[PREV - NEOLOOGIES] [TOP]
IN_DEEP
I'm toying with the
name "Deep SF", for
a new sub-category
of science fiction.
Here I'm trying to
manifest a manifesto
for it:
((note: deleted some dull crap
about how "deep sf" isn't like
that shallow stuff. ))
All right, do over:
You gotta show more
enthusiasm, none of
this incessant rambling Next step: drop the first person.
about what something Manifestoes are supposed to
*isn't*, come on. pretend that there are hordes of
people out there marching in lockstep
chanting the words.
What am I after?
I'm after *depth*.
I'm after stuff that
cuts to the heart of
the way the world works
not just the way the world *seems*
not just the way the world *is*
I'm after visions
detailed enough to
give you a feel for Or at least a feel for the way
how they might work it has to be falsified to give
out in reality. you the feeling that it might
work.
I'm after
content. I want THROUGH_THE_LENS
form and content
fused together,
but if I can
only get one,
I'll take the
content. "Deep SF" should display a grasp
Stylists need of both technology and the humanities.
not apply. Get every lobe firing.
BIBLES
The ultimate in Deep SF (It "cranks on both lobes"?)
transforms the world by
it's very existance, it's a
meme vortex that spins off
through the minds of
humanity and infects even
those that haven't read the
original work.
It depicts a world that does not
exist, but seems so vivid, so
plausible that all who encounter it
make it their life's work to bring
it about or prevent it from ever Or to begin desperately
happening. imagining other alternatives:
third ways out.
Deep SF need not be
"Hard SF" But the
ultimate Deep SF HARD_PROBLEMS
would be:
How hard is
A union of insights from "More Than Human"?
disparate fields, that
creates new disciplines "The Stars My
in it's wake. Destination"?
Would I want to
deny that they're
"Deep"?
HARD
People to watch:
Gregory Benford
Bruce Sterling Yeah, they're
Kenneth MacCleod all boys.
Cory Doctorow
Samuel R. Delany I'm not sure that
this is my problem.
Maybe:
Stephen Baxter
Iain M. Banks
Greg Egan
Charles Stross
===
The evolution of a doomfile Should I move this to
rectpara in four snapshots: SCAFFOLDING?
No, I guess not...
(1) I'm after visions worked there's a relevant
out in detail to give you point or two way down
a feel for the way the there.
vision might actually work
out.
Uh, "worked out" and "work out"?
Bleh. There has to be a better way
to say this... eh, already, delete
the last "out" for now, come back to this
later:
(2) I'm after visions worked
out in detail to give you
a feel for the way the
vision might actually work.
Now it's later, and there's still
that style problem, "worked out"
and "work". Ah, just change the
first to "realized"! And I can
restore the word "out" to the
phrase "actually work out"...
that's one of those "unnecessary"
words that helps the flow
somehow. In fact, maybe it could
use a few more words:
(3) I'm after visions realized
in enough detail to give
you a feel for the way the
vision might actually work
out in reality.
Um... "visions realized"
and "work out in reality"?
Okay, okay, chop some of
the "excess" again: Maybe:
(4) I'm after visions realized I'm after visions
in enough detail to give detailed enough to
you a feel for the way the give you a feel for
vision might actually work how they might work
out. out in reality.
Okay call that (5)
And there it sits for now.
I have to wonder though, what's
really going on here?
There's this rule about
avoiding the reuse of I've been having the same
words in close proximity, problem with "spin offs".
and subjectively I agree I got gadgets spinning off
with the rule. from ideas, and memes
spinning off through minds.
It looks stupidly stupid to go
around stupidifying your stupid My brain is
shit with too many stupid all awhirl.
repetitions unless it's obvious
your stupidizing things on
purpose.
But why am I having such problems But I don't *think* so.
with this one damn sentence? It's not really that
Maybe it's really an inane complicated a set of concepts.
tautology I'm doing my best to
diguise.
Idea ---> Fiction
\ .
Sometimes you gotta wonder about language \ .
as the medium for expressing thought. .\| .
`'
It's a medium that definitely Reality
massages the message.
Not a new thought, not
an original thought, Two methods of
but maybe a true enough implementing an
thought, if not the idea; fiction
whole truth. considered as a
demo, a dress-
There it is. rehersal, part
How do you deal? of an evaluation
process.
Maybe the
trouble is
that most of
the terminology
that describes
what I'm getting
"I think fiction at already has
should be more this notion
realistic so embedded in it.
that it can be
more like stuff
that's real."
--------
[NEXT - HARD_PROBLEMS]