[1]

Dec. 4th, 2006 12:32 am
jack: (Default)
[personal profile] jack
[1] Hard science fiction in that the fiction explores a science idea, and that that idea is rooted in real-life science. Although not exactly immediately realizable -- but then you could say that about Verne too, it's only in retrospect it becomes clear. I think those three are a rough description of what makes hard science fiction?

As it happens, I like both hard science fiction and space opera. I'm not sure if that really makes sense. I guess I like the superficial "in space" aspect, and the typical awe of it all, and other aspects of each.

I haven't seen much hard science-fiction recently. I guess it's hard because recent science, especially physics is too complicated to break down easily for an average reader (though there's always interesting thoughts about biologicals, and people still hammering away at the idea of IT and cyberspace).

There are plenty of books that explore fictional physics (including fictional theology/magic) to a greater or lesser extent. The boundary is fuzzier than you might imagine -- think of Vinge, where the physics is (a) almost certainly little to do with ours (b) not especially much self-consistent but (c) not inconsistent with ours (d) thought out and (e) completely integral to the plot.

Active Recent Entries