[Keyoke]

What the heck is "Hard" scifi? Every time I see this quoted at the back of book, it actually turns me away from it. I get the impression it's going to be alot of goobly talk about physics, etc.

Or, how I read "Hard" scifi is boring? I know I am wrong on this assumption, but, what the heck is hard scifi??

Plus, give me a few examples of what hard scifi is.

Thanks!

Keyoke :)

[fluffy bunny]

i interpret as:
1. the science takes center stage, not the fiction.
2. Some crappy attempt at marketing in an attempt to make it stand out.

[fortytwo]

Yes, the main emphasis of the story is focused on the science.Say Robots,Black Holes,FTL,Nuclear Power,Lasers,Rockets etc.That's probably the easy part. Opinions vary sometimes on whether a story is "hard sf" or not.
I suppose an example could be 2001 A Space Odyssey,where Clarke has Hal the computer going off the rails

[Shef]

I believe that hard sci-fi is fiction that has science that is deemed possible. They use things such as conservation of energy and our physics. Some say that it is also the natural evolution of the science that we have today. I know there was a magazine in the U.S. that focuses primarily on hard SF. I think the name is (or was) Analog.

Hope that helps,
Shef

[Hobbit]

'Hard' SF is that part of the genre which has a firm grounding in Science/Maths, or an extrapolation of current scientific thoughts.

They are often writers who are/have been scientists before - Authors such as Greg Bear, Stephen Baxter, Greg Benford, Robert Forward, Arthur C Clarke, Hal Clement are all good examples. Tau Zero by Poul Anderson is a good example of this (and one of the best Hard Sf books I know!).

Views are divided on these - they can be long winded books filled with scientific highfoluting gobbledygook at the expense of character development; alternatively they do give an idea of the strangeness that is 'out there', whose ideas are enough for any deep thinker and who generate the sense of wonder often needed in SF.

So - think 'neutron stars, black holes, death of galaxies/universes', BIG science, etc then generally = Hard SF.

Alternatively, 'character driven' books, more interested in 'how people feel' than what is 'out there' (ie: most St*r Tr*k and St*r W*rs novels) then 'soft' SF. Anne McCaffrey is a good example of this one, whose work could be Mills and Boon set anywhere if it wasn't for the odd Sf word and name here and there. (actually, I'm being a bit harsh - she can write a good page turner when she puts her mind to it).

There are of course exceptions to every generalisation.

:)

[cgw]

I don't know how it is intended by publishers but to me it means the world as we know it only more advanced. This generally would mean space orientated (space operas, etc.). It would not inlcude fantasy/sci fi cross overs, cyber punk, etc.
Asimov's Pebble in the Sky is perhaps an example.
I don't think of it as science heavy.
I tend to prefer more fantasy/SF cross over (includeing something like Dune) in part because I would rather read something where the science is totally fantastic then read a book where the author may have half a clue how things work and tries to be realistic. The problems with their "real" science tend to stick out.

[SusF]

Hard SF can't have good characterization? I think Greg Bear and Ben Bova are really good at characterization, and they are definitely hard SF.

Susan

[Hobbit]

I did say there were exceptions, Sus...... and I was trying to give the general view of how many see the genre, even if it's not always true! :)

[fortytwo]

quote from Hobbit
"then 'soft' SF. Anne McCaffrey is a good example of this one, whose work could be Mills and Boon set anywhere if it wasn't for the odd Sf word and name here and there. (actually, I'm being a bit harsh - she can write a good page turner when she puts her mind to it)."

Having just read The Rowan, the first book of The Tower and Hive series I agree with you 100%.
Really a sloppy story and every now and again she throws in something to remind you that it's meant to be science fiction.It's easy to read but not very stimulating.

42

[SusF]

When I think about it, most of the classic hard SF is less character driven than the hard SF of today. Most of the modern hard SF writers have good characterization.

I am a person who notices and wants good characters. I won't watch a TV show if I don't care about the characters (never could get into Babylon 5 because they just didn't interest me).

I am happy to see that writers are realizing you can do both good science and good characterization in the same book.

Susan