On 3 Maj, 08:53, Niels <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Saturday 03 May 2008 02:12, Tue Sorensen wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I disagree here, it should be "Imagined _technology_ is part and parcel
of
> writing fiction about science". The science, ie the methods, is always
the
> same, and that's why the technology is so fascinating. We have the
methods
> of science here, right now, and look what they can bring us!
Yes, but "science" is also normally used to signify what we know about
our physical universe. It's both the method (empirical inquiry) *and*
the applied knowledge/understanding/description of nature itself,
hereunder technology. And the method is also the attitude. Put very
simply.
> >> > 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.
>
> If an alien race can build huge spaceships with incomprehensible
technology,
> they might as well be doing magic.
I think Clarke's law is confusing you. Just because advanced science
seems indistinguishable from magic doesn't mean that it's the same. If
something works according to physical laws - even if these are only
imagined by a sci-fi writer -, it is scientific. Magic is something
supernatural: something removed from a realm of causality.
Imagined science and technology may or may not be impossible. By its
very nature we can't know which. And yes, it is the author's task to
make it plausibly scientific. But the crucial thing then becomes the
reader's susceptibility to the author's imaginings. Not every reader
will find the same descriptions equally plausible. It depends on both
the reader's knowledge, imagination and philosophical bent. Different
readers will appreciate and accept or reject different ideas. Until
everybody achieves equal levels of scientific understanding and
agreement about the deep nature of science, there can never be a
consensus about which sorts of science and technology are particularly
plausible.
> We (the readers) need to understand
> their technology on some level, it needs some kind of connection to our
> current level of understanding. The writer must make the alien
technology
> plausible to the reader to some degree.
Yes, that's the conventional argument for describing something as hard
SF. And that's fine. But to focus almost entirely on known science is
almost to write realism in the guise of science fiction. In this way
hard SF becomes the least imaginative subgenre of science fiction.
But, ultimately, it's really just a matter of personal taste. A hard
SF book can be good or bad, it can feature science or social
engineering, and have a wide range of possible messages, which may or
may not at all depend on its scientific content. Personally, while
certainly appreciating hard SF, I tend to be more attracted to the
more imaginative, grander stuff, like space opera. Galactic empires,
yay!! And this kind of stuff is not going to happen for a very, *very*
long time, but it's not impossible nor inconceivable that something
along those lines can happen. You just have to look *very* far into
the future. And a lot of people just aren't comfortable with that,
preferring instead the more familiar, more seemingly realistic stuff.
> Current popular science fiction (Star Wars and that sort of thing) has
weird
> spaceships and other crazy technology, but it's still much more
plausible
> as the result of proper scientific development rather than magic. Most
of
> it...
Yes - and hence it can be pretty good science fiction!
> >> > 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.
>
> Can you give any examples of that? And I agree that it looks like you're
> trying to widen the category of Hard SF to encompass everything you
like.
> If we must have these categories (and I don't think we do), we need
> criteria other than our personal tastes. If you think that what we
usually
> call soft aint necessarily so, and likewise hard, then you need to be
more
> specific, I think.
Heck, every idea about this sort of thing starts as someone's personal
opinion. My point is that I think it's stupid and too conventional to
say that "space opera" must necessarily be "soft" SF. I also believe
in a broader definition of "hard" SF, where it's not necessarily about
rigorous, scientific details, but about the general attitude and world
view of the story's setting. But of course, according to my idea that
every story with an underlying scientific attitude is hard SF, an
enormous amount of all SF would be hard. Star Trek included. Star Trek
features a lot of imagined physical phenomena ("anomalies" - a new one
every week!), but they virtually always save the day by being
rigorously rational, and having confidence in their scientific
knowledge. Star Trek actually presents an amazingly scientific world
view, most of the time, with imagined stuff added because *that's what
sci-fi does*. (Of course, this is not to say that Star Trek isn't
often marred by really bad stories, but that's a different
discussion.)
So that's my view: a scientific *attitude* is even more important that
featuring specifically scientific (technological, mathematical,
whatever) content. So for me the entire hard and soft categories are
extremely fuzzy. I guess I would describe sci-fi with a poor
scientific attitude and/or poor scientific content as "soft". This
would include time-travel and other silliness, which is blatantly
disregarding basic scientific tenets and hence often ought to be
described as fantasy.
- Tue
|
