Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
OtherRealms Issue 21 Part 11
Electronic OtherRealms #21
Summer, 1988
Part 11
Letters to OtherRealms
An Open Letter to Greg Bear
M. Elayn Harvey
Hi, it's me, Elayn (the silent one, end chair, hard/soft SF panel,
Norwescon 10?). I'm writing because I've finally put together something
to say, an idea the panel grabbed at but, I think, was never able to
pull out of its lair.
We were debating the validity of the terms hard and Soft science
fiction because of the false, unflattering division it creates, where
none should exist, and we were trying to define these terms. You were
all for throwing out the terms and I agreed. Did you see me silently
nodding my head down there? Still, I came away feeling we hadn't gotten
through to the audience. I felt some were still divided in the Serious
Science versus Not-So-Serious- Science camps without understanding that
we were saying "There's no such thing as non- serious science." you and
Dr. John Cramer tried valiantly.
Near as I can remember, it was defined that "Hard" SF is a term we gave
to a book within which technological problems are solved by the
characters, and "Soft" SF is a book within which the character's
personal problems are solved despite, due to, amid a technological
theme. With more succinct terms, we could say it's a matter of
technology- problem books versus people-problem books.
Then the idea that "Technology problems" are to be taken more seriously
or given more importance than "People problems" gets unmasked as the
ridiculous chimera it really is.
But our attempt to side-step the terms didn't heal the issue. We are
still plagued by the notion that some sciences are more valid than
others. I sympathized with the biologist in the audience who complained
about the "slight" the terms hard and soft were giving her field. I
don't know who created these camps, but it amounts to a form of
bigotry, and we who call ourselves SF writers, who care about the
integrity of science, should do something.
If I may offer an observation that helped me understand why this
division exists? I believe it was John who said something about nuclear
fission being sexy. It brought a laugh, but I don't think people
realized how really close he hit on the crux of the whole debate -- I
didn't, until I'd thought about it for a while.
Science is being done by humans, and what's the most powerful drive in
the human race? Right, sex. So, naturally, anything that demonstrates
power gets the same attention and respect. The more power -- the more
respect; it's natural, but unfortunate. We're confining our respect
(adorations?) to the "hard" sciences of dominations, which includes the
ability to destroy a rival.
On the obverse, a science that demonstrates less power gets less
respect, hence the term, "soft". Our own psyche is the source of the
idea that hard science is superior. let's substitute different words
and watch the leopard change his spots again: Dangerous sciences versus
Safe sciences.
That puts things in better balance, but again, we're human; the former
gets respect because, like sex, it's a matter of our survival as a
species. And again we're placing greater reverence on that which can
destroy us, but that's fear masquerading as scientific respect.
I don't think the biologists, anthropologists, archaeologists or
psychologists have any reason to feel inferior. Maybe somewhere down
the road we writers can point this out. I think you made a start, Greg,
with Blood Music -- you made us respect biology. But you had to demonstrate
its power, make it dangerous to get our attention. See what I mean?
Okay then, lets do this for every branch of science, and in that way,
get everyone in the same camp. After all, any technology problem is a
people problem.
Gee, aren't you glad I didn't think of all this during the panel? We
might have been there two hours....
[To a good degree I agree with you, but there's an aspect I
think you missed. One factor that differentiates the "Hard" and
"Soft" sciences is familiarity. The sciences that define "Hard"
sciences -- physics, math, astronomy, etc. -- have been
traditional fodder of SF. People are familiar with them, they
have been the main focus of Science Fiction since the Golden
Age. The "Soft" sciences are newer to the field and therefore
not as familiar to the reader.
Because of this, the reader isn't as demanding about the
science, and the writer isn't as careful in the research. This
has been made painfully obvious to me since I met Laurie, who
has degrees in both biology and psychology. Having a resource
like that handy has made me very aware of the shortcomings of
much science fiction, whether it be Hard or Soft. Sometimes
it's fairly intricate. Sometime's its as basic as having a
red-headed olive skin child born of two fair-skinned, blond
parents (a quick hint in genetics: if this happens in your
book, you better have a milkman handy....). "Hard" SF writers
regularly get hate mail because they misplace a decimal point
in their orbit -- and just as happily create hair and eye
colors at random in a limited gene pool because it creates a
nice effect for a given character.
Laurie's going to be looking at these issues in more details in
the coming months, trying to create an awareness that these
details matter just as much as orbital speeds, star temperature
and planet atmospheres. Frankly, if you're going to pride
yourself on getting the details right, you better get all your
details right.
What this really comes down to is ghettoizing (or bigotry,
although that's a word with emotional constraints I prefer to
avoid). The mainstream ghettos SF because they don't understand
it. The "Hard" SF folks ghetto "Soft" sciences for the same
reason. Anything they don't understand is, by definition,
inferior. ]
Fred Bals (bals%nutmeg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com)
The issue looks good and strong. I especially liked Resnick's Behind the
Scenes article, and I look forward to reading his book after the interesting
description of how it was created. I think the Behind the Scenes idea
has a lot of potential and look forward to seeing more of them.
I was also very impressed with the artwork this issue, and think it's
probably the strongest use of art I've yet seen in any issue of OtherRealms.
I also liked the parallel reviews (First Flight, Mercedes Nights,
Metrophage, and Marlborough Street come to mind). I think having
reviews of a book from two or more perspectives really helps a reader
decide whether the book is something s/he should be looking for. To
give a specific example, looking at Danny Low's and my own reviews of
Mercedes Nights I found that what I didn't like -- the parallel
storylines -- is exactly what Danny did.
Taltos
Denise Draper (denise@cwi.nl)
Hi, I'm an avid reader of the electronic version of OtherRealms, and I
think you deserve congratulations for the work your doing. I read it
mostly to get recommendation for books, particularly for books from
authors that I've never read.
But anyway, I'm writing to add something to your review of Taltos. Many
people have observed the difference in feel of the series, with Taltos
at the light end, and Teckla at the heavy end, but I have yet to see
anyone mention what is (or may be) behind it.
If you compare the books by feel and simultaneously by timeline, you
will notice something. Vlad starts of (in Taltos) as a hard-and-nasty
punk who is making something of himself, and who doesn't have much on
his mind other than his own survival, which is rather precarious. As we
follow him, *in time*, through the series, he changes. First, we see
that there are things that occur to him, but he doesn't want to think
about. Later, when "mature personal relationships" become a part of his
life, he does more thinking. As of Teckla, he still doesn't want to
talk to us about it, though -- what we get is indirect, our own
observation of his obvious pain. What will happen in the future, we
have to wait to see.
I am really impressed with Brust for doing this. Personal growth is a
common enough theme in novels, but I think it is unusual for the author
to deal with it in this way -- with a first person narrative, where the
entire style of the book must change as the character changes. And
moreover, when seen in this light, the early novels (in time) are actually
just as full of "deep meanings" as the rest, because without them the
contrast to Teckla (and presumably to later books) wouldn't be there.
I just had to say this, because to me it is the most important facet of
the entire series, and I haven't seen anyone else mention it. On the
other hand, I could be entirely wrong; maybe Brust just felt like
writing a "light" novel with Taltos...
Artificial Kid
Andy Dwell (andy@ecrcvax.UUCP)
I wanted to make a short comment on Alan's review of the Artificial Kid
in the last issue of OtherRealms I received. I often don't feel
strongly enough about these things to bother writing, but it just so
happens that I had read the book for the first time the day before I
read the review; I was astonished by the difference in our perceptions.
It's true that the book is highly stylized, but there is a fairly good
reason, it's meant to be funny. It's not another Hitchhikers Guide, but
the jokes occur fairly regularly, and were enough to make me laugh out
loud once or twice (the concept of 'posthumous assassination' which is
what happened to Moses Moses, for example).
[Alan Responds: I didn't make myself very clear in the
comparison of ARTIFICIAL KID and Greek tragedy. What I meant
was that he used some of the *techniques* of Greek tragedy
(e.g. having action happen 'offstage' & someone comes
'onstage' to talk about it). I agree that there's a fair bit
of humor in the book.]
Ace Specials
Kevin Anderson
In Dan'l's last "Much Rejoicing" review of Metrophage, you stated
(implied?) that this was the last of the Ace Specials. Not so, my
friend -- there are at least two more forthcoming, and I think there are
three. Black Snow Days by Claudia O'Keefe, is the only New Ace Special
written by a woman -- Terry Carr bought the book from her chapters and
outline. Then there's the last Ace Special, bought by Damon Knight
after Terry Carr's death. Black Snow Days won't be out until a year
from this fall.
Chuq, I suppose I like your "standard" rating system, but it seems to
mean vastly different things to different reviewers -- just look at the
ratings given by Alan, say, compared to those given by Charles de Lint.
The two people obviously have different standards, and it's hard to
compare. Unfortunately, it's easy to point out this problem and next to
impossible to solve it.
Your editorial on reviewers in OtherRealms was excellent. I'd also add
my two cents' worth that reviewers are never "right" or "wrong" -- they
are just critiquing a book against their own set of preferences or
distastes. The reviewers who panned Moby Dick weren't necessarily
wrong, they were people who didn't like the book. Readers need to get
it through their heads that reviews aren't the Last Word -- just find a
reviewer whose tastes seem to parallel your own, and then listen to his
or her recommendations. I generally agree with Roger Ebert and generally
disagree with Gene Siskel on movies -- that doesn't mean Siskel is
wrong, it just means that Ebert and I like the same sort of stuff.
[I think Dan'l meant to say that Metrophage was the last
special that Carr edited.
And yes, the ratings tend to be somewhat arbitrary. So it goes.
There isn't a whole lot I can do about it without scrapping the
standard completely, which I think makes it worse. Compare,
for instance, my numbers with Dave Shea, who's about a full
point under what I think it ought to be compared to what his
reviews say. Or my reviews in the last couple of issues and a
year ago, since I've tried to be a little tougher and more consistent.
But getting people to try to think their way into a standard is
better than each reviewer having their own different standard.
And the reviewers have the option of not giving a rating at all
(as Dan'l's chosen to do) when they don't feel the standards
work for them.]
The Princess Bride
Janice Eisen
I must make a comment about Alan's review of The Princess Bride. I'd
never argue about his opinion of it, but he's missed a very important
point about the book. It isn't abridged from anything; there is no S.
Morgenstern. Goldman wrote the whole thing. He doesn't make this hard
to figure out: Morgenstern is described as a Florinese writer, and
there isn't and never was a country named Florin. Once you understand
this, you'll realize that the "interruptions" are in fact an integral
part of the book, that Goldman is weaving the fairy tale and the life
of the narrator together to illuminate his themes. I'm not saying you
have to like this technique, but you should try to understand what the
author was doing.
Having just read The Kindly Ones, I was fascinated by Melissa Scott's
article. I'd definitely like to see this feature continue.
I haven't read any of the Alien Speedway books, but I did read William
Wu's Robot City book and concluded that the series was a colossal waste
of time and talent. Not to mention the fact that all these books
"franchised" series are marketed in a very misleading fashion: the
actual author's name appears on the cover only in very small print, and
not at all on the spine, leading the potential purchaser to believe
that the book was actually written by the Big Name who sold his
universe. I'm quite annoyed by the existence of these series. For God's
sake, it's not as if Asimov et al are short on money.
OtherRealms #21
Summer, 1988
Copyright 1988
by Chuq Von Rospach
All Rights Reserved
One time rights have been acquired from the contributors. All rights
are hereby assigned to the contributors.
OtherRealms may not be reproduced in any form without written
permission from Chuq Von Rospach. The electronic edition may be
distributed or reproduced in its entirety as long as all copyrights,
author and publication information remain intact.
No article may be reprinted, reproduced or republished in any way
without the express permission of the author.
