Nitpick, Tak is usually described as an ape, but he’s actually a man reincarnated into the body of an ape as a punishment for betraying Brahma and rulers of Heaven.
I do love that book - in my opinion, one of RZ’s best.
I would argue it’s science fantasy. The Attribute and Aspect portions of the story are explicit callouts to psi powers possessed by some but not others. The powers are bolstered by science, but exist independent of it.
You could say the same thing about Heinlein’s " All You Zombies", or any number of classic time travel stories.
Also, there’s no rule that Science Fiction has to be about scientists, or people acting like scientists. You’re just narrowing the definition even more.
I think you’re missing the point. LoL is Exhibit 1 in the case that the lines between Science Fiction and Fantasy are nebulous, if they exist at all.
Good point. At the risk of contradicting myself, the attraction of SF to me has always been the ‘what if’, how humans would behave or what the world would become if a new piece of technology or science became available. While Groundhog Day does not involve technology, it appeals to the same interest in that it shows how a human behaves in radically different circumstances. Asimov’s Caves of Steel also did not really revolve around radically new technology but were more about a different kind of society, and how it would shape the mentality of persons.
Maybe that is also why I can appreciate hard as well as softer SF: the explanation of the technology is not essential to my enjoyment of the story. As long as the science is taken seriously as something to come to grips with. I don’t like it if the tech is moulded merely to suit the whim of the author, i.e. is more a deus ex machina than a part of the plot.
How about this:
Hard science fiction describes the technology and then says, “because…”
Soft science fiction describes the technology and then says, “therefore…”
In other words, hard science fiction is much more interested in telling you the scientific explanation for the technology. Soft science fiction is much more interested in telling you the implication of the technology.
This isn’t exact, but in general it’s a difference between the two subgenres.
That’s a good question. Few would argue that Terminator or Looper are “science fiction”. But I would tend to describe Groundhog Day as “fantasy”. Terminator and Looper explore the application of speculative technology. We never learn the mechanism of Phil’s time loop in Groundhog Day OTOH. And it’s application seems to be more “magic” than science. It just happens one day and that day just repeats until Phil learns the value of true love (or whatever).
I think the people of Wakanda would have something to say about that statement!
Everybody is going to have their own definition. I doubt that you’d ever get a significant percentage of authors or readers to agree on one clear definition.
It’s always going to be ‘I know it when I see it’, with a lot of fuzziness around the edges.
Just to toss another line-straddler into the mix - how about Niven & Pournelle’s Oath of Fealty? Sci Fi, techno, day after tomorrow fiction? There are some hard SF elements, but the main story is about people adapting to a new society and the resentment it causes in the old society.
Or “Walden II,” about another alternate society set up in the midst of the contemporary world.
Me, I’d call both of them SF, but your mileage may vary
P.S. Obviously, I’m an SF-imperialist, and will eagerly gather utopian literature (you know, Heinlein started out with a utopian novel), dystopian literature, alternative history under the SF umbrella
“C” is only the fastest speed locally. If you are warping space or traveling through a wormhole, you are making the trip much faster than light.
I would say the same thing about stories like that.
I agree. I’m okay calling Groundhog Day science fiction. But I wouldn’t call it hard science fiction.
Quite a bit of Niven’s work should fall under hard science fiction. At least at the time of the writing, most of it was plausible with the science that we knew. At some point, Known Space started getting a bunch of “Clarke Tech” where it probably becomes substantially softer.
At the same time his story, “Neutron Star”, while involving unobtanium materials, as well as FTL, focused entirely on the science of a celestial object.
As another point, I wonder if SCP Foundation stories fall under soft sci-fi, or just straight up fantasy?
I feel Phil attempted science. He experimented plenty, including many suicides, figuring out the limits of his condition. And he was successful at that. But his situation was unknowable, so the science failed to provide an explanation.
To me, the message of Jurassic Park was always “don’t cut corners when building containment facilities for large, dangerous predators”. At the end of the day a tyrannosaurus is still just a (relatively dumb) animal, and proper protocols could be established that would let you safely exhibit one at a zoo. It’s just that Hammond was a cheap bastard who insisted on cutting corners and hiring people like Nedry, then screwing them over.
That seems a bit specific. Ian Malcolm’s various monologues aren’t about how Hammond cheaped out on the containment (I’m going from the movie here: been a long time since I read the book and I don’t have a copy). For example:
John, the kind of control you’re attempting simply is… it’s not possible. If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it’s that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, it expands to new territories and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously, but, uh… well, there it is.
That’s not about substandard containment; it’s a claim that you can’t contain life at all in the long run. And even more generally:
If I may… Um, I’ll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you’re using here, it didn’t require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn’t earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don’t take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now
Now, I think his argument is pretty unfair, and really describes all of science, but Malcolm is pretty clearly the “conscience” of the story and so that’s my takeaway.
I agree that that’s what Crichton and Ian Malcolm want you to take away; I just disagree that cloning a few dinosaurs is nearly as dangerous or transgressional as Crichton wants us to believe.
Just because Jurassic Park failed doesn’t mean the takeaway should be “all genetic engineering is doomed to failure”.
Yeah, if life… finds a way, then what’s up with all these species going extinct on us?
Fair enough. I was referring to the intended message of the book, not what I got from it.
My personal takeaway is that a dinosaur park is a totally badass idea and if a few people have to die to make that happen, so be it. God, shmod, I want my T-Rex!