From: sherman@SOL1.LRSM.UPENN.EDU (Bill Sherman (Bill Graham's group))
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: Diamond-Hard sf
Date: 19 Nov 92 22:56:03 GMT


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
doing justice to so many revolutionary thoughts if they are all rolled
out so quickly.  On the other hand, if one is interested in how things
relate to society at large, then one wants a little bit of time to
analyze each new idea (actually, each really good technological idea
probably has many interesting sociological ideas associated with it).
	In any event, it is difficult to decide what exactly qualifies
as being within the accepted laws of science.  There always seems to
be some wise guy who notices some significant problem with practically
any idea which is very interesting.  Nevertheless, if pushed, I
suppose my proposal for best diamond-hard sf would be _20,000 Leagues
Under the Sea_ which was almost exclusively a description of
submarines and oceanic life-forms. At least we know submarines really
can exist in a form not too different from the one Verne described, so
any techno-faux-pas are likely to be relatively minor there.

Bill Sherman
Graduate Student,
Department of Physics,
U. Pennsylvania
sherman@sol1.lrsm.upenn.edu