Re: Hard Sci-fi?

Remus Shepherd skreiv:

> Hard science fiction works hard to suspend disbelief in the reader, 
> working from scientific principles that we know are true today.  
> ("The pointy ears are chimeric cartilage, altered in utero by that sect
of 
> star-trek worshipping wackjobs that he grew up in.  And the sword uses 
> liquid gallium-filled chambers, controlled by magnetic actuators that 
> enhance balance and increase the power of any swing.  Cool!")

Trying to explain things which are probably impossible frequently hurts 
suspension of disbelief though, because since we know no actually 
PLAUSIBLE explanation, whatever the author comes up with is likely to be 
implausible. The sword explanation, for example, from above, sounds like 
nonsense, besides being a rube-goldberg contraption of the first order.

I don't like the requirement for explanations. Why would a story that is 
completely plausible in every way (i.e. as far as we currently know, 
this could actually happen in 50 years) not qualify as hard sci-fi, just 
because it does not do anything to -explain- the progress made ?

For example, I see no physical reason elf-ears are impossible. If I read 
a story set in the future where these where somewhat common, and this 
wasn't explained in any way, besides mentioning that they where a 
popular modification in some sub-cultures. Why does it matter that the 
method ain't explained ? There are any number of plausible ways such a 
mod could be performed.


	Eivind