What Is Hardcore/Hard Science Fiction Really?
πͺπππ§ ππ¦ πππ₯πππ’π₯π/πππ₯π π¦ππππ‘ππ ππππ§ππ’π‘ π₯πππππ¬?
Whilst researching and keeping myself current on events in the scientific world I often come across interesting articles for discussion. So, as part of my Wednesdays science fiction blogging, I like to choose a topic that will hopefully create some debate.
Something I have experienced personally is the individual interpretation of what hard science fiction actually is and a story should constitute? For me there are two camps. Camp one believes that it should rigidly stay within the confines of known science and should never venture outside of that (this camp is probably the minority). Camp two believes that the science is there to lend plausibility, as far as is reasonably practicable, but is duty bound to push the boundaries of the genre.
I am definitely in camp two! I feel that science fiction is meant to stretch our imaginations on concepts that are not currently achievable and that a hard science fiction writer should strive to generate awareness of such fictional possibilities whilst maintaining a plausible setting within which their story is set.
Recent examples of what camp one love would be the fact that the thrusters in the movie βInterstellarβ are silent, accurately mirroring the effects of a vacuum, or the physiological frailties experienced by the Belters in βThe Expanseβ series.
What are your views, can we not have both? Can space opera and hard science coexist, or am I really the anti-Christ of hard science fiction (ok the accusations didnβt go that far, but you get my point)?
Whilst researching and keeping myself current on events in the scientific world I often come across interesting articles for discussion. So, as part of my Wednesdays science fiction blogging, I like to choose a topic that will hopefully create some debate.
Something I have experienced personally is the individual interpretation of what hard science fiction actually is and a story should constitute? For me there are two camps. Camp one believes that it should rigidly stay within the confines of known science and should never venture outside of that (this camp is probably the minority). Camp two believes that the science is there to lend plausibility, as far as is reasonably practicable, but is duty bound to push the boundaries of the genre.
I am definitely in camp two! I feel that science fiction is meant to stretch our imaginations on concepts that are not currently achievable and that a hard science fiction writer should strive to generate awareness of such fictional possibilities whilst maintaining a plausible setting within which their story is set.
Recent examples of what camp one love would be the fact that the thrusters in the movie βInterstellarβ are silent, accurately mirroring the effects of a vacuum, or the physiological frailties experienced by the Belters in βThe Expanseβ series.
What are your views, can we not have both? Can space opera and hard science coexist, or am I really the anti-Christ of hard science fiction (ok the accusations didnβt go that far, but you get my point)?
No comments have been added yet.
