Soft vs. hard science fiction (definitions)

[The_African]

Which is the correct definition (or are both wrong) ? Soft science fiction is closer to fantasy than hard science fiction is, it contains very unrealistic, if not impossible, events that are explained through pseudo science whereas hard science fiction only deals currently impossible but realistic advances in technology and science.


Soft science fiction places little to no emphasis on scientific detail, focusing primarily on the plot or social/philosophical themes of the story whereas hard science fiction is like reading a damn college text book. The first definition implies little emphasis on scientific detail but technically it could still emphasize pseudo scientific detail and be 'soft', right?

Show (/recommend) some examples of soft/hard science fiction novels.

 

[Parson]

In my opinion there is no absolute definition of what is hard and soft SF. Any definition I would buy for them certainly has nothing to do with the way the characters interact, the importance of plot, or social/philosophical themes. For me it's all about physics. Hard SF will not violate any known laws of physics, at least to the point that something is theoretically possible. By my definition Jules Verne would be a hard SF writer for his day, and interestingly most of his "far out" ideas are now fact.

In the end I find myself agreeing with J.D. that the most useful definition is "fantastical fiction" because even the line between SF and Fantasy/horror is nebulous at best.

 

[Tinsel]

Science fiction has to deal with science and ethics. Whether or not it is hard or soft science fiction can only relate to the issues raised. Did you find that the issue was significant and the story was convincing or not? Therefore it is either hard or soft in terms of its relevant importance, for the effect that it has on the reader.

I would say that the time would have an effect on science fiction because as technology and science evolve than arguments might be made harder or softer in relation to.

 

[iansales]

Traditionally, hard sf referred to the physical sciences - physics, chemistry, etc.; while soft sf referred to the "softer" sciences - anthropology, psychology, etc. AFAIK, that definition has not changed, although people's uses of the terms might have.

 

[J Riff]

Whenever they started calling it hard and soft, I missed it, I reckon it's taken from science terminology itself as Ian suggests.
However, I used to look for SciFi..that was what I thought of as 'deep space' stuff.... nothing to do with life on earth, generally, just...deep space exploration, which allowed for wild aliens, cultures, empires- anything. And this seemed 'hard' in comparison to say, Bradbury, who was lyrical, character-based, and largely earthbound, viz: connected in some way to life on earth in the present, which I wasn't interested in.
Using physics as a barrier- disallows any FTL-based stories, and that's a lot of SciFi - some of which postulates other, equally-impossible science while still holding together somehow. Science, yes, but don't forget that Fiction word!

 

[iansales]

They started calling it hard and soft sf back in the Golden Age. The labels have fallen out of favour somewhat in recent decades, with the popularity of space opera and British New Space Opera adding hard sf to trad space opera. The terms have always been open to editorial obfuscation, as exact definitions have never been entirely agreed upon. So, for example, The Hard SF Renaissance, edited by David G Hartwell & Kathryn Cramer, contains stories many would clearly consider not to be hard sf...

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Traditionally, hard sf referred to the physical sciences - physics, chemistry, etc.; while soft sf referred to the "softer" sciences - anthropology, psychology, etc.

This is how I've always understood the terms and heard them used.

 

[J Riff]

Hard fantasy, on the other hand.... ?
Soft YA fantasy meets hard SciFi splatterjunk in a world of tommorow, where everything is possible but nothing much ever happens, thanks to the darn laws of physics, and those obfuscating editors.

 

[Tinsel]

Science fiction might include "The Island of Dr Moreau" and I personally would allocate "Jurassic Park" as a sci fi book. In both cases, there are ethical questions raised when science is made into a venture and a departure from the main stream.

Now was "Frankenstein" a sci fi book? It more or less is, but it isn't I don't think. It is no longer able to hold water as having the presence of science in any believable form, so now it is fantasy along with "Herbert West - Reanimator". They are still good stories.

 

[Fried Egg]

Now was "Frankenstein" a sci fi book? It more or less is, but it isn't I don't think. It is no longer able to hold water as having the presence of science in any believable form, so now it is fantasy along with "Herbert West - Reanimator". They are still good stories.

I don't think it ever was an SF book. Certainly not hard anyway as the emphasis of the book was never on the rationale of how such a creature might be created.

 

[iansales]

According to Brian Aldiss in Trillion Year Spree, Frankenstein was the first sf novel. Personally, I date the start of sf to 1926 and the first issue of Hugo Gernsback's Amazing Stories.

 

[Fried Egg]

Personally, I date the start of sf to 1926 and the first issue of Hugo Gernsback's Amazing Stories.

The problem is that excludes the works of H.G. Wells and Jules Verne (and probably others).

But it is an interesting question, how do you date the birth of a genre? Is it the date that the first published book can be retrospectively judged to be part of it or at the point that writers (and readers) become consciously aware of it? If it's the latter, does that make earlier works in that vein proto SF? And does that mean that the author's conscious intention is relevent to a book's genre classification? Are Kazuo Ishiguro's "Never Let me Go", Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale" George Orwell's "1984" not SF because the author never thought of them as such?

I'm inclined to think not and that often some of the best works of SF are those where the writer wasn't writing with a specific genre in mind, just trying to make a tell a good story. What we should judge it by are the results, not the intent.

 

[J Riff]

So really, Gernsback had an early hand in beginning to solidifying the 'fantasy' genre by defining his 'scienti-fiction'.
Decades later though, fantasy and science fiction were still largely lumped together, crossovers galore, and that's why 'hard' sciFi sort of suggested it leaned into any sciFi staples whatsoever, space or aliens usually, versus fantasy worlds and sword and sorcery which was huge at the time. Then Fantasy solidified nicely, and we're back where we started, with the proper definition based on the natural sciences, which I had forgotten in all the excitement.

Proto is the right word. There are pre-sciFi genres - lost race, hollow earth, armageddon, others... and the 1st mention of anything - Dinosaurs, UFOs and so forth, all are categorized by antiquarian book dealers in one way or another.

 

[Tinsel]

"Frankenstein" does have the features of sci fi and it does raise ethical concerns related to the cost of the preservation of life. I agree that the emphasis is not on the validity of the science but back than they did experiments, including using electricity on the brain. I would hesitate to believe that raising the dead is possible knowing what I do of modern science, but certainly cloning was a significant issue recently, and DNA genetics, but some time ago the idea existed that electricity lead to healing. Now Dr Frankenstein departed from the main stream.

The main point of this genre is this: What will science produce outside of the experiment that is certainly interfered with/tainted by human subjectivity.

Now Mary Shelly needs to update her book, and we could probably turn a few others into modern sci fi as well, easily?

 

[iansales]

The problem is that excludes the works of H.G. Wells and Jules Verne (and probably others).

Yes and no. Wells called his works "scientific romances". They were certainly inspirational works for Gernsback and his peers - in fact, Wells and Verne were reprinted in many early sf magazines. While Wells and Verne weren't writing sf as we know it, they were subsequently claimed for the genre.

And yes, taken at its broadest definition, Never Let Me Go, The Handmaid's Tale, 1984, can be considered sf, inasmuch as they're books which use sfnal devices. But they're also written as books which deliberately exclude the sf community.

 

[Fried Egg]

And yes, taken at its broadest definition, Never Let Me Go, The Handmaid's Tale, 1984, can be considered sf, inasmuch as they're books which use sfnal devices. But they're also written as books which deliberately exclude the sf community.

They're written in a way that deliberately excludes the SF community? Or are they just marketed in such a way?

 

[iansales]

They're written in a way that deliberately excludes the SF community? Or are they just marketed in such a way?

Atwood has stated many times she doesn't write sf. Ishiguro has, afaik, never admitted Never Let Me Go is sf. PD James was adamant Children of Men wasn't sf. And so on...

Anthony Burgess, otoh, admitted A Clockwork Orange and The Wanting Seed were sf - althuogh he preferred the term "futfic".

 

[Ursa major]

But unless they include, perhaps next to the page number, the phrase, "Member of the SFF community, this book's not for you" how does the way they're written deter us from reading it**?







** - Shame that Margaret Atwood won't be reading this, but the use of those chips one sometimes finds in greetings cards might deter me from continuing; if on turning the page, I heard this author's soporific tones telling me not to read, I'd stop right there.

 

[iansales]

Never said it would stop us from reading it. Just said it wasn't written as sf.

 

[Fried Egg]

More like the writer doesn't think of it as SF (which leads it not to be marketed as SF) but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...