• 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

Taffer said:
Softer then some, though, as he does speculate a bit more on the progress of tech (the Hell class weapons, inertia modification, the neutron star Hades, etc.). He also had particularly "alien" aliens. The Pattern Jugglers, for example.
Click to expand...


Indeed. I like how for every alien species encountered, there was an explanation of why contact was made when it did. In the case of the Pattern Jugglers, it was because they were not a spacefaring species. In the cases of the Inhibitors--well, you know why (don't want to spoil things for the others). None of this Star Trek mumbo-jumbo where every alien race seems to magically be within a few decades, technology-wise, of the others.

Even though many of the technologies are highly speculative, there is always a trace of real science to them, and the technologies always play a core role in the plot. The main example of this is of course how, since there are no warp drives, one must account for the multi-decade journeys between stars. Acceleration loads also play a crucial role.

Thanks for the other suggestions. I think I've read almost all of Reynold's stuff, including Diamond Dogs/Turquoise Days (shouldn't you have guessed that from my username :)?), but I haven't read the other two you mentioned.

Dr Richard said:
As the series progresses, the books get "softer" and by the definition given above, ultimately turn into space opera - acausal weaponry anyone? loved Absolution Gap, right up until the ending...
Click to expand...


Well, I'd say there was always an element of space opera--ancient galactic-wide wars, anyone? And I agree that they became more speculative. But just the same, the technologies were always tempered by a bit of truth, and they were always crucial to the plot, rather than a deus ex machina. So in that sense I'd say they remained hard SF.

- Dr. Trintignant
 
Characterizations?

Dialog?

Interesting alien cultures to go with the interesting alien physiognomies and neato whizzbang technology?
 
I just finished Building Harlequin's Moon by Brenda Cooper and Larry Niven and would cat it as pretty hard Hard SciFi. No FTL, lots of nanotech and AI though. Niven's hand is pretty clear for anyone who is a fan.
 
Dr. Trintignant said:
Thanks for the other suggestions. I think I've read almost all of Reynold's stuff, including Diamond Dogs/Turquoise Days (shouldn't you have guessed that from my username :)?), but I haven't read the other two you mentioned.
Click to expand...

You're most welcome, they are excellent books (Charles Stross has released 'Accelerando' as a free ebook, which can be found here. I kind of assumed you'd read DD/TD (wonderful pair of novellas, those, btw. I absolutely loved Diamond Dogs!), that was in there more for the benefit of other readers. :)
 
I don't think such a distinction exists. The whole point of sci-fi is that it is fiction. This definition of "hard" sci-fi pretty much removes any possibility of fiction. If you remove all speculation about what might be possible, you remove almost everything. OK, so you can still get novels based in space, but they would not really be sci-fi. Things like 2001 are as close to "hard" sci-fi as you'll ever get, but even then it needs inter-galactic aliens to exist for the story to take place, even though they don't really do anything.

In addition, you rule out things that might be possible just because we don't how they would work. Transporters, zero-point energy, gravity control, all these are not ruled out theoretically, but you dismiss them anyway. I think everyone can agree that they become space opera when done Star Trek style, but that does not mean they cannot be done in a realistic way appropriate to hard sci-fi.
 
I'm not sure if Ken MacLeod's stuff qualifies as totally hard SF. He uses extensions of known/speculative technology (wormholes, nanotechnology, replication, life extension, cloning) in a manner that comes close to Space Opera.
However, his is the only SF I've come across that speculates on exactly what political systems/philosophies future societies might run on. Is politics included in any definition of Hard SF?
 
sophia8 said:
However, his is the only SF I've come across that speculates on exactly what political systems/philosophies future societies might run on. Is politics included in any definition of Hard SF?
Click to expand...
We've already had Red Mars suggested in this thread, and there's a lot of politics in that trilogy. Hard SF is often about the impact of possible new technologies, and this will often touch on politics, at the very least.
 
Sometimes the lines get blurry, and that's OK. As noted, we are dealing with fiction here. I recall being in a bookstore once and mentioning that I liked Harlan Ellison. One fellow (with a bit of a sneer) said, "I don't read SOFT science-fiction."
Cutting out a lot of good stuff there, Skippy.

Personally, I like both. Jack Vance is about as far from "hard" as you can get.
Hop into space ship, engage star-drive, and off to another colorful, marvellously invented world filled with quirky characters who mirror our own proclivities.
But I like David Brin and Greg Bear as well.
Bear manages to take the very cutting edge of contemporary science, and extrapolate very believably into the future with same.

The late Isaac Asimov, criticized for putting a story into his magazine that wasn't "science fiction" enough for some fans, replied that the important thing was that it was a good story.
 
Wouldn't bacteria or angels be more likely that apes or angels? Given the evolution lag between bacteria and space-faring/communicating humans in contrast to the brief lag between non-human and human apes.
 
Jimbo07 said:
Fnord, I don't think some of your criteria are correct:
Click to expand...
Jimbo07 said:
- I really don't buy the Apes or Angels thing...
- Even a lot of space operas don't have everybody speaking English...
- etc. etc. etc.

You seem to be defining Hard SF as specifically not Star Trek or Star Wars.

What about mixed technologies? Does a story which uses star drives as a facilitating device, but tries to be exacting in all other areas automatically become disqualified from being hard SF?
Click to expand...

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.

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 Earth-like world at exactly the same time and with the exact same frequency.

Finally, consider the cultural developments in Earth's history, and apply a few "What Ifs." What if Democracy had never developed beyond the conceptual stage? What if Rome had never fallen? What if Columbus had never received any financial backing from the Spaniards? What if the Nazis had developed the atomic bomb first?

[SPECULATION]

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).

Thus, by “Apes & Angels” one could say that any two worlds that formed at exactly the same time, and that have had billions of years to go from dust to sentient life, could differ by as much as 9.134 million years in evolution!

A divergence of only 0.000001% would still separate the two extremes by 9.134 thousand years. With this value, one alien world could have a bronze-age culture (year = 2560 BCE), while another could be far ahead of our own, both culturally and technologically (year = 6574 CE). Maybe not “Apes & Angels” but perhaps “Spearchuckers & Supermen”?

[/SPECULATION]

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.

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.

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.

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.

1) “Hard” Science Fiction / Textbook.
2) Speculative Fiction / Murder Mysteries.
3) Science Fiction / Extrapolatory Fiction.
4) Space Opera / Popular SciFi.
5) Science Fantasy / Comic Books.
6) Religious Writings / Miraculous Accounts.
7) “Soft” Fiction / Pure fantasy.

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

Comments?
 
Fnord, good speculative work. But I still think spear-chucker vs. angels seems unlikely. Given time scale, I think Bacteria vs. angels would be most likely. the period of time from the emergence of primate level intelligence to 2007 level intelligence seems to be a relatively short window. Whereas beyond our current technological singularity and pre-primate both seem to be likely to be on the order of billions of years each. It's not as interesting to us, but those seem by far to be the most likely meetups of 2 different forms of life originating on different planets, besides 2 different angel-level lifeforms, of course.
 
sophia8 said:
I'm not sure if Ken MacLeod's stuff qualifies as totally hard SF. He uses extensions of known/speculative technology (wormholes, nanotechnology, replication, life extension, cloning) in a manner that comes close to Space Opera.
However, his is the only SF I've come across that speculates on exactly what political systems/philosophies future societies might run on. Is politics included in any definition of Hard SF?
Click to expand...

You missed out a fellow countryman of Ken MacLeod (and you?), Ian M Banks, Not hard SF, but The Culture novels have a lot about how technology affects (the) Culture. But that is not too surprising as both authors are friends and have dediated books/ chapter titles to each other.

"The Cassini Division" is fairly hard SF from Ken MacLeod, and my favourite from the political angle: anarcho-comunist society meets anarcho-capitalist:

"Just you wait, you bankers! Just you wait."
Click to expand...

On the Foundation series, and amusing technology:

IIRC, the Foundation managed to make something the size of a walnut that contained twenty three circuits....
 
Dave1001 said:
Fnord, good speculative work. But I still think spear-chucker vs. angels seems unlikely. Given time scale, I think Bacteria vs. angels would be most likely...
Click to expand...

Po-TAY-to / po-TAH-to...

One terrestrial planet's highest-order life form could be aerobic bacteria, another's could be knuckle-draging ape-like creatures, a third might have merchants on sailing ships, a fourth might have people like my ex-wife, a fifth might send its planetary defense force out to meet you, and a sixth might have beings that would look upon you as just another experimental animal, and so forth...

My "Apes & Angels" concept is just to illustrate that alien civilizations are more likely to be at a different stage of evolution than ours, and not likely to have a parallel culture with parallel technology. It doesn't matter if you name the concept "Apes & Angels" or "Brutes & Boy Scouts," the contrast remains the same.
 
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?
 
Fnord said:
Po-TAY-to / po-TAH-to...

One terrestrial planet's highest-order life form could be aerobic bacteria, another's could be knuckle-draging ape-like creatures, a third might have merchants on sailing ships, a fourth might have people like my ex-wife, a fifth might send its planetary defense force out to meet you, and a sixth might have beings that would look upon you as just another experimental animal, and so forth...

My "Apes & Angels" concept is just to illustrate that alien civilizations are more likely to be at a different stage of evolution than ours, and not likely to have a parallel culture with parallel technology. It doesn't matter if you name the concept "Apes & Angels" or "Brutes & Boy Scouts," the contrast remains the same.
Click to expand...

I think the apes/angels or spearchuckers/angels versions are a bit more misleading, but that may come across as a quibble. ;)
 
Huntsman said:
How about "Infinitesimal/Incomprehensible"?

Unicellular/Unbelieveable?

Bugs/Bhuddas?

:D
Click to expand...

#3 gets my vote!

How about:

#4 Parameciums & Paradigms

#5 Maggots & Messiahs

#6 Critters & Creators


Ah, but seriously, folks!

Can you take one (or more) known scientific principle(s) and extrapolate on it (them) to 100 or 1000 years into the future, and explain how humaniti would be impacted?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom