Three recent Canadian hard SF novels
Rich Horton
Sawyer; Rollback, by Robert J. Sawyer
Here I consider three hard SF novels by Canadians -- and I note that I
will soon read another (Karl Schroeder's Queen of Candesce, now being
serialized in Analog) and that I anticipate sometime in the next year
or so yet another: Robert Charles Wilson's Axis, sequel to his Hugo
winning Spin.
In fact, the two most recent Hugo winning Science Fiction novels (as
opposed to fantasies) went to Canadians: Spin in 2006, and Robert J.
Sawyer's Hominids in 2003. Peter Watts's Blindsight would seem a
strong candidate for the Hugo this year. Other novels by Wilson (Blind
Lake and The Chronoliths) and Sawyer (Humans) have been Hugo
shortlisted in this century. (For that matter, Karl Schroeder's Sun of
Suns (prequel to Queen of Candesce) may also be a Hugo candidate this
year.) It seems that there is something going on these days in
Canadian SF. (One could add to the Canadian Hugo possibilities this
year another SF novel, Farthing by Jo Walton, but that is Alternate
History as opposed to hard SF.)
(One could also mention writers like James Alan Gardner and Sean
Stewart, but we haven't seen a lot from them lately, and Gardner's SF,
though fun and often interplanetary, is not particularly "hard", and
Stewart is generally a fantasist.)
Now to Blindsight, by Peter Watts. (Watts has previously published a
fairly well received series, the Rifters Trilogy, that became a
tetralogy when book 3 was split in half. I haven't read it myself.)
This new novel is told by Siri Keeton, member of an expedition to
investigate an anomaly in the far Oort cloud. It seems that Earth was
-- attacked? surveilled? -- by what people call "Fireflies", a rain of
probes that appeared one night. Several waves of probes are sent from
Earth to investigate, and Siri's ship, the Theseus, is the first
manned investigator. Five members awake when nearing a brown dwarf
that is apparently orbited by possibly alien devices.
The team members are a linguist, Susan James, who has (on purpose)
multiple personalities; Isaac Szpindel, a cybernetically enhanced
instrumentation specialist; Amanda Bates, a military specialist; and
the leader, Jukka Sarasti, a vampire; as well as Keeton, who is an
observer or intermediary -- there to translate the findings of the
variously enhanced team members to terms "normal" humans can
understand, and transmit them to Earth.
(Back a bit -- vampire? And this is hard SF? Yes -- Sarasti is a
genetically reconstructed member of an offshoot species of predators
from the dawn of humanity. Watts even works in the usefulness of
crosses against vampires.)
Their mission is to figure out what the alien "invaders" are up to.
And they do so by investigating a "big dumb object" they encounter
orbiting a brown subdwarf in the Oort. But this investigation is not
easy. On the one hand the "aliens", whoever or whatever they are, seem
to communicate readily. But on the other hand they don't say much of
real substance, and what they say isn't very welcoming. And direct
investigation of the object is difficult: the environment is radiation
drenched and otherwise terribly inhospitable, even when they aren't
getting attacked. But they persist -- and what they eventually learn
is very scary indeed.
The story also is concerned with the various natures of the main
characters. A lot of time is devoted to Siri Keeton's backstory: he
was an epileptic cured by having half his brain removed; his beloved
father was often absent on important spook business, while his
less-beloved mother was messing up his life and eventually retreating
to "Heaven", a virtual space for uploaded consciousnesses. Siri
himself, essentially sort of autistic, also has a difficult
relationship with a childhood friend and with his only ever
girlfriend. The point of all this, as with the shorter expositions of
what makes the other expedition members tick, leads eventually to the
real heart of the novel: examination of the nature and utility of
consciousness. And that is what makes the novel ultimately fascinating
-- the speculation, the ideas. In other words, it's "real SF", if
"real SF" is supposed to be about ideas. The characters, indeed, are
all fairly unpleasant. The action is interesting but not really
rousing. The prose is fine but not by itself any reason to read the
book. It's certainly not uplifting. But it is fascinating and full of
sense of wonder.
Robert J. Sawyer is a different matter. Certainly he is a very
successful SF writer in terms of awards -- and sales, too, I would
guess. And certainly his books address, on the face of it, quite
interesting ideas. But I find him for the most part extremely
irritating, because his books usually address those ideas in the most
annoying ways -- setting up strawmen to demolish, ignoring obvious
points, making quite sophomoric arguments, often making silly
scientific errors. His characters also tend to be quite flat, not to
act very much like humans, and to be given TV movie like crises to
deal with. There is also a tone to his books that I can only describe
as smugness.
(And, though usually -- certainly in these two books -- this is a
minor point, he can never resist the occasional gratuitous jab at the
U.S. -- often displaying ignorance about this country.)
Mindscan is another of his award winners -- rather inexplicably, to my
mind, it won the John W. Campbell Award for Best Novel. The central
idea here is upload to robotic bodies. Are such new bodies "human", in
a moral or legal sense? And what about the (in this book, still
living) "original"? Who gets the property?
Jake Sullivan is a very rich man -- heir to a beer fortune. He is also
ever guilty -- afraid he provoked his father's fatal stroke -- and
every afraid -- because he shares the genetic malformation that
actually led to his father's stroke. Thus he has spent his life afraid
of commitment to other people. Then a new process becomes available:
one can upload one's mind into a robotic body -- more of an android,
really, capable of most things normal bodies can do, though not all
(for example, sex: yes, but eating, pretty much no). It's very
expensive. Most people who choose the option are quite old, but Jake
jumps at it only in his 40s. The kicker is, the company doing the
process requires that the "new" person, the android, inherit the
identity of the "original", while the "original" is sent to the Moon,
to live out what will presumably be a short life -- in conditions of
luxury but isolation.
The new Jake quickly finds love, with Karen Bessarion, a fabulously
successful novelist (think J. K. Rowling). But Karen soon has a
problem -- her original body dies, and her son sues -- he argues that
his mother is dead, and he has a right to inherit her estate. But of
course the "new" Karen Bessarion feels she is the "real" Karen.
Jake himself represents the opposite side of the debate. His
"original" decides he isn't happy stuck on the Moon, especially when a
cure for his condition is found. He wants to reclaim is original life.
But that would cause problems for the new Jake.
This is, let's be clear, a fascinating setup. And it could address
some pretty interesting ideas. But Sawyer bungles the whole thing.
Partly, he doesn't consider some fairly elementary dodges to avoid
some of these legal problems -- the company offering the uploads could
arrange to be paid essentially the entire fortune of the original, but
hold it in some sort of trust to be dedicated to the support of the
original for the rest of its life, and also to the support of the
upload. I think such an arrangement would for the most part sidestep
the problem of heirs. But more than that, the basic idea at the core
is monstrous: the "original", Sawyer seems to think (or at least this
book seems to think -- Sawyer may not necessarily hold these ideas) is
really just so much worthless remnant garbage, kept alive in comfort
for convenience's sake, but not really a person. My goodness, how
horrifying! Of course these are still people! The book argues
eloquently enough for the "humanity" of the uploads -- I'm fine with
that -- but then totally dismisses any argument that the original is
also still human.
Add to these issues some more general plot and character issues. I was
never really convinced by Karen Bessarion's love affair with the new
Jake (the old Jake was plausibly messed up, could the new Jake really
be a better man so soon?). And the plot resolutions -- a hoary
courtroom drama plus a thoroughly unconvincing violent standoff with a
convenient conclusion -- just didn't work for me. Another frustrating
outing from Sawyer.
Given all that, I might have been expected to hate Sawyer's next
novel, just serialized in Analog: Rollback. (The book is due in April
-- I'm not sure how different it will be from the serial, though I
suspect the serial is cut somewhat.) But I didn't -- I rather enjoyed
it. This time around Sawyer tackles two venerable themes: rejuvenation
therapy, and alien contact via radio.
The protagonist is an aging CBC producer named Don. His wife, Sarah,
is much more famous: she decoded the first message from another story,
38 years before. Now a reply is expected, but Sarah is very old. An
entrepreneur thinks she ought to be around to hear the reply, and
offers her a chance for "rollback", a new rejuvenation technology. She
insists that Don get the same treatment. And all seems well -- except
that for some reason the treatment doesn't work on Sarah.
Well, that's a pretty good setup. Sawyer has a certain tendency
towards giving his characters "TV Movie" problems (divorce in one
book, cancer in another, rape in a third). This might be one such, but
it's pretty plausible, and thematically central -- this really is an
interesting dilemma -- two people who have had a long, faithful,
loving, marriage, offered a chance to in a sense start over much
younger. And for one of the two it doesn't work. The book treats the
issue predictably -- but mostly honestly -- Don feels plenty of guilt,
and much more so when his newly revived libido is tempted by a
beautiful young woman -- and Sarah is perhaps a bit more virtuous and
understanding than, say, I might have been, but not outrageously so.
Perhaps Don's new relationship works out somewhat more smoothly than
entirely plausible -- but the novel does suggest some plausible issues
...
The alien contact issue is not ignored, either. A new message does
arrive, and Sarah is key to deciphering it. Here I thought the novel
stumbled -- in essence it suggests that the aliens won't want to talk
to us unless we are pro-choice but not TOO pro-choice -- what utter
silliness. But the eventual notion of HOW the aliens want to continue
communication is pretty cute. (I admit, I thought of a further twist
that would have worked a bit better still, but that's just me.)
Rollback isn't a great novel by any means -- I wouldn't, shall we say,
nominate it for a Hugo or a Campbell -- but it's not bad. Better than
Mindscan, at any rate!
Dwib
> Books Considered: Blindsight, by Peter Watts; Mindscan, by Robert J.
> Sawyer; Rollback, by Robert J. Sawyer
I, too, was very disappointed in Dawyer's "MindScan". Too much of the
book was taken up by that courtroom trial which had some really stupid
theories about human consciousness. I mean, like, why focus so much
on this zombie theory when I'm sure there are many others out there.
Coming off the Neanderthal series, Mindscan was a real let down.
Dwib
Gene Ward Smith
> (Back a bit -- vampire? And this is hard SF? Yes
No. Vamps mean it isn't hard sf.
David DeLaney
So Ringworld is out, then?
Dave "just checking" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Rich Horton
DeLaney) wrote:
>Gene Ward Smith <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Jan 28, 4:43 pm, Rich Horton <rrhor...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>> (Back a bit -- vampire? And this is hard SF? Yes
>>
>>No. Vamps mean it isn't hard sf.
>
>So Ringworld is out, then?
>
>Dave "just checking" DeLaney
Well, I think BLINDSIGHT is considerably "harder" than RINGWORLD.
Which is not to say that some of the science in BLINDSIGHT might not
be a bit dodgy. But there is at least a decent stab at making the
vampires plausible ... more so than 99% of hard SF FTL drives, I'd
say.
Gene Ward Smith
> Gene Ward Smith <genewardsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 28, 4:43 pm, Rich Horton <rrhor...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >> (Back a bit -- vampire? And this is hard SF? Yes
>
> >No. Vamps mean it isn't hard sf.
>
> So Ringworld is out, then?
(1) Someone told you Ringworld was hard sf?
(2) Someone told you there were vamps in Ringworld?
Neither turns out to be the case.
Bryan Derksen
> (2) Someone told you there were vamps in Ringworld?
There aren't vamps _in_ "Ringworld", the book, but there are vamps _on_
Ringworld, the megastructure; they make an appearance in "Ringworld
Engineers" and are central to the plot of "Ringworld Throne" (haven't
read "Children" yet so I don't know if there are any in that one).
They're the nonsentient hominids that prey on other hominid species by
luring and disabling them with hypereffective sex pheromones.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<bryan....@shaw.ca> wrote:
>Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>> (2) Someone told you there were vamps in Ringworld?
>
>There aren't vamps _in_ "Ringworld", the book, but there are vamps _on_
>Ringworld, the megastructure; they make an appearance in "Ringworld
>Engineers" and are central to the plot of "Ringworld Throne" (haven't
>read "Children" yet so I don't know if there are any in that one).
There are. "Children" is actually worth reading, on a par with
"Engineers", in case you were completely put off by "Throne". I know I
would have been if I hadn't bought both at the same time.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
You're never too old to be childish
William December Starr
Rich Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> said:
[ re Robert J. Sawyer's ROLLBACK ]
> The protagonist is an aging CBC producer named Don. His wife,
> Sarah, is much more famous: she decoded the first message from
> another story,
Neat trick, that.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Gene Ward Smith
wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:53:21 GMT, Bryan Derksen
>
> >Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> >> (2) Someone told you there were vamps in Ringworld?
>
> >There aren't vamps _in_ "Ringworld", the book, but there are vamps _on_
> >Ringworld, the megastructure; they make an appearance in "Ringworld
> >Engineers" and are central to the plot of "Ringworld Throne" (haven't
> >read "Children" yet so I don't know if there are any in that one).
>
> There are. "Children" is actually worth reading, on a par with
> "Engineers", in case you were completely put off by "Throne". I know I
> would have been if I hadn't bought both at the same time.
Are not. None of those books is Ringworld, the book under discussion.
Michael Grosberg
wrote:
> On Jan 28, 4:43 pm, Rich Horton <rrhor...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> > (Back a bit -- vampire? And this is hard SF? Yes
>
> No. Vamps mean it isn't hard sf.
"Hard SF" may not mean what you think it means.
Gene Ward Smith
wrote:
If vampires + handwavium = hard science fiction, then the "hard" is
meaningless bullshit. Vampires are NOT hard science fiction. Get a
grip. Nor are magic computers which whisk you into parallel universes.
If Hominids is "hard science fiction", why isn't Laumer's The Great
Time Machine Hoax hard science fiction? Unless, of course, you think
it is, which I suppose is possible.
If you postulate that vampires have been around since the dawn of time
and evolved along with humans, you are running an old gag from fantasy
literature. The science window dressing does not make the idea "hard",
because the idea makes no sense scientifically. The classic book which
takes this approach with werewolves is Darker Than You Think, which
presumably, had it been written by a Canadian, would be "hard science
fiction."
This all makes me wonder if we need a new class: "Canadian-hard
science fiction." This is not hard science fiction written by a
Canadian, but science fiction which makes no sense scientifically but
which contains enough science-sounding bafflegab that many people are
willing to accept it as hard. A classic example of Canadian-hard
science fiction would be Protector.
Michael Grosberg
wrote:
> On Feb 27, 1:05 am, "Michael Grosberg" <grosberg.mich...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 30, 11:05 pm, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsm...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > No. Vamps mean it isn't hard sf.
>
> > "Hard SF" may not mean what you think it means.
>
> If vampires + handwavium = hard science fiction, then the "hard" is
> meaningless bullshit. Vampires are NOT hard science fiction. Get a
> grip. Nor are magic computers which whisk you into parallel universes.
> If Hominids is "hard science fiction", why isn't Laumer's The Great
> Time Machine Hoax hard science fiction? Unless, of course, you think
> it is, which I suppose is possible.
Haven't read anything of Sawyer so I can't comment on that but I
happen to really like Hal Clement's definition of hard SF as a game
between Authors and Readers. And even he contended that some
exceptions are allowed in Hard SF, such as FTL, and presumably
handwavium computers, if they get you there, wherever "there" is, so
you can concentrate on the science of your choice (Which I understand
is evolution in Sawyer's case).
Oh, and I have read _Blindsight_. The "Vampires" are a resurrected
human subspecies which, according to the books, went extinct around
the time the first cities were built by humans, and gave rise to the
legends of vampires. But they are not vampires in the classical sense:
They are not undead, whether they have a soul or not is not discussed,
and they cannot turn into a flock of bats. They are a predatory
species who need to consume a certain amount of human flesh or blood
due to an inability to synthesize a certain protein. They can
hibernate for long periods (which makes them seem to rise from the
dead). They are pale (the explanation for that is a bit farfetched) ,
and they have large incisors. Watts manages to explain these and other
"vampire" traits in science terms - even their fear of crosses. This
may not be valid science as in "this is actually true" but it's pretty
good hypothetical "this *could* be true" science.
The science may be shaky, but it's somewhat more rigorous than, say,
the biology of a Niven protector. Anyway, shaky science doesn't mean
it's not Hard SF - it just means us fans get to nitpick it to death.
Dan Goodman
My view: It doesn't mean anything these days. If a hard sf anthology
can include a Pern story...
--
Dan Goodman
All political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies.
John Arbuthnot (1667-1735), Scottish writer, physician.
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
future http://dangoodman.livejournal.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood
Gene Ward Smith
wrote:
> The science may be shaky, but it's somewhat more rigorous than, say,
> the biology of a Niven protector. Anyway, shaky science doesn't mean
> it's not Hard SF - it just means us fans get to nitpick it to death.
You're right--what you detailed is better than Protector. However,
(1) Even so it still makes no sense, and
(2) These things aren't vampires.
Why is it that hard science fiction is allowed to stray into the
region of the outright ludicrous, in your view? What makes it "hard",
then?
Charlton Wilbur
GWS> Why is it that hard science fiction is allowed to stray into
GWS> the region of the outright ludicrous, in your view? What
GWS> makes it "hard", then?
Physics-geek wannabes descend upon it and bicker over it until any
interest I might have had in reading it is completely sucked away.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net
Gene Ward Smith
> >>>>> "GWS" == Gene Ward Smith <genewardsm...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> GWS> Why is it that hard science fiction is allowed to stray into
> GWS> the region of the outright ludicrous, in your view? What
> GWS> makes it "hard", then?
>
> Physics-geek wannabes descend upon it and bicker over it until any
> interest I might have had in reading it is completely sucked away.
So far it's been all biology-geek wannabes.
Rich Horton
<genewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 27, 3:20 am, "Michael Grosberg" <grosberg.mich...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> The science may be shaky, but it's somewhat more rigorous than, say,
>> the biology of a Niven protector. Anyway, shaky science doesn't mean
>> it's not Hard SF - it just means us fans get to nitpick it to death.
>
>You're right--what you detailed is better than Protector. However,
>
>(1) Even so it still makes no sense, and
Well, probably, but it seemed a good try to me, and it wasn't central
to the book.
>(2) These things aren't vampires.
>
Yeah, so?
They are =called= vampires, so in a sense, yes they are. And they are
called vampires obviously because they have points of resemblance to
mythological vampires.
>Why is it that hard science fiction is allowed to stray into the
>region of the outright ludicrous, in your view? What makes it "hard",
>then?
One answer is -- if the "core" of the book, the main ideas addressed,
is not ludicrous, it's OK to have peripheral matters -- an FTL drive,
say, or one character described as a vampire and given a
half-plausible background to match -- that are less well grounded.
In the case of PROTECTOR, the silly biology is central to the book.
The nature vampires, as conceived of by Watts, is not central to
BLINDSIGHT.
Michael Grosberg
> On Feb 27, 3:20 am, "Michael Grosberg" <grosberg.mich...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The science may be shaky, but it's somewhat more rigorous than, say,
> > the biology of a Niven protector. Anyway, shaky science doesn't mean
> > it's not Hard SF - it just means us fans get to nitpick it to death.
>
> You're right--what you detailed is better than Protector. However,
>
> (1) Even so it still makes no sense, and
Actually, it does makes some sense. Watts has a bunch of degrees in
marine biology, and I suspect he knows something or other about the
subjects he's writing about. Watts' vampires make as much sense as
any alien in SF. You're not going to rule out aliens in general being
part of hard SF, I hope?
> (2) These things aren't vampires.
So does that make it hard SF after all?
> Why is it that hard science fiction is allowed to stray into the
> region of the outright ludicrous, in your view? What makes it "hard",
> then?
I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide the concept is ludicrous
without even reading the book. What makes hard SF hard is the focus on
science as a crucial part of the story (as opposed to set dressing or
a way to move an unrelated plot in other types of SF). And there is
plenty of science - but most of it is about biology and cognition, is
well researched (there is a rather extensive bibliography at the end
of the book) and raises interesting questions and frightening
possibilities about the possible nature of alien minds.
Do you think only physics and astronomy are valid subjects for hard
SF?
Gene Ward Smith
wrote:
> Actually, it does makes some sense. Watts has a bunch of degrees in
> marine biology, and I suspect he knows something or other about the
> subjects he's writing about.
Oh, please. If you want really grotesque scientific errors in science
fiction, no one does it better than a scientist. I can point to a
number of examples. Moreover, just because someone is a scientist does
not mean they take their handwavium seriously, and in fact often they
don't.
> Watts' vampires make as much sense as
> any alien in SF.
What utter nonsense. Many aliens in science fiction make sense on
evolutionary grounds. A predator which evolves from humans and preys
on them does not. That goes double if they have some weird genetic
defect.
If a biologist wrote a story where a species of tiger evolved which
preyed on tigers, and was forced to do so because they had some
genetic defect which made the flesh of tigers a requirement of their
diet, would you nod your head and coo in awe and wonder because, after
all, a biologist wrote it? Or would you perhaps notice that it was
idiotic if this species actually evolved, and wait for the evidence to
surface that a black monolith engineered them>
> You're not going to rule out aliens in general being
> part of hard SF, I hope?
You're not going to keep tossing out preposterous fallacies like this,
I hope? This is beyond pitiful.
> I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide the concept is ludicrous
> without even reading the book.
Yes I do. If it isn't ludicrous, explain why. People are always
writing things for which a one-paragraph synopsis suffices to reveal
it is ludicrous.
> Do you think only physics and astronomy are valid subjects for hard
> SF?
I think if it is obviously ludicrous, it ain't hard sf.
Niall Harrison
> On Feb 27, 11:35 pm, "Michael Grosberg" <grosberg.mich...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Actually, it does makes some sense. Watts has a bunch of degrees in
> > marine biology, and I suspect he knows something or other about the
> > subjects he's writing about.
>
> Oh, please. If you want really grotesque scientific errors in science
> fiction, no one does it better than a scientist. I can point to a
> number of examples. Moreover, just because someone is a scientist does
> not mean they take their handwavium seriously, and in fact often they
> don't.
Here are Watts' technical notes on Blindsight, complete with vampires:
http://www.rifters.com/real/shorts.htm
I'm sure he'd appreciate your critique.
Niall
Gene Ward Smith
> Here are Watts' technical notes on Blindsight, complete with vampires:
>
> http://www.rifters.com/real/shorts.htm
>
> I'm sure he'd appreciate your critique.
My critique is that this is funny stuff, in the same way Thiotimoline
is funny stuff, but if you think Watts is taking it seriously then you
are off your gourd. This reminds me of Brin's use of that useful
element, Bolonium. Because someone puts Bolonium in their fiction
(note that word, "fiction", it is important) does not mean they think
it is plausible extrapolation from known science. If you look at
Stephan Zielinski's Bad Magic you will find something very similar to
these technical notes. I'd be curious to hear if thinks Bad Magic is
hard sf, and am also interested if someone thinks there really is some
kind of difference between Zielinski's appendix and Watts' appendix.
Niall Harrison
> > Here are Watts' technical notes on Blindsight, complete with vampires:
> >
> > http://www.rifters.com/real/shorts.htm
> >
> > I'm sure he'd appreciate your critique.
>
> My critique is that this is funny stuff, in the same way Thiotimoline
> is funny stuff, but if you think Watts is taking it seriously then you
> are off your gourd.
You realise that -- with the exception of the 90 minute presentation --
all of Watts' 144 citations are real, right? Which was not the case with
Asimov's Thiotimoline articles and -- I'm guessing -- is not the case
with the appendix of _Bad Magic_.
Does Watts think his vampires could really exist? I don't know: I'm
guessing he knows enough biochemistry to spot the flaws in his
construction. But if "taking it seriously" means "trying to make the
vampires as plausible an extrapolation from known biology as possible",
then Watts took it seriously, even if only out of stubbornness.
See, for instance, this interview:
http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/2006/12/peter-watts-interview.html
[quote]
And of course there are the vampires. That was just a kind of
intellectual wank for my own amusement: I wanted to see if I could take
one of the most absurd and unjustifiable creatures ever to spring from
myth, and plausibly handwave a scientific justification for all those
absurd elements. Again, I wasn't really shattering a convention
(although I was definitely poking it with a stick and laughing at its
discomfort); I was reinforcing the standard mythology using biological
rationales. I didn't know if I'd be able to pull it off until I came up
with the Crucifix Glitch; after that it was, Hah! Bring it on!
[/quote]
My biochemistry stops at Master's level, but I think he made a decent
fist of it. And, of course, as Rich said, the vampires are a grace note,
anyway; they dovetail nicely with the rest of the book's ideas and
themes, but the book does not *depend* on them.
Niall
Gene Ward Smith
> You realise that -- with the exception of the 90 minute presentation --
> all of Watts' 144 citations are real, right?
You realize that (a) this is totally irrelevant and (b) most of them
are not about the vampires anyway.
> Does Watts think his vampires could really exist? I don't know: I'm
> guessing he knows enough biochemistry to spot the flaws in his
> construction.
I imagine he knows enough evolutionary biology to know why the whole
idea is raving lunacy if you insist on taking it seriously. He gives a
hilariously weird explanation for the ancient legend that vampires are
averse to crosses, and of course there is no such ancient legend. I
presume Watts knows some of the "ancient legends" we have about
vampires, including cross-phobia, were the product of the fertile
imagination of Bram Stoker. But he doesn't let that stop him from
"explaining" it "scientifically".
> And of course there are the vampires. That was just a kind of
> intellectual wank for my own amusement: I wanted to see if I could take
> one of the most absurd and unjustifiable creatures ever to spring from
> myth, and plausibly handwave a scientific justification for all those
> absurd elements. Again, I wasn't really shattering a convention
> (although I was definitely poking it with a stick and laughing at its
> discomfort); I was reinforcing the standard mythology using biological
> rationales. I didn't know if I'd be able to pull it off until I came up
> with the Crucifix Glitch; after that it was, Hah! Bring it on!
In other words, he is laughing himself sick and you aren't getting the
joke.
Whatever it is, it's not hard-sf. Maybe there should be a another word
or phrase for what it is--for attempts to rationalize the ludicrous
carried above and beyone the call of duty. But I suppose if a
scientist were to write about Superman and explained everything that
would be hard-sf in some minds also.
Wayne Throop
: I presume Watts knows some of the "ancient legends" we have about
: vampires, including cross-phobia, were the product of the fertile
: imagination of Bram Stoker. But he doesn't let that stop him from
: "explaining" it "scientifically".
I prefer Saberhagen's explanation: Dracula is an honorable, Christan
fellow, and reluctant to offend. So he stops if you thrust a cross
in his face rather than tear your arm off at the shoulder and beat
you over the head with it. (Well... more or less, sort of.)
He just has anger management issues and a rather older-than-ususal
set of social norms he adheres to.
Of course there are also the magical restrictions in Sabergagen, like
entering a residence. But those are explained as flat-out magic. Which
is probably as it should be. While the "enter a residence" thing would
be better explained in like fashion, as politeness, they needed several
firm restrictions for plot purposes, so there you go.
If you have "scientific vampires", and vampire legends are due to them,
you have to discard most of the lurid folk stories, and are left with
perhaps photophobia, deathly appearance, strength, and blood-lust to
explain, and not much else. The "much else" being "exagerations for
legend-building purposes". This has the advantage that you can work
in a version of the Zelazny "they're not demons" lecture somewhere,
which is always a nice touch.
Well... there's also the Hambly "Those Who Hunt the Night" method,
which is that most of their *really* amazing capabilities (and much of
their seeming physical superiority) are "cloud men's minds"
only-the-shadow-knows deals, and the restrictions are mostly
nonexistant. Which is OK in its way, but of course borders on
psi-flavored supernatural. Hm. I wonder if the "donnersprache"
devices, as used in [yasid] and Spider Robinson's "lady slings the
booze" stories, woud make it more plausible, or less. Vampires having a
naturally evolved version of same. Could explain Bene Gesserit command
voice, too.
But I digress.
The ladies were too kinds,
You'v been... thunderstruck
--- AC-DC
( Of course, the webcomic "Thunderstruck" has vampires, too,
but that's not important now. )
"Then the one called Raltariki is really a demon?"
"If by 'demon' you mean a malefic, supernatural creature, possessed
of great powers, life span and the ability to temporarily assume
virtually any shape -- then the answer is no. This is the generally
accepted definition, but it is untrue in one respect."
"Oh? And what may that be?"
"It is not a supernatural creature."
"But it is all those other things?"
"Yes."
"Then I fail to see what difference it makes [...]"
--- Tak and Yama, in Lord of Light
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Gene Ward Smith
> If you have "scientific vampires", and vampire legends are due to them,
> you have to discard most of the lurid folk stories, and are left with
> perhaps photophobia, deathly appearance, strength, and blood-lust to
> explain, and not much else.
I don't think you need to explain photophobia, deathly appearence, or
strength. Can you cite an earlier source than Stoker for any of these?
You *do* need to explain the
undead-zombie aspect, but that tocuhes on the problem that a lot of
what you might call vampire legends could also be considered zombies,
ghouls, or ghosts.
What I want explained is how a mass of genetic defects, which is how
Watts decribes his vampires, is able to survive, florish, and evolve.
Those things were a mess. If they could manage a second generation I'd
be surprised; most likely they all end up dead and rather quickly.
Wayne Throop
:: them, you have to discard most of the lurid folk stories, and are
:: left with perhaps photophobia, deathly appearance, strength, and
:: blood-lust to explain, and not much else.
: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com>
: I don't think you need to explain photophobia, deathly appearence, or
: strength. Can you cite an earlier source than Stoker for any of
: these? You *do* need to explain the undead-zombie aspect, but that
: tocuhes on the problem that a lot of what you might call vampire
: legends could also be considered zombies, ghouls, or ghosts.
Good point; I'm not sure just how much was in the pre-stoker legends.
And if vampires are zombies, then we must decide whether the pre-stoker
lore had them as fast-zombies, or slow-zombies.
In any event, yes, you might end up having very little to explain indeed.
: What I want explained is how a mass of genetic defects, which is how
: Watts decribes his vampires, is able to survive, florish, and evolve.
: Those things were a mess. If they could manage a second generation
: I'd be surprised; most likely they all end up dead and rather quickly.
True, I'd expect a contageous disease of some sort would be easier
to carry off as in a "scientific vampire" yarn.
Gene Ward Smith
> True, I'd expect a contageous disease of some sort would be easier
> to carry off as in a "scientific vampire" yarn.
I still think genetic engineering, probably by visting aliens, is the
only hope here.
Niall Harrison
> > You realise that -- with the exception of the 90 minute presentation --
> > all of Watts' 144 citations are real, right?
>
> You realize that (a) this is totally irrelevant and (b) most of them
> are not about the vampires anyway.
...
Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a
middle.
Elsewhere, you wrote:
> What I want explained is how a mass of genetic defects, which is how
> Watts decribes his vampires, is able to survive, florish, and evolve.
> Those things were a mess. If they could manage a second generation I'd
> be surprised; most likely they all end up dead and rather quickly.
Tell you what, when you've actually read the book we can continue this
conversation, at which point I'll give your opinion the time and weight
it deserves.
Niall
Gene Ward Smith
> Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a
> middle.
Translation: I haven't got an argument, so I'll try for a witticism.
> Tell you what, when you've actually read the book we can continue this
> conversation, at which point I'll give your opinion the time and weight
> it deserves.
You fraud--I *have* read his notes, which purportedly explain his
concept. If you want to admit defeat and retire from the field, have
the moral courage to do that without this dishonest sniveling.
Sean O'Hara
Smith declared:
> On Feb 27, 1:05 am, "Michael Grosberg" <grosberg.mich...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
> If vampires + handwavium = hard science fiction, then the "hard" is
> meaningless bullshit. Vampires are NOT hard science fiction.
What's scientifically implausible about the vampires in I am Legend?
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
The Doctor: Don't you think you're being rather high-handed, young
man? You thought you saw a young girl enter the yard, you imagine
you heard her voice, you believe she might be in there. Not very
substantial, is it?
-Doctor Who
Gene Ward Smith
> In the Year of the Golden Pig, the Great and Powerful Gene Ward
> Smith declared:
>
> > On Feb 27, 1:05 am, "Michael Grosberg" <grosberg.mich...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > If vampires + handwavium = hard science fiction, then the "hard" is
> > meaningless bullshit. Vampires are NOT hard science fiction.
>
> What's scientifically implausible about the vampires in I am Legend?
Are you claiming that's hard science fiction? If not, I don't see your
point.
A disease which scrambles your brain is hardly likely to make you
afraid of mirrors and crosses. It certainly will not grant you
immunity to bullets. And how does it manage to render sunlight so
toxic?
Wayne Throop
: A disease which scrambles your brain is hardly likely to make you
: afraid of mirrors and crosses. It certainly will not grant you
: immunity to bullets. And how does it manage to render sunlight so
: toxic?
Phototoxicity is the easiest to explain.
http://www.solarlight.com/applications/phototoxicity.html
Phototoxicity is a type of photosensitivity. There are over three
dozen diseases, two dozen drugs, and several perfume and cosmetic
components that can cause photosensitivity. There are also several
different types of reaction to sunlight--phototoxicity,
photoallergy, and polymorphous light eruption.
Phototoxicity is a severely exaggerated reaction to sunlight caused
by a new chemical in the skin. The primary symptom is sunburn,
which is rapid and can be severe enough to blister to a second
degree burn. The chemicals associated with phototoxicity are
usually drugs. The list includes several common antibiotics
quinolones, sulfonamides, and tetracyclines; diuretics (water
pills); major tranquilizers; oral diabetes medication; and cancer
medicines. There are also some dermatologic drugs, both topical and
oral, that can sensitize skin.
I know a person who had always been slow to sunburn, and was able to go
putter around in the garden for long periods of time (longer than
me, anyways), started taking some drug or other, and became unable to
stay in sunlight without a sunshade for more than 5 minutes before
getting a severe burn.
Some forms of phototoxicity are genetic, so a virus that carries
apprpriate genes would plausibly work without even needing a bacteria
to manufacture a toxin.
So a disease that modifies perception of pain, speeds some forms of healing,
causes phototoxicity and a pale complexion, and psychological disturbances
leading to (among other things) ... uhm... sanguinary eccentricity,
doesn't seem all that incredible to me. Not *likely*, mind you, but still.
Gene Ward Smith
> So a disease that modifies perception of pain, speeds some forms of healing,
> causes phototoxicity and a pale complexion, and psychological disturbances
> leading to (among other things) ... uhm... sanguinary eccentricity,
> doesn't seem all that incredible to me. Not *likely*, mind you, but still.
So are you voting for I Am Legend as hard science fiction? It does
seem like a more plausible candidate than Blindsight.
Wayne Throop
:: healing, causes phototoxicity and a pale complexion, and
:: psychological disturbances leading to (among other things) ...
:: uhm... sanguinary eccentricity, doesn't seem all that incredible to
:: me. Not *likely*, mind you, but still.
: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com>
: So are you voting for I Am Legend as hard science fiction? It does
: seem like a more plausible candidate than Blindsight.
No, just commenting on the counterrationale. I don't remember the
properties of vampires in IAL well enough; I didn't find them horrid,
but I wasn't really reading it with an eye to plausibility at all.
I didn't find it very plausible.
I think one *could* come up with "scientific vampires" with a few
of the key properties of stokerian vampires (but only a few, and not
so exageratedly). Phototoxicity is the least of the problems to
overcome, as long as it isn't the "burst into flames and collapse
into a small residue of ash" sort of phototoxicity.
Gene Ward Smith
> I think one *could* come up with "scientific vampires" with a few
> of the key properties of stokerian vampires (but only a few, and not
> so exageratedly). Phototoxicity is the least of the problems to
> overcome, as long as it isn't the "burst into flames and collapse
> into a small residue of ash" sort of phototoxicity.
I don't recall I Am Legend well enough to know what kind of
phototoxicity we are talking about, but I think it was fairly extreme--
worse than Dracula's, at any rate, which didn't amout to much. The
reason is one of the points is that the narrator is a terrifying
daywalker, and hard to deal with since he can (gasp!) go out in the
noonday sun.
Bill Snyder
wrote:
George R R Martin, back before he went over to the dark side, did a
fair job of handling this intelligently in _Fevre Dream_.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Wayne Throop
: I don't recall I Am Legend well enough to know what kind of
: phototoxicity we are talking about, but I think it was fairly extreme--
: worse than Dracula's, at any rate, which didn't amout to much. The
: reason is one of the points is that the narrator is a terrifying
: daywalker, and hard to deal with since he can (gasp!) go out in the
: noonday sun.
With the mad dogs and Englishmen?
Well, you have to admit that's scary.
"Crusnik 02 nanobots 80 percent power-up..."
--- Father Abel Nightroad (scientific vampire)
(I may have the phrasing wrong there... hrm)
"Atomic batteries to power, turbines to speed..."
--- Robin
Rich Horton
>Michael Grosberg wrote:
>
>> On Jan 30, 11:05 pm, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsm...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Jan 28, 4:43 pm, Rich Horton <rrhor...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > (Back a bit -- vampire? And this is hard SF? Yes
>> >
>> > No. Vamps mean it isn't hard sf.
>>
>> "Hard SF" may not mean what you think it means.
>
>My view: It doesn't mean anything these days. If a hard sf anthology
>can include a Pern story...
Just for what it's worth, Norman Spinrad's column in the April/May
Asimov's is about several recent Hard SF novels, and he includes
BLINDSIGHT as a major example.
Perhaps it's not worth that much, as he also included HORIZONS,
complete with the really silly evolutionary stuff in that ...