Believable Earth-based SF novels

[Dr Wu]

Can anyone recommend any fairly "realistic" Earth-based SF novels (or short stories) published during the last ten years or thereabouts, and which are recognisably set in the "near future" - that's to say falling within the next 25 - 50 years? Sorry about the quote tags.

 

[BWV]

Vinge's Rainbow's end was written in the early 2000s and set in 2025, but might believably be 2040 (SF authors are ever the optimists)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbows_End_(novel)

 

[Dr Wu]

Thanks for that. As a result I've now ordered a copy of "Rainbow's End" and looking forward to reading it.

Going on the lack of response thus far suggests that a negative outcome isn't necessarily a bad result. Possibly it reveals that there really is a paucity of novels fulfilling the above criteria. If so - and this is only a conjecture on my part - it would indicate that creating such a fictional work is a tough call for writers, a lot tougher, say, than having Earth-based settings located in more remote futures, or pasts (whether alternative or historically real). The one let-out here are settings of an apocalyptic nature - Nevil Shute's "On the Beach" being a classic example of this genre. "Neuromancer" might be considered another.* Other than that, writing about the near-future in "fairly realistic ways" appears to be harder, in part because it rubs up more forcefully against our contemporary world, and does so in ways that require greater foresight from the writer than would otherwise be the case, given a different context. It would be over-egging things to suggest that an "event horizon" surrounds the near future, as far as it applies to SF. Still, as one who is writing a fictional work set in the near future, I can certainly feel the tensions, especially in terms of nomenclature, projections of near-techno advances, and the like.

A closing thought: film seems far less bedevilled by this issue than prose. The only explanation that comes to mind (okay, call it a hunch) is that whereas film is nearly entirely "show", prose SF requires a lot more "Tell". I sense there's far more to be said on this distinction, should it exist, but the clock is ticking, and hey, there are things to be done in the real world too. . .

*I'm sticking my neck out here, given that I've just started reading "Neuromancer", though I am utterly familiar with movie spin-offs like "The Matrix".

Thanks for reading this belated response.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Benford's Artifact is a little earlier than you window, but is excellent and the premise required no more advanced technology than available today.

Of course "believable" is in the eye of the beholder. As Da Regular Guy, the movie critic for WXRT-FM said about While You Were Sleeping: I seen a man with x-ray vision who could fly. I seen a giant ape climb up the Empire State Building. I even seen a giant fire-breathing reptile attack Tokyo. But I ain;t seen nothing as unbelievable as Sandra Bullock not being able to find a date on a Saturday night.

 

[Dr Wu]

Thanks for that, Vanadium 50. I'll certainly give it a go. Like a lot of SF novels Artifact split the reviewers in Goodreads, some either praising or complaining about its high physics content. Well, okay, but it's worth keeping in mind that we're dealing with the hard end of Science Fiction here, though it seems some people forget that.

To wrap things up, the thought has since occurred that one way to exercise some control over near-future settings, and so forth, is to alter the near past. This needn't be a big deal; just a slight nudge in the right direction should be sufficient, depending on context. I offer this get-out-of-jail card to anyone who, for example, may be contemplating penning a near-future story about the "likely" advances in robotics and the computer sciences in general, and doing so without wanting to blow an apocalyptic fuse in the process. Still, good luck with that given all the headwinds about AI currently sweeping through the media

 

[Hornbein]

Benford's Artifact is a little earlier than you window, but is excellent and the premise required no more advanced technology than available today.

Of course "believable" is in the eye of the beholder. As Da Regular Guy, the movie critic for WXRT-FM said about While You Were Sleeping: I seen a man with x-ray vision who could fly. I seen a giant ape climb up the Empire State Building. I even seen a giant fire-breathing reptile attack Tokyo. But I ain;t seen nothing as unbelievable as Sandra Bullock not being able to find a date on a Saturday night.

I find it quite believable. Both Marilyn Monroe and Hedy Lamarr said they had trouble dating. Men felt they didn't measure up.

 

[EventHorizon]

The Chinese novel 三体 (Three-Body Trilogy) is also good as well as realistic but the plot is sometimes confusing