Comments on: Near-future SF *is* possible http://www.garethlpowell.com/near-future-sf-is-possible/ The online presence of British science fiction author Gareth L Powell Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:49:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Wedge http://www.garethlpowell.com/near-future-sf-is-possible/comment-page-1/#comment-354 Wedge Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:27:25 +0000 http://www.garethlpowell.com/?p=919#comment-354 Eon was about USA / USSR tension? I will have to re-read it again! I'm guessing that Stross likes his near-future SF to have a real sense of accuracy. I love hard SF - technical based stuff, but I agree that it's the story telling aspect of SF that entrances me. Eon was about USA / USSR tension? I will have to re-read it again!

I’m guessing that Stross likes his near-future SF to have a real sense of accuracy. I love hard SF – technical based stuff, but I agree that it’s the story telling aspect of SF that entrances me.

]]> By: Andrew Livingston http://www.garethlpowell.com/near-future-sf-is-possible/comment-page-1/#comment-350 Andrew Livingston Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:53:16 +0000 http://www.garethlpowell.com/?p=919#comment-350 I agree with you completely, Gareth. The operative word that Stross uses that invalidates his argument is "impossible". Had he chosen "difficult" or "challenging" then there may have been no reason for you reply to him. Very little is "impossible", especially within the realms of human imagination. I also anticipated 1984 before you mentioned it. 1984 was completely incorrect in its assumption of the actual year 1984, but of course Orwell was not writing about an actual 1984, but rather a year that was 40-odd years away from his writing about it. To wit, one could argue that, had the Axis powers not lost WWII, many of those assumptions may very well have realised themselves. I would see Stross' comments as a challenge to write even more. And it looks as though you have. Good on you, G. I agree with you completely, Gareth. The operative word that Stross uses that invalidates his argument is “impossible”. Had he chosen “difficult” or “challenging” then there may have been no reason for you reply to him. Very little is “impossible”, especially within the realms of human imagination. I also anticipated 1984 before you mentioned it. 1984 was completely incorrect in its assumption of the actual year 1984, but of course Orwell was not writing about an actual 1984, but rather a year that was 40-odd years away from his writing about it. To wit, one could argue that, had the Axis powers not lost WWII, many of those assumptions may very well have realised themselves.

I would see Stross’ comments as a challenge to write even more. And it looks as though you have. Good on you, G.

]]> By: IGPNicki http://www.garethlpowell.com/near-future-sf-is-possible/comment-page-1/#comment-349 IGPNicki Sun, 26 Oct 2008 06:33:28 +0000 http://www.garethlpowell.com/?p=919#comment-349 Hi Gareth, great post! I've been hearing that a lot lately, how it's impossible to write near-future sci-fi right now. I couldn't agree with you more. As I was reading your post I was thinking of 1984 and 2001, and of course there you mentioned it! Sure at the time they were written they weren't considered "near future" but the fact is, those dates have now passed and they were wrong, and yet those books are more popular than ever. Hi Gareth, great post! I’ve been hearing that a lot lately, how it’s impossible to write near-future sci-fi right now. I couldn’t agree with you more. As I was reading your post I was thinking of 1984 and 2001, and of course there you mentioned it! Sure at the time they were written they weren’t considered “near future” but the fact is, those dates have now passed and they were wrong, and yet those books are more popular than ever.

]]> By: Ian http://www.garethlpowell.com/near-future-sf-is-possible/comment-page-1/#comment-348 Ian Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:11:03 +0000 http://www.garethlpowell.com/?p=919#comment-348 Interesting post, Gareth. I agree that it's very difficult to agree that near-future SF is impossible for the same reasons you outline here. First, that science fiction is fiction first and science second. To be fiction, it should tell us something about humanity. The science bit doesn't have to be predictive in order to work; it could be entirely wrong but still be justifiable. If science fiction must be correct in its predictions in order to be termed science fiction, then any science fiction that is not correct cannot be science fiction, and the field disappears in a puff of logic. Interesting post, Gareth. I agree that it’s very difficult to agree that near-future SF is impossible for the same reasons you outline here. First, that science fiction is fiction first and science second. To be fiction, it should tell us something about humanity. The science bit doesn’t have to be predictive in order to work; it could be entirely wrong but still be justifiable. If science fiction must be correct in its predictions in order to be termed science fiction, then any science fiction that is not correct cannot be science fiction, and the field disappears in a puff of logic.

]]>