It's a rather dreary day here in Atlanta. Not at all inspiring, but perhaps a good day to sit down and consider some books. Which is exactly what I intend to do today!
Later in the week I'll be delving into individual short stories, but as of right now I wanted to let you all know what anthologies I am drawing my stories out of. Hard science fiction, in my opinion, has largely been dominated by the short story style of writing. It is also my favorite way to read and write the genre. Why? Because, let's face it: for the less than scientifically inclined, hard science fiction can occasionally be very difficult to get through.
Now, the key difference between hard and 'soft' science fiction is found in the content. Isaac Asimov's anthology of short stories "I, Robot" (which you will find me referring to very often) and "A Pail of Air" by Fritz Leiber are both good examples of hard science fiction. They concentrate on the "what if's?" of science, actual possibilities that could occur in the realm of the natural world. Soft science fiction is a little less respected simply because it doesn't focus on the science of the story (seems a little silly, doesn't it? I mean, it is science fiction). I've become fond of the term "Futuristic Fantasy" to refer to soft science fiction. Do you like it? I made that up myself. And the reason is because the writers bend laws that cannot be bent to create their ideas. Think of Star Wars -- every time a Tie-Fighter blows up in space, there's a dramatic flash of flame. Hmmm. What is fire, essentially? It is the chemical reaction between a material and oxygen. Oxygen. There's no oxygen in space, hence there would be no explosion with fire. Now, there could be other ways for the ship to explode, I'm sure. That would require more research. But as it is, Star Wars got it wrong. Soft science fiction.
So 'Futuristic Fantasy' can easily take up hundreds and hundreds of pages without causing the brain to turn to confused and exhausted mush. It's very popular because of this. And that's ok -- don't get me wrong, I also enjoy and respect soft science fiction. It's still difficult to write. But hard science fiction is the thing that you *really* have to be careful with. Because if you call it legitimate, and you get it wrong, the science community will take great care to point it out to you. This happened to Larry Niven with his famous novel Ringworld. He had to write a second novel, The Ringworld Engineers to explain the physics of how his idea could work. So if you think you can qualify your stories to the people who really know what they're talking about, write whatever you want.
In short, hard science fiction is difficult no matter what because not everyone can be a physicist, or a chemist, or an astrologist, or an expert on nuclear materials, etc.
But I digress.
Anyways, the books that I will be drawing from are these:
(1). The Oxford Book of Science Fiction, ed. Tom Shippey.
(2). The Ascent of Wonder: The Evolution of Hard Science Fiction, ed. David G. Hartwell and Kathryn Cramer.
And I'll also be dipping into The Essential Ellison which is a collection of all of Harlan Ellison's short stories for his entire career (including a few from his early teens). Not to mention I'll probably throw in a few classic novels here and there, when I have the time to read them!
Until next time then!
L
p.s. Don't forget to feed the Grumbies.
"Futuristic Fantasy" - I like it! However, I think just that name can define "hard" science fiction too, maybe hard science fiction should just be a subset? I used to read a lot of Star Trek novels, and whether or not anyone counts that as quality fiction at all; I found different authors went for different levels of "proof" for their "science." My favorites (the "hardest" science of them) were the "Starfleet Corps of Engineers," which I enjoyed because fantastical technologies were given the most thought and explanation (well, and the books had "Engineer" on the cover).
ReplyDeleteJust a bit, on the tie fighter thing: There is a person on the thing, so there has to be oxygen or compressed air for breathing somewhere, unless the craft has some rebreather type thing that actually recycles CO2... but anyway, there has to be some oxygen there. Also, I have no where tie fighters get their thrust from, but if there's any combustion it needs some O2 too.
My question is, even if they have a whole boatload of oxygen and fuel onboard... why keep them next to each other so they almost immediately mix and explode :)
However, to continue the rant on Star Wars, there's a much better thing to pick on: The way the portray of laser weapons in space.
1. You cannot see lasers in space (from anywhere but where it hits)
2. You cannot hear anything in space (from other craft)
Both 1 and 2 require a medium either for light to interact with and refract, or for compressional sound waves to travel through.
Recently I read "On Fairy Stories," an essay by Tolkien, and one thing he says is that fantastical tales need to follow their own rules, I think that holds here: "hard" is the set that follows either those laws we say govern our world, "soft" has to come up with its own set, "bad" breaks both...
Ahhh, it's dangerous when I start rambling in a text box... I think I will quit and feed the ... "Grumbies"... (which I had previously read as "gumbies")