Good and hard
December 1, 2015 11:03 PM Subscribe
Health of Hard Science Fiction in 2015 (Short Fiction) - Greg Hullender of Rocket Stack Rank looks at whether this years stories support claims of doom for Hard SF.
I believe the death of hard SF have been reported periodically every ten years or so since the 70's.
posted by sammyo at 3:35 AM on December 2, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by sammyo at 3:35 AM on December 2, 2015 [11 favorites]
One of the tenets of Western Conservative Orthodox Hard SF mythology is that in the dim mists of the ancient past, there was a "Golden Age" in which towering figures of authorial power, more closely connected to the basic force of Science than can ever be achieved in our current degenerate age, wrote mighty tomes whose like can no longer be equalled. One common legend cycle speaks of the "Big Three", a kind of culture-hero myth about three mighty Golden Age warrior-brothers representing three different aspects of Hard SF, who along with their companions fought against a variety of genre opponents (such as the evil "critics") in various battles.
All of the "Golden Age" myth variants speak of the passing of this age of heroes with the start of a new, lesser era called the "New Wave". (And we all supposedly live in an even more debased period that came after the New Wave, a "Third Age" of science fiction, if you will.) Particularly zealous followers of WCOH-SF dogma say that most of the genre since that time is an abomination, and that to prevent themselves from becoming unclean, writers should create only works which do not violate a set of rules called "Known Science". Interestingly, these rules were violated all the time in the culture-hero legend cycles, but even so, writers who strictly adhere to them will supposedly someday join the greats in an afterlife known as the "Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Volume 4."
This is, they will tell you, necessary in order to keep science fiction a forward-thinking genre that looks to the future, unlike fantasy, which is inevitably mired in a misguided worship of the past.
posted by kyrademon at 4:11 AM on December 2, 2015 [67 favorites]
All of the "Golden Age" myth variants speak of the passing of this age of heroes with the start of a new, lesser era called the "New Wave". (And we all supposedly live in an even more debased period that came after the New Wave, a "Third Age" of science fiction, if you will.) Particularly zealous followers of WCOH-SF dogma say that most of the genre since that time is an abomination, and that to prevent themselves from becoming unclean, writers should create only works which do not violate a set of rules called "Known Science". Interestingly, these rules were violated all the time in the culture-hero legend cycles, but even so, writers who strictly adhere to them will supposedly someday join the greats in an afterlife known as the "Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Volume 4."
This is, they will tell you, necessary in order to keep science fiction a forward-thinking genre that looks to the future, unlike fantasy, which is inevitably mired in a misguided worship of the past.
posted by kyrademon at 4:11 AM on December 2, 2015 [67 favorites]
It's not dead, it's in cryosleep.
It isn't, of course, the place is crawling with people reading and writing the stuff. It's pretty pointless trying to define 'hard SF'; the FPP article is illustrated with a 2001: A Space Odyssey cover, a story that fails the article's own classification system. Clarke's magic maxim encompasses that dilemma - only it's no dilemma, because while it's a certain amount of fun to have the discussion it doesn't really matter. As a guide to finding more stuff you might like to read, it has some utility - but while I'd classify myself very much a hard SF fan with no discernible interest in wizards, the niceties come a long way behind good storytelling and engaging premises.
A more interesting question would be - is the genre, whatever it is, as capable of adding to the culture as it has been in the past? Who's writing now in ways that will echo for as long as, say, Ballard or Dick? The Martian will be around for a while as a rollicking adventure, and rah for that, but what'll be The Man In The High Castle in fifty years' time?
posted by Devonian at 4:14 AM on December 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
It isn't, of course, the place is crawling with people reading and writing the stuff. It's pretty pointless trying to define 'hard SF'; the FPP article is illustrated with a 2001: A Space Odyssey cover, a story that fails the article's own classification system. Clarke's magic maxim encompasses that dilemma - only it's no dilemma, because while it's a certain amount of fun to have the discussion it doesn't really matter. As a guide to finding more stuff you might like to read, it has some utility - but while I'd classify myself very much a hard SF fan with no discernible interest in wizards, the niceties come a long way behind good storytelling and engaging premises.
A more interesting question would be - is the genre, whatever it is, as capable of adding to the culture as it has been in the past? Who's writing now in ways that will echo for as long as, say, Ballard or Dick? The Martian will be around for a while as a rollicking adventure, and rah for that, but what'll be The Man In The High Castle in fifty years' time?
posted by Devonian at 4:14 AM on December 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
So, it's a thing that happens 10% slower than the death of REAL SCIENCE FICTION.
We need math to work this out.
posted by Mezentian at 4:16 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
We need math to work this out.
posted by Mezentian at 4:16 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
A more interesting question would be - is the genre, whatever it is, as capable of adding to the culture as it has been in the past? Who's writing now in ways that will echo for as long as, say, Ballard or Dick? The Martian will be around for a while as a rollicking adventure, and rah for that, but what'll be The Man In The High Castle in fifty years' time?
Hmm. I'd find it hard to say. And I could use the excuse that it's too early to tell, but if I think about fantasy there's a bunch of really obvious contenders there that SF lacks.
I suspect The Martian will survive more as a movie than as a book, which is good because the film has everything that's fun about it while mostly skipping the bad (ie terrible writing in third person sections, highly repetitious on the nuts and bolts stuff).
posted by Artw at 5:29 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hmm. I'd find it hard to say. And I could use the excuse that it's too early to tell, but if I think about fantasy there's a bunch of really obvious contenders there that SF lacks.
I suspect The Martian will survive more as a movie than as a book, which is good because the film has everything that's fun about it while mostly skipping the bad (ie terrible writing in third person sections, highly repetitious on the nuts and bolts stuff).
posted by Artw at 5:29 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
I recall long ago reading about the time a friend of Ray Bradbury's invited him to a tour of one of the NASA centers, probably Houston -- and how utterly surprised Bradbury was when he walked into the cafeteria and found most of the staff there eagerly waiting to meet him. He hadn't realized anyone there would know who he was.
Hard science fiction? My notion of the test of that is: do the kids who read the stuff grow up to do it.
By that measure, The Martian Chronicles is among the hardest SF ever written -- work that inspired the kids who grew up wanting to get us there.
posted by hank at 5:31 AM on December 2, 2015 [9 favorites]
Hard science fiction? My notion of the test of that is: do the kids who read the stuff grow up to do it.
By that measure, The Martian Chronicles is among the hardest SF ever written -- work that inspired the kids who grew up wanting to get us there.
posted by hank at 5:31 AM on December 2, 2015 [9 favorites]
Who's writing now in ways that will echo for as long as, say, Ballard or Dick?
There are those who argue that Ballard didn't really write science fiction at all, those who fall into the category of New Wave denialists that kyra mentions.
posted by tofu_crouton at 5:49 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
There are those who argue that Ballard didn't really write science fiction at all, those who fall into the category of New Wave denialists that kyra mentions.
posted by tofu_crouton at 5:49 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
The whole 'getting into near space' thing has happened now - OK, so we haven't got to Mars, but that's politics and money rather than Bold Exploration At The Limits Of The Achievable. There's no comparable niche for inspiration within the SF world now. Even should-be-trues-but-annoyingly-isn't like warp drive physics is mapped out, if you really truly want to go there in your life, and there's nothing anyone can do about immanentizing the Culture.
It's harder disentangling 'hard SF' from the dynamics of the Cold War than it is for the spy genre.
posted by Devonian at 6:25 AM on December 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
It's harder disentangling 'hard SF' from the dynamics of the Cold War than it is for the spy genre.
posted by Devonian at 6:25 AM on December 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm sitting here wondering if even Asimov's Foundation or robots count as hard SF by that first criterion.
posted by Andrhia at 6:28 AM on December 2, 2015
posted by Andrhia at 6:28 AM on December 2, 2015
There are those who argue that Ballard didn't really write science fiction at all, those who fall into the category of New Wave denialists that kyra mentions.
I don't deny the new wave.
But Ballard or Dangerous Visions, it wasn't well done, if you ask me.
posted by Mezentian at 6:36 AM on December 2, 2015
I don't deny the new wave.
But Ballard or Dangerous Visions, it wasn't well done, if you ask me.
posted by Mezentian at 6:36 AM on December 2, 2015
Dangerous Visions is a curate's egg. Some of it is quite good, some of it less so.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:38 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Chrysostom at 6:38 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Very meta of hard-SF defenders to use charts and rigorous definitions in their literary discussions.
posted by Etrigan at 6:43 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Etrigan at 6:43 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
I've been a science fiction buff for a long time, and it was early Hugo winner collections that sparked my interest, and those early volumes are mostly hard SF. I enjoyed it then, but have a hard time with it nowadays. I picked up a random, recent "The Year's Best Science Fiction" anthology not long ago and there were some great stories, but the hard SF stuff stuck out like a sore thumb. It just felt awkward, crude and childish.
I read a better example of the genre recently, and I was interested in the story and the characters, but the narration would routinely get bogged down with over explanation, and the characters' dialogue with each other was mostly them speaking Scientific American articles at each other. I get that the author is excited to share all these different ideas and technologies, but it was so frustrating to get through, killing any action and character development. It was like a Jack Chick tract, substituting Science! for Jesus.
There are so many writers now that can just incorporate big ideas without sacrificing character or storytelling. When science fiction was getting its legs, fine, allowances could be made. To me, these days, 'hard sci-fi' isn't so much a sub-genre as it is a term denoting poor writing.
posted by picea at 6:43 AM on December 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
I read a better example of the genre recently, and I was interested in the story and the characters, but the narration would routinely get bogged down with over explanation, and the characters' dialogue with each other was mostly them speaking Scientific American articles at each other. I get that the author is excited to share all these different ideas and technologies, but it was so frustrating to get through, killing any action and character development. It was like a Jack Chick tract, substituting Science! for Jesus.
There are so many writers now that can just incorporate big ideas without sacrificing character or storytelling. When science fiction was getting its legs, fine, allowances could be made. To me, these days, 'hard sci-fi' isn't so much a sub-genre as it is a term denoting poor writing.
posted by picea at 6:43 AM on December 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
There's no comparable niche for inspiration within the SF world now.
This is something I bang up against in writing all the time. It's hard to be a futurist right now, because it's increasingly difficult for imagination to outpace reality. Heck, for the last several books up until The Peripheral, even William "Cyberpunk" Gibson himself has been writing fiction set in pretty much the present day using technologies and arts that aleady exist, and that's being called SF.
posted by Andrhia at 6:45 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is something I bang up against in writing all the time. It's hard to be a futurist right now, because it's increasingly difficult for imagination to outpace reality. Heck, for the last several books up until The Peripheral, even William "Cyberpunk" Gibson himself has been writing fiction set in pretty much the present day using technologies and arts that aleady exist, and that's being called SF.
posted by Andrhia at 6:45 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
So, it's a thing that happens 10% slower than the death of REAL SCIENCE FICTION.
It only appears to happen 10% slower, to the outside observer, due to relativistic effects.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 6:45 AM on December 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
It only appears to happen 10% slower, to the outside observer, due to relativistic effects.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 6:45 AM on December 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
I believe the death of hard SF have been reported periodically every ten years or so since the 70's.
It just takes it that long to get out the Kuiper belt and back.
posted by Herodios at 6:55 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
It just takes it that long to get out the Kuiper belt and back.
posted by Herodios at 6:55 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'd say Watts is my favorite writer of hard SF these days, but it's pretty hard to call him inspirational.
posted by Artw at 7:07 AM on December 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Artw at 7:07 AM on December 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'm sitting here wondering if even Asimov's Foundation or robots count as hard SF by that first criterion.
Of course Foundation doesn't count. Anything with FTL travel fails the "educated layman" standard if you're trying to reason from a good general definition of hard SF to what examples of hard SF should be.
You could go the other way, looking at examples that people who like hard SF tend to call hard SF and figuring out what principles, if any, unite them and separate them from hard SF. What do Foundation and Known Space and so on have that soft SF doesn't? But the answer won't at all be that hard SF is scientifically accurate, because the stuff that people routinely call hard SF generally isn't. Instead, it's more that hard SF has a certain confident bluster about sciencey stuff, irrespective of whether that sciencey stuff is remotely accurate, and that there are explicit as-you-know-bob sections to highlight the sciencey stuff.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:10 AM on December 2, 2015 [8 favorites]
Of course Foundation doesn't count. Anything with FTL travel fails the "educated layman" standard if you're trying to reason from a good general definition of hard SF to what examples of hard SF should be.
You could go the other way, looking at examples that people who like hard SF tend to call hard SF and figuring out what principles, if any, unite them and separate them from hard SF. What do Foundation and Known Space and so on have that soft SF doesn't? But the answer won't at all be that hard SF is scientifically accurate, because the stuff that people routinely call hard SF generally isn't. Instead, it's more that hard SF has a certain confident bluster about sciencey stuff, irrespective of whether that sciencey stuff is remotely accurate, and that there are explicit as-you-know-bob sections to highlight the sciencey stuff.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:10 AM on December 2, 2015 [8 favorites]
I've seen 2001 called Hard SF, and that's so Space Gods that Kirby did a comic of it.
posted by Artw at 7:11 AM on December 2, 2015
posted by Artw at 7:11 AM on December 2, 2015
Anyway, hard SF in the sense of "SF that's at least as accurate as Foundation or Known Space" is doing fine. The most recent popular and big example might be the Expanse books (and tv show!), where the protomolecule etc aren't scientifically accurate at all but at least are presented as perplexing violations of known sciencey stuff.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:17 AM on December 2, 2015
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:17 AM on December 2, 2015
I'm very old school on this.
Hard SF: scintillating beams tearing the fabric of space and time asunder
Fantasy: magic swords doing magic swordy things.
I prefer the beams. I don't need them to come with circuit diagrams*.
(I also like fucking with reality. I don't care what, if any, genre claims Ballard, or really what he claimed for himself. Much of his stuff fits comfortably into a dust jacket with SF on the spine, and very comfortably in my head. When you're standing in a ruined city in the desert night, with evolution unravelling around you and Rigol singing its song to you overhead while past and future collapse sideways, you don't need no stinking badges.)
If it's well-written, intriguing, outward-looking, witty, sense-of-wonder stuff that acknowledges our culture is shaped by our technology and curiosity, then I'm going to be well-disposed towards it. Banks is probably the exemplar of my kind of SF.
(*although you can have circuit diagrams if you like, but you better use them as well as Walter Miller did in Canticle)
posted by Devonian at 7:30 AM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
Hard SF: scintillating beams tearing the fabric of space and time asunder
Fantasy: magic swords doing magic swordy things.
I prefer the beams. I don't need them to come with circuit diagrams*.
(I also like fucking with reality. I don't care what, if any, genre claims Ballard, or really what he claimed for himself. Much of his stuff fits comfortably into a dust jacket with SF on the spine, and very comfortably in my head. When you're standing in a ruined city in the desert night, with evolution unravelling around you and Rigol singing its song to you overhead while past and future collapse sideways, you don't need no stinking badges.)
If it's well-written, intriguing, outward-looking, witty, sense-of-wonder stuff that acknowledges our culture is shaped by our technology and curiosity, then I'm going to be well-disposed towards it. Banks is probably the exemplar of my kind of SF.
(*although you can have circuit diagrams if you like, but you better use them as well as Walter Miller did in Canticle)
posted by Devonian at 7:30 AM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'd bet that while a lot of "Mundane" sf meets the handwringers' definition of "hard" sf pretty well, some of these hard sf agitators (I'm thinking the libertarian-leaning technofetishists) don't like it likely because it puts emphasis on character and prose in addition to the Big Ideas(TM). I'm thinking stuff like Geoff Ryman, Alastair Reynolds, Kim Stanley Robinson, Maurren McHugh, Christopher Priest.
(I'm reminded of someone's (Auden's?) cheeky definition of porn - "it's what gets _me_ hard.")
posted by aught at 7:30 AM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
(I'm reminded of someone's (Auden's?) cheeky definition of porn - "it's what gets _me_ hard.")
posted by aught at 7:30 AM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
Rocket Stack Rank
Too long, too wordy, let's just tighten that up to Rocket Stank
posted by Wolfdog at 7:32 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Too long, too wordy, let's just tighten that up to Rocket Stank
posted by Wolfdog at 7:32 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Who's writing now in ways that will echo for as long as, say, Ballard or Dick?
Peter Watts. Greg Bear. Alalstair Reynolds. China Mieville, even. (seriously, "Embassytown" is fabulous.)
Jeez, even the most recent (32nd) Gardner Dozois anthology was *chock-full* of excellent SF. I enjoyed that one more than many of the recent years' issues.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 7:33 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Peter Watts. Greg Bear. Alalstair Reynolds. China Mieville, even. (seriously, "Embassytown" is fabulous.)
Jeez, even the most recent (32nd) Gardner Dozois anthology was *chock-full* of excellent SF. I enjoyed that one more than many of the recent years' issues.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 7:33 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Greg Egan writes SF as hard as diamond but (it feels like) nobody reads him. Because it's not just Hard SF, it's hard Hard SF.
Like I can't read it at bedtime because I won't understand the speculative science hard.
posted by leotrotsky at 7:39 AM on December 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
Like I can't read it at bedtime because I won't understand the speculative science hard.
posted by leotrotsky at 7:39 AM on December 2, 2015 [7 favorites]
I am extremely pleased to have read, "Out in the Oort cloud, teen-age Tereza and her sister just won a 4H club competition..." this morning, I must say.
posted by Wolfdog at 7:46 AM on December 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Wolfdog at 7:46 AM on December 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
I'll leave it to the purists to define their favorite Subgenre. As long as Ann Leckie is writing good stories, I don't care if some terrified white guy refuses to read it because she doesn't put in passages describing how the tech works.
posted by evilDoug at 8:12 AM on December 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by evilDoug at 8:12 AM on December 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
Greg Egan writes SF as hard as diamond but (it feels like) nobody reads him. Because it's not just Hard SF, it's hard Hard SF.
Greg Egan is one of the only SF authors who I consistently suspect of actually having lived in the future.
posted by Etrigan at 8:17 AM on December 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
Greg Egan is one of the only SF authors who I consistently suspect of actually having lived in the future.
posted by Etrigan at 8:17 AM on December 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
I honestly don't know if Asimov wrote a single "hard" scifi novel in his life. Maybe a few of the Robot stories. But the rest, they had FTL travel, which we've known since 1915 is impossible. Even 2001 has FTL travel without causality violations in the end, breaking the hard scifi barrier. Among Clarke's work, I think The Fountains of Paradise is hard scifi, and perhaps the first Rama book. The Golden Age of scifi was just as soft as the current age, only it had manly men doing manly things (sometimes to planets, sometimes to womanly women).
Hard scifi isn't dying as a subgenre, it was never really alive to begin with.
posted by Hactar at 8:32 AM on December 2, 2015
Hard scifi isn't dying as a subgenre, it was never really alive to begin with.
posted by Hactar at 8:32 AM on December 2, 2015
Egan is the heir to Hal Clement.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:54 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Chrysostom at 8:54 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
The Peripheral was a pretty thrilling vision of two futures though. It's not like it can't be done. Though ultimately that book was just a fun romp like the Martian was. Not a lot of big ideas to contend with.
posted by macrael at 9:05 AM on December 2, 2015
posted by macrael at 9:05 AM on December 2, 2015
I think it is colossally appropriate that an article about Hard SF begins (more or less) with a formal definition of "a good story."
This is a good post and I'm looking forward to sitting down and reading some of these.
posted by Wolfdog at 9:12 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is a good post and I'm looking forward to sitting down and reading some of these.
posted by Wolfdog at 9:12 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah I haven't worried about this since the days when I did the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs.
(Seriously, there's a *lot* of hard SF out there, and yes, only some of it is good; Sturgeon's law applies.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 9:36 AM on December 2, 2015
(Seriously, there's a *lot* of hard SF out there, and yes, only some of it is good; Sturgeon's law applies.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 9:36 AM on December 2, 2015
As far as Greg Egan goes, his novella, The Four Thousand, The Eight Hundred, is on the list of 22 good hard SF stories. It's the only one on the list with recommendations from three different reviewers. However, it appears to be the only short SF he wrote in 2015.
posted by Greg Hullender at 9:41 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Greg Hullender at 9:41 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yes, at least the author took the time to explain his classification system. And by the way, The Martian is an interesting classification example since it starts with that sandstorm on Mars, a planet without much of an atmosphere. The engineering in the story seems to be what many people mean when they say they want hard SF. I like some fictional science in my SF. Noticed recently that Babel-17 is available on Audible so my next credit is spoken for.
posted by kingless at 9:43 AM on December 2, 2015
posted by kingless at 9:43 AM on December 2, 2015
Looking at the comments, I notice that a few people seem to be making the assumption that to qualify as hard SF (by Rocket Stack Rank's definition) that the story must be perfect. That's not the case.
I think the exact wording of the definition is at fault here, so I've reworded it slightly. It originally said that "the science must be accurate enough that an educated layman can suspend disbelief," meaning "disbelief in the story," not "disbelief in the science." The whole idea of hard SF is that the science is real.
The changed definition says "the science must be accurate enough that an educated layman does not have to suspend disbelief." That makes it clearer, I think, that the big difference between hard and soft SF is that soft SF asks the reader to suspend disbelief in key bits of science and technology whereas hard SF does not. Sure, hard SF stories can have errors and omissions in them--everything does--but that doesn't turn them into soft SF.
A single error or two (e.g. the sandstorm in "The Martian") may be annoying, but as long as we can read past it, it doesn't ruin the story. So "The Martian" still qualifies as hard SF by our definition. Too many errors would have spoiled the story, but it still would have been hard SF--it just would have been bad hard SF.
Asimov's Foundation series and his robot novels cannot be read as hard SF (by our definition) because they're filled with "magical" technologies that are never explained and/or have no connection to real-world science; there is no psychohistory, there are no positronic brains, etc. They're still great stories that can still be enjoyed because Asimov folded all that stuff into the "what-if" and we happily suspend disbelief. They're not mistakes on Asimov's part--he fully intended us to suspend disbelief for his invented science and technology.
Hard SF is not better than soft SF or vice versa. They're simply different styles, and most people enjoy both.
posted by Greg Hullender at 10:22 AM on December 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
I think the exact wording of the definition is at fault here, so I've reworded it slightly. It originally said that "the science must be accurate enough that an educated layman can suspend disbelief," meaning "disbelief in the story," not "disbelief in the science." The whole idea of hard SF is that the science is real.
The changed definition says "the science must be accurate enough that an educated layman does not have to suspend disbelief." That makes it clearer, I think, that the big difference between hard and soft SF is that soft SF asks the reader to suspend disbelief in key bits of science and technology whereas hard SF does not. Sure, hard SF stories can have errors and omissions in them--everything does--but that doesn't turn them into soft SF.
A single error or two (e.g. the sandstorm in "The Martian") may be annoying, but as long as we can read past it, it doesn't ruin the story. So "The Martian" still qualifies as hard SF by our definition. Too many errors would have spoiled the story, but it still would have been hard SF--it just would have been bad hard SF.
Asimov's Foundation series and his robot novels cannot be read as hard SF (by our definition) because they're filled with "magical" technologies that are never explained and/or have no connection to real-world science; there is no psychohistory, there are no positronic brains, etc. They're still great stories that can still be enjoyed because Asimov folded all that stuff into the "what-if" and we happily suspend disbelief. They're not mistakes on Asimov's part--he fully intended us to suspend disbelief for his invented science and technology.
Hard SF is not better than soft SF or vice versa. They're simply different styles, and most people enjoy both.
posted by Greg Hullender at 10:22 AM on December 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
The fun and I guess "hard" bits of The Martian are the Mythbusters-in-space bits - everything else is there to support getting to them.
posted by Artw at 10:45 AM on December 2, 2015
posted by Artw at 10:45 AM on December 2, 2015
I like some fictional science in my SF.
You could go so far to say that any SF which depends entirely on known or currently-plausible science isn't really science fiction at all. Take a near-future climate-change dystopia which just extrapolates widely-accepted climate science - perhaps it has a bit more computer modelling which goes wrong - then is that SF rather than mainstream? Just because it happens in the future and continues current themes that have a scientific content? Or imagine someone made a film called Apollo 18 that didn't suck, but was just about, say, trying to rescue a lunar mission in the face of a deadly solar eruption. That's alternate history with a slight rearrangement of actual events as the kicker. (Well, it might need deus-ex-machina science: those guys would have been toast IRL.)
I don't have any particular problem calling either SF, but I think the argument that they aren't is as strong as 'only stuff with proven or plausibly extrapolated science is Hard SF'.
posted by Devonian at 10:47 AM on December 2, 2015
You could go so far to say that any SF which depends entirely on known or currently-plausible science isn't really science fiction at all. Take a near-future climate-change dystopia which just extrapolates widely-accepted climate science - perhaps it has a bit more computer modelling which goes wrong - then is that SF rather than mainstream? Just because it happens in the future and continues current themes that have a scientific content? Or imagine someone made a film called Apollo 18 that didn't suck, but was just about, say, trying to rescue a lunar mission in the face of a deadly solar eruption. That's alternate history with a slight rearrangement of actual events as the kicker. (Well, it might need deus-ex-machina science: those guys would have been toast IRL.)
I don't have any particular problem calling either SF, but I think the argument that they aren't is as strong as 'only stuff with proven or plausibly extrapolated science is Hard SF'.
posted by Devonian at 10:47 AM on December 2, 2015
there is no psychohistory
But there is neuroeconomics, which is almost the same.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 10:58 AM on December 2, 2015
But there is neuroeconomics, which is almost the same.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 10:58 AM on December 2, 2015
Well, ahem, finally clicked on the like, what a cool site! I had not seen RSR before, not too into short fiction at the moment but I need to make a cognitive association to find it again.
posted by sammyo at 11:13 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by sammyo at 11:13 AM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
You could go so far to say that any SF which depends entirely on known or currently-plausible science isn't really science fiction at all.
Yes, I'd say that exactly. Not enough fiction.
posted by kingless at 11:14 AM on December 2, 2015
Yes, I'd say that exactly. Not enough fiction.
posted by kingless at 11:14 AM on December 2, 2015
Asking who will be today's Ballard or Dick is impossible to answer as it is a question which is only resolved in retrospect. Ask again in 40 years and we'll know. I'd put forward some possibilities except I've never been as huge a fan as others. Oh, I recognize what they were doing as important but I just don't enjoy it at all. I'm more of a Vonnegut or Brunner guy.
Another aspect is that the genre walls, while still standing, are increasingly porous. Maybe the Ballard of today is somebody like Kazuo Ishiguro who sometimes writes SF but isn't generally seen as an SF author.
But the guy I generally measure quality by is not Ballard or Dick but Gene Wolfe. Who is the Gene Wolfe of today as well as the Gene Wolfe of 35 years ago! Long may he write.
posted by Justinian at 11:27 AM on December 2, 2015
Another aspect is that the genre walls, while still standing, are increasingly porous. Maybe the Ballard of today is somebody like Kazuo Ishiguro who sometimes writes SF but isn't generally seen as an SF author.
But the guy I generally measure quality by is not Ballard or Dick but Gene Wolfe. Who is the Gene Wolfe of today as well as the Gene Wolfe of 35 years ago! Long may he write.
posted by Justinian at 11:27 AM on December 2, 2015
Others have mentioned Egan but I will plug his Axiomatic as among the best single-author collections in the history of the genre. And, while controversial, I wouldn't immediately dismiss someone's claim that it was the finest.
posted by Justinian at 11:29 AM on December 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 11:29 AM on December 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
I don't know. I don't think Gene Wolfe has written anything really good since the Long Sun novels. YMMV, of course.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:34 AM on December 2, 2015
posted by Chrysostom at 11:34 AM on December 2, 2015
Chrysostom: Dangerous Visions is a curate's egg. Some of it is quite good, some of it less so.
Oh my yes. That's the beauty of it, at least for me: because it cuts across the quality spectrum, it gives us a really broad idea of what the New Wave was about, at least from Ellison's perspective.
posted by lodurr at 12:06 PM on December 2, 2015
Oh my yes. That's the beauty of it, at least for me: because it cuts across the quality spectrum, it gives us a really broad idea of what the New Wave was about, at least from Ellison's perspective.
posted by lodurr at 12:06 PM on December 2, 2015
I actually think Hard SF should die and be done with it.
Seriously, some of the stuff I see passed-off as 'hard SF' is straight-up woo. Especially all those stories about changing reality by doing math. I'm convinced that dressing that stuff up as hard SF does real harm to people's brains.
Meanwhile your average Nancy Kress story is harder-SF'nal than most of the stuff out there, but I doubt many of the old Hard SF chauvinists would stoop to classifying her as an exemplar.
posted by lodurr at 12:10 PM on December 2, 2015
Seriously, some of the stuff I see passed-off as 'hard SF' is straight-up woo. Especially all those stories about changing reality by doing math. I'm convinced that dressing that stuff up as hard SF does real harm to people's brains.
Meanwhile your average Nancy Kress story is harder-SF'nal than most of the stuff out there, but I doubt many of the old Hard SF chauvinists would stoop to classifying her as an exemplar.
posted by lodurr at 12:10 PM on December 2, 2015
Yeah, Dangerous Visions wasn't necessarily *great*, but it was *important.* This was the 95 Theses stating that the age of Kay Tarrant was over, and SF could actually talk about sex and stuff. Freedom Rock, man!
And then Again, Dangerous Visions came out, and it was less good AND less important.
And then The Last Dangerous Visions never came out at all.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:30 PM on December 2, 2015
And then Again, Dangerous Visions came out, and it was less good AND less important.
And then The Last Dangerous Visions never came out at all.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:30 PM on December 2, 2015
Greg Bear and his B-named friends told us on the 90s that there was noone writing hard -SF but them.
posted by Docrailgun at 12:37 PM on December 2, 2015
posted by Docrailgun at 12:37 PM on December 2, 2015
And then The Last Dangerous Visions never came out at all.
There's still time!
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:54 PM on December 2, 2015
There's still time!
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:54 PM on December 2, 2015
I'll give you my blaster when you pry it from my cold, dead cybernetic hands and / or waldos
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:57 PM on December 2, 2015
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:57 PM on December 2, 2015
Greg Egan is one of the only SF authors who I consistently suspect of actually having lived in the future.
He's totally an AI buried in a vault beneath the University of Melbourne. Ever seen a photo of him....? Hear of a convention appearance...? Case proved
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:58 PM on December 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
He's totally an AI buried in a vault beneath the University of Melbourne. Ever seen a photo of him....? Hear of a convention appearance...? Case proved
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:58 PM on December 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
Who's writing now in ways that will echo for as long as, say, Ballard or Dick?
Like 99.9% of science fiction readers know who Ballard is anymore. And let's face it, the only reason Dick has persisted is that so many of his works have been made into films and the originals get reprinted as media tie-ins. (And I wonder how popular Clarke would have remained if Kubrick hadn't made 2001.)
No slam on the quality of any of those writers, I just don't think quality is what makes an author persist in the reading public's attention on the scale of many decades (particularly in sf, where a lot of readers are interested in things other than the quality of plot, character, and prose style).
posted by aught at 1:31 PM on December 2, 2015
Like 99.9% of science fiction readers know who Ballard is anymore. And let's face it, the only reason Dick has persisted is that so many of his works have been made into films and the originals get reprinted as media tie-ins. (And I wonder how popular Clarke would have remained if Kubrick hadn't made 2001.)
No slam on the quality of any of those writers, I just don't think quality is what makes an author persist in the reading public's attention on the scale of many decades (particularly in sf, where a lot of readers are interested in things other than the quality of plot, character, and prose style).
posted by aught at 1:31 PM on December 2, 2015
And let's face it, the only reason Dick has persisted is that so many of his works have been made into films and the originals get reprinted as media tie-ins.
You'd be surprised. I've recently done some searching through various online library catalogs, particularly the ebooks, and Dick is well represented and not just what has been made into moves. For example, the Oakland library has 23 books by Dick in just the Overdrive collection. And Beyond Lies the Wub and Counter Clock World are not exactly his most famous works. In comparison, there's no Heinlein ebooks, through his biography is there (and there are some Heinlein audiobooks).
Something in Dick seems to speak to today's audience in ways that are not true of many of his once more famous contemporaries.
posted by tavella at 3:02 PM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
You'd be surprised. I've recently done some searching through various online library catalogs, particularly the ebooks, and Dick is well represented and not just what has been made into moves. For example, the Oakland library has 23 books by Dick in just the Overdrive collection. And Beyond Lies the Wub and Counter Clock World are not exactly his most famous works. In comparison, there's no Heinlein ebooks, through his biography is there (and there are some Heinlein audiobooks).
Something in Dick seems to speak to today's audience in ways that are not true of many of his once more famous contemporaries.
posted by tavella at 3:02 PM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
The weirdest thing about that to me is so very little of the weird off kilter nature of his stories, the uncertainess of reality that makes him unique translates to screen. If I say something is PKD-like I absolutely don't mean anything like any of the countless adaptations.
posted by Artw at 3:08 PM on December 2, 2015
posted by Artw at 3:08 PM on December 2, 2015
(notable exceptions: A Scanner Darkly, the pill scene in Total Recall - I guess maybe Confessions of a Crap Artist, I've not seen it.)
posted by Artw at 3:10 PM on December 2, 2015
posted by Artw at 3:10 PM on December 2, 2015
Most of the people I know who are Dick fans are not really sci-fi fans; they're 'literary' folk with an attraction to strange literature. He has a lot of crossover appeal.
posted by tofu_crouton at 3:32 PM on December 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by tofu_crouton at 3:32 PM on December 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
Curiously, A Scanner Darkly and Confessions d'un Barjo are probably the two most faithful PKD adaptations.
Though this is a tangent from a tangent; I agree that Hard SF is difficult to define but any definition that includes any significant number of stories by Philip K Dick is worthless. (He's my favorite SF author, but I'm not sure I'd consider anything he wrote Hard SF).
posted by mountmccabe at 3:34 PM on December 2, 2015
Though this is a tangent from a tangent; I agree that Hard SF is difficult to define but any definition that includes any significant number of stories by Philip K Dick is worthless. (He's my favorite SF author, but I'm not sure I'd consider anything he wrote Hard SF).
posted by mountmccabe at 3:34 PM on December 2, 2015
tavella: "Something in Dick seems to speak to today's audience in ways that are not true of many of his once more famous contemporaries."
I've always thought it was his heirs being better at marketing his works. Also his adapted works tend to be shorter than average making them easier to encapulate into a movie.
Certainly there are several RAH novels that would make excellent movies. Like say The Door into Summer (stripping out the creepy bits of the romance arc) and Starship Troopers (making sure to keep the power armour bits; what the hell were you thinking Paul Verhoeven).
posted by Mitheral at 3:41 PM on December 2, 2015
I've always thought it was his heirs being better at marketing his works. Also his adapted works tend to be shorter than average making them easier to encapulate into a movie.
Certainly there are several RAH novels that would make excellent movies. Like say The Door into Summer (stripping out the creepy bits of the romance arc) and Starship Troopers (making sure to keep the power armour bits; what the hell were you thinking Paul Verhoeven).
posted by Mitheral at 3:41 PM on December 2, 2015
Paul Verhoeven was thinking that he hated the Heinlein and was fine with appending the Starship Troopers brand onto a unrelated story, and uninterested in changing anything significant to do so.
posted by mountmccabe at 3:46 PM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by mountmccabe at 3:46 PM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
Greg Egan is one of the only SF authors who I consistently suspect of actually having lived in the future.
He's totally an AI buried in a vault beneath the University of Melbourne. Ever seen a photo of him....? Hear of a convention appearance...? Case proved
I am pretty sure I either live with you or am dating you, because my housemates and I have all also reached this conclusion about Gregan. That's why he has silly throwaway lines in stories like 'Closer' about AIs writing novels and stories. It's clearly referencing his being an AI.
anyway i'm super jazzed about the list; my partner and I are planning to read a bunch of them now.
posted by you could feel the sky at 4:18 PM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
He's totally an AI buried in a vault beneath the University of Melbourne. Ever seen a photo of him....? Hear of a convention appearance...? Case proved
I am pretty sure I either live with you or am dating you, because my housemates and I have all also reached this conclusion about Gregan. That's why he has silly throwaway lines in stories like 'Closer' about AIs writing novels and stories. It's clearly referencing his being an AI.
anyway i'm super jazzed about the list; my partner and I are planning to read a bunch of them now.
posted by you could feel the sky at 4:18 PM on December 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
do the kids who read the stuff grow up to do it
...like linguists who read Tolkien? And I wonder what people who grow up to joust started reading.
posted by clew at 9:31 PM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
...like linguists who read Tolkien? And I wonder what people who grow up to joust started reading.
posted by clew at 9:31 PM on December 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
This definition of "hard SF" seems awfully circumscribed to me. It would seem to rule out Vernor Vinge's masterwork, "A Fire Upon the Deep," simply because it offers faster-than-light travel — which he has explained in a way that does not violate the relativity we all know and love.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 10:37 PM on December 2, 2015
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 10:37 PM on December 2, 2015
I am pretty sure I either live with you or am dating you, because my housemates and I have all also reached this conclusion about Gregan.
You just need to readjust your tinfoil hats
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 1:34 AM on December 3, 2015
You just need to readjust your tinfoil hats
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 1:34 AM on December 3, 2015
He's my favorite SF author, but I'm not sure I'd consider anything he wrote Hard SF
He did write a fuckton of short stories so probably something in there counts by accident? It's not really his main thrust though.
I think Do Androids Dream of Electruc Sheep might come close, actually, it's mysticism being for the most part technologically mediated by brain stimulation, but I think there are hints that there's more to it than that, and he's not into providing replicant schematics or anything.
posted by Artw at 7:45 AM on December 3, 2015
He did write a fuckton of short stories so probably something in there counts by accident? It's not really his main thrust though.
I think Do Androids Dream of Electruc Sheep might come close, actually, it's mysticism being for the most part technologically mediated by brain stimulation, but I think there are hints that there's more to it than that, and he's not into providing replicant schematics or anything.
posted by Artw at 7:45 AM on December 3, 2015
This definition of "hard SF" seems awfully circumscribed to me. It would seem to rule out Vernor Vinge's masterwork, "A Fire Upon the Deep," simply because it offers faster-than-light travel
The way I see this is that the definition of hard SF offered by fans thereof is in huge, deep conflict with the set of works and authors that they call hard SF.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:31 AM on December 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
The way I see this is that the definition of hard SF offered by fans thereof is in huge, deep conflict with the set of works and authors that they call hard SF.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:31 AM on December 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
"Hard SF is what I point at when I say it."
posted by Chrysostom at 10:43 AM on December 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Chrysostom at 10:43 AM on December 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
I guess the Zones of Thought books have some concerns that would appeal to people interested in Hard SF in the 90s but I think they're pretty clearly Space Opera, as much as subgenre labels have any validity,
posted by Artw at 11:00 AM on December 3, 2015
posted by Artw at 11:00 AM on December 3, 2015
It occurs to me that under this definition (use of science or technology is key to the plot and accurate enough that an educated layman does not have to suspend disbelief), the hardest SF book I have read in recent years is probably Nicola Griffith's Hild.
posted by kyrademon at 3:43 PM on December 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by kyrademon at 3:43 PM on December 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Cstoss: Let me tell you what makes me yell when I kick the tires on an SF/F novel these days.
posted by Artw at 9:02 AM on December 6, 2015
posted by Artw at 9:02 AM on December 6, 2015
The comments are well worth reading on the linked post.
posted by Mitheral at 6:33 PM on December 6, 2015
posted by Mitheral at 6:33 PM on December 6, 2015
Jonathan Strahan Tells Us About MEETING INFINITY, the INFINITY Anthology Series, Editing and Reviewing
posted by Artw at 9:08 AM on December 8, 2015
posted by Artw at 9:08 AM on December 8, 2015
« Older Caño Cristales, the Colombian river that ran... | 12 Games For Christmas Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Maybe I don't spend enough time on WordPress?
posted by Mezentian at 3:18 AM on December 2, 2015