A rant about Sci-fi

[Datepalm]

Incidentally, I'm baffled by shah's mention of Bester and Shelley as writers of "hard sci-fi". Surely they're extremely soft sci-fi?

EDIT: that said, it seems to me that there are four different hard/soft dichotomies here:

1. "Hard" SF is rigorous and plausible, while "soft" SF is unsupported by evidence or even contravened, or else doesn't care about how justified it is

2. "Hard" SF is based upon exploring the developments of the scientific assumptions, while "soft" SF only uses those assumptions as a background setting

3. "Hard" SF puts its 'scientific' content front-and-centre, while "soft" SF hides it in the background

4. "Hard" SF is concerned with ideas in the physical sciences, while "soft" SF is concerned with the social sciences.

And some of the definitions are inherently contradictory - either Soft SF is concerned with the social sciences or it puts science in the background. The best can be both - solid scientific ideas and interesting explorations of social consequences (and of course one expects decent plot, characterization and prose from everything.) Something like Foundation is pure social sciences, but its a story thats completely science fiction - you can't replace the space ships with dragons and get the same thing at all.

[Zoë Sumra]

The least bit of geeking out, intellectual rigor, or difficult to empathise with protagonist, and BAM! Down the rabbit hole it goes. This effect *really* tends to hurt female authors and books with female or minority protagonists.

... so women and people of colour are as impenetrable and difficult to understand as technobabble?

:rofl:

[The Evil Hat]

Heh, some of y'all are so clueless that you don't realize that the majority of the finest hard science (relative to contempoary peers) are inextricably linked to social justice. One of the best recent books, The Windup Girl, is all about that (tho' me personally would label it steampunk). From Frankenstein to Cyteen. Alfred Bester and Theodore Sturgeon will alway smush Flash Gordon. Because oddly enough (to some people), hard science lends itself to speculating on this sort of thing, with more credibility than if it was done with fantasy.

But that has nothing to do with what anyone here is saying. Is there a single person in this thread who said that no Hard SF book has any worthwhile content? I don't believe there is. Instead, people are saying that SCIENCE AND SCIENCE ALONE does not make your book worthwhile. Therefore, a SF book that encompasses strong, plausible science, believable characters, and strong themes will be an excellent book - because of all of those things and the science. A SF book that includes plausible science, but none of the rest of the list, is not an excellent book, because it only succeeds in a single category. No one is saying that a book can't do both, what we're saying is, in fact, that it must do both to be a worthwhile book..

[Doran Doran]

Again, it's interesting to find that science is apparently the only place that depth can be found. The fact that your science fiction book is scientifically flawless does not necessitate that it is a deep, or even decent, work.

Certainly, I haven't claimed that "science is [...] the only place that depth can be found". It would be ludicrous to read Sophocles, Stendhal, Shakespeare, Molière, Conrad or King and grade them according to scientific accuracy.

But in the science fiction genre - the word is there for a reason - better than half the interest had better come from educated speculation about the nature of the universe as we understand it and what consequences that has for the human condition. If you strip that out and replace it with "Pride & Prejudice... IN SPAAAAACE!" it doesn't much matter if Pride and Prejudice is otherwise a fine piece of entertainment. As science fiction it leaves something to be desired.

And all I'm saying is that as the share of the populace that can actually even see a difference between interesting speculation based on our understanding of the world and genuine Star Trek-style technobabble implodes, so does the market for genuinely interesting science fiction. When people can't even begin to understand what speculation is on offer, because it might as well be Chinese written with Arabic script as far as they are concerned, the genre will die and be replaced with futuristic fantasy - human interest stories with laser guns. This is already happening.

[Serious Callers Only]

Mormont, do you actually needle can get through the Fall Revolution tetrology? It's not particularly demanding on the think side of things, but it's pretty demanding on the background knowlege sort of thing, Communist history, what some of the technobabble (and most of the tech stuff there is babble) means, etc, etc.

Even i can see you are stepping over into the personal here.

Thread lightly and do not troll lest you be trolled back.

[mormont]

Needle, I asked Mormont to make a certain point about the ridiculousness of his attitude! Because Mormont DOES essentially set himself up as an "impartial arbitrator" if you follow his reasoning all the way through.

So, despite the fact that I explicitly say I'm not doing something, and I don't think I am doing it, if you 'follow my reasoning all the way through' I actually am?

Doesn't that mean that you are the one setting yourself up as an 'impartial arbitrator' of my posts? ;)

Cheap circular argument, I know. But it's the best I could do. Comes of being so clueless, I suppose. ;) (Though I did read, enjoy and nominate for a Hugo 'The Windup Girl', which its author, I think, would be very surprised to hear described as either hard sci-fi or steampunk.)

It's not a game, it's the essence of a worthwhile life.

If responding to every explanation with an automatic and unadorned 'why?' is the essence of a worthwhile life, I'm rather glad I have my life instead of a 'worthwhile' one.

This is not exactly Socratic enquiry, although possibly Socrates did it when he was five. It contributes nothing to the discussion.

You made what, on the face of it, is a preposterous claim - preposterous both in its narcissistic scope and in its shear... weirdness.

It's 'preposterous' and 'weird' to suggest that art is inherently about communicating with an audience, and that a work of art that doesn't do this is a failure?

Well, OK. I am strongly tempted to ask you what you think the purpose of art is, in that case, but I don't think there would be much point - I don't think we could have a sensible conversation about it. As it is, I will only say that you don't have to go far to find people from all walks of life, from lay people to serious art historians, who would think it a valid and even mundane view.

Ahh, personal flaming, what a surprise again.

No personal flaming there. It was a general comment, not directed at you - and I don't think a reasonable person could count it as 'flaming' even if it were. 'Too invested in their own cleverness' is hardly personal abuse.

Well, in any case, you may hate me as much as you want, and call me whatever names and impute whatever ridiculous motivations to me you may choose, but that doesn't make my views or tastes invalid.

This is just bizarre. Hate you? I don't even know you. I have no personal feelings towards you to speak of at all, still less strong ones. As Groucho Marx once put it: 'I have nothing but respect for you. And very little of that.' :P

In the 100 Books poll I did here, I seem to recall Gene Wolfe being number three in popularity!

Another non-sequitur, I'm afraid, unless you're claiming I suggested Wolfe is impenetrable. If so, I have no idea why. I have not said a word about Wolfe.

A purer example here is music: in a symphony, there is no "content" of any kind. A symphony is inherently impenetrable

Of course it isn't. I love symphonic music and can think of many examples that communicate joy, sadness, wonder, the whole range of human emotion. I can think of others that fail to do so. Music is an art form the same as any other.

But then, since last time we argued you said that all abstract argument and intellectual exercise was worthless, I guess I should no longer be surprised by the luddism.

Well, no I didn't, but whatever.

Er... it was your entire point. No art without an audience and all that? Without being published you're a failure?

Er, no it wasn't. I said that if an artist can't get through to his audience, he's a failure. Publicity might facilitate that process, but it is not that process, and I did not discuss publicity. It is better to address what someone actually says that to tell them what they're talking about.

Oh, a pun - how wittily touché! Although coming from someone accusing the rest of us of being "too invested in our own cleverness"...

I never claimed it was the height of cleverness: it's just a little joke, dude. Lighten up. :)

[Serious Callers Only]

But that has nothing to do with what anyone here is saying. Is there a single person in this thread who said that no Hard SF book has any worthwhile content? I don't believe there is. Instead, people are saying that SCIENCE AND SCIENCE ALONE does not make your book worthwhile. Therefore, a SF book that encompasses strong, plausible science, believable characters, and strong themes will be an excellent book - because of all of those things and the science. A SF book that includes plausible science, but none of the rest of the list, is not an excellent book, because it only succeeds in a single category. No one is saying that a book can't do both, what we're saying is, in fact, that it must do both to be a worthwhile book..

Not true. There is one of the Asimov Robot short stories that i don't remember the name that is a pretty dull who-dunnit (face it Asimov wasn't the most accomplished writer), but that is fascinating because it is only possible because one variable from normal environment was lifted (i think it was gravity and linear momentum ie the second law of movement).

[Lark the Sisterman]

It's not a game, it's the essence of a worthwhile life.

And I thought love was the essence.

Foolish romantic me.

:blushing:

[Galactus]

The Windup Girl is, as far as I can see (I haven't read the book, but I've read the thread on it :P) the essence of soft Sci-Fi.

Asimov is, especially in Foundation, a soft-SF writer: The tech in it makes very little sense even at the time. (and Asimov was well aware of this) but the social mechanics and ideas are well-thought-out: that's soft SF, fiction grown from the soft sciences: History, sociology, economics.

[The Evil Hat]

Certainly, I haven't claimed that "science is [...] the only place that depth can be found". It would be ludicrous to read Sophocles, Stendhal, Shakespeare, Molière, Conrad or King and grade them according to scientific accuracy.

But in the science fiction genre - the word is there for a reason - better than half the interest had better come from educated speculation about the nature of the universe as we understand it and what consequences that has for the human condition. If you strip that out and replace it with "Pride & Prejudice... IN SPAAAAACE!" it doesn't much matter if Pride and Prejudice is otherwise a fine piece of entertainment. As science fiction it leaves something to be desired.

And all I'm saying is that as the share of the populace that can actually even see a difference between interesting speculation based on our understanding of the world and genuine Star Trek-style technobabble implodes, so does the market for genuinely interesting science fiction. When people can't even begin to understand what speculation is on offer, because it might as well be Chinese written with Arabic script as far as they are concerned, the genre will die and be replaced with futuristic fantasy - human interest stories with laser guns. This is already happening.

I stand corrected; I get your distinction now. The fundamental difference in our opinions is that I think that SF's only purpose isn't necessarily speculatory, but is, like every other form of literature, to tell a story that can, if it happens to be, be speculative in nature. I would consider Pride and Prejudice and Zombies Space to be an excellent book, providing we're living in a world without Pride and Prejudice standard, at least, and would therefore overlook it not being a particularly good science fiction story (as far as SF = speculative).

Not true. There is one of the Asimov Robot short stories that i don't remember the name that is a pretty dull who-dunnit (face it Asimov wasn't the most accomplished writer), but that is fascinating because it is only possible because one variable from normal environment was lifted (i think it was gravity and linear momentum ie the second law of movement).

Now, I haven't read the story in question, so I can't comment on it specifically, but, from your description, it's NOT just about the science. The plot is the mystery; it is interesting because of the science. The science adds depth, but it's integrated into the story. It is (presumably) not told in a ten page info dump with the whodunit being nothing but a glorified frame.

[slim da reaper]

Blade runner = ambiguity, and it's ambiguity that makes for great fiction.

Was Deckard an android? Actually should it matter? What is it to be human, define being human.

[Poobah]

Blade runner = ambiguity, and it's ambiguity that makes for great fiction.

Was Deckard an android? Actually should it matter? What is it to be human, define being human.

Well said. +1 all day long.

[williamjm]

Incidentally, I'm baffled by shah's mention of Bester and Shelley as writers of "hard sci-fi". Surely they're extremely soft sci-fi?

EDIT: that said, it seems to me that there are four different hard/soft dichotomies here:

1. "Hard" SF is rigorous and plausible, while "soft" SF is unsupported by evidence or even contravened, or else doesn't care about how justified it is

2. "Hard" SF is based upon exploring the developments of the scientific assumptions, while "soft" SF only uses those assumptions as a background setting

3. "Hard" SF puts its 'scientific' content front-and-centre, while "soft" SF hides it in the background

4. "Hard" SF is concerned with ideas in the physical sciences, while "soft" SF is concerned with the social sciences.

I was confused about the Bester thing as well, admittedly I've only read The Stars My Destination so it may be different for his other books, but I'd consider tSMD to be almost a textbook example of soft-SF (and a very good one).

The four criteria you mention do seem to be a good summary of what makes something hard-SF. I'd say they are not quite independent, 1 is fundamental to something being hard-SF and I wouldn't consider something to be hard-SF if the science wasn't plausible even if met the other criteria. For example, considering tSMD again the whole plot and most of the world-building is based on the exploration of the main SF idea in it which meets the second criteria and you could probably argue a case for 3 and 4 to some extent, but since the SF idea (that you can teleport if you concentrate really hard) is so implausible I'd say that disqualifies it from being hard SF.

These four are all related, but are all independent. From how it sounds here, the Atrocity Archives seems to be "soft" by 1 and 2, but "hard" by 3 and 4.

It's a supernatural fantasy about fighting demons and Elder Gods so I wouldn't say it is "hard" according to any of the criteria, no matter how much scientific jargon Stross may throw in among the Lovercraft and James Bond references.

[slim da reaper]

Incidentally, I'm baffled by shah's mention of Bester and Shelley as writers of "hard sci-fi". Surely they're extremely soft sci-fi?...............

........"Frankenstein" is "hard" only by 4, and "soft" by the other three - the mechanics by which Frankenstein is created, and their plausibility, is irrelevant to the plot.

These are just thoughts but let me turn this around if you will. Can something which relies to much on hard science technical standards most likely be science fantasy? For it is a fantasy that we can know reality, to actually know reality is to believe we are omnipotent.

God is dead, long live God. We killed God now his creator is known, it was us, individually each of us, we create it all.

We need to come to terms with the fact we are not omnipotent, clearly, not doing this has and does create extremely serious problems, for if you are omnipotent you can do as you please.

Frankenstein says more about science than those hard science fantasies. They are the bad definition of fantasy, an enclosed dream that bears little relation to anything else.

The good definition is anything that brings to our awareness the nature of existence through hypothetical thought.

[Bellis]

Well, to paraphrase Gene Wolfe, all writers of fiction write fantasies. Some are more honest about it.

[shah8]

Alfred Bester compared to his peers during the 50s.