MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

Worldwalker · 07-13-2010, 10:07 PM

It has nothing to do with being a pretentious snob. "SciFi" was the term used by outsiders for years to belittle the literature we enjoyed. "SciFi" means "that Buck Rogers stuff", space opera, corny 50's monster movies, and anything else where there's not even a nod to science, and little more than that to fiction. It's the "N-word" of science fiction. It is a word that has been used as an insult to science fiction readers for decades, and even though a lousy, clueless cable TV channel chose to apply the word to itself, it is not, and never will be, free of its pejorative meaning.

"Hard SF" is SF which is extremely rigorous in its science, extrapolating from what is known and what is possible. Most hard SF stories focus on the consequences of their particular scientific background. That's not to say that they can't be thoroughly human, character-driven stories, but those stories could only happen in that particular setting, and happen because of that setting. For example, Hal Clement's "Mission of Gravity" could not have occurred anywhere but the world of Mesklin. A story can be thoroughly obsessed with its nuts and bolts, but if the author pulled those nuts and bolts out of his own nether end, it's not hard SF.

There's no real consensus as to what the opposite of hard SF should be called. Depending on one's level of partiality to hard SF, that term could be soft SF, space opera, or trash. I usually just go with "non-hard SF", or sometimes "firm", "squishy", etc., with the extreme of course being "pulpy" (double meaning intended). Space opera fits in there.

"Space opera" is a specific sub-genre that focuses on adventure, super-science that has minimal connection with real science, and galaxy-spanning action. This is the SF of the pulp era. Doc Smith's "Skylark" and "Lensman" series are perfect examples. "Star Wars" is very emphatically (and intentionally) space opera. Science and technology, usually with a lot of hand-waving, are there solely to get the heroes where they need to go, or provide them with superhumanly powerful enemies and more powerful ray guns. It's all about the action, the heroics, and the big explosions.

My preferences tend to vary. I've noticed that when I'm under stress I gravitate more towards space opera and its equivalent in other genres -- action movies, for instance. I don't care how implausible the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies are; they're fun, and there are times that's all I want. My MP3 player fills up with heavy metal and Wagner. When I'm less stressed and more introspective, I swing towards hard SF, less expansive movies, etc. Gregorian chants and classical symphonies displace the metal. I sometimes wonder if managing stress would work better if I reversed those preferences.

We live in the future. Lasers were once the stuff of space opera; now we use them to entertain our cats.

By the way, if you've never read "The Machine Stops", you should.

07-13-2010, 10:07 PM	#22
Worldwalker Curmudgeon Posts: 3,085 Karma: 722357 Join Date: Feb 2010 Device: PRS-505	It has nothing to do with being a pretentious snob. "SciFi" was the term used by outsiders for years to belittle the literature we enjoyed. "SciFi" means "that Buck Rogers stuff", space opera, corny 50's monster movies, and anything else where there's not even a nod to science, and little more than that to fiction. It's the "N-word" of science fiction. It is a word that has been used as an insult to science fiction readers for decades, and even though a lousy, clueless cable TV channel chose to apply the word to itself, it is not, and never will be, free of its pejorative meaning. "Hard SF" is SF which is extremely rigorous in its science, extrapolating from what is known and what is possible. Most hard SF stories focus on the consequences of their particular scientific background. That's not to say that they can't be thoroughly human, character-driven stories, but those stories could only happen in that particular setting, and happen because of that setting. For example, Hal Clement's "Mission of Gravity" could not have occurred anywhere but the world of Mesklin. A story can be thoroughly obsessed with its nuts and bolts, but if the author pulled those nuts and bolts out of his own nether end, it's not hard SF. There's no real consensus as to what the opposite of hard SF should be called. Depending on one's level of partiality to hard SF, that term could be soft SF, space opera, or trash. I usually just go with "non-hard SF", or sometimes "firm", "squishy", etc., with the extreme of course being "pulpy" (double meaning intended). Space opera fits in there. "Space opera" is a specific sub-genre that focuses on adventure, super-science that has minimal connection with real science, and galaxy-spanning action. This is the SF of the pulp era. Doc Smith's "Skylark" and "Lensman" series are perfect examples. "Star Wars" is very emphatically (and intentionally) space opera. Science and technology, usually with a lot of hand-waving, are there solely to get the heroes where they need to go, or provide them with superhumanly powerful enemies and more powerful ray guns. It's all about the action, the heroics, and the big explosions. My preferences tend to vary. I've noticed that when I'm under stress I gravitate more towards space opera and its equivalent in other genres -- action movies, for instance. I don't care how implausible the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies are; they're fun, and there are times that's all I want. My MP3 player fills up with heavy metal and Wagner. When I'm less stressed and more introspective, I swing towards hard SF, less expansive movies, etc. Gregorian chants and classical symphonies displace the metal. I sometimes wonder if managing stress would work better if I reversed those preferences. We live in the future. Lasers were once the stuff of space opera; now we use them to entertain our cats. By the way, if you've never read "The Machine Stops", you should.