From: thornley@cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Subject: Re: SF or FF (Future Fantasy)?
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:35:00 GMT

In article <13803@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>
>> Wait a minute - you're saying the only valid 'science fiction' is that which
>> attmept to extrapolate the future as realistically as possible? (Qualified by
>> making certain assumptions.)
>> 
>>         I'd disagree strongly with this. Science fiction is fiction which
>> uses the excuse of science/technology to introduce elements that often would
>> otherwise be fantasy.
>
>
>        'Hard' SF is the sort which is rigorous in its science. 'Soft' SF
>is less concerned with the scientific details/proof, and is willing to
>introduce reasonable elements without documentation.
>
In which case there is almost no hard SF out there, and relatively little
soft SF.  What "hard" SF usually means is that the scientific errors and
stuff the author made up because it fit is not obvious, not that it isn't
there.  There are some exceptions, primarily near-future stuff.  I can't
think of a single story set in the more distant future that's "hard" by
your definition.

"Soft" science fiction, by your definition, excludes almost all stories
of star travel.  FTL and most STL star travel is not reasonable, by any
current view of science.

This leaves Niven and Asimov as primarily "Future Fantasy" authors, since
most of their stories involve concepts that violate what we know of the
universe.  I submit that these definitions are useless.

>The problem is agreeing on terminology.  Does a romance novel become science
>fiction if you have the heroine drive off in a fusion-powered car?  Does an
>adventure novel become SF if you replace the hero's cutlass with a "light
>saber"?  Does a "spaghetti western" become a "Science Fiction Adventure" movie
>if you replace the revolvers with blasters?
>
If the fusion-powered car is thrown in just for the sake of a fusion car,
that's bad writing.  If the story depends partly on the fusion-powered car
or the light saber or the blasters, it's science fiction.

>"Hard SF" and "soft SF" are too vague to be really useful.  Does anyone know of
>any better terms, or have some terms to propose?  Should Star Wars be listed as
>"Future Fantasy"?
>
>> Anyhow, fairly rigorous ESP experiments have produced positive results which
>> have not yet been explained. This is not to imply that I believe in ESP, but
>> extrapolating from that is not fundamentally different from extrapolating
>> from other phenomena which do not yet have a successful model - like the
>> 17KeV neutrino or high-temperature superconductivity.
>
>The following uses the definition of SF as "extrapolation of scientific
>principles or technology":
>
>Extrapolating from some measured results is science fiction.  Reading a report
>of "unexplained results" in an experiment and then writing a story where the
>characters read minds instantaneously across galactic distances or toss a car
>aside using telekinesis is not science fiction; that's writing fantasy.  If you
>take a few desired psi powers and write up a consistent set of laws regarding a
>"new basic force" that explains them, and then make sure that those laws apply
>to everything in the book/game that they should apply to, then it's SF.  If you
>simply say "psi is based on a new basic force" and then add psi powers to suit
>a storyline or game plot, then it's fantasy.
>
OK, name me a few things *you* think are science fiction.  (You can start
with _Artifact_ by Benford, BTW, there's an appendix discussing the science
involved - but most of Benford's stuff is not scientifically reasonable.)
I just scanned several shelves of alleged science fiction.  Aside from the
immediate-future stuff, Heinlein's _Rolling_Stones_ seems to qualify as
soft SF.  Therefore, I conclude that your definition is far too strong
to be useful.

The one test that the most of them failed was star travel.  FTL travel
is normally presented as if it didn't involve time travel and causality
problems, without any sort of explanation.  Most stories using FTL seem to
assume some sort of absolute space and time, which is scientific nonsense.
Most stories with STL travel also are scientifically unconvincing.
Many stories assume star travel with an economic infrastructure that could
not support it.

Most stories involving space travel within the solar system use some sort
of cheat to make it easier.  Typically, the power source given is completely
insufficient or impossible.

Other stories use things like stasis fields, sensors that could not exist,
micromanipulators that could not exist as described, ways to distort
gravitational field, and other impossibilities.

Psychic phenomena are actually relatively innocuous.  Some people will
tell you there is scientific evidence, while others will tell you it's a
load of dingo's kidneys.  In any case, telepathy does not invalidate
anything we know about physics like most defensive force fields do; if
we had a reliable telepath or psychokinetic available, we could simply
proceed to study him or her.

Robots fall in your soft SF category; it seems reasonable that some day we
might be able to make mobile bodies and artificial intelligences, but
we have no more than the barest glimmerings of ideas on how to do it.
>
>Does anyone feel that this is too rigid or limiting a definition of SF?  Would
>Battletech gamers get upset if their game became labeled "Future Fantasy"
>instead of SF?  Would editors, reviewers and librarians be able to agree on a
>particular book being SF or FF?  :)
>
I think you've got my opinions.  Why worry about Battletech gamers, if all
science fiction RPGs are to be reclassified as Future Fantasy?  Editors
and such would have one simple rule of thumb:  if it's called science fiction,
it's really Future Fantasy, unless there are certifications from the
appropriate scientists that the book really does qualify.

DHT