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
“Hard” science fiction is a form of writing with constraints: in this case; the constraints being that the physics have to be believable. It keeps the genre separate from “science fantasy” e.g. Star {Wars, Trek}–which are enjoyable in their own right, but quite different. You can assure yourself that the standard science-related plot devices of time travel, superluminal communication, or infinite energy aren’t introduced because they frequently poke holes in the plot. And it’s often interesting to see how authors create creative workarounds to stay within the bounds that hard science fiction imposes.
Personally I like James Nicoll's definition of hard science fiction: it's hard SF if the author gives enough details that the reader can be _certain_ it wouldn't work.
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.
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.
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.
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.
most 'hard science fiction' is essentially high concept fiction or science fiction that adopts a sociological frame. It is, and never really as been, about 'plausible science'.
just take the posterboy of American hard SF, Arthur C. Clarke. (whose writing resembles Liu Cixin a lot). A lot of his stuff is straight up fantastical or cosmic. Childhood's end for example (sort of TBP like) or The City and the Stars. The science in either one isn't really plausible. Hard science fiction was always distinguished by ditching characters and traditional adventure or hero narratives for ideas. It was never about writing a physics PhD thesis.
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”.
I think there are two axis there. An axis of "hardness" and an axis of realness. With hardness being how scientific the approach is, and the other axis is how close the world is to the real world.
For example:
- Hard science fiction: The Martian
Mars is real, the laws of physics are the same as in the real world and are followed as closely as possible.
- Soft science fiction (here called science fantasy): Star Wars
The setting is presented like an unexplored part of the world we live in rather than something completely made up. The difference with the real world is that there are no strict rules, the laws of physics can be broken at any time if the story calls for it instead of making the laws of physics a plot point.
- Soft fantasy: The Lord of the Rings
Not only the world is made up, there is unexplained magic, but it doesn't have consistent rules. You are free to do as you like, to tell a good story is the only thing that matters.
- Hard fantasy: Mistborn series
The world is made up, there is magic, but the magic is essentially alternate laws of physics. A dragon may be present, but expect its anatomy, biology and "power source" to be explained in great detail.
There is a very sharp distinction drawn between hard science fiction, and the less-particular, broader genre of sci-fi.
For the record, Babylon 5 was explicitly designed to be The Lord of the Rings in space. It's fantasy in sci-fi dress-up. Similar things could be said for Star Trek, Star Wars, and other sci-fi staples.
Hard science fiction like The Expanse, or most of the collected works of Arthur C Clarke, Alistair Reynolds, Kim Stanley Robinson, and Robert Forward present entirely self-consistent universes set in the future with logical extrapolations of technical capability governed by physical law.
Some people don't care for the distinction, but there are also those of us that have very strong preferences for ONLY readying hard science fiction. I like to feel that I learned something, or that the book describes societies that might someday come into being, or alien cultures that might realistically exist.
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.
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.
"Hard science fiction" doesn't seem to mean for this author what it has for me, "close adherence to known natural laws and plausible explanation." How you would characterize what "hard sci-fi" means to the younger generation?
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?
Lately on Amazon the term "hard" has been misused or
redefined for "military scifi" / "violent scifi".
That aside,
I just have a regular understanding of most fields in science. I know a bit here and there.
More astronomy.
My field is computer science, so I have
some knowledge there.
What I wonder about is if the average scifi reader expects or even could tell if something is "science" and not fantasy. Huge absurd things of course.
I have read so many different descriptions on how FTL works.
I dont think (ignorance on my part) that we have a solid theory for how it can be done.
- Warping of space/time (or higher dimension),
- "portals" left by "an ancient civilization"(that sort of evades the issue)
- wormholes
- "Taming a god"
- through special cracks in space/time that only a special navigator (species) can feel.
- improbability drive (I do love Douglas Adams).
and many more.
When you read can you take the existence of FTL on just being there, do you reject the ideas fully, or do you judge it on its merits if the description extrapolates current knowledge into a future where we can FTL? (if ever)
reply