Tue Sorensen wrote:
> The idea that hard sci-fi should focus on known science is a common
> misconception. At Finncon 2007 hard SF writer Joe Haldeman said:
>
> "Hard SF is not about *accurate* science, but about the characters’
> *attitude* to [what the book presents as] science."
>
> Leading SF critic John Clute concurred and added: "To insist that SF
> should only feature known science is like saying that we shouldn’t
> write SF at all."
Just because you can find two quotes to support a certain point of
view, that doesn't mean that an opposing point of view represents
a "misconception."
Actually, I think the term "known science" may be an indication of
a common misconception about the nature of science, which is that
new scientific theories replace old ones wholesale. A story that
violates Newton's laws, within their realm of applicability, is
simply scientifically incorrect.
> Ultimately, the question of what hard sci-fi is, is as difficult to
> answer as the question of exactly what science is. And as you know the
> philosophers still aren't entirely in agreement about that. I think it
> becomes easier to relate to such questions if you stop talking about
> science and start talking about a scientific attitude. Once such an
> attitude is established, and supernatural silliness has been left
> behind, the universe is your oyster. Everything in the universe, and
> all aspects of its sentient inhabitants and their societies, become
> part of the realm of science; part of the scientific world view. The
> realm of sci-fi encompasses everything that is in any way - whether
> explicitly or symbolically - relevant to the development and self-
> understanding of secular humanity.
The definition you're proposing leads to absurd results. By your
criteria, The Hobbit could be called hard SF because Bilbo experiments
to see what the ring does, while Heinlein's Red Planet could not,
because the Martian characters show a lack of interest in science
and technology.
> Hard sci-fi may be a bit more specifically scientific; a bit tighter
> about the scientific elements (whether they comprise known science or
> educated speculations about future or alien science), but in the end
> hard sci-fi is simply one subgenre of science fiction which happens to
> emphasize (usually) the known laws of physics. Most sci-fi fans,
> including myself, tend to idolize hard sci-fi, but I'm finding myself
> becoming more openminded. Stories of the future which focus on social
> engineering (a la Heinlein) or grand visions of galactic colonization
> (a la space opera) are just as much sci-fi as the "hard" stuff. They
> discuss things that are relevant to human beings who understand the
> universe by way of a scientific attitude. And that, gentlemen, is the
> proverbial rub. The heart of science fiction is not science itself,
> but the exploration of the possible destinies of science-minded human
> beings.
>
> And lastly I want to emphasize that there is no law that states that,
> in space opera or other "softer" subgenres, science takes or should
> take a backseat to the story. The writer can put as much or as little
> science into the story as he or she cares to. It's the individual
> writer's choice. Provided of course the writer isn't bound by rigid
> definitions, believing in "one right way to do it" (which is often
> wrong), as unfortunately I think that many do. But that's ignorance.
> Or lack of imagination, which is practically the same thing.
You don't need to apply the label "hard SF" inappropriately in order
to argue that soft SF can be good SF.
|
