Thread: SciFi history?
View Single Post
Old 07-13-2010, 07:25 PM   #18
HamsterRage
Evangelist
HamsterRage can name that song in three notesHamsterRage can name that song in three notesHamsterRage can name that song in three notesHamsterRage can name that song in three notesHamsterRage can name that song in three notesHamsterRage can name that song in three notesHamsterRage can name that song in three notesHamsterRage can name that song in three notesHamsterRage can name that song in three notesHamsterRage can name that song in three notesHamsterRage can name that song in three notes
 
HamsterRage's Avatar
 
Posts: 435
Karma: 24326
Join Date: Jun 2010
Device: Kobo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Worldwalker View Post
By definition, there is no such thing as "hard SciFi" -- if it's hard, it's SF or Science Fiction, not SciFi.

On the other hand, what Doc Smith wrote was arguably SciFi -- pure space opera -- and nothing even close to hard SF. His books are about as hard as the fluffier Star Trek variants.
What? Is there some kind of definition I've never heard of in 30 years of being an avid science fiction fan? How did I miss that? I always just took "SF", "SciFi" and "Science Fiction" as different spellings of the same thing.

Personally, I've always taken "Hard" Science Fiction to be anything that concentrates on the nuts and bolts of technology. I can't think of many books that do that more than Smith's "Skylark" books, even if it is all silliness.
HamsterRage is offline   Reply With Quote