On Friday 02 May 2008 20:55, Tue Sorensen wrote:
> On 17 Apr., 08:45, Daniel <Krous...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> My thoughts:
>
> 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."
>
> Some of the people here should give these lines a long, hard chew-
> over.
>
> 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.
[snip rest]
Philosophers never agree about anything. They never really do anything or
advance humanity. They just sit around and invent problems and
incomprehensible terminologies. All the while scientists are busy doing
actual research and development.
//Niels
|
