From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr)
Subject: Re: Diamond-Hard sf
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:20:12 GMT
Organization: n.o.y.b

In article <9211192256.AA07046@sol1.lrsm.upenn.edu> sherman@SOL1.LRSM.UPENN.EDU (Bill Sherman (Bill Graham's group)) writes:
>
>Nick Szabo writes:
>>                                   Characters and plot are the exemplar
>>components of mundane fiction.  I do not care to see them at all, unless
>>they are important to the technology or to the artistry of the story and
>
>	I think that there are two aspects of sci-fi that make it
>particularly interesting and which attract thoughtful readers to the
>genre.  First of all, there is the  exploration of what could
>possibly exist or be built given the currently known laws of nature.
>Second, there is the exploration of how those things which might exist
>would interact with society and its individual members.  Many people
>think that most of the imaginable technologies will leave the basic
>psychology of humanity largely unaltered, thus a large number of books
>are written using mundane characters/character development techniques.
>	I would certainly admit that some "mundane" characters are
>patently out of place in their societies, but some of them are not.  It
>depends on what technologies are around.  In any event, for me,
>a book which describes interesting technology without commenting on
>its possible effects on society is rather incomplete.  It is certainly
>the case that many people are only interested in the technology, but I
>think there is certainly a place for character development in sci-fi.
>
>>Diamond-hard SF should be free from techno-cliches like space stations,
>>O'Neill space colonies, lunar bases, AIs, humanoid aliens, etc. unless they
>>are done in a radically different, interesting way.
>
>>* What should be the minimum criteria for diamond-hard SF?  I would say for
>>  starters it should have at least one interesting, original idea per page.
>>  If the first nine pages don't hit me upside the head nine times, I toss
>>  the loser!
>>* What are the best works in this diamond-hard style?
>
>	I agree that the above provides a good description of the
>"diamond-hard" style.  There is one problem with this definition,
>however: no such work has ever been written.  At least I sure as hell
>have never read anything which had such an incredible density of
>truely novel ideas.  Indeed, it is virtually impossible to imagine

I knew there was some reason that I don't read these news groups too often.
Anyone who uses "sci-fi", while purporting to talk about what makes "real"
hard sf, has handed us a dead give-away. For the clueless, I've *never*
heard a fan, in 20-(very)-odd years of going to cons, and being in clubs,
use "sci-fi" in a serious discussion.

Characters and plot are characteristics of "mundane" fiction? HAH! Look at
"real" modern lit-ri-ture. Plots and character are out. Pointless actions,
and people *I* surely have *no* interest in are "in".

Why should "diamond-hard sf" have at least one new idea per page? What
makes that a reasonable criteria? Further, how could the author *possibly*
consider the *effects* of any *fraction* of those ideas?

Next, y'all ought to look at the *history* of sf before you blather on.
As I believe Moskowitz defined the first few decades of sf, they were:
	20's -30's; Professor Whatsisname invents the electronic chicken
			plucker, and *here's how it works* (which I believe
			meets the criteria suggested above for "diamond-hard
			sf)
	30's; Professor Whatsisname invents the electronic chicken
			plucker, and has these adventures with it.
	30's-40's; Professor Whatsisname invents the electronic chicken
			plucker, and here's the effect that has on society.
	40's-50's; Professor Whatsisname invented the electronic chicken
			plucker, and that affected society, and here's
			how the changed society affected the individual.

Btw, there is a book which meets "diamond-hard sf" - Ralph 124C41+, by
Hugo Gernsback. You *might* be able to find a copy; it was reissued as
a paperback 15-20 years ago, maybe. (No, you can't borrow my copy.) It's
an interesting book, but Moskowitz correctly described it as "a marvelous
work of technical prophecy, broken every few pages by a few words of plot".
Terrible plot, too.

	mark