Soft vs. hard science fiction (definitions)

[Teresa Edgerton]

[/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]

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]

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]

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]

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.