Is there any real hard film sci fi? SPOILERS

[BrainGlutton]

@OtakuLoki

A fair point, and one reason why I tend to hate trying to rigorously define hard and soft SF. I’ve never found a rigorous definition of hard SF that has ever been completely satisfying for me.

See post #40.

Speculative Fiction fanatics are always raving about how “hard” the science is in various stories — but it’s not like you can rub a story with a piece of quartz and see if it leaves a scratch on the plot. So what is “hardness” in SF? Why do people want it? And how do we put a number to it?
Beginning with the first question: “Hard” Science Fiction is firmly grounded in reality, with few fantastic flights of fancy not justified by Science. “Soft” Sci Fi is more flexible on the rules. Even the fantastical aspects of the story will show a divide — in hard SF, they operate through strict, preferably mathematical, laws, where in soft SF they just work however the author feels like. What this leads to for hard SF — and this is part of the attraction for many people — is a raised bar for the amount of work the writer must put into the story, and usually this is shown quite clearly.
Example: A character is shown a machine for traveling into the past and asks, “How does it work?”

• In really soft SF: “Plot device.”

• In soft SF: “You sit in this seat, set the date you want, and pull that lever.”

• In hard SF: “A good question with an interesting answer. Please have a seat while I bring you up to speed on the latest ideas in quantum theory, after which I will spend a chapter detailing an elaborate, yet plausible-sounding connection between quantum states, the unified field theory, and the means by which the brain stores memory, all tied into theories from both Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking.”

• In really hard SF: “It’s a ride. Obviously, time travel to the past is impossible, but this multi-axis motion ride will make you think you’re really there.”

Unfortunately for analytical purposes, this pattern is not universal - hard SF stories can skip over the details as long as the basic explanation is correct given what’s been established so far. Therefore, regardless of the typical stylistic flourishes of hard SF, the only way to define it is self-consistency and scientific accuracy.

**Paradoxically, hard SF often does include technology that looks impossible. ** Many works of hard SF embrace the maxim, “A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” This was coined by Arthur C. Clarke (one of the definitive hard SF writers) and is embraced at the end of his novel (and movie) 2001: A Space Odyssey (a definitive hard SF work), where the many fantastic abilities of the monoliths are simply presented as “sufficiently advanced” and inexplicable. Essentially, a deep understanding of how scientific advancement has worked in the past leads to the knowledge that we have no real idea how it will go in the future.

<snip>

1. Science In Genre Only: The work is unambiguously set in the literary genre of Science Fiction, but scientific it is not. Applied Phlebotinum is the rule of the day, often of the Nonsensoleum kind, Green Rocks gain New Powers as the Plot Demands, and both Bellisario’s Maxim and the MST3K Mantra apply. Works like Futurama, Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann, The DC and Marvel universes, and The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy fall in this class.

2. World Of Phlebotinum: The universe is full of Applied Phlebotinum with more to be found behind every star, but the Phlebotinum is dealt with in a fairly consistent fashion despite its lack of correspondence with reality and, in-world, is considered to lie within the realm of scientific inquiry. Works like E. E. “Doc” Smith’s Skylark of Space and Lensman series, Star Trek: The Original Series, and StarCraft fall in this category.

3. Physics Plus: Stories in this class once again have multiple forms of Applied Phlebotinum, but in contrast to the prior class, the author aims to justify these creations with real and invented natural laws — and these creations and others from the same laws will turn up again and again in new contexts. Works like Schlock Mercenary, David Brin’s Uplift series, and Neon Genesis Evangelion (“the Dirac Sea is trapped in Klein space!”) fall in this class.

4. One Big Lie: Authors of works in this class invent one (or, at most, a very few) counterfactual physical laws and writes a story that explores the implications of these principles. David Weber’s Honor Harrington series, most works in Alan Dean Foster’s Humanx Commonwealth series, and Robert A. Heinlein’s Farnham’s Freehold fall in this category.
• This class also includes a subclass (4.5 on the scale) we call One Small Fib, containing stories that include only a single counterfactual device (often FTL Travel), but for which the device is not a major element of the plot. Many Hal Clement novels (e.g. Mission Of Gravity, Close to Critical), Freefall, and the Alien series fall within the subclass.

5. Speculative Science: Stories in which there is no “big lie” — the science of the tale is (or was) genuine speculative science or engineering, and the goal of the author to make as few errors with respect to known fact as possible. Early works in Larry Niven’s Known Space series, the first two books in Robert L. Forward’s Rocheworld series, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and Robert A. Heinlein’s The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress fall in this class.
• A subclass of this (5.5 on the scale) is Futurology: stories which function almost like a prediction of the future, extrapolating from current technology rather than inventing major new technologies or discoveries. (Naturally, Zeerust is common in older entries.) Moon, The Machine Stops by E. M. Forster, and the more Speculative Fiction works of Jules Verne fall in this subclass.

6. Real Life: A Shared Universe which spawned its own genre, known as “Non Fiction”. Despite the various problems noted at Reality Is Unrealistic, it is almost universally agreed that there is no other universe known so thoroughly worked out from established scientific principles. The Apollo Program, World War II, and Woodstock fall in this class.

[DrDeth]

@OtakuLoki

A fair point, and one reason why I tend to hate trying to rigorously define hard and soft SF. I’ve never found a rigorous definition of hard SF that has ever been completely satisfying for me.

Normally, I have no trouble with a story having that “one impossible by current science” divergence. FTL, in particular, is often given a bye, as you said. But during even numbered hours, it’s a disqualification for being hard SF, and during odd numbered hours it’s not a problem at all. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen other people wrestle with that particular fillip for where to draw the line for hard vs. soft SF.

As I get older, I find myself being drawn more and more towards a very strict definition of what hard SF should be. To the point where, in general, I no longer consider any SF with an FTL capability to count towards that - no matter how impressive the technical factors might be otherwise.

I do admit that’s a personal preference, and one that I know is debated in many circles.
Whoops, I was trying to get this in as a direct response to DrDeth’s post.

If it can’t have something that is beyond todays Science, then it’s not Science Fiction. Any definition that excludes Heinlein and Asimov as “not Hard SF” is just crazy.

[BrainGlutton]

Actually, any film adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft is hard SF. As you’ll all be learning soon.

[OtakuLoki]

@DrDeth

If it can’t have something that is beyond todays Science, then it’s not Science Fiction. Any definition that excludes Heinlein and Asimov as “not Hard SF” is just crazy.

Remember, today’s science does not equate to today’s engineering.
Just for an example, rail guns have been described scientifically for decades, now. However, last I heard the engineering for the railgun catapult for the Ford-class carriers is still not quite to the point where they’ve got a working model to install on the ship, and it’s actually starting to cause problems with the construction of the vessels.

Does that mean that I think that railguns can’t be included in a hard SF story? Of course not. What it does illustrate is that we can describe a lot of techniques that look good on paper, that we do not have the engineering perfected to actually create a working model. Without that working model, talking about the limitations of a technology based upon the theory as it is currently understood is going to be guesswork piled upon supposition. Usually very good and rigorous guesswork, and often brilliant supposition. But because it’s guesswork and supposition it’s not real and therefore a future technology - one of the realms of science fiction. And still well within the realm of hard SF, even by my definition.

[DrDeth]

@OtakuLoki

Remember, today’s science does not equate to today’s engineering.
Just for an example, rail guns have been described scientifically for decades, now. However, last I heard the engineering for the railgun catapult for the Ford-class carriers is still not quite to the point where they’ve got a working model to install on the ship, and it’s actually starting to cause problems with the construction of the vessels.

Does that mean that I think that railguns can’t be included in a hard SF story? Of course not. What it does illustrate is that we can describe a lot of techniques that look good on paper, that we do not have the engineering perfected to actually create a working model. Without that working model, talking about the limitations of a technology based upon the theory as it is currently understood is going to be guesswork piled upon supposition. Usually very good and rigorous guesswork, and often brilliant supposition. But because it’s guesswork and supposition it’s not real and therefore a future technology - one of the realms of science fiction. And still well within the realm of hard SF, even by my definition.

Just taking todays tech 10 years in the future doesn’t make SF at all, imho.

[Chronos]

Quoth CalMeacham:
This is fiction based on existing science in which that is essential to the plot, which is the sort of definition Campbell used.

I thought Campbell’s definition of “science fiction” was “that which is published in science fiction magazines”, thereby allowing him to include whatever he wanted in it. Or was that some other Golden Age editor?

Quoth OtakuLoki:
I can’t let this go by without comment.

By what definition of “Hard SF” can you classify a story that revolves around UNOBTAINIUM as “Hard SF?” I’ll even ignore the mind/body rebuild or transference, and the implicit FTL travel, either of which I’d normally consider a clear strike against a story being “Hard SF.”

Someday, somebody in our world is going to discover some nifty new material, and call it “unobtainium” as a joke. Just the name isn’t enough to disqualify it. The properties of it might, but very little is said about the properties of unobtainium in the movie. Supplementary materials, though, reveal that it’s a room-temperature superconductor, which is something that fits into hard SF just fine, and even goes some way (not far enough, but some way) towards explaining things like the floating mountains and the planetary consciousness.

[Chronos]

Oh, and Great Antibob:

For example, the more we learn about the effects of long term, zero-g exposure beyond the magnetosphere, the less likely it is that colonization or even a base on Mars is even feasible with technology achievable within the next 20-30 years. We already know cellular growth isn’t normal in zero-g and that radiation exposure can be bad. But this is touted as “realistic” because, hey, it’s just landing a few guys with supplies on Mars, right? Just give them a bit of lead shielding.

So don’t expose your colonists to long term zero-g exposure. I don’t know why people harp so much on this one when talking about hypothetical Mars missions-- We already know how to produce artificial gravity, and compared with a lot of the other challenges in a planetary colonization, it’s not actually all that hard.

[MrDibble]

I always pimp out excellent British/German series Space Island One as being the hardest SF I’ve ever seen on TV.

@OtakuLoki

I’ll even ignore […] the implicit FTL travel

It’s quite explicitly NOT FTL - the voyage takes 6 years, so ~0.7 C. There’s a lot to fault with Avatar as a movie, if you’re so inclined, but the space travel was enjoyably hard.

[Namkcalb]

@OtakuLoki

I can’t let this go by without comment.

By what definition of “Hard SF” can you classify a story that revolves around UNOBTAINIUM as “Hard SF?” I’ll even ignore the mind/body rebuild or transference, and the implicit FTL travel, either of which I’d normally consider a clear strike against a story being “Hard SF.”

Here’s a free clue for you: Unobtainium, and it’s close relative Handwavium, both emerged as fannish commentary about fictitious elements or materials that authors or producers use in SF to break known physical laws left, right and center. The acknowledged presence of either in a story is a clear sign that we’re into the realm of pure fantasy without any attempt to pay attention to pesky things like known physical laws.

As an aside, I’ve nothing against science fantasy. It can be a good deal of fun. I’m not commenting on whether Avatar is a good film. I just cannot understand how it can be labelled “hard SF” by any stretch of the imagination.

They used Slower-Than-Light to travel to the nearest star using feasible technology, The ship itself is extremely ‘hard’, it was designed by real-life experts

The magic catgirls weren’t but the journey there checks out.

[Gagundathar]

The Valkyrie model used in Avatar is quite remarkable.
I wonder how feasible suspended animation really is.
The idea of freezing people and then reviving them seems a bit difficult to accept.

[Gagundathar]

@DrDeth

It’s mostly talking. Wonderful book, but would make a terrible film.

But, you have to admit that it is hard SF. Even by the Mohs scale.

[Namkcalb]

@Gagundathar

I wonder how feasible suspended animation really is.
The idea of freezing people and then reviving them seems a bit difficult to accept.

Right now it is impossible but cryogenics is still advancing.

The film is set in the future, so it doesn’t seem too out there.

[Gagundathar]

@Namkcalb

Right now it is impossible but cryogenics is still advancing.

The film is set in the future, so it doesn’t seem too out there.

I agree, but that can be said of FTL or time travel as well.
There are certain physical barriers that may not be assailable.

[Icerigger]

As an aside, I was shocked to see how much the SF section has shrunk in the book store. I have not not to our local B&N for about two years and what took up one entire wall has been reduced to a quarter of that size.

[robert_columbia]

@DrDeth

It’s mostly talking. Wonderful book, but would make a terrible film.

And the audience will start throwing rocks.

[MrDibble]

@Gagundathar

I wonder how feasible suspended animation really is.
The idea of freezing people and then reviving them seems a bit difficult to accept.

It’s an area of active research. TED talk on the subject by Mark Roth.

[CalMeacham]

I thought Campbell’s definition of “science fiction” was “that which is published in science fiction magazines”, thereby allowing him to include whatever he wanted in it. Or was that some other Golden Age editor?

If that were true, he wouldn’t have had to start Unknown

Unknown (magazine)

[CalMeacham]

@DrDeth

It’s mostly talking. Wonderful book, but would make a terrible film.

Respectfully disagree. It most cerainly isn’t mostly talking – there are plenty of action scenes in it and sense-of-wonder “establishing shots”. In the right hands, this coul be one helluva movie.
In the wrong hands, as is more probably (and depressingly common in SF), it’ll be garbage.

[coremelt]

Some classics no one has mentioned:

1984
Brave New World
Logan’s Run
Soylent Green
The Handmaid’s Tale
Fahrenheit 451 (1966 movie)
Mad Max (the first one only, the later ones got too fantasy-ish)

Blade Runner has been mentioned, IMO, not really hard sci fi as AI of that capability is something we don’t even have a remote idea how to implement even in theory.

[BwanaBob]

IMHO, it’s “hard” science fiction when the science aspects of the story outweighs the human condition aspects of the story. The science can be either “easily extrapolated from current knowledge” or “have elements of sciences currently unknown or unexpected”.

So in my view, Outland is pure soft science fiction - putting something in space or in the future doesn’t make it science fiction - let alone hard sci-fi.

Anything having far future people behaving in a 20th century manner is automatically soft (and usually shit as well).