood (on its own, style without susbtance), and the epic adventure of space opera and fantasy at it's highest.
M Alan wrote: "I find thatbtoo often hard SF tends to be dry, concerned with problem solving at the expense of character development. The ideal is to integrate the real science of hardSF, the protagonist character depth of high brow literature, the craziness of pure imagination..."The easiest way is to just write from a point in history where most of the problem solving has already been done and get on with the storytelling. You don't have to explain how everything works ... zero-g issues have been genetically modified out of the human geneome; material science has defeated concerns of hard radiation in space; biosphere technology has been perfected over long decades/centuries of trial and error; vast distances between stars have been made inconsequential with either FTL or near L travel and/or cryogenics or other tech.
Look at the works of Herbert, Vernor Vinge, Clarke, Greg Bear, Asimov, Alastair Reynolds and others. All of them wrote some of their works from that kind of perspective and are still considered "hard" SF by most readers/critics.
Personally, I find this rather depressing. If the 'hard sci-fi' tag includes things which are clearly scientifically impossible, like FTL drives, genetic engineering for radiation immunity, or gravity at the flick of a switch, what term should be used for fiction that doesn't accept that, that tries to write within the limitations of the real Universe? Maybe nobody is looking for it, but if they were, how would they find it. I don't know.
I don't know...according to some people, if it already exists, it's not science fiction. They might call it adventure in space, or simply thriller.To me, if it's in space, it's science fiction. If it deals with things/beings that come from space, it's science fiction. If it involves things that are possible either now or in near future (such as sentient robots), it is science fiction. Time travel? Science fiction. Even cloning would be science fiction to me.
Maybe that's why I'm having problems finding the kind of stories I crave.
Hard Sc-fi has subsets in it. At best it means most of the things happening are based on reality. There is that problem where what was not true yesterday is suddenly true today. Perhaps that is counter balanced by the way things that used to be true yesterday are no longer true today.If one is trying to stay off the beaten path, making something that has original components, finding the exact label can be difficult. One ends up inventing a subset which probably already exists but is not easily found. You can find more books similar to one you are writing by searching through actual books one by one instead of searching by a single search term, like Hard Sci-Fi.
You can find the same problem in Eco-Fiction. It could be anything that is a fictional story using ecological components. Some people would like it to be, and do write, using only real situations with real solutions, no imaginary problems, no imaginary solutions to save the day, or end the day as the case may be.
I think the world is complex enough and so poorly understood that just about anything can happen. And it seems to be happening faster than we can dream it.
Richard wrote: "Personally, I find this rather depressing. If the 'hard sci-fi' tag includes things which are clearly scientifically impossible, like FTL drives, genetic engineering for radiation immunity, or grav..."I have no problem with writers painting themselves into difficult technological corners for the sake of exploring what is currently feasible to do. Limitations often are good for creativity. But to restrict the subgenre to just that is a kind of "Hard SF" where the "Hard" means extremely "hardcore."
But as the one quote from Vernor Vinge above points out, the edges of Hard SF are actually not very sharp.
Even Arthur C. Clarke had this to say about FTL: "That was just a dramatic device which all science fiction writers have to use in space travel, but I have always believed it may one day be possible."
The astronomer Patrick Moore once said that he believed FTL would one day be possible: "Television would have seemed impossible 200 years ago and faster than light travel is no more outrageous than that."
And there are many, many theoretical physicists and mathematicians and astronomers who have seriously considered FTL to be one day possible.
To me, that is the perfect point where SF needs to be: exploring the "what ifs" on the other side of theoretical boundaries. To flat out declare that something, which has been pursued by working scientists, to be "impossible" is to turn a blind eye on the cutting edge of scientific thought.
FTL might certainly end up being impossible, but as long as its being considered by serious academics, I think it's fair game and doesn't disqualify a work from the ranks of Hard SF (unless FTL is done with spells and incantations, or with atomic powered wings, or hot air balloons of gigantic size squirting out unicorns as reaction mass).
FTL's certainly been used by almost every Hard SF author out there.
I agree. We have almost no knowledge of what could be possible tomorrow, even for the things that now seem bound by physics and universal constants. As Prot said in the movie K-Pax, when challenged that Einstein proved that traveling multiples of C was impossible, "I think you misinterpreted Einstein's theory." I like to get around the problem by calling a ship multidimensional. It doesn't accelerate to C, it goes around it.
Richard wrote: "...genetic engineering for radiation immunity..."Point of clarity: I actually didn't mention genetic engineering as providing immunity to hard radiation. I said you could use genetic engineering to overcome the negative effects of zero-g on the human body (bone density loss, diminishing eyesight, lessening of the sense of taste perhaps).
I said the radiation (solar and high energy cosmic radiation) problem might be solved through material science...electromagnetic shielding augmented by some kind of lightweight material used as shielding around the living quarters on a space ship. Studies to find better shielding material have been going on for years, there's no reason to assume that in 200 or 1,000 years they won't be perfected.
...Or indeed a combination of genetic engineering and material science. I see where cosmic ray damage in many ways is similar to common inflammatory diseases. So in the far future a combination of pharmaceuticals, genetic engineering, material science and active shielding might do the trick.
I did find this about gen-engineering possibly being used to make us less susceptible to ionizing radiation: http://io9.gizmodo.com/new-study-sugg...
The point being that just because we can't now doesn't mean we can't imagine these problems ever being solved. And it's not really the SF writer's job to solve them. It's our job to explore the ramifications of them having already been solved. You know, predicting the traffic jam, not the car.
Ken wrote: "I like to get around the problem by calling a ship multidimensional. It doesn't accelerate to C, it goes around it..."Exactly. If your world building begins with the assumption that brane theory (M-theory, or whatever you want to call it) is correct, then you're still working w/in the realm of theoretical physics. There's really no need to explain HOW you do that. It's just a story after all. (Plus, if you could describe how in a plausible and scientifically accurate way, you'd be DOING theoretical physics, not fiction!)
I provide hardware, described by not-quite-experts, to explain it. People who use it, but are not physicists. That way, I don't have to provide a theory for it.
We're debating hard vs. soft, but in reality Science Fiction itself is applied loosely. There are a lot of shows and movies classified as science fiction because the story is science driven, yet the science and technology already exists or is already in development, but they lump themselves in the genre because the application in their story remains "fiction."
In my ever so humble opinion, Science Fiction / Fantasy are broad categories that can include practically any type of story a writer may wish to tell. I used to play in a blues band. Well, it was a rock band that played blues. More accurately, it was a rock band that played songs that evoked the feeling of blues. Well, perhaps it was a rock band whose songs were blues-y. We used to argue and debate for hours at a time about what type of band we were. In the end, it didn't matter to anyone except us. No one cared about our genre. They either liked the band or they didn't. I think it is the same with SF/F. As writers, we can argue endlessly over our definitions, but it really doesn't matter. No one cares. They either like the book or they don't. Do I enjoy I Robot more or less depending on how I classify it? Of course not. Some people like their SF a little more science-y than others. Some prefer it a little less al dente. It's just a preference.
Hello everyone!What do you think of cyberpunk genre?
Anna wrote: "Hello everyone!What do you think of cyberpunk genre?"
In terms of what? Do you mean where does cyberpunk fall in the Soft vs Hard SF range? Or what do we think of it in general?
If the former, then I'd say it can fall anywhere along the continuum between soft and hard. The early entries into this genre at one time might have seemed fairly hard, but as time has gone on they've been shown to be pretty soft. I mean, cyberspace as we know it today isn't anything like the old VR flights of fantasy that Gibson et. al. made it out to be.
Most of it has always been fanciful imaginings of what VR and a jacked-in society would look like, with a bit of Blade Runner dystopia thrown in for good measure. There have been threads (here or elsewhere on GR, can't keep track of where I see things) questioning if cyberpunk is even possible today, things have changed so much.
Micah wrote: "Anna wrote: "Hello everyone!What do you think of cyberpunk genre?"
In terms of what? Do you mean where does cyberpunk fall in the Soft vs Hard SF range? Or what do we think of it in general?
If ..."
Yes, I was talking about it. There are many opinions that cyberpunk died many years ago and nowadays books are not good enough, more commercial in some way.
Hey, Anna!As a science fiction author, I'm always interesting in exploring the various 'sub-cultures' of my genre. Honestly, however, the cyberpunk thing doesn't spark my interest . . . as for hard and soft? I'm on the fence -- probably because I'm on the fence about cyberpunk!
Perhaps the cyberpunk world of the 1970s has become desensitized by the proliferation of computers throughout the general population by the 2010s.While some people would debate the idea that a smart phone is the same as a computer in your pocket, I would say they are. There are 6 billion of them floating around and there will be more as time goes on.
Those compact computers make experts out of everyone who has one. But who would have thought that the majority of people would willingly wear electronic monitoring devices that use real time data to plug them into the computerized matrix of big business. That's the stuff science fiction stories used to be made of.
Maybe the next popular genre of science spawned horror will be medicalpunk, sponsored by the blooming medical industrial complex.
Robert wrote: "Perhaps the cyberpunk world of the 1970s has become desensitized by the proliferation of computers throughout the general population by the 2010s.While some people would debate the idea that a sm..."
By the way, I thought about it. We finally have to come to the fact that mediсine will be at the highest level of development, and we will win all diseases.
I like my sci-fi with a hard crunchy shell and a nice soft center. Sometimes I like it nice and soft with those nice hard crunchy nuggets in it.
And swirls -- I really swirls, too. Unless they get gooey. (Not big on gooey swirls.)
Why choose just one?
Sci-Fi, fantasy and speculative Indie Authors...
Books mentioned in this topic
Space Scout - The Peacekeepers (other topics)Titan. (other topics)
Dhalgren (other topics)
The Time Machine (other topics)
The War of the Worlds (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Stephen Baxter (other topics)H.G. Wells (other topics)
I meant *exploring* scientific ideas, which admittedly I didn't spell out this time but have said repeatedly before. No other fiction does this. Science fiction therefore acts as part of the means in which society holds scientists to account, by exploring some of the wider moral and social implications of their work.
Hot chicks with ray guns? What are you, some kind of sad puppy? ;-)
Charles wrote: "So you admit your classifications are just smoke and mirrors based on your own relative perception to time and space. "
Mine and every other human in the last hundred years. Who do you think invented science fiction? Isn't it fair that those people get a say?
This happens every time a discussion touches on what is and isn't science fiction - I raise definitions that were established when science fiction took off and are broadly accepted in the academic study of the genre, and everyone else lines up to tell me I'm wrong. That's fine, but it also tends to be circular, so I'll bow out now.