I agree. Sometimes the 'hard' Sci-Fi novels are written by scientists who have interesting scientifc ideas but aren't necessary good writers or storytellers. The enthusiasm for their intriguing scientific scenarios come through in their writing - while plot, character or drama are all lacking.
Hard scifi usually has an unrealistic premise but everything else is constrained by real science that we know. If everything was exactly adherent to science and tech as it currently exists, it wouldn't be science fiction. It would just be fiction.
The two are correlated. To write proper hard sci-fi in your sense, you have to a) understand the relevant science and engineering (and I mean understand - not necessarily to a PhD level, but enough that you can reason about the phenomena and principles on your own), and b) let it permeate and constrain the plot. This naturally makes it more likely that a hard sci-fi story will be about "science things", because science and engineering not only constrain your plot, but you also have to explain their basics to the audience, which takes space.
Conversely, the soft end of sci-fi has a lot more authors with little to no familiarity with the relevant sciences, and even less care for them.
There are obviously exceptions to this "new hardness scale", but I think overall the two scales give almost identical readings in practice. And personally, I'm not against the new scale either, because it aligns with what I personally care about. That is, I want to read sci-fi that's hard on this new scale. I like my sci-fi to be about science, technology, social dynamics, and everything other than individuals and their emotional journeys and petty conflicts. There's enough of that in every other genre, not to mention, in real life itself.
Yes, “hard” scifi is a sub-genre that adheres to physics as much as we know it to be true - no faster-than-light travel, for instance. Arthur C. Clarke and his 2001 series as well as Nivens and his Ringworld series would be good examples, whereas Dan Simmons and his Hyperion Cantos trilogy, while extremely well-written, wouldn’t qualify.
Hard sci-fi is No Real Scotsman: The Genre. The hardest sci-fi is just called fiction, because there is no room in hard sci-fi for speculation about science. At best you could call it fiction where technology figures heavily, like The Martian, which while great is hardly sci-fi at all in my opinion.
Any testable scientific theory is generally either so esoteric as to be impossible to work into a story in a significant way or so likely to be false that it gets labeled soft sci-fi. Theories that can’t be tested are just metaphysics or magic. So the more Fi, the less Sci.
Criticizing something for not being hard sci-fi is easy, but I would say largely meaningless unless the piece plays so loose with the science that it could have achieved the same effect with harder science, but I certainly don’t think you could say that of TBP.
I don't think hard scifi is considered its own genre because its adherents think that reflection is less important than realism, but rather because if an author doesn't intentionally prioritize realistic thinking it tends to not happen at all. A lack of realistic / scientific thinking isn't a sin for any given story, but it can turn into a collective sin if everybody's mirror has the same convenience-driven blind spot.
IMHO “hard” SF is more about feeling “accurate” than actually being accurate - more lip service is paid to something resembling physics as we currently understand it. And the #1 thing for someone to say “fuck it, I’m cutting a hole in existing physics in the interest of telling a compelling story” for is probably “moving shit between planets/stars faster than orbital mechanics and the speed of light allows”.
The genre of Hard Science fiction means that the author has enough background knowledge that the physics of the plot and world building is reasonably sound
I agree that there's a clear difference between hard and soft science fiction. But in my mind, it's "hard" science fiction if the world is entirely consistent with physical reality as we know it.
There has always been a lot less hard sci-fi than soft, true, and it used to be more common than it is now.
But the real dividing line in my mind isn't quite as stark as I made it sound. There's still a gray area. Unusual events that exist purely for plot purposes don't disqualify anything, for instance.
The differentiator I have in mind is more basic: if the story involves things that are simply not possible, it's not hard sci-fi. If it involves things that are very unlikely, but still within the realm of possibility, it can certainly still be "hard". Same if it involves things/effects that don't (as far as we know) exist, but wouldn't break the laws of physics if they did.
Any recommendations for good hard sci-fi in the last generation or so? I'm asking because your comment strongly suggests I'd like what you like. I'm one of the very few who think that "Science Fiction and Fantasy" as a genre makes about as much sense as "Math Textbooks and Romance Novels".
I promise not to blame anyone for a recommendation that's flawed. They're all flawed. Anything where the story is based on the implications of known (well, currently accepted) science without any bogus magic is as hard as trying to figure out what will really happen in a large software project that hasn't begun yet. But what have you liked despite its flaws?
True in some senses, but take 'Interstellar' for instance. I would personally categorize it as hard science pushing the fringe into fantasy/speculation. 'The Martian' I would consider more hard science fiction overlooking some technical issues for dramatic effect. In any case, I enjoy SF that is mainly in the realm of hard SF. I read John Cramer's 'Twistor' years ago, and although some have panned it for some stereotypes, I loved reading it at the time. I'll have to revisit it. Professor Cramer is a physics professor at Univ. of Washington in Seattle.
Yes this is a reasonable way to misunderstand given the way we refer to “hard sciences” and “soft sciences”, but it does not map to the terms “hard scifi” and “soft scifi” in common usage.
It’s not exactly about rules consistency either as stated by the GP, though that’s part of it. It’s more about strong consistent application of scientific principles even theoretical or untested principles.
This is in contrast to futuristic fantasy with no real focus on the science. But futuristic or space fantasy can be very consistent just like magical systems in fantasy can be very consistent. Hard scifi has to be constrained by plausible consistent science and that science is typically a main character in the story, or even THE main character.
reply