What is (qualifies as) Sci-Fi ?

**psikeyhackr** · October 7th, 2012, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by JoshuaD

anyone who doesn't want to read detailed descriptions about physical laws in fiction that can easily be read somewhere else (and probably for free) is a Luddite.

Would you care to tell me of a science fiction work with a detailed description of physical laws. I can't recall any off hand.

It amazes me how people exaggerate what I say.

All I have suggested is that we should have a system of evaluating SF hopefully in multiple characteristics so readers can better select what they like before they buy or read works. But it would be useful for giving grade school kids exposure to science. Personally I did no get a formal science course until my sophomore year in high school. But for me science fiction did make science more interesting than the science teachers I did get.

These are a couple of stories I would classify as hard SF but I don't see the detail you are talking about.

Omnilingual (1957) by H. Beam Piper
http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/03/sci...-qomnilingualq
http://www.feedbooks.com/book/308/omnilingual
http://librivox.org/omnilingual-by-h-beam-piper/

All Day September by Roger Kuykendall
http://www.feedbooks.com/book/2295/all-day-september
http://www.archive.org/download/shor...ll_bt_64kb.mp3

People describe some story as AWSOME or say they like some work and you don't have a clue what they liked about it. What good is that?

psik

**JoshuaD** · October 8th, 2012, 05:42 AM

I mean dry scientific detail in general, where they serve no purpose to the story. That's not to say that you can't give explanations if written well, but when that's the ''only'' point of the book then it's a problem.

I didn't find the Piper story to be particularly "hard". Jules Verne's stories were harder than that. For an example of a tr00 hard SF author is Gregory Benford.

Are you talking about reviews or just random forum posts?ws or just random forum posts? If it's the former then the reasons why something is "awesome" is usually given.

**JoshuaD** · October 8th, 2012, 06:18 AM

Double post.

**psikeyhackr** · October 8th, 2012, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by JoshuaD

I mean dry scientific detail in general, where they serve no purpose to the story.

The story Omnilingual talks the periodic table and the structure of the atom. That is hard science. It is well integrated into the story but it is still hard science.

It sounds to me like you cannot separate your evaluation of the science from your evaluation of the writing. I have never said that a story is good just because it has hard science. I have only said it should be evaluated as a characteristic of stories that claim to be science fiction.

psik

**JoshuaD** · October 8th, 2012, 12:14 PM

I don't believe using hard science is the only criteria for something to be "hard SF".

**psikeyhackr** · October 8th, 2012, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by JoshuaD

I don't believe using hard science is the only criteria for something to be "hard SF".

http://hardsf.org/

It is like historical fiction in that the historic events and characters are correct but scenes may be reproduced with historical characters for which data is not complete. Maybe we know the George Washington and Benjamin Franklin met on such and such a day but have no idea why or what they discussed. So an author can create a fictional event that is plausible in relation to what is known about their personalities and the events at the time.

The hardest SF may have no unknown science, only extrapolations of the known. Like extrapolating more dense CPU chips but no FTL.

Therefore, regardless of the typical stylistic flourishes of hard SF, the only way to define it is self-consistency and scientific accuracy.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...ictionHardness

psik

**SR_Seldon** · October 8th, 2012, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr

http://hardsf.org/

Nice link. Very informative.

The hardest SF may have no unknown science, only extrapolations of the known. Like extrapolating more dense CPU chips but no FTL.

That is exactly the way I think of it. I'm not entirely sure how strict the genre label of hard sf sticks to this, but this is how I think of hard sf.

**JoshuaD** · October 8th, 2012, 05:24 PM

I know that hard science fiction should use hard science and that the science can be played with as long as it doesn't contradict our own laws of the universe, but what I'm saying is that that's not the only thing it should have. For me hard science fiction should be both scientifically accurate as well as scientifically focused. So a near-future cyberpunk tale with technology similar to our own, that's mainly about an inspector looking for stolen tech that's not explained in detail wouldn't be hard SF, even though the science isn't completely made up.

**mylinar** · October 9th, 2012, 11:41 AM

I enjoy this thread, the discussions even when a bit heated all do bring something to the playing field. I can't remember if this was proposed in the past, but how about 4 categories of SF like the following:

Science Fiction - rigorious hard SF of the type Baxter writes (or Clarke) where everything is either well known, or a not-so-great leap from that.

Science fiction - Good science which is important to the story, perhaps to the point there would be no story without it. Maybe the Moon is a Harsh Mistress would fit here, though probably better above.

science Fiction - Where science is there, possibly even central, but can be left as either assumed or handwaved away and that the emphasis is on the people and the lives they lead. Hyperion perhaps

science fiction - This would be about the place were a story begins to blur between SF and fantasy. The science is there and can serve as a backdrop but is also subsumed to support the story even if it made a scientist cringe.

**owlcroft** · October 9th, 2012, 03:40 PM

Why does anyone feel a need to categorize, much less sub-categorize, works? If the designation "fiction" be not sufficient, then surely "speculative fiction" should suffice. (What used to be called, well before anyone thought to distinguish, say, Verne and Wells from Dunsany and Morris, "fantastic fiction", which included fiction based on extrapolated science.) It's a freakin' book. I can see folk--like myself--who have a taste for the unusual being interested in books wherein things somehow work differently than they do in the mundane consensus world around us, but feeling some urgent need to categorize beyond that has always struck me as pointless. Sure, à chacun son goût and all that, but, to me, incomprehensible.

**CaptainZ** · October 9th, 2012, 07:04 PM

Anything scientific but put in the realm of extreme exaggeration.
Outer Space= real. Others worlds=real.
Beings on that world=????
Bring in Fiction. Science Fiction

**psikeyhackr** · October 9th, 2012, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by mylinar

science Fiction - Where science is there, possibly even central, but can be left as either assumed or handwaved away and that the emphasis is on the people and the lives they lead. Hyperion perhaps

Flying trees and a woman ageing backwards but only when she goes to sleep?

I regard it as fantasy/horror.

psik

**psikeyhackr** · October 9th, 2012, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by CaptainZ

Anything scientific but put in the realm of extreme exaggeration.
Outer Space= real. Others worlds=real.
Beings on that world=????
Bring in Fiction. Science Fiction

When did the other worlds become real? When was the first exo-planet found?

Were the worlds not real before that?

psik

**SR_Seldon** · October 9th, 2012, 10:35 PM

I quite agree with you that genre categories are artificial. However, it is useful when you happen to like a particular kind of story. Categorizing lets you find what you are interested faster. And our book retailers live by genre. Every book must be sorted into its appropriate genre. Those are the two big thing that drive it.

**mylinar** · October 10th, 2012, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by owlcroft

Why does anyone feel a need to categorize, much less sub-categorize, works?

All I can say to this is that is seems to be human nature to categorize everything. Even worse many categories are not even well defined: 'Us' vs. 'Them', 'Good Guys' vs. 'Bad Guys', 'Liberal' vs. 'Conservative' (no matter how much over lap between positions these categories are both applied to others and wrapped around the self). Now we're are getting into philosophy though and have left the original thread in tatters.