|
|
Joined: 3/14/2011
Posts: 80
|
What do you guys consider the difference between hard and soft sci-fi literature?
To me, soft sci-fi leans more towards the fantastic rather than the hard sciences of physics, chemistry etc.
While sci-fi is about the future, I've always had it in my head that sci-fi equals space and strange planets, aliens, etc. I think that comes from growing up with Star Wars and Star Trek 
Which books would you guys consider to be soft sci-fi?
One of the books I posted here for review, Red Dust, I have classified as soft sci-fi because it takes place on a strange planet with an alien race. While those are important elements to the story, I feel like it's more about the character's journey to reunite her family and romance, etc. rather than the technology they've had to recreate and improve on. Did I classify it correctly? I don't really know Sometimes literature genres confuse me as much as musical genres!
|
|
Joined: 3/14/2011
Posts: 49
|
I've always thought of it like this: hard sci-fi focuses on technology. To an extent, the story is almost secondary to the technology and world-building, or at least the technology is a prominent character in the story.
Soft sci-fi, on the other hand, might have technology and world-building, but it's definitely secondary to the story. Most technological things aren't really explained other than in direct context to the story itself. I also classify social sci-fi as soft sci-fi (in most cases), along with things like post-apocalyptic and dystopian fiction. And yeah, sometimes soft sci-fi is more like fantasy.
So, hard sci-fi would be things like Star Trek, where soft sci-fi would be more like Star Wars.
|
|
Joined: 3/17/2011
Posts: 88
|
It's funny you should ask this question. I'd always thought as you two did: hard SF was interested in real, plausible extrapolation from current science and soft SF was simply less rigorous. So, soft SF would be almost a pejorative in that case. Funny you should mention Star Trek as hard SF, because what I'd understood all this time was that Star Trek was the epitome of "soft SF" in that it was all whimsical "techno-babble" and magic dressed up as science. (I've known some pretty unforgiving science geeks! Don't shoot the messenger!)
But Colleen introduced me to a pair of definitions I'd never heard before: that "hard SF" was concerned with the so-called hard sciences: physics, chemistry, etc.; while "soft SF" drew its inspiration from the "soft sciences": psychology, sociology, etc. Both, therefore, can have their rigor, both have ideas derived from current science.
This issue hits particularly close to home for me because the book I'm working on now falls neatly into this latter definition of "soft." I'm working hard to be as rigorous as I can with the science in my book, but for the most part, that science is psychology. The technology is there, and I've done a lot of homework to make it plausible, but it's not really my central concern or my inspiration.
I have this nagging fear about SF readers: that the "hardcore" of them want hard SF and disdain the "soft" stuff. So, it's hard for me to shake the idea that my book will have a tough time finding an audience because all the "SF geeks" will think, "What's all this psychology and emotion doing in my SF book???" SF has a reputation for being emotionally cool and for the characters to take a back seat to the world building. A lot of the SF I've been reading to research the current trends reads this way.
Then, if I try to sell the book as "soft SF," I'll have the opposite problem of people expecting a rousing Star Wars style epic and being disappointed to see quite ordinary people struggling with very real world issues in a future only 100 or so years away. It's all very good for us writers to be all kinds of savvy about what constitutes hard SF, soft SF, space opera, dystopian, etc. but what do we do if the general reader hasn't gotten the memo?
-Kevin
|
|
Joined: 3/14/2011
Posts: 80
|
I get your concerns, but before I started writing, I had NO idea there was even a difference in the types of Sci-fi out there. I'm thinking a lot of readers don't realize there's a difference either. It's not like it's broken down on the shelves in the stores you know? Again it's going to be a matter of people picking up the book and seeing if the blurb on the back interests them.
There may be some die-hard fans who will be extra geeky and spout out the differences to their friends, but I think they'll be in the minority.
Sometimes certain things don't even hit me as sci-fi because I had the preconceived notion of sci-fi equally space stories only, YET The Hunger Games series takes place in our future. It's dystopian but it's also definitely sci-fi. The genre doesn't always really factor in for me. It's all about whether or not the story peeks my curiosity.
My concern is really only how to classify things when shopping it to an agent. I guess I'll live and learn with that. Someone will be sure to tell me if I'm doing it wrong.
|
|
Joined: 3/14/2011
Posts: 80
|
I'm not "smart" enough to write hard science fiction! Heh not that I'm stupid mind you but I'd rather make things up than research and build upon theories  Kudos to those who can and do though!
|
|
Joined: 3/13/2011
Posts: 412
|
Hard sci fi is built on known science facts, and likely basic extrapolations. Soft sci fi, technology serves the same role as magic in a fantasy.
|
|
Joined: 3/4/2011
Posts: 58
|
I write what I would call soft sci-fi, but it also gets categorized as sci-fi/romance and science fantasy. It's meant to explore emotions and psychological issues of the characters, have a lot of action, and generally be "fun."
|
|
|
|
The way I always understood hard vs. soft SF was the definition referenced by Kevin Haggerty. Hard SF from the Golden Age was Asimov and Heinlein and the pioneers of Soft SF was Sturgeon, Pohl, and Kornbluth. I guess now the Hard SF types are the "Killer Bs" - Benford, Bear, Brin, and apparently the really far out stuff is Greg Egan. I gravitate to both Soft and Hard SF. I think Orson Scott Card and Dan Simmons are good at creating books that blend both aspects, and so does Iain M. Banks.
|
|
Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 376
|
That Hard / Soft definition would, at least for Heinlein's later stuff, fly in the face of the 'Hard is for Hard Sciences, Soft is for 'soft' sciences' definition and adhere closer to the 'tech is extrapolations of current' for Hard and 'tech is magic' for Soft.
Of course, you must remember Clarke's Third Law and Gehm's Corollary to said law. Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic, and any science distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
With that in mind, and because I have grown to despise 'wiring diagram fiction', while my desire is to write hard sci fi, I wind up being mistake for soft sci fi a lot. That is mostly because I do an enormous amount of research and idea testing with a few technology geek friends of mine, who simply live to shoot holes in pretty ideas. The ones that don't get holes are the ones that I use as the infrastructure for my sci fi world.
And they never, ever, EVER see the light of day. That would be like seeing the scaffolding behind the backdrop in a motion picture. Just. Not. Done. Instead, the story is all about the people, the action, and occasionally the way the scenery impacts them, not about the future world itself.
So, as I once described it, I write hard science fiction candy wrapped in a yummy soft chocolate sci fi coating.
|
|
|
|
Oh yeah, that definition of Hard/Soft SF applies to Heinlein when he was building his early Future History stuff and not his wacky, late-stage screeds.
I like the hard science fiction candy/wrapped in soft sf chocolate coating definition for your stuff. It also makes me want a Tootsie Pop. Thanks a lot, man!
|
|
Joined: 3/11/2011
Posts: 15
|
Kirkus Reviews has an article on just this question... http://www.kirkusreviews.com/blog/science-fiction-and-fantasy/sf-signal-defining-indefinablewhat-science-fiction/
|
|
|
|
Great discussion topic! Soft versus Hard science fiction in a very literal sense has to do with the kinds of science that is integrated into the story (if you look at the genre map and click on both hard and soft SF you can see the Book Country definitions of each, which typically follow the majority of the industry). I've never thought of them as being different in any other way really--they can be just as interesting, just as powerful, just as thrilling--they just deal with different topics and the weight of the science-aspect shifts a bit.
You're right, MD--knowing how to categorize your work before sending to an agent is key! And it has a learning curve. I'm so glad you asked this question about your given genres  I hope that people will also give you feedback on that when they read RED DUST so you can see what elements jump out to readers as significant. Because how they see it is how your potential agent is going to see it. Miscategorizing your work can make or break an opportunity, though the sublety between soft and hard SF though won't hurt you nearly as much as categorizing an urban fantasy as a paranormal romance (or vice versa).
I'll be sure to take a peek at RED DUST myself soon and let you know my thoughts! I know how hard it is to see your own book objectively, especially when it comes to genre.
|
|
Joined: 3/3/2011
Posts: 68
|
I'll ditto what most have said about Hard vs. Soft SF. I prefer Social or Sociological SF to 'Soft SF' because I don't divide scholarship into hard science and soft science. For me, that creates an a priori hierarchy where Hard Science is the tops and everything else is just a pale reflection. Most people I run into don't seem to intentionally carry forward that hierarchy, but it still niggles in my brain on occasion.
Since my favorite SF books are things like Fahrenheit 451, The Handmaid's Tale, Parable of the Sower and Little Brother and my academic background is in the social sciences and humanities, I'm fine not being in the Hard SF camp.
And instead of thinking of the two types as being in a heirarchy, I'd rather think that they're different expressions of our attempts to understand ourselves, one another, and the world around us. I don't have a strong physical science background, so I'm unlikely to write Hard SF, but I'm happy playing in all of the other sub-genres and not worrying too much about how supportable my science may actually be at the end of the day.
|
|
Joined: 2/27/2011
Posts: 353
|
Agreeing with Danielle here. The way an editor or publisher decides what is hard and what is soft SF is determined by the science in the story. Hard sciences - physics, mathematics, bioengineering, for example - belong in hard SF. Soft sciences are things like sociology, psychology, linguistics (any one of which is usually part of the standard "first contact" story).
Hope that helps!
|
|
Joined: 4/27/2011
Posts: 18
|
To paraphrase Stan Schmidt, the editor at Analog, a science fiction story is one that contains an element of science without which the story would collapse. He also stresses that the best SF, like the best of all genres, is character-driven. In that sense, there is no such thing as "soft" science fiction. Star Wars, for example, is space fantasy---the only element without which Star Wars would collapse is the Force, and Lucas provides no scientific basis for it. Star Trek is a bit trickier because it's actually a series of stories, some of which qualify as SF and some of which are pure space fantasy.
Now, there's nothing wrong with space opera or space fantasy or alternate histories, etc. But I think the thing to keep in mind is that rocket ships and ray guns no more make a story science fiction than horses and revolvers automatically equal a Western. But for what it's worth, personally I have no problem with the term soft sci-fi as a broad category for all stories set in a futuristic or space setting but which don't actually rely on any element of science to support the premise of the story.
|
|
Joined: 4/26/2011
Posts: 25
|
LOL, MB - I had to respond, because I have memorialized the comment of my college boyfriend (an engineering student and "hard sci fi" fan) when I shyly confessed that I was very interested in science fiction and wanted to be a science fiction writer. His exact words were, "But you have to be smart to write sci fi!"
I think the terms as included here on the website are focused on marketing and editorial acquisition. Each type of category has its own readership. People who very much enjoy and seek out one type of SF might not enjoy or seek out other types of SF. Therefore, "soft SF" is going to be stories that will appeal to the people who have read and enjoyed other similar stories in the past. Many of Ursula Le Guin's books have been presented as "soft SF" in some arguments because she is concerned with social, human and ethical issues in the stories. At the same time, these books also contain very serious speculation involving scientific concepts that do fit what they say is "hard SF."
All the SF I write and have written is grounded in real science. I saw people mentioning Star Trek as "soft SF." Many of the Star Trek "concepts" represent either wishful, or plausible thinking (usually "of the time") that make the overall stories possible. They couldn't "explore strange new worlds" without warp drive (the Star Trek guy at JPL IS working on warp drive). Various key plot points took place because they had their communicators going, or they got in trouble because the aliens took their communicators away and they couldn't call for help. Numerous cliffhangers occurred when the transporter was on the fritz or had been damaged by a photon torpedo (hard sci fi!!! not). Star Trek and all similar "space opera" type stories are about the adventures of the characters. The adventures are more exciting, or less, depending upon the storytelling ability of the author. They run on traditional fictional and entertainment values of clear conflicts (good v. evil is always reliable), engaging characters that the reader or viewer cares about, and creative invention - in creating an inviting world that the reader also wishes to read about, think about, and "be in" while they are reading.
Many examples of "hard SF" are more like intellectual arguments in story form. This was the very root and foundation of SF. To this day, there remain books and authors whose work is more of an intellectual nature than anything else. They choose fictional characters, circumstances and situations to "illustrate" these ideas they have. The ideas can stem from realities of the physical or hard sciences, or from plausible speculation about those sciences. Speculations about aliens living under the ice on Europa - it could be part of a space-opera-ey adventure story, or a more intellectual, hard SF story meditating on the actual nature of the alien life and how people would potentially interact.
Now, as to the really popular works of SF, and the current reality which is that what once was a literature of the few and outsiders, the different, the weird and the strange, and is now something that pervades every aspects of everybody's life - to me, this once again puts SF front and center, but in a very different way than in previous generations.
Take Robert Heinlein, for example. Those familiar with his work are also familiar with some of the aspects that bothered people, such as his approach to female characters. Because his work appealed and still appeals to scientifically- or technologically-minded guys, he gets called "hard SF." Just taking Stranger in a Strange Land - this book does not include many, if any, "hard SF" concepts. It poses that there was a race of Martians who espoused many of the social, religious and personal concepts Heinlein was interested in at the time. By virtue of a space accident, a human baby got raised by these Martians, he got some of their amazing, almost magical-seeming powers, and he ended up returning to Earth as a young man in an almost "Christ-like" fashion. Once on Earth, Valentine Michael Smith (the "hero") ends up shaking things up bigtime. This was the first book to land in most people's consciousness where "free love" was espoused, and one of Valentine Michael Smith's contributions to Earth was the birth control pill - a practical means to get to that "free love" point. The girls do get to pick and choose, which a lot of Heinlein critics overlook. But at the same time, Valentine Michael Smith gets a harem and Heinlein spends at least a chapter on this sexy business. Then he goes off on religious hucksters and fake preachers. He gets his political and economic points across . . . it's all very strange and yet somehow it hangs together. There is nothing remotely resembling a plot - in form, it's more like a Russian novel.
In reality, I think these distinctions and names are almost meaningless today. There are countless examples of science fiction and different types of stories using science fictional elements. Numerous, not just a couple, of "above the title" writers have successfully written science fiction stories. Jurassic Park, for example - total sci fi - is it "hard SF" because it deals with cloning of dinosaurs to bring them back? "Science" isn't "good" in these stories because clearly, that guy should never have cloned those dinosaurs. Among other mayhem, they even ate him! I just read something by an author here that mentioned Under the Dome by Stephen King. The Dome was something put over the small Maine Stephen King town by some apparently teenaged aliens who were up in space laughing at the antics of the little "ants" (people) in their ant farm. That's a Twilight Zone idea - in fact, I think there even was a Twilight Zone like that - "Look up to see a giant boy!"
You just need to go with the story that appeals to you. It will naturally fit into one of these categories here. It's going to naturally appeal to one audience or another. As to trying to write something you're NOT really interested in . . . that's just not a good idea. To me, it's the same advice as for any other genre. What types of stories and characters most appeal to you? What conflicts and concepts are what drive you to write, and find out what happens next?
|
|
Joined: 3/11/2011
Posts: 15
|
LOLing a bit, because I do write what I want to write, and then I have the dickens of a time figuring out where to put it.
I'd hoped when I decided to self-publish that genre worries were behind me. I'd just put it out there, and people would find it (with help, of course) and they'd tell their friends, and it would all be All Right.
I've always called my Dream'verse stories SF because of the spaceships. I called them space opera because it has a lot of action. That seems to be confusing people who are looking for a different kind of story than what I wrote, and I don't know what to do about it.
Here's what I do know. Spaceships. Action. No big SF "idea." Just Rafe Ballard, who is twenty-two and has been exploited most of his life, forced to be whatever his current caretaker expected of him. Now he's free to be himself, but he doesn't know who he is. He's trying to figure that out. In the shadow of his beloved and massively competent (not to mention impulsive and forceful) Taro, that's not an easy thing to do.
Explosions happen. Karaoke happens. Rafe and Taro take on the galaxy and each other. Some lives are changed and some ended.
I'm taking genre suggestions!
(if you want to read the first chapter before you comment, it's in Books--His Faithful Squire.)
|
|
Joined: 6/7/2011
Posts: 4
|
Yes, Amy, but don't you think identifying and unpacking the concept of soft science fiction helps readers avoid it if what they're looking for, without knowing it exactly, is hard science fiction? And vice versa? Doesn't it give soft science fiction some needed legitimacy?
I think it also helps writers clarify hypotheses that generate alternative future worlds. For example, among the soft sciences that could shape an alternative future world let’s include economics. Then let’s consider the effects of two economic trends: increasing cost of transportation and decreasing utility of money. What would the world be like in 300 years if these trends continued unabated?
Well, we’d all be locavores. Whatever we needed but didn’t produce ourselves we’d get by sharing or barter.
Education would foster versatility rather than specialization.
Human societies would be economically self-sufficient, politically independent, and culturally idiosyncratic. The homelands occupied by these societies would be small, so the number of them around the world would be large.
This future world could be attained peaceably. Large wars wouldn’t start because they couldn’t be financed. Wars within one homeland, however, or between two or three homelands, would be possible.
We’re assuming by hypothesis that the hard sciences fail to reverse these two economic trends during the 300-year period. The hard sciences might, however, facilitate human adaptation to the new conditions that these trends give rise to.
What, concretely, would these new conditions be? And how would people adapt?
Answer these questions and you've got a world. Just add characters and a story.
|
|
Joined: 2/27/2011
Posts: 353
|
Bumping this up for new members to see.
|
|
|
|