On 3 Maj, 00:30, Ben Crowell <crowel...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> 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=92
> > *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=92t
> > write SF at all."
>
> Just because you can find two quotes
Witnessed them first-hand, actually.
> to support a certain point of
> view, that doesn't mean that an opposing point of view represents
> a "misconception."
No, not necessarily. But in this case I believe it does.
> 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.
Imagined science is part and parcel of writing fiction about science,
i.e. science fiction. SF is fiction about the myriad conceivable and
inconceivable possibilities of science. If the book's attitude is
properly scientific, then it can be defined as hard SF, whether or not
it features currently known science (a great example being Haldeman's
"Mindbridge"). But of course I agree that it shouldn't *violate*
currently known science unless it can find a really convincing way of
doing it.
> > 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.
*Actually*, by my definition no form of fantasy can be called SF, as
fantasy worlds almost always have magic and/or gods, and hence are not
based on a scientific world view. It's the basic world view that
determines whether something is science fiction or not.
> > 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.
Not was I was doing. I said that there isn't *necessarily* anything
intrinsically "soft" about the types of story usually referred to as
soft SF. Space opera *could*, if it were written that way, be hard SF.
- Tue Sorensen
|
