# Any good "hard" SF that isn't depressing? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [October 14, 2018, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-hard-sf-that-isnt-depressing/822948 "2018-10-14T20:50:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2018, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-hard-sf-that-isnt-depressing/822948/61 "2018-10-18T08:18:42Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > I will point out that “Forty Thousand in Gehenna” is also an Alliance-Union novel by Cherryh. > > The Chanur novels are also set in the same universe, though in a part of space not (usually) inhabited by humans. Same physics/technology is involved. > [@GreenWyvern](#): > > Yes, and you could also include _Serpent’s Reach_, about a human colony coexisting with large, intelligent ant-like aliens. > > And for that matter, the whole _Foreigner_ series. The Foreigner series isn’t set in the Alliance-Union universe, it’s set in its [own](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreigner_universe). What _is set in Alliance-Union, yet in no way_ comes across as hard SF, is the[Morgaine stories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Morgaine_Stories). ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2018, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-hard-sf-that-isnt-depressing/822948/62 "2018-10-18T08:34:44Z")
All the important terms in the OP are vague - “hard”, “depressing”, and “modern”. I think we should not waste our time discussing them. Just answer the OP’s question as best you can. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2018, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-hard-sf-that-isnt-depressing/822948/63 "2018-10-18T12:23:02Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > All the important terms in the OP are vague - “hard”, “depressing”, and “modern”. I think we should not waste our time discussing them. Just answer the OP’s question as best you can. I can’t see how that is possible. All Asimov’s Foundation stories, including the Galactic Empire and later Robot stories, completely ignore the relativistic implications of FTL travel. So does most space opera, including Star Trek, Star Wars and Iain Bank’s Culture series as examples. There are much harder forms of SF which do consider the implications of FTL, including Stephen Baxter’s Xeelee sequence, so much so that it becomes a major plot point; but even the Xeelee universe is relatively soft compared to Baxter’s NASA trilogy, which includes a vanishingly small quantity of handwavium. > **[Stephen Baxter bibliography | NASA Trilogy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Baxter_bibliography#NASA_Trilogy)** > > Baxter contributed two books to this series for young adults. See The Web (series) (some might argue that _Moonseed_ is significantly softer than the other two). ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2018, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-hard-sf-that-isnt-depressing/822948/64 "2018-10-18T12:38:34Z")
Curiously enough, some late C19th/early 20th ‘future history’ novels describing the wars to come are significantly harder SF than most Golden Age and modern space opera, since they use plausible extrapolations of then-current technology. The most famous of these works being _The Shape of Things to Come_ by Wells. Some of these were depressing, though, at least until the ultimate ‘triumph of rationality’ that sometimes comes at the end. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2018, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-hard-sf-that-isnt-depressing/822948/65 "2018-10-18T12:50:14Z")
And, of course, these works are far from ‘modern’. I do think that there are a number of new authors that are writing hardish SF, far harder than the Foundation books and the Lensman/Skylark space opera genre. Alaistair Reynolds, Stephen Baxter, James Corey, Greg Egan, Gregory Benford; much modern space opera includes a lot more semi-realistic tech than the Golden Age stuff ever did. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2018, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-hard-sf-that-isnt-depressing/822948/66 "2018-10-18T13:00:17Z")
Charles Stross and Charles Pellegrino are two authors who try really hard to get the science right, although the results are sometimes devastating. Here’s a list of hard SF that attempts to do the same trick, with varying amounts of success. I’m pleased to see Schlock Mercenary in there. [http://www.projectrho.com/public\_html/rocket/sealofapproval.php](http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/sealofapproval.php) ---
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2018, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-hard-sf-that-isnt-depressing/822948/67 "2018-10-19T15:17:55Z")
Dang. My print copy of _Analog_ just arrived and the guest editorial covered just this. Unfortunately, it it not yet available on line. I hope this thread stays alive for a while ---
**Author:** ![Scoobysnax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@Scoobysnax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scoobysnax)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2018, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-hard-sf-that-isnt-depressing/822948/68 "2018-10-19T17:01:00Z")
Having recently read Clarke’s Childhood End I don’t know if I would put it in either the upbeat or hard science fiction categories. the changes the humans go through doesn’t go well for any living adult and it strays way too far into Clarke’s fascination with the occult/psy/mind control for my tastes For hard science fiction I like Niven’s early short stories. I read Neutron Star as a young teenager and had to get my dad to help me figure out the conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2018, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-hard-sf-that-isnt-depressing/822948/69 "2018-10-19T22:31:53Z")
> [@Scoobysnax](#): > > For hard science fiction I like Niven’s early short stories. I read Neutron Star as a young teenager and had to get my dad to help me figure out the conclusion. Niven is what I term _quasi-hard science fiction_. His stories are ostensibly written using real physics (for instance, the teleport booths are affected by change in energy by adding or removing thermal energy and can only adjust for a certain differnece in momentum) but many of the technologies in the Known Space universe fundamentally violate known physics (stasis fields, reactionless drives, _scrith_) with no explanation or apparent consequences, and he often gets the physics wrong in subtle but definite ways (instability of the Ringworld is most prominant, but there are numerous other errors throughout the stories like Bussard ramjets, stanle quantum singularities) and introduces pseudoscientific and mystical elements like telepathy, precognition, and the Pak protectors as the alien predecessors to humanity rather than being evolved from catarrhines, which is genetically impossible. Niven is a good short story writer and does delve into the implications of some technologies as with organlegging, antisenescence treatments, and flash mobs, but the technology of his universe is not strongly rooted in science. Arthur C. Clarke is more a hard science fiction writer; he is interested in the technology and its fundamental implications on society, and when he invokes a technology that is without solid scientific basis (e.g. the Quantum Drive of _The Songs of Distant Earth_) he tacitly acknowledges that it is a technical conceit to serve the story. When he introduces aliens or their devices, they are not funny shaped humanoids with essentially human cognition and intelligible grammar but are truly alien and generally inscrutable. Of current writers, Stephen Baxter is often (although not always) hard if speculative science as is James S. A. Corey (Daniel Abraham and Ty Franck) as authors of _The Expanse_ series even though they do assume some technologies that are without basis. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2018, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-hard-sf-that-isnt-depressing/822948/70 "2018-10-19T22:58:54Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > Most modern SF seem to focus on the negative effects of technology and/or the dark side of human nature. Any recommendations for “hard” SF novels that are more uplifting? Of the books I’ve read in the past few years, _The Martian_ may be the only one that qualifies. The “Bobiverse” series was OK, but played a bit too fast and loose with the laws of physics to enjoy as a “hard” SF. > > p.s. Even better if a good audiobook version was available through Audible. I don’t know if there’s an audiobook version or not, but I recently read a novel called _The Empress of Mars_ by Kage Baker that is, not too surprisingly, set on Mars that you might enjoy. It’s a bit softer SF than _The Martian_ but still in the “hard” range. There is also the “Retrieval Artist” series by Kristine Kathryn Rusch is relatively hard SF (there is FTL) in a detective/police/private eye sub-genre sort of place, mostly set on the Moon, particularly for the first few books of the series. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2018, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-hard-sf-that-isnt-depressing/822948/71 "2018-10-20T02:37:21Z")
I would like to point out that trying to dismiss from the category of “hard” science fiction any SF that utilizes an ftl technology simply means that you want your “hard” science fiction to be science FACT. _The Martian_ is an example: while it hasn’t happened yet, it doesn’t rely upon the existence of anything not already able to be done now, really. But let’s face it: for the most part, if you’re going to tell anything interesting about a mankind that gets out of our solar system, you’re going to have to use the as yet undiscovered how it can be done concept of ftl travel. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2018, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-hard-sf-that-isnt-depressing/822948/72 "2018-10-20T02:49:14Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > I would like to point out that trying to dismiss from the category of “hard” science fiction any SF that utilizes an ftl technology simply means that you want your “hard” science fiction to be science FACT. _The Martian_ is an example: while it hasn’t happened yet, it doesn’t rely upon the existence of anything not already able to be done now, really. But let’s face it: for the most part, if you’re going to tell anything interesting about a mankind that gets out of our solar system, you’re going to have to use the as yet undiscovered how it can be done concept of ftl travel. Vernor Vinge gets good interstellar adventure in Deepness in the Sky without FTL - and while suspended animation and other life extension might turn out to be impossible, they seem more likely than FTL, which breaks physics in ways that suspended animation does not break biology. Actually, this reminds me that I ought to read Karl Schroeder’s Lockstep which is another interstellar, non-FTL story I’ve heard good things about [The Worldbuilding in Lockstep Is So Good It Will Make You Giddy](https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-worldbuilding-in-lockstep-is-so-good-it-will-make-y-1584702572) ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2018, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-hard-sf-that-isnt-depressing/822948/73 "2018-10-20T03:29:35Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > I would like to point out that trying to dismiss from the category of “hard” science fiction any SF that utilizes an ftl technology simply means that you want your “hard” science fiction to be science FACT. Which is the “mundane SF” subcategory of hard SF that I mentioned in post #3. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2018, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-hard-sf-that-isnt-depressing/822948/74 "2018-10-20T03:36:07Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > I would like to point out that trying to dismiss from the category of “hard” science fiction any SF that utilizes an ftl technology simply means that you want your “hard” science fiction to be science FACT. _The Martian_ is an example: while it hasn’t happened yet, it doesn’t rely upon the existence of anything not already able to be done now, really. But let’s face it: for the most part, if you’re going to tell anything interesting about a mankind that gets out of our solar system, you’re going to have to use the as yet undiscovered how it can be done concept of ftl travel. The problem isn’t using a conceit like superluminal transportation that makes science fiction not ‘hard’–virtually all science fiction references some future innovation which may or may not be workable in practice–but that it treats that conceit trivially rather than using it as a means to realistically examine the impact upon humanity in some salient way. For instance, most story using some kind of faster than light travel end up using it in an “Age of Sail” fashion; that is, you see galactic empires trading dohickys manufactured on Beta Lyra 2A for unobtainium ore mined on Plotnius IV, as if it would ever make sense to move masses of materials between two distant star systems rather than find those materials natively in-system or have the technology to synthesize a substitute. The reality is that really inexpensive superluminal travel would introduce all kinds of novel possibilities that would make normal trade of materials pointless, and trade that requires extreme energies or slow subluminal transit just isn’t economically workable. ‘Hard’ science fiction is less about the technologies per se than it is about a realistic approach to how those technologies would change society. Most scifi is actually space opera, which is a science-y facade over fantasy or military tropes. _Star Wars_ is a prime example of this–it is literally drawn from the Hero’s Journey of classic mythology with none of the technology really given a plausible basis–but nearly all cinematic science fiction falls into this category, as does much of literature. Frederick Pohl is actually ‘hard SF’ even though he rarely delves into the science of the technology in his books; ditto with Stephen Baxter, who invokes a lot of extremely speculative physics but in a way that uses it to explore the impact it would have on society rather than to simply allow it to create and resolve plot complications. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![pullin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c57346/32.png) [@pullin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pullin)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2018, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-hard-sf-that-isnt-depressing/822948/75 "2018-10-21T16:30:02Z")
The best “hard scifi” I’ve read in a long time is Saturn Run, by John Sandford. I’m not giving away anything that isn’t in the summaries and reviews (and the book’s forward, IIRC). Sandford worked with a physicist while writing this, who took current technology and extrapolated it 50 years ahead. No warp drives, no transporters, no FTL. Just current tech with better efficiency and believable improvements. He limited himself only to this level of technological advance and concocted a really good story about humanity’s reaction when telescopes reveal something decelerating into orbit around Saturn. For hard, believable, technically accurate science fiction, it’s one of the best books I’ve ever read. I did not expect this from that author. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2018, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-hard-sf-that-isnt-depressing/822948/76 "2018-10-21T19:15:09Z")
Quibble: it is by John Sanford and [Cten](http://ctein.com/whoami.htm). (I don’t share your enthusiasm for the book, and skimmed over large chunks of it. I thought the writing style was pretty pedestrian.) ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2018, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-hard-sf-that-isnt-depressing/822948/77 "2018-10-22T15:54:38Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > I would like to point out that trying to dismiss from the category of “hard” science fiction any SF that utilizes an ftl technology simply means that you want your “hard” science fiction to be science FACT. Le Guin’s Hainish novels only use FTL comms, not travel - are they science FACT? ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2018, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-hard-sf-that-isnt-depressing/822948/78 "2018-10-22T17:40:10Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Le Guin’s Hainish novels only use FTL comms, not travel - are they science FACT? Did you read my wording carefully? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2018, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-hard-sf-that-isnt-depressing/822948/79 "2018-10-22T19:22:34Z")
People use FTL ambiguously, which was why I asked for clarification. Also, of course, some of the novels are set before the invention of the ansible, so are _they_ more FACTful than the rest of the Cycle? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2018, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-hard-sf-that-isnt-depressing/822948/80 "2018-10-22T19:34:06Z")
MrDibble, I think you’re still misunderstanding. Some people say, “FTL? That’s not hard science!” Those people want SF to be Science Fact. DSYoung ain’t one of those people. Some people, including DSYoung, don’t say, “FTL? That’s not hard science!” DSYoung hasn’t expressed an opinion on those people. Fair summary, DSYoung? In any case, the debate over what’s hard SF or not seems at best tangential to the thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-hard-sf-that-isnt-depressing/822948.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-hard-sf-that-isnt-depressing/822948.md?page=5)