(urth) Hard SF

[Daniel Petersen]

So you take hard s.f. to be a philosophical position (committed to some
form of naturalism, if not physicalism)?  I've heard Michael Flynn is a
theistic hard s.f.er, but I don't know if his worldview affects the writing
of his fiction at a sort of methodological level.  I've not read any.  At
any rate, I don't think Wolfe's fiction reaches full 'hard' status for
various reasons - regardless of whether we say hard s.f. by definition must
remain mechanically non-theistic or non-magical or whatever.  But you
describe well the tensions Wolfe manfully holds together.  It's part of
what makes his work have a widespread, diverse audience.

-DOJP

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:55 PM, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net>wrote:

>  That is, the "medium" of physics-driven fiction is not the message, which
> is the case with true hard SF. Wolfe works hard to reconcile myth with
> physical plausibility to make a story "work." You can see the tension
> between them, but he never abandons one for the other.
>
> On 11/28/2012 12:04 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote:
>
>  I agree with him too. But Urth is still not "hard SF."
>
>    ------------------------------
> *From:* Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com><danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>
> *To:* The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net> <urth at lists.urth.net>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:03 AM
> *Subject:* Re: (urth) Hard SF
>
> I'd tend to agree with Lee here. -DOJP
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>
> >David Stockhoff: We're not talking about hard SF here.
>
> Just for the sake of discussion, I'll disagree. Perhaps Wolfe isn't
> diamond-hard
> but I'd give him ruby- or sapphire- on the MOhs scale. I think he makes a
> sincere attempt in most of his work, as the quote below illustrates.
>
> Where fantasy writers are content to give us shape changers without
> explanation,
> Wolfe provides us with a sponge cellular analogy for Tzadkiel and flexible
> bones
> and muscles, make-up and hypnotic abilities for Inhumi.
>
> If the Inhumi really fly through space I'd want more than the skimpy
> evidence we
> are provided (and less evidence for their lying nature).
>
> >Nick Gevers: Speaking as an engineer, how might the godling be
> constructed so as to
> >walk as a giant on land, where the undines [submarine giantesses] cannot?
>
> >Gene Wolfe: There are a number of ways you could go. First, get rid of
> the notion that
> >the godling is going to be proportioned like a human being. Changes in
> size always mean
> >changes in build. (Dr. Crane touches on that.) A man fifty feet tall,
> proportioned like
> >you or me, would sink into the ground a lot -- had you thought of that?
> Take a look at
> >the really big dinosaurs. Bone density could be increased, and the legs
> and pelvis made
> >more massive, and so on
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
>
>
>
>  --
> Daniel Otto Jack Petersen
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>



-- 
Daniel Otto Jack Petersen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20121128/afee8ef3/attachment-0004.htm>