Poll: hard of soft sci-fi?
- Thread starter WayOutThere
- Start date
I disagree with your classification of hard and soft. Hard should deal specifically with a real/plausible scientific theory/fact/device and it's implications, see Asimov for Robot AI and self identity, rules etc. The Foreverwar for the social issues of aging slower than people on earth because of relativity.
Battlerstar I guess can fit in this as it deals with robots and their evolution, effect on human race (in the negative). But Firefly for as much as I love it, is a soft sci fi, a space western (similar to space opera). The focus is on characters, action, humour and plot rather than science.
Battlerstar I guess can fit in this as it deals with robots and their evolution, effect on human race (in the negative). But Firefly for as much as I love it, is a soft sci fi, a space western (similar to space opera). The focus is on characters, action, humour and plot rather than science.
No real preference, as long as it's done well. I enjoyed Mass Effect's [footnote]Hey, no-one said Einstein's theories cannot be circumvented in one way or another! Massless FTL-travel is much more scientifically plausible than, say, FTL-traveling via Hell![/footnote] setting and detail immensely, yet i'm in love with Ratchet and Clank's universe. Hard, scientifically plausible fiction can show us how awesome the future will be with all the new toys. Soft sci-fi, on the other hand, is an insane, captivating thrill ride on a flaming rollercoaster of Crazy Awesome.
So for me, going to orbit via space elevator is as good as flying up there with my rocket-boots. Woooo!
So for me, going to orbit via space elevator is as good as flying up there with my rocket-boots. Woooo!
Holy. Fucking. Shit. I am at the complete and utter loss of words.LordWalter said:
...
...
...
Okay - now, ten minutes later, i have something to say.
[HEADING=1]OBJECTION![/HEADING]
Because hard sci-fi is to be as scientifically correct as possible, FTL travel, is impossible, we can't do it today, we can't do it in a hundred years, under the law of special relativity, to accelerate a mass to the speed of light, an infinte ammount of energy is required... and well... You cannot "create" energy, so having an infinite ammount of energy is impossible.WayOutThere said:
Warhammer uses AU for dimensions (I presume you mean distances)? I had no idea.Dyp100 said:
Anyhow Mass Effect revolves around some kind of Minovsky Particle [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MinovskyParticle] in the form of "Element Zero", allowing FTL travel and such, but I still consider ME kind of soft, even thought it is incredibly consistent with all it's Techno Babble [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TechnoBabble].
So it maintans the willing suspension of disbelief in a very good manner, making it a very good game with a rich backstory, but rather stoft still.
By your definition (one I agree with) there's no such thing as sci-fi. Which is true. Science Fiction is a setting, not a genre. You put the story in space*, not making it about space. Foundation was historical drama, Starship Troopers and Forever War, Military history/accounts...so on, so forth.AgentNein said:
*Gross generalisation, I know.
I much prefer hard sci-fi.
I find that it cradles the viewer within the world, and isn't going to come out with anything too out of the ordinary.
I find that it cradles the viewer within the world, and isn't going to come out with anything too out of the ordinary.
Depends. What is Warhammer 40k? Generally speaking I prefer SF to be more grounded in things we already know to be facts, and the futuristic part of that is a logical or explainable extrapolation of mankind's current state. Shows like Star Trek are unrealistic to a degree that becomes rather detrimental to my enjoyment of them.
I dunno. There's a balance. When something is too scientific it becomes overly technical and boring (Foundation Trilogy is great, but it definitely has these moments). When something is unexplained and just kind of hangs there and I'm supposed to accept it because "that's the way things are" or some such, it leads me to not take the show seriously. What? You have a teleporter? Um, how does that work? Couldn't you just buid a teleporter for your ship so you didn't have to fly everywhere? Why is the stupid thing always messing up? At least Warhammer can blame Chaos every time something breaks.
"The toaster isn't working!"
"Curse you, Tzeentch!"
I dunno. There's a balance. When something is too scientific it becomes overly technical and boring (Foundation Trilogy is great, but it definitely has these moments). When something is unexplained and just kind of hangs there and I'm supposed to accept it because "that's the way things are" or some such, it leads me to not take the show seriously. What? You have a teleporter? Um, how does that work? Couldn't you just buid a teleporter for your ship so you didn't have to fly everywhere? Why is the stupid thing always messing up? At least Warhammer can blame Chaos every time something breaks.
"The toaster isn't working!"
"Curse you, Tzeentch!"
A lot of Sci-Fi forgets that it's fiction, and it's okay to just make shit up. Still other sections of Sci-Fi forget that it's Science and should at least attempt to try and explain why things behave the way they do in a somewhat coherent manner.
Hehe, I love that you include Firefly in your list of hard SF. Aside from following the rather simple "no sound in space" rule, Whedon couldn't decide whether the ships were capable of faster than light travel (they moved at the speed of plot) or if the world was set in several galaxies or just one rather large one. Hardly the stuff of hard SF.
When I think hard SF, I think of works where the characterization, story, and writing itself comes second to the actual science. There can be some great ideas in this. Alastair Reynolds, for instance, manages to balance characters and science to the result of both a good story and some seriously sound ideas.
On the whole, I think that's when SF does it best: with balance. Some of my favorite books are more social science fiction, which can tend on the softer side of the spectrum (they tend to be written more by English majors or psychologists than scientists), but they stick to the rules of science as their authors understand them and don't deviate from these constraints just because it'd be convenient to the plot. I think of Karin Lowachee, Philip K. Dick, and Susan R. Matthews as pioneers of social SF. They might not be able to explain how space travel works, but it doesn't stretch the bounds of plausibility. The characters and story come first, though.
When I think hard SF, I think of works where the characterization, story, and writing itself comes second to the actual science. There can be some great ideas in this. Alastair Reynolds, for instance, manages to balance characters and science to the result of both a good story and some seriously sound ideas.
On the whole, I think that's when SF does it best: with balance. Some of my favorite books are more social science fiction, which can tend on the softer side of the spectrum (they tend to be written more by English majors or psychologists than scientists), but they stick to the rules of science as their authors understand them and don't deviate from these constraints just because it'd be convenient to the plot. I think of Karin Lowachee, Philip K. Dick, and Susan R. Matthews as pioneers of social SF. They might not be able to explain how space travel works, but it doesn't stretch the bounds of plausibility. The characters and story come first, though.
ahahahahaha, Oh my god I am so sorry. =p I mixed up the meanings of "Hard" and "Soft" Science Fiction and just preformed the greatest accidental trolling of my life. =p Oops. ahahaha, nonetheless I am glad I made that mistake as that OBJECTION was awesome beyond words.Kollega said:
EDIT:
ahahahaha, Goomba=Win.Samurai Goomba said:
I don't have a preference, I love all sci-fi.
Gee, I haven't noticed that before, strange indeed. Battlestar Galactica is an example of a successful hard sci-fi series though.WayOutThere said:
True, yes, and it's what I liked the most about Battlestar (it's my favourite show ever), but it's still very much sci-fi, it has enough (incredibly awesome) space battles for that. Plus, the fact that it's about a robot uprising is, well, pretty sci-fi too. It's just that it focusses more on the philosophical parts of a robot uprising.AgentNein said:
Went on vacation, didn?t have access to the internet for a while, hope it?s not too late to respond to a few things.
You gotta be kidding me. You point out a hardly noticeable consistency error and think that disqualifies and 15 hour work from a broad category?high_castle said:
And a merry Christmas to you as well, oh I'm little late, well I hope you had a merry Christmas.DarkLordofDevon said:
Ok, but don't you see the point I'm making? You advocate plausibility over believability whereas I emphasize believability over plausibility. That is why I have long since become OK with the whole "sucking out life thing". I've long since gotten use to the idea and it no longer bothers me. The thing that qualifies sci-fi as "hard" to me is that is does not break my suspension of belief.DarkLordofDevon said:
It was never my intention to do otherwise.DarkLordofDevon said:
That was an interesting read, thanks.RAKtheUndead said:
Well, I read a lot of Asimov and Clarke and the like, but on the other hand, Doctor Who is one of the few series I watch.
For the record, I prefer 'classic' sci-fi short stories the like of which I mentioned above. I suppose they would classify as 'hard'.
For the record, I prefer 'classic' sci-fi short stories the like of which I mentioned above. I suppose they would classify as 'hard'.
