h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A578225

I referred to hard sf in my entry on Bussard ramjets. I did a search on "hard sf" and checked out the Edited Entry on Science Fiction and Fantasy hoping to link to that, but found it very limited. Here, then, is a brief entry on the subtypes of sf, which I hope can go in the edited guide either as a separate entry or as a part of the entry on Science Fiction and Fantasy.

Can I just say I'm amazed nobody has done this already?

Very good so far.

I'm sure there is some genre missing but cannot think of it.

A note maybe made of the predictive nature of SciFi (hard) for eg AC Clarke predicting saterlites, and the Kim Stanley Robinson views on terraforming Mars now being quoted as viable soulutions (sending a "dump" of supplies before hand etc)

Maybe also a note on the dumbing down between the original books and films - I have yet to see the film StarShip troopers, but I have heard it was dumbed down somewhat.

But a needed entry.

ChawkE

I think there is quite a lot of scope for controversy on this one! Two point I would like to make:

The use of sf rather than capitals SF for the abbreviation looks rather strange to me.

More controversially, with readers and writers of hard SF there often seems to be an assumption that only the physical sciences are "real" sciences. Niven and Pournelle would be counted as writers of hard SF, but I have seen plenty of criticism of their level of understanding of biology in the Mote in God's Eye.

Azara

Hmm, I was ready for controversy (see the thread on my entry on centrifugal force!).
I don't mind if it's controversial, as long as criticism is constructive. Some of my other entries have caused quite a row, but the end result was they improved enormously thanks to sometimes quick vehement input from others.
I agree, writing "sf" rather than "SF" can look a bit odd. It's one of those things though - everywhere I've looked, I've always ever seen it written like that. It's a bit like e. e. cummings - uppercase doesn't seem to apply.
On the subject of the biology of "Mote" - I don't know. I don't think there's any bias as such against life sciences. But look at the list of authors I've supplied - aside from Asimov, I think they're all physicists. I can't off the top of my head think of a PhD biologist whose written an sf classic, but I'm sure someone will now call me an uneducated philistine for not knowing about...(insert great sf novel written by a biologist here)

The Third Pandemic by Pierre Ovellette, was a great read, whilst no biologist (myself) the science behind it seemed very well researched and can be recommended.

I'm not sure if the nature of the science and its basis in fact should be what decides if sf is "hard" or not, just the level of detail that goes into the book.

The example above (also in Darwin's Radio Greg Gear), goes into some detail of the "science" behind the story, therefore regardless of the accuracy of the science, if it is convincing to the lay reader (even though it is fiction, ie the f in sf) I count it as "hard"

If the actual mechanics of the underlying science is left out (for example no-one, I believe, ever has mentioned how intertial stabilizers in Star trek work) then I would not count it as "hard"

My thoughts anyway.

ChawkE

I disagree about the underlying mechanics of the science involved. I would say that the principal requirement of hard SF is that the fiction is focused around the consequences of the assumed science, rather than using that science as a backdrop. I agree though that it is not the realism of the science that defines its hardness.

Star Trek - to take an example - is soft SF because it rarely considers the implications of FTL travel and communications, a disparate federation or empire, or a moneyless economy; it simply puts them in place and tells a story which only touches on the science when they have to recalibrate the deflector to deal with the wibble of the week.

By this definition of coure, some of what might traditionally be considered fantasy canbe viewed as hard SF, if the existence of magic/elves/dragons and the social consequences of same form the core of the story, rather than some purely aesthetic window dressing.

Good article as far as it goes, although I think the 'softness' of the boundaries between the genres needs to be stressed.

The Prophet.

Cheers for crit, updated as per.

Hoovooloo,

Prolific, aren't you

A good overview. I don't know if you've already sonsidered this and disgarded it as an approach, so feel free to slap me down...... but, I've often been struck by how possible it is to use other classic literature and film genres and put them in an sf setting, examples include: Horror (alien et al.), Disaster (Aliens, Jurassic Park), Detective Fiction (Asimov's Elijah Bailey books) and obviously many others.

In fact a large chunk of sf appears to be exactly this, even Shakespeare hasn't been immune (forbidden planet).

Keep up the good work,

Cestus

Excellent article - I wonder if it wouldn't be good to extend the article to end up at high fanstasy. Maybe not, but oyu touch on this genre somewhat.

Imho Star Wars is so close to high fantasy in the mould of Tolkein et al it very nearly makes no difference. The force is their magic and the story is basically Good v. Evil with Evil winning out overall. Heck its even got sword fighting in it. About the only thing putting it in the sci-fi genre is that they fly around in space ships.

Didn't the producer of Star Trek at a convention once reply to the question.."How does the Heisenberg Compensator work?" with the answer "Very nicely thankyou"?

I do like this. Should go in the guide.

Orcus

I Like the article, it is highly informative and reads well.

The bold text at the very beginning bothers me, however. It's probably just personal preferrence, but still. Maybe an unordered list would look better? I would even argue that you do not need to have that, at all.

Could you include Stanislav Lem on the list of Hard sf? I don't know if he is widely known in the "Western World" but he is (was?) a great influence in the "East" (he's Polish, I think).

Apart from that, a very good entry, it should go into the Guide.
Yelbakk

Hmmmm, nice Entry, loadsa potential, and the next bit I will say is just a personal opinion (and maybe from some wrong asumptions on my part). I would say you have a couple of genres there (hard-sf and science-fan) and you focus on the state of the science behind them, so distinguishing them. Fair enough, but there is a load more - cyberpunk, steampunk, space-opera, cross-overs, dystopian, utopian etc. - I would class these as genres, but they would also fit on your sliding scale of SF hardness, and some novels fit into more than one genre. Hmmmm, maybe I am just muddying the waters, or coming in with false assumptions. Take heed or ignore as you wish Hope this helps, more than it hinders Until later....
BCNU - Crescent

I think that what there is here is a good choice, because the hard SF/soft SF/science fantasy scale is fairly linear.

The problem with taknig a wider look at SF genres - as with all genres - is that they are never mutually exclusive. You can - and usually do - find dystopian, soft SF cyberpunk, for example, or a hard SF disaster plot, say exploring the implications of undertaking FTL travel without FTL communications.

The Prophet.

The title suggest that this article is going to mention all the major types of science fiction. In fact you only list three. What about Space-Opera, Cyberpunk and all those others?

Mold should be spelt mould.

I think The Prophet has answered Gnomon's point here (this is good - at this rate I won't have to bother answering the criticisms, which should save me some work )
I think there's probably room for a whole other article on the various sub-genres (come guys, throw me a bone here, I need a life too, can someone else write that one please?). I chose to do the article on these lines simply to explain the meaning of hard sf as mentioned in the entry on Bussard ramjets.
But cheers for the input!

btw, Yelbakk. I've never read any Stanislaw Lem. On your recommendation alone, I'm putting him in - thanks for the tip. I am aware I *should* have read him. Probably will now in fact...

Thanks for putting him in, and - you *will* enjoy the reading. If you're like one of the real tough guys, start off with "Philosophy of Chance" which is likely not the name by which the book is known in English; give me a couple of years and I will see if I find the name of the English translation. Btw, there are two volumes of that book which are actually two seperate books. If you ever stumble across "Philosophy 1", go get it; it is hard to come by.
Try reading "The Astronauts", though. (That, again is just a translation of the original title, in German the book is called "Planet of Death"; it is about an exploration voyage to Venus. One of the - admittedly - many books which I keep reading over and over again...)

Yelbakk

Gnomon - OK I agree, actually, I've listed the genres I could think of off the top of my head. I maintain these are subtypes within the three main ones, i.e. you can have hard space opera (Mote in God's Eye), soft space opera (Alan Dean Foster's Humanx stuff) and fantasy space opera (I think some guy named Lucas made a film once...)
Yelbakk - Lem's in. He also nicely balances all those physicists, being an MD. The only work of his I was really aware of was Solaris. Thanks for the recommendation...

Hoovooloo,
I have been running around in H2G2 just a short time, and I seem to meet you everywhere I turn. Maybe we have some interests in common.

I like your entry, and I agree fully that it is almost impossible not to use a gliding scale between the genres.

But (there allways is a 'but').
For myself I recognise another sub-genre that I do not know where to place in your system, it can be everywhere, depending on the initial assumptions. It concerns the 'lost colony' theme. A ship lands or crashes on a planet, some people survive and have to create a society based on whatever restrictions are laid on the planet. This gives good series like Darkover, the dragons of Pern (the first novels at least), the integral trees. Even some of the 'known space' novels can be placed here.

I keep it with this for the moment, with something to think about: A book of quality is the third time reading it almost as good and sometimes better than the first time.

Totally with you on the "third time reading" thing. I think the number of times I've read Hitchhikers is into three figures! (I have also read other things, obviously).

Of course! Lost colony! Declining technology stuff. I feel all the more daft for forgetting this 'cos we talked about "The Integral Trees" over in the Coriolis thread. Goes without saying that this genre is going straight in the list at the end (it's a type, like space opera - there can be hard, soft etc.)
Here's a strange one. I seem to remember that Terry Brooks "The Sword of Shannara" is, as well as being a pretty blatant ermm... "homage" to Lord of the Rings, actually a "Lost Colony" type story, as there seemed to be remnant technologies knocking about. Oh, that's getting complicated...

I think that's much better now.