SciFi and Fantasy eBook Club discussion
General Topics
>
Explanation: Hard SF
To my mind, at least on the literary side of SF, "hard" SF is that where the author knows enough about the science involved that what takes place in the story technologically is, at least theoretically, reasonably possible based on current scientific research (which means it may become dated in a decade or two as new discoveries are made and prior theories are proved invalid or much more difficult to implement than had been speculated). Such stories usually therefore spend some amount of time explaining some of the physics and technology involved, rather than just saying "warp factor 3!" or "release the nanobots!", and typically much of the plot is driven by the science.As a result, a fair amount of what I would consider hard SF has, in fact, been written by physicists, computer engineers, and outright "rocket scientists". Usually (but not always) if aliens are involved, they're not just arbitrary invaders, but have some logical reason for invading (if it happens to be an alien invasion story).
I would agree that "2001: A Space Odyssey" could be considered a hard SF movie, as the "rocket science" and such were pretty solid and realistically depicted (in space, no one can hear you scream ;) ). Off the top of my head, I'm hard pressed to think of other sci-fi movies I've seen that weren't at best only flexible-SF: most SF movies are all about special effects these days while realism and explication have to suffer. I guess maybe "Deep Impact" could qualify, though the supposition that nuking a comet would save us is highly suspect.
To me, Hard SF is fiction where (1) the science is consistent with current scientific understanding and (2) the scientific speculation is central to the story, by which I mean take away the science and the story would be fundamentally different. That's not to say the story is *about* the science but it wouldn't work the same way without it.That leaves a enormous variety of possible story settings.
My favourite Hard SF author is Stephen Baxter and I recommend trying out his Destiny's Children series, starting with Coalescent. I met the guy once at a convention and he was a joy -- brimming over with passion about science fiction. He was supposed to be promoting Coalescent, but was far more interested in talking about HG Wells and insect society! There's a GR page about the series here: http://www.goodreads.com/series/49784...
Tim's description is pretty good. Hard Science can be extrapolated pretty far from where we are today so long as it is a logical extrapolation and based on current science or current scientific theory.
Luckily, with scientific theory advance by leaps and bounds, even FTL travel and energy weapons aren't necessarily Space Opera in nature any more - depending on how the science is written.
On of my favorite examples of hard science is Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy. They're grand is scope and some of the science becomes quite advanced but it all continues to feel very plausible.
Luckily, with scientific theory advance by leaps and bounds, even FTL travel and energy weapons aren't necessarily Space Opera in nature any more - depending on how the science is written.
On of my favorite examples of hard science is Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy. They're grand is scope and some of the science becomes quite advanced but it all continues to feel very plausible.
Hi there, thank you very much so far for helping me out on this one. And I am very happy that I am not too far off from a proper understanding of "Hard SciFi".
And thank you very much for the first recommendations. I have added a couple of items to my "want-to-read"-list.
I would like to rephrase my question, including your statements so far:
Although I have based my original posting on space-travel-stories and -movies so far, I would not want to consider these ones alone as hard SciFi; but I'd rather consider hard SciFi as an quite open genre that includes stories about alternate present or past history, stories about cataclysms or catastrophes having huge impacts on the complete earth-environment etc. or simply very realistic, but plot- and character-wise fictitious depiction of the world we live in. But all of this would only apply as long as these stories follow logic and are based on acknowledged scientific paradigms, right? In other words: Hard SciFi does not necessarily demand anything including space-sciences or space-travelling, right?
All the best!
Liam
I'm not sure how much as you can say any genre actually requires anything, but I'd just say that the science needs to be plausible and supported by current acknowledged experts (for some undefinable amount of plausibility) and that the plot be driven at least to some extent by that science, which may almost become a pseudo character of sorts -- remembering that science includes biology, psychology, ecology, anthropology, and other things that might not pertain directly to space travel. Niven/Pournelle's Lucifer's Hammer might be a good example of hard SF without a bit of space travel in it.PS: The antithesis to Lucifer's Hammer and "Deep Impact", in my opinion, would be the 1988 movie "Armageddon", which combined a silly plot with shoddy physics along with an asteroid that looked nothing like any photos we have of any such astronomical body. :-)
Liam wrote: "And I am very happy that I am not too far off from a proper understanding of "Hard SciFi"
Not to nitpick overtly, but "SciFi" isn't an really approbate term for Hard Science Fiction. As I see it, SciFi is a loosey goosey short hand term for science fiction with bad science. Not everybody agrees. But when I was growing up science fiction magazines like Omni specifically admonished "SciFi" as derogatory and they were definitely on the Hard SF side. SciFi more widely accepted nowadays, and you can probably get away with it for movies or authors like David Weber. But "Hard SciFi" just doesn't sound right for authors like Verner Vinge, Greg Bear, or Kim Stanley Robinson.
Not to nitpick overtly, but "SciFi" isn't an really approbate term for Hard Science Fiction. As I see it, SciFi is a loosey goosey short hand term for science fiction with bad science. Not everybody agrees. But when I was growing up science fiction magazines like Omni specifically admonished "SciFi" as derogatory and they were definitely on the Hard SF side. SciFi more widely accepted nowadays, and you can probably get away with it for movies or authors like David Weber. But "Hard SciFi" just doesn't sound right for authors like Verner Vinge, Greg Bear, or Kim Stanley Robinson.
Hi there, Uhoh ... Silly my. Then I won't speak of SciFi anymore ... ;)
Thanks for the additional recoms ...
About Armageddon: that's entertainment, nothing more. It's worth your while if you enjoy turning off your head for the full length of the movie. I enjoyed the movie a lot, but no doubt: I would not consider it to be of any value beyond the entertainment-thing ...
All the best!
Liam
I use the term all the time as a short hand for all Science Fiction without attaching any definition to it ... But, as Greg says, some do and some don't.
It's similar to separating Trekkies, Trekkers and Star Trek fans IMO. We're all geeks - we're just parsing up our geekdom. :-)
It's similar to separating Trekkies, Trekkers and Star Trek fans IMO. We're all geeks - we're just parsing up our geekdom. :-)
Yeah, I personally don't give any special connotation to "SciFi", "Sci-Fi", etc. -- to me it's just a quicker way to type "science fiction". But I know there are those who do give it a (negative?) connotation as a sort of sub-genre of science fiction. Just don't assume that's what I mean when I (lazily) type it here, though. :-)
I reallly like Charles' description of hard SF (and please forgive the use of 'SF' for those who don't like it used in this context) but I would like to take it in a little further. What I especially like about Lucifer's Hammer is the use of science to set up the extreme situation and then the use of social sciences to extrapolate on the direction that situation would take us (meaning us as a civilization). So for me hard SF doesn't need to have all that much science, it just needs to keep the science as plausible and accurate as possible so that the impact on people remains that much more credible. A whole new world created with just a little realistic tweak to science. Thanks for an interesting discussion. Sheila
Science per se often doesn't play a role in some of the best and universally recognized science fiction. For example, where is the science in Asimov's Foundational series? Psychohistory is not a real science.But psychohistory has the trappings of real science - it feels and reads as if it was scientifically plausible. Whether or not science will ever have the capacity to mathematically predict the future ala LaPlace is beside the point.
Though, come to think of it, Nate Silver's use of statistics to predict the outcome of the election last night looks like a step forward.
So far as I know, no one complains about SF as a shorthand for Science Fiction, except maybe folks in San Francisco.
Hard science fiction doesn't have to be peer tested science, it just has to follow current scientific methodology. For example Greg Egan's Clockwork Rocket created a universe where different colors of light have different speeds, completely changing a lot of laws of physics. The author admits that some of his science will be wrong because one man can't rewrite everything we know in one novel, but it is still hard science fiction.
Hard science fiction doesn't have to be peer tested science, it just has to follow current scientific methodology. For example Greg Egan's Clockwork Rocket created a universe where different colors of light have different speeds, completely changing a lot of laws of physics. The author admits that some of his science will be wrong because one man can't rewrite everything we know in one novel, but it is still hard science fiction.
Hello there, thank you to all of you for helping me out or giving me a feeling for this.
S.J. wrote: " What I especially like about Lucifer's Hammer is the use of science to set up the extreme situation and then the use of social sciences to extrapolate on the direction that situation would take us (meaning us as a civilization). So for me hard SF doesn't need to have all that much science, it just needs to keep the science as plausible and accurate as possible so that the impact on people remains that much more credible."
Actually this what I hope to find and read a lot.
All the best!
Liam
Hi there, S.J. wrote: "Okay. I had no intention of doing this (please believe me) but I would like to say that using a bit of credible, futuristic science to explore the human condition, and society, is what I tried to ..."
interesting. That's exactly what I was asking for: recommendations. In my humble opinion there is no reason to dismiss your efforts answering my questions and addressing my own helplessness on this topic (, which is, actually, the reason why I raised this question after all ...). Anyway: I added your Longevity to the list of books I want to read ... Thanks for the recoms ...
All the best!
Liam
Liam wrote: "Hi there, S.J. wrote: "Okay. I had no intention of doing this (please believe me) but I would like to say that using a bit of credible, futuristic science to explore the human condition, and soc..."
Thanks Liam. You gotta understand, though, that I don't want to jeopardize the quality of the discussions on this site by anything that approaches within a lightyear of shameless self promotion. We'll see if anyone else is at all bothered. Thanks again! Sheila
We do prefer to keep any self-promotion limited to the "Authors" forum here. Otherwise it's very easy to slide down the slippery slope of every thread in every forum becoming a vehicle for unscrupulous (or just over-zealous) authors hawking their wares on us. As a mere assistant moderator here, I'll leave it to our fearless leader (Geoffrey) as to whether the above remains or not. (It's Friday, I'm tired, it's been a helluva 2 weeks here in north Jersey, etc., etc., and so forth.)
Charles wrote: "We do prefer to keep any self-promotion limited to the "Authors" forum here. Otherwise it's very easy to slide down the slippery slope of every thread in every forum becoming a vehicle for unscrupu..."Thanks Charles, I should be able to delete enough and leave enough to remove the offense and still not confuse people. I appreciate the gentle advice and will take it to heart in the future. Sheila
Liam said: "Hard science fiction doesn't have to be peer tested science, it just has to follow current scientific methodology."...works for me, and equivalents. I look for "hard" sci-fi or similar reference 1. To insure book/story not "fantasy" or anything remotely like it, the conflation of the two surely a gift from the cesspool of advertising, and also to insure some relevance to the world as we know it now. Gibson/Neuromancer/Sprawl pretty much demolished most other sci-fi for me, and while Gibson goes into little detail about, let's say, ion bonding or amperage, he has an uncanny understanding of cause and effect, and the extended implications of the technologies he has imagined across all domains: personal, institutional, political.
I know I'm dating myself, but these are the books that used to define hard SF: Ringworld, Rendezvous With Rama, Man Plus, The Peace War, Blood Music, to drop some titles, some of which may too obscure but I think all have won or been nominated for the Hugo or Nebula Awards.
Blood Music. Easily one of my ten favorite books of all time. If I ever have any kind of significant social media presence (doubtful) I would devote much of it to resurrecting the brilliant and ignored of my favorite books. Ric if you see this check out "Holy Fire" by Bruce Sterling, I think far and away his best story.
More, more. I was so tied up with professional reading so many years, I feel like I was in hibernation.
S.J just checked your to-read list and you're lining up some classics. Saw Neuromancer, a must read, if you like then continue with Sprawl series. Gibson brilliant but uneven,his later stuff I have found no traction. Also you might check Ian Banks "Culture" series, if you like, you have a month or two of solid joy. Relatively "hard" sci-fi in galaxy wide emergent civilizations, super AI's running/being ships the size of large cities, etc., witty and graceful prose.
Check out any of Hal Clement 's work for meticulous hard science fiction.Also John Stith's Redshift Rendezvous for hard-science fiction / crime fiction aboard a ship traveling faster than speed of light.
I find I can't NOT write hard SF in general. I can write fantasy if I work at it. But hard SF comes naturally to me as a scientist. I can do a day or two of research just to ensure I get one sentence worded correctly, and usually have the scientific extrapolations laid out in such a way that I can refer to it for any book in the series and run with it. But my experience in discussing "science" at various cons has led me to realize that any type of fiction has a "science" component, even fantasy - because when the world has rules by which it operates, that becomes its "science," whether it's "swish and flick while saying 'Wingardion leviOHsah" or "using closed-loop strings to tunnel between parallel universes which consist of open strings bound to branes." It's the rule by which that universe operates.
D.C. wrote: "Blood Music. Easily one of my ten favorite books of all time. If I ever have any kind of significant social media presence (doubtful) I would devote much of it to resurrecting the brilliant and i..."Thanks D.C. I'll put the book on my to-read list.
Stephanie - I agree with your analysis. Lord of the Rings is no less rigorous in its rules (what Hobbits can and can't do, etc) than the hardest sf story. Same for Harry Potter. I wrote about this about 10 years ago in http://www.locusmag.com/2002/Reviews/...
Stephanie wrote: "I find I can't NOT write hard SF in general. I can write fantasy if I work at it. But hard SF comes naturally to me as a scientist. I can do a day or two of research just to ensure I get one senten..."Interesting idea. Haven't thought about it myself. But it makes sense. And yet: Is this "hard fictional", only because stories remain within the set limits and paradigms within the story and the "world" of it? Then what, if anything at all, would not be hard SF?
Liam wrote: "And yet: Is this "hard fictional", only because stories remain within the set limits and paradigms within the story and the "world" of it? Then what, if anything at all, would not be hard SF?"There's a difference between "hard fiction" and "hard SF." That difference is determined by whether or not the story is about an extrapolation of current scientific theories and hypotheses. If it is, then it is hard SF. If it is not, it is something else.
The point I was trying to make was that, in order for a story to hold up, it must have a "science" of its own - it must be internally consistent. The rules that govern one sequence of events must perforce govern all similar initial conditions. It must be repeatable. But it does not have to use "science" as we know it.
Stephanie wrote: "Liam wrote: "And yet: Is this "hard fictional", only because stories remain within the set limits and paradigms within the story and the "world" of it? Then what, if anything at all, would not be h..."Okay, I got lost. What is "hard fiction?" I tried to google it and everything came back as "hard science fiction." Were you using it as a catch all for things like thrillers and action that use reality in an exciting way but can't be called SF because they don't extrapolate? Just the facts? This is outside the scope of the discussion but I just want to make sure I'm not missing something basic.
Best discussion, ever, BTW.
Thanks D.C. - added Ian Banks. Life is way too short, and the time for reading is tragically so.
Hello there, @Stephanie: Point taken. I agree with you that a story should have a "science of its own". This is what I expect in terms of coherence and consistency of a story, which is what makes some high-fantasy stuff nice enough to be read.
@S.J.: I don't know if there is the term of "hard fiction" available. And I guess this term would be used differently much depending on the perspective. Your examples with thrillers and action using reality (in terms of a high degree of realism) might be one way to think of "hard fiction". Another approach would be the emotional - like especially rude, brutal, emotional, tragic, dystopian etc. You take the point.
Both qualify as a measure of "hard fiction" - but only for as long as each story told remains coherent. The difference between both, though, would be that "hard fiction" does not necessarily require to be close to "hard science fiction" due to the lack of extrapolation; instead it may be very fantasy-fictitious as one might imagine.
(Please consider this a stram of consciousness based posting; I am making up my mind about it, 'cause I like this drift or spin of the discussion.
Besides: Thank you, S.J., for considering this as "Best discussion, ever,". It is what all of you make of it. :) )
All the best!
Liam
I think perhaps "hard fiction" touches on what's sometimes called "Sanderson's Law": If you define your alternate technology, science, or magic strictly, in a way so the reader understands its rules, capabilities and limitations, you can create a story where problems can be solved logically within that established framework. If your technology or magic isn't well-defined, you get more deus ex machina when someone says "try modulating a tachyon pulse by passing the antimater stream through the deflector array," and suddenly the problem is solved.
G33z3r wrote: "I think perhaps "hard fiction" touches on what's sometimes called "Sanderson's Law": If you define your alternate technology, science, or magic strictly, in a way so the reader understands its rules, capabilities and limitations, you can create a story where problems can be solved logically within that established framework...."This also explains the difference in protocols (and reader expectations) regarding genres. If a dead body is discovered in a room locked from the inside, and suicide is not the cause, you have a good mystery on your hands. If you solve it by discovering the murderer teleported in and out of the room, you may have a good science fiction story, but you've ruined the mystery.
Isaac Asimov was a master, among other things, of successfully navigating and combining the two genres. A robot is programmed never to be able to harm a human, but is found standing near a dead body with blood on its arms. The solution: a human deconstructed the robot and use the robot's arm as the murder weapon, then reassembled the robot.
"What if...." used to be a rule of thumb that led to one or more flavors of Science Fiction. What if a new piece of technology, a new race, space travel, extra-planetary colonies, etc.I would click "similar authors" on author pages of all of the above recommendations and some of the classic "Grand Masters" of science fiction. Plus David Brin and lots of other "B" names for whatever reason seem to be the current crop of hard SF writers.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0772139/ Masters of Science Fiction from Stephen Hawking was well done with some interesting material outside the story adaptations about SF and about the authors. I found http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2091018/ The Prophets of Science Fiction a really fascinating attempt at pulling the hard science bits.
Look thru some of the awards categories for the Hugos, John W. Campbell, Nebula, etc. More authors to checkout or to at least see the "similar author" links.
On some of the classic SF books, well, you do need to glance at publication year to get an idea if remotely plausible at time book was written. Classic SF sometimes starts with the ABCs - Asimov, Bradbury and Clarke. All three do very well at putting in the science without taking away from the story-telling. Isaac Asimov I almost avoided reading because he was the author of a science textbook actually in our school system for a class I did not like but learned to love both for the fascinating what if twists and oddly believable characters (the Lucky Starr series exploring our solar system have some now laughable but then accurate science), Arthur C. Clarke is he of 2001 A Space Odyssey fame, Ray Bradbury a really wide range. The stories, characters and issues stood out in their time particularly since SF was going in very polar opposite directions where you had melodramatic characters and space opera on one end and hard science with little story or characters on the other.
Also classic hard SF, Robert A. Heinlein naval engineer partly responsible for robot waldo arms (the movie Starship Troopers not at all like the book except for some character names and that aliens were being fought), Lester del Rey (yes, eventually publisher del Rey books) Philip K. Dick (often eerily what if), Ben Bova, and others.
Easier to judge "hard" sf by the classics; while some will read dated and certainly older politics—not a bad place to start clicking "similar authors." Honestly some do or don't hold up to re-reading because so out of date or politically skewed and you have to remember the published date if judging them unoriginal—like saying I Love Lucy or Dickens' Christmas Carol are unoriginal because so many sitcoms have done the exact same skits.
Some of the 1970s era stuff got as weird as some of the drug culture; some of the 1980s all wanted Star Wars or Tolkien fame (Tolkien obviously fantasy and not hard sf but I swear after living thru some 80's reads I do not want to see another map or start a series where charcters are endlessly wandering said map) - like the deluge of Tolkien, Twilight, Fifty Shades and Hunger Game wannabes coming out daily in our times.
Good reading and excellent thread!
Liam wrote: "Although I have based my original posting on space-travel-stories and -movies so far, I would not want to consider these ones alone as hard SciFi..."
To mention something I consider "hard science fiction" without getting into space (any further than communications satellites), consider Stross's Halting State (& sequel Rule 34). These are basically police procedurals (crime investigations) set in Edinburgh only a few years in the future. All Stross has done is extrapolated some existing technological developments into common use: ubiquitous networking, hackers working with both governmental and non-governmental interests, police with eGlasses to provide augmented reality, expert systems and 3D printers.
Because it's set in 2018+, it will soon seem quaint, like 2001. (Back in 1969, I thought a manned mission to Jupiter thirty years in the future sounded plausible, too.)
To mention something I consider "hard science fiction" without getting into space (any further than communications satellites), consider Stross's Halting State (& sequel Rule 34). These are basically police procedurals (crime investigations) set in Edinburgh only a few years in the future. All Stross has done is extrapolated some existing technological developments into common use: ubiquitous networking, hackers working with both governmental and non-governmental interests, police with eGlasses to provide augmented reality, expert systems and 3D printers.
Because it's set in 2018+, it will soon seem quaint, like 2001. (Back in 1969, I thought a manned mission to Jupiter thirty years in the future sounded plausible, too.)
A brief clip about the profound difference between time travel and space travel, and the implications of this difference for science fictionhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJP-Yq...
About seeming quaint - that is a risk for a lot of it, whether actual dates are used or not. One of my favorite books that I can't imagine ever seeming quaint: A Case of Conscience by James Blish. It's been a while since I've read it, but I've always thought the main characters' quandary is so fundamental to both the story and most thinking (human) individuals that the creation of a whole alien culture is only a vehicle.
I usually feel consistency is as important as veracity in sci-fi. I can enjoy books and series that are as loose with science as Star Trek, and as tight with science as 2001, equally, as long as they are consistent and well-written.But there is definitely something to be said for adhering as closely as possible to real science, and still being able to tell a good story. It's like mastering cake baking and decoration: An ugly cake can still taste great, but a pretty cake is a double-treat.
Hard science fiction to me always meant there was a usage of hard scientific knowledge in the story and science was really the focus. This thread already has several good examples of writers and stories. I had to think if there were any other movies that fit the description, since Hollywood tends to like to blow the science way out of believability (including in Deep Impact) and make the story about something other than the science.
I think movies that could fall under "hard science fiction" could include Contact with Jodie Foster, and Gattaca.
Paul wrote: "Check out any of Hal Clement 's work for meticulous hard science fiction.Also John Stith's Redshift Rendezvous for hard-science fiction / crime fiction aboard a ship traveling faster than speed o..."
Good stuff both!
Charles wrote: "To my mind, at least on the literary side of SF, "hard" SF is that where the author knows enough about the science involved that what takes place in the story technologically is, at least theoretic..."Hollywood plays loose with science nearly every time it shoots someone or blows up a car. Physics holds as much sway as art in a meeting with studio execs.
Phoenix wrote: "Hollywood plays loose with science nearly every time it shoots someone or blows up a car. Physics holds as much sway as art in a meeting with studio execs."Hollywood is only interested in entertaining--not informing, unless of course it entertains--and making the most money possible; and based on audience reaction and profits, there's no value to accurate physics.
But that decision was made by the public, not Hollywood. Sad but true that the public votes with their wallets, and they've clearly voted that accurate physics means nothing to them.
The same goes for books: Hard SF may still be popular, but the runaway best sellers are the Star Wars and Star Trek books. My own books have had similar sales breakdowns over time: The sci-fi outsells the SF. The public decides every time.
Steven wrote: "But that decision was made by the public, not Hollywood. Sad but true that the public votes with their wallets, and they've clearly voted that accurate physics means nothing to them."Okay, you have to admit. People DO tend to go to movies to be entertained, not educated. I'm the same way. If I want to be educated, I'll watch a documentary (which I do quite often) at home.
Hard SF, in my opinion, does not translate very well to the big screen. For instance...a space battle. I have seen some theories on what actual space battles might be like. These would not look good on the screen. People want to see fighters swooshing and swooping...not just jinking back and forth and side to side and up and down. Boring. (double boring if you actually take the time to explain WHY it has to be that way)
as for books....I admit, I am more a space opera fan than a Hard SF fan. Simply because I am more interested in the story and the people than I am concerned that the author is getting everything exactly right. So long as the author does not stretch believability too far, I'm good with it. Even better if the author can create a pseudo science based on alternate theories that exist today (can't remember the book, but I read a story that allowed true FTL....because (according to the story) Einstein was wrong. This was backed up by current theories that show he may have been wrong.
But, again, I am less concerned with the accuracy of the science in a science fiction story than I am with the actual story.
Another interesting post. I came across Arthur C. Clarke's 3 laws again recently and thought they were worth posting here. They are:1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
I also read a post on a fantasy site that talked about how essential it is that the magic have consistency to keep the story believable.
For me it all comes down to credibility. I don't want to have to stop mid-story and think 'that could never happen' whether the lapse is in an unexplained distortion of currently accepted science, an inconsistent use of 'magic' (whether accepted as magic or as Clarke's highly advanced science) or a character's convenient (for the author) uncharacteristic action.
Have I mentioned that I love this discussion?
S.J. wrote: "Have I mentioned that I love this discussion? ..."You don't need to, it's obvious in your writing :-)
I think that you are right with the credibility. I also think that there is a need for some explanation, but somethings should be just mentioned in passing, miraculous to us perhaps, but so mundane that one of the locals wouldn't even think about it. I think that the Fritz Leiber quote is relevant “Fantasy must be fertilized—yes, watered and manured—from the real world”. Sci Fi is the same
I agree, credibility is key... though, sometimes, all a writer has to manage is a good job suggesting credibility. If the reader is persuaded by the writing to look beyond (or outright forget) the possible conflicts, and just say, "I'll buy that"... the writer has done their job, and the story can continue.
I like the Jack Vance way of suggesting credibility, which is to mention in passing tiny details which somehow gives the impression that all the other stuff exists as well
Reading through this thread, I wanted to reference John Brunner as an example of Hard SF that never left the planet (Stand on Zanzibar, The Sheep Look Up, and The Shockwave Rider in particular), and then I started to wonder if Brunner would actually qualify as hard SF based on previous posts. It certainly felt like hard SF when I first read them 30-odd years ago, but Brunner's thing was to extrapolate one or two technological advances and then explore the sociological effects of them in near-future settings. Some of his predictions seem a little off now, at first glance, but if you take into account when they were written, they're actually pretty close. Re-reading them recently, these books seemed to me now to be much more sociological (a soft science?) than technological in essence. So, is that because the passage of time has diluted the 'hardness'? Or, is it due to my (hopefully) more evolved perception (less amazed by shiny sciency spacey things - is that good or bad?) Can a book (a fixed and immutable thing) start it's life as hard SF, and then become not so? And does it matter? (a classic is still a classic).
Paul wrote: "Reading through this thread, I wanted to reference John Brunner as an example of Hard SF that never left the planet (Stand on Zanzibar, The Sheep Look Up, and The Shockwave Rider in particular), and then I started to wonder if Brunner would actually qualify as hard SF based on previous posts. "I think Bruner is a lot like Asimov - except, as you rightly say, Bruner's science fiction takes place only on Earth. But both are are "soft" science fiction - in the sense that sociology is a soft not a hard science.
SciFi and Fantasy eBook Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Rule 34 (other topics)Halting State (other topics)
Redshift Rendezvous (other topics)
Rendezvous with Rama (other topics)
Man Plus (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
David Brin (other topics)Isaac Asimov (other topics)
Arthur C. Clarke (other topics)
Ray Bradbury (other topics)
Robert A. Heinlein (other topics)
More...
as of now I am pretty new to this whole new area of reading SciFi.
About a little more then a year ago I happened to stumble over various podcasts and scientific articles on the web discussing the recent activities of the ESA and NASA regarding space travelling and the future missions. Since something happened to me while following these kinds of information, I also went through a rather modest pile of DVDs covering SF-movies. I spared Space Opera (Star Trek and Star Wars), because I watched most of it years ago and never became very fond of it, and I focused a lot on stand-alone movies or just three series ('2001'/ '2010', 'Alien(s)' and the anime 'Planetes').
During that period of time I recognized what I actually like about SF movies and stories:
- a somewhat realistic depiction of technology and the hazards of space-travelling and
- fairly complex and well thought-through plots and characters.
Thus I have a couple of movies that I really, really, really enjoy and like a lot:
"2001" (naturally), "Sunshine", "Moon" (awesome Sam Rockwell), "Pandorum" (I had very bad expectations, and was so surprised about so many things), only "Alien" (the other three parts are kind of nice and entertaining, but they lack the qualities of "Alien"), the anime of "Planetes".
(Interestingly I grew very fond with "Serenity" - probably because of the Western-style ...?)
Besides those movies there are many more that are nice, entertaining and worth your while; but up until now I have not watched one movie matches the above-mentioned.
I should mention that I like watching documentaries on space-travel - like from the BBC or the Discovery Channel about the Space Shuttle, space travelling, space engineering ...
I was and am wondering:
Are the movies I enjoy so much considered to be Hard SF?
Or rephrased: What 'exactly' are the characteristics of Hard SF?
Since I have no "literature science" background and have no solid reading-background up until now, and since I have some trouble feasting alone on the wikipedia articles available, I would like to know from you, what you think Hard SF is or should be. If you don't mind, please throw in book-recommendations of novels you think of as
a) matching the qualities of my favourite SF movies and
b) being very good examples of Hard SF.
Thank you very much. I hope I don't ask for too much ...
All the best!
Liam