I've been brought short by a rather interesting interview with Stanley Schmidt in Locus in which he posits a definition of Hard SF that made me pause: What I mean by ‘hard science fiction’ is actually pretty simple: there’s some element of speculative science or technology in it, which is so integral to the story that you can’t take it out without making the whole story collapse. Which is a much more generous definition than I am used to: it makes Flowers for Algernon hard SF. I fall into the trap of assuming that "Hard" means worked out in nitty-gritty detail and scoring high for plausibility, having no obvious scientific implausibilites, like FTL. This probably makes Arthur Clarke the hardest SF writer of all as this is exactly what he specialised in: but it also means that, say Cordwainer Smith could just about squeak under the bar in places.

Which is encouraging. I love Smith's fabulatory style and it's spawned at least one imitator in Michael Coney and his Celestial Steam Locomotive. I find myself wondering it it's possible to combine some hardcore space opera and Smith's style. Although we live in far to cynical an age to get away with it, I suspect. Still, might be interesting to try, and NanoWriMo is coming up..

Well, that didn't last long, did it? Ok, I took an offer of a job from Pitbull Studio. Sold out in a matter of weeks (if not days). Possibly the biggiest climbdown since the UK left the ERM. Well, I exaggerate slightly, but firstly, at Pitbull I'm not working on a game, but an engine, and secondly, they are pretty awesome as an employer, eschewing many of the practices that lead many to view the game industry with a jaundiced eye. So, work will continue on my indie plans, just much more slowly and - this is important for a family man - securely.

Onwards!