This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
My complaints:
- Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space
series: Has no FTL travel but does contain several superscience technologies, e.g. the Conjoiner near-lightspeed drive, space/time manipulating weaponry, messages from the future to the past (also the basis for FTL messaging). There is a form of FTL travel present, but it tends to get one's civilization eaten by the Inhibitors; realistic Cosmic Horrors.
- Jerry Pournelle's Co Dominium Shared Universe: Military Science Fiction hard enough to chip teeth. It has a Portal Network and a Force Field designed by Dan Alderson, a Real Life celebrated scientist at JPL.
- No FTL: Perhaps slightly softer than the above, but the physicists will forgive a lot for appeasing their Einstein-worship. Ken Burnside has a particularly scathing rant to that end.
- Which section of the page is the rant in? None of the titles seem to fit.
- The rant is near the very end, and well, I'll just quote the relevant part:
Ken Burnside: How would you react to a game that purported to be about, say, Marines and their tactics and utilizations that insisted that the best formation for them to attack in was walking on their hands, with their rifles clenched between their knees, shoulder to shoulder, in tight formations, through beaten zones for artillery strikes and into machine gun kill zones? Would you accept it if I told you that this was the result of a heretofore unknown doctrinal innovation made at some point 600 years in the future? Or, would you demand to know WHAT doctrinal innovation made this the best way to conduct an assault with Marines on the ground?
- The rant is near the very end, and well, I'll just quote the relevant part:
- Which section of the page is the rant in? None of the titles seem to fit.
- 2001: A Space Odyssey: Unusually among films and TV series with space travel, the vacuum of space is actually silent. Oddly enough, this is one of the few cases where the book is softer than the movie, due to going further into the details. The iconic monolith is ill-defined, but never really breaks any physical laws.
- I think this example is only meant to refer to the movie version, not the book; and the movie version really is harder. Perhaps it should be split up into two examples, with the book going under "FTL," and the current example staying where it is? Anywho, I don't think it's fair to say the Ancient Astronauts trope is "abused" here; it's done about as "hard" as possible. In fact, by the TV Tropes definition, Ancient Astronauts is when "gods and creatures from ancient myth turn out to have been "only" visiting aliens." And that's definitely NOT what takes place here. As for the ending sequence, again, nothing is made explicit. It's a very confusing sequence. The book has a lot of soft stuff happening at this point, but in the movie, at this point, everything that's happening might as well be entirely in the protagonist's head. (In fact, when this troper watched it - before reading the book - he assumed that it *WAS* all happening in the astronaut's head.) I think the movie kept all the soft stuff subtle and ambiguous enough that it should be considered hard sci-fi, especially considering how much effort was put into making the vast majority of what happens in the film very, very realistic.
- It should be noted that despite being cliché there is nothing soft about Ancient Astronaut. Dead horses pulp stuff like Flying cars, household robots, ray guns, super intelligent computers, atomic powdered rockets etc only cont as soft when it goes against what the real world shows is physically possible as we understand it.
- I feel compelled also to note (here, so as not to spoil the pun) an old axiom: There is science fiction that bends the laws of science, engages in wild flights of fancy with no solid foundation and generally does things simply because they look cool. Then there is science fiction that admits it does all that stuff. Hard vs. Soft sci-fi is a false dichotomy.
- I'd really prefer to see Larry Niven's Known Space bumped up a category or two based on the laughable evolutionary biology of the setting...
- What about Gun Buster?
- I'm a little confused about the Accelerando entry: "Charles Stross's Accelerando series: An Einsteinian universe without FTL but with traversable wormholes..." Aren't traversable wormholes a kind of FTL? Or does the series explicitly make a distinction? I don't think this affects where the entry is on the scale at all, I'm just wondering because of the way it's worded.
Robin Zimm: Did a significant rewrite. Old text below for the record.
"Hard" Speculative Fiction is firmly grounded in reality, with few fantastic flights of fancy not justified by Science™.
"Soft" Sci-Fi is more flexible on the rules.
The existence of Faster-Than-Light Travel generally makes a series "softer"; the more restricted or inconvenient FTL becomes, the "harder" the series feels. Space Is an Ocean automatically pushes a show into "soft" territory, while Space Is Noisy makes it feel that way, even if there's a reason. Real Robots are by definition "harder" than Super Robots, although neither of them qualify as truly Hard Sci-Fi. TV tends to be softer than movies, which tend to be softer than books. Stories set 20 Minutes into the Future tend to be harder than stories set in The Future, simply because there's less change from the present-day. Human Aliens and Rubber-Forehead Aliens are typically "soft"; Absent Aliens and Starfish Aliens are more "hard" options. All of these examples, of course, have loads of exceptions.
A useful rule of thumb might be derived from Jim Kakalios's rule of "miracle exceptions" in his "Physics of Superheroes" articles — while many stories require a willing suspension of disbelief, the best ones may require only one leap of faith from an established scientific principle, or just "one big lie"; the more "exceptions" required, the harder it is to accept the story in real terms. A link to the idea can be found here.
Another useful rule of thumb: A character is shown a time machine and asks, "How does it work?" In hard SF the answer will be: "A good question with an interesting answer. Please have a seat while I bring you up to speed on the latest ideas in quantum theory, after which I will spend a chapter detailing an elaborate, yet plausible-sounding connection between quantum states, the unified field theory, and the means by which the brain stores memory, all tied into theories from both Einstein and Hawking."
In soft SF, the answer will be: "You sit in this seat, set the date you want, and pull that lever."
(Note this is not universally true; you can skip over the details as long as the basic explanation you give doesn't seem to conflict with anything that's been established so far.)
Some writers of hard Science Fiction write about areas where they already know a great deal of science fact and/or research the science behind the stories.
The Mundane Manifesto is one attempt to define a set of rules for writing a hard SF story or series, by deliberately forbidding many of the traditional tropes of media Sci-Fi.
"Hardness" is not, however, a simple two-category sorting function, or even a one-dimensional continuum. Many series depart from reality in different ways, and for different reasons. Nevertheless, here's a grossly simplified attempt at a list, from softest to hardest. Don't take it as gospel; just look at the size of the arguments on the discussion page.
Note that this list only tracks Sci-Fi series, which are meant to take reality and diverge from it. Fantasy series need not apply, even though many of the softest Space Operas have been accused of being just fantasy stories with spaceships and ray guns. Similarly, a series that revolves around a Black Box is hard to classify until you know what the Black Box is.
Finally, remember that harder is not always a good thing. Some authors try so hard to make a story realistic they forget plot and characterization, and others may try to justify their occasional break from reality with technobabble, although the most famous example's on the soft end. Thus, neither side is truly better than the other, and which side you prefer depends on personal taste and where a person's Willing Suspension of Disbelief lies.
The name comes from the Mohs scale of mineral hardness.
This site contains more of this type of classification, if you are interested (note, that, comparing that site to this page's grouping, series that appears in Minovsky Particle section and below can be considered to be at least hard, though not always).
Not to be confused with Sliding Scale of Realistic vs. Fantastic and Sliding Scale of Like Reality Unless Noted.
Please note: This list is ranked. That means Soft stuff goes on top, and Hard stuff goes on the bottom. Softer items are closer to the top, while Harder items are further away towards the bottom. So, if you know about a really, really hard work of sci-fi, don't place it under "Hardest"; instead, place it at the very bottom of the list, right above "Hardest".
Old level definitions: Softest : The MST3K Mantra is your Survival Mantra. Your Mileage May Vary as to how soft these marshmallows are.
Imported Alien Phlebotinum: There are technologies that break the laws of physics, but we don't have any real idea how they work, or they are dependent on a resource that apparently appeases some higher power.
Minovsky Particle: The laws of physics are broken in a specifically declared way. Expect hundred-page dissertations on fictional physics and consistent internal rules.
FTL Travel: The only departure from reality is that we've finally outsmarted Einstein — at the very least to send messages.
No FTL: Perhaps slightly softer than the above, but the physicists will forgive a lot for appeasing their Einstein-worship. Ken Burnside has a particularly scathing rant to that end.
Unobtainium: Comprised solely of theoretical yet plausible elements. NO FTL in any way, shape or form.
Next Sunday A.D.: The only thing unrealistic is that it hasn't happened — yet. The only way to grade these is by their age. Newer means harder; one can always tell when Science Marches On.
Twin Bird: Is it just me, or does Star Wars seem way to low on the scale? I mean, it at least feels softer than all Star Trek and Suzumiya Haruhi.
- Robin Zimm: The list isn't well sorted within each category, I believe.
- Unknown Troper: Star Wars isn't much softer than Star Trek, honestly. Star Trek tries to cover up te softness with Techno Babble, but....well, deactivated antimatter.
Robin Zimm: Taking this to the discussion page for obvious reasons.
- On this scale, State Of Fear is 100% uncut Flame Bait. Critics insist it's simply wrong. But as its entire plot revolves around Global Warming being an international conspiracy to Take Over the World, its response is that the research is wrong. See its page for more.
- And like much of Crichton's work, it's eerily predictive - see ClimateGate.
- On this scale, State Of Fear is 100% uncut Flame Bait. Critics insist it's simply wrong. But as its entire plot revolves around Global Warming being an international conspiracy to Take Over the World, its response is that the research is wrong. See its page for more.
The version on the main page has been rewritten.
"Singu: Secrets of the Stellar War: While the aliens have technology that is greater than Earth's level of technology in the mid 2000's and certain human kids can do energy attacks and transform into a giant creature, Earth technology is for the most part is not much different than what we have now in 2010. Computers tend to be very small and quite thin."
- This is currently under "Next Sunday, AD". I've never read the work so I don't want to move it myself, but... Energy attacks? Transforming into giant creatures? Wouldn't these two things just by themselves put this much, much further up the list, straight into Imported Alien Phlebotinum territory? How can a kid generate an energy attack? Where does the extra mass to turn into a giant creature come from? Just because the tech is plausible, doesn't mean the science is hard if you also have magic transforming children in the work... But again, I haven't read it myself, so for all I know this is all very justified. (But then again, how would it be?)
Mutant Rancor: I'd like to make a suggestion: Move the current number 8 to number 9, and add Like Reality, Unless Noted as the new number 8. Remember, the real Mohs Scale of Relative Hardness has 10 points; even though it may not be necessary, 10 is always a good way to organize things. Maybe we could fill out the list with 20 Minutes into the Future, somewhere.
- Robin Zimm: I don't think the distinctions are sharp enough to warrant dividing the categories. It would be better to rename Unobtainium to 20 Minutes into the Future, which would make the line between that and No FTL clearer.
- Mutant Rancor: Sounds good to me.
- Robin Zimm: ...except the Unobtanium examples are less like reality than that. Replace I Want My Jetpack? Revise I Want My Jetpack?
pagad: It bugs me that the page example isn't particularly relevant. The "hard" one is fine, but the "soft" one is apparently soft because it's a simple explanation that "this lever does that and has x effect" regardless of how plausible the device is in the first place, and I don't think that's quite it. For example, when it comes to FTL drives, some writers might prefer to simply not go into too much detail for fear of running into total implausibility, whereas some other writers might prefer to stick with one that has out-and-out no relevance to physics as we know them and rely on the MST3K Mantra. Does that make the former set of writers "harder" or "softer" than the latter?
- girlyboy: Saying a device "just works" without any attempt at justification does make a work softer than a work in which some self-consistent, well-thought-ought mechanism is put forth, yes. The "hard" example implies very heavily that the explanation of the device would be plausible and well-thought-out, and not at all MST 3 K-like. For my part, I like the example very much. It reminds me of Back To The Future, where Doc says to Marty, "let me show you how the time machine works," and I for one very much hoped he'd get into some plausible-sounding explanation of time travel rather than, well, almost exactly what the page example says (set the date, pull the lever, etc). And yes, a time travel movie in which at least some attempt at a self-consistent explanation was put forth would, indeed, be harder. Same goes for FTL drives, etc. Not explaining the technology, and instead just relying on the reader's expectations and familiarity with sci-fi tropes to help them suspend disbelief is a hallmark of soft sci fi; in hard sci fi, any extreme deviation from reality, like time travel or FTL, would be justified in some plausible way.
girlyboy: Is anyone else getting a headache trying to make sense of the eight (nine if you include Real Life) categories this scale now has? Some of them (like the last three or so) seem to be almost identical. A lot of the rankings seems very subjective. "Minovsky Particle" technically should be just shows that break the laws of physics in one single, consistent, declared way, but in practice it's just a place where all shows that are a little harder than "Imported Alien Phlebotinum" and a little softer than "Faster-Than-Light Travel" get crammed.
I doubt such a major change can realistically be made, but I personally think the scale should have exactly three categories:
- 1. Works that are Soft, and like it: There is no attempt to justify the Applied Phlebotinum and Super-Science; Things run on Rule of Cool; The plot is more important than the rules of physics; And that's precisely what the writers were aiming for.
- 2. Works that try for justification and internal consistency: Plot is still more important than physics, but now at least some attempts to justify deviations from reality are made; Where the rules of reality are broken, they are broken in consistent ways; There are limits to what the Super-Science can do, and Magic A Is Magic A.
- 3. Hard Science Fiction: All deviations from reality have meticulously researched justifications, and the basic laws of physics as we understand them are never broken; Any Applied Phlebotinum shown is an extrapolation of already-existing technology or at least is based on currently-understood scientific principles; The laws of science and logic are never sacrificed for plot, drama, or Rule of Cool, and instead the impact of the story depends on its realism.
Of course, works could still be ranked within these three basic categories, but basically... that's it! Wouldn't such a scale be far more intuitive? Wouldn't it tell us a lot more of what's interesting about a work, from a Troper's perspective? And, well... wouldn't it be a lot less confusing than eight separate vaguely-defined categories?
And, plus: Rule of Three.
- Robin Zimm: I see what you are saying, but I don't think the scale is all that confusing. I think the strength of it is that it divides works more finely. Besides, your (2) contains a lot of hard SF. Edit: I'll grant you that the distinction between I Want My Jetpack and Next Sunday A.D. is petty, but I'll defend every other step on the scale.
- What about Minovsky Particle? From the description of the category, it should be a lot harder than most of the works in the FTL section, and quite a few of the works in the "non-FTL" section. But it's above both, and most of the actual works listed in it are quite soft, and don't much fit its "minovsky particle" description at all. I think one big strength of my proposed three-point scale is that it grades work by self-consistency and intent of the author, rather than just by what kind of science it does or doesn't have. This seems much more intuitive to me than the current scale. As another example, the non-FTL category even admits in its description that it can actually be softer than FTL in every other way than breaking the light-speed barrier. Is this not counter-intuitive? I find it very easy to imagine having a work under Minovsky Particle (if we actually go by the category's description) be a lot harder than a work in FTL, and that work in FTL be in turn a lot harder than a work that fits under non-FTL but is gooey soft in a lot of other ways. In short, the current scale is confusing and un-intuitive, and I really don't see what the point of this "fine division" of works is, if the actual way in which they are finely divided is totally subjective and often makes no sense at all if you look at what the description for each category says. And as for my proposed 2nd cateogry including a lot of "hard" science fiction, well, that just means it's a different level of "hard" from what would go in 3. A work that has time travel, FTL, and other such things, for example, but justifies it all will fit in 2. It's reasonably hard (compared to the squishy marshmallows in 1. at least), but it's not as hard as 3., which will be for "2001 A Space Odyssey" movie levels of hard and up. This seems to make sense to me — or at least more sense than the current scale. Anyway, sorry — I seem to be getting a little too worked up about this... The current scale isn't terrible or anything like that, I just honestly do find it very counter-intuitive and confusing.
girlyboy again: How about a 4-point scale? Same as the 3-point scale I propose above, but the 2nd category is sub-divided further: 2. will now be shows that have ridiculous Applied Phlebotinum and plot-governed physics, same as 1., but makes an honest attempt to remain internally consistent; 3. will now be a bit harder, works where laws of physics can still be broken (unlike in 4., the hardest category), but where these breaks are few, and some time is spent exploring and justifying them. The distinction between 1 and 2 is that in 2, we have more internal consistency and limits on what the super-science can do; and the difference between 2 and 3 will be that while 2 can still run entirely on Rule of Cool (just keeping the Magic A Is Magic A consistent), 3. will pay a bit more attention to the ways in which it diverts from reality. So 2 will be "soft, but internally consistent," and 3 will be "not only internally consistent, but also justified, and with more limited breaks from reality." 4. Will be hard sci-fi only, things where no laws of physics are broken, and where everything is justified and based on existing technology and science.
To put it another way: In 1., the writer will say: The Hero using Transporters And Teleporters to get to the other side of the Galaxy in an instant? That's cool! I'll throw that in! In 2., the writer will say: Transporters And Teleporters are cool... But I established in a previous chapter that they have limited range; The Hero can't use them to get to the other side of the Galaxy in an instant, no matter how convenient that would be for the plot. In 3., the writer will say: Transporters And Teleporters are cool... but unrealistic. I'll put them in, but I'll spend some time explaining how they work, and why they're possible when they seem to contradict present-day science. And since I'm putting them in, I'll try to cut back on other Applied Phlebotinum, because I want to stay at least a little realistic. And in 4. the writer will say, Transporters And Teleporters are cool... but impossible. They have no place in my story at all, no matter what.
As an example, "The Hitch-Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy" will be in 1.; most (but not all) Star Trek series would be in 2.; Banks' Culture novels will be in 3.; and the film version of 2001 A Space Odyssey will be in 4.
- Robin Zimm: Look, I think you have a point, here - but you're attacking the very thing which makes the scale cool: its specificity. I would be willing to rename Imported Alien Phlebotinum to Applied Phlebotinum, but I think the rest of it makes sense and that the list is fairly well-sorted. Is anyone else actually having problems with it?
- Joeyjojo: Any one think we should move Avatar down a few more places? Say around higher FTL? Yes the Na'vi are far fetched, but not as much as made out. Internet darlings like Firefly or the new Battle Star are hardly any more culturally realistic what with the space injuns and space yankees but seem to get a free pass. Either space cultures falls under Artistic License or we rework as appropriate.
- Robin Zimm: "Hard science fiction", at least so far as I have seen, is with respect to "hard sciences" and the like: physics, chemistry, maybe biology. Accuracy with respect to the soft sciences is not measured (possibly because that would be hard).
- girlyboy: I think it's their biological similarity to humans that makes them soft, more than their Native American expy culture. The humans in Firefly are actually humans, and though I haven't seen Battlestar much that seems to be the case there too from what I hear. ... On the other hand, a lot of otherwise - fairly hard science fiction features humanoid aliens, and at least in Avatar their alien-ness is important (their huge size and strength, requiring the Avatars for natural interaction with them; the fact that they breathe an atmosphere poisonous to humans, etc). I'd say Avatar should be moved into Minovsky Particle territory, if only because it seems to me to be harder than some of the examples that are currently below it on the list. (Though that's partly due to a larger problem with the list, such as the fact that a lot of the works in Minovsky Particle require lots of breaks from physics, which aren't always particularly justified or well-explained; Avatar is probably closer than most to actually fitting the category's description.)
- joeyjojo well i guess. The biology of pandora is petty hard to buy, but it's seems physics possible for the most part. Sexy blue cat girls goes against the hard sci-fi feel but This Troper can't find anything wrong with it in theory.
