Joe Haldeman - The Forever War

[nerys]

Star Trek at least the TNG days gave homage to science. They RECOGNIZED when science conflicted and noted it. Such as the heisenberg compensator for the transporter. THEY KNEW it could violate this and "recognized" it in the universe. This is where star trek was always very good. No where near hard science but they did give a "nod" to science and did not simply ignore.

as it went on they forgot this condition sadly and the show suffered for it to some extent.

[ctol]

For those interested, here is a site that has a very good list of hard science fiction authors. I have read about 90% of the authors listed there and have enjoyed them immensely.

http://www.hardsciencefiction.rogerdeforest.com/

[Wordcrasher]

Originally Posted by nerys

I also love realistic "first contact" style stories. Now those are REALLY hard to find :-) (mission of gravity also fell into that category)

That book is one of my favorites too !!
I think it's incredible such great characters the author was able to create, despite the fact they were so alien to us.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Wordcrasher

I think it's incredible such great characters the author was able to create, despite the fact they were so alien to us.

Alien in body, but not in mind, it seemed to me. But still a very good story.

I also really liked Hal Clement's Needle, which is also a first contact novel. And a mystery novel.

Sadly, very few of his books are available as ebooks.

[nerys]

hal clement is GREAT! Mission of gravity is one of my all time favorites! what I really hate is when I read such a goooood book and find its the only book the author did (or one of just a couple) Grrrrrrrr :-)

[EatingPie]

I loved The Forever War. While it's New Wave era, it's more Golden Age in feel -- the hard science fiction. Another set of modern books that I liked along similar lines were the Old Man's War series.

Sadly, Haldeman's Forever Peace is more modern, post new-wave in a sense, and loses the "hard" feel completely (stated as "not a sequel"). An okay story, though light on action, heavy on emphasizing an invented philosophy, which -- frankly -- I didn't buy.

Science Fiction has done a poor job in general with popular stories that integrate Religious Philosophy -- Christianity in particular -- and Forever Peace really cried out "I don't get it!" Basically, Haldeman created an answer to bring peace on earth, and does so from an entirely atheistic context, which I simply do not see as possible. And the "religious" people are actually the enemy. Ironically, take an honest look into Christianity, and you have a better answer than Haldeman artificially created. And Christianity even would include many of the people that specifically stated as necessary to exclude. (The character(s) accepted this, but I found it ironic that the implied condemnation of Christianity led to a philosophy that justified part of the reason Christianity was condemned!)

While SF overall hasn't had many great books that deal with Christianity, cultural changes have also affected this.

Asimov gives a perfect example. In an early Robot book, the main character chooses not to have sex with a (very hot!) woman -- no chance of being caught -- because he was married. The Judeo-Christian mentality of the '50s very much in play. In his last Robot book -- written in the '80s -- the guy has another chance, and does it... without any moral or ethical misgivings, be they communicated by the character or the author. He just bangs her and that's that, no biggie (he's still married). This is not specifically a Christian issue, but as I said, it comes form the Judeo-Christian context of the initial book.

I realize there are people of different faiths here, and I'm not brushing them off. I'm simply speaking of something that I notice due to my personal philosophy. And seeing a glaring shortcoming due to our personal world views is something we all experience at times with our favorite authors. This just happens to be one of mine.

So, yeah, Forever Peace... avoid that one. And I do realize the irony of saying "avoid it" can make you potentially more interested in it. Maybe saying "go for Old Man's War instead will help! (And it is not a "Christian story," just a good read reminiscent of Forever War!)

-Pie

[m-reader]

Originally Posted by nerys

well thats not hard sci-fi thats military sci-fi :-) and yeah most of does not really interest me either.

Just finished Singularity Sky by Charles Stross and LOVED IT half way through Iron Sunrise now.

Missle Gap was a good quick read.

Want to read a GREAT hard sci fi? Hal Clement - Mission of Gravity! great great book. It has a sequel that I read as well but I forgot its name.

There was another I just read about alien life forming on a star fragment that was passing through out system. WOW good stuff!

THAT is hard sci fi :-)

Hey, thanks for the tip. I've just gone through my Alastair Reynolds phase and am looking for the next writer
WTR hard sci-fi, you can't go wrong with his stuff!

[WillAdams]

ctol, kind of hard to take that link seriously when it omits C.J. Cherryh, whose Alliance-Union (``Merchanter'') novels have realistic physics (no hand-wavium for artificial gravity or propulsion, only for the FTL technology).

William

[Worldwalker]

I find it ironically amusing to see people who call SF "Sci-Fi" arguing over what hard SF really is.

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.

[igorsk]

I've been reading Paul Chafe's The Ark trilogy (two books out so far). It's "yet another" generation ship book but he's taking it much more seriously than many before. His ship design is very elaborate and he's even got a site with the description. What's fascinating about the books is the look at possible social development in a ship that's traveling for ten thousand years and how the builders had to anticipate them (successfully or not). The fist book's part up to the launch was a bit boring and took me several tries to get past it but I'm glad I stuck with it, because second part and the second book is much more interesting.
The books are available from Baen's Webscriptions: Genesis and Exodus: The Ark.

[ctol]

Originally Posted by WillAdams

ctol, kind of hard to take that link seriously when it omits C.J. Cherryh, whose Alliance-Union (``Merchanter'') novels have realistic physics (no hand-wavium for artificial gravity or propulsion, only for the FTL technology).

William

It is not my list. I just posted the link for those readers who might find it useful. Besides you must both remember and realize that not every book is going to show up on everyone's list. Lists after all are both arbitrary and transient. The poster here might be one who is not presently knowlegeable about Cherryh's books or does not like her works at all which may be why they are not included. I am well aware that the books you mentioned by her are indeed hard science fiction. I have read all of the books you mentioned. If it was my list I would have definitely included them.

[EatingPie]

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"!

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

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Nailing Star Trek is somewhat deserved. On one hand, it takes place in space and utilizes space ships (science!).

Using science is not the same as being about science. Star Trek is nominally science fiction, yes, because of the "spaceships and ray guns" aspect, but it's far from hard SF. It's about a group of people who travel from place to place and have adventures; the science exists primarily to explain how they got there, or to set up the adventure du jour. You could replace them with a group on a naval ship visiting various islands and ports, or on horseback visiting various far-flung western towns, and the essential parts of the story would remain fundamentally the same. While the various series paid various levels of respect to science, it's still more along the lines of space opera.

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"

And that is the stupidest thing ever told (and told, and told, and told) to aspiring writers. Joe Haldeman, coincidentally, had the best response to that piece of foolishness:

Bad books on writing and thoughtless English professors solemnly tell beginners to 'Write What You Know', which explains why so many mediocre novels are about English professors contemplating adultery.

As for the SF vs. Sci-Fi thing: "Sci-Fi" was another of Forrest Ackerman's endless neologisms, but in this case, one that was adopted by the mainstream as an insulting term for what they thought science fiction was: low-budget monster movies and "that Buck Rogers stuff". More recently, the existence of the TV channel has misled people, especially newer fans, into believing that it is a legitimate and accepted term. It isn't. It's an insult, and seeing people who are trying to be SF fans being tricked into using an insulting term for themselves, their literature, and their culture, is as upsetting to those who know the truth as it would be for members of any culture seeing their younger generation unknowingly calling themselves by a racial or ethnic epithet. There's a perfectly good abbreviation -- SF -- and no reason to do the equivalent of calling ourselves by the "n-word".

"Science fiction" versus "speculative fiction" isn't an argument, per se -- the former has decades of precedence -- but I have a certain leaning towards "speculative fiction" simply to help kill "sci-fi".

As for "SyFy" ... if they were in the habit of producing worthwhile SF, I might care. As far as I'm concerned, they can call themselves "This Network Intentionally Left Blank".

[GlennD]

Speaking of hard science fiction (and Hal Clement) - One of my favorite hard sci-fi stories is a short story by Hal Clement; I can't remember the name but it's in a collection of his stories. We tend to think of "hard" sci-fi as being in the future, but this story is about a man in ancient rome figuring out a method (with locally available means and technology) to give his son a blood transfusion. Some great stuff, and outside the "norm" for science fiction.

[Joebill]

Yeah, space opera. Some of it is good. But most of it isn't.

All of us are born with an imagination. Then other people, adults and kids both, tell us to stop imagining things.

Took me over 30 years to stop listening to those who would stifle other people's imaginations.

Then I started writing poetry. I started off very badly, I haven't posted any of it here. Some friends encouraged me, and I started writing poems worth reading.

I'm sure many people I grew up with, wouldn't like writing. Some of the peopel in that small town out west told me I shouldn't go to high school, others said university was a bad idea.

So, I imagined what it would be like going to university. I didn't get it right, but I did start using my imagination.

Or as one co-worker puts it these days 'thinking outside the box'.

As for sci-fi, it is indeed an insult. I mostly see it when print media, or the local television, covers a sf convention I am attending.

As for English professors. Some I took classes to, didn't like students usig their imaginations, some preferred imagination use.

As for 'writing what we know'... if we all did that, no sf or fantasy stories would be written.