Hard SF

Daniel Petersen · 29 Nov 2012, 16:34 · from 2012-November.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com (Daniel Petersen)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:34:48 +0000
Subject: (urth) Hard SF
In-Reply-To: <50B6D48B.1050800 at verizon.net>
References: <SNT123-W51C23DE417511A76E93303CF5D0 at phx.gbl>
	<CAGB0RZ6-Zg0AMVwFt=KEA-H38Xg5aUQJadq32C9oNC3qxDC-Bw at mail.gmail.com>
	<1354122262.68401.YahooMailNeo at web84513.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<50B69648.5090405 at verizon.net>
	<41B2AA23-B918-4FBE-830C-52F357BB7409 at gmail.com>
	<50B6D48B.1050800 at verizon.net>
Message-ID: <CAGB0RZ69y8deScNzX7vX2gPJQ_v80T0vss9-2ScKr-e+7eTMiA at mail.gmail.com>

David Stockhoff, you're first paragraph made me 'LOL' as they say (in spite
of its wrong Robinson).


David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> 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 <dstockhoff at verizon.net>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<mailto:
>> 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:
>>>
>>>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>



-- 
Daniel Otto Jack Petersen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20121129/b265a79a/attachment.htm>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net