Talk:Hard science fiction

Clank?
Does anyone know about the use of the term "clank" to describe hard sci fi? This was the term I had heard used to describe it previously, and I wonder if it's a commonly known term. -- Mike Simpson 19:34, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Asimov is not a hard sci-fi writer!
I really think Isaac Asimov should NOT be considered a hard scifi writer. I've read most of his books, and not only does he leave all of the magical technologies completely unexplained ("positronic" brains, psychohistory, etc.), but many of his books also feature many soft-scifi-like things like telepathy, and as it is noted on Asimov's own article, he prefers to develop the story through dialoque and character interaction, which is usually considered a sign of soft scifi. --- Navelfluffman, July 15. 2007
 * However, if you accept the idea Asimov puts forward as a premise - for example, robots with positronic brains - the rest of the story follows more or less realistically from that idea. So for Asimov's works it's not that the premise is completely in line with contemporary scientific understanding that makes it hard SF, it's that the "rubber science" is dealt with as though it were part of that real scientific understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.184.142 (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with Navelfluffman, who said it really well, at least concerning Asimov's Foundation and Robot novels, which stressed social issues rather than hard science. Foundation consists of politics and war set in the distant future, which happens to have the usual soft scifi technologies like faster than light travel and artificial gravity. I agree that it's nice when an author's story is self-consistent given his technological premises, but when so little time is spent on science, it fails to qualify as hard science. It certainly doesn't fit the description set forth in the first sentence of this article, "emphasis on scientific accuracy or technical detail or both". SureJohn (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The Foundation series posits the (slow) construction of an engineered artifact according to the posited (but hard) science of mathematical sociology. That final word does not negate the all-important adjectives before it: engineered, hard, mathematical. Foundation is hard SF. (This is arguably why Benford, Brin, and Bear were able to extend the series while building on that math.) Jmacwiki (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Outline for Rewrite
Here is a proposed outline for the rewrite of the article. I will add more to each section over the next few days.

A lot of good work has gone into this article. I thank the previous editors for their excellent work. What I'm suggesting are mostly additions.

I do think a bit of tweaking is needed in few places to put the wording into the objective form of encyclopedia. These would only be a few minor changes (eg the caption on the first picture on the page). In general, the writing on this page is excellent.

Introduction
This looks good. My only suggested change is to add a phrase that hard sf involves extrapolation from known science. What makes science fiction a genre are the elements that aren't part of the world as we know it today. It's often called the extrapolation to the "What if?" Hard sf is distinct from other types is that the extrapolation is based on known science (as opposed to softer sf).

I think we need a picture of a more current writer in the introduction. We can move one (or both?) of the two currently there into the historical section. The reason I added Charles Sheffield's work to the novel list of hard sf even though we're probably going to replace that list with a Category is because I think his picture would be one to use (if one can be found). Sheffield is one of the few authors that I've never heard anyone dispute writes hard sf. It draws on his background as a relativistic theoretical physics. He's both a scientist and a writer. He's midway between the more historical writers currently shown and the plethora of new writers coming into the field today. And he's won critical acclaim for the quality of his writing in reviews, as well as Hugo and Nebula awards, among others.

History
This section is well written. It doesn't have anything about Campbell, though. He was instrumental in developing hard sf, so it seems the section should include some of that history. David Hartwell, who along with Kathryn Cramer was a leading scholar in the hard sf field, has referred to hard sf as Campbellian science fiction.

I'm still on the fence about how much of the controversy surrounding Campbell should be included. See below for more comments.

Definition
This is the section that I think needs the most work. There is no accepted definition of hard sf. It's a lively conversation that has gone on for decades. Many debates exist. I think it's fine to cover those here, but it needs presentation as different approaches, rather than as one accepted view, because one accepted view of the field doesn't exist.

Also, what's currently in the section is somewhat specific for only a few types of stories. The section should provide a more general overview.

I would suggest framing this section according to the two views I gave above, the scientific and historical, but then following with the discussions suggested by other editors. Also, I'd suggest changing the name of the section from "Definition" to something that doesn't suggest a single definition of hard sf exists. Maybe "Approaches"? I'm not sure. Of maybe just make it plural, eg "Definitions."

Based on comments from other editors, I would suggest leaving out discussions of debates about what some readers consider acceptable subjects in hard sf. The discussion of what is and isn't hard sf has raged for decades, even since the term was coined, and to cover all of that controversy would take a literary treatise published as a book. Picking out a couple of areas that have been controversial doesn't really make sense, as was pointed out above.

Relation to Military sf
This section would cover the of the relation between hard sf, military sf, and military approaches, including the Cramer input above.

Relation to Space Opera
This section would cover the overlap of hard sf and space opera (sometimes called space adventure).

The Cold Equations
This would cover why this particular story has become so iconic to the field. The story encapsulates a great deal of the discourse covering a large field over many decades. The section should be balanced with both the pro and the con reasons for including it.

Women and People of Color in hard sf
This section would cover the discourse concerning the presence of women and people of color as both characters and writers in the field. This is a large field, with extensive scholarship, so I would suggest trying to make a summary, so it doesn't get too long.

Other topics (eg Raymond's work)
I'm not yet sure what would go here. We talked about a range of subjects above, and I still need to condense it in my mind, as I continue to do research into the references given above and related refs. Suggestions welcome.

What's left out
I agree with the other editors and experts who have weighed in. I think the list of representative works needs to go. It's a literary discussion, which isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. Hard sf doesn't have an accepted canon, it has a hotly debated, always changing, huge and varied "canon." The debate itself is excellent, but Wikipedia isn't the place for it. By making Categories, it is possible for the editors for each author page to make the decision as to whether or not to include a specific category for that author. That way, the works and authors are presented for people reading Wikipedia without any deletion of particular works or authors.

Wikipedia by its nature should include the input from all the editors working on a page. In this case, I think a consensus for the list of hard sf writers is impossible to get. I agree that Categories are better to use.

For categories, I looked around at what other Wiki articles have and I came up with the following suggestions.

Category: hard science fiction. This one already exists. If we do a media category, I'd suggest limiting this one to written sf.

Category: hard science fiction writers

Category: hard science media. This would be for movies, tv, and so on.

Category: female hard science fiction writers

Category: Hard science fiction writers of color

Any others?

These are my thoughts for the revision/expansion of the article. Signed Catherine Asaro JacDT (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Andy Weirs Martian listed as film?
Martian listed as film but it was a huge book hit in 2011 and imho the best hard scfi book ever written. 62.65.196.101 (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

American bias?
The list of hard SF works lists almost exclusively US authors. The title of the article should be changed to American hard science fiction. Wikipdia.illusion750 (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * An obviously better solution would be to add a lot of works by non-US authors. Go for it! HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Someone removed The Expanse from the list of shows
They did this because they are mad about an argument. The Expanse is definitely hard scifi and should be re-added to the list of shows. 2601:19C:5100:2900:E4B4:BEA1:1FA9:7A3D (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's hard SF, but we should only add it if we can find a reliable source saying so. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)