[MilSF1]

At the risk of bringing up the dreaded "What is SF" Question, I have a question for y'all. I'm planning, at some point to write a story, or series of stories, set in a culture that develops from a small (<40) group of survivors of humanity (think Heinlein's Tunnel in the Sky without any rescue)

The societal structure is dominated by the fact of the limited gene pool, and the structured society/culture that they create to keep "founders' effects" from creeping in. With my background in anthroplogy, sociology, and history, I feel I can make these stories "faithful" enough to the principles of the above fields to consider it hard sf.

The question would be do you, the semi-general public, feel that there is enough science is "social sciences" for such a story to be considered sf, much less hard sf? There is the element of genetics there, but the weight of the story will rest on the anthropology. Needless to say I have my own opinion http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

(Heck, if this thread actually gets any responses, I might even WRITE the stupid thing instead of just talking about it http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif )

[Shehzad]

Here's your response--

I don't know how others see it but I would look at the NATURE of the science you're using and then decide whether it is HARD SF or not.

Certainly, extensive use of the sociel sciences would tend to mollify the "HARD" factor, but I would still consider it SF.

[MilSF1]

I guess that would go to the definition of what "hard" sf is. Does it mean the use of concepts from "hard" sciences such as physics, math, and biology. Or could the definition include relatively tight adherance to the principles of "softer" sciences such as anthroplogy, psychology, sociology, etc? I'm more inclined towards the second definition (duh http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif ) Though admittedly pretty much all the stories I've read that are classed as "hard" sf deal with extrapolations of priciples within "hard" sciences.

Maybe this has to do with the fact that these sciences provide a definate jumping off point for writers to extrapolate from (light speed barrier, space-time theory, etc) The science of the social sciences is so, hmmm.. I guess... specialized in some respects that it's hard for people to tell what's been extrapolated, and from where. (No real equivalent of Newton's second law in sociology http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif )

Heck, I don't even know if I'm making any sense right now. Then again, it's REALLY late here and I am a bit tired. http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Shehzad]

What about Asimov's psychohistory? Isn't that the example of an enitre series based on a social science? I'm sure I can think of others given time.

[Penumbra]

I agree with Shehzad. Perhaps it depends upon just how you plan to bring out the technical matters to substantiate your premise. Hard SF generally involves more complex jargon than soft and provides readers with believable explanations that drive the story. I think you can do that anthropologically speaking.

[Banana]

I think maybe a lot would depend on the plot?

But what matters most is if it's interesting, right? If it's a good book, who cares where it gets pegged? I really enjoy Elizabeth Hand's books (some more than others) but rarely find her in science fiction or fantasy.

You could argue that most of LeGuin's books are anthropology based (which makes sense when you think about her dad and all). I love 'em. Well, I found 'The Dispossessed' hard to get through, but now I'm just rambling. Sleepy time.