May 19th, 2011, 12:17 PM
I disagree a bit - hard sf is something that has a universe with consistent laws based on our current understanding of physics; eg in Greg Egan upcoming Clockwork Rocket, the universe is not Einsteinian but Riemannian (the metric is ds^2 + dt^2 rather than ds^2-dt^2 in our universe, where s is distance, t is time, units are such that c=1); he worked very hard at deducing and speculating what happens in such a universe - check his website for a lot of such details in addition to what is in the book - and that book is hard sf otherwise the term means just mundane sf which is something very different imho
Originally Posted by s271
Reynolds is pretty hard sf under any reasonable definition
May 19th, 2011, 02:04 PM
...if it quacks like a duck...
sorry that adds nothing to the argument. I don't like his characters though. Probably about the 7th time I've said that in this thread...
May 24th, 2011, 03:52 AM
I agree his characters tend to be weak. But because of his ideas and settings, I tend to look forward to his stuff more than any other sci-fi...
May 24th, 2011, 04:41 AM
I can't disagree. I get and read them immediately too, but there's so little good sci-fi released that's in that sub-genre [ducks exact argument about which] that it's inevitable. Some of his stuff it great!
May 24th, 2011, 07:56 AM
his almost offhanded hard sci fi descriptions are great... his space situations are great... even his social structures are interesting. the first one i read was Chasm City and i remember thinking 'if only i cared about these characters, this would be flawless'...
May 24th, 2011, 08:15 AM
ha, yeah exactly that.
I suspect he's somewhere on the Autistic spectrum, which is of course great for technical detail....
Tags for this Thread