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.
