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

I just went back and re-read your article. And I have to say that you have not made a good case for science fantasy being at either end of your continuum as you indicate that it must be in your introduction. You seem to be saying, as I believe is the case, that science fantasy is something else than science fiction. This is fair.

I don't agree with your distinction since your prime example of Star Wars is to me definitely a soft science fiction thing and not science fantasy. There's no point in arguing though, because we are clearly using different definitions. Given your definition, I can see how you say what you say. I just don't accept your definition.

I do, however, think that the distinction between hard and soft science fiction is an important one and I think you can make your point without dealing with science fantasy.

So, ultimately, my recomendation, for what it is worth coming from just one person, is that you make the changes necessary to remove the science fantasy mentions from your discussion.

If you feel the need for an exemplar of soft science fiction, I would recommend Bradbury's Martian Chronicles as a clearly superior instance, but you should pick some story you are comfortable with.

Other than that, I think the rest of the issue may be too controversial to give you the simple and straight forward article you have stated you were after.

If you want to pursue a consensus on science fantasy, then I will be happy to contribute my analysis for your consideration. I simply don't agree with what you have now and I acknowledge that this is simply a matter of opinion which I don't feel can be resolved easily.

So, having said that, I would love to hear what you have to say about how intrinsic you feel the discussion of science fantasy is to your thesis. There is no point in presenting further arguments for or against your science fantasy distinction if you can do your article without it.

Barton

Barton - the more I think about what you say, the more it makes sense. The Martian Chronicles is also the perfect example of soft sf - I'm a bit annoyed with myself that I didn't think of it, actually! (particularly as the Martian Chronicles was one of the things that got me into sf in the first place!). Since using the word "fantasy" seems to cause more problems than it solves, I think you are right. The entry needs a fundamental change, which it will now get. I'm very grateful to you for pointing this out in a constructive and helpful way. Cheers!

Barton

One further thing, Barton. In response to your crit, I've now expunged reference to "science fantasy", and I think the whole thing is much more to the point and hopefully less controversial. However, despite racking my brains I've failed to find an appropriate place to mention the Martian Chronicles. I'd love to, as I think they are beautiful, lyrical, and the ideal answer to any dogmatic fan of hard sf who spurns the soft stuff (such people do exist). But I just can't think of where to put it. If you can, please let me know.
To everyone else, (PSG especially if you're reading this still), please read the entry again, it's changed significantly now.
Cheers...

My only suggestion would be to replace your mention of "War of the Worlds" with something on the order of

--------------------------------------
A classic example of soft science fiction is Ray Bradbury's "Martian Chronicles" where technology is implicit in man beginning to colonize Mars but the stories are about what happens when one culture displaces another without really understanding what is being replaced. The science of the dying Martian civilization and the rising human civilzations create the situations but their nature is not so important as the simple fact that they exist in conflict.
--------------------------------------

That's me being wordy as I am prone to be, but I think "Martian Chronicles" is more clearly soft science fiction than "War of the Worlds" particularly when one considers the state of science when the two stories were written. If I had to pick soft science fiction from Wells, I would probably choose "The Island of Dr. Moreau." or "The Invisible Man." Though I do not dispute that "War of the Worlds" is on the soft side of the spectrum.

Barton

By the way, I remiss in not saying that I like the article much better now. And that I think it would work just fine now, my suggestions completely to one side.

Barton

Hello again!
I have taken another look at the article and it is much better, and thankfully displays no bias(Which was my worry).

I can now clearly understand the differentiation between your definition of Hard and Soft Sci-Fi, and like the use of examples (maybe I am biased). I still personally think it is a bit arbitary but I can see where it is coming from, and I like the fact you pointed out it isn't boolean (one or the other) as nothing in life really is.

Yes all in all I think this is an worthy guide entry for the non-expert.

Researcher PSG

I still reckon that "Genres within genres" could be usefully cut out of the entry - but that's your choice.

Perhaps you could write a little bit about the type of audience that the two sorts of sci-fi tend to appeal to? You might also try and explain why hard sf is so rare on TV and in film, perhaps. Another comment is that one-off novels /tend/ to be soft sf, whereas series can be either.

You might want to find a few links - we have entries on some of the authors you mention, and of some of the science stuff. Barton's entry on 'Jargon' might be handy to link for in the "sf vs. Sci-fi" section, come to that. Have a look round - see what you can find

Just a point, I didn't think that the Pern novels had magick in, the whole impression and talking to the Dragons was an ESP thing, all explained away by 'science'. I would go for Hugh Cooks Chronicals of a Dark Age for the science/magick crossover Well, just an opinion, until later....
BCNU - Crescent

I agree with you that ESP is not to be considered as magic. It is a way of transporting information and even matter with an as yet unknown kind of force or field. The human mind seems to have found a way to detect and use it.

Magic is for me a flagrant violation of conservation of energy, that seems to be directed by the use of words or movements.

For instance, I do not consider the laran of Darkover to be magic. It is ESP backed by hard matrix science to enhance it.
As a matter of fact, I could not find in my library any novel that I would consider to be sf with magic. Maybe the 'World of Tiers' series by Philip Jose Farmer comes close.

If you read the Pern series without reading the prequel, then it's fantasy. I don't think the existance of a prequel which explains it all as the result of EMP and genetics changes that. The characters in the books think it's magic, so it's magic. Simple.

I also disagree that magic must be a violation of conservation of energy - both memory-based and mana-based magical systems can be seen as conserving energy (details on request). At the end of the day, the difference between a magical wand and a ray gun is how the characters in the novel treat it.

For magic, in what is to me science fantasy on the borderline of scinece fiction, consider Randall Garret's "Too Many Magicians" or "Murder and Magic" where he presents us with detecttive stories set in an England where because of the non-death of Richard the Lion Hearted (I believe) magic was studied and science is some arcane thing that a few people believe in. So, these are alternative history tales which is legitimate and intriguing sf but they are alternatives that exclude science being the primal thing it is for us. In fact, Garret is fond of setting up scientific red herrings that lead you off track from solving the mystery in a world where magic has very clear laws and does very specific things. In this last sense then, these stories *are* sf in the Asmovian sense.

(Really twists your mind -- I love it!)

Barton

firstly, the shanara books are not based in the past. it is made plain somewhere in the middle of the series that it is set is a post-technology setting.

Also, mccaffrey does not write magic novels. I have a large collection of her stuff, and apart from the initial assumptions (which can be explained using science or magic) the novels are self consistent and compatible with either explanation.

That behind us, there seems to be a significant point that no-one has deemed worth a mention. The main difference that I have found between sci-fi and fantasy is one of the search for consistancy. One-off fantasy doesn't have it at all (generally). Serial fantasy has it forced on it by it's fans for self consistancy between books, sci-fi has it a little, and hard sci-fi has it in massive amounts. This is why clarke ended up saying "I thought that I wrote fiction" after he kept having devices in his sci-fi become real.

Hard sci-fi authors try everything they can to make sure that their story is compatable with the current (and often the forseeable) state of the art in science. This is why when star trek featured "bio-beds" for the first time, they recieved phone calls from four different research organisations asking who leaked their designs.

Star trek and other long running serials have an extra problem, if science changes making the technology that was predicted incompatable with the new knowledge, do you keep faith with your previous uses of the technology, or with the new uses. The way that they get aroung a lot of this type of problem is to thoroughly research the technology and theoretical ideas for future enhancements, keep good records of when and where the information was used in public, and publicise as little of it as they need to to keep the story consistant.

I'm not too sure how much of this is relevant, but I thought it better to give too much info rather than not enough.

OK as the debate has died down I took it you all have had your say, so I went and recommended the entry, and the h2g2 staff liked it as much as I do and it will make a valuble addition to the guide.

This thread will be moved to the entry, so everyone can see forever the wonderful debate you all had here. Then, sometime in the future it will be sub edited and appear on the front page, no doubt reviving the debate with other researchers

Great entry.

ChawkE

Congratulations!

Editorial Note: This thread has been moved out of the Peer Review forum because this entry has now been recommended for the Edited Guide.

If they have not been along already, the Scout who recommended your entry will post here soon, to let you know what happens next. Meanwhile you can find out what will happen to your entry here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/SubEditors-Process

Congratulations!

Thanks! This has been very entertaining, and it's given me some good leads for authors to try. I've updated the entry, btw, to include credits to everyone here who said something which made me change the entry in any way. Cheers all!