The answer is both. Clearly, I needed an economic reason why this insanely expensive thing could be built. I could have invented Gee-Whiz technology to say it could be done cheaply, or put it far enough into the future that it somehow wasn't a big deal, but I wanted that optimism for a reason. I was trying to get the flavor of the space race. I wanted a 1950s world (the world we imagined the 50s were like) of excitement and optimism. I wanted this thing to be a sort of pride of humanity the way the moon shots were a point of pride for Americans. There was some mention of things like people watching the launches from baseball games and the launches being a big deal, even though right now a space shuttle launch doesn't even make the news.
So yeah, the optimism was intentional, but it was also necessary. Now that I think about it, I outlined "Endure" while I was writing "Sea." Endure starts with about the most depressing scenario I could come up with, but ends happily. Maybe as readers we need that expectation-defying factor in our fiction. Just a thought. -- Jonathan Sherwood Sr. Science & Technology Press Officer University of Rochester 585-273-4726 On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Eric Scoles <[email protected]> wrote: > Optimists? Bah! Who needs 'em? What have they ever done for the betterment > of mankind? > > I mean, other than building things, bearing children, and promulgating the > idea of progress. > > Seriously, though: I don't really buy the idea of SF as a principally > negativist enterprise, or even (which is really S.W.'s point) that it > changes that much in positivity or negativity with economic trends. Analog, > at least, tends to the positivist as far as I've ever been able to tell, and > it seems pretty consistent over time. It would be harder to say one way or > the other about Asimovs. If she's talking about her own editorial focus, > that would be different, but that doesn't seem to be what she's talking > about. > > What might be interesting is to contrast the stuff that's successful within > the field to the stuff that attains more popular success. Or even what's > successful in terms of awards (Nebula *or* Hugo) with what sells. > > If I were a betting man, I'd bet that on the mode, "negativism" sells more > and "positivism" wins more awards. > > Rather than settle that hypothetical bet with myself, though, I'm going to > go back to working on my grim novel about the corruption of democratic > society through the growth of the surveillance state... > > Also, Jonathan's response highlights how difficult it would be to classify > what constitutes optimism versus pessimism. It's really a pretty grim story > -- "Cold Equations" taken to school and made to work harder, if you will. > But it's got that one optimistic sub-premise. The problem is that the > optimistic premise (as Sheila points out) is critical to the story, because > without it, the amount of effort required for the scenario is just not > plausible. So is it that the premise is optimistic because Jonathan is > optimistic, or because he needed it to support the scenario? > > (Jonathan? Is there actually an answer to that question?) > > > > delancey wrote: > > July Asimov arrived today. Sentence 1 of William's editorial: "In > his February 2006 story, 'Under the Graying Sea,' Jonathan Sherwood > imagines a future where, for short time, 'the world was at peace, > economies were expanding, and generosity chic.'" > > It goes on from there. > > Who is this Sherwood she cites? Let's make him an honorary member of > R-Spec. He could balance our famous pessimists. > > cd > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
