Writing hard SF

[Justin Swanton]

From the blog on my Immortelle website:


When writing Immortelle I wanted the human technology to be rock-hard. Absolutely everything had to be plausible given what we would expect that tech to be like in 25 years' time. By rock-hard I mean that anything in the book can survive a google test. A google test is when somebody stops reading and does a cursory 15 minute trawl through sites like Wikipedia. If at the end of it he can't find anything that contradicts the bit he stopped at then that bit has passed the google test. It doesn't have to survive the fine detail of a doctoral thesis that gives a 57% probably it should have gone differently. I've written an academic book for academics and I know how that goes. A novelist doesn't have to lock himself to the same pillory (thank heavens).

Why go to the trouble? Because I believe Science Fiction should still be capable of doing what it originally did: spin a fictional yarn that might just - ooh, the thrill! - actually happen in the real world. When Jules Verne wrote From Earth to Moon in 1865 the idea of using a giant cannon to shoot a spacecraft to the moon was not considered absurd, and Verne spent some time doing calculations for the trajectory. This kind of realistic world building gives the story it contains a solidity and immediacy that pure fantasy does not. It's what sets The Day of the Jackal apart from other political thrillers.

The difficult part with this kind of SF of course is getting an interesting story out of it. You're very limited in what you can do out in space or on a planet like Mars. The Martian isn't completely hard SF: it cheats on the power of a Martian storm and it forgets another crucial problem with staying a long time on Mars (which I can't mention because it would spoil the plot of Immortelle). I also cheat from the middle of the novel onwards but in a way that doesn't obviously undermine the science. Up to the reader to decide whether I pulled it off.

 

[pogopossum]

Hi Justin. We meet again.
All writing is "Hard" for me as when I put some idea into prose I then have to check the details (as obviously you do) and that takes the fun out of it. But most writers report that they write as much out of compulsion as they do by choice. I will be checking out your blog.

 

[Swank]

The type of hard SF suggested is only workable if the events are fairly near term. One would expect that our control of physics 100 years from now might be totally unrecognizable to today's science.

 

[Margaret Note Spelling]

Hard, realistic speculative fiction rarely does stay both realistic and speculative, doesn't it? It either becomes a) amazingly predictive, b) dated "mistaken" scifi (From Earth to Moon), or c) gets a few things right but in many ways actually falls short of reality. At least, that seems to have been the case for the last century or so. Which is, to be fair, all the data we have so far, given how relatively recent the modern form of SF is. But I doubt there's an absolutely solid reason that the technological/scientific developments of the next hundred years need to be as explosively innovative as the last hundred. I'm not very high on the scientifically-literate scale--but I like history, and throughout a ton of history, technological developments have certainly moved much, much slower than they have in the recent past. It's the last couple of centuries that have been the odd ones. Does that trend have to continue on from here? Not necessarily.

A lot of current speculative science could easily stay possible, but unproven, for a long time to come.

 

[Astro Pen]

, or c) gets a few things right but in many ways actually falls short of reality. At least, that seems to have been the case for the last century or so. Which is, to be fair, all the data we have so far, given how relatively recent the modern form of SF is. But I doubt there's an absolutely solid reason that the technological/scientific developments of the next hundred years need to be as explosively innovative as the last hundred.

Indeed. From Foundation (1951):
Seldon removed his calculator pad from the pouch at his belt. -Its gray, glossy finish was slightly worn by use. Seldon's nimble fingers, spotted now with age, played along the hard plastic that rimmed it. Red symbols glowed out from the gray...

 

[Justin Swanton]

The type of hard SF suggested is only workable if the events are fairly near term. One would expect that our control of physics 100 years from now might be totally unrecognizable to today's science.

Somehow I doubt it. I've done some analyses elsewhere on this forum of the speed of technological development in different branches over the last 100 years or so and in every case initial rapid technological development slows and eventually grinds to a halt. In the fields of power and transport this is obvious. Rapid strides that reach a brick wall beyond which one can't go. You see fast development only in newer branches of tech like IT and genetics, but I would posit that the new branches don't changes our lives as dramatically as the older ones did and that they too will grind to a halt anyway. More and more, the new tech tends to just enhance the performance of the old, a case of i dotting and t crossing. Computers haven't have the same impact as the harnessing of electricity or the invention of the internal combustion engine.

And a lot of the new stuff is wishful thinking anyway. Genetic engineering isn't going to turn us into immortal supermen as it has one major problem other branches of tech don't: it involves tinkering with inconceivably complex biological structures that we didn't invent and don't begin to understand. We really have no idea what we're doing. A good example are the Covid vaccines. They are genetic engineering, but only now are the side effects becoming obvious the long-term impact of which we have yet to see.

 

[Swank]

Somehow I doubt it. I've done some analyses elsewhere on this forum of the speed of technological development in different branches over the last 100 years or so and in every case initial rapid technological development slows and eventually grinds to a halt. In the fields of power and transport this is obvious. Rapid strides that reach a brick wall beyond which one can't go. You see fast development only in newer branches of tech like IT and genetics, but I would posit that the new branches don't changes our lives as dramatically as the older ones did and that they too will grind to a halt anyway. More and more, the new tech tends to just enhance the performance of the old, a case of i dotting and t crossing. Computers haven't have the same impact as the harnessing of electricity or the invention of the internal combustion engine.

And a lot of the new stuff is wishful thinking anyway. Genetic engineering isn't going to turn us into immortal supermen as it has one major problem other branches of tech don't: it involves tinkering with inconceivably complex biological structures that we didn't invent and don't begin to understand. We really have no idea what we're doing. A good example are the Covid vaccines. They are genetic engineering, but only now are the side effects becoming obvious the long-term impact of which we have yet to see.

Well, I wasn't really talking about the pace of development as much as the fact that you have to be able to predict the technology available to have a hard science take on its effect. If you believe that all technology of consequence will forever be 20th century in origin, then you're making a similar point to what I am about the possibility of accurate hard SF, just from the other end.

 

[Serendipity]

The pace of scientific and technological development intrinsically suffers from a variant of the butterfly effect that in turn is dependent on the access to resources such as minerals. Let's put this in simpler english...

Each type of technology development based on a single basic invention that will be refined for efficiency and minimal costs as well as having close spinoffs developed. This is the basis of the the at first seemingly quick and later slowing development (which is what has been talked about above).

Then along come what are known as disruptive technologies - they are the ones that are different and economically cheaper than the technologies currently available on the market. They will lead to replacement of what is already being used in society. The point at which these disruptive technologies start to take over is dependent on the manufacturing and maintenance costs, which in turn is dependent the availability of resources and therefore on what societies are doing.

There is one further type of technological advancement. That is the invention or identification of something that produces a new function, which comes from breakthroughs in the understanding of nature and the universe. Newton's laws of motion is one such example. There were many of these during 1700s, 1800s and 1900s. It is this type that has seemingly slowed.

I use the word seemingly advisedly here. Fundamental science research results have slowed because of the expense of experiments. Furthermore, many think we have discovered all the fundamental laws of physics etc., so there is a lack of incentive to do more experiments. What has not slowed is inventing the combination of technologies to produce useful effects. That these days is a matter of luck and insight. Also we will only see those new combined technologies if the the person who invented has the wherewithal to follow it through to the market place.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Somehow I doubt it. I've done some analyses elsewhere on this forum of the speed of technological development in different branches over the last 100 years or so and in every case initial rapid technological development slows and eventually grinds to a halt. In the fields of power and transport this is obvious. Rapid strides that reach a brick wall beyond which one can't go. You see fast development only in newer branches of tech like IT and genetics, but I would posit that the new branches don't changes our lives as dramatically as the older ones did and that they too will grind to a halt anyway.

Very often things are more complicated than that.
I agree technology often plateau and approach a diminishing return point but also very often companies deliberately manipulate the technology and implement it in stupid ways.

One of my favorites is IBM introducing the Datamaster 23 to replace the 5100. I had to write my own benchmarks to test performance since I never saw the word benchmark on any IBM documentation. The old machine was faster than the new one.

Before IBM I repaired stereo equipment. Dual was a turntable manufacturer and changed design to reduce construction cost resulting in the elimination of useful features.

So it is 3 steps forward and 2 steps back. Or is it the other way around? Our so called educational system does not produce people who are technologically astute. Who ever heard of a bathtub curve?

 

[Justin Swanton]

Very often things are more complicated than that.

Sure. I'm trying to pick out overall trends rather than particular exceptions. My take is that for the last few decades we have been increasingly marking time. Fewer and fewer "breakthroughs" really affect our lives in any significant way. We're finding less and less to get excited about but we're trying to be as excited as ever.

The James Webb telescope is a good example. It took decades (!) to develop and for heavens sake it's a satellite, not a manned Mars mission. Better resolution in infra red but not an utterly dramatic increase in our ability to study the universe. Yet how excited we all get about it because it represents something a little different from what's been going on for the last three decades.

Another example is Musk's Dragon capsule. It does exactly what manned spacecraft that launch to LEO do, i.e. it's using a wheel that's 60 years old. But how we oohed and aahed over it.

Film someone walking on Mars and I'll be glued to the monitor.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Film someone walking on Mars and I'll be glued to the monitor.

I would watch but I think it would be a dumb thing to do.

A Moon base built with robots controlled from Earth with materials extracted from the Moon would make so much more sense. Launch to Mars from there. The planet isn't going anywhere.

With the JWST at the Earth-Sun L2 point I am not sure that it qualifies as a satellite. Pedants are assholes and they practice. LOL

We could have made accounting/finance mandatory in our schools since Sputnik. What would that have done to the American economy by now?

Ever heard of PLATO?

PLATO (computer system) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That was done on 60s & 70s mainframes. Not as powerful as today's $150 tablets and didn't have color. We have the technology to change society. Who decides what to do with it?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Indeed. From Foundation (1951):
Seldon removed his calculator pad from the pouch at his belt. -Its gray, glossy finish was slightly worn by use. Seldon's nimble fingers, spotted now with age, played along the hard plastic that rimmed it. Red symbols glowed out from the gray...

The Foundation series is a science fiction book series written by American author Isaac Asimov. First published as a series of short stories in 1942–50, and subsequently in three collections in 1951–53, for thirty years the series was a trilogy: Foundation, Foundation and Empire and Second Foundation.

Foundation - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Pedant strikes again!

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

That was done on 60s & 70s mainframes. Not as powerful as today's $150 tablets and didn't have color. We have the technology to change society. Who decides what to do with it?

Well, I think therein lies the problem. The 60s was an era of big government as the West struggled to win the Cold War. But these days nothing gets done unless there is profit to be made, and Government is expected to keep out of the way. So, in answer to your question; the market decides. Musk is an unreliable fantasist who likes talking about Mars landings, but why would you spend money on something like that when you can simply send rich folks up 100km (arbitrarily defined as 'space') and make a decent profit (while, incidentally, damaging the planet)?

 

[Margaret Note Spelling]

Granted, though, I don't think we've been experiencing absolutely nothing in the way of astonishing progress; I'd say the most interesting thing I've seen looming on the horizon, technologically speaking, is the "machine learning"; with data storage and retrieval becoming ever easier, computers' pseudo-"creative" capabilities are starting to become very impressive. Deep AI, fake human facial construction, imitative voice, and the work that Boston Dynamics has been doing regarding the physical agility of computers/robots.... All this might be merely an example of the "refinement" type of technological advancement, as @Serendipity mentioned--but refining the technology of computers has brought us from color computers to mobile phones, so advancement by refinement rather than breakthrough is certainly a powerful force in its own right. We could still refine ourselves right into a new technology nobody was expecting. After all, did any scifi writers really predict Twitter? (If they did, I want to see that book.)

Although in a way, it feels as if our technological advancement might have, rather than slowed, instead reached something of a temporary saturation point--at this time in history, we've had the internet for barely thirty years or less, and its long-term effect on human actions has clearly not been fully explored yet. We've had smartphones and tablets for even less time than that. Have we really already seen all the interesting social effects in response to any of these technologies? Probably not. Are there repercussions and societal reactions we're not going to see for another forty or fifty years? My guess is yes, absolutely.

Maybe we haven't slowed down, but only just begun experiencing some of the delayed cultural responses we're due from all the new technologies we've already got--which could well get in the way of new actual "breakthrough" advancements, or at least distract people's attention from thoroughly exploring the ideas that lead to breakthroughs, until things have settled down again.

It's like pouring water into a potted plant--pour too fast and the water overflows, but pour it slowly and give the dirt a chance to absorb the water, and it'll take the whole bucket.

 

[psikeyhackr]

.... All this might be merely an example of the "refinement" type of technological advancement, as @Serendipity mentioned--but refining the technology of computers has brought us from color computers to mobile phones, so advancement by refinement rather than breakthrough is certainly a powerful force in its own right. We could still refine ourselves right into a new technology nobody was expecting. After all, did any scifi writers really predict Twitter? (If they did, I want to see that book.)

The microelectronics power/price spiral has been a very interesting phenomenon for the last 40 years.

Ender's Game (1984) has Peter and Valentine Wiggin manipulating the mass psychology of the planet. But what reality gives us mass morons bombarding each other with BS. There are lots of forums with threads bitching about the educational system. It seems lots of people think arguing is fun.

I wonder how many professional educators would actually dislike a good K-12 National Recommend Reading List because too many kids that want to learn could self-educate without them? I can't name a single book that was worth a damn suggested by my grade school teachers.

 

[Wayne Mack]

in every case initial rapid technological development slows and eventually grinds to a halt. In the fields of power and transport this is obvious.

I am not certain that I agree with this statement. Specific solutions may no longer advance, but alternate, more advanced solutions to the underlying problem(s) continue to appear. Specific solutions go from being applied in specific situations to being general usage. Isolated solutions become integrated with other solutions.

Solar power is becoming more commonplace and now individual home owners may have their own solar panels installed. This has led to the power grid becoming bi-directional. Wind turbines have become much more commonplace; in the last ten years, wind turbine arrays have become quite common in the US. Distribution grids have become redundant and are starting to become self-healing. Battery technology continues to advance in terms of size, power longevity, and battery life. The 120v and 220v outlet is being replaced by the USB connector. Wireless charging has become so commonplace that I can buy one at the local big box store. Electric cars are becoming feasible for general use.

Railroad technology continues to advance with trains becoming faster and safer. Driverless vehicles -- cars, trucks, airplanes, etc. -- are on the horizon. Uber and Lyft have disrupted both Taxi usage and personal car ownership. Traffic signals are becoming automated. Flying drones are available to the general population. Meanwhile, advances in communications are reducing the need for a lot of travel and transportation.

Technical evolution continues and I can attest that there has been significant change just over my lifetime. Granted, these types of changes would not lead to an interesting story, but they could certainly provide an interesting environment for the story.

 

[Mark_Harbinger]

In a recent interview, Ted Chiang (no stranger to this thread's topic) made the distinction between engineers and scientists (this was in the realm of religious and scientific "investigations"). He said (I'm paraphrasing mightily) that scientists and religious thinkers maybe weren't as diametrically opposed as people like to think, whereas engineers are really the other end of the spectrum.

I agree: Hand-waving and inspiration maybe aren't so important for engineers who are out to solve a problem. Whereas, scientific inquiry is often helped by a boundary pushing "What if?" speculation, even when it seems impossible to the present-day scientific community's orthodoxy.

In my "Tools of Thought" class as an undergrad (the kind of class that doesn't exist anymore), we learned of many example of this. Scientists used to believe fetuses were fully formed human adults, only smaller. Or the Sound Barrier, etc. We all know scientific truths get refined over time.


As a writer, I certainly might enjoy the research that 'hard SF' entails—for example, I really loved writing some historical fantasy and making great efforts to make the story line up with history and the culture of that specific era/place. It was a great challenge.

But, as a reader, I prefer soft SF. If I'm looking for the most accurate science of the time, I'll read a science journal. But if I'm reading a story, then I give the author some leeway to skirt what things might be like in the future that we cannot anticipate or believe is viable right now.



The Martian isn't completely hard SF: it cheats on the power of a Martian storm and it forgets another crucial problem with staying a long time on Mars (which I can't mention because it would spoil the plot of Immortelle). I also cheat from the middle of the novel onwards but in a way that doesn't obviously undermine the science. Up to the reader to decide whether I pulled it off.

One of my best friends is a lawyer and she wrote a 'true crime' novel that has any number of inaccuracies when it came to her describing how the legal system works. When I asked her about it, she essentially said she didn't care, she just wanted to make the story work. Although it hurt my enjoyment of the book somewhat, ultimately, I had to respect that. She probably just did the math: the only people who would be turned off by it were going to be other lawyers (like me). Sounds like you're an excellent storyteller.

 

[Justin Swanton]

But, as a reader, I prefer soft SF. If I'm looking for the most accurate science of the time, I'll read a science journal. But if I'm reading a story, then I give the author some leeway to skirt what things might be like in the future that we cannot anticipate or believe is viable right now.

I don't mind soft SF or fantasy either for that matter provided it remains internally logical. For me a good story is one in which my heart can engage - I think you know what I mean by that. It doesn't have to be a fictionalised scientific treatise.

 

[Margaret Note Spelling]

Scientists used to believe fetuses were fully formed human adults, only smaller.

Wait, are we pretty sure about this? I can't help feeling that anyone from the dawn of history could have just cracked open a half-incubated chicken egg and seen the under-developed chick inside, and then extrapolated from that. Or if they needed a mammalian example, they could have simply cut open a pregnant sheep, or cow, or wild animal. They would certainly have seen the half-grown young inside.

Sorry if that's a divergence from the topic, and I'm certainly not trying to impugn the class you took or anything. It just caught my mind as a "Wait, how can this be?" type of thing.

Given that everyone knows that even babies, toddlers, and children don't look like fully-formed adults, I'm really struggling to see how that idea can work.

 

[Mark_Harbinger]

Wait, are we pretty sure about this? I can't help feeling that anyone from the dawn of history could have just cracked open a half-incubated chicken egg and seen the under-developed chick inside, and then extrapolated from that. Or if they needed a mammalian example, they could have simply cut open a pregnant sheep, or cow, or wild animal. They would certainly have seen the half-grown young inside.

Sorry if that's a divergence from the topic, and I'm certainly not trying to impugn the class you took or anything. It just caught my mind as a "Wait, how can this be?" type of thing.

Given that everyone knows that even babies, toddlers, and children don't look like fully-formed adults, I'm really struggling to see how that idea can work.

I may have misspoken when I said fetus...I'm not totally familiar with the terminology. What's the stage before fetus, where you only see details through microscopes? Before they had microscopes sufficiently powerful enough to be sure, they assumed full anatomical similarity with adult humans. This was a college course, fully cited primary sources. Not Google.

Also 30 years ago, so I cannot recall the sources themselves, sorry. Although I do remember the Professor. Richard Westphal. Great Guy. Also taught poetry. I think later on he became a Dean of the Humanities? ...But I digress...