Soft vs. hard science fiction (definitions)

[The_African]

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]

Why?

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

 

[iansales]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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).

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]

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 Sociology 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]

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]

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."

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.

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.

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]

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]

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 ).