Wikipedia: Science fiction/Talk

With respect to Star Wars... Although I'm not going to argue for its place in the Science Fiction hall of fame, the reasons given for excluding it seem sort of arbitrary. If we start booting out every work that isn't scientifically plausible, seems to me we have to start with every work that violates General Relativity. "Sci-fi" gets a whole lot smaller when you do that. Perhaps it would be better to point out the difference between "hard" sci-fi and things like Star Wars... Or just to ditch the sentences? -D

I'd say Star Wars is smack in the venerable Space Opera tradition. I mean, do we kick out Burrough's John Carter on Barsoom and the Lens stories as well?

From Science fiction/Hard science fiction: "Hard science fiction is largely a literary genre, as the complexities of physics rarely translate well to the screen."

Interesting point!! Can anybody think of any exceptions offhand?? Personally, I'd question whether 2001 is an example -- details of astrophysics and technology certainly aren't discussed much therein. I think 2001 might be more of a "New Wave" movie than anything else.

: Good points, but there was considerable attention to scientific detail and accuracy that hasn't been present in virtually any other sci-fi film. For instance, note the time delay on the videophone conversations, the silence of space, the depiction of zero-g and the carousel, and so on. Also, it's very abstractly philosophical rather than too concerned with the relationships between people - another trait of hard sci-fi. I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. Certainly it's closer than anything else I can think of. It's certainly not space opera. --Robert Merkel

Probably not. :-) But the techically accurate details are background rather than crucial to the plot -- the plot would procceed identically without the time-lag, silent space, centrifugal "gravity", etc. Most of the plot developments hinge on Clarke's Third Law more than anything else, I'd say.

(I mean, the film that plays Also Sprach Zarathrustra on the sound track when somebody re-solders a diode is really hard science fiction. :-))

I changed the Hal Clement reference to Arthur C. Clarke. No offence to Clement, but Clarke is far better known and thus makes a better example IMHO. --Robert Merkel

OK, somebody's put the Hal Clement reference back in. Could somebody explain to me why him, and not, say, [Stephen Baxter]?, or [David Brin]?? What makes him the canonical example of hard sci-fi? Not trying to diss the guy, but if you're writing an article about a topic and you're trying to pick an example, why somebody who's comparatively a lot less well-known? --Robert Merkel

Put in all the examples you want!! As long as they are good examples. :-) (I'd prefer an accurate but obscure example over a well-known but dodgy one.) Clement is, as far as I know, the canonical example of hard SF, i.e. the details of physical sciences really do drive the plots, and characterization, etc., are secondary. I wouldn't say Brin is nearly as "hard". I'm not familiar with Baxter.

: Put in all the examples you want!!

This is a debate that's come up in other places (discussions of musical genres, for instance). Many people take your position, that the more (accurate) examples of participants (or works) in a genre, the better. That's quite reasonable, if you add a list of ("genre foo" practitioners). I would argue that, for the sake of clarity and flow in prose, that restricting examples to the most well-known or influential practitioners can be a good thing.

As far as the specific examples go, if people think Hal Clement deserves a mention as a particularly apt example here, well and good. Could somebody who knows about him please add an entry? I'm curious now :) --Robert Merkel

I'm not sure I like the generalization that "Character development is commonly secondary to explorations of astronomical or physics phenomena" since it seems slightly derogatory, and since there are lots of examples of Hard SF in which character development is not secondary (I'm thinking Larry Niven and John Varley). That said, if we accept the "derogatory" definition, Clement is particularly apt in that his prose is wooden and his characters two-dimensional, IMNSHO!

However, Clement certainly is an important part of the tradition. As it says on his page, he was named an SFWA Grand Master. I say he deserves to stay.

By the way, I would extend the definition beyond physics and astronomy to include biology at least (thinking about John Varley again).

And should there be a link to the Cyber Punk tradition? In my opinion, a modern subset of Hard SF.

-- Cayzle