# Soft vs. hard science fiction (definitions)



## The_African

Which is the correct definition (or are both wrong) ? Soft science fiction is closer to fantasy than hard science fiction is, it contains very unrealistic, if not impossible, events that are explained through pseudo science whereas hard science fiction only deals currently impossible but realistic advances in technology and science.


Soft science fiction places little to no emphasis on scientific detail, focusing primarily on the plot or social/philosophical themes of the story whereas hard science fiction is like reading a damn college text book. The first definition implies little emphasis on scientific detail but technically it could still emphasize pseudo scientific detail and be 'soft', right?

Show (/recommend) some examples of soft/hard science fiction novels.


----------



## Parson

In my opinion there is no absolute definition of what is hard and soft SF. Any definition I would buy for them certainly has nothing to do with the way the characters interact, the importance of plot, or social/philosophical themes. For me it's all about physics. Hard SF will not violate any known laws of physics, at least to the point that something is theoretically possible. By my definition Jules Verne would be a hard SF writer for his day, and interestingly most of his "far out" ideas are now fact. 

In the end I find myself agreeing with J.D. that the most useful definition is "fantastical fiction" because even the line between SF and Fantasy/horror is nebulous at best.


----------



## Tinsel

Science fiction has to deal with science and ethics. Whether or not it is hard or soft science fiction can only relate to the issues raised. Did you find that the issue was significant and the story was convincing or not? Therefore it is either hard or soft in terms of its relevant importance, for the effect that it has on the reader.

I would say that the time would have an effect on science fiction because as technology and science evolve than arguments might be made harder or softer in relation to.


----------



## iansales

Traditionally, hard sf referred to the physical sciences - physics, chemistry, etc.; while soft sf referred to the "softer" sciences - anthropology, psychology, etc. AFAIK, that definition has not changed, although people's uses of the terms might have.


----------



## J Riff

Whenever they started calling it hard and soft, I missed it, I reckon it's taken from science terminology itself as Ian suggests.
However, I used to look for SciFi..that was what I thought of as 'deep space' stuff.... nothing to do with life on earth, generally, just...deep space exploration, which allowed for wild aliens, cultures, empires- anything. And this seemed 'hard'  in comparison to say, Bradbury, who was lyrical, character-based, and largely earthbound, viz: connected in some way to life on earth in the present, which I wasn't interested in.
 Using physics as a barrier- disallows any FTL-based stories, and that's a_ lot_ of SciFi - some of which postulates other, equally-impossible science while still holding together somehow. Science, yes, but don't forget that Fiction word!


----------



## iansales

They started calling it hard and soft sf back in the Golden Age. The labels have fallen out of favour somewhat in recent decades, with the popularity of space opera and British New Space Opera adding hard sf to trad space opera. The terms have always been open to editorial obfuscation, as exact definitions have never been entirely agreed upon. So, for example, *The Hard SF Renaissance*, edited by David G Hartwell & Kathryn Cramer, contains stories many would clearly consider _not_ to be hard sf...


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

iansales said:


> Traditionally, hard sf referred to the physical sciences - physics, chemistry, etc.; while soft sf referred to the "softer" sciences - anthropology, psychology, etc.



This is how I've always understood the terms and heard them used.


----------



## J Riff

Hard fantasy, on the other hand.... ?
_Soft YA fantasy meets hard SciFi splatterjunk in a world of tommorow, where everything is possible but nothing much ever happens, thanks to the darn laws of physics, and those obfuscating editors._


----------



## Tinsel

Science fiction might include "The Island of Dr Moreau" and I personally would allocate "Jurassic Park" as a sci fi book. In both cases, there are ethical questions raised when science is made into a venture and a departure from the main stream.

Now was "Frankenstein" a sci fi book? It more or less is, but it isn't I don't think. It is no longer able to hold water as having the presence of science in any believable form, so now it is fantasy along with "Herbert West - Reanimator". They are still good stories.


----------



## Fried Egg

Tinsel said:


> Now was "Frankenstein" a sci fi book? It more or less is, but it isn't I don't think. It is no longer able to hold water as having the presence of science in any believable form, so now it is fantasy along with "Herbert West - Reanimator". They are still good stories.


I don't think it _ever_ was an SF book. Certainly not _hard_ anyway as the emphasis of the book was never on the rationale of how such a creature might be created.


----------



## iansales

According to Brian Aldiss in *Trillion Year Spree*, *Frankenstein* was the first sf novel. Personally, I date the start of sf to 1926 and the first issue of Hugo Gernsback's Amazing Stories.


----------



## Fried Egg

iansales said:


> Personally, I date the start of sf to 1926 and the first issue of Hugo Gernsback's Amazing Stories.


The problem is that excludes the works of H.G. Wells and Jules Verne (and probably others). 

But it is an interesting question, how do you date the birth of a genre? Is it the date that the first published book can be retrospectively judged to be part of it or at the point that writers (and readers) become consciously aware of it? If it's the latter, does that make earlier works in that vein _proto_ SF? And does that mean that the author's conscious intention is relevent to a book's genre classification? Are Kazuo Ishiguro's "Never Let me Go", Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale"  George Orwell's "1984" not SF because the author never thought of them as such?

I'm inclined to think not and that often some of the best works of SF are those where the writer wasn't writing with a specific genre in mind, just trying to make a tell a good story. What we should judge it by are the results, not the intent.


----------



## J Riff

So really, Gernsback had an early hand in beginning to solidifying the 'fantasy' genre by defining his 'scienti-fiction'.
Decades later though, fantasy and science fiction were still largely lumped together, crossovers galore, and that's why 'hard' sciFi sort of suggested it leaned into any sciFi staples whatsoever, space or aliens usually, versus fantasy worlds and sword and sorcery which was huge at the time. Then Fantasy solidified nicely, and we're back where we started, with the proper definition based on the natural sciences, which I had forgotten in all the excitement.

Proto is the right word. There are pre-sciFi genres - lost race, hollow earth, armageddon, others... and the 1st mention of anything - Dinosaurs, UFOs and so forth, all are categorized by antiquarian book dealers in one way or another.


----------



## Tinsel

"Frankenstein" does have the features of sci fi and it does raise ethical concerns related to the cost of the preservation of life. I agree that the emphasis is not on the validity of the science but back than they did experiments, including using electricity on the brain. I would hesitate to believe that raising the dead is possible knowing what I do of modern science, but certainly cloning was a significant issue recently, and DNA genetics, but some time ago the idea existed that electricity lead to healing. Now Dr Frankenstein departed from the main stream. 

The main point of this genre is this: *What will science produce outside of the experiment that is certainly interfered with/tainted by human subjectivity.*

Now Mary Shelly needs to update her book, and we could probably turn a few others into modern sci fi as well, easily?


----------



## iansales

Fried Egg said:


> The problem is that excludes the works of H.G. Wells and Jules Verne (and probably others).



Yes and no. Wells called his works "scientific romances". They were certainly inspirational works for Gernsback and his peers - in fact, Wells and Verne were reprinted in many early sf magazines. While Wells and Verne weren't writing sf as we know it, they were subsequently claimed for the genre.

And yes, taken at its broadest definition, *Never Let Me Go*, *The Handmaid's Tale*, *1984*, can be considered sf, inasmuch as they're books which use sfnal devices. But they're also written as books which deliberately exclude the sf community.


----------



## Fried Egg

iansales said:


> And yes, taken at its broadest definition, *Never Let Me Go*, *The Handmaid's Tale*, *1984*, can be considered sf, inasmuch as they're books which use sfnal devices. But they're also written as books which deliberately exclude the sf community.


They're _written_ in a way that deliberately excludes the SF community? Or are they just _marketed_ in such a way?


----------



## iansales

Fried Egg said:


> They're _written_ in a way that deliberately excludes the SF community? Or are they just _marketed_ in such a way?



Atwood has stated many times she doesn't write sf. Ishiguro has, afaik, never admitted *Never Let Me Go* is sf. PD James was adamant *Children of Men* wasn't sf. And so on...

Anthony Burgess, otoh, admitted *A Clockwork Orange* and *The Wanting Seed* were sf - althuogh he preferred the term "futfic".


----------



## Ursa major

But unless they include, perhaps next to the page number, the phrase, "Member of the SFF community, this book's not for you" how does the way they're written deter us from reading it**?







** - Shame that Margaret Atwood won't be reading this, but the use of those chips one sometimes finds in greetings cards might deter me from continuing; if on turning the page, I heard this author's soporific tones telling me not to read, I'd stop right there.


----------



## iansales

Never said it would stop us from reading it. Just said it wasn't written as sf.


----------



## Fried Egg

More like the writer doesn't think of it as SF (which leads it not to be marketed as SF) but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...


----------



## iansales

Fried Egg said:


> More like the writer doesn't think of it as SF (which leads it not to be marketed as SF) but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...



True. But the distinctions tend to mean more if you're a twitcher...


----------



## Vladd67

Mind you both JK Rowling and Goodkind both claim they didn't write fantasy, I suspect some writers who normally don't write sci fi don't like to admit that a book they have written is sci fi as it might harm their non sci fi sales.


----------



## Parson

iansales said:


> Traditionally, hard sf referred to the physical sciences - physics, chemistry, etc.; while soft sf referred to the "softer" sciences - anthropology, psychology, etc. AFAIK, that definition has not changed, although people's uses of the terms might have.



By this definition "Pushing Ice" would be soft SF, and "Tom Swift and His Megascopic Spaceship" would be hard SF. I refuse to buy that definition. 


Also you sent me to google all your acronyms and then "twitcher" do you really mean that as a person who looks for all kinds of birds?


----------



## iansales

Why would *Pushing Ice* be soft sf? It's got physics and tech and rocketry and cosmology in it. Le Guin is an example of soft sf.

And yes, I did mean a bird-watcher


----------



## The_African

Tinsel said:


> Science fiction might include "The Island of Dr Moreau" and I personally would allocate "Jurassic Park" as a sci fi book. In both cases, there are ethical questions raised when science is made into a venture and a departure from the main stream.
> 
> Now was "Frankenstein" a sci fi book? It more or less is, but it isn't I don't think. It is no longer able to hold water as having the presence of science in any believable form, so now it is fantasy along with "Herbert West - Reanimator". They are still good stories.



I haven't read Frankenstein but why shouldn't it be considered science fiction if, in the context of the story, the fantastical events are explainable and natural and not supernatural?



> Hard science fiction is a category of science fiction characterized by an emphasis on scientific  or technical detail, or on scientific accuracy, or on both.[1] The term  was first used in print in 1957 by P. Schuyler Miller, book reviewer  for Astounding Science Fiction.[2] The complementary term, soft science  fiction (a back formation that first appeared in the late 1970s[3]) by  contrast highlights into science fiction in which science is never  featured, or the science is incorrect or made-up. The term sometimes  also contrasts the “hardness” of the sciences used in the story: the  “hard” sciences are quantitative or material-based disciplines, such as  physics, chemistry, & astronomy; while the more “soft” sciences are  social sciences, such as sociology, anthropology, or psychology.  (Stories featuring engineering  tend into be categorized as hard SF, although technically engineering  is never a science.). Neither term is part of a rigorous taxonomy —  instead they are rule-of-thumb ways of characterizing stories that  reviewers & commentators have found useful. The categorization “hard  SF” represents a position on a scale from “softer” into “harder”, never  a binary classification.



whats the difference between soft science fiction and hard science fiction?

I like this definition and I also prefer soft science fiction. The more unrealistic, the better, but I would prefer there to be a natural explanation for the unrealistic events. Or maybe I just can't stand dwarves, elves, old English narration etc. Would the Martian trilogy by Kim Robinson be considered hard sci-fi?


----------



## iansales

I've never heard "soft sf" used to refer to stories in which "the science is incorrect or made-up". For a start that would mean, well, pretty much 99% of sf is "soft sf".


----------



## Parson

iansales said:


> Why would *Pushing Ice* be soft sf? It's got physics and tech and rocketry and cosmology in it. Le Guin is an example of soft sf.
> 
> And yes, I did mean a bird-watcher




*Pushing Ice* does indeed have all you say, but by far the most important thing that drives the story is the interpersonal relationships, so much so I'd almost forgotten the former. For me those relationships were the real depressing factor about the book. People who should have united to face the herculean task they were facing instead spent an inordinate amount of time pursuing petty grievances.


----------



## iansales

All fiction, sf or otherwise, features interpersonal relationships. That doesn't mean they're based on the sciences of sociology or anthropology. *Pushing Ice* is very definitely hard sf.


----------



## Tinsel

Science Fiction stories that spark controversy provide for great fiction. I have not noticed anything since "Jurassic Park" that had me wondering about the possibilities of some area of science.

You would think that some cutting edge science would benefit from the attention that fiction might produce or even enlighten.


----------



## J Riff

Jurassic Park is, to be fair, a bit glib on the science front, and so was a Nano-particle Creighton novel I read recently. He has a knack for keeping the action up, and dripping in just enough tech.
"Look Frog DNA!...aand now- Dinosaurs!"  Perfect, well-researched, looks good, reads good, totally wrong and impossible.
 Andromeda Strain...explains nothing. The germs just change, mutate and fade away. Hard to think of this as hard or soft SF, it's more like good adventure, action writing with just enough science to keep it believable to the average viewer or reader, not just SFF fans.


----------



## Parson

iansales said:


> All fiction, sf or otherwise, features interpersonal relationships. That doesn't mean they're based on the sciences of sociology or anthropology. *Pushing Ice* is very definitely hard sf.



I would definitely agree, but I'm not sure it passes the test that was set down in the "emphasizes the hard sciences" definition. 





> Traditionally, hard sf referred to the physical sciences - physics,  chemistry, etc.; while soft sf referred to the "softer" sciences -  anthropology, psychology, etc.


I was making the point that there needed to be something more? different? better? as a definition than that. I'm tempted to resort to the line: "I can't define the difference, but I know it when I see it." I won't, but it is tempting.


----------



## iansales

Have you read *The Telling* by Ursula K LeGuin? Or her *The Left Hand of Darkness*? Or *The Dispossessed*? They're pretty much exemplar soft sf. They're explorations of other cultures. A lot of Vance could, I suppose, also be described as soft sf - *The Languages of Pao*, for instance, which takes as its central conceit the Whorf-Sapir Hypothesis.


----------



## Fried Egg

Other examples of (good) soft SF:

"A Time of Changes" by *Robert Silverberg*
"More than Human" by *Theodore Sturgeon*
"A Scanner Darkley" by *Philip K. Dick*


----------



## Parson

iansales said:


> Have you read *The Telling* by Ursula K LeGuin? Or her *The Left Hand of Darkness*? Or *The Dispossessed*? They're pretty much exemplar soft sf. They're explorations of other cultures. A lot of Vance could, I suppose, also be described as soft sf - *The Languages of Pao*, for instance, which takes as its central conceit the Whorf-Sapir Hypothesis.



I  have read *The Left Hand of Darkness* or another soft SF *The Speed of Dark* by Elizabeth Moon would fit the debated definition. But what about things like *On Baslisk Station* by David Weber. My sense is that it would be soft SF, but it certainly has more than its share of Physics etc. Basically I want to draw the line with books that don't break the "laws" of Physics, like FTL, ESP or operative magic are Hard SF while others are Soft SF.


----------



## iansales

You can define hard and soft however you like. Just don't expect other people to know what you're talking about when you use your own private definitions 

Given that most sf involves some form of literary device - AI, FTL, time travel, etc. - that "breaks" the laws of physics, that would make the genre a bit heavy on the soft side. You'd be better off to stick to the accepted definitions.


----------



## Parson

I would say that almost all of SF is "soft." It's more about "fiction" than "science." Not that I'm complaining. I really like SF and a lot of what I would call "hard" SF is downright hard to comprehend without the appropriate engineering degree.  

Even accepting our debated definition it is not easy to quantify what is what. For example, the original *Foundation* trilogy, where would you put that?


----------



## Fried Egg

Parson said:


> Even accepting our debated definition it is not easy to quantify what is what. For example, the original *Foundation* trilogy, where would you put that?


I would put that very much in the "soft" SF category as it is predominately social themes it is concerned with. Not exclusively by any means but definitely in the main. Although I guess it's possible that a book could be both "hard" and "soft"...


----------



## Ursa major

I think a link to the site, Grading Science Fiction for Realism, was posted somewhere on the Chrons.

It seems to use the same sort categorisation about which Parson was posting, i.e. the degree to which the science veers away from what we know can or may work.


----------



## Parson

*Ursa,* Great site. This is exactly what I was aiming at, but would never have taken the time or trouble to sort it out. Thanks!!


----------



## The_African

Wrong thread.


----------



## J Riff

Mushy/Very Soft/Soft/Medium/Firm/Plausibly Hard/Very Hard/Ultra(diamond)Hard
oh, and _Science Fantasy_.
Now we know.


----------



## Vertigo

I must admit I tend to ignore hard and soft in descriptions of SF books as almost everyone seems to have slightly (or hugely) difffering interpretations. As shown by this thread.

However, internally if you like, I tend to consider any sf book that has a stong emphasis on the technology as hard and if the technology is secondary to, well, "softer" themes then I consider it soft. 

Of course, as with any pigeon-holing, almost every sf book out there falls somewhere between the two, I doubt there is any book that could truly described as purely soft or purely hard.


----------



## J Riff

Just ran into a Hal Clement essay "The Creation of Imaginary Beings' Here's Hal:

 I am confining my remarks to the rather narrow limits of "hard" science fiction, where I am qualified to hold a professional opinion. It has been charged that in restricting ourselves to "scientific accuracy" my colleagues and I are narrowing the scope of usable story ideas available to us. My answer, mathematically rather horrible but defensible under literary standards, is that the square root of infinity is not really that much smaller than infinity as far as resource material goes. Our main point is that for many modern readers, a violation of the laws of thermodynamics by the author can spoil a story just as effectively as having Abraham Lincoln changing a set of spark plugs in a historical novel.
Therefore, if we travel to Mars in a story, the vehicle must operate either along physical laws we currently think we know, or at least on more or less convincing extrapolations of those laws. Furthermore, when we get there the Martians, not to mention their lapdogs, saddle horses, dinner steaks, and rheumatism, must not strike too jarring a set of notes against the background which author and reader are, it is to be hoped, visualizing together. It is permissible and even desirable to take the reader by surprise with some of these details, of course. However, his reaction to the surprise should be the urge to kick himself for failing to foresee the item, rather than resentment at the author's ringing in a new theme.
It follows that the "hard" science fiction writer must have at least an informed layman's grasp of biochemistry and ecology.

 It goes on in great detail... really worth a read for anyone wanting to write SF.


----------



## The_African

J Riff said:


> Just ran into a Hal Clement essay "The Creation of Imaginary Beings' Here's Hal:
> 
> I am confining my remarks to the rather narrow limits of "hard" science fiction, where I am qualified to hold a professional opinion. It has been charged that in restricting ourselves to "scientific accuracy" my colleagues and I are narrowing the scope of usable story ideas available to us. My answer, mathematically rather horrible but defensible under literary standards, is that the square root of infinity is not really that much smaller than infinity as far as resource material goes. Our main point is that for many modern readers, a violation of the laws of thermodynamics by the author can spoil a story just as effectively as having Abraham Lincoln changing a set of spark plugs in a historical novel.
> Therefore, if we travel to Mars in a story, the vehicle must operate either along physical laws we currently think we know, or at least on more or less convincing extrapolations of those laws. Furthermore, when we get there the Martians, not to mention their lapdogs, saddle horses, dinner steaks, and rheumatism, must not strike too jarring a set of notes against the background which author and reader are, it is to be hoped, visualizing together. It is permissible and even desirable to take the reader by surprise with some of these details, of course. However, his reaction to the surprise should be the urge to kick himself for failing to foresee the item, rather than resentment at the author's ringing in a new theme.
> It follows that the "hard" science fiction writer must have at least an informed layman's grasp of biochemistry and ecology.
> 
> It goes on in great detail... really worth a read for anyone wanting to write SF.



I don't understand why a story should focus on scientific detail/accuracy rather than interpersonal relationships, the characters and their struggles, social themes and the plot. I thought stretching one's imagination and relating with characters was the whole point of storytelling, especially speculative storytelling.


> Given that most sf involves some form of literary device - AI, FTL, time  travel, etc. - that "breaks" the laws of physics, that would make the  genre a bit heavy on the soft side.



You could have a hard science fiction story that dealt with AI, couldn't you?


> You'd be better off to stick to the  accepted definitions.



What are the accepted definitions?


> I doubt there is any book that could truly described as purely soft or purely hard.



I think there are but I agree that the classifications aren't black and white, they're a matter of degree. Not all stories can neatly fit into 'fantasy' or 'science fiction' either and even some non-speculative stories contain speculative elements.


----------



## J Riff

True, but most stories in any genre _have_ to be based on interpersonal relationships, the characters and their struggles, social themes and the plot, or they won't get published. 
It's only the definitons, originating with people like Gernsback or Clement that set SF apart.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

Parson said:


> *Ursa,* Great site. This is exactly what I was aiming at, but would never have taken the time or trouble to sort it out. Thanks!!



Quite beside the point.  It doesn't hinge on what is realistic.  Is a horse less realistic than a spaceship?  

Say that a story is about a generation ship heading for a earth-like planet orbiting a distant star.  Sixty years into their mission (or any number of years you prefer), certain systems on the ship malfunction, and the story is largely about how the people on the ship race to solve the malfunctions based on known scientific theories and technologies. There is a little bit about the toll the effort takes on those who are engaged in solving the problems, and the toll on their families, but the vast majority of the book is given over to discussions about what they can do, to their first attempts to put their plan into effect, unforeseen difficulties, more discussions, new solutions, new attempts. Finally they are successful and the ship continues on.  At the end of the story, the grandchildren of the previous characters see the surface of the planet appear on their computer screens. Hard science fiction.

Another book is about the aftermath of a similar ship landing on a similar planet.  As well as humans born on the ship, there are frozen embryos of humans and animals, all of which are used in establishing a colony.  For one reason or another (those in the colony would never need to know why) they lose contact with earth.  A thousand years later, the colony has evolved (or degenerated) into a nomadic society of loosely allied clans who travel on horseback.  The horse holds a special place in their culture, as transportation, status, totem, etc.  The story is about that society.  Soft science fiction. 

The question was, how are the terms "hard" and "soft" science fiction defined.  For a good many years and over a wide community of science fiction readers they've been defined in a certain way, and the definitions don't become disputed just because those of us here in this thread can't agree on them.

As for _Tom Swift and the Megascope Space Prober_, it may not be _good_ science fiction (I haven't had the pleasure of reading the book myself, so I can't say for certain, though I suspect not), but whether something is hard science fiction or soft science fiction isn't about the quality ... although those who prefer the former might like to think so.


----------



## iansales

The_African said:


> What are the accepted definitions?



hard sf = science fiction based on the "hard" sciences, eg, physics, chemistry, cosmology, celestial mechanics, etc. Such as *Mission of Gravity* by Hal Clement.

soft sf = science fiction based around the "softer" sciences, eg, anthropology, psychology, perhaps even politics and economics. Such as *The Left Hand of Darkness* by Ursula K Le Guin.

Obviously, the terms are not all-inclusive. It isn't an axis on which all sf can be placed. The terms are only generally descriptive, although in the case of hard sf it's often treated as a subgenre in its own right.

Some people seem determined to poison the waters by using their own private definitions for the two terms. The above are what have been generally accepted to be their meanings for at least the last thirty-five to forty years. People may argue how hard, or how soft, a particular text is, but that's not in reference to the accuracy of the science in the text. Science fiction does not mean fiction about science. Scientific accuracy is not a defining characteristic of the genre, and never has been.


----------



## Parson

Teresa Edgerton said:


> Quite beside the point.  It doesn't hinge on what is realistic.  Is a horse less realistic than a spaceship?
> 
> Say that a story is about a generation ship heading for a earth-like planet orbiting a distant star.  Sixty years into their mission (or any number of years you prefer), certain systems on the ship malfunction, and the story is largely about how the people on the ship race to solve the malfunctions based on known scientific theories and technologies. There is a little bit about the toll the effort takes on those who are engaged in solving the problems, and the toll on their families, but the vast majority of the book is given over to discussions about what they can do, to their first attempts to put their plan into effect, unforeseen difficulties, more discussions, new solutions, new attempts. Finally they are successful and the ship continues on.  At the end of the story, the grandchildren of the previous characters see the surface of the planet appear on their computer screens. Hard science fiction.
> 
> Another book is about the aftermath of a similar ship landing on a similar planet.  As well as humans born on the ship, there are frozen embryos of humans and animals, all of which are used in establishing a colony.  For one reason or another (those in the colony would never need to know why) they lose contact with earth.  A thousand years later, the colony has evolved (or degenerated) into a nomadic society of loosely allied clans who travel on horseback.  The horse holds a special place in their culture, as transportation, status, totem, etc.  The story is about that society.  Soft science fiction.
> 
> The question was, how are the terms "hard" and "soft" science fiction defined.  For a good many years and over a wide community of science fiction readers they've been defined in a certain way, and the definitions don't become disputed just because those of us here in this thread can't agree on them.
> 
> As for _Tom Swift and the Megascope Space Prober_, it may not be _good_ science fiction (I haven't had the pleasure of reading the book myself, so I can't say for certain, though I suspect not), but whether something is hard science fiction or soft science fiction isn't about the quality ... although those who prefer the former might like to think so.



T.E. I feel duly chastised. Your point is excellent. Realism can be a strong part of a hard or soft SF story. And perhaps the scientific possibility of what is being described is quite irrelevant. It certainly is irrelevant as to whether it is a good story or not. I've read both kinds and been blown away by the story, slogged through the story, or (rarely) threw the book down in disgust. My reactions haven't depended on the level of the realism of the science; although I might have a bit more patience with someone who is dealing with more realistic science because as someone whose degrees are in social science I have to be brought up to speed on esoteric physics and the corresponding math. 

I also agree that any story, whether it deals realistically with science or resorts to what can only be understood (at this time) as magic, rises and falls on the interpersonal relationships and the way the protagonists deal with the crisis that forms the center of the story line. This is why I still am hard put to accept what Ian says are the "accepted definitions." 

The furtherest I can see myself moving in that direction is to say that the nomenclature is irrelevant. Leaving only SF which is more or less dependent on what we know at this time to be realistic science.


----------



## iansales

I'm not sure I follow. There's good sf and there's bad sf. And that can mean well-written sf, or poorly-written sf; as well as meaning the sfnal component of the story is good, or the sfnal component of the story is bad (ie, "skiffy"). I'm not sure scientific accuracy factors into that. Alastair Reynolds' novels, for example, are both "good sf" and "good sf" - they're well-written, with dramatic plots and well-rounded characters. And while there are things in his books which do not slavishly follow known scientific principles, the stories very much hinge on their science-fictional components.

I suppose it's confusing to refer to something as "good" in reference to two entirely different and unrelated criteria, and we probably shouldn't do it. But that's a separate distinction to hard/soft sf, or even to the argument as to whether a story must contain realistic science (which would actually make it Mundane SF).


----------



## Parson

Ian,

For me whether the center of a plot revolves around one of the so called "hard" sciences, or one of the so called "soft" sciences, does not describe SF literature. In a very real sense all literature revolves around relationships, which be your definition would be a "soft" SF. Therefore, there would not be any truly "hard" Sf by your definition; unless it would be some fictional physics text book or the like. 

So for me (and I've always assumed) a lot of others, Hard SF related to the realism of the physical science included in the book.


----------



## iansales

But "relationships" isn't a science. I never said it was. A "soft" science would be anthropology, or psychology. Writing a story about two people and their relationship is in no way scientific - because, as you rightly point out, it's something all modes of fiction do. Drag in neurochemistry, however, and speculate how that relationship might be affected by neurochemical interventions by another person, or the state, or an alien envorinment... and then you might have hard sf,


----------



## Fried Egg

Parson, I'm with Ian and Teresa on this one, the difference between "hard" and "soft" SF is not about _realism_ but is about the whether the focus is on the (so called) "hard" and "soft" sciences. That's standard usage anyway.


----------



## Ursa major

Before battle lines are drawn, can we accept that except in some specific circumstances, it doesn't really matter why someone thinks the book they're reading counts as soft or hard SF. Unless the book suddenly changes course some way in, it will mostly be clear from early on whether the book is well/badly written, which scientific fields it concentrates on, and whether that science is plausible/risible.

Surely the strict definition only matters to those in the publishing industry (including authors). An author may need to know exactly what the terms mean when they're considering submitting their book to an agent or publisher who asks to know something about the book (if only to say they don't represent/publish that type of book). The general reader doesn't; if this was important, the appropriate term would be printed somewhere on the cover.


By the way, I've just read _The Drowned World_ by J G Ballard. I was expecting a lot of climate science, if not physics and chemistry, but the main sciences driving the plot were psychology and (a kind of) evolutionary biology. If I'd known, I would still have read the book. That I found some of the science implausible was independent of the particular fields.

.


----------



## The_African

> hard sf = science fiction based on the "hard" sciences, eg, physics, chemistry, cosmology, celestial mechanics, etc. Such as *Mission of Gravity* by Hal Clement.
> 
> soft sf = science fiction based around the "softer" sciences, eg, anthropology, psychology, perhaps even politics and economics. Such as *The Left Hand of Darkness* by Ursula K Le Guin.


I didn't think that whoever came up with the terms 'hard/soft' science fiction meant it literally (ie. fiction related to the soft sciences or the hard sciences). After all, referring to the social sciences as 'soft' is almost pejorative, isn't it?

A physics based science fiction story might involve time travel or parallel universes, for biology, I could write a story about genetically engineered humans or an alien society on another planet or whatever but if I were to write a story about a human society with a drastically different culture or social norms than any we're familiar with but no speculative technology or any kind of event that we think of as impossible, speculative or unlikely, I don't really see how that's 'science fiction' (despite relating to sociology), personally. I haven't read it, but Left Hand of Darkness deals with interplanetary travel, doesn't it? So it has to do with astronomy, which is a hard science, but I'm assuming the book doesn't go into scientific detail and may not be entirely accurate.


> Obviously, the terms are not all-inclusive. It isn't an axis on which all sf can be placed.


I agree, however you define hard and soft science fiction.


> The terms are only generally descriptive, although in the case of hard sf it's often treated as a subgenre in its own right.


Why shouldn't it be?



> Some people seem determined to poison the waters by using their own private definitions for the two terms. The above are what have been generally accepted to be their meanings for at least the last thirty-five to forty years. People may argue how hard, or how soft, a particular text is, but that's not in reference to the accuracy of the science in the text. Science fiction does not mean fiction about science. *Scientific accuracy is not a defining characteristic of the genre, and never has been*.


bolded : I agree but some people prefer science fiction that is scientifically plausible and/or explains scientific detail. So to specify what kind of science fiction they like, what should they say?

By the way, I think The Man in the Moon by Francis Godwin might be the earliest science fiction novel published in English (1638). Does anyone know of any science fiction novel or story that predates that?


----------



## Parson

Ursa major said:


> Surely the strict definition only matters to those in the publishing industry (including authors). An author may need to know exactly what the terms mean when they're considering submitting their book to an agent or publisher who asks to know something about the book (if only to say they don't represent/publish that type of book). The general reader doesn't; if this was important, the appropriate term would be printed somewhere on the cover.



Now this is something I can understand. These definitions are used in the publishing industry so that the two parties can understand more clearly what one or the other is asking for or offering. 

I will accept Ian's "accepted definitions" on this basis. I don't believe that the common public sees it this way. And I suspect that when "Hard SF" is used to describe a book in a book review the common reader would understand it more like my default understanding.


----------



## iansales

I have been reading science fiction for more than thirty years, I have been an active fan of the genre more than twenty. And it all that time, hard sf and soft sf have always referred to the sciences which predominate in a story. This is the way it is. You can't change a definition simply because you alone disagree with it. I might decide the US flag's red, white and blue is actually pink, purple and yellow. That doesn't mean it is. My wants don't change it. Nor does any assumption I might make about what the "common public" might think, or what the originator of the term might have meant. When you make reference to terms in common usage, you don't get redefine them on the spot. Because then a) no one knows what you're on about, and b) you start discussions like this one 

They're not my definitions, they're commonly-accepted definitions by genre fans, readers and commentators, and have been for decades - "hard" longer than "soft". There's even an anthology, *The Hard SF Renaissance*, and it contains a lot of stories which are scientifically inaccurate/implausible. But that doesn't matter, because the editors chose stories whose central conceit revolved around a "hard" science. If you looked, er, _hard_ enough, I suspect you'd find many similar anthologies, going all the way back to the 1940s perhaps.

I don't understand why you have such trouble accepting that these definitions exist. They may not be applied rigorously, and people may well categorise different books as belonging to one or another, but they're in general usage as per the definitions I posted earlier.

Incidentally, it's the predominant science which dictates the label. So even though Genly Ai arrived on Gethen in a starship - via NAFAL interstellar travel - the book is chiefly about Ai's exploration of Gethen's culture (and his relationship with Estraven). Hence, it is usually considered to be "soft" sf.


----------



## iansales

The_African said:


> ... some people prefer science fiction that is scientifically plausible and/or explains scientific detail. So to specify what kind of science fiction they like, what should they say?



That would be Mundane SF. See here.


----------



## Ursa major

I'm afraid that words (and phrases) mean what people want them to mean. There is no English equivalent to the Académie française**. People use words and phrases to suit their own purposes all over the place. Words and phrases change their meaning over time - not that I'm suggesting that this is what is happening here - or are given different meanings by the cognoscenti and the general public (which is probably what is happeneing here***). For instance, most Classical music isn't; not strictly. But people manage to put up with the looser usage, however irritating it is.

As I said: if this was so very important, it would be printed somewhere in many or most SF books.




** - And I'm afraid you'll have to be around for more than a few decades to be counted as an immortal. 

*** - Though I expect a lot of the general public are with you on this, Ian.


----------



## iansales

Ursa major said:


> As I said: if this was so very important, it would be printed somewhere in many or most SF books.



It has been - as per the anthology *The Hard SF Renaissance* I mentioned. There's also *The Ascent of Wonder: the Evolution of Hard SF*.

I don't actually understand how you can categorize a book by the accuracy of its scientific content, as that would require every reader to be a scientific genius - otherwise one reader might decide a book was accurate and so "hard", while another had found numerous mistakes and so declared it "soft".


----------



## iansales

Since I am now back at home after work, I have looked up the terms in *The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction*, which I think all of us can agree is a definitive source.

Interestingly, it does say that hard sf can mean sf based on the hard sciences, but also that it is sf _which __"uses either established or carefully extrapolated science as its backbone"_ (Allen Steele). It also says that the scientific spirit is perhaps more important than real science, and that it should eschew "supernatural or transcendental explanations for the events and phenomena it describes".

OTOH, soft sf it clearly defines in reference to the soft sciences - "sf that deals with the soft sciences or to sf that does not deal with recognizable science at all".

It would seem that several definitions exist for hard sf - which is not surprising as it's the older term - but soft sf was coined in response to only one of those definitions. Which means - some humble pie being consumed here - to describe hard sf as "sf that is scientifically accurate" is a valid usage.

But. The original question asked for definitions of hard and soft sf. As since soft sf has a relatively straightforward definition, then the definition of hard sf under discussion would be the one in opposition to it.


----------



## The_African

iansales said:


> I have been reading science fiction for more than thirty years, I have been an active fan of the genre more than twenty. And it all that time, hard sf and soft sf have always referred to the sciences which predominate in a story. This is the way it is. You can't change a definition simply because you alone disagree with it. I might decide the US flag's red, white and blue is actually pink, purple and yellow. That doesn't mean it is. My wants don't change it. Nor does any assumption I might make about what the "common public" might think, or what the originator of the term might have meant. When you make reference to terms in common usage, you don't get redefine them on the spot. Because then a) no one knows what you're on about, and b) you start discussions like this one
> 
> They're not my definitions, they're commonly-accepted definitions by genre fans, readers and commentators, and have been for decades - "hard" longer than "soft". There's even an anthology, *The Hard SF Renaissance*, and it contains a lot of stories which are scientifically inaccurate/implausible. But that doesn't matter, because the editors chose stories whose central conceit revolved around a "hard" science. If you looked, er, _hard_ enough, I suspect you'd find many similar anthologies, going all the way back to the 1940s perhaps.
> 
> I don't understand why you have such trouble accepting that these definitions exist. They may not be applied rigorously, and people may well categorise different books as belonging to one or another, but they're in general usage as per the definitions I posted earlier.
> 
> Incidentally, it's the predominant science which dictates the label. So even though Genly Ai arrived on Gethen in a starship - via NAFAL interstellar travel - the book is chiefly about Ai's exploration of Gethen's culture (and his relationship with Estraven). Hence, it is usually considered to be "soft" sf.


 
Whenever I've heard the terms, they referred to the level of scientific detail/accuracy (I'm not sure that my early definitions were 'right' but I thought they were close to the general consensus). The U.S flag colors are legal and official, whereas defining genre or sub-genre is casual and based on general consensus.

What's the opposite of mundane science fiction (unrealistic sci-fi)? Some of the themes listed on the page describing mundane sci-fi are possible, just unlikely (ie. intelligent, alien life).



> I don't actually understand how you can categorize a book by the  accuracy of its scientific content, as that would require every reader  to be a scientific genius - otherwise one reader might decide a book was  accurate and so "hard", while another had found numerous mistakes and  so declared it "soft".


I think the distinctions are valid because anyone who makes a deliberate attempt to stay within the realm of scientific plausibility (what they think is scientifically plausible) is excluding many potential ideas and material. I like the _freedom_ of fantasy (no limits on what's possible within the story) but I would prefer that fantastical events be considered natural phenomenon rather than magic and that they can be explained through pseudo science.


> Since I am now back at home after work, I have looked up the terms in *The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction*, which I think all of us can agree is a definitive source.


Why?


----------



## iansales

The_African said:


> Why?



Because it is the most comprehensive and well-researched encyclopedia of the genre.


----------



## iansales

The_African said:


> The U.S flag colors are legal and official, whereas defining genre or sub-genre is casual and based on general consensus.



But if I've redefined red as pink, blue as purple, and white as yellow, then the legal description still stands. 



The_African said:


> What's the opposite of mundane science fiction (unrealistic sci-fi)? Some of the themes listed on the page describing mundane sci-fi are possible, just unlikely (ie. intelligent, alien life).



I have no idea. mundane SF was a movement which popped up four or five years ago, caused a bit of a fuss, and then slowly disappeared into the background noise.



The_African said:


> I think the distinctions are valid because anyone who makes a deliberate attempt to stay within the realm of scientific plausibility (what they think is scientifically plausible) is excluding many potential ideas and material. I like the _freedom_ of fantasy (no limits on what's possible within the story) but I would prefer that fantastical events be considered natural phenomenon rather than magic and that they can be explained through pseudo science.



To me, fantasy is an entirely separate genre. Sf is modernist and realist, but fantasy is not. It's the scientific worldview which chiefly characterises sf, and the nature of the science used - real or invented - only categorises it within sf. Many of the tropes used in space opera, for example, are hardly plausibly scientific, but to my mind space opera is still a subgenre of sf.


----------



## Ursa major

iansales said:


> It has been - as per the anthology *The Hard SF Renaissance* I mentioned. There's also *The Ascent of Wonder: the Evolution of Hard SF*.


I'll assume this was a joke. 



iansales said:


> I don't actually understand how you can categorize a book by the accuracy of its scientific content, as that would require every reader to be a scientific genius - otherwise one reader might decide a book was accurate and so "hard", while another had found numerous mistakes and so declared it "soft".


You can come to a general impression while reading. We all do this, I suspect, when considering any aspect of a book, such as when we become exasperated when a character does something out of... er... character.




iansales said:


> Since I am now back at home after work, I have looked up the terms in *The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction*, which I think all of us can agree is a definitive source.


I suspect the majority of readers of SF - i.e. not experts on the genre - do not have a copy of this, which makes it hard for them to learn from it. If one looks at Wiki, by contrast, one reads:


> Hard science fiction is a category of science fiction characterized by an emphasis on scientific or technical detail, or on scientific accuracy, or on both. The term was first used in print in 1957 by P. Schuyler Miller in a review of John W. Campbell, Jr.'s _Islands of Space_ in _Astounding Science Fiction_. The complementary term soft science fiction (formed by analogy to "hard science fiction") first appeared in the late 1970s as a way of describing science fiction in which science is not featured, or violates the scientific understanding at the time of writing.
> 
> The term is formed by analogy to the popular distinction between the "hard" (natural) and "soft" (social) sciences. Neither term is part of a rigorous taxonomy—instead they are approximate ways of characterizing stories that reviewers and commentators have found useful. The categorization "hard SF" represents a position on a scale from "softer" to "harder", not a binary classification.
> 
> The heart of the "hard SF" designation is the relationship of the science content and attitude to the rest of the narrative, and (for some readers, at least) the "hardness" or rigor of the science itself. One requirement for hard SF is procedural or intentional: a story should be trying to be accurate, logical, credible and rigorous in its use of current scientific and technical knowledge about which technology, phenomena, scenarios and situations that are practically and/or theoretically possible, and later discoveries do not necessarily invalidate the label. For example, P. Schuyler Miller called Arthur C. Clarke's 1961 novel _A Fall of Moondust_ hard SF, and the designation remains valid even though a crucial plot element, the existence of deep pockets of "moondust" in lunar craters, is now known to be incorrect.


From Hard science fiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I quote it because it is likely to be one of the first ports of call for those who don't know the meanings of hard and soft SF (the other being Google).




iansales said:


> Interestingly, it does say that hard sf can mean sf based on the hard sciences, but also that it is sf _which __"uses either established or carefully extrapolated science as its backbone"_ (Allen Steele). It also says that the scientific spirit is perhaps more important than real science, and that it should eschew "supernatural or transcendental explanations for the events and phenomena it describes".
> 
> OTOH, soft sf it clearly defines in reference to the soft sciences - "sf that deals with the soft sciences or to sf that does not deal with recognizable science at all".
> 
> It would seem that several definitions exist for hard sf - which is not surprising as it's the older term - but soft sf was coined in response to only one of those definitions. Which means - some humble pie being consumed here - to describe hard sf as "sf that is scientifically accurate" is a valid usage.
> 
> But. The original question asked for definitions of hard and soft sf. As since soft sf has a relatively straightforward definition, then the definition of hard sf under discussion would be the one in opposition to it.


If one is to believe the quoted Wiki article (and if one isn't, someone ought to go and edit the entry), the original meaning of soft SF was


> science fiction in which science is not featured, or violates the scientific understanding at the time of writing


so hard SF would be science that is present and which doesn't violate current scientific understanding using that logic. But as I said, there are different interpretations and we have to live with them. (I think I'll stick to Space Opera for my writing....)




PS. I'm dedicating the length of this post to JD. (Sorry it isn't really long enough.)


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

Parson said:


> I will accept Ian's "accepted definitions" on this basis. I don't believe that the common public sees it this way. And I suspect that when "Hard SF" is used to describe a book in a book review the common reader would understand it more like my default understanding.



Ah, but what does the reviewer mean?

If the reviewer has long-time expertise in the field and contacts with publishing industry professionals like writers and editors, they're going to use Ian's definitions.

And it depends on what you mean by the common reader, anyway. Do you mean someone who reads nine or ten science fiction books a year, and only discusses them casually now and again or do you mean the hardcore fan who may read twenty or more such books in a year and then goes out of his or her way to meet with other devoted fans to discuss the books in depth on a regular basis?

Ian represents the latter, and these are the people that the vast majority of reviewers address.  (Why?  Because they are the people reading most of the reviews.)  Most of the people here at the Chronicles represent the former.  They may read the books and mention the fact in the monthly reading threads, but how many of them actively initiate and participate in discussions about them.


----------



## Fried Egg

I think it might help to suggest at this point that the useage of the term "hard" for the natural sciences and "soft" for the social sciences might at least in part originate from the view that the natural sciences more firmly adhere to the _scientific method_ whereas the social sciences do to a lesser extent and thus considered less rigourous (i.e. "soft") .

I realise that this itself is a contentious point of view and I'm not saying that I necessarilly agree with it but I think it is a view held by some and, in realising this, we can go some way to reconcilling these seemingly contrasting definitions.


----------



## Ursa major

Perhaps if I follow the Graphism Thesis and replace my maps with graphs, it'll turn my stories into hard SF. (Or would using a concept from a field called the S_ociology_ of Scientific Knowledge, mark me down as a Soft SF man. This is so difficult. )


By the way, shouldn't we be asking the original poster why s/he wants/needs to know the distinction between hard and soft SF (and with examples)? Perhaps then we could give a better focused, if no more definitive, answer to the original question.


----------



## Parson

Teresa Edgerton said:


> Ah, but what does the reviewer mean?
> 
> If the reviewer has long-time expertise in the field and contacts with publishing industry professionals like writers and editors, they're going to use Ian's definitions.
> 
> And it depends on what you mean by the common reader, anyway. Do you mean someone who reads nine or ten science fiction books a year, and only discusses them casually now and again or do you mean the hardcore fan who may read twenty or more such books in a year and then goes out of his or her way to meet with other devoted fans to discuss the books in depth on a regular basis?
> 
> Ian represents the latter, and these are the people that the vast majority of reviewers address.  (Why?  Because they are the people reading most of the reviews.)  Most of the people here at the Chronicles represent the former.  They may read the books and mention the fact in the monthly reading threads, but how many of them actively initiate and participate in discussions about them.



I will wager you are right about this TE, but I was pointing to the people who read the reviews. People I expect to be more like me who read about 10 SF books a year and discuss them casually. 

BTW how are you so accurate about my reading amount? Are you spying on me? 

Anyway I still think that the common Joe/Jane Blow SF reader would understand Hard SF the way I do. 

But, because of this discussion I will have a much better and nuanced understanding of the term. Thanks to Ian and you and some others.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

It's very nice of you to say so, Parson.  

But we're still not in agreement about who is reading the bulk of those reviews.

I don't know if you're teasing me about the number of books you personally read, but I've been hobnobbing with science fiction fans for nearly forty years, and it usually doesn't take me long to figure out how hardcore somebody is by talking with them.


----------



## Parson

Now, you've got me curious. Exactly how hard core do you think I am? You answer that while I will try to think hard about what a good average year for me with SF books would be. (I know that it's less since I've been haunting these halls.)  I'll let you know how right you are.


----------



## iansales

Ursa major said:


> You can come to a general impression while reading. We all do this, I suspect, when considering any aspect of a book, such as when we become exasperated when a character does something out of... er... character.



I was referring to more arcane lapses in accuracy - the one in *Ringworld* being perhaps the most famous. I didn't spot it when I read the book, but then I'm not an astrophysicist. OTOH, I once read a story (submitted to a magazine I was co-editing) in which a spaceship "turned left at Jupiter", and I think most people would realise that was wrong. I'll also never forget the story's opening line: "Captain Beth fingered her flame-pistol nervously."



Ursa major said:


> I suspect the majority of readers of SF - i.e. not experts on the genre - do not have a copy of this, which makes it hard for them to learn from it.



Most people - including myself - probably don't own a copy of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but they'd be willing to accept it as a definitive source.



Ursa major said:


> From Hard science fiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I quote it because it is likely to be one of the first ports of call for those who don't know the meanings of hard and soft SF (the other being Google).



I have a lot of time for Wikipedia, but much of the less-quantitative stuff in it I take with a pinch of salt. The Wikipedia definition appears to be based on the one from *The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction*, and even cites it, but has changed the emphasis. Which is a bit naughty.



Ursa major said:


> so hard SF would be science that is present and which doesn't violate current scientific understanding using that logic. But as I said, there are different interpretations and we have to live with them. (I think I'll stick to Space Opera for my writing....)



Yes, that's one meaning, and may even have been the original one. But when in reference to soft sf, it seems evident to me that hard sf refers to fiction based on the hard sciences. When you have two complimentary terms, it's not usual to define them as, well, not complimentary


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

I accept your challenge, Parson.

First of all, I am basing my assessment on the fact that you live here in the US, and therefore have available to you most of the same opportunities as the truly hardcore fans that I know.

You do buy and read science fiction books as your time and resources allow ... but your collection doesn't overflow the bookshelves and create stacks on the living room and bedroom floors.

You do enjoy discussing your favorite books and authors online ... but you don't actively seek out opportunities to meet and discuss those books with other fans in person.

You may subscribe to one or two SF magazines ... but you don't have a collection of back issues of Analog representing your entire adult life.

If one of your all-time favorite SF authors was doing a signing at a nearby bookstore you would go (if it didn't interfere with your other obligations) ... but you don't go to signings just to spend time with like-minded individuals.

You didn't meet Mrs. Parson at an SF related event.

You've never been to a WorldCon.

You might own a few pieces of science fiction art (or at least you would like to) ... but you don't have a collection proudly displayed on the walls in more than one room of your house.

Your real-life social network is not largely made up of other SF fans.

You didn't go to see _The Phantom Menace_ and _Attack of the Clones_ against your better judgement just so that you could discuss the films with your friends.

You probably can do at least a passable Vulcan salute ... but you've never come down with a case of Pon Farr.

You aren't on a first name basis with any professional authors or editors that you haven't met online.

You've never danced an English country dance with someone in a Star Trek uniform.

You do know the name of the Philip K. Dick story that inspired the movie _Bladerunner_ but you may not own the director's cut on DVD.

You don't have a stash of old Ace Doubles tucked away somewhere in the house, but you may have read some of them when you were younger.*



Unless I am wrong about half of these negatives, I'd say you are somewhere to the left of middle on the following scale:

Softcore SF fan------------<Middle>------------Hardcore SF fan




*Bonus points if you can name the apprentice cargo-master on the Solar Queen without resorting to Google.


----------



## Fried Egg

That puts me firmly in the _middling_ catagory then. This one made me laugh:


> You've never danced an English country dance with someone in a Star Trek uniform.


That's going to go on my to do list...


----------



## iansales

Happily, English country dances are not common at British sf conventions.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

You're in the UK.  The criteria are possibly quite different there, Fried Egg.


But I do recommend the dancing, if you get the chance.  There is nothing like making up a set with ladies and gentlemen in Regency dress, people in jeans and t-shirts,  a Kzin, and (if you are very lucky) a Klingon.

OK, I lied about the Kzin.  I've never seen one dance.



> Happily, English country dances are not common at British sf conventions.



Here, it's partly at the instigation of the costumers, but there are a surprising number of American SFF readers and writers who are also fans of Jane Austen.  And that's just the men.


----------



## Ursa major

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a Star Trek uniform is glad of any dance he can get.


----------



## Tinsel

I can't see myself doing any writing or else trying to accomplish anything. What I believe here though is that I would like to know whether or not the science based plot is credible according to educated review. It does not matter to me what branch of science the material comes from.


----------



## Parson

Teresa Edgerton said:


> I accept your challenge, Parson.
> 
> First of all, I am basing my assessment on the fact that you live here in the US, and therefore have available to you most of the same opportunities as the truly hardcore fans that I know.
> 
> You do buy and read science fiction books as your time and resources allow ... but your collection doesn't overflow the bookshelves and create stacks on the living room and bedroom floors.


 True! I would guess my SF library at somewhere around 700 books, most of which are stored in a closet under the steps never to see the light of day again until the day we move, retire, or get fired.



> You do enjoy discussing your favorite books and authors online ... but you don't actively seek out opportunities to meet and discuss those books with other fans in person.


True



> You may subscribe to one or two SF magazines ... but you don't have a collection of back issues of Analog representing your entire adult life.


 I do not subscribe to any SF magazines



> If one of your all-time favorite SF authors was doing a signing at a nearby bookstore you would go (if it didn't interfere with your other obligations) ... but you don't go to signings just to spend time with like-minded individuals.


Absolutely true. 



> You didn't meet Mrs. Parson at an SF related event.


 This one makes me laugh! No! No! No! Mrs. Parson thinks my reading SF shows that I am 2 to 3 bricks short of normal. --- She reads tons of romances, Harlequin, no less. Draw your own conclusions.



> You've never been to a WorldCon.


 Correct



> You might own a few pieces of science fiction art (or at least you would like to) ... but you don't have a collection proudly displayed on the walls in more than one room of your house.


 I do not own such art.



> Your real-life social network is not largely made up of other SF fans.


 I don't know anyone personally who likes SF anywhere near as much as I do.



> You didn't go to see _The Phantom Menace_ and _Attack of the Clones_ against your better judgement just so that you could discuss the films with your friends.


 I did get Mrs. Parson to go with me, along with both my children!!



> You probably can do at least a passable Vulcan salute ... but you've never come down with a case of Pon Farr.


 Live long and prosper. But don't come down with Pon Farr.



> You aren't on a first name basis with any professional authors or editors that you haven't met online.


 Assuming that this means SF authors and editors the answer is yes. 



> You've never danced an English country dance with someone in a Star Trek uniform.


  This would make all of the spectators laugh! And it wouldn't be at the person wearing the Star Trek uniform. So no, I've not done this. 



> You do know the name of the Philip K. Dick story that inspired the movie _Bladerunner_ but you may not own the director's cut on DVD.


 I don't know the name of PKD story, and do not own the any video of _Bladerunner._



> You don't have a stash of old Ace Doubles tucked away somewhere in the house, but you may have read some of them when you were younger.*


 No and yes





> Unless I am wrong about half of these negatives, I'd say you are somewhere to the left of middle on the following scale:
> 
> Softcore SF fan------------<Middle>------------Hardcore SF fan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bonus points if you can name the apprentice cargo-master on the Solar Queen without resorting to Google.


 Without Googling and can't even place the "Solar Queen," let alone her cargo master.

So you did very well indeed. I am amazed to see the range of questions that you have dreamed up. My only quibble would be placing me in the middle of SF fans. Before my experience on this site I would have thought that I was just somewhat short of the Lunatic Fringe of SF fans, either I was wrong about this or this site is the "Loony bin" that some people claim it is. 

Okay my part of the promise: If I average out the last 30 years of my life I would say that I would average about 20 SF books a year. Almost all bought. Almost all stored under the steps. Except, for my cherished collection of David Weber hard covers which sit on the top shelves of our family room.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

Ursa major said:


> It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a Star Trek uniform is glad of any dance he can get.



True.  

And you can imagine the plight of a mother who has five young daughters she wishes to see creditably married and secretly hopes that there won't be any Gungans in attendance at the wedding ceremonies.

******


You keep more books than I thought you might, Parson, but to be truly hardcore you can't store them under the stairs; they _have_ to be piled up in tipsy stacks around the house so that you can consult them whenever you want to.

You have to understand, Parson, that when I speak of the people I have known who are hardcore fans (and they are many), I am speaking of people who practically build their lives around their reading habits.  They meet their spouses at SF conventions.  They conceive children at SF conventions (decently and in privacy in their own hotel rooms with their own spouses, after attending the "Eye of Argon" reading at midnight, I hasten to add).  They work at jobs that happen to attract other science fiction readers.  They'll spend months planning out the costumes they'll wear to convention masquerades.  (This is in the US.  I don't even know if they have masquerades at conventions in other countries.) You can tell the moment you enter their houses or apartments that they are SF fans.

Oh, and they subscribe to several SF magazines, which is why they are the people that reviewers write their reviews for.  Which is the original point of this whole digression.

During the twenty years when I was a middling SF fan myself (as opposed to now, when I only read a handful of such books in a year), my other hobbies and interests were those that attracted fans in the middling to hardcore range, which is why I know their habits so well. Also, during that time I lived in or near Silicon Valley, which breeds them.  There was a period of several years when I don't think I knew a single person (who wasn't related to me by blood) who didn't read SF.

You, on the other hand, have a life outside the books you read and the movies you see — though I assume that _you_ went to see TPM and TATC because you _wanted_ to see them. 




P. S.  Dane Thorson was the name that would have earned you the bonus point.
.
.
.


----------



## Ursa major

What I was originally going to post, I'm ashamed to admit, was the following:
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a Star Trek uniform must be in want of a life. ​But as you've explained, Teresa, this caricature is far from accurate (so I won't quote Bones on the subject ).


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

Ursa major said:


> [/INDENT]But as you've explained, Teresa, this caricature is far from accurate (so I won't quote Bones on the subject ).



Not accurate at all.  In my day at least (she says, shaking a gnarled finger), most of them had spouses and families and good jobs in IT — unless they were associated in some way with publishing — but instead of spending hours watching sports and pursuing a variety of hobbies, all of their interests and almost all of their socializing brought them into contact with people who shared their passion for books, movies, television, gaming, science, and history.

Of course Ian is _far_ more familiar with what goes on in the SF community these days than I am.  Because, actually, I _don't_ have a life anymore.  

But back to the subject:  I think almost any editor, agent, writer, or professional reviewer in the SFF field would give very similar definitions for hard and soft science fiction.  And the same would be true for the people who go to the conventions and subscribe to the magazines.

And you know, while there are certain problems with labeling books and sticking them into neat little niches, it sure is convenient when discussing them if everyone speaks the same language.

Look at all the different definitions that people are coming up with in this thread.  The discussion is interesting, but how could you hope to communicate with someone who has wildly different definitions that you do if you were asking them for recommendations?


----------



## Parson

Teresa Edgerton said:


> You, on the other hand, have a life outside the books you read and the movies you see — though I assume that _you_ went to see TPM and TATC because you _wanted_ to see them. .



True, I did see those movies because I wanted to. And I do have a life outside of SF, but I would point out that I am posting at 10:45 at night after being up at 5:15 for a 6:00 am Bible Study, and tomorrow only looks like a 6:00 am start. So my grip on a real life must always be in some danger.

Sooo, They don't write reviews for people who are semi-knowledgeable like me, and instead write them for the people who would likely pick them up at any event? That seems to be counter intuitive.


----------



## J Riff

The _Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction- _2003_-_ dedicates a chapter, by Kathryn Kramer, to Hard SF. It largely avoids discussing the trad definitions and uses many references to and interviews with hard SF writers to define a new wave, or second wave of hard SF, and sub-genres.

_‘hard SF evolved into right wing power fantasies_
_about military hardware, men killing things with big machines’._
_By 1995, Baen Books went so far to publish 1945, a collaboration between sf writer William Forstchen and arch-conservative Speaker-of-the-House Newt Gingrich about super-weapons and the Third Reich._
_The politics of Analog were a bit milder: by the mid-1980s they had_
_become codified as a technologically optimistic libertarianism. Analog’s_
_outlook is so rosy now that one wonders whether Godwin’s ‘The Cold_
_Equations’ (1954) would be accepted for publication there today. If, indeed, it was once paradigmatic of the Campbellian strain of hard sf, it is no longer. _


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

Parson said:


> Sooo, They don't write reviews for people who are semi-knowledgeable like me, and instead write them for the people who would likely pick them up at any event? That seems to be counter intuitive.



Reviewers don't work for the publishing houses, you know.  They aren't trying to _sell_ the books.  As I said, they write the reviews for the people most likely to read the reviews — which by the way have less impact on sales than you might think. The main reason that publishers send books out for review is because, well, it may not be the most effective advertising, but it's certainly _cheap_ advertising.  And there is pleasure in reading a thoughtful and well-written review whether you decide to read the book or not.  Which is another reason why they exist.  People like to read them.  Which is why the magazines (webzines, or whatever) publish them.

As Oscar Wilde wrote, criticism is itself an art.


----------



## iansales

They used to have masquerades at the British Eastercon, but they stopped doing them some time in the 1990s. There were also dedicated masquerade cons too, although not very big ones, but I've not heard of one of those happening for years. Filk too, happily, seems to have disappeared from UK sf fandom.

Online, there's a vibrant sf community. Not just this forum, but hundreds of others. Plus news sites and reviews sites. Online magazines. There's a large blogosphere, which seems to have eclipsed the original LJ community. This week's fuss is all about some brainless article by Leo Grin moaning about how modern fantasy is nihilistic, unlike Tolkien or Howard (both of whom were, well, just as nihilistic).


----------



## Parson

Teresa Edgerton said:


> Reviewers don't work for the publishing houses, you know.  They aren't trying to _sell_ the books.  As I said, they write the reviews for the people most likely to read the reviews — which by the way have less impact on sales than you might think. The main reason that publishers send books out for review is because, well, it may not be the most effective advertising, but it's certainly _cheap_ advertising.  And there is pleasure in reading a thoughtful and well-written review whether you decide to read the book or not.  Which is another reason why they exist.  People like to read them.  Which is why the magazines (webzines, or whatever) publish them.
> 
> As Oscar Wilde wrote, criticism is itself an art.



Parson slaps palm to forehead! I was thinking about the blurbs on the dust jackets of books, I wasn't thinking about the reviews in magazines, newspapers, etc., where the true reviews are found.

I stand corrected and humbled.


----------



## Fried Egg

I still say that these definitions are not really at odds with each other. Here is an excerpt from a wiki article on Hard and soft science


> Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms often used when comparing fields of academic research or scholarship, with hard meaning perceived as being more scientific, rigorous, or accurate. Fields of the natural, physical sciences, or computing sciences are often described as hard, while the social sciences and similar fields are often described as soft.


Which essentially re-enforces what I said earlier; The terms "hard" and "soft" when used in conjunction with science to refer to rigour of it's methodology and consequently to the different fields of science in that some are thought to be more or less rigourous than others.

Therefore, I would suggest it is perfectly legitimate to define SF in terms of "hard" and "soft" according to their scientific rigour or according to their focus on the "hard" and "soft" sciences.


----------



## The_African

Native Son deals with race and class as sociological issues yet it isn't considered to be soft science fiction. All stories deal with inter-personal relationships, conflict, personal struggles and other psychological themes, defining soft science fiction as science fiction that deals with the soft sciences rather than the hard sciences, aren't all stories "soft science fiction"?


----------



## william b

The_African said:


> Which is the correct definition (or are both wrong) ? Soft science fiction is closer to fantasy than hard science fiction is, it contains very unrealistic, if not impossible, events that are explained through pseudo science whereas hard science fiction only deals currently impossible but realistic advances in technology and science.
> 
> 
> Soft science fiction places little to no emphasis on scientific detail, focusing primarily on the plot or social/philosophical themes of the story whereas hard science fiction is like reading a damn college text book. The first definition implies little emphasis on scientific detail but technically it could still emphasize pseudo scientific detail and be 'soft', right?
> 
> Show (/recommend) some examples of soft/hard science fiction novels.



   It could be useful to divide SF into the categories of Hard SF and everything else. 
   I sometimes think SF fans have a real love-hate relationship with each other.  A good story simply has to be engaging and not cheat the reader.  Not all readers want the hard science.  Most of us don't feel cheated by taking faster than light spaceships for granted.    But some readers want to feel like they are discovering an actual world with technology that theoretically could work along with the protagonist.
   I sometimes think the hard SF camp wants to claim it is the only real SF.  But I think that dismisses a lot of great stories and realities that would otherwise never be explored.
   Hard sf really can be engaging when a writer has a knack for it.  If they can evoke real wonder and excitement as characters use the technology it greatly enhances what would be fairly dry technical writing.  
    But maybe hard SF fans fear the uncertainty of soft SF because it is on that slippery slope between fantasy and science fiction.  The rules are a little less defined and maybe it takes a skilled writer to balance the realism and the fantastic elements.  But is it any harder than getting that sense of wonder into the hard SF?  It just depends on the writer.  On what the audience wants.  There's room for both I think.


----------

