Ah, a new Greg Bear novel to consume. Having grown up reading Eon, The Forge of God and other humbly named novels, I was all ready to engross myself in some more of Bear’s visionary hard sci-fi flights of fancy.

This was not what I was expecting.

What I got instead was half science fiction, half fantasy, and all of it bordering on literature. Literature! From a science fiction writer? And one who normally specialises in the harder aspects of science fiction at that? Closer in spirit to Bear’s fantasy duology Songs of Earth and Power than any of his previous science fiction tomes, City at the End of Time is like nothing the author has written before.

Bear probably had specifics in mind when he wrote this book, and there will usually be one explanation that makes more sense than others, but this book has left a lot to the imagination. There are many things in City at the End of Time — characters, plot points, situations — that are open to interpretation. And therefore open to different meanings. And therefore subject to further study. See? Literature.

Speaking of imagination, Bear shows he still has buckets of it. Like many of his previous novels, the sheer scope of this book is something to behold. As Bear’s career has progressed, his stories have tended to get grander, and to get more apocalyptic. From the Little Death of his Eon series, to the destruction of the Earth in The Forge of God series, Bear ups the ante yet again, dealing with nothing less than the destruction of the entire universe in this book. And, not content to play with the universe in a purely Newtonian sense — the destruction of space at a fixed time — Bear gives a nod towards Einstein’s connection of time and space and intends to destroy both of them. In other words, not only does the universe die, but it becomes as if it never lived. How can some event that’s already happened become…um…not happened?

It is not only the concept that takes an extra level of comprehension. Bear’s method of writing is not going to win a whole legion of mainstream fans: the non-linear story-telling, the lack of explanation, the confusing, fantastical elements. I was not surprised to see that this book rates two and a half stars (out of five) on Amazon, with a fair number of one star reviews. I can see why, even if I don’t necessarily agree.

Read the rest of this entry »

There is an article over on i09 called “Why is Hard Science Fiction So Unrealistic?” which offers up the treatise “hard science fiction is not always realistic”. Really? How could something about speculative technology possibly be unrealistic?

The article’s main thrust is that a “hard science fiction” story should only be considered realistic if it also contains Literary Realism. It doesn’t matter how hard, or plausible, the science is, if there is no “grit” to the situation, or there are no “real” characters with flaws, then the story cannot be called “realistic”. OK, fine. That is true enough. But who says we want hard science fiction to be “realistic” anyway?

The first line in the article:

In science fiction, people often confuse narrative realism with “hard,” or scientifically-accurate, storytelling.

They do?

I don’t.

Personally, I have never thought that hard science fiction also had to conform to the literary realism movement. Surprisingly enough, hard science fiction to me has always been about “hard science”: the realism of the characters or their situations have never really come into it. As long as the story has an engaging plot and is halfway well written, then I don’t care that the hero is an unrealistic post-human genius who can defeat any problem with a wave of his sonic screwdriver.

To prove my point, I turn to that arbiter of all that is true and real, Wikipedia. Its first sentence in its Hard science fiction article:

Hard science fiction is a category of science fiction characterized by an emphasis on scientific or technical detail, or on scientific accuracy, or on both.

Exactly. Realistic characters or situations have not been, and nor should be, prerequisites for hard science fiction. It’s up to the author to write what they want. If they want to write in realistic characters or situations, fine, they can write them in. If they want to write escapism with implausibly competent protagonists and dastardly villains, then also fine. You know, occasionally implausibly competent protagonists and dastardly villains turn up in real life. Asking everyone who writes hard science fiction to make it “realistic” would be taking all the fun out of the genre.

The last line in the article (where literary realism suddenly became SF realism, but I think they’re the same thing):

…we start demanding SF realism to go along with scientific accuracy.

We do?

I don’t.

If a book combines hard science fiction and literary realism: great. If a book is hard science fiction with unrealistic characters: great as well. If it’s any good, I’ll just enjoy it. Just leave hard science as hard science without accoutrements. I’ll leave quibbling over sub-genre boundaries to people who write giant screeds on internet forums and websites.

Oh wait. I’m one of them. Maybe I shouldn’t generalise or compartmentalise.

I had never heard of Gary Gibson; I had never heard of this book; yet for some reason when I saw it in a local book store I felt compelled to buy it on a whim. Yeah, buying things on whims is akin to making darts out of twenty dollar notes, throwing them off a bridge and hoping they come back reasonably intact. And yeah, there are these things called libraries which allow you to read books such as these for free. But I got sucked in by impulse and by the blurb on the back:

For a quarter of a million years an alien race has been hiding a vast and terrible secret.

Dang. I’m hooked. I’m a sucker for elderly alien races and vast, terrible secrets. It goes on:

In the 25^th century, only the Shoal possess the secret of faster-than-light travel (FTL), giving them absolute control over all trade and exploration throughout the galaxy. Mankind has operated within their influence for two centuries, establishing a dozen human colony worlds scattered along Shoal trade routes.

Intriguing. Even if the mention of trade routes brings to mind disturbing images of the cringe-worthy Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace. Oh God, that movie’s insipid crawling foreword: “Turmoil has engulfed the Galactic Republic. The taxation…yawn…of trade routes to…snore…huh, what?…Naboo”. Make it stop already! If you’re a fan of this film please watch this. If you’re still a fan after watching that, then you are an idiot.

Anyway, blurb, you may continue:

Dakota Merrick, while serving as a military pilot, has witnessed atrocities for which this alien race is responsible. Now piloting a civilian cargo ship, she is currently ferrying an exploration team to a star system containing a derelict starship. From its wreckage, her passengers hope to salvage a functioning FTL drive of mysteriously non-Shoal origin. But the Shoal are not yet ready to relinquish their monopoly over a technology they acquired through ancient genocide.

Oooh, ancient genocide! I shelled out the cash. At least it doesn’t revolve around fucking taxation.

Read the rest of this entry »