# Hard SF *The Urth list — 47 messages, 13 voices, 28 Nov 2012* > Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright > in each message remains with the person who wrote it. > Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original > archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than > retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact. --- ### Lee Berman *28 Nov 2012, 15:51* > David Stockhoff: We're not talking about hard SF here. Just for the sake of discussion, I'll disagree. Perhaps Wolfe isn't diamond-hard but I'd give him ruby- or sapphire- on the MOhs scale. I think he makes a sincere attempt in most of his work, as the quote below illustrates. Where fantasy writers are content to give us shape changers without explanation, Wolfe provides us with a sponge cellular analogy for Tzadkiel and flexible bones and muscles, make-up and hypnotic abilities for Inhumi. If the Inhumi really fly through space I'd want more than the skimpy evidence we are provided (and less evidence for their lying nature). > Nick Gevers: Speaking as an engineer, how might the godling be constructed so as to > walk as a giant on land, where the undines [submarine giantesses] cannot? > Gene Wolfe: There are a number of ways you could go. First, get rid of the notion that > the godling is going to be proportioned like a human being. Changes in size always mean > changes in build. (Dr. Crane touches on that.) A man fifty feet tall, proportioned like > you or me, would sink into the ground a lot -- had you thought of that? Take a look at > the really big dinosaurs. Bone density could be increased, and the legs and pelvis made > more massive, and so on --- ### Antonin Scriabin *28 Nov 2012, 15:57 · in reply to Lee Berman* Do we have any idea just how close Blue and Green get during conjunction? I seem to remember that from Blue, Green is more of a spec than a moon, but perhaps they are close enough, or have unusually expansive atmospheres, such that during conjunction their atmospheres merge and allow the Inhumi to fly from one to another. If they are this close though, they would most definitely fall under the sway of one another's gravitational field, which doesn't seem to be the case. > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Lee Berman wrote: >> David Stockhoff: We're not talking about hard SF here. > Just for the sake of discussion, I'll disagree. Perhaps Wolfe isn't > diamond-hard > but I'd give him ruby- or sapphire- on the MOhs scale. I think he makes a > sincere attempt in most of his work, as the quote below illustrates. > > Where fantasy writers are content to give us shape changers without > explanation, > Wolfe provides us with a sponge cellular analogy for Tzadkiel and flexible > bones > and muscles, make-up and hypnotic abilities for Inhumi. > > If the Inhumi really fly through space I'd want more than the skimpy > evidence we > are provided (and less evidence for their lying nature). >> Nick Gevers: Speaking as an engineer, how might the godling be >> constructed so as to >> walk as a giant on land, where the undines [submarine giantesses] cannot? >> Gene Wolfe: There are a number of ways you could go. First, get rid of >> the notion that >> the godling is going to be proportioned like a human being. Changes in >> size always mean >> changes in build. (Dr. Crane touches on that.) A man fifty feet tall, >> proportioned like >> you or me, would sink into the ground a lot -- had you thought of that? > Take a look at > the really big dinosaurs. Bone density could be increased, and the legs > and pelvis made > more massive, and so on > _______________________________________________ --- ### Daniel Petersen *28 Nov 2012, 16:03 · in reply to Lee Berman* I'd tend to agree with Lee here. -DOJP > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Lee Berman wrote: >> David Stockhoff: We're not talking about hard SF here. > Just for the sake of discussion, I'll disagree. Perhaps Wolfe isn't > diamond-hard > but I'd give him ruby- or sapphire- on the MOhs scale. I think he makes a > sincere attempt in most of his work, as the quote below illustrates. > > Where fantasy writers are content to give us shape changers without > explanation, > Wolfe provides us with a sponge cellular analogy for Tzadkiel and flexible > bones > and muscles, make-up and hypnotic abilities for Inhumi. > > If the Inhumi really fly through space I'd want more than the skimpy > evidence we > are provided (and less evidence for their lying nature). >> Nick Gevers: Speaking as an engineer, how might the godling be >> constructed so as to >> walk as a giant on land, where the undines [submarine giantesses] cannot? >> Gene Wolfe: There are a number of ways you could go. First, get rid of >> the notion that >> the godling is going to be proportioned like a human being. Changes in >> size always mean >> changes in build. (Dr. Crane touches on that.) A man fifty feet tall, >> proportioned like >> you or me, would sink into the ground a lot -- had you thought of that? > Take a look at > the really big dinosaurs. Bone density could be increased, and the legs > and pelvis made > more massive, and so on > _______________________________________________ --- ### Daniel Petersen *28 Nov 2012, 16:04 · in reply to Antonin Scriabin* That's a wonderful thought, Antonin! Is this feasible? (Both generally and in the text?) -DOJP > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Antonin Scriabin > wrote: > Do we have any idea just how close Blue and Green get during conjunction? > I seem to remember that from Blue, Green is more of a spec than a moon, but > perhaps they are close enough, or have unusually expansive atmospheres, > such that during conjunction their atmospheres merge and allow the Inhumi > to fly from one to another. If they are this close though, they would most > definitely fall under the sway of one another's gravitational field, which > doesn't seem to be the case. > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Lee Berman wrote: >>> David Stockhoff: We're not talking about hard SF here. >> Just for the sake of discussion, I'll disagree. Perhaps Wolfe isn't >> diamond-hard >> but I'd give him ruby- or sapphire- on the MOhs scale. I think he makes a >> sincere attempt in most of his work, as the quote below illustrates. >> >> Where fantasy writers are content to give us shape changers without >> explanation, >> Wolfe provides us with a sponge cellular analogy for Tzadkiel and >> flexible bones >> and muscles, make-up and hypnotic abilities for Inhumi. >> >> If the Inhumi really fly through space I'd want more than the skimpy >> evidence we >> are provided (and less evidence for their lying nature). >>> Nick Gevers: Speaking as an engineer, how might the godling be >>> constructed so as to >>> walk as a giant on land, where the undines [submarine giantesses] cannot? >>> Gene Wolfe: There are a number of ways you could go. First, get rid of >>> the notion that >>> the godling is going to be proportioned like a human being. Changes in >>> size always mean >>> changes in build. (Dr. Crane touches on that.) A man fifty feet tall, >>> proportioned like >>> you or me, would sink into the ground a lot -- had you thought of that? >> Take a look at >> the really big dinosaurs. Bone density could be increased, and the legs >> and pelvis made >> more massive, and so on >> _______________________________________________ --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *28 Nov 2012, 16:21 · in reply to Daniel Petersen* Not really -- they both seem to have about one G of surface gravity, so getting close enough that their atmospheres meaningfully touched would involve massive tidal effects up to and including immense tsunami and disastrous earthquakes. > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Daniel Petersen < > danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: > That's a wonderful thought, Antonin! Is this feasible? (Both generally > and in the text?) > > -DOJP > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Antonin Scriabin < > kierkegaurdian at gmail.com> wrote: >> Do we have any idea just how close Blue and Green get during >> conjunction? I seem to remember that from Blue, Green is more of a spec >> than a moon, but perhaps they are close enough, or have unusually expansive >> atmospheres, such that during conjunction their atmospheres merge and allow >> the Inhumi to fly from one to another. If they are this close though, they >> would most definitely fall under the sway of one another's gravitational >> field, which doesn't seem to be the case. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Lee Berman wrote: >>>> David Stockhoff: We're not talking about hard SF here. >>> Just for the sake of discussion, I'll disagree. Perhaps Wolfe isn't >>> diamond-hard >>> but I'd give him ruby- or sapphire- on the MOhs scale. I think he makes a >>> sincere attempt in most of his work, as the quote below illustrates. >>> >>> Where fantasy writers are content to give us shape changers without >>> explanation, >>> Wolfe provides us with a sponge cellular analogy for Tzadkiel and >>> flexible bones >>> and muscles, make-up and hypnotic abilities for Inhumi. >>> >>> If the Inhumi really fly through space I'd want more than the skimpy >>> evidence we >>> are provided (and less evidence for their lying nature). >>>> Nick Gevers: Speaking as an engineer, how might the godling be >>>> constructed so as to >>>> walk as a giant on land, where the undines [submarine giantesses] >>> cannot? >>>> Gene Wolfe: There are a number of ways you could go. First, get rid of >>>> the notion that >>>> the godling is going to be proportioned like a human being. Changes in >>>> size always mean >>>> changes in build. (Dr. Crane touches on that.) A man fifty feet tall, >>>> proportioned like >>>> you or me, would sink into the ground a lot -- had you thought of that? >>> Take a look at >>> the really big dinosaurs. Bone density could be increased, and the legs >>> and pelvis made >>> more massive, and so on >>> _______________________________________________ --- ### Antonin Scriabin *28 Nov 2012, 16:28 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* Yeah, the gravitational shenanigans were what made me think this likely isn't the case. However, introducing one big problem that would get rid of several others (the previously posted lists of reasons biological entities can't really travel through space unprotected) is certainly attractive! Perhaps the Inhumi travel in "bubbles" of protective atmosphere, similar to the way some spiders create aqualungsfor themselves to travel underwater? > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > Not really -- they both seem to have about one G of surface gravity, so > getting close enough that their atmospheres meaningfully touched would > involve massive tidal effects up to and including immense tsunami and > disastrous earthquakes. > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Daniel Petersen < > danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: >> That's a wonderful thought, Antonin! Is this feasible? (Both generally >> and in the text?) >> >> -DOJP >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Antonin Scriabin < >> kierkegaurdian at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Do we have any idea just how close Blue and Green get during >>> conjunction? I seem to remember that from Blue, Green is more of a spec >>> than a moon, but perhaps they are close enough, or have unusually expansive >>> atmospheres, such that during conjunction their atmospheres merge and allow >>> the Inhumi to fly from one to another. If they are this close though, they >>> would most definitely fall under the sway of one another's gravitational >>> field, which doesn't seem to be the case. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Lee Berman wrote: >>>>> David Stockhoff: We're not talking about hard SF here. >>>> Just for the sake of discussion, I'll disagree. Perhaps Wolfe isn't >>>> diamond-hard >>>> but I'd give him ruby- or sapphire- on the MOhs scale. I think he makes >>>> a >>>> sincere attempt in most of his work, as the quote below illustrates. >>>> >>>> Where fantasy writers are content to give us shape changers without >>>> explanation, >>>> Wolfe provides us with a sponge cellular analogy for Tzadkiel and >>>> flexible bones >>>> and muscles, make-up and hypnotic abilities for Inhumi. >>>> >>>> If the Inhumi really fly through space I'd want more than the skimpy >>>> evidence we >>>> are provided (and less evidence for their lying nature). >>>>> Nick Gevers: Speaking as an engineer, how might the godling be >>>>> constructed so as to >>>>> walk as a giant on land, where the undines [submarine giantesses] >>>> cannot? >>>>> Gene Wolfe: There are a number of ways you could go. First, get rid of >>>>> the notion that >>>>> the godling is going to be proportioned like a human being. Changes in >>>>> size always mean >>>>> changes in build. (Dr. Crane touches on that.) A man fifty feet tall, >>>>> proportioned like >>>>> you or me, would sink into the ground a lot -- had you thought of >>>>> that? Take a look at >>>>> the really big dinosaurs. Bone density could be increased, and the >>>>> legs and pelvis made >>>>> more massive, and so on >>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### DAVID STOCKHOFF *28 Nov 2012, 17:04 · in reply to Daniel Petersen* I agree with him too. But Urth is still not "hard SF." > ________________________________ > From: Daniel Petersen > To: The Urth Mailing List > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:03 AM > Subject: Re: (urth) Hard SF > > > I'd tend to agree with Lee here. -DOJP > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Lee Berman wrote: >>> David Stockhoff: We're not talking about hard SF here. >> Just for the sake of discussion, I'll disagree. Perhaps Wolfe isn't diamond-hard >> but I'd give him ruby- or sapphire- on the MOhs scale. I think he makes a >> sincere attempt in most of his work, as the quote below illustrates. >> >> Where fantasy writers are content to give us shape changers without explanation, >> Wolfe provides us with a sponge cellular analogy for Tzadkiel and flexible bones >> and muscles, make-up and hypnotic abilities for Inhumi. >> >> If the Inhumi really fly through space I'd want more than the skimpy evidence we >> are provided (and less evidence for their lying nature). >>> Nick Gevers: Speaking as an engineer, how might the godling be constructed so as to >>> walk as a giant on land, where the undines [submarine giantesses] cannot? >>> Gene Wolfe: There are a number of ways you could go. First, get rid of the notion that >>> the godling is going to be proportioned like a human being. Changes in size always mean >>> changes in build. (Dr. Crane touches on that.) A man fifty feet tall, proportioned like >>> you or me, would sink into the ground a lot -- had you thought of that? Take a look at >>> the really big dinosaurs. Bone density could be increased, and the legs and pelvis made >>> more massive, and so on >>> _______________________________________________ --- ### Sergei SOLOVIEV *28 Nov 2012, 17:23 · in reply to Daniel Petersen* About Blue and Green, I often asked myself what kind of orbit they have. Is it just like Earth and Moon, but with much greater eccentricity? And what are the relative sizes? It seems that gravity on Green is less. Another very exotic possibility is that they both orbit the Short Sun but come periodically very close. The conjunction has the period of several years! This seems not very compatible with the first variant, and may be an argument for the second. It is very exotic because such orbits would be normally not stable, but one can find some very exceptional particular "resonance" solutions when it remains stable for a relatively long time. Does the Whorl orbit the Short Sun or the Blue-Green system? Maybe this was already discussed? Sergei > Daniel Petersen wrote: > That's a wonderful thought, Antonin! Is this feasible? (Both > generally and in the text?) > > -DOJP > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Antonin Scriabin > > wrote: > > Do we have any idea just how close Blue and Green get during > conjunction? I seem to remember that from Blue, Green is more of > a spec than a moon, but perhaps they are close enough, or have > unusually expansive atmospheres, such that during conjunction > their atmospheres merge and allow the Inhumi to fly from one to > another. If they are this close though, they would most > definitely fall under the sway of one another's gravitational > field, which doesn't seem to be the case. > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Lee Berman > > wrote: > > > >David Stockhoff: We're not talking about hard SF here. > > Just for the sake of discussion, I'll disagree. Perhaps Wolfe > isn't diamond-hard > but I'd give him ruby- or sapphire- on the MOhs scale. I think > he makes a > sincere attempt in most of his work, as the quote below > illustrates. > > Where fantasy writers are content to give us shape changers > without explanation, > Wolfe provides us with a sponge cellular analogy for Tzadkiel > and flexible bones > and muscles, make-up and hypnotic abilities for Inhumi. > > If the Inhumi really fly through space I'd want more than the > skimpy evidence we > are provided (and less evidence for their lying nature). > > >Nick Gevers: Speaking as an engineer, how might the godling > be constructed so as to > >walk as a giant on land, where the undines [submarine > giantesses] cannot? > > >Gene Wolfe: There are a number of ways you could go. First, > get rid of the notion that > >the godling is going to be proportioned like a human being. > Changes in size always mean > >changes in build. (Dr. Crane touches on that.) A man fifty > feet tall, proportioned like > >you or me, would sink into the ground a lot -- had you > thought of that? Take a look at > >the really big dinosaurs. Bone density could be increased, > and the legs and pelvis made > >more massive, and so on > _______________________________________________ --- ### Marc Aramini *28 Nov 2012, 17:28 · in reply to Sergei SOLOVIEV* I figure they are more like Earth and Mars. Actually, the size of Blue is implied somewhere (ten times the size of the whorl in diameter?) I don't remember exactly where. I always wanted to go back and see how big it was, but I am sloppy about numbers in that way. --- On Wed, 11/28/12, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote: From: Sergei SOLOVIEV Subject: Re: (urth) Hard SF To: "The Urth Mailing List" Date: Wednesday, November 28, 2012, 9:23 AM About Blue and Green, I often asked myself what kind of orbit they have. Is it just like Earth and Moon, but with much greater eccentricity? And what are the relative sizes? It seems that gravity on Green is less. Another very exotic possibility is that they both orbit the Short Sun but come periodically very close. The conjunction has the period of several years! This seems not very compatible with the first variant, and may be an argument for the second. It is very exotic because such orbits would be normally not stable, but one can find some very exceptional particular "resonance" solutions when it remains stable for a relatively long time. Does the Whorl orbit the Short Sun or the Blue-Green system? Maybe this was already discussed? Sergei > Daniel Petersen wrote: > That's a wonderful thought, Antonin!? Is this feasible? (Both > generally and in the text?) > > -DOJP > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Antonin Scriabin > > wrote: > > ? ???Do we have any idea just how close Blue and Green get during > ? ???conjunction? I seem to remember that from Blue, Green is more of > ? ???a spec than a moon, but perhaps they are close enough, or have > ? ???unusually expansive atmospheres, such that during conjunction > ? ???their atmospheres merge and allow the Inhumi to fly from one to > ? ???another. If they are this close though, they would most > ? ???definitely fall under the sway of one another's gravitational > ? ???field, which doesn't seem to be the case. > > > > ? ???On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Lee Berman > ? ???> wrote: > > > ? ? ? ???>David Stockhoff: We're not talking about hard SF here. > > ? ? ? ???Just for the sake of discussion, I'll disagree. Perhaps Wolfe > ? ? ? ???isn't diamond-hard > ? ? ? ???but I'd give him ruby- or sapphire- on the MOhs scale. I think > ? ? ? ???he makes a > ? ? ? ???sincere attempt in most of his work, as the quote below > ? ? ? ???illustrates. > > ? ? ? ???Where fantasy writers are content to give us shape changers > ? ? ? ???without explanation, > ? ? ? ???Wolfe provides us with a sponge cellular analogy for Tzadkiel > ? ? ? ???and flexible bones > ? ? ? ???and muscles, make-up and hypnotic abilities for Inhumi. > > ? ? ? ???If the Inhumi really fly through space I'd want more than the > ? ? ? ???skimpy evidence we > ? ? ? ???are provided (and less evidence for their lying nature). > > ? ? ? ???>Nick Gevers: Speaking as an engineer, how might the godling > ? ? ? ???be constructed so as to > ? ? ? ???>walk as a giant on land, where the undines [submarine > ? ? ? ???giantesses] cannot? > > ? ? ? ???>Gene Wolfe: There are a number of ways you could go. First, > ? ? ? ???get rid of the notion that > ? ? ? ???>the godling is going to be proportioned like a human being. > ? ? ? ???Changes in size always mean > ? ? ? ???>changes in build. (Dr. Crane touches on that.) A man fifty > ? ? ? ???feet tall, proportioned like > ? ? ? ???>you or me, would sink into the ground a lot -- had you > ? ? ? ???thought of that? Take a look at > ? ? ? ???>the really big dinosaurs. Bone density could be increased, > ? ? ? ???and the legs and pelvis made > ? ? ? ???>more massive, and so on > ? ? ? ???_______________________________________________ > ? ? ? ???Urth Mailing List > ? ? ? ???To post, write urth at urth.net > ? ? ? ???Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net > > > > ? ???_______________________________________________ > ? ???Urth Mailing List > ? ???To post, write urth at urth.net > ? ???Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net > > > > > -- > Daniel Otto Jack Petersen > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Urth Mailing List > To post, write urth at urth.net > Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net --- ### Sergei SOLOVIEV *28 Nov 2012, 17:53 · in reply to Antonin Scriabin* And could it be that their "real" method of travel has something to do with strange capacity that the narrator acquires to travel in tandem with them (at least in spirit)? Something like this was considered also in "Silhouette" - Sergei > Antonin Scriabin wrote: > Yeah, the gravitational shenanigans were what made me think this > likely isn't the case. However, introducing one big problem that > would get rid of several others (the previously posted lists of > reasons biological entities can't really travel through space > unprotected) is certainly attractive! Perhaps the Inhumi travel in > "bubbles" of protective atmosphere, similar to the way some spiders > create aqualungs > for > themselves to travel underwater? > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes > wrote: > > Not really -- they both seem to have about one G of surface > gravity, so getting close enough that their atmospheres > meaningfully touched would involve massive tidal effects up to and > including immense tsunami and disastrous earthquakes. > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Daniel Petersen > > wrote: > > That's a wonderful thought, Antonin! Is this feasible? (Both > generally and in the text?) > > -DOJP > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Antonin Scriabin > > > wrote: > > Do we have any idea just how close Blue and Green get > during conjunction? I seem to remember that from Blue, > Green is more of a spec than a moon, but perhaps they are > close enough, or have unusually expansive atmospheres, > such that during conjunction their atmospheres merge and > allow the Inhumi to fly from one to another. If they are > this close though, they would most definitely fall under > the sway of one another's gravitational field, which > doesn't seem to be the case. > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Lee Berman > > wrote: > > > >David Stockhoff: We're not talking about hard SF here. > > Just for the sake of discussion, I'll disagree. > Perhaps Wolfe isn't diamond-hard > but I'd give him ruby- or sapphire- on the MOhs scale. > I think he makes a > sincere attempt in most of his work, as the quote > below illustrates. > > Where fantasy writers are content to give us shape > changers without explanation, > Wolfe provides us with a sponge cellular analogy for > Tzadkiel and flexible bones > and muscles, make-up and hypnotic abilities for Inhumi. > > If the Inhumi really fly through space I'd want more > than the skimpy evidence we > are provided (and less evidence for their lying nature). > > >Nick Gevers: Speaking as an engineer, how might the > godling be constructed so as to > >walk as a giant on land, where the undines [submarine > giantesses] cannot? > > >Gene Wolfe: There are a number of ways you could go. > First, get rid of the notion that > >the godling is going to be proportioned like a human > being. Changes in size always mean > >changes in build. (Dr. Crane touches on that.) A man > fifty feet tall, proportioned like > >you or me, would sink into the ground a lot -- had > you thought of that? Take a look at > >the really big dinosaurs. Bone density could be > increased, and the legs and pelvis made > >more massive, and so on > _______________________________________________ --- ### Sergei SOLOVIEV *28 Nov 2012, 17:59 · in reply to Marc Aramini* I had the same impression about sizes. If you find where it was said that the Whorl is ten times smaller than Blue I would be glad to know. Sergei > Marc Aramini wrote: > I figure they are more like Earth and Mars. Actually, the size of > Blue is implied somewhere (ten times the size of the whorl in > diameter?) I don't remember exactly where. I always wanted to go back > and see how big it was, but I am sloppy about numbers in that way. > > --- On *Wed, 11/28/12, Sergei SOLOVIEV //* wrote: > > > From: Sergei SOLOVIEV > Subject: Re: (urth) Hard SF > To: "The Urth Mailing List" > Date: Wednesday, November 28, 2012, 9:23 AM > > About Blue and Green, I often asked myself what kind of orbit they > have. > Is it just like Earth and Moon, but > with much greater eccentricity? And what are the relative sizes? It > seems that gravity on Green is less. > > Another very exotic possibility is that they both orbit the Short Sun > but come periodically very close. > The conjunction has the period of several years! This seems not very > compatible with the > first variant, and may be an argument for the second. > It is very exotic because such orbits would be normally not > stable, but > one can find some very > exceptional particular "resonance" solutions when it remains > stable for > a relatively long time. > > Does the Whorl orbit the Short Sun or the Blue-Green system? > > Maybe this was already discussed? > > Sergei > > Daniel Petersen wrote: > > That's a wonderful thought, Antonin! Is this feasible? (Both > > generally and in the text?) > > > > -DOJP > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Antonin Scriabin > > > >> > wrote: > > > > Do we have any idea just how close Blue and Green get during > > conjunction? I seem to remember that from Blue, Green is > more of > > a spec than a moon, but perhaps they are close enough, or have > > unusually expansive atmospheres, such that during conjunction > > their atmospheres merge and allow the Inhumi to fly from one to > > another. If they are this close though, they would most > > definitely fall under the sway of one another's gravitational > > field, which doesn't seem to be the case. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Lee Berman > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > >David Stockhoff: We're not talking about hard SF here. > > > > Just for the sake of discussion, I'll disagree. Perhaps > Wolfe > > isn't diamond-hard > > but I'd give him ruby- or sapphire- on the MOhs scale. I > think > > he makes a > > sincere attempt in most of his work, as the quote below > > illustrates. > > > > Where fantasy writers are content to give us shape changers > > without explanation, > > Wolfe provides us with a sponge cellular analogy for > Tzadkiel > > and flexible bones > > and muscles, make-up and hypnotic abilities for Inhumi. > > > > If the Inhumi really fly through space I'd want more > than the > > skimpy evidence we > > are provided (and less evidence for their lying nature). > > > > >Nick Gevers: Speaking as an engineer, how might the godling > > be constructed so as to > > >walk as a giant on land, where the undines [submarine > > giantesses] cannot? > > > > >Gene Wolfe: There are a number of ways you could go. First, > > get rid of the notion that > > >the godling is going to be proportioned like a human being. > > Changes in size always mean > > >changes in build. (Dr. Crane touches on that.) A man fifty > > feet tall, proportioned like > > >you or me, would sink into the ground a lot -- had you > > thought of that? Take a look at > > >the really big dinosaurs. Bone density could be increased, > > and the legs and pelvis made > > >more massive, and so on > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Daniel Petersen *28 Nov 2012, 22:48 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* Yep, that's what I was worried about, but I have no scientific training so I didn't know if there were some exquisitely rare scenarios where this might be just barely plausible. (It's such a breathtakingly awe-inspiring thought: worthy of a fantasy at least - if no one has written such a thing, someone needs to!) But come to think of it: doesn't the passage say rather explicitly that they fly through *space*? (Does anyone have a page number reference for this?) -DOJP > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > Not really -- they both seem to have about one G of surface gravity, so > getting close enough that their atmospheres meaningfully touched would > involve massive tidal effects up to and including immense tsunami and > disastrous earthquakes. > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Daniel Petersen < > danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: >> That's a wonderful thought, Antonin! Is this feasible? (Both generally >> and in the text?) >> >> -DOJP >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Antonin Scriabin < >> kierkegaurdian at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Do we have any idea just how close Blue and Green get during >>> conjunction? I seem to remember that from Blue, Green is more of a spec >>> than a moon, but perhaps they are close enough, or have unusually expansive >>> atmospheres, such that during conjunction their atmospheres merge and allow >>> the Inhumi to fly from one to another. If they are this close though, they >>> would most definitely fall under the sway of one another's gravitational >>> field, which doesn't seem to be the case. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Lee Berman wrote: >>>>> David Stockhoff: We're not talking about hard SF here. >>>> Just for the sake of discussion, I'll disagree. Perhaps Wolfe isn't >>>> diamond-hard >>>> but I'd give him ruby- or sapphire- on the MOhs scale. I think he makes >>>> a >>>> sincere attempt in most of his work, as the quote below illustrates. >>>> >>>> Where fantasy writers are content to give us shape changers without >>>> explanation, >>>> Wolfe provides us with a sponge cellular analogy for Tzadkiel and >>>> flexible bones >>>> and muscles, make-up and hypnotic abilities for Inhumi. >>>> >>>> If the Inhumi really fly through space I'd want more than the skimpy >>>> evidence we >>>> are provided (and less evidence for their lying nature). >>>>> Nick Gevers: Speaking as an engineer, how might the godling be >>>>> constructed so as to >>>>> walk as a giant on land, where the undines [submarine giantesses] >>>> cannot? >>>>> Gene Wolfe: There are a number of ways you could go. First, get rid of >>>>> the notion that >>>>> the godling is going to be proportioned like a human being. Changes in >>>>> size always mean >>>>> changes in build. (Dr. Crane touches on that.) A man fifty feet tall, >>>>> proportioned like >>>>> you or me, would sink into the ground a lot -- had you thought of >>>>> that? Take a look at >>>>> the really big dinosaurs. Bone density could be increased, and the >>>>> legs and pelvis made >>>>> more massive, and so on >>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### David Stockhoff *28 Nov 2012, 22:51 · in reply to Daniel Petersen* Well, the cited Jahlee reference has them burning up on reentry if they are dead. So the commingled atmosphere theory is not part of the story. > On 11/28/2012 5:48 PM, Daniel Petersen wrote: > Yep, that's what I was worried about, but I have no scientific > training so I didn't know if there were some exquisitely rare > scenarios where this might be just barely plausible. (It's such a > breathtakingly awe-inspiring thought: worthy of a fantasy at least - > if no one has written such a thing, someone needs to!) But come to > think of it: doesn't the passage say rather explicitly that they fly > through /space/? (Does anyone have a page number reference for this?) > > -DOJP > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes > wrote: > > Not really -- they both seem to have about one G of surface > gravity, so getting close enough that their atmospheres > meaningfully touched would involve massive tidal effects up to and > including immense tsunami and disastrous earthquakes. > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Daniel Petersen > > wrote: > > That's a wonderful thought, Antonin! Is this feasible? (Both > generally and in the text?) > > -DOJP > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Antonin Scriabin > > > wrote: > > Do we have any idea just how close Blue and Green get > during conjunction? I seem to remember that from Blue, > Green is more of a spec than a moon, but perhaps they are > close enough, or have unusually expansive atmospheres, > such that during conjunction their atmospheres merge and > allow the Inhumi to fly from one to another. If they are > this close though, they would most definitely fall under > the sway of one another's gravitational field, which > doesn't seem to be the case. > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Lee Berman > > wrote: > > > >David Stockhoff: We're not talking about hard SF here. > > Just for the sake of discussion, I'll disagree. > Perhaps Wolfe isn't diamond-hard > but I'd give him ruby- or sapphire- on the MOhs scale. > I think he makes a > sincere attempt in most of his work, as the quote > below illustrates. > > Where fantasy writers are content to give us shape > changers without explanation, > Wolfe provides us with a sponge cellular analogy for > Tzadkiel and flexible bones > and muscles, make-up and hypnotic abilities for Inhumi. > > If the Inhumi really fly through space I'd want more > than the skimpy evidence we > are provided (and less evidence for their lying nature). > > >Nick Gevers: Speaking as an engineer, how might the > godling be constructed so as to > >walk as a giant on land, where the undines [submarine > giantesses] cannot? > > >Gene Wolfe: There are a number of ways you could go. > First, get rid of the notion that > >the godling is going to be proportioned like a human > being. Changes in size always mean > >changes in build. (Dr. Crane touches on that.) A man > fifty feet tall, proportioned like > >you or me, would sink into the ground a lot -- had > you thought of that? Take a look at > >the really big dinosaurs. Bone density could be > increased, and the legs and pelvis made > >more massive, and so on > _______________________________________________ --- ### David Stockhoff *28 Nov 2012, 22:55 · in reply to DAVID STOCKHOFF* That is, the "medium" of physics-driven fiction is not the message, which is the case with true hard SF. Wolfe works hard to reconcile myth with physical plausibility to make a story "work." You can see the tension between them, but he never abandons one for the other. > On 11/28/2012 12:04 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote: > I agree with him too. But Urth is still not "hard SF." > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Daniel Petersen > *To:* The Urth Mailing List > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:03 AM > *Subject:* Re: (urth) Hard SF > > I'd tend to agree with Lee here. -DOJP > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Lee Berman > > wrote: > > > >David Stockhoff: We're not talking about hard SF here. > > Just for the sake of discussion, I'll disagree. Perhaps Wolfe > isn't diamond-hard > but I'd give him ruby- or sapphire- on the MOhs scale. I think > he makes a > sincere attempt in most of his work, as the quote below > illustrates. > > Where fantasy writers are content to give us shape changers > without explanation, > Wolfe provides us with a sponge cellular analogy for Tzadkiel > and flexible bones > and muscles, make-up and hypnotic abilities for Inhumi. > > If the Inhumi really fly through space I'd want more than the > skimpy evidence we > are provided (and less evidence for their lying nature). > > >Nick Gevers: Speaking as an engineer, how might the godling > be constructed so as to > >walk as a giant on land, where the undines [submarine > giantesses] cannot? > > >Gene Wolfe: There are a number of ways you could go. First, > get rid of the notion that > >the godling is going to be proportioned like a human being. > Changes in size always mean > >changes in build. (Dr. Crane touches on that.) A man fifty > feet tall, proportioned like > >you or me, would sink into the ground a lot -- had you > thought of that? Take a look at > >the really big dinosaurs. Bone density could be increased, > and the legs and pelvis made > >more massive, and so on > _______________________________________________ --- ### Daniel Petersen *28 Nov 2012, 22:59 · in reply to David Stockhoff* Ah, helpful. That's part of what I was wondering too - whether the story itself suggested or allowed for the 'commingled atmosphere theory'. Sounds like we need to discard it (imaginatively beautiful though it is). -DOJP > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:51 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: > Well, the cited Jahlee reference has them burning up on reentry if they > are dead. So the commingled atmosphere theory is not part of the story. > > > On 11/28/2012 5:48 PM, Daniel Petersen wrote: >> Yep, that's what I was worried about, but I have no scientific training >> so I didn't know if there were some exquisitely rare scenarios where this >> might be just barely plausible. (It's such a breathtakingly awe-inspiring >> thought: worthy of a fantasy at least - if no one has written such a >> thing, someone needs to!) But come to think of it: doesn't the passage >> say rather explicitly that they fly through /space/? (Does anyone have a >> page number reference for this?) >> >> -DOJP >> >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes > danldo at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Not really -- they both seem to have about one G of surface >> gravity, so getting close enough that their atmospheres >> meaningfully touched would involve massive tidal effects up to and >> including immense tsunami and disastrous earthquakes. >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Daniel Petersen >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> That's a wonderful thought, Antonin! Is this feasible? (Both >> generally and in the text?) >> >> -DOJP >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Antonin Scriabin >> >> wrote: >> >> Do we have any idea just how close Blue and Green get >> during conjunction? I seem to remember that from Blue, >> Green is more of a spec than a moon, but perhaps they are >> close enough, or have unusually expansive atmospheres, >> such that during conjunction their atmospheres merge and >> allow the Inhumi to fly from one to another. If they are >> this close though, they would most definitely fall under >> the sway of one another's gravitational field, which >> doesn't seem to be the case. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Lee Berman >> > >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >David Stockhoff: We're not talking about hard SF here. >> >> Just for the sake of discussion, I'll disagree. >> Perhaps Wolfe isn't diamond-hard >> but I'd give him ruby- or sapphire- on the MOhs scale. >> I think he makes a >> sincere attempt in most of his work, as the quote >> below illustrates. >> >> Where fantasy writers are content to give us shape >> changers without explanation, >> Wolfe provides us with a sponge cellular analogy for >> Tzadkiel and flexible bones >> and muscles, make-up and hypnotic abilities for Inhumi. >> >> If the Inhumi really fly through space I'd want more >> than the skimpy evidence we >> are provided (and less evidence for their lying nature). >> >> >Nick Gevers: Speaking as an engineer, how might the >> godling be constructed so as to >> >walk as a giant on land, where the undines [submarine >> giantesses] cannot? >> >> >Gene Wolfe: There are a number of ways you could go. >> First, get rid of the notion that >> >the godling is going to be proportioned like a human >> being. Changes in size always mean >> >changes in build. (Dr. Crane touches on that.) A man >> fifty feet tall, proportioned like >> >you or me, would sink into the ground a lot -- had >> you thought of that? Take a look at >> >the really big dinosaurs. Bone density could be >> increased, and the legs and pelvis made >> >more massive, and so on >> ______________________________**_________________ --- ### Daniel Petersen *28 Nov 2012, 23:06 · in reply to David Stockhoff* So you take hard s.f. to be a philosophical position (committed to some form of naturalism, if not physicalism)? I've heard Michael Flynn is a theistic hard s.f.er, but I don't know if his worldview affects the writing of his fiction at a sort of methodological level. I've not read any. At any rate, I don't think Wolfe's fiction reaches full 'hard' status for various reasons - regardless of whether we say hard s.f. by definition must remain mechanically non-theistic or non-magical or whatever. But you describe well the tensions Wolfe manfully holds together. It's part of what makes his work have a widespread, diverse audience. -DOJP > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:55 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: > That is, the "medium" of physics-driven fiction is not the message, which > is the case with true hard SF. Wolfe works hard to reconcile myth with > physical plausibility to make a story "work." You can see the tension > between them, but he never abandons one for the other. > > On 11/28/2012 12:04 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote: > > I agree with him too. But Urth is still not "hard SF." > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Daniel Petersen > *To:* The Urth Mailing List > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:03 AM > *Subject:* Re: (urth) Hard SF > > I'd tend to agree with Lee here. -DOJP > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Lee Berman wrote: >> David Stockhoff: We're not talking about hard SF here. > Just for the sake of discussion, I'll disagree. Perhaps Wolfe isn't > diamond-hard > but I'd give him ruby- or sapphire- on the MOhs scale. I think he makes a > sincere attempt in most of his work, as the quote below illustrates. > > Where fantasy writers are content to give us shape changers without > explanation, > Wolfe provides us with a sponge cellular analogy for Tzadkiel and flexible > bones > and muscles, make-up and hypnotic abilities for Inhumi. > > If the Inhumi really fly through space I'd want more than the skimpy > evidence we > are provided (and less evidence for their lying nature). >> Nick Gevers: Speaking as an engineer, how might the godling be >> constructed so as to >> walk as a giant on land, where the undines [submarine giantesses] cannot? >> Gene Wolfe: There are a number of ways you could go. First, get rid of >> the notion that >> the godling is going to be proportioned like a human being. Changes in >> size always mean >> changes in build. (Dr. Crane touches on that.) A man fifty feet tall, >> proportioned like >> you or me, would sink into the ground a lot -- had you thought of that? > Take a look at > the really big dinosaurs. Bone density could be increased, and the legs > and pelvis made > more massive, and so on > _______________________________________________ --- ### David Stockhoff *29 Nov 2012, 00:02 · in reply to Daniel Petersen* I'm not sure if it's philosophical exactly, though the examples that come to mind are /Flatland/, which exists to make a didactic point, and the Mars trilogy by Spider Robinson (another damn Catholic!), which apparently exists to prove that science fiction can be deadly boring---I mean, that we can terraform Mars. Those examples certainly seem to reject magic and theism entirely. Plausibility has a lot to do with style. We want to hear about monsters, but they go down better when the narrator is /real/: a grubby criminal, maybe, or a hard-boiled detective character we've been trained to accept just for the pleasure of it. (Once, we would have accepted a straight-laced scientist, but no more.) So many SF short stories involve the subversion of rules that ground the story in something we can recognize. Tolkien took the opposite approach, replacing the usual rules with his own, but maintaining a certain distance through the use of language; he never let you forget for long that you were experiencing something more "real" than history, but also just as large as history. Wolfe is a stylist above all else, but also a moralist. He seems to see humans as half-truth-telling, /story-/telling beings in a universe of unplumbed moral and physical depth. Stories are what we are, and moral is what we want to be, so he retells old stories that test morality; I wouldn't say he's obsessed with the supernatural, but his awareness of it (and conviction in it) leads him to respect material reality while considering it secondary. If the story always comes first, the result can't ever be hard SF. Another point I could make is that plausibility is in a sense a negative. That is, if I don't ever /say /that a pound of feathers weighs less than a pound of lead, I can't be caught being implausible. Wolfe's engineer side may nix some ideas produced by his mythographer side, but it rarely writes the stories. > On 11/28/2012 6:06 PM, Daniel Petersen wrote: > So you take hard s.f. to be a philosophical position (committed to > some form of naturalism, if not physicalism)? I've heard Michael > Flynn is a theistic hard s.f.er , but I don't know if > his worldview affects the writing of his fiction at a sort of > methodological level. I've not read any. At any rate, I don't think > Wolfe's fiction reaches full 'hard' status for various reasons - > regardless of whether we say hard s.f. by definition must remain > mechanically non-theistic or non-magical or whatever. But you > describe well the tensions Wolfe manfully holds together. It's part > of what makes his work have a widespread, diverse audience. > > -DOJP --- ### Marc Aramini *29 Nov 2012, 01:24 · in reply to David Stockhoff* Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 28, 2012, at 5:02 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: > I'm not sure if it's philosophical exactly, though the examples that come to mind are /Flatland/, which exists to make a didactic point, and the Mars trilogy by Spider Robinson (another damn Catholic!), which apparently exists to prove that science fiction can be deadly boring---I mean, that we can terraform Mars. Those examples certainly seem to reject magic and theism entirely. > > Plausibility has a lot to do with style. We want to hear about monsters, but they go down better when the narrator is /real/: a grubby criminal, maybe, or a hard-boiled detective character we've been trained to accept just for the pleasure of it. (Once, we would have accepted a straight-laced scientist, but no more.) So many SF short stories involve the subversion of rules that ground the story in something we can recognize. Tolkien took the opposite approach, replacing the usual rules with his own, but maintaining a certain distance through the use of language; he never let you forget for long that you were experiencing something more "real" than history, but also just as large as history. > > Wolfe is a stylist above all else, but also a moralist. He seems to see humans as half-truth-telling, /story-/telling beings in a universe of unplumbed moral and physical depth. Stories are what we are, and moral is what we want to be, so he retells old stories that test morality; I wouldn't say he's obsessed with the supernatural, but his awareness of it (and conviction in it) leads him to respect material reality while considering it secondary. If the story always comes first, the result can't ever be hard SF. > > Another point I could make is that plausibility is in a sense a negative. That is, if I don't ever /say /that a pound of feathers weighs less than a pound of lead, I can't be caught being implausible. Wolfe's engineer side may nix some ideas produced by his mythographer side, but it rarely writes the stories. > > On 11/28/2012 6:06 PM, Daniel Petersen wrote: >> So you take hard s.f. to be a philosophical position (committed to some form of naturalism, if not physicalism)? I've heard Michael Flynn is a theistic hard s.f.er , but I don't know if his worldview affects the writing of his fiction at a sort of methodological >> >> -DOJP > _______________________________________________ --- ### Marc Aramini *29 Nov 2012, 01:26 · in reply to David Stockhoff* Surely you mean Kim Stanley Robinson? I was not aware he was catholic, but yes, deadly deadly boring. Not worth looking into his beliefs, really. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 28, 2012, at 5:02 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: > I'm not sure if it's philosophical exactly, though the examples that come to mind are /Flatland/, which exists to make a didactic point, and the Mars trilogy by Spider Robinson (another damn Catholic!), which apparently exists to prove that science fiction can be deadly boring---I mean, that we can terraform Mars. Those examples certainly seem to reject magic and theism entirely. > > Plausibility has a lot to do with style. We want to hear about monsters, but they go down better when the narrator is /real/: a grubby criminal, maybe, or a hard-boiled detective character we've been trained to accept just for the pleasure of it. (Once, we would have accepted a straight-laced scientist, but no more.) So many SF short stories involve the subversion of rules that ground the story in something we can recognize. Tolkien took the opposite approach, replacing the usual rules with his own, but maintaining a certain distance through the use of language; he never let you forget for long that you were experiencing something more "real" than history, but also just as large as history. > > Wolfe is a stylist above all else, but also a moralist. He seems to see humans as half-truth-telling, /story-/telling beings in a universe of unplumbed moral and physical depth. Stories are what we are, and moral is what we want to be, so he retells old stories that test morality; I wouldn't say he's obsessed with the supernatural, but his awareness of it (and conviction in it) leads him to respect material reality while considering it secondary. If the story always comes first, the result can't ever be hard SF. > > Another point I could make is that plausibility is in a sense a negative. That is, if I don't ever /say /that a pound of feathers weighs less than a pound of lead, I can't be caught being implausible. Wolfe's engineer side may nix some ideas produced by his mythographer side, but it rarely writes the stories. > > On 11/28/2012 6:06 PM, Daniel Petersen wrote: >> So you take hard s.f. to be a philosophical position (committed to some form of naturalism, if not physicalism)? I've heard Michael Flynn is a theistic hard s.f.er , but I don't know if his worldview affects the writing of his fiction at a sort of methodological level. I've not read any. At any rate, I don't think Wolfe's fiction reaches full 'hard' status for various reasons - regardless of whether we say hard s.f. by definition must remain mechanically non-theistic or non-magical or whatever. But you describe well the tensions Wolfe manfully holds together. It's part of what makes his work have a widespread, diverse audience. >> >> -DOJP > _______________________________________________ --- ### David Duffy *29 Nov 2012, 01:34 · in reply to David Stockhoff* > On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, David Stockhoff wrote: > and the Mars trilogy by Spider Robinson (another damn Catholic!), which > apparently exists to prove that science fiction can be deadly boring You meant KSR, I suppose. Boring? ... de gustibus. His first novel _Icehenge_ has some Wolfe-like ambiguities and twists, and is short ;) > philosophical exactly How about _Star Maker_? --- ### António Pedro Marques *29 Nov 2012, 01:56 · in reply to David Stockhoff* I think I've said this a number of times but, for me, 'hard sf' is that where the workings of science itself are a major driver of the plot. Little to do with being science-'realistic', except as an almost necessary implication. In that regard, Wolfe's work is not hard sf. No dia 28/11/2012, ?s 22:55, David Stockhoff escreveu: > That is, the "medium" of physics-driven fiction is not the message, which is the case with true hard SF. Wolfe works hard to reconcile myth with physical plausibility to make a story "work." You can see the tension between them, but he never abandons one for the other. > > On 11/28/2012 12:04 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote: >> I agree with him too. But Urth is still not "hard SF." >> >> From: Daniel Petersen >> To: The Urth Mailing List >> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:03 AM >> Subject: Re: (urth) Hard SF >> >> I'd tend to agree with Lee here. -DOJP >> >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Lee Berman wrote: >>> David Stockhoff: We're not talking about hard SF here. >> Just for the sake of discussion, I'll disagree. Perhaps Wolfe isn't diamond-hard >> but I'd give him ruby- or sapphire- on the MOhs scale. I think he makes a >> sincere attempt in most of his work, as the quote below illustrates. >> >> Where fantasy writers are content to give us shape changers without explanation, >> Wolfe provides us with a sponge cellular analogy for Tzadkiel and flexible bones >> and muscles, make-up and hypnotic abilities for Inhumi. >> >> If the Inhumi really fly through space I'd want more than the skimpy evidence we >> are provided (and less evidence for their lying nature). >>> Nick Gevers: Speaking as an engineer, how might the godling be constructed so as to >>> walk as a giant on land, where the undines [submarine giantesses] cannot? >>> Gene Wolfe: There are a number of ways you could go. First, get rid of the notion that >>> the godling is going to be proportioned like a human being. Changes in size always mean >>> changes in build. (Dr. Crane touches on that.) A man fifty feet tall, proportioned like >>> you or me, would sink into the ground a lot -- had you thought of that? Take a look at >>> the really big dinosaurs. Bone density could be increased, and the legs and pelvis made >>> more massive, and so on >>> _______________________________________________ --- ### David Stockhoff *29 Nov 2012, 03:14 · in reply to Marc Aramini* You're right! That makes more sense. This Robinson is a /damned anarchist./ > On 11/28/2012 8:26 PM, Marc Aramini wrote: > Surely you mean Kim Stanley Robinson? I was not aware he was catholic, but yes, deadly deadly boring. Not worth looking into his beliefs, really. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 5:02 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: >> I'm not sure if it's philosophical exactly, though the examples that come to mind are /Flatland/, which exists to make a didactic point, and the Mars trilogy by Spider Robinson (another damn Catholic!), which apparently exists to prove that science fiction can be deadly boring---I mean, that we can terraform Mars. Those examples certainly seem to reject magic and theism entirely. >> >> Plausibility has a lot to do with style. We want to hear about monsters, but they go down better when the narrator is /real/: a grubby criminal, maybe, or a hard-boiled detective character we've been trained to accept just for the pleasure of it. (Once, we would have accepted a straight-laced scientist, but no more.) So many SF short stories involve the subversion of rules that ground the story in something we can recognize. Tolkien took the opposite approach, replacing the usual rules with his own, but maintaining a certain distance through the use of language; he never let you forget for long that you were experiencing something more "real" than history, but also just as large as history. >> >> Wolfe is a stylist above all else, but also a moralist. He seems to see humans as half-truth-telling, /story-/telling beings in a universe of unplumbed moral and physical depth. Stories are what we are, and moral is what we want to be, so he retells old stories that test morality; I wouldn't say he's obsessed with the supernatural, but his awareness of it (and conviction in it) leads him to respect material reality while considering it secondary. If the story always comes first, the result can't ever be hard SF. >> >> Another point I could make is that plausibility is in a sense a negative. That is, if I don't ever /say /that a pound of feathers weighs less than a pound of lead, I can't be caught being implausible. Wolfe's engineer side may nix some ideas produced by his mythographer side, but it rarely writes the stories. >> >> On 11/28/2012 6:06 PM, Daniel Petersen wrote: >>> So you take hard s.f. to be a philosophical position (committed to some form of naturalism, if not physicalism)? I've heard Michael Flynn is a theistic hard s.f.er , but I don't know if his worldview affects the writing of his fiction at a sort of methodological level. I've not read any. At any rate, I don't think Wolfe's fiction reaches full 'hard' status for various reasons - regardless of whether we say hard s.f. by definition must remain mechanically non-theistic or non-magical or whatever. But you describe well the tensions Wolfe manfully holds together. It's part of what makes his work have a widespread, diverse audience. >>> >>> -DOJP >>> _______________________________________________ --- ### David Stockhoff *29 Nov 2012, 03:16 · in reply to David Duffy* Star Maker is in text form somewhere on my Kindle. I hope it doesn't stay that way. Thanks for the suggestions. > On 11/28/2012 8:34 PM, David Duffy wrote: > On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, David Stockhoff wrote: >> and the Mars trilogy by Spider Robinson (another damn Catholic!), >> which apparently exists to prove that science fiction can be deadly >> boring > You meant KSR, I suppose. Boring? ... de gustibus. His first novel > _Icehenge_ has some Wolfe-like ambiguities and twists, and is short ;) >> philosophical exactly > How about _Star Maker_? > _______________________________________________ --- ### David Stockhoff *29 Nov 2012, 03:20 · in reply to António Pedro Marques* Yes, I agree. Science realism is after all impossible, if you are proposing scientific impossibilities such as FTL. > On 11/28/2012 8:56 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: > I think I've said this a number of times but, for me, 'hard sf' is > that where the workings of science itself are a major driver of the > plot. Little to do with being science-'realistic', except as an almost > necessary implication. In that regard, Wolfe's work is not hard sf. > > No dia 28/11/2012, ?s 22:55, David Stockhoff > escreveu: >> That is, the "medium" of physics-driven fiction is not the message, >> which is the case with true hard SF. Wolfe works hard to reconcile >> myth with physical plausibility to make a story "work." You can see >> the tension between them, but he never abandons one for the other. >> >> On 11/28/2012 12:04 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote: --- ### Andrew Mason *29 Nov 2012, 16:02 · follows David Stockhoff* > Antonio Pedro Marquez wrote: > > I think I've said this a number of times but, for me, 'hard sf' is that where the workings of science itself are a major driver of the plot. Little to do with being science-'realistic', except as an almost necessary implication. In that regard, Wolfe's work is not hard sf. I think 'hard SF' is an essentially ambiguous term. It can mean what Antonio says - I think Asimov defined it that way, for instance - or it can mean SF which is scientifically accurate. It is widely used in the latter sense as well. Obviously the two ideas to some extent go together, in that if you are exploring the implications of a scientific hypothesis you have to work them out consistently; it would not be very scientific, for instance, to hypothesise that if there were faster-than-light travel there would be unicorns. But in some cases I think the two concepts of hard SF actually pull against one another. Those works of SF which focus most on science are often ones where it is not real-world science - ones exploring the consequences of some imagined scientific development which isn't really possible; conversely, a work of speculative fiction in which science is not important, which deals with a future or another world whose distinctive features are social rather than scientific, can easily confine itself to the scientifically possible. --- ### Daniel Petersen *29 Nov 2012, 16:34 · in reply to David Stockhoff* David Stockhoff, you're first paragraph made me 'LOL' as they say (in spite of its wrong Robinson). David Stockhoff wrote: 'If the story always comes first, the result can't ever be hard SF.' That would explain why I still haven't found any I enjoy reading. > Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: > for me, 'hard sf' is that where the workings of science itself are a > major driver of the plot. Little to do with being science-'realistic', > except as an almost necessary implication. That's probably more fair to hard s.f.ers. What the world needs is a science fiction writer who is gifted and trained in the sciences but who is also a mystic and poet - THAT is hard s.f. that I'd read and delight in. (But I do like that Wolfe tends to have plenty of genuinely 'sciencey' stuff going on in the backgrounds of his narratives.) -DOJP > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:20 AM, David Stockhoff wrote: > Yes, I agree. Science realism is after all impossible, if you are > proposing scientific impossibilities such as FTL. > > > On 11/28/2012 8:56 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: >> I think I've said this a number of times but, for me, 'hard sf' is that >> where the workings of science itself are a major driver of the plot. Little >> to do with being science-'realistic', except as an almost necessary >> implication. In that regard, Wolfe's work is not hard sf. >> >> No dia 28/11/2012, ?s 22:55, David Stockhoff > dstockhoff at verizon.net**>> escreveu: >> >> >> That is, the "medium" of physics-driven fiction is not the message, which >> is the case with true hard SF. Wolfe works hard to reconcile myth with >> physical plausibility to make a story "work." You can see the tension >> between them, but he never abandons one for the other. >>> On 11/28/2012 12:04 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote: > ______________________________**_________________ --- ### António Pedro Marques *29 Nov 2012, 16:35 · in reply to Andrew Mason* Andrew Mason wrote (29-11-2012 16:02): > Antonio Pedro Marquez -es. -es. (Whereas the o-acute is a matter of detail.) > wrote: >> I think I've said this a number of times but, for me, 'hard sf' is >> that where the workings of science itself are a major driver of the >> plot. Little to do with being science-'realistic', except as an almost >> necessary implication. In that regard, Wolfe's work is not hard sf. > I think 'hard SF' is an essentially ambiguous term. It can mean what > Antonio says - I think Asimov defined it that way, for instance - NB I said 'for me'. > or it can mean SF which is scientifically accurate. It is widely used in > the latter sense as well. > > Obviously the two ideas to some extent go together, in that if you are > exploring the implications of a scientific hypothesis you have to work > them out consistently; it would not be very scientific, for instance, to > hypothesise that if there were faster-than-light travel there would be > unicorns. But in some cases I think the two concepts of hard SF actually > pull against one another. Those works of SF which focus most on science > are often ones where it is not real-world science - ones exploring the > consequences of some imagined scientific development which isn't really > possible; conversely, a work of speculative fiction in which science is > not important, which deals with a future or another world whose > distinctive features are social rather than scientific, can easily > confine itself to the scientifically possible. Very true. But it doesn't need to come to that, unless one is reading it purely for the 'science', which I don't think most people do. Books I consider the archetype of hard sf would be Rendezvous with Rama, The Invincible and His Master's Voice (I'm addicted to Lem's writing, which is baffling since his characters are quite unlikeable), and in none of those does the question really arise (in my opinion). --- ### Lee Berman *29 Nov 2012, 16:35 · follows António Pedro Marques* > Andrew Mason: I think 'hard SF' is an essentially ambiguous term. It can mean what > Antonio says - I think Asimov defined it that way, for instance - or > it can mean SF which is scientifically accurate. It is widely used in > the latter sense as well. Thanks, Andrew. I think the recognition of both meanings is helpful. I think Urth and its dying red sun qualify as hard SF in Antonio's/Asimov's sense of being driven by a scientific premise but doesn't qualify as being scientifically accurate. Would a sun that drastically diminished really still be able to support tropical jungles on Urth? I'd question the liklihood of any major plant growth under those conditions. I suppose you could make some sort of elaborate argument for how it could happen but I think Wolfe's red sun was more of a literary choice than a scienfific one. --- ### nate jarvis *29 Nov 2012, 16:36 · in reply to Andrew Mason* It's been awhile since I read it, but Orwell's 1984 was science fiction and I can't remember any "science mistakes" in it. I wouldn't call it hard SF, though. Near-future SF without spaceships or robots or any of the immediately recoginizable sciffy tropes can be Hard SF IMO--Bear's Darwin's Radio, for instance. For those who haven't read it, Darwin's Radio is centered around the idea that junk DNA is a dormant mechanism for producing dramatic evolutionary leaps, and the effects on society when that dormant mechanism ceases to be dormant. So the focus of the story is a (as far as I can tell) rigorous speculation on a scientific topic. Most of the Charles Stross stuff I've read centers around a heist (Halting State) or a chase (Iron Sunrise, Saturn's Children) or something similar, but I'd still call his stuff hard SF. The "hardness" is in the details, and on virtually every page there's a line that makes me wanna run to google and see if there's a white paper on whatever he's talking about. Stross might not meet the definition Antonio proposes, though. Nate. --- ### Gerry Quinn *29 Nov 2012, 17:25 · in reply to David Stockhoff* From: David Stockhoff > Yes, I agree. Science realism is after all impossible, if you are > proposing scientific impossibilities such as FTL. > On 11/28/2012 8:56 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: >> I think I've said this a number of times but, for me, 'hard sf' is >> that where the workings of science itself are a major driver of the >> plot. Little to do with being science-'realistic', except as an almost >> necessary implication. In that regard, Wolfe's work is not hard sf. That’s my view too. There are different types of hard SF though. There is the realistic sort where the writer tries to tell a story that could actually happen (e.g. the Mars trilogy). And there’s the kind where the writer takes some dubious physics theory and extrapolates wildly based on that (e.g. Schild’s Ladder by Greg Egan). Of course, even a hard SF writer isn’t going to get the science perfect. (I never believed you could oxygenate Mars using wind power.) Wolfe isn’t writing hard SF, so his standard for plausibility divided by coolness is correspondingly lower. - Gerry Quinn --- ### Gerry Quinn *29 Nov 2012, 17:32 · in reply to Lee Berman* From: Lee Berman > I think Urth and its dying red sun qualify as hard SF in > Antonio's/Asimov's sense > of being driven by a scientific premise but doesn't qualify as being > scientifically > accurate. Would a sun that drastically diminished really still be able to > support tropical > jungles on Urth? I'd question the liklihood of any major plant growth > under those conditions. > > I suppose you could make some sort of elaborate argument for how it could > happen but I think > Wolfe's red sun was more of a literary choice than a scienfific one. Well, it is also a key element of the story. Personally I would question whether dropping a black hole into the sun would dim it. I think it would cause it to burn hotter, although its life would be reduced. That said, one can imagine mechanisms that would have the opposite effect. Perhaps it generates an accretion disk with causes the sun's core to expand and cool. Basically, most SF involves a lot of hand-waving, probably more than even the author knows. [Otherwise he'd be writing science, after all!] - Gerry Quinn --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *29 Nov 2012, 17:40 · in reply to Gerry Quinn* There's a sort of grey area of reasonably-hard SF (firm SF?) where certain "canonical miracles," such as FTL travel, are allowed, but the story ideas still need to be based around solid scientific speculation. A good example of this is Larry Niven's "known space" series, which is generally considered hard (or hardish) SF despite the presence of FTL and psi, because it speculates hard about things like tidal effects and antimatter. > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote: > > > *From:* David Stockhoff > > > Yes, I agree. Science realism is after all impossible, if you are > proposing scientific impossibilities such as FTL. >> On 11/28/2012 8:56 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: >>> I think I've said this a number of times but, for me, 'hard sf' is >>> that where the workings of science itself are a major driver of the >>> plot. Little to do with being science-'realistic', except as an almost >>> necessary implication. In that regard, Wolfe's work is not hard sf. > That’s my view too. > > There are different types of hard SF though. There is the realistic > sort where the writer tries to tell a story that could actually happen > (e.g. the Mars trilogy). And there’s the kind where the writer takes some > dubious physics theory and extrapolates wildly based on that (e.g. Schild’s > Ladder by Greg Egan). > > Of course, even a hard SF writer isn’t going to get the science > perfect. (I never believed you could oxygenate Mars using wind power.) > > Wolfe isn’t writing hard SF, so his standard for plausibility divided by > coolness is correspondingly lower. > > - Gerry Quinn > > _______________________________________________ --- ### DAVID STOCKHOFF *29 Nov 2012, 18:41 · in reply to Daniel Petersen* Exactly. And there's a related subgenre of space opera one could call "(military) hardware porn," where the science is totally made up but the technology is lovingly described. I don't know any names, but I've flipped through a few at my local library. OK, there's post- Ringworld Jerry Pournelle . . . > ________________________________ > From: Daniel Petersen > To: The Urth Mailing List > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 11:34 AM > Subject: Re: (urth) Hard SF > > > David Stockhoff, you're first paragraph made me 'LOL' as they say (in spite of its wrong Robinson). > > > David Stockhoff wrote: > 'If the story always comes first, the result can't ever be hard SF.' > > > That would explain why I still haven't found any I enjoy reading. --- ### DAVID STOCKHOFF *29 Nov 2012, 18:49 · in reply to António Pedro Marques* Rendezvous with Rama is actually a great example of well-balanced hard SF, where the science it part of a great story. Clark was a true storyteller who really knew how to make science an adventure.And I don't recall any impossible stuff in there. --- ### DAVID STOCKHOFF *29 Nov 2012, 18:50 · in reply to Lee Berman* Totally. I'm not sure why, then, you would classify Urth as "driven by a scientific premise." > ________________________________ > From: Lee Berman > To: "urth at urth.net" > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 11:35 AM > Subject: (urth) Hard SF >> Andrew Mason: I think 'hard SF' is an essentially ambiguous term. It can mean what >> Antonio says - I think Asimov defined it that way, for instance - or >> it can mean SF which is scientifically accurate. It is widely used in >> the latter sense as well. > Thanks, Andrew. I think the recognition of both meanings is helpful. > > I think Urth and its dying red sun qualify as hard SF in Antonio's/Asimov's sense > of being driven by a scientific premise but doesn't qualify as being scientifically > accurate. Would a sun that drastically diminished really still be able to support tropical > jungles on Urth? I'd question the liklihood of any major plant growth under those conditions. > > I suppose you could make some sort of elaborate argument for how it could happen but I think > Wolfe's red sun was more of a literary choice than a scienfific one. ??? ??? ??? ? ??? ??? ? > _______________________________________________ --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *29 Nov 2012, 18:53 · in reply to DAVID STOCKHOFF* > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:41 AM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote: > Exactly. And there's a related subgenre of space opera one could call > "(military) hardware porn," where the science is totally made up but the > technology is lovingly described. I don't know any names, but I've flipped > through a few at my local library. OK, there's post- Ringworld Jerry > Pournelle . . . This would be people like John Ringo, Eric Flint, etc. The "grand master" of this, though, is David Weber, and his Honor Harrington metaseries*, which is actually pretty readable. --Dan'l * "metaseries" both because it has books that fit in nonlinearly, and because it's metastasized. --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *29 Nov 2012, 18:54 · in reply to DAVID STOCKHOFF* Clarke was also something of an atheistic mystic, particularly visible in stories like "Against the Fall of Night/The City and the Stars." > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:49 AM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote: > Rendezvous with Rama is actually a great example of well-balanced hard SF, > where the science it part of a great story. Clark was a true storyteller > who really knew how to make science an adventure. And I don't recall any impossible > stuff in there. > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Jeff Wilson *29 Nov 2012, 19:26 · in reply to nate jarvis* > On Thu, November 29, 2012 10:36, nate jarvis wrote: > Most of the Charles Stross stuff I've read centers around a heist > (Halting State) or a chase (Iron Sunrise, Saturn's Children) or > something similar, but I'd still call his stuff hard SF. The > "hardness" is in the details, and on virtually every page there's a > line that makes me wanna run to google and see if there's a white > paper on whatever he's talking about. Stross might not meet the > definition Antonio proposes, though. Charlie intentionally writes to different levels of plausibility. Halting State and Rule 34 are more like slightly futuristic technothrillers, he complained in his blog that the news kept swiping his plot devices. Saturn's Children is an example of mundane SF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mundane_science_fiction , though the posthuman millieu gives him a bit more wiggle room to have a Heinlein pastiche and some silent movie melodrama. Iron Sunrise is a totally whacked implausible setting with time travel, FTL, space nazis, nova bombs, etc being dealt with by a couple of people of more modest ability to defy the laws of physics. ``` Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com > A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab < http://www.tamut.edu/cil > ``` --- ### David Duffy *29 Nov 2012, 21:36 · in reply to Gerry Quinn* > On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, Gerry Quinn wrote: > And there’s the kind where the writer takes some dubious physics theory > and extrapolates wildly based on that (e.g. Schild’s Ladder by Greg > Egan). I don't know what's going on with you people. First someone calls Kim Stanley Robinson boring, and now Gerry's making out quantum loop gravity is dubious. Didn't you read Egan's paper? http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0208010.pdf And no, it's not in the section next to http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.8144 Cheers, David Duffy. --- ### Gerry Quinn *29 Nov 2012, 21:55 · in reply to David Duffy* From: David Duffy > On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, Gerry Quinn wrote: >> And there’s the kind where the writer takes some dubious physics theory >> and extrapolates wildly based on that (e.g. Schild’s Ladder by Greg >> Egan). > I don't know what's going on with you people. First someone calls Kim > Stanley Robinson boring, and now Gerry's making out quantum loop gravity > is dubious. Didn't you read Egan's paper? > http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0208010.pdf Well, it has fallen out of favour as far as I know! But by 'dubious' I meant 'unlikely to be correct'. Even if the vacuum is metastable, it's (fortunately) unlikely that we could destabilise it by experiment. - Gerry Quinn --- ### Lee Berman *30 Nov 2012, 13:33 · follows Gerry Quinn* > I think Wolfe's red sun was more of a literary choice than a scientific one. > David Stockhoff: Totally. I'm not sure why, then, you would classify Urth as "driven by > a scientific premise." Good question. I'll try to explain. It is a common hard SF trope to have primitive aliens believing in some magical principle to understand some large, problematic issue in their lives. Then some space-faring humans come in with their scientific knowledge and technology and use it to fix the problem, often becoming "gods" along the way. We all get a good chuckle out of that. This can be recognized as a remnant of the colonial/imperialist thinking here on earth. I think Wolfe has turned this formula on its head. On first reading, we see there are some mystical explanations floating around Urth to explain Urth's dying sun. But as readers we understand that stars have a lifespan and Urth's sun has simply arrived at the end of one. So for most of the story we have a scientific explanation for Urth's condition in mind. Eventually, through the Green Man and Master Ash, we get the sense that there actually is a solution to the dying sun. With Tzadkiel and Yesod and the white fountain cancelling out the black hole we have the "scientific" solution to the problem. But it isn't human beings using science who facilitate the solution. It is higher beings using what appears, even to us readers, as some sort of divine power. What I am suggesting is that the premise of "hard SF" is that magic is the soft explanation and science is the hard explanation. But what Wolfe is doing is suggesting that to a divine intelligence, science is a soft, magical primitive way of understanding the universe. There is a harder, more comprehensive understanding than science to those higher beings who can grasp it. So, I think, from Wolfe's own perspective, he is not really writing Fantasy/SF. He is writing SF which takes "hard" to a new level and definition. As science is harder than magic, so Wolfe feels there is a divine knowledge which is harder than science. (I don't mean to suggest Wolfe is alone in taking this approach) --- ### Gerry Quinn *30 Nov 2012, 14:39 · in reply to Lee Berman* From: Lee Berman >> David Stockhoff: Totally. I'm not sure why, then, you would classify >> Urth as "driven by >> a scientific premise." > Good question. I'll try to explain. It is a common hard SF trope to have > primitive aliens > believing in some magical principle to understand some large, problematic > issue in their lives. > Then some space-faring humans come in with their scientific knowledge and > technology and use it > to fix the problem, often becoming "gods" along the way. We all get a good > chuckle out of that. > This can be recognized as a remnant of the colonial/imperialist thinking > here on earth. > I think Wolfe has turned this formula on its head. On first reading, we > see there are some > mystical explanations floating around Urth to explain Urth's dying sun. > But as readers we > understand that stars have a lifespan and Urth's sun has simply arrived at > the end of one. > So for most of the story we have a scientific explanation for Urth's > condition in mind. Actually, we learn the correct explanation from Dr. Talos's play, in the second book: PROPHET: Yet even you must know that cancer eats the heart of the old sun. At its center, matter falls in upon itself, as though there were there a pit without bottom, whose top surrounds it. AUTARCH: My astronomers have long told me so. The above is a very explicit depiction of a black hole. The explanation is not known to Severian, but it is known to many humans in high places. I don't think Severian's ignorance of science can stand in for all of humanity. > What I am suggesting is that the premise of "hard SF" is that magic is > the soft > explanation and science is the hard explanation. > But what Wolfe is doing is suggesting that to a divine intelligence, > science is a soft, magical > primitive way of understanding the universe. There is a harder, more > comprehensive > understanding than science to those higher beings who can grasp it. This I can agree with. - Gerry Quinn --- ### David Stockhoff *30 Nov 2012, 14:43 · in reply to Lee Berman* Aha. Well, we can certainly agree that there is an underlying/overarching thrust to the Cycle that subordinates both science and literature to itself. It is /scientific /in the sense of being or embracing a principled, methodical quest for understanding. But I think a better terminology might be to say it is /rational. /I assume that one of the attractions of Catholicism to Wolfe is its blend of the rational with the religious, even mystical, as well as with the moral. Severian observes and records and speculates and may even have insights, but he does not experiment or do maths, nor does he distinguish the products of scientific work from the products of theological work. Rationality---or rational morality---is the common thread. I don't think it's coincidental that he is somewhat in the position of Galileo and Kepler, who could observe and speculate, but even with mathematics were unable to conduct experiments to prove that the earth circled the sun. That's more or less where the Commonwealth is in understanding the universe, give or take a few alien technologies and ancient records. >> On 11/30/2012 8:33 AM, Lee Berman wrote: >> I think Wolfe's red sun was more of a literary choice than a scientific one. >> David Stockhoff: Totally. I'm not sure why, then, you would classify Urth as "driven by >> a scientific premise." > Good question. I'll try to explain. It is a common hard SF trope to have primitive aliens > believing in some magical principle to understand some large, problematic issue in their lives. > Then some space-faring humans come in with their scientific knowledge and technology and use it > to fix the problem, often becoming "gods" along the way. We all get a good chuckle out of that. > This can be recognized as a remnant of the colonial/imperialist thinking here on earth. > > I think Wolfe has turned this formula on its head. On first reading, we see there are some > mystical explanations floating around Urth to explain Urth's dying sun. But as readers we > understand that stars have a lifespan and Urth's sun has simply arrived at the end of one. > So for most of the story we have a scientific explanation for Urth's condition in mind. > > Eventually, through the Green Man and Master Ash, we get the sense that there actually is > a solution to the dying sun. With Tzadkiel and Yesod and the white fountain cancelling out > the black hole we have the "scientific" solution to the problem. But it isn't human beings > using science who facilitate the solution. It is higher beings using what appears, even to > us readers, as some sort of divine power. > > What I am suggesting is that the premise of "hard SF" is that magic is the soft > explanation and science is the hard explanation. > > But what Wolfe is doing is suggesting that to a divine intelligence, science is a soft, magical > primitive way of understanding the universe. There is a harder, more comprehensive > understanding than science to those higher beings who can grasp it. > > So, I think, from Wolfe's own perspective, he is not really writing Fantasy/SF. He is writing > SF which takes "hard" to a new level and definition. As science is harder than magic, so Wolfe > feels there is a divine knowledge which is harder than science. (I don't mean to suggest Wolfe > is alone in taking this approach) > _______________________________________________ --- ### Lee Berman *30 Nov 2012, 18:03 · follows David Stockhoff* > Gerry Quinn: Actually, we learn the correct explanation from Dr. Talos's play, in the > second book. Being toward the end of the second book of the originally intended four, this puts the black hole explanation roughly at the mid-point. A first-time reader might conclude this is the "correct" explanation or might lump this theatrical explanation along with the other "sky gods are angry at us!" explanations. Still, a black hole remains a scientific explanation. Scientific explanations, such as evolution and Big Bang, rely on the default assumption that our universe is the product of purposeless, natural forces, not intelligent design. It isn't until the end of BotNS that we get a strong sense that this black hole might be the product of intelligent design. Thus, the black hole explanation is not "correct" in the sense that it is not complete. Purpose and intention are missing. I think this is Wolfe's admonition to us. Perhaps we feel secure in our purposeless, scientific explanations of the universe. But the possibility (perhaps certainty to him, as a religious man) remains that there is an intelligent purpose to the design of the universe, if only we were sufficiently advanced enough to perceive it. --- ### Lee Berman *30 Nov 2012, 18:10 · follows Lee Berman* A quick addendum to the last post: It may be that Wolfe's philosophy that attachment to the person of the Monarch is simultaneously the highest and lowest basis for governance is related to the science vs. magic understanding of the world. Perhaps Wolfe is saying the primitive who believes in magic sky gods who express their will through storms and earthquakes and other global effect are actually tapping into something true- a divine will that science is not privy to understanding. --- ### David Stockhoff *30 Nov 2012, 23:14 · in reply to Lee Berman* Definitely. > On 11/30/2012 1:10 PM, Lee Berman wrote: > A quick addendum to the last post: > > It may be that Wolfe's philosophy that attachment to the person of the Monarch is > simultaneously the highest and lowest basis for governance is related to the > science vs. magic understanding of the world. > > Perhaps Wolfe is saying the primitive who believes in magic sky gods who express their will > through storms and earthquakes and other global effect are actually tapping into something > true- a divine will that science is not privy to understanding. > _______________________________________________ --- ### Jeff Wilson *02 Dec 2012, 23:50 · in reply to DAVID STOCKHOFF* > On 11/29/2012 12:41 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote: > Exactly. And there's a related subgenre of space opera one could call > "(military) hardware porn," where the science is totally made up but the > technology is lovingly described. I don't know any names, but I've > flipped through a few at my local library. OK, there's post- Ringworld > Jerry Pournelle . . . Did Pournelle write any books before his friend Niven wrote RINGWORLD? ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com Computational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana < http://www.tamut.edu/CIL > ``` ---