From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: SF or FF (Future Fantasy)?
Date: 29 Jul 92 05:46:19 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

> thornley@cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:
> 
>+> [multiply-nested inclusions deleted]
>+> '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.
> 
> The above definition wasn't mine; you've mistakenly attributed it to me,
> though it was my fault (I left out one level of inclusion).  My definition
> isn't quite as limited as how you read that person's definition.  My
> definition allows stories that break existing laws, but which are
> self-consistent.
> 
>+ 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.
> 
> No, while Niven may break existing laws of our universe, and doesn't provide
> explanations for many of his devices, he tries (and succeeds fairly well) in
> applying the laws of his universe consistently.  For example, he postulates
> transporter technology, provides some laws for it (range, etc), and
> extrapolates its effects on society.
> 
>+ 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.
> 
> If the hero carries a light saber, yet the technology of that device is not
> applied anywhere else in the story, then the light sabre does not make that
> story "science fiction".
> 
>+ 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've never read it; he's not one of my favorite authors.  Most of Niven's
> work is SF, and even his "Magic goes away" stories could be considered SF,
> since they extrapolate from the laws postulated in his universe.  I consider
> Brin's stories to be SF, despite the psionics and FTL drives, since it has
> other strong SF elements.  "David's Sling" by Stiegler is definitely SF;
> "hard" SF at that.  I could go on, but I hope these examples have clarified
> my position.
> 
>+ The one test that the most of them failed was star travel.
> 
> Failing one test, or having one element that does not fit the "hard SF"
> definition does not necessarily remove a book from that category.  The story
> can have strong "extrapolation from basic laws" elements elsewhere in it.
> 
>+ 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.
> 
> Yes, those are common failings.
> 
>+ 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.
> 
> Those too could be SF elements--provided the laws in their universe were
> applied appropriately to the rest of their universe.
> 
>+ In any case, telepathy does not invalidate anything we know about physics
>+ like most defensive force fields do;
> 
> Actually, I think it does invalidate (or rather: violate) what we know of the
> laws of our universe.  It doesn't seem to use any known force or particle.
> Hey!  That's it!  The missing "dark matter" is psionic particles!  :)
> 
>+ 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.
> 
> Nah, it doesn't violate any known scientific or technological knowledge; it's
> just a matter of steady improvement.
> 
--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca