Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: quadibloc Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written Subject: Re: (ReacTor) Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard =?UTF-8?B?U0YiPw==?= Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 19:27:17 +0000 Organization: novaBBS Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1574737"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="5sGkkzIbbdADfSo2vvlQSyy6vQkiKbuCRuGoclDdANg"; User-Agent: Rocksolid Light X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 X-Rslight-Posting-User: 80dce3cebe7cf4e7a35bf1a47824d0d58e41b1b7 X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$BFmhYt5Xb8Trv.X1S8yXGeIyyrmST185lI7O2diSesQNe1kFZVYBK Bytes: 2006 Lines: 19 I've always felt that the definition of "Hard SF" is a simple one. It refers to science fiction that doesn't involve anything we have no reason to believe is possible; so a story about a journey to Alpha Centauri with an FTL drive isn't hard SF, but one about a journey to Alpha Centauri in a generation ship might be. So a story about the first manned landing on Mars is likely to qualify has hard SF. Of course, with hard SF being solidly based on present-day science, what differentiates it between the techno-thriller... or even plain old fiction? While hard SF needs to be justifiable in terms of presently-known science, it can include anticipated feats of engineering based on existing science that have not yet been realized. And the term has nothing to do with how the science is handled; one would expect a soft-SF story, using things like FTL or time travel, to have a character explain to the audience how these things are supposed to work. The interested reader can always look up real science in a textbook. John Savard