Good newer hard SF?
Bill Johnston
Larry Niven, some Heinlein and Poul Anderson (roughly in that order).
I've read some newerish authors (mainly Greg Bear, Kim Stanley
Robinson, Gregory Benford) but I was curious as to what other
suggestions people might have.
Jacey Bedford
<c64fb49e-4484-4dd8...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Bill
Johnston <wacke...@yahoo.com> writes
Al Reynolds.
Charlie Stross
Jacey
--
Jacey Bedford
Sean O'Hara
declared:
>
> Charlie Stross
>
Which of his books qualify as hard-SF? Everything I've read by him
has involved magic followed by "blah-blah-blah post-singularity.
Blah-blah-blah nanotech" to explain why it's not really magic. Or
people who can hop between Earth and a fantasy world, but trust me
it's science fiction, really.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://www.diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
New audio book: As Long as You Wish by John O'Keefe
<http://librivox.org/short-science-fiction-collection-010/>
Wayne Throop
: Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com>
: Which of his books qualify as hard-SF? Everything I've read by him
: has involved magic followed by "blah-blah-blah post-singularity.
: Blah-blah-blah nanotech" to explain why it's not really magic. Or
: people who can hop between Earth and a fantasy world, but trust me
: it's science fiction, really.
Saturn's Children. Spung.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Kim DeVaughn
> I really like a lot of older hard SF, such as Arthur C Clarke, Asimov,
> Larry Niven, some Heinlein and Poul Anderson (roughly in that order).
Me too, though I was never too fond of Poul Anderson, and I'd move
Clarke a bit lower in the pecking order ...
> I've read some newerish authors (mainly Greg Bear, Kim Stanley
> Robinson, Gregory Benford) but I was curious as to what other
> suggestions people might have.
Just off the top of my head, and in no particular order (except
for JPH):
o James P. Hogan (his first ~10-12 novels, before he went
techno-thriller)
o Robert L. Forward (sadly, no longer with us)
o Kevin J. Anderson
o Roger MacBride Allen
o Michael McCollum
o Timothy Zahn
o Michael P. Kube-McDowell
Except for JPH, I can't say I've read anything terribly recent
by any of these authors, so I'm really talking about their works
fron the 1980s & 1990s -- you may have to find them in the used
book stores (fabulous places, they are).
Enjoy ...!
/kim
--
============================================================================
"I sometimes think quantum mechanics is caused by scientists catching
God in a contradiction, and God quickly hacking something together to
hide the fact that he's just making it up as he goes along." --MCV
Mike Dworetsky
Peter F Hamilton
Iain M Banks
Ken MacLeod
Mike Resnick
David Brin
John Scalzi
John Varley
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Stewart Robert Hinsley
<c64fb49e-4484-4dd8...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Bill
Johnston <wacke...@yahoo.com> writes
Greg Egan
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Michael Grosberg
Accelerando.
Michael Grosberg
Peter Watts, but the science is more biology and neurology than
physics.
Anthony Nance
Neither of these are new, but just in case you're unaware of them:
Hal Clement
Charles Sheffield
Sheffield was still publishing stuff until he passed away in 2002.
- Tony
Spiros Bousbouras
Kim DeVaughn <kimm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "I sometimes think quantum mechanics is caused by scientists catching
> God in a contradiction, and God quickly hacking something together to
> hide the fact that he's just making it up as he goes along." --MCV
Ok , this is OOT but I'm curious , this is a great quote so who's MCV ?
Remus Shepherd
> Bill Johnston wrote:
> > I really like a lot of older hard SF, such as Arthur C Clarke, Asimov,
> > Larry Niven, some Heinlein and Poul Anderson (roughly in that order).
> > I've read some newerish authors (mainly Greg Bear, Kim Stanley
> > Robinson, Gregory Benford) but I was curious as to what other
> > suggestions people might have.
> Peter F Hamilton
Hamilton is not a good writer, and despite his background as a physicist
his written sci-fi isn't very hard.
> Iain M Banks
Banks' writing is squishy-soft.
> Ken MacLeod
> Mike Resnick
> David Brin
> John Scalzi
All of these are recommended. (Although I haven't read enough of Scalzi
to tell how 'hard' his writing is.)
> John Varley
I love Varley, but I wouldn't place him in the 'hard sci-fi' camp.
I'll second another poster's recommendation of Peter Watts -- he's a
bit depressing but very good and has rigorous biology.
And...I don't believe I'm doing this...you might enjoy China Mieville.
He does *not* write science fiction, but instead has more of a 'hard
steampunk' vibe: He makes detailed worlds that follow rigorous principles,
just principles of a fictional kind of science.
... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/remus_shepherd/
James Nicoll
Rosemary Kirstein's Steerswoman series starts off looking
like fantasy but is about the development of science on a [spoiler].
I know he's an older author and also dead but hard SF readers
should check out Hal Clement.
There's always Donald Moffitt. He never does the math, though,
so his stuff is more of a how not to do it example. He's one of the people
who thinks you can extract material from Jupiter using only a large
straw and Jupiter's atmospheric pressure.
There's Mile Brotherton, who has only two books out thus far:
STAR SPIDER and STAR DRAGON (set in different universes). STAR DRAGON
is available for download under a Creative Commons license:
http://www.mikebrotherton.com/?page_id=8
There's Wil McCarthy, who's concentrating on speculative research
these days.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Chuk Goodin
wrote:
>> Ken MacLeod
>> Mike Resnick
>> David Brin
>> John Scalzi
>
> All of these are recommended. (Although I haven't read enough of Scalzi
>to tell how 'hard' his writing is.)
I would have to class his OLD MAN'S WAR and sequels as more space opera
than hard SF, although they do have some tech involved. But definitely
still recommended.
>> John Varley
>
> I love Varley, but I wouldn't place him in the 'hard sci-fi' camp.
He has some science-oriented stuff, like stories where he'll postulate
some magical tech (like nullfields) and then look at some possible
consequences, but he does usually have at least a few concepts that are
pretty soft.
--
chuk
Louann Miller
960f88...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> I've read some newerish authors (mainly Greg Bear, Kim Stanley
> Robinson, Gregory Benford)
I sometimes think there's something wrong with a field where authors who
are staring Social Security in the face count as newish.
Christopher Henrich
<c64fb49e-4484-4dd8...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Johnston <wacke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Alastair Reynolds seems to me to have a reasonably "hard" SF approach.
G. David Nordley, in his serial _To Climb a Flat Mountain_, combines
"hard" implementation with an impressively optimistic spirit.
--
Christopher J. Henrich
chen...@monmouth.com
http://www.mathinteract.com
"A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver." -- Boon
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> Charlie Stross
>>
>
>Which of his books qualify as hard-SF? Everything I've read by him
>has involved magic followed by "blah-blah-blah post-singularity.
>Blah-blah-blah nanotech" to explain why it's not really magic. Or
>people who can hop between Earth and a fantasy world, but trust me
>it's science fiction, really.
_Saturn's Children_ has a half-dozen different realistic means of
space propulsion. These days, I suppose that qualifies as hard. (No
FTL).
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>I would have to class his OLD MAN'S WAR and sequels as more space opera
>than hard SF, although they do have some tech involved. But definitely
>still recommended.
Usually when someone who doesn't know SF asks for "Hard Science
Fiction", that person is asking for space opera. It's the
psychological and new age stuff he wants to avoid.
Not always, but most of the time.
Joseph Nebus
>On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:58:45 -0500, Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>> Charlie Stross
>>
>>Which of his books qualify as hard-SF? Everything I've read by him
>>has involved magic followed by "blah-blah-blah post-singularity.
>>Blah-blah-blah nanotech" to explain why it's not really magic. Or
>>people who can hop between Earth and a fantasy world, but trust me
>>it's science fiction, really.
>_Saturn's Children_ has a half-dozen different realistic means of
>space propulsion. These days, I suppose that qualifies as hard. (No
>FTL).
As opposed to the old days when you just needed one slower-
and one faster-than-light drive.
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Well, there's also some of us who were hitting middle age when we
STARTED, so to get the careers of some of the oldsters (Jack Vance,
anyone?) we'll have to live to 150.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Andrew Plotkin
> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Jacey Bedford
> declared:
> >
> >
>
> Which of his books qualify as hard-SF? Everything I've read by him
> has involved magic followed by "blah-blah-blah post-singularity.
> Blah-blah-blah nanotech" to explain why it's not really magic. Or
> people who can hop between Earth and a fantasy world, but trust me
> it's science fiction, really.
If the world they were hopping to were a science-fiction world, in
what way would it differ?
Here, Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> I'll second another poster's recommendation of Peter Watts -- he's a
> bit depressing but very good and has rigorous biology.
Rigorous? It's the biology equivalent of hyperdrive -- just enough
science terminology to sound good, with random Cool Science Facts
sprinkled on top, built on a firm^H^H^H^H foundation of sleight-of-pen
cheerfully employed to make the story go wherever Watts wants it.
Watts *admits* this.
(I am speaking of _Blindsight_ here, since that's the only Watts I've
read. But, really, crucifix hack? Rigorous? Watts is playing exactly
the same game Larry Niven did, only the science articles he's working
on are forty years later and in somewhat different fields.)
This is not an anti-recommendation of _Blindsight_. If I were to
anti-recommend that book, I'd talk about the parts which are (as you
note) a bit depressing, and how they act as brief respites from the
parts that are seriously fucking bleak.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
David DeLaney
> Bill Johnston <wacke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I really like a lot of older hard SF, such as Arthur C Clarke, Asimov,
>> Larry Niven, some Heinlein and Poul Anderson (roughly in that order).
>> I've read some newerish authors (mainly Greg Bear, Kim Stanley
>> Robinson, Gregory Benford) but I was curious as to what other
>> suggestions people might have.
>
>Alastair Reynolds seems to me to have a reasonably "hard" SF approach.
>
>G. David Nordley, in his serial _To Climb a Flat Mountain_, combines
>"hard" implementation with an impressively optimistic spirit.
Are we counting Vernor Vinge as "hard" this week, or not?
Dave "and what about Moran, to bring up one of my obsessions?" 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.
Mike Dworetsky
Given the OP's list of authors he has read, I offered a list of authors he
might enjoy that hadn't been mentioned yet. Usually I take such requests to
mean, "Please, no magic or swords and sorcery stuff."
I do read Mieville, I enjoy his excellent writing and imagination, but it
isn't exactly "hard" SF, in some ways it is more like "magic". But on the
assumption that the OP will like nearly anything I like, yes, add him to the
list.
Mike Dworetsky
> Christopher Henrich <chen...@monmouth.com> wrote:
>> Bill Johnston <wacke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I really like a lot of older hard SF, such as Arthur C Clarke,
>>> Asimov, Larry Niven, some Heinlein and Poul Anderson (roughly in
>>> that order). I've read some newerish authors (mainly Greg Bear, Kim
>>> Stanley Robinson, Gregory Benford) but I was curious as to what
>>> other suggestions people might have.
>>
>> Alastair Reynolds seems to me to have a reasonably "hard" SF
>> approach.
>>
>> G. David Nordley, in his serial _To Climb a Flat Mountain_, combines
>> "hard" implementation with an impressively optimistic spirit.
>
> Are we counting Vernor Vinge as "hard" this week, or not?
Going on the assumption that the OP will like anything I like in the
"hardish" SF vein, then yes, add Vinge to the list, starting with his _A
Fire Upon the Deep_ and _A Deepness in the Sky_.
>
> Dave "and what about Moran, to bring up one of my obsessions?" DeLaney
--
Kim DeVaughn
Heh. I wish I knew. IIRC, I *think* I stole it from someone's sig (who
was not the article's poster) in one of the sci.physics.* or possibly
r.a.sf.science NGs. I'd like to give the author full credit for a great
thought, but for now MCV's the best I can do ...
Glad you liked it!
/kim
--
"The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that
cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong
goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair."
--Douglas Adams
Juho Julkunen
(kimm...@gmail.com) says...
> Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:24:19 -0700
> > Kim DeVaughn <kimm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "I sometimes think quantum mechanics is caused by scientists catching
> >> God in a contradiction, and God quickly hacking something together to
> >> hide the fact that he's just making it up as he goes along." --MCV
> >
> > Ok , this is OOT but I'm curious , this is a great quote so who's MCV ?
>
> Heh. I wish I knew. IIRC, I *think* I stole it from someone's sig (who
> was not the article's poster) in one of the sci.physics.* or possibly
> r.a.sf.science NGs. I'd like to give the author full credit for a great
> thought, but for now MCV's the best I can do ...
Maybe you could attribute it to James Nicoll to balance the scale on
another quote.
--
Juho Julkunen
Remus Shepherd
> Here, Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
> > I'll second another poster's recommendation of Peter Watts -- he's a
> > bit depressing but very good and has rigorous biology.
> Rigorous? It's the biology equivalent of hyperdrive -- just enough
> science terminology to sound good, with random Cool Science Facts
> sprinkled on top, built on a firm^H^H^H^H foundation of sleight-of-pen
> cheerfully employed to make the story go wherever Watts wants it.
> Watts *admits* this.
> (I am speaking of _Blindsight_ here, since that's the only Watts I've
> read. But, really, crucifix hack? Rigorous?
Blindsight was softer science than Starfish/Maelstrom/Baehemoth. It
had to be -- there are vampires in it. But in general, Watts has science
that feels pretty darn rigorous to me, and I'm a stickler for such things.
(Although I am not a biologist, so he's probably fooling me a lot.)
> This is not an anti-recommendation of _Blindsight_. If I were to
> anti-recommend that book, I'd talk about the parts which are (as you
> note) a bit depressing, and how they act as brief respites from the
> parts that are seriously fucking bleak.
Yeah, don't read Watts if you take medication for depression. He's got
as much knowledge of psychology as he does biology, and he uses it all to
create worlds one step away from total hell. But he is very good.
James Nicoll
Mike Dworetsky <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>Remus Shepherd wrote:
>>
>> And...I don't believe I'm doing this...you might enjoy China
>> Mieville. He does *not* write science fiction, but instead has more
>> of a 'hard steampunk' vibe: He makes detailed worlds that follow
>> rigorous principles, just principles of a fictional kind of science.
>>
>might enjoy that hadn't been mentioned yet. Usually I take such requests to
>mean, "Please, no magic or swords and sorcery stuff."
>
>I do read Mieville, I enjoy his excellent writing and imagination, but it
>isn't exactly "hard" SF, in some ways it is more like "magic". But on the
>assumption that the OP will like nearly anything I like, yes, add him to the
>list.
What about THE CITY AND THE CITY? There's nothing physically
impossible about the set-up.
Mike Dworetsky
> In article <q76dnfKuUfy5sYvW...@bt.com>,
> Mike Dworetsky <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Remus Shepherd wrote:
>>>
>>> And...I don't believe I'm doing this...you might enjoy China
>>> Mieville. He does *not* write science fiction, but instead has more
>>> of a 'hard steampunk' vibe: He makes detailed worlds that follow
>>> rigorous principles, just principles of a fictional kind of science.
>>>
>> Given the OP's list of authors he has read, I offered a list of
>> authors he might enjoy that hadn't been mentioned yet. Usually I
>> take such requests to mean, "Please, no magic or swords and sorcery
>> stuff."
>>
>> I do read Mieville, I enjoy his excellent writing and imagination,
>> but it isn't exactly "hard" SF, in some ways it is more like
>> "magic". But on the assumption that the OP will like nearly
>> anything I like, yes, add him to the list.
>
> What about THE CITY AND THE CITY? There's nothing physically
> impossible about the set-up.
I'm behind in my reading and haven't seen that one yet. The OP asked about
SF.
However, if people who like SF ask for general reading recommendations of
authors they might like, I often point to the novels about ancient Greece by
Mary Renault, e.g., The Bull from the Sea, The King Must Die, etc.
rochrist
> In article <q76dnfKuUfy5sYvW...@bt.com>,
> Mike Dworetsky <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Remus Shepherd wrote:
>>> And...I don't believe I'm doing this...you might enjoy China
>>> Mieville. He does *not* write science fiction, but instead has more
>>> of a 'hard steampunk' vibe: He makes detailed worlds that follow
>>> rigorous principles, just principles of a fictional kind of science.
>>>
>> Given the OP's list of authors he has read, I offered a list of authors he
>> might enjoy that hadn't been mentioned yet. Usually I take such requests to
>> mean, "Please, no magic or swords and sorcery stuff."
>>
>> I do read Mieville, I enjoy his excellent writing and imagination, but it
>> isn't exactly "hard" SF, in some ways it is more like "magic". But on the
>> assumption that the OP will like nearly anything I like, yes, add him to the
>> list.
>
> What about THE CITY AND THE CITY? There's nothing physically
> impossible about the set-up.
Say what??
Szymon Sokół
> Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:24:19 -0700
>> Kim DeVaughn <kimm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "I sometimes think quantum mechanics is caused by scientists catching
>>> God in a contradiction, and God quickly hacking something together to
>>> hide the fact that he's just making it up as he goes along." --MCV
>>
>> Ok , this is OOT but I'm curious , this is a great quote so who's MCV ?
>
> Heh. I wish I knew. IIRC, I *think* I stole it from someone's sig (who
> was not the article's poster) in one of the sci.physics.* or possibly
> r.a.sf.science NGs. I'd like to give the author full credit for a great
> thought, but for now MCV's the best I can do ...
The later one, apparently:
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.arts.sf.science/2008-03/msg00081.html
--
Szymon Sokół (SS316-RIPE) -- Network Manager B
Computer Center, AGH - University of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland O
http://home.agh.edu.pl/szymon/ PGP key id: RSA: 0x2ABE016B, DSS: 0xF9289982 F
Free speech includes the right not to listen, if not interested -- Heinlein H
James Nicoll
THERE'S NOTHING PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE ABOUT THE SET-UP.
Socially, it's, hrm, rather unlikely to have persisted for
as long as it has imo. The weirdness is purely custom-based, AFAIR.
David Johnston
Nicoll) wrote:
>In article <0cdf5d34-d675-4c4e...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>Michael Grosberg <grosberg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Dec 1, 2:27�am, Bill Johnston <wackedd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I really like a lot of older hard SF, such as Arthur C Clarke, Asimov,
>>> Larry Niven, some Heinlein and Poul Anderson (roughly in that order).
>>> I've read some newerish authors (mainly Greg Bear, Kim Stanley
>>> Robinson, Gregory Benford) but I was curious as to what other
>>> suggestions people might have.
>>
>>Peter Watts, but the science is more biology and neurology than
>>physics.
>
> Rosemary Kirstein's Steerswoman series starts off looking
>like fantasy
Only in that it has bad guys called "wizards". What they are doing is
pretty obvious in the first few pages.
Chuk Goodin
wrote:
>
>Dave "and what about Moran, to bring up one of my obsessions?" DeLaney
Moran? The guy who writes about the big clan of telepaths and the immortal
aliens with magical technology? Or the dancing that gives you super
powers?
--
chuk
Gerry Quinn
> And...I don't believe I'm doing this...you might enjoy China Mieville.
> He does *not* write science fiction, but instead has more of a 'hard
> steampunk' vibe: He makes detailed worlds that follow rigorous principles,
> just principles of a fictional kind of science.
I read _Perdido Street Station_ recently. I liked it, but I cannot
agree that his world follows rigorous principles. Seemed like more of
a kitchen sink approach to me...
- Gerry Quinn
DouhetSukd
>
> Blindsight was softer science than Starfish/Maelstrom/Baehemoth. It
> had to be -- there are vampires in it. But in general, Watts has science
> that feels pretty darn rigorous to me, and I'm a stickler for such things.
> (Although I am not a biologist, so he's probably fooling me a lot.)
>
> > This is not an anti-recommendation of _Blindsight_. If I were to
> > anti-recommend that book, I'd talk about the parts which are (as you
> > note) a bit depressing, and how they act as brief respites from the
> > parts that are seriously fucking bleak.
I nominate Peter Watts as well. However, I'll break from the pack and
only apply that nomination to Blindsight. It has vampires, yes, but
they don't really take up much space in terms of the story. What
takes up space is a fascinating take on the meaning of intelligence
and consciousness. The plot is tight.
I next read Starfish and I found it a hodgepodge of ideas, some good,
some less so, held together by my "favorite" SF trope, the big bad
predatory company. Whose activity of choosing borderline
dysfunctional weirdoes to crew their presumably quite expensive
underwater station made little sense in terms of protecting their
investment. Next came Maelstrom and I bailed out - the biological
ideas were good, but the plot lagged too badly. YMMV.
I also second Alastair Reynolds, though I caution against reading that
big trilogy of his - much, much too slow. Chasm City is "leaner" at a
still impressive 700 pages. His hard credentials seem to be mostly
about his interstellar ships being STL.
Peter Hamilton, Banks, Scalzi are space opera to me. Good space
opera, mind you. Older Hamilton was harder - nanotech rather than
interstellar stuff.
I remember reading Linda Nagata about 10 yrs ago, she had lots of
things about nanotech and consciousness, but I wasn't too keen in the
end.
Greg Egan - hmmm, intellectual masturbation about imbedded
cyberspaces. For some reason, the main idea that I came out with was
a striking disregard for the 2nd law of thermodynamics as applied to
information manipulation - bit like postulating a perpetual motion
machine for the IT crowd.
Stross - yes, I'd mostly put him in the hard SF ranks.
Vernor Vinge - yes, especially after Rainbow's End. Deepness would
somewhat qualify in terms of hard SF (and is a much better _story_).
Syne Mitchell has had some good books as well.
There is occasional FTL, but Walter Jon Williams is quite hard in
Whirlwind and Angel Station.
Greg Bear.
Robert J. Sawyer, though you've got to put up with an irritating in-
your-face political correctness and lectures about the USA being bad
news. Near future, on-Earth, speculation, mostly.
Joe Haldemann - occasionally hardish SF. Liked Camouflage, but I was
disappointed with Old Twentieth..
Robert Charles Wilson - a definite unqualified recommendation.
Richard K. Morgan - interesting, but suffers from the afore-mentioned
big bad corporation syndrome.
Ian McDonald - recommend most of his stuff, but Terminal Cafe is
probably my fave. Brasyl and River of Gods are newer.
Michael Flynn - try River of Stars, otherwise be ready to put up with
libertarian lectures ( _I_ don't mind much) in the Firestar series.
David Goldfarb
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>> (I am speaking of _Blindsight_ here, since that's the only Watts I've
>> read. But, really, crucifix hack? Rigorous?
>
> Blindsight was softer science than Starfish/Maelstrom/Baehemoth. It
>had to be -- there are vampires in it. But in general, Watts has science
>that feels pretty darn rigorous to me, and I'm a stickler for such things.
>(Although I am not a biologist, so he's probably fooling me a lot.)
I do have one quite serious nitpick with _Blindsight_: the introduction
of the scramblers. The scramblers are able to detect eye saccades and
only move during them. Watts has this making them invisible -- but that
wouldn't work. You wouldn't see the scrambler *moving*, it would seem
to change without the moment of change being visible to you, but you
would still be able to see the scrambler itself.
--
David Goldfarb | "All around me darkness gathers
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | Fading is the sun that shone
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | We must speak of other matters
| You can be me when I'm gone."
Thomas Womack
David Goldfarb <gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>In article <hf5vos$k7f$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>>> (I am speaking of _Blindsight_ here, since that's the only Watts I've
>>> read. But, really, crucifix hack? Rigorous?
>>
>> Blindsight was softer science than Starfish/Maelstrom/Baehemoth. It
>>had to be -- there are vampires in it. But in general, Watts has science
>>that feels pretty darn rigorous to me, and I'm a stickler for such things.
>>(Although I am not a biologist, so he's probably fooling me a lot.)
>
>I do have one quite serious nitpick with _Blindsight_: the introduction
>of the scramblers. The scramblers are able to detect eye saccades and
>only move during them. Watts has this making them invisible -- but that
>wouldn't work. You wouldn't see the scrambler *moving*, it would seem
>to change without the moment of change being visible to you, but you
>would still be able to see the scrambler itself.
Ah, I parsed that bit as the scramblers moving so fast that they were
able to complete their action and return during the eye saccades; they
appeared to be static but were actually running off and returning.
Though in that case I suppose I should have expected sonic booms and
inch-deep scrambler footprints in the hull.
Tom
David DeLaney
>d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>>Dave "and what about Moran, to bring up one of my obsessions?" DeLaney
>
>Moran? The guy who writes about the big clan of telepaths and the immortal
>aliens with magical technology? Or the dancing that gives you super powers?
Just checking. (Actually, it's the deity you're dancing FOR that does that.)
So "not hard", but quite most definitely space opera, which may also be part
of what the OP was looking for.
Dave
Kim DeVaughn
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:32:54 -0700, Kim DeVaughn wrote:
>
>> Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Ok , this is OOT but I'm curious , this is a great quote so who's MCV ?
>>
>> Heh. I wish I knew. IIRC, I *think* I stole it from someone's sig (who
>> was not the article's poster) in one of the sci.physics.* or possibly
>> r.a.sf.science NGs. I'd like to give the author full credit for a great
>> thought, but for now MCV's the best I can do ...
>
> The later one, apparently:
> http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.arts.sf.science/2008-03/msg00081.html
Excellent detective work in tracking the posting down!
Alas, MCV is still ... just MCV (but at least it appears to be an
original thought, and not a quote from a sig).
Thanks ...
/kim
--
============================================================================
"Anything that is not forbidden is compulsory." --Murray Gell-Mann
tkma...@yahoo.co.uk
> I really like a lot of older hard SF, such as Arthur C Clarke, Asimov,
> Larry Niven, some Heinlein and Poul Anderson (roughly in that order).
> I've read some newerish authors (mainly Greg Bear, Kim Stanley
> Robinson, Gregory Benford) but I was curious as to what other
> suggestions people might have.
A few very recent examples for short sf junkies that I think qualify as
hard sf:
* Edward M Lerner - "Calculating Minds" (2009)
<http://www.webscription.net/chapters/1932093036/1932093036___1.htm>
I think it's novella length.
Caution: Programmers will probably like it more than others.
* Ted Chiang - "Exhalation" (2008)
<http://www.nightshadebooks.com/downloads>
Entropy in action in a cooked up world.
* Stephen Baxter - "Turing's Apples" (2008)
Degenerates in second half, but good astro-logic in first half.
* Ted Kosmatka - "Divining Light" (2008)
<http://www.tedkosmatka.com/fictiondivininglight.htm>
Good stuff is in second half.
* Narendra Desirazu's "Noah's Ark" (2008)
<http://www.thescian.com/?q=node/234/print>
I'll call it borderline hard sf.
* Ben Bova - "Moon Race" (2008)
<http://www.webscription.net/chapters/1932093034/1932093034___1.htm>
* Jane Smiley - "Paradigm Shift" (2008)
I'm not sure many readers will agree calling it sf, let alone hard sf.
Funny story about a "practical" way of going green at individual level
using currently available technology.
Caution: Has sexual references some might consider obscene.
--
"McNear had responded to the inexplicable as people often do: he had
ignored its existence. An excellent way to maintain sanity."
- "Practice" by Verge Foray
<http://variety-sf.blogspot.com/2009/10/howard-l-myers-practice-as-by-verge.html>
Remus Shepherd
> Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Blindsight was softer science than Starfish/Maelstrom/Baehemoth. It
> >had to be -- there are vampires in it. But in general, Watts has science
> >that feels pretty darn rigorous to me, and I'm a stickler for such things.
> >(Although I am not a biologist, so he's probably fooling me a lot.)
> I do have one quite serious nitpick with _Blindsight_: the introduction
> of the scramblers. The scramblers are able to detect eye saccades and
> only move during them. Watts has this making them invisible -- but that
> wouldn't work. You wouldn't see the scrambler *moving*, it would seem
> to change without the moment of change being visible to you, but you
> would still be able to see the scrambler itself.
The conceit is that our eyes do not register things that stand still,
so we have saccades to make everything in the environment move slightly so
we can see it. That does seem a little iffy to me, but it's a neat concept
I haven't seen anywhere before, and since we know so little about the purpose
of eye saccades it was plausible enough to me as a reader.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
It is in fact true that if you were to immobilize the eye entirely that
things would fade out of view. I don't think it works quickly enough for
the scramblers to use it, though. It'd make more sense for the things to
try to stay in your actual blind spots.
Mike Ash
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
Cool fact: the blood vessels which feed the retina sit in *front* of it,
but you can't see them because they always move with the eye, and thus
the saccades don't reveal their presence.
But, you can make them appear. Find a nice bright solid white surface.
Form a little pinhole by curling your index finger just so, and hold it
in front of your eye. Then, move it up and down at about 2/3 times per
second. What you're doing is varying the light source direction, which
causes the shadows cast by the blood vessels to move around, causing
motion that your eye can detect. If you do it right, you'll see a
ghostly pattern of branching dark lines to appear in your vision.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
David Goldfarb
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>David Goldfarb <gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> I do have one quite serious nitpick with _Blindsight_: the introduction
>> of the scramblers. The scramblers are able to detect eye saccades and
>> only move during them. Watts has this making them invisible -- but that
>> wouldn't work.
>
>so we have saccades to make everything in the environment move slightly so
>we can see it. That does seem a little iffy to me, but it's a neat concept
>I haven't seen anywhere before, and since we know so little about the purpose
>of eye saccades it was plausible enough to me as a reader.
I read about a computer system that would display a screenful of text,
and detect the saccades of someone sitting in front of it (I think using
lasers, but it might have been some sort of EEG thing) and make small
changes during them. If you were hooked up to the machine it would
be like reading text in a dream: when you read the same thing twice
it wouldn't read the same, but you couldn't detect it changing. An
observer looking over the shoulder could see the text flickering and
changing.
It seemed obvious to me that Peter Watts read about the same thing and
was riffing on that. But of course, if you were hooked up to the system
you could still tell that there was text there; you just couldn't detect
that changes were being made. Similarly, I don't buy that the scramblers
would be invisible.
(I also can't help wondering just how the alien thing managed to get
such detailed information on the neural hacks specific to humanity.
I guess somehow from the Firefall probes.)
--
David Goldfarb |"My agent's negotiating for a half-hour cooking
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |program, you know..."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | "Just cooking?"
|"Cooking and anti-personnel weaponry. Tossing
|salads, tossing bodies -- it's all the same to me."
Juho Julkunen
(gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu) says...
In a high school psych class I read about a test where similar setup
was used to make an object on screen follow eye movement so it was
always in the same position in your view regardless of where you
looked. Test subjects reprorted it fading from view after a few
seconds. It became totally invisible to them. Same phenomenon as with
veins on retina, I understand.
--
Juho Julkunen
Gerry Quinn
giao...@hotmail.com says...
> In a high school psych class I read about a test where similar setup
> was used to make an object on screen follow eye movement so it was
> always in the same position in your view regardless of where you
> looked. Test subjects reprorted it fading from view after a few
> seconds. It became totally invisible to them. Same phenomenon as with
> veins on retina, I understand.
You may be able to observe the fading phenomenon directly - I can. For
example, try lying on your back in daytime (not too bright) and looking
at the simple scene of white ceiling and light fixtures (lights off).
This is just one possibility where it may be easy to see - you need
contrast but not anything that will 'interest' your eyes, so to speak.
If you can relax your eyes enough to stop the saccadic movement, you'll
be able to see objects (such as the light fixtures) fading in and out.
(The hardest part is not to reactivate saccadic movement as soon as
this begins, but it's possible.)
- Gerry Quinn
John F. Eldredge
Back in the 1970's, I remember reading a magazine article about a
scientific study on this topic. Volunteers wore special contact lenses
that had a drawing mounted on a little arm extending outward from the
lenses, so that the picture stayed in the same place relative to the eye
even if the eye moved. After a couple of minutes, various bits of the
image started fading in and out at random, suggesting that the retina and/
or visual center in the brain was having trouble detecting an image that
didn't change at all.
It is also true with other senses, such as the sense of smell, that a
continued input will gradually fade out of awareness. In the case of the
sense of smell, this was probably so that a decidedly-stinky Cro-Magnon
could still detect if a predator was nearby.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Andrew Plotkin
> In article <hf8j8s$7rp$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
> >David Goldfarb <gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> >> I do have one quite serious nitpick with _Blindsight_: the introduction
> >> of the scramblers. The scramblers are able to detect eye saccades and
> >> only move during them. Watts has this making them invisible -- but that
> >> wouldn't work.
> >
> > The conceit is that our eyes do not register things that stand still,
> >so we have saccades to make everything in the environment move slightly so
> >we can see it. That does seem a little iffy to me, but it's a neat concept
> >I haven't seen anywhere before, and since we know so little about the purpose
> >of eye saccades it was plausible enough to me as a reader.
>
> I read about a computer system that would display a screenful of text,
> and detect the saccades of someone sitting in front of it (I think using
> lasers, but it might have been some sort of EEG thing) and make small
> changes during them. If you were hooked up to the machine it would
> be like reading text in a dream: when you read the same thing twice
> it wouldn't read the same, but you couldn't detect it changing. An
> observer looking over the shoulder could see the text flickering and
> changing.
I have experienced this myself. The DEC workstations I used in college
were slow enough that scrolling screensful of text (in Xwindows) could
be temperamental. So I'd be reading r.a.sf-lovers (heh), I'd hit
page-down, and there might be a delay before the screen changed.
Usually just a moment, but occasionally longer.
Occasionally I'd get tired of waiting, reach for the keyboard again,
and then realize that the text wasn't what I had just read. The sense
of dislocation is startling.
> It seemed obvious to me that Peter Watts read about the same thing and
> was riffing on that. But of course, if you were hooked up to the system
> you could still tell that there was text there; you just couldn't detect
> that changes were being made. Similarly, I don't buy that the scramblers
> would be invisible.
I don't remember the exact circumstances from the book. But I can tell
you that it's not just seeing a object that doesn't move; it's seeing
an object *with the confidence that it's been there for some time,
unmoving*. More so than if someone snuck the object in behind your
back; because the lizard brain knows that it can't see behind you, but
sneaking up in your field of vision is unpossible.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
David Goldfarb
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>But I can tell
>you that it's not just seeing a object that doesn't move; it's seeing
>an object *with the confidence that it's been there for some time,
>unmoving*. More so than if someone snuck the object in behind your
>back; because the lizard brain knows that it can't see behind you, but
>sneaking up in your field of vision is unpossible.
Sort of like the monsters in "Blink", only worse because you can't only
not blink, you can't even let your eyes move....
--
David Goldfarb |
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | "End of the universe. Have fun. Bye-bye!"
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu |
John Duncan Yoyo
<plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>Remus Shepherd wrote:
>> Mike Dworetsky <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> Bill Johnston wrote:
>>>> I really like a lot of older hard SF, such as Arthur C Clarke,
>>>> Asimov, Larry Niven, some Heinlein and Poul Anderson (roughly in
>>>> that order). I've read some newerish authors (mainly Greg Bear, Kim
>>>> Stanley Robinson, Gregory Benford) but I was curious as to what
>>>> other suggestions people might have.
>>
>>> Peter F Hamilton
>>
>> Hamilton is not a good writer, and despite his background as a
>> physicist his written sci-fi isn't very hard.
>>
>>> Iain M Banks
>>
>> Banks' writing is squishy-soft.
Banks is very good but I would put him in a category with Herbert.
Great Space Opera when you want space opera.
Greg Goss
>I read about a computer system that would display a screenful of text,
>and detect the saccades of someone sitting in front of it (I think using
>lasers, but it might have been some sort of EEG thing) and make small
>changes during them. If you were hooked up to the machine it would
>be like reading text in a dream: when you read the same thing twice
>it wouldn't read the same, but you couldn't detect it changing. An
>observer looking over the shoulder could see the text flickering and
>changing.
Laser tracking of eye position is fairly common. It's used in
marketing studies to see what someone is actually looking at in an ad.
I'm having trouble visualizing a function for dynamic text that
changes when you're not looking at it, other than for the invisible
mini-robots or whatever that's the core of this thread (from a book I
hadn't read).
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Andrew Plotkin
> gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
>
> >I read about a computer system that would display a screenful of text,
> >and detect the saccades of someone sitting in front of it (I think using
> >lasers, but it might have been some sort of EEG thing) and make small
> >changes during them. If you were hooked up to the machine it would
> >be like reading text in a dream: when you read the same thing twice
> >it wouldn't read the same, but you couldn't detect it changing. An
> >observer looking over the shoulder could see the text flickering and
> >changing.
>
> Laser tracking of eye position is fairly common. It's used in
> marketing studies to see what someone is actually looking at in an ad.
> I'm having trouble visualizing a function for dynamic text that
> changes when you're not looking at it
EULAs, terms of service, and privacy agreements that change after
you're done reading them but before you hit "OK"! There's big bucks in
that. Companies will love 'em. Branch out into employement contracts,
etc...
> other than for the invisible
> mini-robots or whatever that's the core of this thread (from a book I
> hadn't read).
_Blindsight_ was the book.
David Goldfarb
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>I'm having trouble visualizing a function for dynamic text that
>changes when you're not looking at it
Zarf's joke notwithstanding, I think it was a cognitive science
project doing research about eye saccades. So no function as such.
--
David Goldfarb |"Given enough time and the right audience,
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | the darkest of secrets scum over into
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | mere curiosities."
| -- Neil Gaiman, _Sandman_ #53
Gerry Quinn
says...
> Here, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> > gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
> >
> >
> > Laser tracking of eye position is fairly common. It's used in
> > marketing studies to see what someone is actually looking at in an ad.
> > I'm having trouble visualizing a function for dynamic text that
> > changes when you're not looking at it
>
> EULAs, terms of service, and privacy agreements that change after
> you're done reading them but before you hit "OK"! There's big bucks in
> that. Companies will love 'em. Branch out into employement contracts,
> etc...
The 'small print' technology is well established, and many will see no
need to change.
- Gerry Quinn
Mike Schilling
And it's easy enough to make the small print a bitmap rather than
text, so the browser won't enlarge it.
Greg Goss
Depends on the browser. Opera and Safari are perfectly willing to
zoom bitmaps while enlarging the text.