SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

So a friend of mine recently referred to The Martian Chronicles as "hard science fiction." This sort of surprised me, since I hadn't really considered it a part of that genre. It led to a pretty interesting discussion, and I was wondering what people here thought of it.

So what's you definition of hard science fiction? What sort of books do you think qualify, and what are some of your favorites in the genre? I have some thoughts on this, but I want to hear what other people think first.

Hard science fiction is for me a story that is centered on future technology/science and its use or impact on humanity. It could also be about contact with extra-terrestrial aliens. 2001: A Space Odyssey is a classic of the genre.

I agree with Michiel's definition and think that his example, 2001: A Space Odyssey, is an excellent example of hard science fiction.

In my opinion, Ray Bradbury's The Martion Chronicles is merely satire and humor that just happens to take place on another inhabited planet.

Jim wrote: "I agree with Michiel's definition and think that his example, 2001: A Space Odyssey, is an excellent example of hard science fiction.

In my opinion, Ray Bradbury's The Martion Chronicles is merely..."

Yes, it's always been my understanding that for SF to be considered 'hard' that the story must be absolutely dependent on a scientific concept, theory, or extrapolation. And that if you were to remove the science-y bit the story would collapse.

Another good example of hard science fiction for me is I, Robot, by Isaac Asimov, a master of the genre.

For me, hard science fiction is about the science more than the fiction. Something that is more about exploring concepts in a empiric way rather than societal or personal dramas. Something link Rendezvous with Rama or a lot of Arthur C Clarke's work.

I agree with many of the above comments, but I'd also add that it's important in 'hard' SF that no fantastical elements sneak in - whatever's going on has to have some basis in the reality of the science in the story.

Leonie wrote: "I agree with many of the above comments, but I'd also add that it's important in 'hard' SF that no fantastical elements sneak in - whatever's going on has to have some basis in the reality of the science in the story. "

Same here.

Although I tend to be lenient when it comes to some things others consider Fantasy -- namely time travel and FTL -- because there are actual, mainstream physicists who have developed theories for how both of those things can work. (Mostly it's wormholes, but also other things as well.) So unless it's absolutely disproven, I allow it into the genre.

Typically, though, I consider Hard Science Fiction to be anything that doesn't violate the laws of nature as they are currently known.

William Gibson

I despise the term. I feel it's too vague, and tons tons of books fall somewhere on the sorta hard sci-fi line. Plus it has been ruined by people using it all over the place.

Michel's definition is the version I agree with.

Randolph wrote: "Science fiction that isn't flaccid."

#winning

I differentiate between "Science Fiction" and "sci-fi" as well as "hard" and "soft" versions of both those categories.

"Science Fiction" (capital S, capital F) is stories that could happen using known scientific principles and they do not violate scientific laws. They could use techniques that are more or less speculative, but they at least acknowledge the physics, genetics, chemistry, etc. that they are addressing. For example, the mission to Jupiter in 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the description of the space craft.

"Sci-fi" (not capitalized) is made of up stories that reference science or use scientific vocabulary, but in ways that have no actual bearing on the real science. Spiderman being bitten by a radioactive spider and getting super powers, for example.

"Hard" versions of either Science Fiction or sci-fi attempt to explain the speculative aspects of their stories and use an internal consistency throughout the story/stories. For example, the Star Trek franchise uses many fantastical scientific dynamics that aren't really based on anything in the real world. (Lots of folks like to speculate about how such things could really happen--but not the people who actually write/create the show, and though we might want replicators to work, the post-post-post episode speculation by people not actually associated with the program doesn't really count in my estimation.) However, that series generally uses a consistent set of rules to describe how the scientific principals are being broken or ignored. That makes it "hard sci-fi" in my classification system.

"Soft" versions of either Science Fiction or sci-fi are "science" only in the sense that they are not magic. That is, there's no claim to supernatural agency, but no attempt to show the scientific basis of the dynamics presented either. The science is background or justification. Psychic powers are almost always "soft" in this view. So, the film Close Encounters is "soft Science Fiction" in this system. The Star Wars series is "soft sci-fi."

Even with two additional categories, authors and producers sometimes meander a bit across the categories, but in a general sense I would give these examples:

Hard Science Fiction: Arthur C. Clarke, Philip K. Dick, Kim Stanley Robinson, Michael Crichton

Soft Science Fiction: Kurt Vonnegut, Ray Bradbury

Hard sci-fi: Frank Herbert, Gene Roddenberry

Soft sci-fi: George Lucas, Stan Lee

Even with those additional categories, individual books are sometimes hard to describe. For instance, I think The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is hard sci-fi, but it other folks might argue that it is soft Science Fiction. Jules Verne would probably have thought of himself as hard Science Fiction, but some folks might want to call his work soft....

Last, I would note that we can't attach anything about the quality of the work to the category. There is "soft Science Fiction" that is crap and "soft sci-fi" that is much better than "hard sci-fi" products. The category says nothing about the relative skill of the author, the entertainment value of the plot, the strength of the dialogue, etc.

You can bludgeon someone to death with it.

Gary wrote: "I differentiate between "science fiction" and "sci-fi" as well as "hard" and "soft" versions of both those categories."

Your definitions are amazingly different from the way most people define those terms. If you're going to stray that far afield from accepted terminology, it becomes rather difficult to have a coherent discussion about each sub-genre.

Trike wrote: "Your definitions are amazingly different from the way most people define those terms. If you're going to stray that far afield from accepted terminology, it becomes rather difficult to have a coherent discussion about each sub-genre. "

My definitions are pretty comparable to those used for some time.... Have you seen these discussions?

http://kathrineroid.wordpress.com/201...

http://www.pajiba.com/trade_news/scif...

Or the wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_...

If the author had to solve an equation to write the work, it's hard SF.

Because the "hard" modifies "science" not the "science fiction" as a whole.

The problem with the "does not violate known science" is that Hal Clement used both FTL and universal translators, which he admitted were nothing more than bits of magic. And a definition of hard science fiction that leaves out Hal Clement is like a definition of epic fantasy that omits J.R.R. Tolkien.

@Gary Your definition of hard reads more like hard is the science is more realistic. When I always read it as the science is the plot who cares how realistic it is. While in normal Science Fiction it's just part of the setting. Kinda like how in older dystopians the character is not the important part it's the world itself.

Also Sci-fi is literally the abbreviation of Science Fiction and I really dislike the fact that it's becoming common that they are different things.

Gary wrote: "My definitions are pretty comparable to those used for some time.... Have you seen these discussions?"

Odd. The first one and third one don't support your thesis.

Your definition of Hard Science Fiction being "stories that are internally consistent" is one I've never heard anywhere else. While that may be so for certain works by Crichton or episodes of Star Trek, I don't know anyone who seriously considers either of those "Hard SF." Clarke and Robinson, sure, but Dick generally isn't.

By this definition, Brandon Sanderson's work would be Hard SF, because he creates strict rules for his magic systems and they are internally consistent and have thorough explanations for how they work. Crichton and Star Trek do the same thing, but none of those are actually Hard SF, which pretty much turns solely on real world science.

If it violates natural law as we know it, then it's not Hard SF. Star Trek, Dick and Crichton all violate natural law on a regular basis. Crichton is often lauded as a hard science guy, but books like Jurassic Park are as unrealistic and non-scientific as anything by Tolkien.

Mary wrote: "The problem with the "does not violate known science" is that Hal Clement used both FTL and universal translators, which he admitted were nothing more than bits of magic. And a definition of hard science fiction that leaves out Hal Clement is like a definition of epic fantasy that omits J.R.R. Tolkien."

A lot of people do like to make the difference between "science fiction" and "sci-fi" something on the level of serious literature versus light fiction--or, more pointedly, good versus bad. (Like Ellison in the link above.)

I don't think there's any particular quality assessment to attach to the terms. There's nothing wrong with someone being categorized as "hard sci-fi" rather than "hard Science Fiction."

Aaron wrote: "@Gary Your definition of hard reads more like hard is the science is more realistic. When I always read it as the science is the plot who cares how realistic it is. While in normal Science Fiction it's just part of the setting. Kinda like how in older dystopians the character is not the important part it's the world itself."

I would say that there's an element of that, but mostly the difference between my use of Science Fiction and sci-fi is the "realism" of the science portrayed in the work.

Aaron wrote: "Also Sci-fi is literally the abbreviation of Science Fiction and I really dislike the fact that it's becoming common that they are different things."

Heh. Fair enough. The cat might be out of the bag on that one, though. The change to Syfy from Sci-fi might even indicate that things are downshifting further in terms of both the emphasis and the nomenclature.

Trike wrote: "Odd. The first one and third one don't support your thesis.

Your definition of Hard Science Fiction being "stories that are internally consistent" is one I've never heard anywhere else."

Ah, I see. You're talking about my use of "hard" and "soft" rather than Science Fiction versus sci-fi.

I do articulate "hard" a bit differently than is usually done. However, I'd suggest that my definition is really just more general than is typically used. That is, the difference is a matter of scale not scope. The definitions of "hard Science Fiction" and "soft Science Fiction" that I've presented do differ from, say, the Wikipedia article in that that article goes more into the differences between "hard science" versus "soft science." That is, the physical sciences versus the social sciences. However, my version of "hard" and "soft" is actually broader than that since it's geared towards literature rather than using the categories of science and applying them to fiction. I'll grant you that "using an internal consistency" is looser than "characterized by rigorous attention to accurate detail" but not particularly in literary terms, and what difference is there is purposeful, as my version is meant to apply to both Science Fiction and sci-fi.

For example, I think most people would agree that Kim Stanley Robinson's work is hard Science Fiction, right? (Some people might disagree....) However, according to the WP definition maybe not as he does focus quite a bit on the social and political interaction of his characters. I don't think that emphasis, however, should shift his work into the same category has Heinlein and Bradbury (who didn't like being called a Science Fiction writer at all.)

However, if the concern is the ease with which these terms can be used to discuss the matter, I think you'll find my proposed definitions much more useful. If one uses Harlen Ellison's multiple definitions (science fiction is literature, while sci-fi is more or less brainless entertainment; or science fiction is about the interaction of technology with humanity--what I would call soft Science Fiction) then that's where things get more confusing.

Gary wrote: "A lot of people do like to make the difference between "science fiction" and "sci-fi" something on the level of serious literature versus light fiction--or, more pointedly, good versus bad. "

Exceedingly sloppy of them. And in poor taste. If they haven't got the gumption to declare that only certain works are serious -- or good -- they shouldn't try to sneak in the same condemnation in a weaselly form, when it's harder to call them on it.

Mary wrote: "Exceedingly sloppy of them. And in poor taste. If they haven't got the gumption to declare that only certain works are serious -- or good -- they shouldn't try to sneak in the same condemnation in a weaselly form, when it's harder to call them on it."

I would tend to agree... or I'd give them an out and say they might not be using particularly well defined terms.

To be fair, the term "sci-fi" itself was pretty much coined to describe the goofier Saturday morning serial type stuff, so there's some history behind not wanting to be lumped into that category from a respect and legacy perspective. (Though probably not from a cash and popularity perspective....)

I think there's good Science Fiction, bad Science Fiction, good sci-fi and bad sci-fi. In fact, sometime within the same franchise. There are good Star Trek products (which I would have to call sci-fi) and bad Star Trek products.

However, it is problematic to differentiate between the two in terms of quality alone, particularly when what they mean by "quality" is similarly loose.

Gary wrote: "To be fair, the term "sci-fi" itself was pretty much coined to describe the goofier Saturday morning serial type stuff, "

Have you ever heard Norman Spinrad's opinion of the term?

Mary wrote: "Have you ever heard Norman Spinrad's opinion of the term?"

I hadn't, but I did a little google-fu and found

"Science fiction is anything published as science fiction."

And this much more articulated (and probably more accurate) assessment:

A strong, or at least sympathetic, hero, with whom the reader can identify, is confronted with a problem he must solve or an unsympathetic villain he must overcome. As the story progresses, the attainment of this goal becomes more and more difficult through a series of plot complications, rising to a crisis at which point it seems he must fail. But through intelligence, courage, physical prowess, or some combination of the three, he turns the tables and triumphs at the climax of the tale, which should end soon thereafter in a coda or resolution that wraps things up.

This indeed is a reliable formula for successful commercial fiction. Crank it through cowboys and outlaws and you have a western; spies and counterspies, and you have an espionage thriller; cops and criminals, and you have a detective story; rocket ships, alien planets, a galactic overlord, an intrepid spaceman, and you have …

Sci-fi.

Were either of those the opinion you were referring to?

I find the argument between "sci-fi" and "Science Fiction" to be a tedious holdover from the days when people were fighting against ghettoization of the genre. It's analogous to the arguments defining "comic book" and "graphic novel": it's simply anal-retentive pretentiousness at this point.

SF and superheroes rule the culture. We won. Time to let it go.