Talk:Hard science fiction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. Please feel free to add your name the project participation list and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Article This article is a Article.

Contents

[edit] Examples of hard sf?

Kress and Asimov both soft and hard??? Cimon avaro

Asimov is definitely not hard science fiction; his stories were way more focused on the characters than their environments and technology. - LukeyBoy
Asimov was prolific enough to be both. Space operas like the Foundation Series were obviously not hard sf. Some of his short stories certainly were. I'm sure someone can give some examples, I'm not as well read as I should be. --ChrisRuvolo 20:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The Gods Themselves is an Asimov novel in full hard SF mode. It won a Hugo and a Nebula award and is definately worth checking out, probably my favourite Asimov. Coyote-37 09:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

How can Babylon 5 be both hard sci-fi and space opera? This makes no sense. - mib 08:03, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jules Verne as hard sci-fi?!?!?

While his plots were very adventurous and imaginary, it seems Jules Verne tried to imagine wonders based on the future of his contemporary technologies - very unlike H.G. Wells. When Verne knew about Wells' The Time Machine, he commented: "He [Wells] lies". (source - Scientific American Brazil: Exploradores do Futuro, v.2., late 2005. Sorry, I only have the brazilian magazine).
Still about Verne, some consider he has predicted many existing machines, like the helicopter, the modern submarine and television (Scientific American Brazil - Exploradores do Futuro, v.1., p.7, late 2005)

How well known is Joan Slonczewski in the science fiction field. She gets 4000ish google results but appears to have published only six novels. I confess that her name is very much less familiar to me than the other ones on the list. Maybe somebody should first write a stub about her, and then consider re-adding the listing. -- Cimon 18:49, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

She's as much hard sci fi as some of the others on the list. 24.148.69.57 13:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else here feel that the movie Red Planet (2000) should be included here? I mean, it's as hard as a sci-fi movie usually can get AFAIK. OK, if you exclude the cheesy AI that goes berserk, and enters a "kill all humans" mode that is, but that's hollywood for you... Alex.g 14:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Not so much. It's not hard SF, but at least it's harder than Mission to Mars - the flapping tent in that movie made me want to throw something at the screen. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-09t20:20z

Orson Scott Card is hard sci-fi? Coyote Pete 03:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

in Ender's Game yes, otherwise, not so much. I don't like the wierdo teleporting box that appears later in the Ender series for that matter, as hard SF. Greglocock 11:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The notion that in hard SF "the main characters are usually working scientists, engineers, military personnel, or astronauts" reflects a rather old-fashioned bias (rooted in John Campbell's preferences in Astounding/Analog)--it is an accidental rather than an essential trait. The heart of the "hard SF" designation is the relationship of the science content (and attitude) to the rest of the narrative, and (historically, anyway) the "hardness" of the science itself. The term seems to have arisen out of the distinction between the kind of physics-and-engineering-centered stories that characterized Astounding/Analog and the sociology-and-pyschology-centered stories in, say, Galaxy and F&SF in the 50s and 60s--the "hard" (quantitative, lab-centered) sciences versus the "soft" ones (sociology, pyschology, even biology). It was an oversimple distinction then and is even more so now, but it arose out of divisions within the readership. Some of those "hard SF" character preferences had to do with those cultural divisions (which set of nerds do you want to depict/identify with?), and some out of writers' laziness or lack of skill (hack writers will default to the easiest solution to a problem), but few of them are essential to the story's status as hard SF. Greg Benford's Timescape is an obvious exception. BTW, most of Nancy Kress's output since before Beggars in Spain is quite clearly hard SF built on bioscience and (when her late husband Charles Sheffield was still around) physics.

In its purest form, one might argue that hard SF is about the science or engineering, with human affairs of interest only insofar as they are affected by them--thus they might be gadget/puzzle or disaster stories, with all their combinations and permutations. The core of Larry Niven's "Neutron Star" is, despite its alien-psychology, future-history, and magical-science features, a textbook example of a hard-SF puzzle: what can reach through a supposedly invulnerable hull to destroy the squishy contents? The answer is absolutely orthodox science-stuff. But most SF (including "Neutron Star") doesn't limit itself to being illustrated science lectures, so there are always other agendas, anything from mere entertainment (solve the puzzle, ride the thrill-ride) to socio-political speculation (imagine the impact of unlimited free energy or indefinitely-extended lifespans) to considerations of human nature under extreme or extremely altered conditions (anyone from Wells to Stapledon to Heinlein to Bruce Sterling to Greg Egan). I'd say that "hard SF" is an attitude or set of operating guidelines that produces stories in which material reality and our ways of understanding and manipulating it are respected--it is a decorum, not a true subgenre. If you want to see a hard-SF mind working with miraculous technologies, look at a couple of Damon Knight pieces: A for Anything and "Rule Golden." Once the (impossible or very unlikely) givens are established, the implications are worked out with rigor. RLetson 21:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

RLetson, do you fancy taking a bit of time to edit your extremely well thought out post here into usable content for the main page? This sort of discussion is just the kind of valuable content that I think the page needs to help address the main section/other media imbalance. Coyote-37 09:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
OK--I'm newish at Wiki-ing, so I'll check the protocols (most of which I see from the discussions here) and adjust and splice accordingly. Should I post a version and suggested splice-point here, or just go ahead and do it? I can see that this part of the community is more organized than the Hawaiian-music territory I've been tweaking. RLetson 17:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clank?

Does anyone know about the use of the term "clank" to describe hard sci fi? This was the term I had heard used to describe it previously, and I wonder if it's a commonly known term. -- Mike Simpson 19:34, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: qualify examples of Hard SF authors

..with the scientific topic they specialise in. E.g., Kim Stanley Robinson, environmental science and politics. Greg Egan, Physics and Computer Science.

Whether politics is a scientific topic is debatable. :) But I'll give you "environmental science" in KSR's case. --Chronodm 03:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea. Coyote Pete 03:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes Alastair Reynolds physics and astronomy background and his working for the ESA have clearly influenced the hardness of his sci-fi. (Emperor 15:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC))
But is he a *major* writer? Geez, this list is already way too long! A bunch of the others seem marginal to me. If you look at the tennis article, for instance, you see a section called "Great Players" -- it lists 13 great old-time players before Open Tennis started in 1968, most of whom are quasi-forgotten today. It also lists some brief qualifications for each of them, giving an idea of just *why* they were great, great players. There's also another section in the same general area in which all the players who have won 2 or more of the 4 major Grand Slam tournaments since 1968 are listed. Anyone good enough to have won two of these titles is certainly a very fine player -- I myself would raise the bar a little higher, to 3 or 4 titles, perhaps, before calling them "great". But I understand the reasoning here and don't argue with it -- at least a consensus has decided that a *single* grand slam title isn't enough to be listed here. I realise that evaluating tennis players is a lot easier than evaluating "hard SF" writers, but I still think a little more effort ought to be put into this listing of the writers. I particularly wish RLetson, who is extremely knowledgeable (he's been reviewing books for Locus for Lo! these many years), and who has already written here about trimming the list, would get out his scalpel and do some trimming. Thirty years ago, when I felt I knew as much about the field as anyone, I would have done it. Now I feel I don't know enough about the modern writers to be able to delete any except the more egregiously mis-labled ones. Russell! Are you reading this?! Hayford Peirce 01:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Is he a major writer? Difficult to say as it is subjective. He is one of the big current writers in the field and also has a very solid science background which is also worthy of mention. Managing such lists are tricky as opinion will always differ. Two fixes: Start a List of hard science fiction authors entry with each author being given a couple of sentences on their big work, influences (both on then and to other people) and hard science connections (if any) and/or a "Hard science fiction authors" category. Then do away with the list as the big names should be mentioned in the main text. (Emperor 03:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC))

What about adding Jane Jensen (Dante's Equation), Gentry Lee (Rama series with Arthur C. Clarke) and Michael Kube-McDowell (Trigger, Isaac Asimov's Robot City)? (rm)

  • Some nameless one just added Stanislaw Lem, calling him "one of the greatest authors of hard science fiction." Boggle. This is the Lem who had guys walkng around on the moon without space suits! Reverted. Pete Tillman 18:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Battlestar Galactica text

I noticed that Jeandré removed the BSG text. While I do agree that the text read like a pitch, perhaps it could have been reworded instead of outright removed? Not that it matters now, since I reworded the text to focus more on the scientific aspects than the characterization of the people. If anyone has any comments, concerns or questions on the edit, feel free to talk about them here. Thanks! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 19:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Ouch--not more than 1 hour and my original addition of the BSG text here was folded, spindled, and mutilated, although it does have a better read, somewhat. Oh, well, I may expand on it on BSG Wiki :) I appreciate readding the text in a more appropriate manner for the topic at hand. Spencerian 19:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Just a thought... We may just want to do a separate page on "naturalistic science fiction", which focuses both on the characterization and scientific aspects of a literary product. (We can still keep the BSG scientific stuff on this page, though, since it now deals explicitly with science.) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 20:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Your request is my command. It could really use a lot of additional information beyond what I could derive from Moore's essay and interpretation of it. Spencerian 18:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I still think BSG is overemphasized, as is the entire "other media" section which I don't think comes close to being hard SF; but I agree that a rewrite is better than my removal.
BSG is softer than Firefly (2002) when it comes to sound in space and FTL. Firefly also has projectile weapons and no ETI, but it does have lots of anti-science elements meaning that it too isn't near being hard SF. — Jeandré, 2005-08-05t19:56z

"Lightspeed physics appear to avoid violation of General Relativity principles by using the wormhole concept of apparent FTL travel, instead of using fantastic energies or materials (à la "anti-matter" or "dilithium crystals," respectively) for FTL travel" - How are BSG's wormholes any less fantastic a concept than "anti-matter" or "dilithium crystals"? Just because it has projectile weapons and no fancy energy shields or other technobabble doesn't make it Hard SF. This section needs a delete or a move to 'naturalistic' SF. Polanyist 1st November 2005, 9:51PM AEST

[edit] Thoughts on losing the other media section?

As with all Wiki articles, this is becoming dominated by only vaguely relevant text relating to TV shows. Hard sci-fi to me has always been about novels, no TV series or film has really come close to the depth of the best Asimov or Clarke. I propose we massively cut the other media section to a simple list and maybe try and find a way to add content to the section on sci-fi authors. What do others think? Coyote-37 09:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It is disproportionate. But I suggest we expand the literary section first, before hacking at the media section. After all, if we only manage to do the hacking and not the writing, the article will be in a worse state. I also think, mind, that the list of sample hard SF authors is too large and needs qualification (see above). I'll have a think about what else we could write. -- Jon Dowland 12:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Good suggestions. Maybe some discussion of how common themes of Hard SF (entropy, slower than light travel etc) impact on the plot? For instance, Clarke's later novels are contained within the solar system, as he seems to have accepted that FTL will always be impossible, so his commitment to science influences the types of stories he is able to tell. Or maybe something about how ideas from Hard SF lead into real world innovations. Ion drives for instance, or geostable orbits. Coyote-37 13:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Just because B5, BSG, and FF are harder than most TV sci-fi shows, does not mean they warrant inclusion in an article on hard SF. These shows are surely nowhere near hard SF. Would it not be better to have a sentence explaining that hard SF has not occured in other media? — Jeandré, 2005-10-29t04:52z
I'm not willing to bring down the wrath of the Browncoats by deleting the TV section entirely, but I have added an intro paragraph noting that TV generally doesn't live up to print hard-SF standards. --Chronodm 03:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, so I finally got round to watching Serenity. It's great fun and all, but Hard SF it is most definately not. I'm back to wanting to remove the entire 'other media' section as I remain fully unconvinced by it. I'd be very interested to hear from a user who is familiar with both hard sf and the other media mentioned and is still in favour of keeping it. I suspect that many of those wanting to keep it are not familiar with the hard sf genre. Coyote-37 10:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I like Firefly, but it is soft science fiction. It's not about technology or the impact of technology. What technology there is is just the backdrop for the story being told. That doesn't mean it's not good. The problem is that this article is very POV - too many people want to use hard science fiction as a synonym for "good" and soft as a synonym for "bad". There is plenty of bad hard science fiction, and plenty of good soft science fiction.--RLent 14:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Er... it's not often I do mass deletions of content without reading the talk page first, and it seems I should have resisted this time as well. But starting by calling 2001 hard sf and ending with Cowboy Bebop of all things... I nearly choked on my sandwich. Anyway, at best there a paragraph or two of non-bull to compress that lot into. --zippedmartin 03:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Firefly's solar system

Can someone who's seen all of Firefly (I've only seen the film) add a note as to whether it's ever explained how all the planets in the show's solar system seem to be within the habitable zone? If it is explained, great; if not, well, if the fact that all the planets are in the same system (negating the need for FTL) is to be cited as evidence for the show's hard-SF-ness, the fact that all the planets are so close together should maybe be cited against it. --Chronodm 03:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Firefly is soft science fiction. It's also good science fiction. Too often, people label science fiction they like as "hard" and that which they don't like as "soft". The technology in Firefly is the backdrop in which the story takes place.--RLent 19:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
all the world's in firefly's system (which is never named ) are terraformed as said in start of the movie
"We found a new solar system: dozens of planets and hundreds of moons. Each one terraformed — a process taking decades — to support human life. To be new Earths."
How they got all of them to been 1 g (earth gravity) seem hard to believe but.Joeyjojo 03:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
In the TV series, it never becomes clear at all whether the planets are part of a single solar system or whether we are dealing with many different solar systems. Personally, I always assumed the latter. —Naddy 16:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Proposal

While I'm sure there is some sort of distinction between the two, these pages look so identical I would say one is redundant. I would suggest picking one and using the other as a Wikipedia:Redirect. Then, you could spend a paragraph on the main page discussing the other. Palm_Dogg 01:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see my response at Talk:Naturalistic science fiction. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] distinction between hard SF and SF with hard elements

One thing that struck me with the article and examples as it stands is there are many examples of SF which have elements of hard SF in them - e.g., the silence of space, but are not "hard SF". I think that Hard SF is where the science is *central* to the story, and the article should reflect that. -- Jon Dowland 09:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a bright line between these two categories--the latter sounds like what I call "competent SF," that is, SF that only makes mistakes deliberately in order to fulfill other goals (e.g., allowing FTL travel in order to enable an interstellar civilization). Maintaining silence in vacuum (in films) I put at the same level as concealing the wires that hold up the spaceships: a matter of craft. (Yes, I know about Lucas' decision, and it still annoys me.) RLetson 21:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Over at rec.arts.sf.written, where definitions and redefinitions of hard sf are a favorite sport, the sort of thing Jon Dowland refers to has been called "locally hard" -- possibly a Wayne Throop coinage. Pete Tillman 20:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orson Scott Card?

Could Orson Scott Card be considered for his strict exclusion of faster than light travel in the Ender series (despite adding some hypothetical or purely fantasy technologies), as well as his "no new technology in the future" themed short story Mortal Gods? --NEMT 21:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think FTL alone should be a benchmark of whether something is Hard SF or not, although it is certainly a popular one. My own opinion is that the setting of a novel in a scientifically plausible universe is not enough, and that the science has to be a first-hand part of the story. -- Jon Dowland 23:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

how can NOT haveing new technology in the future make it hard SF??? Joeyjojo 14:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hard science fiction a theme??

Is hard science fiction really a theme, as claimed in the first paragraph? It seems less a theme (topos, ...) than a (forgive my unscientific language) "way" of narrating themes (e.g., an Apocalypse could be narrated in either hard or soft science fiction...). Indeed, the Science Fiction themes article does not refer to hard science fiction at all. --Ibn Battuta 18:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I think you're absolutely right about this -- it's a technique rather than a theme. I can have a story in which the hero uses a FTL ship to get somewhere but the reader is told nothing more than that the ship *is* faster than light. The story may or may not be "hard science fiction" but *probably* isn't. If, on the other hand, I spend three paragraphs detailing just *how* the ship goes FTL, then that's almost certainly gonna be what I call a hard SF story. Some would disagree by saying that *any* FTL story by definition cannot be hard SF -- I think that's too extreme an attitude but it does exist. However, as regards this article, I do think that the first parag. should be rewritten. I'm too lazy to do it myself, however, since it will have to be carefully done so that other editors don't revert it.... Hayford Peirce 19:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "hard SF" is neither a theme nor a technique--it's just a subdivision of SF-in-general that values accuracy and consistency of scientific content over other qualities. This is a decorum issue, not unlike the notion of a "playfair" mystery where the information needed to solve the puzzle is not concealed from the reader. (Anybody remember the Ellery Queen "challenge to the reader" page?) It does affect the "technique" of story/world construction by eliminating some kinds of elements and in general requiring a level of (scientifically/technologically-based) plausibility--but this is not any different from the decorum rule that dictates, say, psychologically round characters or recognizable social interactions in general fiction. Content-oriented "oughts" can be part of a genre definition--for example, if the characters in a story are exaggerated, grotesque, or stereotyped, it might make the story a satire or social comedy. We wouldn't call that characteristic a theme, nor would it be by itself a technique. So we can say that hard SF is a subdivision, a category, a tradition, or even a school of SF and that it is the result of a set of attitudes and values and preferences on the part of writers and readers. With apologies for dropping into professor mode-- RLetson 18:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The laundry list

I just cut a few names from the ever-expanding list of "often said to be" hard SF writers (note the weasel wording)--it's getting to be a list of "writers I like and think should be included," and it also suggests that the article itself is weak in establishing what constitutes "hard science fiction." (Robin Cook?) I'd suggest, first, a rewrite of the article that recognizes that the term is not part of a rigorous taxonomy--it's a rule-of-thumb notion, a fannish invention that has proved useful over the years, but nothing like as definite as the difference between, say, a cozy mystery and a hard-boiled detective story. Second, I'd suggest that the endless list become something more limited and defined: say, five or ten writers whose work is recognized as characterizing "hard SF"--Poul Anderson would be one, as would Heinlein, Sheffield, and Benford. Note that this is not some chemically-pure literary category we're descibing here, since nearly every "hard SF" writer has written stories that a hard-SF puritan would condemn (anything with faster-than-light travel, for example). We may want to establish some sort of test or criterion for inclusion in the short list--mention in Clute & Nicholls or an authoritative anthology (as one editor has already started doing). Third, it might be useful to incorporate the complementary-opposite (and equally fuzzy) term soft science fiction into this article--it certainly isn't doing well on its own. RLetson 17:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What about Stephen Baxter? He's about as hard as hard SF comes (especially his newer work since the Xeelee series) And with 41 books (albeit a couple are collaborations with AC Clarke, and some non-fiction) under his belt I belive he is worthy mention with the other authors on this list. In most of his stories, the characters take a back seat to the science and with degrees in math & engineering, he knows what he is talking about. Anyway just a thought... thegreattim 18:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way of freezing or otherwise limiting the laundry list? I've just cut Godwin and Nourse (not prominent enough), but clearly people are going to keep adding personal favorites and the damn list will straggle on indefinitely unless we can suggest a plausible limiting factor, as I suggested above. (I'm reluctant to suggest the easy way out of a numerical limit--ten-best lists make even more trouble than ordinary ones.) RLetson 17:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry to be nitpicky but... Carl Sagan on the list of major authors of Hard SF? I am a big of fan of Carl as the next guy (I've read most of his published work, I belive) but, correct me if I'm wrong, has he not only published one fiction novel, specificaly "Contact"? Is not almost all of his work Non-Fiction? I wish it was not the case, but I think it is... Unfortunatley, I feel this disqualifies him from the list. thegreattim 19:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right -- I had meant to delete him some time ago but forgot. Consider it done. Hayford Peirce 20:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jacek Dukaj?

More evidence that the list is seen as some sort of "writers I like" place--selections from the Wiki article on Dukaj. These are hard SF?

"IACTE" - On a space colony, there is a place where dreams can become a reality, and a revived Native American hunter sets on the trail of a vampire.
"Muchobójca" (Flykiller) - In space and on space colonies, there are ghosts. And where there are ghosts, there will be exorcists. However, can human-trained exorcist deal with magic that evolved elsewhere?

And so on. Time to tighten up the article and purge the list. RLetson 18:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with you about tightening up the list but Dukaj apparently presents a problem, just as, in a sense, Larry Niven does. *Most* of Niven's stuff is hard SF, but some is fantasy, albeit with consistent laws etc. Could we rename this list so that it is called something like "Authors whose predominant work is hard"? or some such? Aside from FLT and such like, I myself have never knowingly written fantasy -- my Time Scanner stories probably fall into the FLT category but once you grant the premise, then there's nothing soft at all about the stories. Ditto for many of my other stories -- I'd *like* to be on that list! Hayford Peirce 21:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
My problem with the list as it stands is that it could go on indefinitely--and everybody wants to be on it, or to see their favorite writers there. If the point of the article is to characterize "hard SF," then a clear explanation of the category, accompanied by a handful of writers who illustrate that characterization, should about do the job. It might be useful to point out contrasting examples within a writer's canon (Poul Anderson's "Kyrie" versus A Midsummer Tempest; Heinlein's "They" versus Farmer in the Sky), but that's probably something that belongs in the article proper. RLetson 22:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
How about retitling it "Major writers who are primarily known for their hard SF"? Then we could put on Heinlein, Clarke, Niven, Hal Clement, Ben Bova, and a handful of others. Hayford Peirce 22:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)\
No one else seems to have taken my suggestion, or to have even discussed it, so I will take it upon myself to do what I suggested. Now that the die have been cast, if any of you object to my editing, you can redo it to your heart's content. But I do think that this long, long, LONG laundry list of so-called hard SF writers ought to remain quite short. In fact, if anything, the present list I just did could be shortened. Tom Godwin, for instance, is prominent for a single story written 50 years ago. He can almost certainly be trimmed, along with some others.... Hayford Peirce 17:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hayford: Anything that keeps the list from metastasizing is fine with me--and renaming it "Major Writers" is a good first step. I suppose (to expand on a point I made earlier) if we want to be properly Wikian and document every item on said list, we could check that some authoritative source had so identified each one--Clute & Nicholls, Anatomy of Wonder, and so on. The intro to Hartwell & Cramer's Hard SF Renaissance (which I just picked up) might also provide guidance. I guess the thing is to keep it from turning into a "Hey, what about my guy?" competition. BTW (and this is directed to everyone working on this article), the "Hard SF" entries in both Clute & Nicholls and Gary K. Wolfe's Critical Terms for Science Fiction and Fantasy are quite good, and, as a bonus, Wolfe's bibliography points to just about all of the major works of scholarship on SF. RLetson 20:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An immodest proposal

I've been fooling around with ways of revising the article and have come up with the following. Rather than just do the edit, I thought I'd post it here for comment. I would replace the entire body of the article with something like this, which combines bits of the existing version with scraps scavenged from my earlier comments and some things I dug out of The Hard SF Renaissance and the Jesse's Words SF lexicography site. I would particularly like to cut paragraph 4 of the current version--my reasons are outlined above in an entry from March. Anyhow, here's a draft of a start:

Hard science fiction, or hard SF, is a category of science fiction characterized by an emphasis on scientific detail and/or accuracy. The term was first used in print in 1957 by P. Schuyler Miller, book reviewer for Astounding Science Fiction. ref[Science Fiction Citations]; also David G. Hartwell and Kathryn Cramer, "New People, New Places, New Politics," introduction to The Hard SF Renaissance, 2002, ISBN 0-312-87635-1]]ref The complementary term, soft science fiction (a back-formation that first appeared in the late 1970s ref http://www.jessesword.com/sf/view/1843 ref), contrasts the "hardness" of the sciences involved: quantitative or material-based disciplines (physics, chemistry, astronomy) versus the social sciences (sociology, anthropology, psychology). (In some usages, though, "soft SF" suggests bad or fake science.) Neither term is part of a rigorous taxonomy--instead they are rule-of-thumb ways of characterizing stories that have proved useful.
The heart of the "hard SF" designation is the relationship of the science content (and attitude) to the rest of the narrative, and (in the beginning, at least) the "hardness" or rigor of the science itself. One requirement for hard SF is procedural or intentional: a story should be trying to be accurate and rigorous in its use of the scientific knowledge of its time, and later discoveries do not necessarily invalidate the label. For example, P. Schuyler Miller called Arthur C. Clarke's 1961 novel A Fall of Moondust hard SF ref[Science Fiction Citations] ref, and the designation stands even though a crucial plot element, the existence of deep pockets of "moondust" in Luna craters, is now known to be incorrect. There is a degree of flexibility in how far from "real science" a story can stray before it leaves the realm of hard SF. Some authors scrupulously eschew such implausibilities as faster-than-light travel, while others accept such plot devices but focus on realistically depicting the worlds that such a technology might make accessible. It is less a matter of the absolute accuracy of the science content than of the rigor and consistency with which the various ideas and possibilities are worked out that makes a story hard SF. RLetson 05:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that's terrific! Go for it! Hayford Peirce 16:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about Stanislaw Lem ?

I was very surprised that Stanislaw Lem was not on the list of authors of hard science fiction. If he should not be included, so who should?

--Ouroborosx 02:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see the comments above regarding the 'laundry list'. The list only needs to be representative, not exhaustive. Coyote-37 10:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Immodesty accomplished

I've done a rewrite of the main article along the lines proposed above. RLetson 22:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed unsupported assertion

"Further attempts to define hard science fiction have been made more recently by David G. Hartwell and Kathryn Cramer, through their anthologies The Ascent of Wonder (1994) and The Hard Science Fiction Renaissance (2002)."

The text above was added by Kathryn Cramer (Pleasantville (talk • contribs)) (See diff). That text needs to be supported by a secondary source that asserts that Mr. Hartwell and Mrs. Cramer have "further attempted to define hard science fiction". It is now removed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems harsh, as both Hartwell & Cramer are well-known SF editors. Further, I've read both works, and they are as advertised above
Even further, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hard_science_fiction&curid=13862&diff=104383415&oldid=103658868

the addition was made by Hayford Peirce!

Propose reinstatement of the above statement.
Cheers, Pete Tillman 20:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, no, *I* didn't originally enter it. Maybe when I reverted something or other, or made some other edit, it got carried along with the other item. It seems like a legit. edit to me, no matter who originally entered it. If Arthur C. Clarke came along and entered a couple of verifiable statements, would we delete it? But this whole Wiki Original Research and citation business is a can of worms.... Hayford Peirce 23:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Is the objection that the works mentioned don't exist? If a statement is true, verifiable, noteworthy, and relevant, it should be included. Etiquette suggests that Ms. Cramer should perhaps offer edits to the talk page where a possible COI exists, but this is a minor quibble. Avt tor 11:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Brin?

I understand that you can make arguments for Earth, Glory Season, and The Postman, but most of his work include rather prominent fantastical elements (e.g. the telepathy in the Uplift series, which is treated pretty loosely). Further, his page shows no reference to the classification "hard science fiction", unlike (say) Hal Clement's.

I don't dispute that he's an important writer, but I don't think he's hard SF. Robin Z 03:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Is he the guy who wrote some of the dolphin books? If so, my impression is that he was called a "hard" writer at the time by a bunch of people who over-looked the fact that there was telepathy between the people and the dolphins (at least I think so). But, of course, this is a very difficult definition to nail down, as I think the article tries to say. Heinlein's "Time for the Stars", for instance -- super hard, *except* there's the telepathy aspect. Most people tend to overlook that sort of thing when a "certified" hard writer uses one of these gimmicks.... Hayford Peirce 03:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

First: Being on or off a list of hard-SF writers is not exactly the center of this article. Second: After a while (about 12 seconds), questions of the hardness of a particular writer's SF, or of particular books in a writer's career, start looking like theological debates. We really need to face the fact that the "hardness" of SF is not a well-defined term with sharp boundaries; it is a relative term, even among people who think they can define it precisely. There is a spread of opinion on what exactly constitutes "hardness" in SF, but there is no single measure that everyone agrees on--this makes "hard SF" not a genuine genre term but something closer to a decorum term. Other SF categories--space opera, planetary romance, military SF, and so on--are more easily treated on the basis of what they contain--to adapt George R.R. Martin's term, what "furniture" they use. But hardness of SF is a judgment applied to a text, and the criteria, while not necessarily entirely subjective, do vary considerably across the whole SF readership. It seems to me that any attempt to describe "hard SF" without recognizing this situation is always going to devolve into para-theological arguments and competing lists of texts/writers. The "hardness" of a text is a quality that we can discuss and compare, but, like "noir," it is not a unitary, all-or-nothing attribute, and thus is an unstable basis for a genre term. It might be better to talk about hard SF as a school, a taste, a decorum, or a movement than a subgenre. (See the discussion page for the newish Space Opera Noir article, where I'm having a not-dissimilar conversation.) RLetson 21:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Larry Niven wrote hard SF, yet it had lots of telepathy and such. Back in those days, these ideas were more credible and had their place in even the hardest of hard SF. These days, there's less of a place, but as Perice points out, writers who are known for their hardness can get telepathy grandfathered in. Also, while I didn't read Brin's books, I remember a review that mentioned that some alien race was powerfully telepathic, while dolphins used machines to communicate. While telepathy is pretty implausible, it's less so when applied to aliens as opposed to dolphins. So, in short, I say we keep Brin. 24.44.99.211 03:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
IMO, "Hard SF" is a recognized subgenre within SF. I agree the boundaries are somewhat subjective (for example, almost any reference to FTL travel is considered by some to violate "hardness"). IMO, "Hard SF" is SF that focuses in detail on specific scientific theories and principles; it doesn't require that every element by provable within the limits of contemporary science. My opinion here is only explanatory, not definitive; I think the definition of this category belongs to reviewers and academics, i.e. verifiable sources. Avt tor 11:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fillums

Neither 2010 nor Gattaca strike me as being hard SF films. 2001 is a much better example than 2010, surely? Gattaca fails because it is not really about future technology - it could be set in a current high school for all the setting matters. However, I must admit, there aren't many modern hard SF films that spring to mind, and the old ones just seem laughable. Greglocock 11:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about Gattaca, but I'm not sure how much :) Science is a central part of the story, and that's an important criteria for Hard SF... -- Jon Dowland 20:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hard SF or not?

- Q Original 05:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Asimov was writing hard SF in the 1930s and Heinlein in the 1940s. John Campbell's influence on the field was so strong that the term "hard SF" didn't need to be invented until after he was done at Astounding. 2001 was just about the only thing Clarke wrote that wasn't hard SF. Star Trek in general is commonly cited as a contrast from hard SF. Avt tor 09:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

2001 was just about the only thing Clarke wrote that wasn't hard SF. You really read this book? Star Trek in general is commonly cited as a contrast from hard SF. General - yes, but, in the case of TMP, not. Q Original 14:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Been a long time since I read 2001, but that's not the point as this is listed as the film. The movie ends in a mystical LSD trip. Warp drive is not hard SF. You can't add these films back in without either consensus or a reliable source (respected reviewer or academic) defining them as hard SF, because most people don't consider them such. Avt tor 16:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In Poland Lem and Dukaj are considered as representative hard SF writers.
  • Oh really?? Most people don't consider "2001" as hard SF?
  • Warp drive is not hard SF. FTL existxisted in many hard SF novels (yes, i don't like this too). Q Original 17:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, really, most people don't consider 2001 as hard SF, because of its ending.
  • "Representative" has to be global. You can certainly refer to non-English authors, but you can't prove global notability with non-English sources.
  • FTL is pretty much the definition of what is not hard SF. It is possible for works to be considered by reviewers to be hard SF if they have other significant hard SF elements. No such assertion is made here with a reliable source. Avt tor 17:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

most people don't consider 2001 as hard SF Most people, or mister Avt tor?? Q Original 17:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Now you're being insulting. As someone who works on Worldcon convention programming, I can speak with authority ion what community opinion is, in that I have spoken to a significant proportion of authors, reviewers, and other active fans. However, I'm not asserting personal knowledge on the actual article, I'm simply asking for a verifiable source here. Avt tor 18:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
And by the way, using anonymous sock puppets is bad form. Avt tor 18:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-consensus edits

The following points have been established here by consensus in the past:

  • The list of authors is intended to be representative, not comprehensive. "Other" writers by definition are not representative.
  • Carl Sagan is not considered representative on the basis of a single work.
  • 2001 and Star Trek are not considered hard SF.

I add the following comment (already noted above)

  • Global notability cannot be established for the purpose of English Wikipedia using non-English sources.

I have made a last edit in support of these points, which I believe reflect past consensus. Consensus can change, so it's now up to other editors have to express opinions here. If consensus here wants to change "representative" to something broader, I won't argue that point. However, edits which repeatedly ignore verifiable sources and consensus could eventually be considered vandalism and could require a request for administrative intervention. Avt tor 17:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • You can certainly refer to non-English authors, but you can't prove global notability with non-English sources.,Global notability cannot be established for the purpose of English Wikipedia using non-English sources. Dude, you are nationalist or ethnocentrist?

Q Original 17:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

One could take offense at being accused of ethnocentrism (especially since I bought airline tickets for the Japanese Worldcon this morning!). I'm not going to debate, say, market share. However, I will simply point out that this is the English Wikipedia. Non-English sources are fine for many statements of fact, but for statements about global cultural importance, I think you have to use a source in the same language as Wikipedia. Avt tor 18:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I create new last and least ;-) section: Other notable writers of hard science fiction. This is good consensus for you? Q Original 19:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is getting a bit theological

There are plenty of scholarly/critical explanations and explorations of what constitutes hard SF and which are the representative writers and texts, so rather than offering competing opinions/lists, why not just report on the range of explanations in the authorities? When I redrafted this article a couple of months back, I started with Clute & Nicholls and Wolfe, along with the Jessesword lexicography site and added a bit from the excellent intro to Hartwell & Cramer's Hard SF Renaissance anthology. I didn't have to agonize over which particular bit of SF extrapolation might disqualify a particular text or which writer might be considered beyond the pale by one faction or another.

A handful of random details/nits:

  • Godwin's "Cold Equations" is often mentioned as an exemplar of hard SF, though the rest of his work is generally not. (See his entry in Clute & Nicholls.)
  • The term "hard SF" was coined (see this article's second sentence) in 1957, in Campbell's own Astounding (though JWC was no longer the only important magazine editor in the field at this time).
  • Clarke's The City and the Stars/Against the Fall of Night isn't (aren't?) considered hard SF--the mystical strain runs through his whole career (see the ending of Childhood's End). I'd make a non-trivial wager that the space-travel sections of 2001 are considered "hard SF" by many or even most commentators, even if the trippy ending isn't.
  • The problem with a statement like "FTL is pretty much the definition of what is not hard SF" is that there is no such consensus in the body of commentary/criticism/scholarship. It might be the opinion of a particular subset of hard-SF readers, but I can find authorities that argue against just that kind of single-factor categorizing (see, for example, the "Hard SF" article in Clute & Nicholls).

Part of the problem here is terminological: if "hard SF" is a hard-edged genre or category, then genus-and-species or at least a properties list would be sufficient to define it. If, however, it is a decorum or taste or tendency or style, then the boundaries are very fuzzy and the shape of the thing depends on viewpoint. Hard SF exists, but since "hardness" is not a constant, both writers and readers can have a range of opinion on what it is. I'm seeing this kind of problem with a number of SF/F-related terms: there's a tendency to treat a quality (gothic, noir, spiritual) or a motif or a decorum rule (hard, soft, mundane) as a (sub)genre-defining property. This isn't the place for an essay on genre theory, but treating a quality term (e.g., "thriller") as a genre-definging term is generally going to make for problems. And really, all we need to do is report on what the authorities say, even if they don't always agree with each other. RLetson 18:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Godwin's "Cold Equations" is often mentioned as an exemplar of hard SF, though the rest of his work is generally not.. Ok. I move this author to the new section: Other notable writers of hard science fiction. Q Original 19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Note that my main objection is to adding this new section, more than the individual names. Avt tor 20:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
And when someone came up with a source that quoted David Hartwell, I didn't argue the inclusion of Tom Godwin.
My specific argument is:
  • WP:V and WP:RS: We should use reliable sources to verify points of possible disagreement. WP:
  • WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, therefore
    • an "Other notable writers" section is out of scope of this article, as by being "other" they are not representative
    • cited sources must establish that writers listed here do not merely meet the criterion of "hard SF" but also of "representative"
You wrote "The problem with a statement like "FTL is pretty much the definition of what is not hard SF" is that there is no such consensus in the body of commentary/criticism/scholarship. It might be the opinion of a particular subset of hard-SF readers, but I can find authorities that argue against just that kind of single-factor categorizing (see, for example, the "Hard SF" article in Clute & Nicholls)." But your argument doesn't respond to the statement. I believe Clute's point is that a story which is lacking in one area might still be considered hard SF because of other aspects of the story. I agree with citing authorities. Star Trek is often cited as being not hard SF (as is even acknowledged by the other editor), so any claim that it is would have to be verified by an authoritative source. Avt tor 20:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should we have an "Other" section at all?

Okay, let's do this formally, with a vote about this section, with Oppose, Favor, and Neutral being the choices. The question to be resolved is: "Should this article contain a section in which non-representative writers of hard science fiction, such as Sagan, Lem, Godwin, etc., are listed? This section would be in addition to the section called Representative writers of hard science fiction." Please cast your vote, with your reasoning (if desired) below my own opening vote below.

Oppose, strongly, for the reasons that Avt tor gives above, primarily that Wikipedia should not be a dumping ground for every bit of available information but should exercise some judgment and discernment about what is put into each article. Hayford Peirce 20:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, pretty much along the lines of Avt tor and Hayford. If the information is useful enough (e.g., to use something like "Cold Equations" as a singleton example), then it can be worked into the body of the article. After all, if the writers are not representative, why list them? RLetson 21:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, I haven't read any other Godwin that I can rememebr, if it is his only hard SF story then put it in the main text. I found the essay claiming it wasn't Hard SF interesting but basically absurd. Aslo Lem's output generally is not Hard SF so he's a very bad example. Crichton is generally a typical Hard SF writer. 2001 is hard SF right through until he gets to the hotel at the end of the universe. I cannot believe you would exclude it on that ground, as all the rest is done so realsitically. Greglocock 23:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It isn't 100% clear as to whether you Oppose, Favor, or are Neutral about the proposal. Would you please insert one of these words in front of your comments. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 02:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Lem's output generally is not Hard SF No. Maybe most of his books publicated in USA is not Hard SF, but most of his all books are good Hard SF. Q Original 01:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It isn't 100% clear as to whether you Oppose, Favor, or are Neutral about the proposal. Would you please insert one of these words in front of your comments. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 02:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - I've simply distilled arguments made on this topic by previous editors. Avt tor 03:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Greglocock 05:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose This will just cruft up the article. There is no right answer for many authors as to whether they are Hard SF or not. -- Jon Dowland 11:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The issue has moved to a category now

Hi, I just noticed that the same sort of debate has been going on here as I recently raised on Category talk:Hard science fiction. I suspect there may be no simple way to determine whether something can be categorized as "hard" or not, which might mean we should delete the category or maybe name it something else. Anyone want to give some input over there? Bryan Derksen 05:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

See my comments over on that comment page--short version: it's a real term, and deleting the article would be a bad idea. RLetson 03:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Just an update: the category was deleted. The consensus was that the criteria for inclusion were ill-defined. -- Jon Dowland 12:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movie "Contact"?

In my opinion movie (not novel) "Contact" is not Hard SF (sequences with "ghost of Ellie's father"). BTW: it is very poor movie... -- Q Original 17:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In the book, the 'ghost' is explained as the creation of the alien intelligence. I forget if this is explained in the movie. I agree that the movie is not as good as the book. That said, even the book is at the edge of hard science fiction. Sagan thought everything through, but some of the tech is pushing it. Michaelbusch 18:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The same applies to several of the authors cited on the page, so perhaps the book should be added but the movie left out. Michaelbusch 22:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
A movie being poor isn't good enough to exclude it from being classified as Hard SF. Sure, it didn't stick to the novel, and it probably pushed more scientific boundaries than the book, but even Gattaca can't claim to be completely scientifically accurate and precise. For the most part, just playing with genetics still has an element of chance that the traits one is engineering will actually be expressed, but that's not the message Gattaca puts forth. While the overall idea is a good one, some of the specifics don't exactly match up with reality, but I (and obviously others) still consider it Hard SF despite this. Why must we hold Contact to a higher standard? -Rhorn 23:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In the book - yes, but in the movie - no. -- Q Original 18:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The 'ghost' or whatever it is explains that it's not her actual father, in the movie. He doesn't explicitly state what he is but says he took a form from her memory. Someguy1221 21:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General question

Something that has been discussed on the category page, and should also be discussed here, is just how hard hard science fiction is. Do we limit ourselves to Clement and Asimov, where everything is worked out with logical precision, or do we extend it to include Forward's technological speculations and Sagan's (and the movie's) musings on alien intelligence? We need some quantifiable boundary. I realize that we are drawing lines in a multi-dimensional space, but still, we need to define the limits of the genre. So, where are they? Michaelbusch 00:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we do need to draw the lines. The purpose of this article should be to document "Hard Science Fiction", which is the fact that there are no hard lines. -- Jon Dowland 11:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We draw lines when we decide what is hard science fiction and what is not. This is problematic when it comes to NPOV, but seems necessary. Hard science fiction is not 'the fact that there are no hard lines', but I wasn't discussing that anyway. Michaelbusch 16:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A word of advice. If people start getting too religious about definitions then your page will either be deleted permananently, or edited into meaninglessness, or both. So I strongly urge everybody to get a grip. It is obvious that there is no hard and fast line that separates hard from not-hard SF, and there is no authoritative definition (I think). The hardline removal of slightly un-hard SF films from the list seems to me to be a manifestaton of that problem. Having said all that, the fundamental question is, is it hard SF if it deviates even slightly from the 'known' laws of physics? Well that assumes that everyone even agrees on those laws. They don't. Therefore even that absolutist view is untenable.
The solution we were recommended was that if an authoritative accessible source describes a thing as being a member of the category, then it goes in, with a reference. That means, if you can't find an authoritative reference to Gattaca as hard SF, it gets kicked out. If you can find a reference to Contact as a hard SF film, it goes in. Fanzines, blogs and personal sites and so on would not qualify as references. Greglocock 23:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a good place to start. Then we need sources, a lot of sources, because almost all of the current article isn't cited. Michaelbusch 23:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: we need sources for the examples given. Michaelbusch 18:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There are already sources for most of the central assertions of the first two paragraphs of the article--including the proposition that "hard SF" is not part of a rigorous taxonomy of SF. So I would caution against the tendency (quite strong in this topic area) to try to establish impermeable boundaries, as expressed by binary in-or-out lists or pseudo-botanical definitions. The term does not indicate a genre--it is a decorum term, a descriptor of texts that contain attributes that some writers and readers prefer, and the details of those attributes are not accepted even by all those who use the term. It is much more useful to think of hard SF as being part of a continuum or axis, or as a set with an agreed-upon center and a fuzzy periphery. Even the search for "authoritative sources" that include or exclude novel X or story Y will encounter disagreements among authorities, so we can wind up with a duelling-sources proxy war. Nearly all of this can be avoided by recognizing the nature of the term under consideration and settling for a brief list of representative works that indicate the range of texts that can be called "hard SF," preferably with some indication of why/how they might qualify for the label. RLetson 18:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laundry list, again

It's probably time to finally get the laundry list of "representative" writers and works under control. As Michaelbusch points out above, most of the entries are unsourced, and this situation makes for a straggly collection of everybody's personal favorite examples and endless additions, deletions, and arguments about who/what belongs on the list. Allow me to suggest the obvious solution: settle on a number of entries (it's a representative, not an exhaustive list) and check the candidates against a finite set of authorities--say, the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, canonical anthologies (the Hartwell & Cramer volumes might be a place to start), and professional critical/commentary works (e.g., the Westfahl book). (I have a strong bias in favor of print sources, which are more likely to be vetted by professionals than are websites, which often represent the opinions of [often smart and articulate] amateurs.) We can keep disagreements to a minimum by specifying that any candidate be identified in two sources, or by establishing a scoring system that indicates how strong the authorities' consensus is. This seems to me to satisfy Wiki criteria for reliable sourcing in this somewhat subjective area--and puts the selection criteria out where we can all talk about them. Any takers? RLetson 20:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

One cause of confusion is that the laundry list is of authors, not specific stories. I see no particular point in this, since it then leads to a subjective decision as to how much soft sf is allowed in a given author's output before she gets kicked off the list. If instead we were to list representative stories then the selection process is simplified. We then no longer need to care that say Crichton is not on the list, since we can simply put the spectacularly dull Andromeda Strain on the list and have done with it. Greglocock 00:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and think we should remove the 'list' altogether and add "Representative writers and works" as a section in paragraph form. Perhaps something like the following:

There are a few authors, notably XXX, YYY and ZZZ, whose output is considered to be wholly or mostly hard science fiction. Other authors whose output includes some hard science fiction also produce other science fiction works. Some noteworthy contributions to the field include AAA by MMM, BBB by NNN and CCC by OOO.

I think the mere presence of a list format of presentation encourages the reader to focus on who is not on the list as much as who is on it, so is better removed. As suggested, the selection of XXX, YYY, ZZZ, AAA/MMM, BBB/NNN and CCC/OOO should be drawn from an authoritative citable source, so although I have some ideas (as doubtless everybody has) as to who they might be I've resisted the temptation to speculate yet. Mooncow 16:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kheper quote

I have again removed the quote. Please do not add it back without consensus. The problem with the quote is that Kheper is not a notable source (see also Wikipedia:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground). We can't include everything anyone has said on hard SF. Michaelbusch 02:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of your little tricks. (cur) (last) 02:46, 28 March 2007 Michaelbusch (Talk | contribs) (rv see talk.) (cur) (last) 02:43, 28 March 2007 Greglocock (Talk | contribs) (you asked for a cite. the relevance is obvious, as it defines the limit of what the article is about.) (cur) (last) 00:39, 28 March 2007 Michaelbusch (Talk | contribs) (that isn't the problem: why is this quote relevant to the article?) (cur) (last) 00:18, 28 March 2007 Greglocock (Talk | contribs) (←Undid revision 118331217 by Michaelbusch (talk) added ref to ref that already existed) (cur) (last) 19:30, 27 March 2007 Michaelbusch (Talk | contribs) (rv. please provide context for adding this quote, and citation) (cur) (last) 02:29, 27 March 2007 Greglocock (Talk | contribs) (Kheper quote)

Deleting it, and then Asking for a cite, and then deleting it and then deleting it again looks far more like an attempt to suppress a viewpoint than it does to establish a consensus.

To expand: one of the main problems with this article is that various editors seem to assume that Hard SF=Good SF, and the rest =skiffy. Therefore, to be mentioned on this page is the test of 'good' SF. The quote from Kheper empahsises the point that it is perfectly possible to write good soft SF, and hence a story does not need to be mentioned on this page to qualify as good SF.

So, let's go for a vote, Greglocock 03:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already voted, but the idea at issue here is an interesting and useful one, and I'd make a modest wager that it (or one very like it) can be found somewhere in the published criticism/commentary/scholarship--an alternate source for this sentiment would render the vote below moot. Gentlemen, retire to your libraries and come out citing. RLetson 04:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt to establish consensus

does the sentence

"An important observation by Kheper (while discussing Dune) is : "... this hard to soft science rating has absolutely nothing to do with quality of the work in question. " [[1]]"

Belong in this article?

  • Yes Greglocock 03:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No Who is Kheper and why is this notable? Michaelbusch 03:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No I can't see how it is relevant. (Emperor 03:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC))
  • No (somewhat reluctantly)--The Kheper site has lots of intelligent observations and well-worked-out opinions, but it doesn't carry the kind of weight that a Wiki-style reliable source should. That's one reason I suggested the kinds of authorities I did above. On a different topic (since I'm typing here), I think Greglocock's suggestion about the contents of the list is a good one: it's the works that allow us to map the hard-SF space, not the writers (who produce in all directions, sometimes simultaneously). Then one might include "The Cold Equations" without having to characterize Tom Godwin as a "representative hard-SF writer." And again, we should keep it short and rooted in the critical/scholarly consensus. RLetson 04:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, agreeing with RLetson above -- but keep the Kheper article as an external link. Pete Tillman 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing reference

I'm confused by reference #4, Hard science fiction:

^ a b c Ward, Cynthia. Amazon.com: The Hard SF Renaissance: Books: David G. Hartwell, Kathryn Cramer. Amazon.com. Retrieved on 2006-11-07.

-- which simply leads to the Amazon sales page for this (very good) book. ??

And who is "Cynthia Ward"?

Cheers, Pete Tillman 22:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As I figured it out, the ref is meant to serve as justification for the writers being on the list (inclusion in a hard-SF anthology edited by a couple of authoritative folk being the point). Don't know why whoever set up the ref chose to point to the Amazon site, except that it's a web-accessible contents list. Cynthia Ward's "review" mentions a number or writers. One more example of preferring on-line sources to more conventional (and often more reliable) print sources. RLetson 01:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toward a body of sources

The Cynthia Ward/Amazon issue got me to thinking about reliable on-line sources of bibliographic data. For the contents of any given anthology or collection, a Google search on the title plus "contents" will probably include a hit for the Locus magazine bibliographies. When I entered Hard SF Renaissance this way, I got http://www.locusmag.com/index/yr2002/t7.htm. Another fairly authoritative historical anthology devoted to hard SF is The Ascent of Wonder, ed. David G. Hartwell & Kathryn Cramer (Tor 0-312-85062-X, 1994), which has three introductions (Cramer, Hartwell, and Greg Benford). Contents at http://www.locusmag.com/index/t280.html. For academic takes on the topic, one might look at a special issue of Science-Fiction Studies from 1993 (http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/abstracts/a60.htm) with essays by Gary Westfahl and John J. Pierce and an extensive bibliography of essays on the nature and development of hard SF. (The print incarnation also has an essay by Greg Benford.) The truth, as someone said, is out there. RLetson 18:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/r/Talk%7EHard_science_fiction_d068.html"