Comments on: Why near-future science fiction is difficult

By: Paul Raven

Paul Raven — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:00:38 +0000

Interesting point, jon – I’ll not presume to speak on his behalf, but I think the latter qualification is the one that Chris (our fiction editor) is most interested in.

By: jon

jon — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 06:57:21 +0000

perhaps ‘plausibility’ shouldn’t be a requirement of near-future SF then? if anything could happen tomorrow, no matter how crazy (explain that concept to someone from 5 Aug 1945 or 10 Sept 2001) then the only boxes to be checked are: “is this set in the near future?” and “is it a good story?”

By: Tom Marcinko

Tom Marcinko — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:03:50 +0000

P.S. That story alluded to above is apparently even worse than it sounds.

By: Tom Marcinko

Tom Marcinko — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:58:44 +0000

It's a challenge, that's for sure. If I were looking for a way to show-don't-tell mean-spirited Dickensian pennypinching heartlessness, I'd have to reject charging rape victims for forensic testing as over-the-top if not hysterically preachy.

By: tobias buckell

tobias buckell — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:49:41 +0000

I was just author-whining about this: http://www.tobiasbuckell.com/2008/09/11/north-pole/