[hildea]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

When I read what I think of as science fiction, I like books that provoke thought on what impact the book's changes might make on society.

The most important part of a book to me is the characters. I need to like the protagonists, or I won't like the book. But after that, I like to see the impact of new science -- or magic -- on society. I like both SF and fantasy, and a lot of that is because I like to see new societies imagined and explored.

So for instance, Poul Anderson's Brain Wave isn't hard SF

I agree that it doesn't sound like hard SF, but it does sound like SF. And hard SF is, to me, the least interesting subset of SF.

What I don't like in science fiction is taking an action story, dressing it up in 'the future' and calling it sci-fi (countless Will Smith and Bruce Willis movies and their book equivalents). That was what I thought of when I read "I don't see scientific background as important in SF..."

Well, I like that kind of stories too. Maybe not pure action stories, but stories where the plot (ie. the events, who is doing what and why) is important. Martha Wells' Murderbot diaries are good examples of action oriented stories which I feel are solidly in the middle of the science fiction genre.

I like the John W. Campbell one: "To be science fiction, not fantasy, an honest effort at prophetic extrapolation from the known must be made."

Campbell did a lot for science fiction. Of course, he also fell for a bunch of pseudoscientific nonsense and L. Ron Hubbard's hokum. But his early instincts were important. He created and helped shape what many now think of as science fiction.

He did good things for the genre, yes. He was also racist and sexist, and that also had an impact on early science fiction. (This is an interesting and IMO fairly balanced comment on his legacy.)

But when you insert too many made up technologies in there: ESP, warp drive, the Force, teleporters, artificial gravity, time travel, laser swords you have moved into the realm of fantasy.

For both SF and fantasy, the best works usually have some economy of invention. If the author dumps too much different stuff (technological or magical) into the cauldron, there's a high risk of it becoming a confusing muddle. But there are, of course, exceptions: Terry Pratchett has probably used every fantasy trope somewhere in his stories (and invented a lot of new ones), and his best works are incredibly good.