Do you read "hard" science fiction? Well, you should. [via io9]

[Louie]

Author Linda Nagata demystifies the term 'hard science fiction.'
"It's Time To Start Reading Hard Science Fiction Again"

What are some of your favorite titles from this category?

[Chad]

The Cold Equations

Almost anything by Charles Sheffield

[Ivi_kiwi]

Limit by frank schätzing is a good book.
My problem with hard science fiction is often, that these book age very fast, because technology is currently evolving so fast. Books, that 25 years ago were good hard science fiction feel outdated today. Of Course not all, but some i read.

[Rick]

Nagata's own books are a good place to start. By her definition, I'd add in Iain M Banks's Culture novels. Hannu Rajaniemi's The QUantum Thief and The Fractal Prince are excellent too.

One of the issues with hard SF is that they use concepts that can alienate people who don't read much hard SF. The nanotech in Nagata's books or Rajaniemi's and the virtual worlds in Rajaniemis can seem weird and confusing if you just jump in. Even the Culture novels use concepts that are common for an experiences SF reader (orbitals, different reality layers, etc). If someone is new to SF I think you just have to dive in and immerse yourself and not let it put you off.

OH. Alistair Reynolds. And Chris Moriarty (the Spin State series is AWESOME). Leckie's Ancillary Justice of course.

For those not reading the link, Nagata uses this defintion of the term:

My own definition is simple and inclusive. Hard SF is science fiction that extrapolates future technologies while trying to adhere to rules of known or plausible science.

Of course definitions of what is possible or plausible can be seriously squishy. In my Nanotech Succession books people commonly make "ghosts" of themselves, virtual equivalents let's say. Is it possible to replicate a personality in a virtual environment? Who knows? But it's not flat-out forbidden, like exceeding the speed of light, and it's not treated as magic. So these books happily wear the label of hard SF.

[Rob, Roberator]

I just read Pandora's Star and really enjoyed that.

[Chad]

Ivi_kiwi wrote: "Limit by frank schätzing is a good book.
My problem with hard science fiction is often, that these book age very fast, because technology is currently evolving so fast. Books, that 25 years ago wer..."

But I remember the old hard sci-fi fondly for sneaking into my young teenage mind concepts that I later learned were fairly complex physics that most people did not get. I have a fair grasp of orbital mechanics, redshifts, electromagnetic spectrum, relativity and time dilation, velocity vs acceleration, etc. from those books.

Science may have expanded, but basic physics is still a good thing to learn. Unfortunately, most of the modern stuff is more wild nanotech, virtual stuff that I don't find as educational, but can still be fun

[Tamahome]

She could have added a myth: "hard sf is only written by men".

[Pickle]

Rob wrote: "I just read Pandora's Star and really enjoyed that."

is that hard scifi? id have said Space Opera.

i felt like i was reading an epic fantasy book except it was in sci-fi.. really hard going.

a few id recommend:

Rendezvous with Rama
Red Mars
Tau Zero

[Nathan]

Honestly, the Hard SF label is a turn off for me. It conjures up images of people sneering at others' works and saying it is not good enough, not "true SF."

[Andrew]

Alastair Reynolds counts, right?

Cool, read loads of his. Highly recommend.

[Rob, Roberator]

Pickle wrote: "is that hard scifi? id have said Space Opera."

I'm not much of a sci-fi reader, so I could be wrong about it. He got somewhat technical about the science as I recall though, which is why I mentioned it.

Space Opera would be the first label I'd apply though.

[Firstname]

Nathan wrote: "Honestly, the Hard SF label is a turn off for me. It conjures up images of people sneering at others' works and saying it is not good enough, not "true SF.""

Nae true space Scotsmen

[Chad]

I found an online PDF of the short story the Cold Equations. I believe it is out of print and legal

http://photos.state.gov/libraries/hoc...

[Kevin]

I know that hard science fiction has been in the decline because many people are turned off by all the science.

[Kevin]

Rob wrote: "Pickle wrote: "is that hard scifi? id have said Space Opera."

I'm not much of a sci-fi reader, so I could be wrong about it. He got somewhat technical about the science as I recall though, which i..."

Space Opera to me at least makes any forms of science fiction more like fantasy than hard science fiction.

[Firstname]

Kevin wrote: "I know that hard science fiction has been in the decline because many people are turned off by all the science."

Do you have any support for your assertion that hard sci fi is declining noticeably for that specific and sole reason? I think we may have a correlation not being causation issue here.

Overall decline in sci fi sales was -21% however all paper book sales are down 3-21% industrywide. I'm not sure I'd characterize the decline in other genres being a result of too much science, so I'm not sure that's the prime mover behind the decline in sci fi sales.

Also, since I've not seen any substantiated claims about "science being a problem in science fiction" I'd like to see where this opinion comes from. Do you have journal cites, or anything to support your contention, Kevin?

[Dara]

The term "hard sci-fi" makes me (and possibly others) think of a lot of technical mumbo jumbo and infodumps and that makes me hesitate to read more hard sf. I'm sure that's not true of all hard sf books though and just the reputation it has.

[Rick]

Dara and Nathan's comment made me smile because that's exactly the point nagata raises too. Heck we had a recent outbreak of that here.

But she's right, well done, grounded SF can be like no other lit

[Nathan]

I read the article and I did not see the snobbery issue brought up.

[Firstname]

Dara wrote: "The term "hard sci-fi" makes me (and possibly others) think of a lot of technical mumbo jumbo and infodumps and that makes me hesitate to read more hard sf. I'm sure that's not true of all hard sf ..."

Which is fine. YA makes me think of stupid teeny-tweeny stories full of angst and WUN TREW LURVE! That's not necessarily a bad thing. If you aren't interested in the uses of science and prefer character-driven stuff, then that's what you like.

[Rick]

Nathan wrote: "I read the article and I did not see the snobbery issue brought up."

Why Do We Have to Call It "Hard"?

I think the term "Hard SF" is a marketing disaster. The implication to the uninitiated is that it's "hard" to read, so why bother trying? You'd have to be a brainiac to get into that stuff, right? (And doubtless many long-time readers want to be thought of as brainiacs, and a lot them actually are, so there's that.) Still. Why actively discourage readers?

I think she (and you and Dara) are right, the term puts people off and as for the issue... look at Firstname's reply. Poorly thought out argument combined with hubris.

[Firstname]

Rick wrote: "Nathan wrote: "I read the article and I did not see the snobbery issue brought up."

Why Do We Have to Call It "Hard"?

I think the term "Hard SF" is a marketing disaster. The implication to the un..."

A reference to the "nae true scotsman" effect is "poorly thought out hubris"? I think you may be looking in someone else's dictionary for your Word of the Day.

[Mpauli]

I think it's always about the balance between story, characters and science. I'm personally really bad at all the sciences like biology, physics or chemistry. So, I always fear that I have a book which main plot line is basically a science issue that I don't understand in the first place, which is solved by a science solution, which I don't understand either.

For example, I'm toying with the idea of reading Greg Egan's series, cause some of the concepts seem really interesting, but I heard that he is very science heavy, so I always shy away from trying.

If the science is "only" beliveable and supplements plot and characters, then I have no issue with it.

[Firstname]

Mpauli wrote: "I think it's always about the balance between story, characters and science. I'm personally really bad at all the sciences like biology, physics or chemistry. So, I always fear that I have a book w..."

This is what infodumping is for, so that any reader can understand why what's going to happen, happens. I haven't read Egan, but have you read Darwin's Radio yet? Not sure where it would be classified but it's character-driven and I don't recall the science as being overwhelming.

[Firstname]

Ivi_kiwi wrote: "Limit by frank schätzing is a good book.
My problem with hard science fiction is often, that these book age very fast, because technology is currently evolving so fast. Books, that 25 years ago wer..."

Joe Haldeman, "collapsars" *facepalm*. The book itself (The Forever War) is still awesome though.

[Trike]

Firstname wrote: "Joe Haldeman, "collapsars" *facepalm*. The book itself (The Forever War) is still awesome though.
"

What's wrong about collapsar in Forever War?

[Serendi]

Mpauli: Try Greg Egan's short story collection, Axiomatic. It'll give you an idea of whether you want to go on with his stuff. I found it full of fascinating ideas, have no idea how hard it would be for someone not science oriented, though. (I read it several years ago for a book club; most of us liked it, but there was a general agreement it was more about ideas than characters. The person who picked it uses it in her university-level philosophy class.)

[Tamahome]

Karen Burnham has a book about Egan coming out: http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2013...

[Firstname]

Trike wrote: "Firstname wrote: "Joe Haldeman, "collapsars" *facepalm*. The book itself (The Forever War) is still awesome though.
"

What's wrong about collapsar in Forever War?"

We call them black holes now. There is a new usage in just the last few years, but AFAIK it has only taken hold in the fizzix community.

[Mpauli]

Thanks for the reading tips Firstname and Serendi. I'm going to check them out. :)

[Trike]

Firstname wrote: "Trike wrote: "Firstname wrote: "Joe Haldeman, "collapsars" *facepalm*. The book itself (The Forever War) is still awesome though.
"

What's wrong about collapsar in Forever War?"

We call them black holes now. There is a new usage in just the last few years, but AFAIK it has only taken hold in the fizzix community. "

All collapsars are black holes, but not all black holes are collapsars.

I don't know why you dismiss the physics community that way (anti-science bias?), especially since Haldeman was using his "collapsar jump" in a way that relates directly to physics. Some physicists think that even the extreme gravitational warping of a collapsar isn't enough to get around Einstein's relativity -- and there was just a story in the news this year about that -- but some physicists still think that wormhole travel is a viable option.

Since the actual science guys still use the term collapsar in the same way Haldeman did and some of them still think that sort of travel is possible, it seems to me that it hasn't been completely ruled out yet or superseded by new technology. I suspect it's highly unlikely. Just because we probably can't doesn't mean we definitely can't.

[Terry]

Maybe it is because I am old I don't put science fiction books into categories.All science interests me.

[Tamahome]

Pickle wrote: "Rob wrote: "I just read Pandora's Star and really enjoyed that."

is that hard scifi? id have said Space Opera.

i felt like i was reading an epic fantasy book except it was in sci-fi...."

Granted Space Opera usually presupposes FTL, but Hamilton has a pretty intelligent level of science in his space opera, relatively speaking, IMHO.

His Facebook comment on Gravity:

"Just been to see Gravity.
Excellently realised space hardware. Great acting. High tension throughout. The feeling of the loneliness and grandeur from being in space was intense. And absolutely no understanding of orbital mechanics whatsoever. I mean less than zilch. A real shame for nerds like me, because that's what I'll always remember. But I still enjoyed it. Sort of."

[Firstname]

Trike wrote: "Firstname wrote: "Trike wrote: "Firstname wrote: "Joe Haldeman, "collapsars" *facepalm*. The book itself (The Forever War) is still awesome though.
"

What's wrong about collapsar in Forever War?"
..."

I was not aware that the term had continuity in the field. However, there are all sorts of things that were "impossible" 50 years ago that we have now.

[Chad]

Tamahome wrote: "Pickle wrote: "Rob wrote: "I just read Pandora's Star and really enjoyed that."

is that hard scifi? id have said Space Opera.

i felt like i was reading an epic fantasy book except it..."

Yeah they played fast and loose with the orbits, but it would have been a pretty boring documentary without that I can allow the artistic license. I remember one astronaut saying the entire space shuttle doesn't have the thrust to reach the ISS from Hubble's orbit let alone a single person MMU towing two people. And basic orbital mechanics say the debris field traveling so much faster than the shuttle and station would have accelerated to a higher orbit, not just ran around the same orbit faster

[Tamahome]

Scientists banned from watching Gravity:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/ar...

[Chad]

I can both enjoy the movie and see opportunity for learning afterward through analysis. I don't mind someone pointing out why it wouldn't have worked that way, but then I like learning...

And I'm kinda glad Sandra wasn't wearing astronaut diapers

[Firstname]

Timothy wrote: "I think a lot of writers just dont want to do the work. Unless they are getting paid to "research." Every problem with a plot has a solution most make the story better. But they take time and work...."

I think screenwriters also like to think "we can do it in post" rather than "that's physically impossible". See the LOTR movies. Some of the stuff was cool, and some of it was just incredibly dumb. Legolas flipping onto the horse during the warg attack? Stupid. Running down the oliphant's trunk? Cool.

[Shawn]

Arthor C. Clarke & Stephen Baxter - A Time Odyssey Trilogy. It's similar in plot to Clarke's Space Odyssey series. it's just awesome.

[Chris]

Would the Mars trilogy be considered hard sci/fi?

[Tamahome]

Oh yeah.