• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hard Science Fiction

(...)the reference seemed to disparage Vinge's technical ideas as "impossible." Interestingly, Vinge's main career isn't as a writer. He is mostly known as a retired Professor of Computer Science in the Mathematics Department at San Diego State. This is a guy who knows his way 'round tech.

Well, Marooned in RealTime has a technological artifact that is definitely impossible, though I consider it one of the best SF books I ever read. The Peace War, the book that introduced the idea, is not that good IMHO.

And since we are in this subject, what is the HARDEST SF you ever read? :)

Anyway, I've read a lot of SF books, but interestingly enough I started liking historical fiction as well. I guess I like to read about different cultures, moral codes, what-if scenarios, etc.
 
Last edited:


Apes or Angels

Consider the high improbability that any two Earth-like planets will form and evolve to the exact and ideal conditions that develop and support carbon-based life.


No. You're defining star drives out of hard SF. Since the local environment is not awash in radio traffic, we probably don't have by-gone angels. I'd say your 'hard' SF requires:

NO ALIENS.

period.

the rest is bookkeeping...

Consider also the number of mass extinctions that have occurred in Earth's past. It is unlikely that the same number of these would occur on another


etc.

Why not whip out a stack of numbers to talk about fiction? ;)

Would any of one of these events have delayed or advanced human development by as much as 0.001%? One value given for the age of the Earth is 4.567 billion years. A +/- 0.001% change would set human evolution back by 4.567 million years (Apes), or advance it by 4.567 million years (Angels).

oh.

English-Speaking Aliens

Those Space Operas that have non-English speaking aliens always seem to have a convenient means of interpretation close at hand (Universal Translators, Telepathy, Babel Fish, “Gift of the Timelords,” et cetera). Sometimes, a little too convenient, if you ask me.

This would be poetic licence. The Babel Fish was a satire to put the lie to all of this garbage.

Remember, hard science fiction does not deviate from known physical laws or any reasoned extrapolation thereof. Which brings us to...

Your funeral.

Mixed Technologies

Admit even one “Gimmick” and you have crossed the line of speculative fiction into the realm of Space Opera. I’m not talking about mere anachronisms (Benjamin Franklin wearing a digital watch, for instance), I’m talking about an item or principle that violates known physical laws.

For example, a group of archeologists working near the pyramids at Giza uncover a large, ring-like structure that suddenly transports the archeologists to another planet on the other side of the galaxy. Then they step back through and return to Earth. Only a few minutes have passed. This violates causality, not just the speed of light.

This one gimmick is the basis for the movie “Stargate” and the series of the same name, both of which are Space Opera, albeit at the harder end of the spectrum.

Without star drives you might as well get rid of aliens unless your fiction is thousands or even millions of years in the future, rendering all speculation moot.

Without star drives, all of your other issues are essentially meaningless.

Speculative Spectrum

So, one could set up a literary continuum with “Hard” speculative fiction at one end, SciFi/Space Opera in the middle, and “Soft” Fiction / Fantasy at the other end. The more gimmicks added, the farther the story is from fact, and the closer it is to pure fantasy.

Possibly. But then, what have you got? :confused:

As one reads down the list, it becomes more and more “wooish.”

So... you're trying to punt woo from sci-fi? Sounds like a case of taking Harry Potter too seriously...
 
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2464483#post2464483

Back to Ken MacLeod.

Of course one has to suspend disbelief at the improbably large influence on the future history of the galaxy wielded by the old scottish trots of '74.

Doesn't "Newtons Wake" start in another stellar system and end on Rannoch Moor? Or am I thinking about another of his books.

I like Scotland, but... Rannoch Moor?
And what's wrong with Rannoch Moor? Yes, think it was Newtons Wake, as well.
Having just finished the Fall Revolution series (I would love to know which 1970s Scottish Trot was the inspiration for 'David Reid'), I agree that you have to suspend some amount of disbelief. However, it's a pleasant change to read some SF that draws on non-American background sources. And matching the Scottish geography in "Sky Road" to present-day Scottish geography provided, for me, further enjoyment of the book.
 
Well, Marooned in RealTime has a technological artifact that is definitely impossible, though I consider it one of the best SF books I ever read. The Peace War, the book that introduced the idea, is not that good IMHO.
Vinge was trying for a different effect in The Peace War.

And since we are in this subject, what is the HARDEST SF you ever read? :)
I'm tempted to say, Neutron Star, but King David's Spaceship and Michael McCollum's Antares novels are also quite good, though none of the three does all that great a job on the characterizations; McCollum is probably the best of the three at that, but has plotting trouble.

If you want to stay away from highly speculative stuff and stick with stuff that's near-future and highly likely, Kim Stanley Robinson wrote a trilogy on the colonization of Mars, Red Mars, Blue Mars, and Green Mars that I thought was the best of the burst of Mars colonization tales that seem to be everywhere in the last decade or so. Bova's wasn't bad either, but he's nowhere near the writer that Robinson is. Robinson's characters stand up and breathe and you never assume you know what they're going to do.

Greg Bear did a pair of books, City of Angels and Slant, that are near-future, and are extremely good as well. Bear picks good mcguffins, writes believable characters and good dialog, and has a very practiced hand with a plot. I used to think that Brin was the best of the "killer Bs" but Bear has grown on me.

Anyway, I've read a lot of SF books, but interestingly enough I started liking historical fiction as well. I guess I like to read about different cultures, moral codes, what-if scenarios, etc.
I like some fantasy, but I'm very picky. It's really no different from SF in terms of the writing quality; in fact, I'd say that's true of most genres of literature, if not of the world at large. Sturgeon's Rule pretty much covers it: 90% of everything is crap.

I read The Lord of the Rings about every 3 years, and have for the last three decades. In my opinion, it may be one of the best stories ever written in the English language. And yes, I have read Joyce, and Faulkner, and all that "lit'rature" ◊◊◊◊, most of which was either so involuted that it wasn't worth reading or so completely divorced from reality that it was completely irrelevant. I don't like paintings by people who are too damned aware of their technique and forget to pay attention to the picture, either. Papa was a good writer, with a fine hand; he's one of the few who knows how to paint a character in a paragraph, and doesn't need to touch it again unless it changes. For Whom The Bell Tolls is one of the ten best books ever written in the English language, IMHO, and may be one of the five best. But "real literature" is as filled with hacks as SF or fantasy ever thought of being.

I am a longstanding fan of C. S. Forester's Hornblower books, and my mother (who likes historical novels as you do) kept telling me how good Patrick O'Brien's Aubrey and Maturin novels are. I picked up Master and Commander not long after seeing the Russel Crow movie, and was instantaneously hooked as I expected I was going to be from her description. I own all of them. O'Brien's untimely death was a great disappointment, but his legacy is incredible, far beyond anything Forester ever contemplated and as a body of work perhaps one of the major accomplishments in English language literature.
 
Given the pace of scientific and technological advancement, it seems to me that fiction bound by today's knowledge could be just as far off the mark as so-called soft or speculative fiction and certainly not any more authentic.
 
Star-Whatever

The two examples you cited are episodic space operas. They have innumerable violations of known physical laws, and present what any rational being would consider woo as real science (Psionics, FTL velocities, et cetera).

Remember, hard science fiction does not deviate from known physical laws or any reasoned extrapolation thereof. Which brings us to...

Mixed Technologies

Admit even one “Gimmick” and you have crossed the line of speculative fiction into the realm of Space Opera. I’m not talking about mere anachronisms (Benjamin Franklin wearing a digital watch, for instance), I’m talking about an item or principle that violates known physical laws.

For example, a group of archeologists working near the pyramids at Giza uncover a large, ring-like structure that suddenly transports the archeologists to another planet on the other side of the galaxy. Then they step back through and return to Earth. Only a few minutes have passed. This violates causality, not just the speed of light.

But you dismiss many things that do not break the laws of physics. There is no theoretical barrier to many things like wormholes, although we are still not sure if they are possible or not, you can't just dismiss them out of hand. Transporters, star drives, etc. are not ruled out by the laws of physics, only by the current state of technology. In addition, things like generation ships technically involve star drives but they are not even speculation, we could build one right now if we really wanted to. There is an important difference between "things that break the laws of physics" and "things that we can't do and might be impossible, but we're not sure yet". It is the second group that "hard" sci-fi is really about, but you seem to dismiss much of it simply because you don't think it would be possible.
 
But you dismiss many things that do not break the laws of physics. There is no theoretical barrier to many things like wormholes, although we are still not sure if they are possible or not, you can't just dismiss them out of hand. Transporters, star drives, etc. are not ruled out by the laws of physics, only by the current state of technology. In addition, things like generation ships technically involve star drives but they are not even speculation, we could build one right now if we really wanted to. There is an important difference between "things that break the laws of physics" and "things that we can't do and might be impossible, but we're not sure yet". It is the second group that "hard" sci-fi is really about, but you seem to dismiss much of it simply because you don't think it would be possible.


Right, there is no THEORETICAL barrier, only technological, to wormholes (if current theories are true).

Transporters, as matter transmitters, are not even theoretical. Neither are stardrives, which I define as technology capable of moving matter faster than the speed of light.

Of course generation ships are possible! Technologically and economically feasible? No.

If I understand you correctly, you are also saying:

1) Hard Science: "Nothing that breaks the laws of physics." ("... or a reasoned extrapolation thereof" <-- my addition).

2) Hard Science Fiction: "Things that we can't do and might be impossible, but we're not sure yet".

3) Soft Science Fiction: "Things that we know are impossible." (<-- my addition)

4) Woo: "Everything else." (<-- my addition)


Is this about what you mean? If I'm wrong about anything, please let me know.
 
Right, there is no THEORETICAL barrier, only technological, to wormholes (if current theories are true).

Transporters, as matter transmitters, are not even theoretical. Neither are stardrives, which I define as technology capable of moving matter faster than the speed of light.

Transporters can work theroretically. Read the exact position of every atom in an object, transmit that information and build it at the other end. Very difficult, but there is no theoretical barrier, only technological. The the whole problem of clones of course.;)

Star drives are another problem area. A star drive as you define it to be actually accelerating to faster than light is not possible. However, a spaceship that travelled through a wormhole, or even created its own, is not known to be impossible. It is not really possible to class many things like this into simple "Impossible therefore space opera" and "Maybe possible therefore hard sci-fi". It all depends very much on the actual implementation.

Of course generation ships are possible! Technologically and economically feasible? No.

Hmm, not sure I quite agree. In the current climate, certainly not feasible, but I think that technologically we could do it if absolutely forced to. On the other hand I doubt we ever actually would even if we were forced to, but because of politics rather than anything else. In fact, I think I see a sci-fi plot coming on.:p

If I understand you correctly, you are also saying:

1) Hard Science: "Nothing that breaks the laws of physics." ("... or a reasoned extrapolation thereof" <-- my addition).

2) Hard Science Fiction: "Things that we can't do and might be impossible, but we're not sure yet".

3) Soft Science Fiction: "Things that we know are impossible." (<-- my addition)

4) Woo: "Everything else." (<-- my addition)


Is this about what you mean? If I'm wrong about anything, please let me know.

Pretty much. I think I'd probably disagree with you over exactly what comes into "maybe impossible" and "definately impossible", but that's really all just nitpicking.
 
Robert Heinlein's "Time for the Stars" if I am not mistaken has a spaceship that looks like a "torch". They always accelarated 1g forwards. If I am mistaken, there is another one also from Heinleing where people keep traveling between the moon and Mars using a spaceship that accelarates at low 1-5gs, turns itself around and slows down the ship at the same "gees". I don't remember the title though.

This one...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cat_Who_Walks_Through_Walls
has some sort of circular spaceship with pods that spin, so the people on board have "gravity" that comes and goes.
 
I followed Fnord's thread from Citizen's Of The Imperium where it was brought up in relation to 2300 AD a Games Development Workshop RPG with "hardish" sci-fi themes from the mid 80s that is about to be resurrected in D20 format (i.e. 2320 AD). I say 2300 AD is "hardish" in regards that it tries to stay within known science with only a few "hand waves" to make things interesting (e.g. stutterwarp space drive). The aliens presented are truly alien in both appearance and psychology (so much so that they are always treated as NPCs), the whole "left hand amino acid" issue was brought up in one of the campaign books, star ships had spin gravity, and your character's weapon of choice was going to be a good-old slug chemical thrower than some expensive and easy-to-break energy weapon.

Of all the sci-fi RPGs I have in my vast collection, there are three that come to mind that count as "hard:"

Blue Planet: Think SeaQuest DSV only on another planet.

Jovian Chronicles: All of the action takes place in the solar system with no aliens or FTL. Since the games is an anime-style game of the Gundam school, the only really space opera element are the giant robot exo-armors.

Transhuman Space: This has got to be the hardest sci-fi game of them all. No aliens, but there are plenty of AIs and genetically modified lifeforms to make up for that). Again, there is no space travel beyond the outer planets. Low level "wet" nanotech. Smart matter. Memetics. Anti-matter powered spaceships. Cepholopod sex-toys (don't ask!).
 
I can't see the point in such "hard" sci-fi, which is probably why I've never read any. I like to be amazed by the author's knowledge and imagination, like I was when reading Peter F Hamilton's "The Night's Dawn" trilogy or Dan Simmons' astonishing "Ilium".

At the furthest end of the scale, I still remember reading Moorcock's "The Dancers At The End Of Time" trilogy when I was about 14, a wonderful semi-satirical tale of the nigh-immortal remnants of the human race who possessed such incredible power that their lives had lost all meaning and they spent their time in an endless round of parties and self-indulgence.
 
"Hard" science-fiction is what I read/watch for intellectual stimulation. The "What Ifs" introduced by the writer always seem to provoke me into a bout of technical creativity (Movie: "Outland").

"Soft" science-fiction is what read/watch for entertainment (Movie: "X-Men").

Mr. Seifert! Glad to see you here. Altough you've been with JREF longer than I, our paths haven't crossed until now.

-Keklas "Fnord" Rekobah, Heretic of Dyscordia©
 
For me, some of the most stimulating SF has been "soft" as it can deal with societies. A prime case would be Ian M Banks' "Culture". Especially "The Player of Games".
 

Back
Top Bottom