Poll: hard of soft sci-fi?

[WayOutThere]

this comment was created mistakenly

 

[high_castle]

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.

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.

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?

It's not hardly noticeable. And I say this as someone who thoroughly enjoys Firefly. It's just not hard SF. The mixture of old fashioned weapons and new tech is one of style, but there's very little actual science in the show. Tell me when they explained how the engines of those ship drives work. Tell me when they defined the parameters of their galaxy. And the movie goes even further into the realms of softer speculative fiction with the wonder drug on Miranda. Again, this doesn't make Firefly bad, it just prevents it from falling in with hard SF. Go read Alistair Reynolds, Scott Westerfield, or Charles Sheffield and you'll understand the differences.

In Firefly, characters and plot come before science. In something like The Risen Empire, the science and the technology are given precedence. Personally, I favor softer works because I believe people should be the focus of any story, not the tech. If your tech actually has a leg to stand on, that's cool, but I also don't need the three chapter diatribes on how an engine functions. I tend to find it rather droll. But thus is the difference between hard and soft SF.

 

[AkJay]

I prefer soft, then hard. Giggity.

 

[revjay]

When I saw the title I figured something like Asimov vs Heinlein.. I guess I'd have to choose written over televised then.

 

[WayOutThere]

It's not hardly noticeable. And I say this as someone who thoroughly enjoys Firefly. It's just not hard SF. The mixture of old fashioned weapons and new tech is one of style, but there's very little actual science in the show. Tell me when they explained how the engines of those ship drives work. Tell me when they defined the parameters of their galaxy. And the movie goes even further into the realms of softer speculative fiction with the wonder drug on Miranda. Again, this doesn't make Firefly bad, it just prevents it from falling in with hard SF. Go read Alistair Reynolds, Scott Westerfield, or Charles Sheffield and you'll understand the differences.

In Firefly, characters and plot come before science. In something like The Risen Empire, the science and the technology are given precedence. Personally, I favor softer works because I believe people should be the focus of any story, not the tech. If your tech actually has a leg to stand on, that's cool, but I also don't need the three chapter diatribes on how an engine functions. I tend to find it rather droll. But thus is the difference between hard and soft SF.

Alright, there is not much of a disagreement here as we define "hard sci-fi" two different ways. We could dispute which definition is the official one or which is the better one but I'm feeling more like leaving this at us just agreeing to disagree.

 

[Aardvark Soup]

I don't really like soft science fiction when it's not comedic because the author(s) can simply make up all kinds of crap to solve a certain situation and justify it with some meaningless technobabble. In good hard sci-fi, however, they will really have to put some effort in their plot devices, making the story more believable.

 

[Arachon]

I don't really like soft science fiction when it's not comedic because the author(s) can simply make up all kinds of crap to solve a certain situation and justify it with some meaningless technobabble. In good hard sci-fi, however, they will really have to put some effort in their plot devices, making the story more believable.

Spot on, however, not all Sci fi is based around various Deus Ex Machinae and Technobabble.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I don't care so much as long as it's entertaining.

 

[gim73]

You gotta love SG-1 for this reason. It starts out slow with hard science fiction as the backbone, but as they get a bit more soft, the series really takes off. The first season is almost unbelievably frustrating in that it showed no character growth or development at all. You could watch any episode in season 1 and watch it right after a later episode and not miss a thing. They go through the gate, find some humans that speak english, daniel matches their culture to some ancient earth culture, some plot device happens and they return home without any new technology.

Then at the end of season 1 they plan on shutting down the stargate because it costs too much and they haven't found any worthwhile technologies.

When I show my non-SG1 fan friends this series for the first time I always show the first two episodes, then the second to last and final episodes of season 1. Season 1 is a filler season. In the final episode we find that Teal'c (the first prime of apophis) believes that the fastest the ships can go is 8 times light speed. We find out later that this number is way off. That episode also introduces zat guns, which are pretty much stun guns that can kill and disintegrate. These guns are a fun little mechanic they use often in later plots.

It's a wormhole series. It really has some great episodes, and if you haven't watched it yet you totally should. I really love how later seasons start integrating earlier technologies into our modern day world as new earth technologies, as well as the super secret stuff they keep for planetary defense.

gotta be a soft man for this reason. BTW, atlantis followed this strategy and was great as well, but SGU is going for the human drama side and is gonna fail because the characters ain't that cool and they really haven't gotten a story to tell yet. Voyager was bad for it's own reasons but at least they had conflict. SGU is trying to be BSG without cylons and failing horribly.

 

[sauerkraus]

I prefer the kind with strict rules and less plot holes. =]

 

[Mr Wednesday]

I don't really think Galactica is "hard sci-fi".

FLT? Meh, it's a magic teleport.

 

[LordWalter]

I read Warhammer 40,000. Harder science fiction is damn near impossible.

Holy. Fucking. Shit. I am at the complete and utter loss of words.
...
...
...
Okay - now, ten minutes later, i have something to say.

[HEADING=1]OBJECTION![/HEADING]

I just came back after a friend specifically requested to see this link again, because it's the greatest Objection! I've ever seen. Submitted to Stumbleupon Foar Graet Justace.

EDIT: Can't remember if the posting guidelines forbid Thread Necromancy, but in this case it was honestly worth it.

 

[Teshi]

I don't have a preference either way - what I do appreciate is sci-fi where the rules, whatever the author determines them to be from the outset, are internally consistent.