In general, science fiction comes in two broad categories - hard Sci-
fi and soft sci fi. Hard Sci-fi is that which is as consistent with
known science as possible - examples would be Timemaster by Robert
Forward, The Killing Star by Charles Pellegrino, or Contact by Carl
Sagan. While all involve some phenomenal technology, neither the
negative matter drive, the relativistic bomb, nor wormhole bridge are
explicitly forbidden by science. On the other hand you have soft sci-
fi, which encompasses everything from cyberpunk to anime to space
opera. Here the science takes a back seat or is thrown out the window
in favor of the story.
But are these definitions too rigid? Consider when complaints are
raised against books being hard sci-fi they focus on physics
violations - the ship has artificial gravity, shields, and goes FTL.
But there are more types of science then just physics. Science Fiction
is a genre defined by taking an idea, putting it in a fictional
setting and then applying science to determine what the effects of
this idea would be and what it would require. This broad definition is
what allows books like "10,000 leagues under the sea" to be considered
sci-fi though they lack the typical space ships. So what about books
that are examining ideas not relevant to physical sciences, but
instead behavioral, economic, or political.
Consider "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlein. It has FTL and
artificial gravity, which would under most conventions define it as
soft sci-fi. But Starship Troopers is not written about the marvels of
space travel. Starship Troopers is about military life and life in a
limited franchise republic. The ramifications of restricting the right
to vote to those who have served will have nothing to do with physics.
But it will affect economics, political science, and human behavior,
which is what the book explores. Or "Blindsight" by Peter Watts which
features vampires and teleportation but uses evolution, biology, and
game theory to discuss consciousness. On television we have the new
Battlestar Galactic which examines the response a society would have
in a near extinction scenario. The morality of throwing enemy
personnel out the airlock cannot be calculated, yet it still examines
the idea of it and its logical repercussions on everyone else in
accordance with behavioral science.
So should a book, movie, comic, etc that violates physics but does so
to examine an unrelated idea still fall under hard sci-fi so long as
it rigidly adheres to the scientific principles relevant to the idea
being examined?
I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
|
