Quote:
Originally Posted by Worldwalker
I find it ironically amusing to see people who call SF "Sci-Fi" arguing over what hard SF really is.  |
I've seen this question argued in infinite loops on other forums. People even argue about the terms "SF" (Speculative Fiction or Science Fiction or ???). Others hate the term "Sci-Fi."
I kind of shrug this off; though I will go on record saying I am firmly in the camp that
despise to the core the term
"SyFy"!
Quote:
Star Trek is what it isn't; Star Trek, in fact, is arguably Sci-Fi. It certainly does not get the science right, or even try (and I've never forgiven them for forgetting about the speed of light in Generations). Star Trek is an adventure story, with enough (usually imaginary) science pasted on to make it happen. Not, of course, that the science doesn't sometimes catch up with the fiction -- I can pull a small device out of my pocket, flip it open, and say the name of who I want to talk to, and it connects me. It's called a cell phone. But anyway ....
A simple definition of hard SF is that the story could not exist without the science. Not handwaving and technobabble, either, like the explanations for warp drives and transporters, but good, solid, real-life science. Usually the science comes first, and the story grows out of that, rather than the "science" being cooked up to justify whatever story the author wants to tell. The actual hardness can vary, but the real, or plausibly extrapolated from real, science has to be central to the story.
Hal Clement is one of the acknowledged masters, yes. Robert Forward is another. When he's not writing Star Wars books, Timothy Zahn has done some excellent hard SF (I personally like Spinneret, and would pay hardcover prices to get it as an ebook). Some of Larry Niven's books and stories are hard SF, though my extreme personal dislike for the man (we have history) tends to color my opinion of anything he writes. Many authors of softer stuff have also written one or more hard SF novels.
|
Your definition seems fine to me. Nailing Star Trek is somewhat deserved. On one hand, it takes place in space and utilizes space ships (science!). On the other, they have an episode where young writer Jake Sisko " is told, "This isn't believable! You've never experienced this... write what you know" Yeah. An episode written by writers who have never been into space and don't know what it entails... But you must write what you know!!! right....
The Golden Age saw the rise of scientists writing Science Fiction, like Asimov and Anderson (or is it Pohl?... shit, is that confusing or what?). And even today we have authors like Benford and Brin.
But even these guys have their lapses... let me cite Asimov again (ignoring that suckage that was the ending novel of the Robot series!).
I read
The Foundation Trilogy in High School, and found many of the ideas pretty awesome! The idea of statistically predicting the future with large groups of humans... awesome! Extrapolated from a real science (statistics) to the point of plausibility.
But then we hit the '80s. Gaia philosophy -- and what I believe is Asimov developing a strong environmental stance -- moved us away from hard science. In
Foundation's Edge, the main character decides because he "Just knows" it's right. No science there! While the decision becomes ultimately rational, it's the Gaia belief that lead him to it in the first place.
So we have a decidedly hard science fiction series becoming decidedly
less hard! A book by a scientist, no less!
I don't know if this contradicts your statements. Confirms them? Is Neutral? I just thought I'd throw that out, because I think it adds to the
infinite debate as to what Science Fiction really is.
-Pie