The Sword and Laser discussion

Hi! New poster here... :-)

I'm not even half way through yet, but I question the claim that this book is 'hard' sci-fi. Sure it makes attempts to explain elements of the world it creates, but then again so do comic book origin stories and those can hardly be called 'hard' sci-fi. Just to be clear, I'm operating under the assumption that so-called 'hard sci-fi' has some footing in acual science. As far as I can tell, the author freely picks and chooses with his actual science and his made-up quasi-science.

Anyway, there wasn't already a post about this so I thought I'd start one to see what others thought.

The book has an appendix in which the author defends the science. That said, I had a hard time taking some of the science seriously, even after reading the appendix. Particularly the origin of (view spoiler)[the vampires (hide spoiler)], which felt like justification after the fact, rather than logical extrapolation.

I found the exploration parts of the book to be the most engaging, and the neuroscience presented there seems like a plausible enough way to explain some of the horror tropes of the book.

Whether he's successful at the science misses the heart of the term 'hard sci-fi', I think. He specifically establishes his science based on current scientific thinking, extrapolated... creatively. Just because they are likely implausible leaps of logic doesn't make the book fantasy sci-fi, I'd say.

Which is to say, fans of hard sci-fi (me) will enjoy the book as hard sci-fi. Which I did.

Sodon wrote: "Whether he's successful at the science misses the heart of the term 'hard sci-fi', I think. He specifically establishes his science based on current scientific thinking, extrapolated... creatively...."

I disagree. In fact, for as long as I've been reading sci-fi I've been told (often by old grizzly guys) that "true" sci-fi (ie. 'hard' sci-fi in this discussion) is exactly the opposite. You can't be unsuccessful at the science. In my mind, that's 'regular' sci-fi, like Star Trek. In fact, Star Trek has long been the object of similar debates (and it is often severely criticized) by 'hard' sci-fi lovers for its quasi-science.

I agree generally with your premise of "creative extrapolation", but Watts has extrapolated creatively to such an extent that his science isn't even tethered to actual science, not even by the thinnest of threads. This feels more like an extrapolation of an extrapolation of an extrapolation. And, he's got vampires...

Then there has to be three categories, at the very least: hard, regular, and fantasy. So, for example, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Star Trek, and Star Wars respectively.

I'll agree with your definition but disagree with your conclusion. Star Trek, for example, uses science in theory but the writers have no interest in extrapolating the future based on current scientific thought, and make little effort to do so. I think Watts made great efforts to do so, vampires maybe being excepted.

Does it really matter though? Seems like we are splitting hairs of a hair. The basic definition of "hard sci-fi" at least from the discussion here is that it has a basis of "real" science. Does the degree to which it is ground in plausibility really matter? I guess I fall into the same boat as Sodon. This is fiction and we are talking so far into the future here, how much are we really expecting them to take current scientific standards and have them still apply decades into the future.

We certainly don't take all of the scientific assumptions of the 1940's as our foundation today.

Does it really matter?! You speak blasphemy! ;-)

I kid, but only to a point. The jacket of this book claims it is "hard science fiction" (HSF). This is why I feel particularly obliged to challenge this claim.

I developed my original appetite for the genre by cutting my teeth on authors such as Bradbury, Niven, Pohl, Clarke, Asimov, and others. In the 70s my brother and I devoured the Science Fiction Magazine, Analog, Omni, and other monthly sources of this wonderful stuff. It wasn't fantasy (spoken with a hint of scorn, though I secretly enjoyed Conan)--it was smart and it was always grounded in serious and REAL science. Even the original Star Wars and it's follow-up movies were controversial among the true aficionados for it's lack of a grounding in science. Likewise with Star Trek and others.

Over the ensuing years, I have seen the genre diluted more and more. But this was okay, because there was always a sub genre of HSF. And there was always an understanding that you don't claim to be HSF unless you can back it up. Don't take my word for it; do a bit of web browsing and you'll find lots of discussions and articles on this very issue.

I began to read this book because Tom Merritt said that it was HSF and the book cover claimed the same thing. But, the more I delve into the book, the more I find that this is a combination of vampire fantasy and soft science fiction. Sure, it has a patina of quasi-science. But I find myself constantly challenging it's claims, especially considering that it isn't really set all that far into the future. This has long been part of the game of reading HSF--finding it's inaccuracies and faults--and I find that this book isn't providing much of a challenge.

And to return to the original comment, "does it matter?"--isn't this the kind of discussion that a book club is for? :-)

Chris, I agree that the vampires, even as a mutant branch of humanity instead of actually-magically-undead, were over the line for 'hard science fiction'. But what else stuck you that way? A lot of the psychology / brain theory is debatable, but is also stuff that science doesn't have hard answers on yet, so Watts has some wiggle room there. What other elements stuck you as bad science?

I also have to posit that maybe the vampire bit threw you off a little too much. At first I thought it was going to be vampires in space, but Sarasti really plays such a minor role in the whole thing. Minor enough that one even wonders why Watts put it into the book at all...

I would argue the rest is very hard sci fi. It smacks of 2001 more than Star Trek, to me.

Jlawrence wrote: "Chris, I agree that the vampires, even as a mutant branch of humanity instead of actually-magically-undead, were over the line for 'hard science fiction'. But what else stuck you that way? A lot ..."


You know, as I continue to read the book and think about it (I'm half-way now), I am beginning to see why some people consider it HSF. Mind you, I still don't agree that he is entirely successful at it, but Watts definitely goes through the motions: he includes a lot of accurate jargon and his chemistry is compelling. (I also skipped ahead and looked at the appendix, where he defends his science).

But, since you ask, my real problem is that I have a hard time accepting the portrayal of human society in 2082. I'm sorry, but I cannot imagine such radical changes in a mere 70 years. He's created a world where human modification is the norm, sex no longer exists, and all boundaries of human consciousness are seemingly removed--even death is an optional experience. I think it a very safe bet that NONE of these things will come to pass in 70 years in the way he has described them (Maybe human modification, but I sincerely doubt to the extent he presents). HSF is all about making accurate predictions, but I just don't buy any of his 'predictions'.

I also have to get this off my chest: the vampire is a big sticking point with me. What's more is the Twilightesque vampire-glorification in which he engages. Even though he attempts to make something of the quasi-science, it really sets the wrong tone for a serious HSF novel. I almost feel like he created the world first, and then set out to twist current science to fit his presentation. HSF should be created the other way around.

So, to summarize: there are some elements of his science that I do find compelling, but too many others that are both unbelievable and also make the general tone of the novel seem more fantastic than scientific.

I don't think we'll ever agree on this, except for one thing: he definitely intended it to be HSF, and thus his inclusion of vampires is, well, a little baffling.

Chris wrote: "Jlawrence wrote: "Chris, I agree that the vampires, even as a mutant branch of humanity instead of actually-magically-undead, were over the line for 'hard science fiction'. But what else stuck you..."
Wow. Just say 'vampires' these days and it's lime saying 'liberal' or 'conservative', lol. But leaving that aside Watts is banking on continued pace of advancement that has some, not all, futurists in his corner. Ray Kurzweil is obviously a huge influence here, and Kurzweils predictions make Watts's world look conservative.

I call it Hard SciFi because it backs up everything, including the vampires, with a credible theory. The vampires are a stretch only in that we have no evidence they ever existed. But I almost with he just called them something else. They serve the function of a historical predator that we outcompetes through accident and when reintroduced and cured of their one lack of fitness, outcompete us. This is essential to the main point of our sentience being an aberration.

The astrophysics in this book is solid as is the bio and chem. I think what makes a lot of people soften on calling it hard scifi is that he also weaves in psychology and sociology which don't yet have the respect of the hard sciences. But in Watts's world they have matured into hard sciences and Siri is the emblem of that.

Love this debate. Great points on all sides.

I guess what I'm getting at is that dismissing the vampires is skirting around a legitimate beef with the book. Vampires ARE a major trend with a certain demographic, and if Watts included them in his book he must either be 1) catering to that demo or 2) genuinely fond of them. Both these things make me feel like it's more 'comic-book like' and thus spoil a bit of my enjoyment.

But, please don't get me wrong: I do want to back away from the notion that it is not a piece of Hard SciFi. I'm just hung up on the points I mentioned about--which, to me, are big ones. The sociology and psychology presented do not have a sufficient verisimilitude to compel me.

And, Sodon, what fun would it be if we all simply agreed? :-) I, too, enjoy the debate.

Agreed (about the debate)

Butim curious about the lack of verisimilitude of the psych. Pretty much everything he puts out there could be cited in works in the discipline. I felt like in the grand tradition of scifi he took existing theoretical science and applied it. Sure, we're used to this with physics, but Watts also does it with psychology. All the phenomena he mentions are real stuff. I'm curious what struck you as false?

Also, and less seriously, don't you think if he was pandering to the Twilight crowd he would have thrown in werewolves and more guys with shirts off?

It would be interesting to follow up his citations and check the sources myself. I'd like to see where he gets his ideas from.

But his creative extrapolation (btw great term, Sodon) paints a picture that doesn't convince me--especially considering that it is only 70 years in the future. I definitely would have a lot less of a problem with the book if it were set 200 or more years in the future. Then I could begin to look at his created society as a work of imagination, rather than one so closely connected to our own time.

For example, one thing that comes to mind is that I have a particularly hard time accepting the idea of "The Gang". Psychologically, I don't believe it to be possible--especially in the 'functional' way that he presents it. Sociologically, I'm not convinced that my great-grandchild would live in a society that would even want to create such a thing.

That's just one example, but I feel this way about many little things in the book.

Huh. I see what you're saying. But gor me the gang is a direct successor to MPD, and since without surgery we have examples of people able to this, I don't see it as any more of a leap than interstellar ion drives.

The sociological stuff is definitely a matter of opinion.

Let me put it another way. Hard SciFi has to deal with what I call the "flying car" problem. The flying car is perhaps the most iconic science-fiction image. What's more, it has been repeatedly predicted to be created. However, it never seems to actually emerge into the market. Yet, it still bears the marks of verisimilitude; we can imagine it. Even now I still feel like someday it will exist.

Now, take Watts's portrait of future human society. There are many aspects that I cannot even imagine actually coming to pass. (No Death, Heaven, No Sex, "The Gang",...) Even though we've been waiting for it for over half-a-century, the flying car still is--to me--more probable and believable.

Actually, for it to be true hard SF, very little should be speculative.

I've been looking up the use of the term "hard SF". There are some useful bibliographies and articles out there. Plus it's helpful to have a wife who is a university librarian. :-) Here is something that I've found:

In the notes to Hal Clement's "Whirligig World" (Amazing Stories 1953, p 102) he outlines strategies for writing Hard SF. In the article he outlines what he calls 'the game' of hard SF. It is, "for the reader...finding as many as possible of the authors statements or implications that conflict with the facts as science currently understands them. For the author the rule is to make as few such slips as he possibly can."

He goes on to state that the use of "gobbledygook" (ie. the invention of jargon as part of the scientific rationale) should be rejected. Further he claims that speculation in areas where scientific conclusions have not been drawn also should be avoided. He says hard SF writers should limit themselves to 'cautious predictions of near-future technology'. He specifically discusses things such as the afterlife and telepathy, claiming that they are unsuitable for truly hard SF.

I've got more articles on the subject too, and I'll keep reading them along with my reading of Blindsight. In particular, there is an issue of Science Fiction Studies from 1993 that devotes a whole half of the journal to the discussion of hard SF.

This Extra Awesome Wikipedia Article explains very neatly how it's well within the realm of reasonable expectation that the world will indeed be THAT different in 70 years.

See also: The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology

Just think about how different the world was 70 years ago. Heck, I'm turning 50 next month and I'm amazed at how different the world is today than when I was a child. My grandma's world was even more different than mine.

Does it matter at all to this discussion if the publisher is the one who decided to market this as Hard SF, as opposed to the author making that distinction?

I don't think that BlindSight is Hard, mostly because it has vampires and focuses on the soft sciences, but it certainly has the same feel as the Hard SF novels that I've read. I wonder if the publisher didn't decide to market BlindSight as HSF because the audience fills the same part of the Venn Diagram?

Chris wrote: "He says hard SF writers should limit themselves to 'cautious predictions of near-future technology'..."

That sounds fairly uninteresting to me. It sounds like fiction with but a spice of speculation. Like 2001: A Space Odyssey, minus the bit about aliens, which would seem too spectacular for that definition. And I have to admit I would not have cared about the movie/book if there were no aliens.

Blindsight hits all the hard science fiction points I love about hard science fiction: speculative fiction grounded in contemporary science with a bit of outrageous extrapolation in order to 1) surprise the reader and 2) make pointed remarks on specific themes. 2001 did the same thing for me, which is, in my mind, the epitome of hard science fiction, especially in film.

It sounds like the other people who enjoyed the book feel similarly. The use of the term 'hard science fiction' is, for us, enough to distinguish the book from "science fiction with science that we can talk about" and "science fiction that's fantasy set in a futuristic/space setting".

The problem I always have with definitions, and quibbling over them, is that you quickly lose sight of the point of the definition in the first place - and quibbling over categorization is even worse. Is it art? Is it romance? Fantasy? Science fiction? What difference does its categorization make?

I feel like I want to keep harping on this, because it frustrates me to spend so much time discussing such unhelpful things. I think a discussion about Watts' attempts to invent vampires within the bounds of contemporary science is way more interesting than whether or not their presence disqualifies the book from a certain categorization. Which, to be fair, we have been discussing too, but the discussion still seems hung up on the book's label.

It sounds like you had a certain expectation, going in, that was thwarted by the vampires and the other bits of (to you) shoddy science. Thus, your irritation with its label. Still, I think Watts intended the book to be grounded in actual science, to be scientifically plausible, and clearly invested in research to that end. (If you have not read his appendix or his arguments, which I understand are even longer on his website, you should.) That makes it harder science fiction than most books found in the fantasy/science fiction racks in the bookstores, and that's about as far as I feel we ought to take the subject of its categorization.

So because the vampires were resurrected by humans from some ancient genes scientists found it becomes SciFi? If you give an alien a wand and a wizard hat would that be fantasy?

I couldn't get passed the vampire thing at all and the limited back story was mostly in the notes and not even in the novel itself. I could see us as humans resurrecting vampires (if they weren't a fantasy creature) if it were possible; but I just can't see people ever letting them out of there cages, let alone lead a space mission.

I'm enjoying the debate. I'm also enjoying the book. But, then again, I enjoy this kind of debate. I never meant to invalidate anyone else's reading/enjoyment of the book by suggesting that I don't believe the book to be truly a work of hard SF.

We met with some friends last night and while the wives were in the other room, I mentioned this to my friend. He is a great aficianado of SF as well as of role playing. He hadn't read the book, but did mention that the game 'Gurps' discusses this very issue as to what is appropriate if one wishes to play a hard SF campaign. I don't have the books myself, so I can't cite them, but he said that they do state that in a truly hard SF story one cannot exrapolate very far from what currently exists.

This seems to be the hinge of the debate. How does one define "extrapolate" and how far can an author go?

We will never all agree on this point. Even so, I have enjoyed thinking about it and discussing it. I think that I have come--just a little, perhaps--towards accepting it as a work of hard SF. But it does not satisfy in the same way that Clarke, Asimov and the other greats in the genre satisfy. When Clarke writes of aliens that look like devils come to Earth to lead the human race into an Ascention, he does so with a grasp of sociology and psychology that is tremendously compelling. Asimov's robots--and the humans that intact with them--seem as likely as the flying car that I keep waiting for. Watts doesn't inspire that suspension of disbelief in me. It's a good story, with some truly clever SF ideas running through it. But it fails to make me believe in it.

Then again, maybe I expect too much! :-)

Chris, well put. I still think of Watts as Hard SCiFi for me because the psych and sociology all seem relatively well-grounded based on what I know of them. And the extrapolation doesn't seem too far from the kind say Clarke uses to posit alien intelligences in 2001, or even satellites before they existed.

But you rightly explain that it all boils down to how it works for you. And that's where Sodon's points about quibbling are well made. These kind of distinctions are very broad, and when we try to focus in and see the line, we end up seeing a fuzzy swath of pixels and argue over which pixels belong on which side of the line. So it can quickly can become unproductive.

But I still enjoy the discussion. It helps me solidify my thinking and exposes us to new viewpoints.

The only thing I hate to see are the arguments that say as soon as the word 'vampire' is brought up this is disqualified from Hard SciFi. That's too extreme for my tastes. Chris brings up a good example regarding demons in Asimov's scifi. Does that immediately make Asimov religious fiction? I think not.

I was referring to Clarke's "Childhood's End" with the aliens that have the appearance of devils. I don't consider it religious fiction, but it is heavily psychological and sociological.

However, since you mention it, C.S. Lewis is considered a hard SF author, in regards to his Space Trilogy. It is both hard SF *and* religious fiction...

Tom wrote: "The only thing I hate to see are the arguments that say as soon as the word 'vampire' is brought up this is disqualified from Hard SciFi."

Is it possible for it to be Hard SciFi/Fantasy? I feel like it has a fantasy element to it because he had to create an alternate universe where vampires already existed just so he could include them in the story. He could have just as easily brought back Neanderthals and it would have been more plausible or even had vampires created from the ground up in a lab.

It almost seems like it falls into quite a few different genres Hard/Soft SciFi (view spoiler)[Apocalyptic (hide spoiler)] Fantasy.

Boots wrote: "If you give an alien a wand and a wizard hat would that be fantasy?"

Well, yes. Suppose you had a novel that was written for a fantasy audience. In this novel were magical beings from another realm that visited humans on Earth. Any reader could plainly see that the author means for the magical beings to be aliens - and yet as told through the eyes of the human characters - the novel is STILL fantasy. More because of the WAY it is written and the audience it is made to appeal to than because of its content. Whether it actually does appeal to a fantasy audience or not (they may cry foul when they recognize aliens in their fantasy soup, just as you balk at vampires lurking in your sci-fi-pie) is another matter entirely.

New poster here!

I don't think it's "Hard" science fiction.

There are a number of reasons, and I think the vampire thing was one major killer for me (there are a couple of others that I'll get to in other posts).

(view spoiler)[The "Crucifix glitch" is based on a lot of faulty assumptions that just
make it silly. Right angles aren't that uncommon in nature,
especially when you allow for the perception of right angles
when several objects at different distances cross (trees and the
horizon?). I guess all vampires, when they saw right angles,
held their heads in perfect alignment with the intersecting lines so that both
the horizontal and vertical receptor arrays fired simultaneously? Humans
don't "see" right angles perfectly in alignment with their eyeballs, they perceive
them--think about how you still know things are "up" when you're doing
a headstand or lying on your side. In addition, I saw no reason for there
even to BE vampires, the intelligence comparison not withstanding.
The pointless death of Sarasti baffled me--why was he even in the story? (hide spoiler)]

Moses wrote: "New poster here!

I don't think it's "Hard" science fiction.

There are a number of reasons, and I think the vampire thing was one major killer for me (there are a couple of others that I'll get ..."

I agree.

While I appreciate the effort put into explaining how and why vampires are around, I just don't find it convincing.

(view spoiler)[I guess Watts was trying to find a way for the captain to run the mission without the humans second guessing a machine at every turn. With the characters involved being "the bleeding edge" of human intelligence, this would be difficult to achieve with just the chain of command or some kind of military structure in place involving a "non-augmented" human as a leader. I imagine the crew would've rejected that authority and done their own thing from the outset.

While I'm not sure vampires were the way to go, I think I see what Watts was trying to do. (hide spoiler)]

I would consider the book more a dystopian SF novel than a hard SF, but only because of tone. Most hard SF books deal with the wonder of the new and unexplored. This book is more about the humans on the ship than it is about the aliens. The aliens are the MacGuffin of the book; they only exist to move the plot along.

I have no doubt that the author did his homework on the science, and in that aspect it would seem to qualify as “hard”. But the theme of the book is about sentience versus intelligence. I can’t say I like any of the possible next steps presented in the book. I don’t want to be a Luddite, but obvious body modifications are not my thing.

I’d almost agree with the horror categorization for the look and feel of the book as a whole. Everyone in the book is Frankenstein’s monster, with Siri playing a dual role as monster and observer. The book is horror in the same way Brazil is a horror movie. Like Brazil, I think dystopian is a better shelve to place Blindsight on though.

Basil wrote: "Boots wrote: "If you give an alien a wand and a wizard hat would that be fantasy?"

Well, yes. Suppose you had a novel that was written for a fantasy audience. In this novel were magical beings fro..."

You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. The Book of the New Sun is a perfect example of a book being written as fantasy in a SciFi world. It doesn't remain fantasy because it was written in that style, it becomes SciFi/Fantasy.

Grant wrote: "...I think I see what Watts was trying to do."

I agree and recognize what he was trying to do, but there are many other science-based ways to achieve his goal than introducing a fantasy element like vampires.

Boots wrote: "You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. The Book of the New Sun is a perfect example of a book being written as fantasy in a SciFi world. It doesn't remain fantasy because it was written in that style, it becomes SciFi/Fantasy."

I can't speak to BotNS as I haven't read it yet (still new to the group). I'll say this about the vampires in Blindsight - they are not at all mystical or magical - in fact the vampire mythos is explained empirically here better than anywhere else I've encountered.

I'd go as far as saying that Watts gave us a better scientific accounting for vampires than any sci-fi zombie movie has ever given for zombies. And zombies (before they became disease carriers) were extremely mystical/magical. Corpses brought back to life to do the bidding of evil voodoo priests - I think - is the original concept of zombies.

So if a movie like 28 Days Later can be considered sci-fi/horror, without a hint of fantasy, then so can Blindsight.

Basil wrote: "...the vampire mythos is explained empirically here better than anywhere else..."

I think so too. The thing that doesn't sit so well with me is that the source of the idea is pure fiction with no science.

From the notes at the end of the book:

"Homo sapiens vampiris was a short-lived Human subspecies
which diverged from the ancestral line between 800,000 and
500,000 year BP."

I don't believe this is found in any scientific literature.

The rationalisation of vampires is quite well done, but that kernel of scientific truth is missing.

aldenoneil wrote: "Grant wrote: "The rationalisation of vampires is quite well done, but that kernel of scientific truth is missing."

Well, but if Clarke was writing hard SF, and he had aliens in his fiction, doesn'..."

Well said.

Good point.

Basil wrote: "I'd go as far as saying that Watts gave us a better scientific accounting for vampires than any sci-fi zombie movie has ever given for zombies. And zombies (before they became disease carriers) were extremely mystical/magical. Corpses brought back to life to do the bidding of evil voodoo priests - I think - is the original concept of zombies.

So if a movie like 28 Days Later can be considered sci-fi/horror, without a hint of fantasy, then so can Blindsight. "

So that makes Blindsight SciFi/Horror then, right? And if he included Zombies or Leprechauns or any other historically non-existent creature it would be disqualified from the hard SciFi genre, wouldn't it?

Grant wrote: "I think so too. The thing that doesn't sit so well with me is that the source of the idea is pure fiction with no science.

From the notes at the end of the book:

"Homo sapiens vampiris was a short-lived Human subspecies
which diverged from the ancestral line between 800,000 and
500,000 year BP."

I don't believe this is found in any scientific literature.

The rationalisation of vampires is quite well done, but that kernel of scientific truth is missing."

Thank you, Grant, I think this is what I've been trying to say.

aldenoneil wrote: "Well, but if Clarke was writing hard SF, and he had aliens in his fiction, doesn't that put him out of the genre as well? We don't have any scientific literature supporting aliens, either."

I see what you're saying.

I guess life on Earth is the science and life elsewhere is the (possible) fiction.

That works out, right?

aldenoneil wrote: "Grant wrote: "The rationalisation of vampires is quite well done, but that kernel of scientific truth is missing."

Well, but if Clarke was writing hard SF, and he had aliens in his fiction, doesn'..."

As far as I can remember from the Clarke books I have read, and I could be wrong, but I don't ever remember him changing current human scientific history to help him justify the future existence of aliens.

Also aliens are currently theoretically possible if not probable whereas ancient vampires do not currently exist and are highly unlikely.

Paleontologists discover new extinct species all the time. I don't think Watts had to rewrite scientific history. I think he was fairly speculating on a future paleonotological discovery. Which is fair game in sci-fi if you ask me.

I'm spending a lot of energy defending the existence of Sarasti. Sigh, when the reality is that AT BEST I was apathetic towards him as a character/device.

I'm still having a hard time shrugging Chris' accusation that vampires were included to be a bit trendy. There were so many other ways to accomplish the character role of Sarasti without vampire "mythology." What if he was just a serial killer? Surely that would invited more interesting extrapolation and science than re-inventing vampires.

aldenoneil wrote: "Boots wrote: "Also aliens are currently theoretically possible if not probable whereas ancient vampires do not currently exist and are highly unlikely. "

You just broke millions of young girls' hearts."

It wouldn't be the first time!... err maybe it is the first time actually, but it won't be the last!... err maybe it will be the last, but either way somebody had to do it sometime. If you have any other dreams that need crushing just let me know, I'll take care of it.

aldenoneil wrote: "Adding an element of the fantastical is a neat twist, and why not?"

I get the sense from earlier posts that Hard SciFi is, in a way, sacred. Using vampires, regardless of how well realised they are, is blasphemy.

It's unfortunate that Sarasti has overshadowed the conversation. To me there were more interesting ideas involved; consciousness and intelligence, syntax and semantics, perceptual errors (view spoiler)[like inattentional blindness (hide spoiler)].

With the accelerating rate of change, will we be able to partition our brains and exploit (current) psychiatric disorders to increase the computational power of the human mind in a mere 70 years? I think it's possible.

Will we live in a society that permits and even promotes those kinds of modifications? I think that may take more time.

Is Blindsight truly hard SciFi? For some maybe not, but I found there was more than enough meaty science to satisfy my appetite.

Sodon wrote: "I'm still having a hard time shrugging Chris' accusation that vampires were included to be a bit trendy. There were so many other ways to accomplish the character role of Sarasti without vampire "m..."

But wouldn't have allowed Watts the avenue to explore Sarasti's improved mental capability.

Matthew wrote: "But wouldn't have allowed Watts the avenue to explore Sarasti's improved mental capability."


Watts already had genetic enhancements built-in to the story. It's difficult for me to understand the necessity of including a vampire when all of the roles he played could easily have been covered by a more science-based explanation (view spoiler)[say, a decade or two before the story, psychopaths were given the opportunity to undergo experimental gene therapy to correct their behaviors...they became less psychopathic, more intelligent, more perceptive (physically and perhaps psychologically), and stronger, but were also adversely affected (either intentionally or as an unintended side-effect of the therapy) such that they needed XXXYYY drug to keep them from going comatose. Then, we wouldn't need a fantasy element, we'd have a scientific explanation that fit with the others, he'd still satisfy the needs for intimidating the crew, he'd still be stronger, faster, and more intelligent than the crew, and he'd still have reason to avoid them. Why vampires specifically? They're not relevant to the story, and because they come from fantasy, they distract from the story. (hide spoiler)]

Moses nailed what I was getting at.

aldenoneil wrote: "Moses wrote: "Psychopaths"

There's still that missing element of being a true predator, though. Sure, psychopaths kill, but not as a survival instinct.

And though they're fantasy, vampires are a..."

Meh. The original question was about "Hard" science fiction. The front cover claimed Watts is the best living hard scifi writer or something to that effect. I was expecting something that was truly hard science fiction, and the vampires ruined it for me; they throw this into fantasy/scifi for me. Not any worse than Star Trek, to be sure, but still disappointing.

In addition, Watts obviously did a lot of scratching at things he didn't understand, and his lack of depth shows.

Example:
Big Ben:
(view spoiler)[Big Ben is first described as a "quantum particle, heavy as ten Jupiters." This threw me out of the story quite forcefully. What does that sentence even mean? I don't even know where to start picking at it. The putative brown dwarf-sized infrared emitters Watts is trying to use as an example for Big Ben are macro objects, not quantum objects. Scientists don't use the word "heavy" unless we're talking about an object within an external gravity field--massive is the word he needed there (hide spoiler)]-- this matters to me because I was expecting something different from what I got. Does it matter to you? Maybe, maybe not.

aldenoneil wrote: "I'm still firmly Team Edward."

Yes! Team Sarasti! I think I'll be shelving this one next to Twilight.