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).
2 quoted lines
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
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.
12 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>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
_______________________________________________
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>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
_______________________________________________
That's a wonderful thought, Antonin! Is this feasible? (Both generally and in the text?)
-DOJP
17 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
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 <severiansola at hotmail.com>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
_______________________________________________
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.
22 quoted lines · 1–4 deep
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 <severiansola at hotmail.com>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
_______________________________________________
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<http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/06/spiders.html>for themselves to travel underwater?
24 quoted lines · 1–5 deep
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:21 AM, 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 <
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 <severiansola at hotmail.com>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
_______________________________________________
I agree with him too. But Urth is still not "hard SF."
18 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
________________________________
From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
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 <severiansola at hotmail.com> 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
_______________________________________________
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
56 quoted lines
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
<kierkegaurdian at gmail.com <mailto: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
<severiansola at hotmail.com <mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com>> 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
_______________________________________________
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 <soloviev at irit.fr> wrote:
From: Sergei SOLOVIEV <soloviev at irit.fr>
Subject: Re: (urth) Hard SF
To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
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
41 quoted lines
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
<kierkegaurdian at gmail.com <mailto: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
? ???<severiansola at hotmail.com <mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com>> 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 <mailto:urth at urth.net> ? ? ? ???Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
? ???_______________________________________________
? ???Urth Mailing List
? ???To post, write urth at urth.net <mailto: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
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
73 quoted lines
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 <http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/06/spiders.html> for themselves to travel underwater?
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com <mailto: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
<danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com
<mailto: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 <mailto: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
<severiansola at hotmail.com
<mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com>> 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
_______________________________________________
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
107 quoted lines
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 /<soloviev at irit.fr>/ wrote:
From: Sergei SOLOVIEV <soloviev at irit.fr>
Subject: Re: (urth) Hard SF
To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
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
> <kierkegaurdian at gmail.com
<http://us.mc1607.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=kierkegaurdian at gmail.com>
<mailto:kierkegaurdian at gmail.com
<http://us.mc1607.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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
> <severiansola at hotmail.com
<http://us.mc1607.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=severiansola at hotmail.com>
<mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com
<http://us.mc1607.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=severiansola at hotmail.com>>>
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
> _______________________________________________
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
24 quoted lines · 1–5 deep
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 <
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 <severiansola at hotmail.com>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
_______________________________________________
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.
75 quoted lines
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 <mailto: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
<danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com
<mailto: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 <mailto: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
<severiansola at hotmail.com
<mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com>> 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
_______________________________________________
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.
50 quoted lines
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 <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
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
<severiansola at hotmail.com <mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com>> 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
_______________________________________________
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
78 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:51 PM, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net>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<mailto: 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
<danielottojackpetersen at gmail.**com<danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>
<mailto:danielottojackpetersen**@gmail.com<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 <mailto:kierkegaurdian at gmail.**com<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
<severiansola at hotmail.com
<mailto:severiansola at hotmail.**com <severiansola at hotmail.com>>> 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
______________________________**_________________
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
30 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:55 PM, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net>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 <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com><danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> <urth at lists.urth.net>
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 <severiansola at hotmail.com>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
_______________________________________________
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.
4 quoted lines
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 <http://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 Nov 28, 2012, at 5:02 PM, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> 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 <http://s.f.er>, but I don't know if his worldview affects the writing of his fiction at a sort of methodological
-DOJP
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
14 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
On Nov 28, 2012, at 5:02 PM, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> 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 <http://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 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 ;)
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:
22 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
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 <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
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 <severiansola at hotmail.com> 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
_______________________________________________
You're right! That makes more sense. This Robinson is a /damned anarchist./
15 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
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 <dstockhoff at verizon.net> 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 <http://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
_______________________________________________
Yes, I agree. Science realism is after all impossible, if you are proposing scientific impossibilities such as FTL.
7 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
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:
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.
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.
2 quoted lines
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
10 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
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.
-es. -es.
(Whereas the o-acute is a matter of detail.)
3 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
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'.
4 quoted lines
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).
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.
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.
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
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
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.
19 quoted lines · 1–3 deep
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote:
From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net>
> 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
_______________________________________________
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 . . .
12 quoted lines
________________________________
From: Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
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 <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.
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.
Totally. I'm not sure why, then, you would classify Urth as "driven by a scientific premise."
14 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
________________________________
From: Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>
To: "urth at urth.net" <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. ??? ??? ??? ? ??? ??? ?
_______________________________________________
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:41 AM, DAVID STOCKHOFF <dstockhoff at verizon.net>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.
Clarke was also something of an atheistic mystic, particularly visible in stories like "Against the Fall of Night/The City and the Stars."
3 quoted lines
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:49 AM, DAVID STOCKHOFF <dstockhoff at verizon.net>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.
_______________________________________________
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 >
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.
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?
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
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)
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.
2 quoted lines
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.
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.
15 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
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)
_______________________________________________
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.
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.
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.
_______________________________________________
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 >
Urth Net