Mind-numbingly stupid things non-fans say...

[Maximillian]

To be fair, before I came here I would have regarded Star Wars, or what I now know as Space Opera, as hard science fiction i.e. the more fantastical side of things, stuff most "normal" people would turn their noses up at.

Maybe we have a disconnect here...or (I admit) maybe the rules have changed since I last looked them up. I thought Hard Science Fiction was as close to possibly real projection as could be made. I.e. Clarke's Rendezvous With Rama.

In fact, I just did a bit of research, and (from BestScienceFictionBooks.com) "To put it simply … well, it’s science fiction so we won’t really be able to put it simply; however, hard sci-fi is a science fiction subgenre that concentrates on relating stories from a correct scientific perspective and an attention to technological detail. Other common themes are well researched arguments that are tied to hard sciences and an inclination for militaristic masculine values"

...Or were you trying to say that you once thought Star Wars was Hard Sci-fi, but now consider it fantastical (which it is)?

Oh, and since were on the subject: My recommendation for a nice hard sci-fi: Leviathan Wakes by James S.A. Corey. Its one part Hard sci-fi, one part detective story, one part space opera (without losing its grip on the hard sci-fi side).

 

[Maximillian]

Personally I dislike categorising sci-fi like this. ...

The important thing for me is that the science stays consistently within the boundaries of the parameters of the world in which it is set.

I'm not sure what you mean, I never categorized sci-fi at all. And I completely agree with your comment about sticking to consistent boundaries.

However...when someone who ONLY ever read contemporary bodice-rippers decides to critique my space opera, and down-grades or denigrates it because "It's too much like Star Wars..." (You couldn't give a space opera writer a better compliment. 'Oh no, don't compare it to a 12 trillion dollar franchise what it supposed to be a clone of!' =) ) when the reader himself admits he doesn't know the genre... don't even get me started... =}

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I don't think any of us here misunderstand the term. It's about whether someone not into sci fi knows the terminology. For me, it's about how this thread makes us sound to those new to the genre. And when I got serious about writing (and the Chrons is by far one of the least elitist) I was shocked at how much of an eejit I felt, how little I knew about the nuances.

And yet here we are half-sniggering about someone's terminology not being our learned terms, despite our terms being unheard of to non-genre people. It sounds elitist and cliquey.

If someone wants to love Dr Who and join the genre, I say come in. And if they think it's proper hard sci fi who cares, so long as they enjoy it.

Terminologies really irk me. They're barriers that don't need to be there.

Rant over /

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I'm not sure what you mean, I never categorized sci-fi at all. And I completely agree with your comment about sticking to consistent boundaries.

However...when someone who ONLY ever read contemporary bodice-rippers decides to critique my space opera, and down-grades or denigrates it because "It's too much like Star Wars..." (You couldn't give a space opera writer a better compliment. 'Oh no, don't compare it to a 12 trillion dollar franchise what it supposed to be a clone of!' =) ) when the reader himself admits he doesn't know the genre... don't even get me started... =}

Why are you paying attention to them? They're not your target reader. And why, especially, would you use a sole bodice-ripper reader (I say sole, I'm sure I've read the odd bodice ripper in my time and enjoyed it) to critique a space-opera?

 

[alchemist]

Maybe we have a disconnect here...or (I admit) maybe the rules have changed since I last looked them up. I thought Hard Science Fiction was as close to possibly real projection as could be made. I.e. Clarke's Rendezvous With Rama.

In fact, I just did a bit of research, and (from BestScienceFictionBooks.com) "To put it simply … well, it’s science fiction so we won’t really be able to put it simply; however, hard sci-fi is a science fiction subgenre that concentrates on relating stories from a correct scientific perspective and an attention to technological detail. Other common themes are well researched arguments that are tied to hard sciences and an inclination for militaristic masculine values"

...Or were you trying to say that you once thought Star Wars was Hard Sci-fi, but now consider it fantastical (which it is)?

Oh, and since were on the subject: My recommendation for a nice hard sci-fi: Leviathan Wakes by James S.A. Corey. Its one part Hard sci-fi, one part detective story, one part space opera (without losing its grip on the hard sci-fi side).

Yes, before I had heard of such distinctions, if someone had said "name a hard SF film", I would have assumed Star Wars was an example.

And even though I now know these distinctions, I don't care much for them as they're often used in a perjorative way.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I would be interested to know though what that person thought of as 'soft' sci-fi. To actually be aware of the term 'hard sci-fi' they must have some grasp of the subject.

But as for myself, I don't really worry too much about genre definitions. It's enough for me to have 'war' 'scifi' 'fantasy' 'romance' etc. After that the only category is between stories is those that are worth reading and those that aren't.

 

[BAYLOR]

I was in a bookstore and while having a conversation with another customer about a fantasy series we were both reading., this third guy butts in with the comment. "Any Idiot can write fantasy" both of us rolled up our eyes and politely told him that he didn't know what he was talking about. Then we continued our discussion.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

I was in a bookstore and while having a conversation with with another customer about a fantasy series we were both reading., this third guy buts in with the comment. "Any Idiot can write fantasy" both of us rolled up up eyes and politely told him that he didn't know what he was talking about. Then we continued out discussion.

That's the point at which you ask him what fantasy he's written.

 

[BAYLOR]

That's the point at which you ask him what fantasy he's written.

I was tempted to ask him if he could write fantasy. But I didn't want to be mean.

 

[alchemist]

I was in a bookstore and while having a conversation with another customer about a fantasy series we were both reading., this third guy butts in with the comment. "Any Idiot can write fantasy" both of us rolled up our eyes and politely told him that he didn't know what he was talking about. Then we continued our discussion.

To paraphrase Tyrion, "if it were that easy, everyone would be doing it."

 

[BAYLOR]

To paraphrase Tyrion, "if it were that easy, everyone would be doing it."

Yep.

 

[BAYLOR]

Ive tried writing stories, with rather dismal results.

 

[J Riff]

I guess Mr. Troll never read much 30s stuff, very StarWarsy a lot of it.
Maybe he meant 'hard to read' SF.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I don't think any of us here misunderstand the term. It's about whether someone not into sci fi knows the terminology. For me, it's about how this thread makes us sound to those new to the genre. And when I got serious about writing (and the Chrons is by far one of the least elitist) I was shocked at how much of an eejit I felt, how little I knew about the nuances.

And yet here we are half-sniggering about someone's terminology not being our learned terms, despite our terms being unheard of to non-genre people. It sounds elitist and cliquey.

If someone wants to love Dr Who and join the genre, I say come in. And if they think it's proper hard sci fi who cares, so long as they enjoy it.

Terminologies really irk me. They're barriers that don't need to be there.

Rant over /

Springs, I like your rant . Passion is a good thing if wielded with good intentions and you definitely had excellent points to make.

However, (the dreaded however!!!), a couple of things.

I read fishbowl's initial post as it was likely he had been trolled by someone and he was here just to vent a bit of steam. So I was a just trying to lighten the mood (Actually the first thing that came into my mind was that this is the sort of thread that can quickly turn into a 'Judean Peoples Front' moment, but that is beside the point.) If said person was trolling then he is the the one sniggering at what he did to Fishbowl and you are getting ranty about a person/situation that doesn't exist . We need more info I suppose.

Secondly (and this really a general point), although a novel is just a novel and really that's all it is, these genre definitions and sub-genre (and sub-sub-genre) definitions can be very useful just for placing the style and general 'flavour' of a novel in a quick description to someone that hasn't read it. For such a system to work however we all need to be sort of singing from the same hymn book as to what's roughly what. There will be differences of course in some of the details, what with our differing opinions, but I'm willing to accept that - as long as you don't mind me disagreeing/discussing it with you! (and vice versa of course.)

Genres/terminologies are not boundaries to me, I see them more like the markings on a compass that allow me to navigate 400 years and many hundreds of thousands of works* in the enormous, vibrant, diverse and ever growing field that is the modern novel. (And like walking about in any field, you are always going to stand in sh*te of some sort no matter which direction you go )


* Actually probably many, many millions if I think about it....

 

[Ursa major]

...would have regarded Star Wars, or what I now know as Space Opera...

I think the designation, Space Opera, has nothing to do with how hard or soft a story is. Space Opera is more a description of the scale, scope and backdrop of a story than the degree to which it acknowledges and abides by the laws of physics.

So, for instance, Alastair Reynolds's Revelation Space novels and short stories are space operas and also quite** hard science fiction. And I think the Charles Stross' Saturn's Children series is hard SF, but written as space opera. (There's even interstellar travel in the latest book, but no laws of physics are deliberately broken.)

Oh, and Star Wars was, and is, Space Fantasy, more than SF. (The problem is that we often confuse Sci-fi with SF.)


** - There are two occasions where I've seen the hardness definitely slip, but one of these was in a short story (although it affects, unseen, other stories and books), and the other appears in only one book.

 

[Toby Frost]

Personally, I'm of the view that if it's got spaceships, it's science fiction and that's that. There are no subdivisions in my mind.

While I appreciate that being able to describe novels precisely is useful, I find a lot of these terms just seem to be a way of avoiding having to own up to being in the same genre as books whose styles you dislike. I'm not keen on the gate-keeping feel of it. It all seems to boil down to the view that real science fiction should be a more technically-feasible version of Arthur C Clarke, with less characterisation. Anything else is for wusses.

 

[Ursa major]

To be honest, I think I care less about whether something is hard or soft, and more about how random a story is in its handling of technology (or magic, for that matter). I like there to be consistent rules, in particular rules that don't change only because it's convenient to the story. And I can be forgiving: if an author can show how something very different is actually not that great a leap from what went before, I'll probably be okay with it.

I suppose it's as much a case of feeling that the author is cheating -- that I've been cheated -- that bothers me. It's the other side of the coin to when the author comes up with a solution whose genesis is not hidden, but which is really clever** (the side of the coin I really enjoy).


** - I've always liked magicians because I know they're doing something clever in order to fool me, not because I've ever believed in real magic. I suppose I get the same feeling watching instrumental virtuosi (a similar mixture of cleverness and dexterity) or people who can perform extraordinary physical feats (such as the Red Bull X-Fighters motorcyclists in Madrid that I happened to catch on the TV last weekend).

 

[Venusian Broon]

While I appreciate that being able to describe novels precisely is useful, I find a lot of these terms just seem to be a way of avoiding having to own up to being in the same genre as books whose styles you dislike.

Or to spin yourself as being at the forefront of a new 'movement'. I mean if you go banging on about it long enough, people will have a peek just to see what all the fuss is about.

I'm not keen on the gate-keeping feel of it. It all seems to boil down to the view that real science fiction should be a more technically-feasible version of Arthur C Clarke, with less characterisation. Anything else is for wusses.

I think its a large historical artefact that came about in the science fiction market of the 30s to 60s, I think there was a real feeling of massive progress - that humanity was going places. Science fiction wasn't just fiction, it was just showing us where we were heading. And therefore its stories had real hard science in them (after all we weren't going to get to the future by riding unicorns chasing elves.) A literature of concrete ideas perhaps. This has definitely lingered in the community.

However now that we've arrived and passed through their future we've discovered that progress isn't really what anyone expected. And part of the reason for that is that the SF of the past tended to forget about the humans and characters in their stories. (I know, I know I'm generalising - there will be loads of good books out there. But look, Arthur C. Clarke was the first big wad of SF that I ever read, me starting age 7, and he's great. He was the class A drug that made me fall into SF. The Fountains of Paradise I still think is a brilliant novel and one of my top-ten. However, I'd be hard pressed to name a memorable character from any of his books. Perhaps HAL from 2001 . Then there is Olaf Stapledon's Star Maker - definitely in my top five. Doesn't even have a plot, never mind characters.)

Therefore if anything now, I think to be described as hard science fiction is almost verging on derogatory a lot of the time, but that's IMHO.

 

[Toby Frost]

I think a lot of confusion comes from people mistaking "a literature of ideas" to mean "a literature of tech".

 

[psikeyhackr]

The offending quote?

"Doctor Who is hard science fiction."

Ask them to explain what causes winter and summer. They might be a Harvard graduate.

The problem is the lack of understanding of so much simple science rather than not knowing what is Hard SF. But if more people had a better understanding of science could they tolerate watching Dr. Who?

psik