# Is hard SF dead?



## Dragonsnark (Feb 6, 2022)

My taste in SF is hard SF, that is, SF anchored in current science and extrapolations of it. I don't think its because 
of a lack of possibilities, just look at what Neuralink, SpaceX and the robotics industry are doing. A wealth of ideas, 
but few books.

Most of the books I find nowadays seems to be strongly biased towards the fantasy end of the spectrum, although
there are some notable exceptions. 

Why is that?

Please don't think I am criticising; I am just expressing my personal taste.


----------



## Rodders (Feb 6, 2022)

Like everything, i suppose Science Fictions has its trends and hard SF just isn’t in vogue at the moment.


----------



## farntfar (Feb 6, 2022)

It seems to me that hard SF pretty much denies us the possibility of going very far out in the foreseeable future, by cutting out any idea of faster than light ships or time travel. 
So we're restricted to stories in the solar system, or involving long periods of suspended animation or using generation ships.
Or else the idea of "In a galaxy far far away, in the far future..." if we want to include humans in it.

Nowadays we're all so used to the idea of warp drive or hyperspace or whatever that hard SF seems to offer only things like Firefly or Fred Hoyle books.
Even many of the Golden Age writers would be excluded. Much of Asimov, most of E.E. Doc Smith, or Ursula Le Guin or Orson Scott Card or lots of others would be lost .. Some later writers like Christopher Priest might get through but many wouldn't.
Dune etc. are out. All for the sake of FTL.
Some John Wyndham would be ok, especially if SF accepts the idea of the multiverse, which I think it must, but much involving time travel would be questionable.

Essentially the reason is that  we've all been exposed to soft SF ideas so much, that they now seem almost pedestrian.

And I agree that you can write some great stories without going beyond current scientific ideas, but then you can also write some terrific stories that don't touch science at all.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Feb 6, 2022)

Dragonsnark said:


> My taste in SF is hard SF, that is, SF anchored in current science and extrapolations of it. I don't think its because
> of a lack of possibilities, just look at what Neuralink, SpaceX and the robotics industry are doing. A wealth of ideas,
> but few books.



I think the thing is that, taking for example the areas you mention, hard SF has been exploring these for almost a hundred years, and now we've got them...most people are 'meh' about it and just not enthusiastic about such topics. The average joe on the street would question, with some justification, why humans should go to space, for example. And when compared to watching the Millennium Falcon fly through space, or see an Ornithopter on Dune at the cinema, SpaceX's delivery rocket and taxi is just pretty mundane.




Rodders said:


> Like everything, i suppose Science Fictions has its trends and hard SF just isn’t in vogue at the moment.



Definitely this.

If one were to delve into why, I think hard SF tends to be progressive, 'happy' literature (I generalise of course) and at the moment I think the mood of humanity is more despondent, dystopian and much darker. Add to that we've reached some of the futures that earlier hard SF talked about  - and reality is just not the same as what we were promised!

Hence I think people want fantasy to disassociate from all the bad stuff going around at the moment.  Again, I generalise, but sense this. 




farntfar said:


> It seems to me that hard SF pretty much denies us the possibility of going very far out in the foreseeable future, by cutting out any idea of faster than light ships or time travel.
> So we're restricted to stories in the solar system, or involving long periods of suspended animation or using generation ships.
> Or else the idea of "In a galaxy far far away, in the far future..." if we want to include humans in it.



Oh, I've got lots of generation ship ideas!  

There is 'Mundane SF' which came about in the 2000s (and is possibly just rebranded hard SF), but I don't have a list of books that people agree are part of this movement.

But I think we always want what we haven't got. I love the space exploration that we are doing now, confined as it is in our solar system, but to imagine actually crossing the void to another star excites me even more. To see something alien and different! (Hence my enthusiasm for space telescopes that are making that crossing in a way)


farntfar said:


> And I agree that you can write some great stories without going beyond current scientific ideas, but then you can also write some terrific stories that don't touch science at all.


Yes, totally agree. _Seveneves _by Neal Stephenson sprung instantly to mind.


----------



## Aknot (Feb 6, 2022)

Has such a genre ever been popular? A current author that comes to mind is Andy Weir. Kim Stanley Robinson has been at it for a while. But then I struggle to find more examples. Both authors seem very knowledgeable about several scientific topics. I wonder if that is a limitation? Also, once a writer  start extrapolating, it’s debatable what’s plausible as well. It blurs the line, I guess. For example: I would say the Expanse is grounded in physics and current technology, but spins into something much greater in scope.


----------



## Dragonsnark (Feb 6, 2022)

farntfar said:


> It seems to me that hard SF pretty much denies us the possibility of going very far out in the foreseeable future, by cutting out any idea of faster than light ships or time travel.
> So we're restricted to stories in the solar system, or involving long periods of suspended animation or using generation ships.
> Or else the idea of "In a galaxy far far away, in the far future..." if we want to include humans in it.
> 
> ...


I would disagree with the idea that hard SF is limiting. There are plenty of possibilities such as being accidentally frozen (Perhaps by an equipment failure or accident) and being woken up in the far future by an alien race on an alien planet. People are being frozen and stored right now, one just needs the funds. On the other hand, many good SF stories are based within the solar system, or even entirely on earth. (Wayward Pines, Passengers...)

Maybe my problem is that when I read a story, I always ask myself "How can that be done?".  Maybe my suspension of disbelief chip is faulty.

I would also like to add one further FTL drive to your list, the "bloater drive" as described by Harry Harrison in "Bill the galactic hero", pure comedy genius.

I must agree with the last two paragraphs, and even admit to liking some of it, especially comedy fantasy fiction (Galaxy Quest, et al). I just find it more fulfilling to have a story grounded in explainable possibility, but I guess thats just my personal taste.


----------



## Wayne Mack (Feb 6, 2022)

I'm not sure that a great deal of 'Hard SF' as defined in the opening ever existed. What I recall is that previously in Hard SF, one detail was explained in great scientific depth with back up attributions, but then a lot of other things were presented as is. I feel that constraining a story to only use details that easily can be extrapolated from today's technology and understanding is an overly limit restriction. Give me a story with one well extrapolated detail and I will be happy to accept the surrounding had waving details needed to support it.


----------



## Dave (Feb 6, 2022)

Hasn't Hard SF always been a little bit niche anyway, and certainly not one of the fiction bestsellers? In the past, weren't they generally about advances in physics, astrophysics and subatomic physics, and required a level of science literacy that would put off reading by most people. Science literacy among the general population is worse than it ever was, especially if journalists and game show contestants are any yardstick.

I believe that most new advances in sciences will be coming in biological subjects such as genetic engineering, How many readers know enough about those subjects never mind fiction writers? You'd think that from reading social media posts that everyone was now an expert on viruses and immunology, but read further and you very quickly realise that they haven't got any clue what they are posting about.

As others have said, there are recent Hard SF books, and I've read some of them, but fantasy is also just more in vogue at the moment.


----------



## Bren G (Feb 6, 2022)

Dragonsnark said:


> My taste in SF is hard SF, that is, SF anchored in current science and extrapolations of it. I don't think its because
> of a lack of possibilities, just look at what Neuralink, SpaceX and the robotics industry are doing. A wealth of ideas,
> but few books.
> 
> ...


It's an interesting question. It reminds me of feedback I got on my novel which by your definition would be hard-sci-fi (I am embarrassed to say I hadn't known the term prior to this post.) Several beta readers were unified in one comment. And that went something like "It's sci-fi but not sci-fi enough. This could take place now on Earth." Perhaps we have moved so much closer to space travel that it's hardly novel anymore. I am reminded of the superhero comic books I'd read in the late 80's and how in the mid-90's they started moving into stranger plots that involved less of fighting crime in the world as we know it, but saving the universe by moving through time, multiverses, and via psychological mind-bending flights of fancy. It was as if the old stories had become mundane and the authors (and perhaps the market) desired to push the boundaries. You see the same with violence on television. In the effort to create novel art, the boundaries are broken and the older art is left behind.


----------



## Stuart Suffel (Feb 6, 2022)

Wayne Mack said:


> I'm not sure that a great deal of 'Hard SF' as defined in the opening ever existed. What I recall is that previously in Hard SF, one detail was explained in great scientific depth with back up attributions, but then a lot of other things were presented as is. I feel that constraining a story to only use details that easily can be extrapolated from today's technology and understanding is an overly limit restriction. Give me a story with one well extrapolated detail and I will be happy to accept the surrounding had waving details needed to support it.


With Wayne on this one. Hard Sf, in my experience, focused in detail on one element of science, with enough details gradually released to keep a non expert 'on board'. Anything that's hard, hard (to use a technical term) kinda moves into the non-fictional A Brief History of Time arena.

Thing is, sci-fi fiction is...FICTION. It's 'what if'. Speculation. A philosophical treatise on the relationship between humans and technology, but sometimes with lasers. Like, really, _really_ cool lasers. N stuff.


----------



## Dragonsnark (Feb 7, 2022)

Bren G said:


> It's an interesting question. It reminds me of feedback I got on my novel which by your definition would be hard-sci-fi (I am embarrassed to say I hadn't known the term prior to this post.) Several beta readers were unified in one comment. And that went something like "It's sci-fi but not sci-fi enough. This could take place now on Earth." Perhaps we have moved so much closer to space travel that it's hardly novel anymore. I am reminded of the superhero comic books I'd read in the late 80's and how in the mid-90's they started moving into stranger plots that involved less of fighting crime in the world as we know it, but saving the universe by moving through time, multiverses, and via psychological mind-bending flights of fancy. It was as if the old stories had become mundane and the authors (and perhaps the market) desired to push the boundaries. You see the same with violence on television. In the effort to create novel art, the boundaries are broken and the older art is left behind.


Beautifully put! You raise some interesting points; What is science fiction exactly? Must it include travel in space or time? 

The first book I attempted to write was about a modern-day Carrington event and its consequences on our society. I was worried that some readers had never heard of Carrington, so I included footnotes containing links to Wikipedia and academic papers. (reports on previous such events recorded in China and by Captain Cook and so on). Later I realised that was a bit over the top. You raised the question; Is this science fiction at all? It could be happening right now! 

Does SF have to be about space or time travel? Personally, I don't think so. The name gives it away 'Science Fiction', fiction about science. Many books I read are more fantasy than Science fiction. Often no attempt is made to explain how things operate in the world described or even break fundamental scientific principles.

I think it all comes down to personal preference in the end. I have thought hard about what I like in a book, and it comes down to just a few key things: 
    The plot must surprise me with its twists and turns.
    Must be fast-moving, 
    Must not have long-winded descriptive prose (My imagination is much better.)
    Must not break my suspension of belief.

Maybe I should start a different thread, "What are the criteria that make a book good for you?"

Better stop now, thanks for the reply, you gave me a lot to think about!!


----------



## Bren G (Feb 7, 2022)

Well I think you've hit the nail on the head when you ask 'What is Science Fiction exactly?"

I don't know. But the first thing that comes to mind is the use of advanced technology to shine a lens on our human condition and test the morals and values we hold dear or take for granted today. Sci-fi stories, like all stories, are about people. The advanced technology creates hypothetic situations to see how we would react. To ask questions like:  is it humane to create a clone of yourself for the sole purpose of replacing the limb you lost in an accident?  Would it be ethical to 'dispose' of it after you harvested it? Does it even have a soul? These are the type of stories I like. Kinda like futuristic Aesop fables, Greek myths and biblical allegories of the future. Probably explains why I like Ray Bradbury and Dark Mirror so much.


----------



## Stuart Suffel (Feb 7, 2022)

Bren G said:


> Well I think you've hit the nail on the head when you ask 'What is Science Fiction exactly?"
> 
> I don't know.* But the first thing that comes to mind is the use of advanced technology to shine a lens on our human condition and test the morals and values we hold dear or take for granted today. Sci-fi stories, like all stories, are about people.* The advanced technology creates hypothetic situations to see how we would react. To ask questions like:  is it humane to create a clone of yourself for the sole purpose of replacing the limb you lost in an accident?  Would it be ethical to 'dispose' of it after you harvested it? Does it even have a soul? These are the type of stories I like. Kinda like futuristic Aesop fables, Greek myths and biblical allegories of the future. Probably explains why I like Ray Bradbury and Dark Mirror so much.


+1


----------



## Justin Swanton (Feb 7, 2022)

I suspect that SF was originally a variant of fantasy literature, and that fantasy was (and is) an attempt to recapture's a child's sense of wonder and adventure at a world he sees as something new and strange. Fantasy is popular because the world we live in is safe, regulated, routine and frankly tedious. We need to find a sense of adventure *somewhere.*

When Durban descended into anarchy in July, with the suburbs taking up arms and forming defensive barricades against tens of thousands of looters that were laying the shops waste, life for me became wonderfully simplified: conserve the food I had (all supermarkets were closed) and do my duty manning one of the barricades through the nights (and it was serious business - we were ready to shoot to kill and plenty did). You couldn't call it fun but it was certainly not boring. The whole world had changed; for a week or so the old order was gone and everything was very different. It was an interesting time. Like living in a novel.

The original SF was written in a era when the science of astronomy and space travel was in its infancy and pretty much anything was possible. There was just enough science and tech to add the thrill that the stories *could* happen in real life. As the science developed the real limitations of space travel became evident and to preserve the thrill of "it could happen" hard SF was born. Hard SF of course limits your options, the more so as time passes and it becomes even clearer just how hostile space is for humans and how limited space travel tech really is. As a result science fantasy essentially dumped the science and joined the old fantasy genre, knowing that dragons and hyperspace don't exist but having fun imagining what it would be like if they did.

I remain a fan of hard SF (about to publish a hard SF novel in fact) as I feel that if you want fantasy where the laws of physics don't apply then the straight fantasy genre outdoes SF fantasy any day.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Feb 15, 2022)

Bren G said:


> Well I think you've hit the nail on the head when you ask 'What is Science Fiction exactly?"
> 
> Kinda like futuristic Aesop fables, Greek myths and biblical allegories of the future. Probably explains why I like Ray Bradbury and Dark Mirror so much.


We have a spectrum of science fiction. 

What I have seen called "Mundane Science Fiction" is "Hard SF" but there have long been works called hard SF before I ever heard the term mundane SF.  Ringworld and The Mote in God's Eye are regarded as hard SF  even though they have FTL. 

I regard Frankenstein as the first SF story and no SF existed before that. This is because Mary Shelley mentioned electricity and Galvanism in her story. This was the cutting edge science at the time.  

Once the genre existed it could be corrupted.  Some writers produced works with SF tropes but no science.  But things written before Frankenstein contain what have since become SF tropes. I don't accept grandfathering in all of the antiquated stuff but literary people want to make them respectable.

I will tolerate modern stuff that just had sci-fi tropes, they may have modern relevant ideas but not pre-1800 works.


----------



## Dave (Feb 15, 2022)

psikeyhackr said:


> I regard Frankenstein as the first SF story and no SF existed before that. This is because Mary Shelley mentioned electricity and Galvanism in her story. This was the cutting edge science at the time.


Here's an idea. A caveman invents a circular wheel, with an axel, rather than having to drag stuff along, The tribe sit around the campfire telling stories that night, and one man describes how in the future, because of the wheel, they could now travel the length of land, taking stuff wherever they wanted, whether there was access by waterways or not. They could even travel up to the top of hills where they'd be safer. Was that a Hard SF story?


----------



## psikeyhackr (Feb 15, 2022)

Dave said:


> Here's an idea. A caveman invents a circular wheel, with an axel, rather than having to drag stuff along, The tribe sit around the campfire telling stories that night, and one man describes how in the future, because of the wheel, they could now travel the length of land, taking stuff wherever they wanted, whether there was access by waterways or not. They could even travel up to the top of hills where they'd be safer. Was that a Hard SF story?


Only if it was published and distributed with wheeled vehicles. I believe that was done with Frankenstein.

Of course in these degenerate days electrons and photons are also acceptable distribution methods.


----------



## Dave (Feb 15, 2022)

Well, the invention itself was disseminated perfectly adequately by word of mouth, so I don't see that as prerequisite for ideas about its possible use.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Feb 15, 2022)

Dave said:


> Here's an idea. A caveman invents a circular wheel, with an axel, rather than having to drag stuff along, The tribe sit around the campfire telling stories that night, and one man describes how in the future, because of the wheel, they could now travel the length of land, taking stuff wherever they wanted, whether there was access by waterways or not. They could even travel up to the top of hills where they'd be safer. Was that a Hard SF story?


Well they might think he was telling them a tall tale, perhaps even a comedy. Why on earth would they want to travel up to the top of a hill pulling something? They would point out such a device would be much better suited for flat areas.  (There is good evidence that wagons and chariots were first put together on the steppe. Y'know a big flat expanse of grass. Plus the Inca empire had no need for a wheel, because it was definitely useless in mountains...) 

But seriously, that's not a story, that's Ug discussing an idea. Secondly we really have no idea what stories humanity told in around campfires or midday siestas in the sun for however long we could speak, as hunter-gatherers. It may be that these first bands of humans would have no real concept of 'future', 'technology' and 'progression' that runs through Hard SF (I generalise. of course). Innovation may have been imperceptible to them - instead they just were very practical with materials that they had to hand and they innovated without thinking to solve problems - and therefore the universe was eternal and unchanging. 

I speculate of course! 

So really we should confine such a discussion to literature - which by definition is written down - and that we can actually read today. Yes, there are and were oral histories and tales, but virtually all of these have vanished.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Feb 15, 2022)

Dave said:


> Well, the invention itself was disseminated perfectly adequately by word of mouth, so I don't see that as prerequisite for ideas about its possible use.


And defining this hypothetical case serves what purpose now? 

I would say that Le Guin's Dispossessed is not hard SF and that James P Hogan's Voyage from Yesteryear is. Both are about economic dichotomies in society and thought provoking. 

If it could be tested I would bet that Hogan knew more about science and technology.  I confess that I find talk about proto-science fiction from before 1800 like there was some evolutionary phenomenon occurring rather silly.  I have read various books about the history of science fiction over the years.  What C P Snow wrote about the Two Cultures was very eye opening.


----------



## Dave (Feb 15, 2022)

psikeyhackr said:


> I confess that I find talk about proto-science fiction from before 1800 like there was some evolutionary phenomenon occurring rather silly.


Then don't discuss it. 

I see many reasons why the "idea" that I described is not "science fiction." It isn't a story, but secondly, and as VB almost said, it wasn't science but technology. You can't really have science fiction before you have, what we would today describe as "science." I don't, however, see why it should only be confined to literature. If there had been "science" sung about and spoken in epic tales, then that would count, but there aren't or they don't survive. We do still have plays and songs, and other media such as games, that are most certainly "science fiction," but I'm guessing by "written down" VB meant to include "recorded" too.

I don't think it's "silly" to determine the parameters/ boundaries of what is, or isn't, "hard science fiction" if you are going to discuss whether it is "dead" or not. I do think that trying to do that is incredibly hard, and possibly hopeless, neither will everyone agree, as is demonstrated in many threads here before on the same subject, and that is why this thread veered off into that discussion.

It would probably be more helpful to keep to the definition @Dragonsark gave in the OP of what his taste is, "SF anchored in current science and extrapolations of it." I'm also interested in whether we think that has died or not, and if it has, the reasons for that.


----------



## bretbernhoft (Feb 17, 2022)

I don't personally think that hard SF is "dead". But I do think we're waiting for a new generation of authors to emerge, whom will have the opportunity to write some of the best SF to-date. But this is just my opinion, and there is some really great SF being written these days.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Mar 6, 2022)

Here is a podcast of Robert Silverberg & Harlan Ellison discussing writing SF and the market for SF:






Between 41 and 46 minutes they mention Star Wars and Star Trek affecting the size and quality of the market. I started reading SF in 4th grade, 1961, and I had no idea how small the market was.

I don't think Hard SF can die, it will just be a minority of a minority.  But I also think that the people advocating STEM education would do themselves and a lot of kids a favor by promoting good Hard SF.  I am not saying just because it is hard that it is good. We are all stuck in a world with technology getting more and more complicated though. And sometimes stupid.


----------



## Swank (Mar 7, 2022)

Dave said:


> I don't think it's "silly" to determine the parameters/ boundaries of what is, or isn't, "hard science fiction" if you are going to discuss whether it is "dead" or not. I do think that trying to do that is incredibly hard, and possibly hopeless, neither will everyone agree, as is demonstrated in many threads here before on the same subject, and that is why this thread veered off into that discussion.


Part of the problem is that many people seem unaware of the many definitions that have been used for Hard SF, and that many popular authors - like Neal Stephenson, Larry Niven or Vernor Vinge - would definitely be considered in category, and have been, because they feature a lot of real science principles or extrapolate on real science issues like the Fermi paradox.

I was always told the Hal Clement was Mr. Hard SF, because a book like Mission of Gravity speculates on a world with a huge gravity delta due to its fast rotation. But people in this thread sound like they wouldn't accept that book as hard because of all the things that aren't strictly in category.


So hard SF probably is dead - because it has been defined into a suffocating corner. It would be better to understand that it is all fiction, and celebrate any of the science fiction that firmly embraces real science while it tells the rest of its made-up tale. I don't understand the advantage to writers or readers to enforce a strict rule about something so arbitrarily connected to reality.

It is funny when one person is talking about Gravity being a hard SF film, while another says it isn't even SF. Kind of hints at the problem.


----------



## Dan Jones (Mar 7, 2022)

The Hard vs Soft Sf topic is something we pick up in next month's episode of Chronscast with Stephen Cox - he writes soft SF, but is still interested in the harder SF from the olden days. What we discussed was the idea that publishers are more interested in character driven, and more emotionally articulate novels in general, not just SF, and the harder (or more classical?) end of SF tended more towards the scientific concepts and ideas. This was being done in an age where ideas about colonisation of Mars / deep space, or invaders from Jupiter was, in theory, still plausible because human space probes hadn't yet discounted these possibilities. So back then, someone like Arthur C Clarke or Michael Crichton could get away with minimal character development because the ideas were so fantastical the book could survive on that alone.

Now, given humanity's accelerated and socialised understanding of scientific disciplines and technologies, we kind of know which technologies are plausible and which are not. Which leaves SF / speculative authors less room to wriggle about in.

There is good and lauded harder Sf that is still being published. Liu Cixin's _Three Body Problem_ comes to mind - plus, if I'm allowed a quick plug, my own novel _Man O'War_ is pretty hard SF and based upon my professional knowledge of robotics, but even then I set it over a hundred years in the future because that level of embodied robotics technologies is still ages away, despite what they say in the media. And the story is still heavily character-driven. The premise of the book is the effects of the technologies on human relationships (the intended effects, and the unintended).

My advice (dreadful word, but there it is) for SF writers would be to neglect character at their peril. There are still plenty of technological areas that could be mined for fiction - nanotech, mechatronics, space-based infrastructure, personality implants etc etc - but a story can no longer survive on concept alone. The characters have to be given as much love as the science.


----------



## Swank (Mar 7, 2022)

Dan Jones said:


> There is good and lauded harder Sf that is still being published. Liu Cixin's _Three Body Problem_ comes to mind


Not picking on you at all, but I keep hearing this about Three Body Problem, and I don't understand it. That story seems just as speculative when I read it as SevenEves, Blindsight or the Expanse in referencing then going beyond known science, yet pops up as hard SF in many lists.

It is almost as if having little character development is the reason to call it hard SF.

I would bet that if someone posted a poll of popular sciency SF books and asked which are hard, the results might make little predictive sense. Some readers would include works others exclude, while agreeing on other books that are more or less the same level.


----------



## Dan Jones (Mar 7, 2022)

Swank said:


> It is almost as if having little character development is the reason to call it hard SF.


I think there's probably something to that - see my previous comments about Clarke, Crichton, and no doubt others. Cixin does spend a fair amount of time musing on astrodynamics, which is not going to be everyone's cup of tea, and lends itself towards the harder end IMO.

Then again, it's all subjective. I never thought Andy Weir's _the Martian_ was Hard SF; I thought it was a love letter to altruism and the human race, with some hard-engineering (not science!) to push it along.


----------



## Swank (Mar 7, 2022)

Dan Jones said:


> I think there's probably something to that - see my previous comments about Clarke, Crichton, and no doubt others. Cixin does spend a fair amount of time musing on astrodynamics, which is not going to be everyone's cup of tea, and lends itself towards the harder end IMO.
> 
> Then again, it's all subjective. I never thought Andy Weir's _the Martian_ was Hard SF; I thought it was a love letter to altruism and the human race, with some hard-engineering (not science!) to push it along.


Weir's books are "hard" because they are nearly contemporary science that he illustrates with a story. They don't go into a tremendous amount of detailed science, but they do show exactly how it can be used or repurposed. Like a Western with lots of details about horsemanship, but horseback riding isn't an SF topic. (Hard Western anyone?!!)

Cixin muses about astrodynamics, Watts muses about cognition, and Stephenson muses about cryptography, philosophy of science or the nature of education. But then Watts and Stephenson last two get ousted from the Hard camp because they will include other bits that somehow make the well articulated real science stuff unimportant.

I'm not particularly concerned about the debate surrounding Hard SF, but I definitely would call myself a fan of books that illustrate science in the exposition. Which is why I would personally call Stephenson and Watts the strongest Hard writers out there. But I feel alone in that opinion.

Niven used to be considered Hard SF.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Mar 7, 2022)

Swank said:


> Cixin muses about astrodynamics, Watts muses about cognition, and Stephenson muses about cryptography, philosophy of science or the nature of education. But then Watts and Stephenson last two get ousted from the Hard camp because they will include other bits that somehow make the well articulated real science stuff unimportant.



I have to admit that _The Three Body Problem_ left me a bit cold. It's hard SF credentials are there, yes, - but personally I feel it's a bit of a throwback to 1970s hard SF where exposition was king, physics was _the _exciting science and characters were cardboard cut-outs. (I read Larry Niven's _Ringworld _just before that, and I got the same vibe.) All that stuff about the proton computer kinda poured water on any desire for me wanting to see where the trilogy would go. 




Swank said:


> I'm not particularly concerned about the debate surrounding Hard SF, but I definitely would call myself a fan of books that illustrate science in the exposition. Which is why I would personally call Stephenson and Watts the strongest Hard writers out there. But I feel alone in that opinion.
> 
> Niven used to be considered Hard SF.



You are not alone - I'd put Stephenson in there. I'd also add Alastair Reynolds.


----------



## Swank (Mar 7, 2022)

Venusian Broon said:


> I have to admit that _The Three Body Problem_ left me a bit cold. It's hard SF credentials are there, yes, - but personally I feel it's a bit of a throwback to 1970s hard SF where exposition was king, physics was _the _exciting science and characters were cardboard cut-outs. (I read Larry Niven's _Ringworld _just before that, and I got the same vibe.) All that stuff about the proton computer kinda poured water on any desire for me wanting to see where the trilogy would go.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I actually like the way Three Body dispenses with individual character development, but I also like the way 2001 dispenses with "meaningful" dialogue. Sometimes there is more realism in less traditional presentations of narrative. But that's just a preference on my part for alternatives to the norm.

I like Reynolds, but it almost seems like he is considered Hard because of his avoidance of FTL, rather than the scientific realism presented as alternative to FTL. It certainly seems very hard indeed, but then he'll write something like Elysium Fire where the way he fleshes out the technology he created doesn't make a lot of sense. But that's probably a quality gripe rather than a science gripe.

Then there's someone like Iain M. Banks that is arguably "space opera" with a large amount of hand-waivium, and yet he invented one of the classiest hard sf concepts ever - the Orbital. His stories are chock full of hard descriptions of technology, just that technology is totally invented. Much like Dune, Fire Upon the Deep or Marooned in Realtime, space opera that delves deep into its own speculation is much harder than a more realistic story/technology that doesn't force the reader to think hard about why these things are possible in context.


I guess I would give Hard points to any SF that uses speculation as more than just setting. I love having to consider whether the speculation follows the premise and being surprised by just how far the author successfully takes it.


----------



## Danny McG (Mar 7, 2022)

I personally don't get along with hard SF, there's always a long, long info dump to explain a plausible bit of physics, I quickly skim to the end of that and get back to the story.

(Like if I'm reading a non genre story and somebody drives a  car I don't then want to read a long explanation of the internal combustion engine)


----------



## Venusian Broon (Mar 7, 2022)

Swank said:


> I actually like the way Three Body dispenses with individual character development, but I also like the way 2001 dispenses with "meaningful" dialogue. Sometimes there is more realism in less traditional presentations of narrative. But that's just a preference on my part for alternatives to the norm.


2001 is an odd book, but then it came about from an 'odd' situation when ACC was working with Stanley Kubrick and I think he/they started it as a screenplay and most of the ideas were cannibalised from a bunch of his short stories. 



Swank said:


> I like Reynolds, but it almost seems like he is considered Hard because of his avoidance of FTL, rather than the scientific realism presented as alternative to FTL. It certainly seems very hard indeed, but then he'll write something like Elysium Fire where the way he fleshes out the technology he created doesn't make a lot of sense. But that's probably a quality gripe rather than a science gripe.


There's a bit more to him than his lack of FTL, and yes, there are moments where he crosses the line. In general though, I see the backbone of his work as hard SF. I do think its allowable to have a wee bit of handwavium in a hard SF to oil the wheels. 



Swank said:


> Then there's someone like Iain M. Banks that is arguably "space opera" with a large amount of hand-waivium, and yet he invented one of the classiest hard sf concepts ever - the Orbital. His stories are chock full of hard descriptions of technology, just that technology is totally invented. Much like Dune, Fire Upon the Deep or Marooned in Realtime, space opera that delves deep into its own speculation is much harder than a more realistic story/technology that doesn't force the reader to think hard about why these things are possible in context.



I like to think that an Iain M. Banks story gives off the 'vibe' of hard SF, while not really being being hard SF. He wrote a very realistic dirty universe - a bit like the original Star Wars.


----------



## Wayne Mack (Mar 7, 2022)

Swank said:


> Not picking on you at all, but I keep hearing this about Three Body Problem, and I don't understand it. That story seems just as speculative when I read it as SevenEves, Blindsight or the Expanse in referencing then going beyond known science, yet pops up as hard SF in many lists.


I've got to agree with this assessment. I find it questionable that an orbit around three suns would be stable enough to allow development of an advance civilization. It seems purely in the fantasy realm to believe that this civilization can dehydrate and rehydrate itself, yet retain memories and knowledge. That this civilization has advanced engineering capabilities, but is unable to create a habitable environmental chamber. That this civilization never traveled into space, but was able to launch interstellar weapons directed to Earth. There may be a few pieces of interesting scientific principles, but a lot requires a significant amount of suspension of disbelief.


----------



## Swank (Mar 7, 2022)

Wayne Mack said:


> I've got to agree with this assessment. I find it questionable that an orbit around three suns would be stable enough to allow development of an advance civilization. It seems purely in the fantasy realm to believe that this civilization can dehydrate and rehydrate itself, yet retain memories and knowledge. That this civilization has advanced engineering capabilities, but is unable to create a habitable environmental chamber. That this civilization never traveled into space, but was able to launch interstellar weapons directed to Earth. There may be a few pieces of interesting scientific principles, but a lot requires a significant amount of suspension of disbelief.


I think, sometimes, we go a little too far debunking speculative science fiction. Just as we don't know what makes the Millennium Falcon move to comment on why it looks like flying, we also don't know the underlying biology of these invented aliens to decide that their neuron equivalents can't be freeze dried.

Part of suspending disbelief is giving the author credit for thinking through their concepts sufficiently. I didn't find Three Body to be problematic because moving a large mass of people is going to be much harder than firing some sort of beam through space, and I decided to believe the author that those constraints are too great to overcome.

And sometimes those constraints are like the planet that can visit the moon but not stop famine. They won't necessarily be sensible at first glance.


----------



## Dave (Mar 8, 2022)

Venusian Broon said:


> I like to think that an Iain M. Banks story gives off the 'vibe' of hard SF, while not really being being hard SF.


Is that not because Iain M Banks 'Culture; is so far in the future that the science appears like magic? If Andy Weir had made a mistake with some aspect of a spacesuit manufacture or the Martian geology, someone would pick up on it and be all over it. No one could say that one of Iain M Bank's AIs "could never do that", because we can't create anything like that with our current technology. In that respect, I'd also say that his novels are not Hard SF.

What I'm not sure about is whether it is the modern equivalent of E E 'Doc' Smith space opera? A review of the 'Lensman' books says that "science was often ignored for various unexplained faster-than-light space drives, ray guns, and other super technology". In 50 years time, will Iain M Banks be considered the same?



Venusian Broon said:


> He wrote a very realistic dirty universe - a bit like the original Star Wars.



I think he made a big mistake by having Earth in a 'Culture' short story. _Star Wars_ has always been set "in a galaxy far, far away" and so can be forgiven for everything. _Galactica 1980_ made the same mistake.


----------



## Swank (Mar 8, 2022)

Dave said:


> I think he made a big mistake by having Earth in a 'Culture' short story. _Star Wars_ has always been set "in a galaxy far, far away" and so can be forgiven for everything.


Given that the Culture aren't Earthlings, why is it a problem? Not a big deal, just curious.


----------



## Dave (Mar 8, 2022)

As I said, it is no longer another universe or "a galaxy far, far away" but "our future" or in this case, "our present". That means that I must necessarily be much more critical of the science, the historical background, most everything really. It is no longer fantasy, or science fiction with some fantasy elements.


----------



## Swank (Mar 8, 2022)

Dave said:


> As I said, it is no longer another universe or "a galaxy far, far away" but "our future" or in this case, "our present". That means that I must necessarily be much more critical of the science, the historical background, most everything really. It is no longer fantasy, or science fiction with some fantasy elements.


I guess it hadn't occurred to me that other galaxies would have different physics than ours. Usually SF takes.place in a place and time that somehow connects to our now.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Mar 8, 2022)

Dave said:


> Is that not because Iain M Banks 'Culture; is so far in the future that the science appears like magic? If Andy Weir had made a mistake with some aspect of a spacesuit manufacture or the Martian geology, someone would pick up on it and be all over it. No one could say that one of Iain M Bank's AIs "could never do that", because we can't create anything like that with our current technology. In that respect, I'd also say that his novels are not Hard SF.
> 
> What I'm not sure about is whether it is the modern equivalent of E E 'Doc' Smith space opera? A review of the 'Lensman' books says that "science was often ignored for various unexplained faster-than-light space drives, ray guns, and other super technology". In 50 years time, will Iain M Banks be considered the same?



It's definitely space opera, at least in my eyes, hence a mixture of fantasy and SF. Right from the start, in fact, as in _Consider Phlebas _we get FTL travel. 

(I recently did a bit of research into interstellar travel as it really stands for us today, and it's quite depressing the speed we can actually attain and how much energy would be required to boost that figure...we're not going on any stellar jaunts in spaceships anytime soon. Unless we can find some 'magic' via new tech  )

I should also add, although I championed Reynolds, he too has problems with propulsion, given that his lighthuggers need an engine that can generate 1G. But given that 'axiom' that such engines are possible, he extrapolates from that.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Mar 8, 2022)

Dan Jones said:


> There is good and lauded harder Sf that is still being published. Liu Cixin's _Three Body Problem_ comes to mind



I don't recall much science in the first book at all - sure, there's a description of a telescope. But everything is


Spoiler



caused by a proton that has been turned into an omniscient entity-like intelligence which has impossible magical powers to stop all scientific progress on Earth. Yeah, science. 





Spoiler



Except in book 2, when - inexplicably - the magic intelligences are revealed to have allowed humanity scientific development for a couple of hundred years. Presumably because a far future that looks like the year 2,000 wouldn't be convincing to many readers.


----------



## Swank (Mar 8, 2022)

Magic particle, magic space drive, magic radiation shielding, magic building material, magic AI, magic brain implant, magic nanites, magic fusion reactor, magic pro-space economy. All SF takes us into the fantasy realm of speculation. Hard SF is just supposed to be the least pregnant with it.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Mar 8, 2022)

Venusian Broon said:


> It's definitely space opera, at least in my eyes, hence a mixture of fantasy and SF. Right from the start, in fact, as in _Consider Phlebas _we get FTL travel.
> 
> (I recently did a bit of research into interstellar travel as it really stands for us today, and it's quite depressing the speed we can actually attain and how much energy would be required to boost that figure...we're not going on any stellar jaunts in spaceships anytime soon.



It is partly the vagueness of the definition of "Hard SF" that motivated me to write my word counting program. But another factor is the way a story forces me to visualize what is going on and whether or not it seems to make sense.  

Michael McCollum imagined 3 different FTL systems in his two alien contact trilogies, Antares Dawn and Gibraltar Earth. McCollum was an aeronautical engineer and much of the stories beyond the FTL was very realistic. The story SPIN made my brain itch though. Was the Moon in the slowed down time or not? If it wasn't the what would that do to Earth's tides. I just couldn't cope with what the time rates could mean. I didn't make it 1/3rd way into the book.


----------



## Dragonsnark (Mar 9, 2022)

Wayne Mack said:


> I'm not sure that a great deal of 'Hard SF' as defined in the opening ever existed. What I recall is that previously in Hard SF, one detail was explained in great scientific depth with back up attributions, but then a lot of other things were presented as is. I feel that constraining a story to only use details that easily can be extrapolated from today's technology and understanding is an overly limit restriction. Give me a story with one well extrapolated detail and I will be happy to accept the surrounding had waving details needed to support it.


Almost anything by Arthur C Clarke...


----------



## psikeyhackr (Mar 9, 2022)

Dragonsnark said:


> Almost anything by Arthur C Clarke...


Compare: 
    A Fall of Moondust 
To:
    Childhood's End

FTL versus Rockets, 
Moondust versus Psychic Powers


----------



## Dragonsnark (Mar 10, 2022)

psikeyhackr said:


> Compare:
> A Fall of Moondust
> To:
> Childhood's End
> ...


From memory, Childhood's end didn't have FTL, they travelled at the speed of light. Within the limits of physics, but impractical from the energy viewpoint. I have no problem with that. On the other hand, mental powers are a bit near the edge for me, but that's just my preference. Its much more interesting to use technology, e.g. computer-brain interface, as we are there now (Neuralink), plenty of ideas there.

Read those two books many years ago, so I may be wrong. I have just written a short story where an alien visits the solar system after humanity has expired. I didn't explain how the alien travelled between the stars, but there are plenty of possibilities (Cryo, suspended animation etc) just didn't want to get into all that, it would have made the story too long.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 24, 2022)

Not at all.

I just picked up James Hogan's novel* Code of the Lifemaker.  *


----------



## psikeyhackr (Oct 24, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> Not at all.
> 
> I just picked up James Hogan's novel* Code of the Lifemaker. *


Hard SF was alive and kicking then.

I guess the Bobiverse and Project Hail Mary prove that the life support has not failed yet.


----------

