Talk:Hard science fiction/Archive 2

The Martian by Andy Weir
I have noticed that a user named Gothicfilm has consistently been removing novels by Andy Weir from the article with a claim that there are no intense dust storms on Mars. I would like to refute this claim because, first of all, there are intense dust storms on mars. Sometimes they completely block the surface and are visible from space. This makes the visual depiction in the novel and the film realistic. Second of all, the antenna that gets broken off by the storm is also plausible because the storm was outside all predicted parameters and the antenna wasn't designed for a storm of that magnitude. What isn't realistic is the crew having to leave, leaving Mark Watney behind, because the MAV was in danger of toppling over.

Andy Weir is aware of this inaccuracy and has stated this in an interview. "That was a deliberate concession I made, because I just thought it was more dramatic to have him get stranded by a weather event. It kind of plays well into the theme of it’s him versus Mars, and it starts off with Mars smacking him around. But realistically, that could not possibly happen."

I think that we can forgive this inaccuracy because for the other 368 pages the book goes to extreme ends to be scientifically accurate and is such a great example of hard science fiction (The movie a bit less so, I could leave it out as a compromise). — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoostBack (talk • contribs) 14:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It is not a matter of forgiving the inaccuracy, it is a matter of being accurate. While there are some dust storms on Mars, there are no intense dust storms on Mars of the nature that begin the novel and film. I've seen other scientists say this, and Weir, the author himself, admits this as well. This is the trouble with classifying a story hard SF. It has to meet it in all respects. Same thing with The Expanse, which has some non-hard SF elements. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I very much disagree, Gothicfilm, that a book has to be 100% accurate in order to be admissible. Of all the fiction I've read, the book closest to this genre is probably The Martian. If that is not HSF, then nothing is. For example, in Person of Interest (which is on this page) computers do seemingly impossible feats, like applying human-level intelligence to an uncountable number of surveillance video feeds simultaneously, or magically breaking into pretty much any other digital system instantly. Lots of things in that series are very implausible or inaccurate. In the Martian, everything is written out into detail and is scientifically accurate (unlike in POI, where the details are all left up to your imagination), except for the one thing to get the story started in the first place. Would you say that a movie with a single show of breasts is porn? Do the other n-1 minutes not count for anything? Do the extreme lengths to which Andy Weir goes on the other 368 pages not count towards the genre and is *all* of that negated by pointing out a single non-scientific event? As you say, it's not about forgiving, but it's about it being in a certain genre in general. Taken altogether, the general theme is definitely scientific accuracy. The Martian is truly the first time where I didn't have any trouble with unexplained leaps in technology, it would be a shame not to include it here and let others miss out on this otherwise fantastic HSF story. - LucGommans (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That "single non-scientific event" was very important to the plot. No one is going to "miss out" on The Martian because it's not on this list. It was a huge hit. And that is not the purpose of the list. This is an encyclopedia, so accuracy matters. I agree with you about Person of Interest, and have removed it, particularly since it had no source. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Starting in a fictional initial situation does not make the rest of the story unscientific. A scientist could accidentally discover that coal burns and use that to investigate how one can move objects mechanically. The fact that the scientist has no idea why coal burns, even though it is the basis on which her whole work rests, doesn't make the investigation into her novel steam engine unscientific. In a story, the approach that is taken on virtually all pages would decide the genre, not any one event. I think this is as clear as I can explain my point of view, so I'll leave it at this and let you to decide whether to add it. If you still disagree with BoostBack and me, which is fine of course, then I propose we wait for someone to either add The Martian again, or otherwise contribute to the discussion. If there is another person who apparently thinks it belongs on the page (and I will not go and ask friends or anything), then I would say there are enough opinions one way for it to be unlikely to be random chance, and we should probably leave it in until there is another objection. Whatever it ends up being, thanks for all your Wikipedia contributions and your active watching of this page! I see you spend quite a bit of time on improving the encyclopedia :). - LucGommans (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I try. As to this case, the fact is both the author and the filmmakers made the decision to have the very important opening event of the story rely on an intense dust storm that the author (and various scientists) said could never happen. They could have stuck to hard SF if they had wanted to, but chose not to. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "This is the trouble with classifying a story hard SF. It has to meet it in all respects." According to whom? User:Gothicfilm? I'm sorry but this is gate-keeping. It is widely accepted that Weir took a couple of crucial liberties with his work but maintained scientific accuracy as much as possible. It clearly belongs on this list, which can be sourced. Dontreadalone (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No he did not maintain scientific accuracy "as much as possible." In fact he chose not to with the very important opening event. See my post directly above. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * By this line of reasoning, we should also exclude "2001: A Space Odyssey" because of the implausible, if not impossible, ending; and "Solaris" for having a sentient, homegeneous gel, which is impossible because some physical differentiation is needed for information exchange. As such, a dust storm that would be considered an outlier based on intensity is much more believable than either of the examples stated above.

I think the various discussions of whether this work or that work constitutes, in the opinion of Wikipedia editors, "hard science fiction" is off the point. We really should be applying that designation is there are reliable sources that label them as hard science fiction. Our opinions really are irrelevant. TJRC (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It is indeed correct that the atmospheric density on Mars is so low that not even a very severe storm would produce enough force to blow over a spaceship. However, a single inaccuracy in a book does not make a work not hard science fiction; other than this instigating event, the actual action of the book makes a real attempt to be faithful to accurate to what we currently know about Mars.


 * If the criteria for hard science were nothing that is inaccurate by current science standpoint, pretty much nothing on the list would qualify. Certainly nothing which includes faster than light travel. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hard sociology
I have inserted a reference to Asimov’s Foundation series as “hard”, but with the disagreeably unsupported phrase, “generally considered”, because I don’t know how to insert a supporting reference well. An example of that assessment of “hardness” is the article’s existing mention of http://best-sci-fi-books.com/23-best-hard-science-fiction-books/, if anyone cares to insert a ref. to that. Jmacwiki (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

What’s “hard” vs. FTL travel
We have the following sentence in the ″defining″ section: “HSF authors scrupulously avoid such technology as faster-than-light travel”.

Oh no, they don’t. For example, Asimov (likely in one of his F&SF monthly columns, though I can’t recall from 40+ ago) once discussed “hard” vs. “soft” explicitly. He said that FTL was one of the not-scientific concepts that seemed to be required for much of the hard SF literature, and he expected that to be permanent. Also, it is used throughout — and is central to sustaining the Galactic Empire of — his Foundation series, one of the classic HSF examples listed in this very article.

With that in mind, what can we say instead? Jmacwiki (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there is a coterie at this page that zealously enforces a quite ridiculous notion of what "hard SF" means. Basically they regard anything not consistent with current understanding of physics as "not hard".  Of course they are quite wrong; that's not what it means whatsoever.  But you can't reason with them. --Trovatore (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've pretty much given up on this article pretty much for that reason. Editors who feel certain works don't meet their criteria strike works when there are reliable third-party sources categorizing the work as hard science fiction. The article is pretty much at this point an opinion piece reflecting the opinions of the most stubborn editors. TJRC (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Got it. Thx. I would make the very same argument for Contact by Sagan, who is listed here as a HSF writer. (And this seems to be his only fiction, so that logically makes it HSF, despite those editors’ opinions!) But I don’t have the energy for such a fight at the moment. Jmacwiki (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I added book to "Novels" with author problem
I added "Shaun Johnston, Father, in a Far Distant Time I Find You: Utopian novel exploring the impact of evolutionary theory on human nature (2005)"

I noted after posting that my name links to the actor with my name. I am going to add an entry for myself. I plan to return to correct the book mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:D01:A3FE:A13E:76A:9D1C:16F0 (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed it, as it doesn't seem to be notable. There is also the issue that you seem to be claiming to be the author, which gives you a conflict of interest and as such shouldn't edit the article to add your own information.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Gravity (film)
Gravity is not very "hard", but even if it were, it's not science fiction, because there's nothing about the future. In fact, it's really alternative historical fiction. Remember that the space shuttle was decommissioned before the film was released. McKay (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Who says science fiction has to be about the future? Lots of science fiction is set in the distant past.
 * That said, I do think "Gravity" is sort of borderline. Proposing as-yet-unknown physics is in bounds for hard sci-fi, but just getting known physics wrong, not as much. --Trovatore (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The Languages of Pao
Both this page and the page on soft science fiction list The Languages of Pao as examples. Could anyone please tell me if this is a contradiction, or if the book has an even combination of both hard and soft science fiction?--Thylacine24 (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

This is getting a bit theological
There are plenty of scholarly/critical explanations and explorations of what constitutes hard SF and which are the representative writers and texts, so rather than offering competing opinions/lists, why not just report on the range of explanations in the authorities? When I redrafted this article a couple of months back, I started with Clute & Nicholls and Wolfe, along with the Jessesword lexicography site and added a bit from the excellent intro to Hartwell & Cramer's Hard SF Renaissance anthology. I didn't have to agonize over which particular bit of SF extrapolation might disqualify a particular text or which writer might be considered beyond the pale by one faction or another.

A handful of random details/nits:


 * Godwin's "Cold Equations" is often mentioned as an exemplar of hard SF, though the rest of his work is generally not. (See his entry in Clute & Nicholls.)


 * The term "hard SF" was coined (see this article's second sentence) in 1957, in Campbell's own Astounding (though JWC was no longer the only important magazine editor in the field at this time).


 * Clarke's The City and the Stars/Against the Fall of Night isn't (aren't?) considered hard SF--the mystical strain runs through his whole career (see the ending of Childhood's End). I'd make a non-trivial wager that the space-travel sections of 2001 are considered "hard SF" by many or even most commentators, even if the trippy ending isn't.


 * The problem with a statement like "FTL is pretty much the definition of what is not hard SF" is that there is no such consensus in the body of commentary/criticism/scholarship. It might be the opinion of a particular subset of hard-SF readers, but I can find authorities that argue against just that kind of single-factor categorizing (see, for example, the "Hard SF" article in Clute & Nicholls).

Part of the problem here is terminological: if "hard SF" is a hard-edged genre or category, then genus-and-species or at least a properties list would be sufficient to define it. If, however, it is a decorum or taste or tendency or style, then the boundaries are very fuzzy and the shape of the thing depends on viewpoint. Hard SF exists, but since "hardness" is not a constant, both writers and readers can have a range of opinion on what it is. I'm seeing this kind of problem with a number of SF/F-related terms: there's a tendency to treat a quality (gothic, noir, spiritual) or a motif or a decorum rule (hard, soft, mundane) as a (sub)genre-defining property. This isn't the place for an essay on genre theory, but treating a quality term (e.g., "thriller") as a genre-definging term is generally going to make for problems. And really, all we need to do is report on what the authorities say, even if they don't always agree with each other. RLetson 18:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Godwin's "Cold Equations" is often mentioned as an exemplar of hard SF, though the rest of his work is generally not.. Ok. I move this author to the new section: Other notable writers of hard science fiction. Q Original 19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that my main objection is to adding this new section, more than the individual names. Avt tor 20:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And when someone came up with a source that quoted David Hartwell, I didn't argue the inclusion of Tom Godwin.


 * My specific argument is:
 * WP:V and WP:RS: We should use reliable sources to verify points of possible disagreement. WP:
 * WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, therefore
 * an "Other notable writers" section is out of scope of this article, as by being "other" they are not representative
 * cited sources must establish that writers listed here do not merely meet the criterion of "hard SF" but also of "representative"


 * You wrote "The problem with a statement like "FTL is pretty much the definition of what is not hard SF" is that there is no such consensus in the body of commentary/criticism/scholarship. It might be the opinion of a particular subset of hard-SF readers, but I can find authorities that argue against just that kind of single-factor categorizing (see, for example, the "Hard SF" article in Clute & Nicholls)." But your argument doesn't respond to the statement. I believe Clute's point is that a story which is lacking in one area might still be considered hard SF because of other aspects of the story. I agree with citing authorities. Star Trek is often cited as being not hard SF (as is even acknowledged by the other editor), so any claim that it is would have to be verified by an authoritative source. Avt tor 20:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the idea, the inherent concept, of "hard" science fiction is that it doesn't exist. And I don't mean the lines are "fuzzy". The line between Dieselpunk and Steampunk are fuzzy, the line between "hard" and "soft" sci-fi is, ironically, a fantasy.

Or let's put it this way. If this concept actually existed, then examples in other genres would be seen. No one uses a term as slipshod as "hard romance" or "hard techno thriller" because it's not considered a viable subgenre. What would hard romance even look like? A romance novel where everything operates like it would in the real world and people just drift apart in a relationship, or even have a bitter breakup? I mean, realistically, you could argue that the Cold Equations falls under that nebulous heading. So using some nonsensical term like "hard" sci-fi is borderline laughable.

Even parsing through the equally nonsensical term "hard" fantasy, most or all of the examples listed are considered Epic Fantasy or High Fantasy. Which, again, shows how the very idea of some kind of hard edged diving line between "hard" fantasy and "soft" fantasy is nonexistent. It is literally a fantasy...which could be the point I guess? But that's a bit too meta.

I'm getting too long winded, but the point is this: suggesting that FTL may be possible, when there are actual, viable concepts that exist in the real world, is just as "hard" as the Cold Equations. Just like suggesting AI exists as in Blade Runner is just as "hard" as the Expanse. There is no such thing. The latter is just a toned down Space Opera (a real genre) and the former is Cyberpunk (also an actual genre). 18-Till-I-Die (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Correction: Expanse is a toned down Space Opera and Blade Runner is Cyberpunk. 18-Till-I-Die (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: qualify examples of Hard SF authors
..with the scientific topic they specialise in. E.g., Kim Stanley Robinson, environmental science and politics. Greg Egan, Physics and Computer Science.


 * Whether politics is a scientific topic is debatable. :) But I'll give you "environmental science" in KSR's case. --Chronodm 03:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good idea. Coyote Pete 03:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes Alastair Reynolds physics and astronomy background and his working for the ESA have clearly influenced the hardness of his sci-fi. (Emperor 15:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC))
 * But is he a *major* writer? Geez, this list is already way too long!  A bunch of the others seem marginal to me.  If you look at the tennis article, for instance, you see a section called "Great Players" -- it lists 13 great old-time players before Open Tennis started in 1968, most of whom are quasi-forgotten today.  It also lists some brief qualifications for each of them, giving an idea of just *why* they were great, great players.  There's also another section in the same general area in which all the players who have won 2 or more of the 4 major Grand Slam tournaments since 1968 are listed.  Anyone good enough to have won two of these titles is certainly a very fine player -- I myself would raise the bar a little higher, to 3 or 4 titles, perhaps, before calling them "great".  But I understand the reasoning here and don't argue with it -- at least a consensus has decided that a *single* grand slam title isn't enough to be listed here.  I realise that evaluating tennis players is a lot easier than evaluating "hard SF" writers, but I still think a little more effort ought to be put into this listing of the writers.  I particularly wish RLetson, who is extremely knowledgeable (he's been reviewing books for Locus for Lo! these many years), and who has already written here about trimming the list, would get out his scalpel and do some trimming. Thirty years ago, when I felt I knew as much about the field as anyone, I would have done it.  Now I feel I don't know enough about the modern writers to be able to delete any except the more egregiously mis-labled ones.  Russell!  Are you reading this?! Hayford Peirce 01:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Is he a major writer? Difficult to say as it is subjective. He is one of the big current writers in the field and also has a very solid science background which is also worthy of mention. Managing such lists are tricky as opinion will always differ. Two fixes: Start a List of hard science fiction authors entry with each author being given a couple of sentences on their big work, influences (both on then and to other people) and hard science connections (if any) and/or a "Hard science fiction authors" category. Then do away with the list as the big names should be mentioned in the main text. (Emperor 03:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC))

What about adding Jane Jensen (Dante's Equation), Gentry Lee (Rama series with Arthur C. Clarke) and Michael Kube-McDowell (Trigger, Isaac Asimov's Robot City)? (rm)


 * Some nameless one just added Stanislaw Lem, calling him "one of the greatest authors of hard science fiction." Boggle. This is the Lem who had guys walkng around on the moon without space suits! Reverted. Pete Tillman 18:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr. Tillman, I can see it was 15 years ago, but your offhand "Boggle. Reverted." action seems to have lasting effetc, sadly. Even if there actually was such a motif somewhere in his works, I hope that's not really all you "knew" about him to have formed that misguided, judgmental opinion. As this artcicle says, hard sci-fi "is characterized by concern for scientific accuracy and logic". This is overwhelmingly true in Lem's case. Also, as you know, artists are actually allowed to create in more than one genre, other than their defining one.


 * Solaris, Golem XIV, His Master's Voice, Fiasco etc. are among the finest hard sci-fi novels ever written (and among his best, too), so yes, even if it was only Solaris, or only His Master's Voice, he definitely have made it to the "greatest authors of hard science fiction", despite your evidently incomplete knowledge of the subject. (Note also: the fact he'd written poems too, doesn't make him a "poet", or remove him from the group of sci-fi authors.)


 * Your embarrassingly vague but all the more assertive opinion gives the strong impression that you hadn't actually read his stuff at all, and didn't really have a clear idea of what you were talking about. You may have e.g. confused his "real" sci-fi works with The Cyberiad, which is basically a satire... (If it wasn't too late now, I'd seriously ask what you have actually read from him, or about him, before vandalizing the article. But it is too late now, so it wouldn't make sense to even tag you; I'm writing this for the record, and for future editors, who don't mind becoming familiar with the subject. "Happy 100th birthday" to Lem, BTW, I'd say, but that would involve some serious "softism", as he's long dead now... (same year Mr. Tillman's ominous entry BTW :) ). And Mr. Lem would be disgusted by that.)


 * Speaking of soft sci-fi, which is "not scientifically accurate or plausible; the opposite of hard science fiction" (as Wikipedia correctly says), IOW, the branch of sci-fi closer to fantasy than maths, something Lem was never interested in. In fact, he had criticized writers (like Ph. K. Dick) as "charlatans" for not taking the "sci" part seriously. He definitely is not a soft-sci-fi writer. Sz. (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I have gone over the list and added to it. Yes, some are debatable, but David and I have already made the case in print (Ascent of Wonder or Hard SF renaissance). I added Connie WIllis and Eleanor Arnasen out of deference to people who claimed they had unjustly been left out of our hard sf anthologies. In general, there is no one definition of hard sf that includes or excludes a writer. Hard SF is aprticular litarary game. Out of deference to Greg Benford's feelings, I have left out JG Ballard, who did indeed play the game, though in a perverse way. I removed the lack of citation tag. I used my books as reference, which are indeed the primary reference material for such list. --Pleasantville aka Kathryn Cramer 14:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added Ben Bova. The science in his Grand Tour series is most definitely a realistic extrapolation of current science (the man worked for NASA). dllu (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Czello removed unsourced
add them back if you find a source.


 * Mike Brotherton (ed.) Science Fiction by Scientists (2017, Springer)
 * Hal Clement, "Uncommon Sense" (1945)
 * Isaac Asimov, "Evidence" (1946)


 * Harry Martinson, Aniara (1953)
 * John Wyndham, The Outward Urge (1959)
 * Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (1966)
 * Stanisław Lem, His Master’s Voice (1968)
 * Isaac Asimov, The Gods Themselves (1972)
 * Robert Silverberg (editor), Murasaki (1992)
 * Ben Bova, Grand Tour series (1992–2020)
 * Linda Nagata, The Nanotech Succession (1995–1998)
 * Catherine Asaro, Primary Inversion (1995)
 * Stephen Baxter, Ring (1996)
 * Paul J. McAuley, The Quiet War (2008)
 * Andy Weir, The Martian (2011)
 * Neal Stephenson, Seveneves (2015)


 * Frau im Mond (1929)
 * Destination Moon (1950)
 * Marooned (1969)
 * The Andromeda Strain (1971)
 * 2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984) – sequel to 2001
 * The Man from Earth (2007)
 * Apollo 18 (2011)
 * Robot & Frank (2012)
 * Arrival (2016)


 * Men into Space (1959–1960)
 * Star Cops (1987)
 * ReGenesis (2004–2008)
 * Mars (2016–2018)
 * Black Mirror (2011–2019)


 * Mobile Suit Gundam (1979)
 * 2001 Nights (1984, 1986)
 * They Were Eleven (1986)
 * Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honnêamise (1987)
 * Patlabor 2: The Movie (1993)
 * Blame! (1998–2003)
 * Flag (2006)
 * Pale Cocoon (2006)
 * Dennō Coil (2007)
 * Moonlight Mile (2007)
 * Rocket Girls (2007)
 * Space Brothers (2007–present)
 * Schwarzesmarken (2015)

sourced and re-added:
 * Wade Roush (ed.) Twelve Tomorrows (MIT Press 2018)
 * Alastair Reynolds, Pushing Ice (2005)
 * Europa Report (2013)
 * Planetes (1999, 2004)


 * Maybe we should hold off on adding new writers. We are currently discussing below replacing the list of sample works with a Category:hard science fiction writers, but for now I thought the list should stay until we decide what to do with it. JacDT (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC) JacDT (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * That someone somewhere who might be defined as a credible source might have called something hard SF at some point in some context is not really a viable methodology for compiling a list. The list has always been a mess and has been a honey pot for amateur enthusiasm over the years with people adding and deleting. The lists have for years been the worst part of the article. A few examples might reasonably included as exemplars for discussion purposes. But by the logic of Wikipedia sourcing, everything I ever included in a hard SF anthology ought to be included in the list because David and I said so and we meet sourcing requirements. Just don't do it this way. —Kathryn Cramer


 * Agreed. I'm giving a few days to let other editors weigh in, but I think replacing the list with a Category:hard science fiction writers is the way to go and will better meet the Wiki requirements. JacDT (talk) 10:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite of article: seeking input
I am working on a rewrite of this article. However, I have a conflict.

On the pro side, I have a great deal of knowledge about hard sf from many angles, including as an editor, as an author discovered by David Hartwell and promoted by him as a hard sf writer. I am also a theoretical physicist with a strong background in many of the scientific areas covered by books in hard sf.

On the con side, I have a great deal of knowledge about hard sf from many angles, including as an editor, as an author discovered by David Hartwell and promoted by him as a hard sf writer. That makes me closely related to the field. My books periodically appear and disappear from the list on this page. I feel that at least one of them belongs on the list, but I’m not comfortable adding anything because I also am working on a rewrite of the article.

I'm posting here to get input from the many excellent editors who have worked on the article, and to make the above conflict clear. I feel it’s important that I participate in working on this article because I bring a depth of knowledge to this field. Few people have my background, but I also understand that this creates a conflict. The same things that make me well qualified also create that conflict.

I’ve indicated several places in particular below where I feel this conflict comes into play.


 * Also see list of authors discussion above.

Proposal
In a general sense, hard science fiction works extrapolate known science into fictional "What if?" ideas. However, even that statement can generate controversy. An encyclopedia article should make clear that different views of hard science fiction exist and present both sides (all sides?). I propose outlining the different sides of the controversies. That way, the differing opinions (for example those expressed by various editors in this talk page) will appear in the article.

Given that such a wide range of definitions exist, I propose framing it as two approaches: the scientific approach and the historical/Campbell approach.


 * The way we tried to approach it in Ascent of Wonder was to entertain the various claims by writers to be writing hard SF. I think the different claims and perspectives are in our story notes in the two books. There are more approaches than the two. —Kathryn Cramer


 * Do you have any approach in particular you would like to see included? Many exist (as exemplified by your excellent works). We need a way to summarize the field. The two outlined above are essentially two ends of a spectrum, with many approaches between. It doesn't have to be a linear scale, however. Any specifics you have of what approaches you'd like included will help. The Campbellian approach is defined and described in some detail by David in his intro to one of the anthologies. I've also found many of your discussions. Can you point me to any of those in particular that you think offers an alternate approach? Many thanks. JacDT (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Scientific approach
In the scientific approach, the only limitation is that the extrapolation must start from known scientific principles. No requirements exist for the literary voice, style of writing, or how the story matches historical works. No gatekeeping is done on the extrapolations, that is, there are no approved or disapproved ways to extend known science into the realm of “what if.” If it is based on sound science, it is hard sf regardless of whether the fictional extrapolation itself is known as possible.

Most hard science fiction extrapolations are impossible according to what we know, including in a number of the works on the current list. In the scientific approach, that doesn’t eliminate them from the genre. What matters is that they start from good science. For example, Robert Forward’s book Dragon’s Egg is impossible with known science. However, it is a clever extrapolation and I agree it should be on the list. It doesn’t have to be known as possible by current science, it needs to be an extrapolation using science we currently know it. That is a substantial difference.

In that approach, a story like "The Cold Equations" would be dropped from the list due to its lack of rigor in the basic science (see for example sciencemeetsfiction.com/nonfiction-essays/the-real-problem-with-the-cold-equations/).


 * "The Cold Equations" should be retained because it is a defining story of the "hard science fiction attitude." Also, the thing about that hard SF "attitude" is the more you crank it up as a hard SF requirement, the more the stories by women disappear. It is very gendered. —Kathryn Cramer

Historical approach
In the historical approach, the definition of hard sf is often attributed to Campbell, a long time editor of Analog magazine. It has been described as Campbellian in some sources, most notably by David Hartwell in his anthologies on hard sf. It often includes a certain voice in the writing, sometimes likened to Anne Rand or described as male-oriented (see for example comments in the Ascent of Wonder or the discussion of hard science fiction in the Cambridge Companion edited by Edward James and Farah Mendlesohn). Limitations are placed on the allowed extrapolations of science, regardless of their rigor. However, stories without rigorous science appear if they follow the historical view. In this view, “The Cold Equations” is considered part of the canon.

Discussion
As a genre, hard sf has undergone a lot of upheaval over several decades. None of that appears in the article. If certain aspects of the field are deleted, it appears political, which I doubt was ever the intent.

For example, Analog Magazine, one of the major hard sf magazines, changed the name of the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer to the Astounding Award for Best New Writer in a statement that reads "Campbell’s provocative editorials and opinions on race, slavery, and other matters often reflected positions that went beyond just the mores of his time and are today at odds with modern values, including those held by the award’s many nominees, winners, and supporters. … [W]e have reached a point where the conversation around the award is in danger of focusing more on its namesake than the writers it was intended to recognize and elevate, and that is something nobody—even Campbell himself—would want." bookriot.com/the-john-w-campbell-award-is-now-the-astounding-award/.

This could be part of a discussion about how different sources view the Campbell approach in different ways.

Use of NASA quotes
The article also introduced statements about NASA that would make many scientists cringe (some of those statements have since been removed), including myself who consulted at Goddard Spaceflight Center and chaired sessions for NASA’s Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop, and my late husband, a theoretical astrophysicist who became a senior scientist at NASA working on accretion disks, black holes, and LIGO. NASA is an institution, not a literary critic. It has tens of thousands of scientists, who have tens of thousands of opinions.

Using NASA to determine what gets into lists of hard sf gets into the awkward situation of trying to find laboratory verifications that show the extrapolations in the books currently on the list can be done with presently known science. It can’t be done for a good portion of them because the extrapolations aren't possible according to current science.

NASA hasn’t commented on the majority of the scientific extrapolations in hard science fiction stories because it has no reason to. One reason NASA posted a statement about FTL is because they get a lot of questions about it from the public. My husband (before he passed) was for a time on the “Ask a Scientist” team that answered questions from the public about space. He often received questions about sf movies and FTL. It is, after all, a mainstay of science fiction, and few movies present it in a rigorous fashion.

The scientists needed to say something, and it’s known that workshops sponsored at NASA included sessions on “Hyperfast travel” about the possibility of circumventing the speed of light. Online references to these exist, as well. The public face of their website has a statement for public outreach rather than as a record of research sponsored by NASA. By current science, no known way exists of circumventing the problems at the speed of light. So of course they say it isn’t possible. They want to encourage interest in space without making it sound as if they are claiming that their scientists are coming up with FTL.

If the other editors of this Wiki page feel it is important to include a comment from NASA, I would suggest the comments by Doctor Neil Gehrels, the former Chief of the Astroparticle Physics Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center and the head of the Swift satellite (which was named for him after he passed). He spoke directly about his views on hard science fiction ideas in his talk from 2011 at the Library of Congress. This is a place where the conflict I mentioned above comes up. I don’t feel comfortable adding his comments because he refers directly to me, and I am also finishing a book on black holes that he and my husband wrote before they each passed. But what he says exactly addresses the idea of fictional extrapolation from known science to ideas that currently aren’t possible. It is appears at www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ExgO1ilP3s starting at time 23:53.

A significant difference exists between extrapolations used by, say, authors like Bob Forward, and extrapolations of relativistic physics for space travel. Dragon’s Egg involves a fairly small corner of science fiction, whereas FTL travel is a mainstay of the genre.

Does hard sf forbid fictional extrapolations based on known science for FTL? The more accurate statement is that a subset of critics in the genre think it should forbid such speculation. These are two different statements. The article needs to present both sides of this debate in a clear, unbiased, and accurate manner.

Campbell versus psi
Hyperfast travel isn’t the only area some critics reject. Another is empathy and telepathy. A large part of the reason is because Campbell himself had some ideas about parapsychology that got increasingly weird over the years. It is also an element in fantasy or softer science fiction based on magic or unexplained phenomena, as opposed to principles of neurology or brain function. Some definitions of hard sf exclude such works, not because the ideas can’t be based on known neurological science, but on a principle that “psi” in any form shouldn’t appear in hard sf.

This has become timely in recent years as researchers at places such as Harvard and the Applied Physics Lab in Maryland have published papers that scientific evidence of telepathy. See for example, hms.harvard.edu/news/brain-brain-verbal-communication-humans-achieved-first-time. The question arises then, why leave it out? The Wiki article needs to present both sides of these issues. It can say why psi powers are avoided by many in hard sf, give the historical descriptions about Campbell (which is already in his Wiki page), and then talk about how it has changed over the years and give references to some of the current research.

(One note of interest: when I was invited to give a talk about extrapolating known science into the future at the Applied Physics Lab, they first gave me a tour of the lab. They showed me one project where the equipment/computer was able to pick up words, or a good estimation of them, from the mind of the human subject. I had planned to include comments about such ideas in my talk, and it was eerie (and exciting) to see the research already existed.)

The Cold Equations
I would also suggest a section specifically about “The Cold Equations.” Some adherents feel it should be part of a hard sf canon, an example of how equations rather than emotions govern science. Others feel it is scientifically embarrassing, wrong science used as to promote a fear of math, science, and women. It also needs to be noted that “The Cold Equations” depends on a “hyperdrive” that allows FTL travel. As written in the story, “Galactic expansion had followed the development of the hyperspace drive, and as men scattered wide across the frontier, there had come the problem of contact with the isolated first colonies and exploration parties.”

Although both definitions of hard sf above would seem to preclude inclusion of the story, I think it should be included because it’s become so iconic. I would suggest that the section include the following:

1. Some critics strongly believe it is a fundamental in the genre. The motivation for its inclusion needs to be made clear in the article. That is another reason I am seeking help. As a scientist, I can’t see a reason for including it, so I need input from someone who feels it should be there.

2. The story illustrates another controversy fundamental to the genre. Some critics see “The Cold Equations” as a reflection of misogynist ideas in the Campbell version of hard science fiction. In contrast, those who feel the story belongs in the canon feel this isn’t a valid criticism. The article should reflect both views in an objective manner. Leaving out one or the other makes the inclusion of “The Cold Equation” seem political, which I also doubt was the intention.


 * Giving The Cold Equations its own section is a good idea. There has been a vast amount of discussion among writers about it, much of is in The New York Review of SF over a period of many years. —Kathryn Cramer


 * Can you point where to find the articles about it in NYRSF? I went to the web site but I don't seem able to figure out how to use the the search engine properly. I'm embarrassed to say my search yielded only a review of the movie Gravity. I tried doing a google search, but that didn't give much either for the NYRSF. Thanks for any help you can give. JacDT (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Other aspects of the field
The article also could use a section on the controversies about race and women in hard sf. Some critics (eg Cory Doctorow) have published critiques that Campbell’s vision made racism and misogyny inherent in the hard sf genre. Others feel that as a genre hard sf shouldn't be defined by the attitudes of one person. Hard science fiction now enjoys a much wider reach than several decades ago, and that includes many diverse voices. For example, some critics consider Nnedi Okorafor an example of a new voice and style in hard science fiction, whereas others don’t consider what she writes hard science fiction. An example of the work by such an author would illuminate the different approaches to hard sf. Right now, the article doesn’t address any of this.

These are some of my thoughts on reworking the article. Catherine Asaro JacDT (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Some first reactions to your post:
 * Your expertise in the field will be appreciated. Most editors who come to a certain article do so because they have a special interest in that field That does not constitute a conflict. It is doubly appreciated that you are conscientious enough to give warning where you might not be objective.
 * As a rule, Wikipedia indeed strives to reflect all opinions and approaches. Therefore, we should definitely mention both the scientific and historical approach, including calling the latter Campbellian.
 * The recent "upheavals" you mention fall IMHO outside the scope of this article, and should probably be added to the Astounding Award for Best New Writer article.
 * Where did you see NASA quotes in the article? I also am not sure that we should go into depths of specific controversies like whether e.g. empathy/telepathy can be included in hard science fiction or not.
 * On a sidenote, the "Representative works" section is a pitfall. I'd remove it altogether, and use Category:Hard science fiction to group these per some policy that says to use categories rather than lists. By the way, I noticed that most science fiction genres are in both Category:Science fiction genres and Category:Science fiction by genre, but not so Category:Hard science fiction. Debresser (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Debressor, thank you for your excellent input.


 * I also have problems with the representative works category. It turns Wikipedia into a gatekeeper. The purpose of the Wiki page is not to define what works qualify as hard sf; that is a literary discussion, which by nature is subjective. I have no objection to leaving out that section and replacing it with Category group, assuming that the category doesn't also turn into gatekeeping.


 * I just added Charles Sheffield's work to the list of hard sf novels, with source. I'm fine with updating the list before we decide whether or not to replace it with a Category:hard science fiction. I will leave these comments here for a while to give other editors a chance to weigh in. If no one objects, I will work on the Category: hard science fiction. Edit: actually, a hard science fiction writers category. Wiki does have a category hard science fiction that links back to this page. It includes a list of representative works that differs from what appears on this page. You're right, this needs cleaning up. Any advice or help you have would be appreciated; building a category is a part of Wiki I haven't yet done. JacDT (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * If we do delete the list, we need to decide whether or not to include 2-3 sample works, and which ones. Also, which Categories to add, in addition to the hard science fiction one that already exists. I would suggest the hard science fiction writers category mentioned above. We might also want to consider one for media as well. JacDT (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * However, I do think "The Cold Equations" merits a section. Although I personally don't find the story notable, either from a scientific or literary point of view, it has become iconic and is usually mentioned in discussions of hard sf. If included, the section should cover both sides of the debate, why some critics include it and why others think it should be dropped.


 * I also agree with your hesitation on controversies. I do think some sort of discussion about the growing acceptance of diverse and female authors bears consideration.


 * Historically, the psi debate has long played a role in the field, I suspect because Campbell promoted it with so much vigor that it got rather weird. It has appeared and gone away various times in the history of this article. I think a discussion of why it put off authors and how the field has changed can illuminate hard sf in the larger context of how views on science and hence the fiction we write about it change over time. On the other hand, I could go with leaving it out altogether.


 * NASA has been invoked and deleted at various times, either in the article or in comments in the history of the edits. I believe the purpose is to say that hard sf writers don't do FTL and NASA agrees. It strikes me as rather arbitrary; most hard sf involves extrapolations from known science into a realm that isn't possible by known science. That's why it's fiction. The objections against FTL may have become entrenched because it's so popular in the genre and often isn't scientific in how it appears, so it tends to get debated more.


 * Perhaps it makes more sense to remove any statements about some areas of science being considered controversial in hard sf. A balanced article would need to cover such a wide range of opinions and counter-opinions, it would become a literary treatise on hard sf rather than an encyclopedia entry. JacDT (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I noticed recently that Eric Raymond's essay on Politics and SF had been added to the text of the article. I think his arguments have merit and should perhaps be represented in the article. Three key points: 1) The political divisions among writers concerning the Viet Nam war (and militarism in general) play a role in the ethos of hard SF. 2) I think Raymond's invocation of Lakoff to further extend my own concept of the centrality of hard SF to the genre is basically correct, though I suspect I disagree with him on the interpretation he gives that framing. 3) The rhetoric of hard SF and the hard SF attitude may have provided some of the literary-political basis for the Sad/Rabid Puppy attempt to wrest back the Hugos from those that group sees as interlopers. (Ref: Raymond, E. S. (2007). Freedom in the Future Tense: A Political History of SF [Published by the Libertarian Futurist Society]. Prometheus Blog. http://lfs.org/blog/freedom-in-the-future-tense-a-political-history-of-sf/ and also maybe Raymond, E. S. (2014). Why the deep norms of the SF genre matter. Armed & Dangerous. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6005 for Raymond's framing of the Idea as Hero in hard SF.)


 * One implication of this is that it may be a good idea to explore the relationship between hard SF and military SF. (I think a lot of my own influence was de-militarizing hard SF.) Regarding Cory Doctorow's position mentioned above, he's not wrong. A final remark: it is really hard to define a genre by consensus. A genre is a conversation between its authors and their audience. There are no hard and fixed lines of where it begins and ends. What's In and Out is more a matter for marketing categories, which is to say decisions about where a book is shelved in the store, and which magazine it can be sold to. What's in and out is fundamentally a sales decision. —Kathryn Cramer


 * Kathryn, many thanks for weighing in. You make excellent points and I appreciate an expert like yourself coming to comment. Thank you also for the references; I will look them up. It looks like I'm in for a fascinating bit of reading. JacDT (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2021 (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)