Discussion History Main / VideogameCrueltyPotential

In some cases, the categories seem primarily concerned with whether specific types of AppliedPhlebotinum are or are not featured in a story, which I think is not at all the best way to sort sci-fi hardness. To see what I mean, look no further than the FTL / No FTL categories. The \\\"No FTL\\\" description even \\\'\\\'says\\\'\\\' that the stories there may actually be somewhat \\\'\\\'softer\\\'\\\' on the whole than stories in FTL, except for that one single Einsteinian distinction. So, does it really make sense to rank stories by whether they include FTL or not? What if you\\\'re comparing a story that includes FTL, but takes a lot of time to justify how it works, and has no other super-science at all, to another work where we only have extremely fast \\\'\\\'interplanetary\\\'\\\' travel in tiny spaceships, but with no justification at all as to how \\\'\\\'this\\\'\\\' works, and also things like artificial gravity, etc.?

Or, take a look at the MinovskyParticle category. This category \\\'\\\'doesn\\\'t make sense at all.\\\'\\\' It\\\'s \\\'\\\'supposed\\\'\\\' to be, according to its description, a category for works with one single, really well-defined deviation from real-life physics, and completely internally consistent fictional physics, and completely hard science in every other way. In \\\'\\\'practice\\\'\\\', however, this category is just used as a place to cram everything a little harder than ImportedAlienPhlebotinum and a little softer than FTL, whether it involves one justified break from physics, or a dozen barely-consistent ones. Heck, if you take its description alone, this category should really be lower than FTL, since FTL just by itself would be a break from physics, and it\\\'s \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' always all that well-explored and internally-consistent, and usually comes bundled with \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\' soft stuff as well. And yet, MinovskyParticle is somehow softer than FTL, and full of works that don\\\'t match its description at all.

And the last two categories (if not \\\'\\\'the last three\\\'\\\')? Could be merged into one without losing anything at all. The only difference seems to be the presence of space travel. Again, being obsessed with the exact technology involved just confuses the matter. I mean, \\\'\\\'G.I. Joe\\\'\\\' is harder than \\\'\\\'2001: A Space Odyssey\\\'\\\'? Just because the latter has space travel? Come on, now.

So basically, the list as it currently exists includes way more categories than needed, the descriptions of these categories are unclear and don\\\'t always fit the works in them, and the order of how hard and soft works really are doesn\\\'t always fit the order of the categories whose description they fit, because too much attention is paid to things like \\\"FTL\\\" and \\\"Space Travel\\\", rather than the over-all, big-picture hardness or softness of a work.

I think things would be better if we created categories reflecting how much research the author has done, how much attention they pay to internal consistency, and other inherent properties of the work itself, rather than exactly which forms of AppliedPhlebotinum are involved. This would be much more useful since our concern at TvTropes is really about the nature of works of fiction, rather than how realistic or unrealistic FTL travel and the like might be given real-world physics. This would also allow us to cut down on the number of categories, generally making things clearer. There would also no longer be confusion as to which category should \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' be harder or softer than which.

So, I propose a scale with the following \\\'\\\'\\\'Four Categories:\\\'\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'\\\'1: RuleOfCool :\\\'\\\'\\\' The author is completely unconcerned with realism or internal consistency. New super-science and AppliedPhlebotinum is tossed in whenever the plot demands it. [[BellisariosMaxim Bellisario\\\'s Maxim]] and the MST3KMantra are in full effect.

\\\'\\\'\\\'2: MagicAIsMagicA :\\\'\\\'\\\' RuleOfCool still trumps RealLife physics, but now the author \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' putting some effort into keeping their fictional science and AppliedPhlebotinum internally consistent. Technology will do impossible things, but it will do the \\\'\\\'same\\\'\\\' impossible things in the \\\'\\\'same\\\'\\\' way, and with the \\\'\\\'same\\\'\\\' limitations each time, and characters will be aware of, and will need to work within, these limits. The laws of physics are still broken all the time, but the laws of \\\'\\\'logic\\\'\\\' are at least mostly respected (though [[MisappliedPhlebotinum the full logical implications]] of the AppliedPhlebotinum will not always be considered).

\\\'\\\'\\\'3: MinovskyParticle :\\\'\\\'\\\' The rules of physics are broken, but only in limited ways, and only with at least some justification. Technology that is, as far as we know, completely impossible will still appear, but the author will go out of their way to justify its existence, and explore the implications of the fictional science behind it. They will also stick to reality whenever they can, and will generally make the setting seem as realistic as possible.

\\\'\\\'\\\'4: Hard Science Fiction :\\\'\\\'\\\' The rules of physics are \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' broken. Any AppliedPhlebotinum that makes an appearance is carefully extrapolated from existing technology, and never, \\\'\\\'ever\\\'\\\' does things that current science tells us should be impossible. The realism of the story is part of its appeal.

So, in category 1., the writer will say: \\\"The Hero using TransportersAndTeleporters to get to the other side of the Galaxy in an instant? That\\\'s cool and convenient! I\\\'ll throw that in!\\\" In 2., the writer will say: \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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: \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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 AppliedPhlebotinum, because I want to stay at least a little realistic.\\\" And in 4. the writer will say, \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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\\\'\\\' would be in category 1.; most (but not all) \\\'\\\'Star Trek\\\'\\\' series would be in 2.; Banks\\\' \\\'\\\'Culture\\\'\\\' novels would be in 3. (though perhaps on the softer end); and the film version of \\\'\\\'2001: A Space Odyssey\\\'\\\' would be in 4 (though the \\\'\\\'book\\\'\\\' version would be on the hard end of 3).

And there you go. Four categories are all you need. You don\\\'t need eight or nine categories with confusing definitions. You don\\\'t need to analyse all the fictional science in the story and see how realistic it is compared to real-life physics. All you need to care about is the author\\\'s intent, the effort they\\\'ve put in (edit: meaning, the effort put into \\\'\\\'keeping it realistic\\\'\\\' / internally consistent / [[DidNotDoTheResearch doing the research]]; [[TropesAreNotBad I don\\\'t mean to imply soft sci-fi requires less effort]]), and the overall feel of the work. And you get a much more intuitive, much less confusing, and much more \\\'\\\'logical\\\'\\\' scale as a result.

In some cases, the categories seem primarily concerned with whether specific types of AppliedPhlebotinum are or are not featured in a story, which I think is not at all the best way to sort sci-fi hardness. To see what I mean, look no further than the FTL / No FTL categories. The \\\"No FTL\\\" description even \\\'\\\'says\\\'\\\' that the stories there may actually be somewhat \\\'\\\'softer\\\'\\\' on the whole than stories in FTL, except for that one single Einsteinian distinction. So, does it really make sense to rank stories by whether they include FTL or not? What if you\\\'re comparing a story that includes FTL, but takes a lot of time to justify how it works, and has no other super-science at all, to another work where we only have extremely fast \\\'\\\'interplanetary\\\'\\\' travel in tiny spaceships, but with no justification at all as to how \\\'\\\'this\\\'\\\' works, and also things like artificial gravity, etc.?

Or, take a look at the MinovskyParticle category. This category \\\'\\\'doesn\\\'t make sense at all.\\\'\\\' It\\\'s \\\'\\\'supposed\\\'\\\' to be, according to its description, a category for works with one single, really well-defined deviation from real-life physics, and completely internally consistent fictional physics, and completely hard science in every other way. In \\\'\\\'practice\\\'\\\', however, this category is just used as a place to cram everything a little harder than ImportedAlienPhlebotinum and a little softer than FTL, whether it involves one justified break from physics, or a dozen barely-consistent ones. Heck, if you take its description alone, this category should really be lower than FTL, since FTL just by itself would be a break from physics, and it\\\'s \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' always all that well-explored and internally-consistent, and usually comes bundled with \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\' soft stuff as well. And yet, MinovskyParticle: is somehow softer than FTL, and full of works that don\\\'t match its description at all.

And the last two categories (if not \\\'\\\'the last three\\\'\\\')? Could be merged into one without losing anything at all. The only difference seems to be the presence of space travel. Again, being obsessed with the exact technology involved just confuses the matter. I mean, \\\'\\\'G.I. Joe\\\'\\\' is harder than \\\'\\\'2001: A Space Odyssey\\\'\\\'? Just because the latter has space travel? Come on, now.

So basically, the list as it currently exists includes way more categories than needed, the descriptions of these categories are unclear and don\\\'t always fit the works in them, and the order of how hard and soft works really are doesn\\\'t always fit the order of the categories whose description they fit, because too much attention is paid to things like \\\"FTL\\\" and \\\"Space Travel\\\", rather than the over-all, big-picture hardness or softness of a work.

I think things would be better if we created categories reflecting how much research the author has done, how much attention they pay to internal consistency, and other inherent properties of the work itself, rather than exactly which forms of AppliedPhlebotinum are involved. This would be much more useful since our concern at TvTropes is really about the nature of works of fiction, rather than how realistic or unrealistic FTL travel and the like might be given real-world physics. This would also allow us to cut down on the number of categories, generally making things clearer. There would also no longer be confusion as to which category should \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' be harder or softer than which.

So, I propose a scale with the following \\\'\\\'\\\'Four Categories:\\\'\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'\\\'1: RuleOfCool :\\\'\\\'\\\' The author is completely unconcerned with realism or internal consistency. New super-science and AppliedPhlebotinum is tossed in whenever the plot demands it. [[BellisariosMaxim Bellisario\\\'s Maxim]] and the MST3KMantra are in full effect.

\\\'\\\'\\\'2: MagicAIsMagicA :\\\'\\\'\\\' RuleOfCool still trumps RealLife physics, but now the author \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' putting some effort into keeping their fictional science and AppliedPhlebotinum internally consistent. Technology will do impossible things, but it will do the \\\'\\\'same\\\'\\\' impossible things in the \\\'\\\'same\\\'\\\' way, and with the \\\'\\\'same\\\'\\\' limitations each time, and characters will be aware of, and will need to work within, these limits. The laws of physics are still broken all the time, but the laws of \\\'\\\'logic\\\'\\\' are at least mostly respected (though [[MisappliedPhlebotinum the full logical implications]] of the AppliedPhlebotinum will not always be considered).

\\\'\\\'\\\'3: MinovskyParticle :\\\'\\\'\\\' The rules of physics are broken, but only in limited ways, and only with at least some justification. Technology that is, as far as we know, completely impossible will still appear, but the author will go out of their way to justify its existence, and explore the implications of the fictional science behind it. They will also stick to reality whenever they can, and will generally make the setting seem as realistic as possible.

\\\'\\\'\\\'4: Hard Science Fiction :\\\'\\\'\\\' The rules of physics are \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' broken. Any AppliedPhlebotinum that makes an appearance is carefully extrapolated from existing technology, and never, \\\'\\\'ever\\\'\\\' does things that current science tells us should be impossible. The realism of the story is part of its appeal.

So, in category 1., the writer will say: \\\"The Hero using TransportersAndTeleporters to get to the other side of the Galaxy in an instant? That\\\'s cool and convenient! I\\\'ll throw that in!\\\" In 2., the writer will say: \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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: \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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 AppliedPhlebotinum, because I want to stay at least a little realistic.\\\" And in 4. the writer will say, \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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\\\'\\\' would be in category 1.; most (but not all) \\\'\\\'Star Trek\\\'\\\' series would be in 2.; Banks\\\' \\\'\\\'Culture\\\'\\\' novels would be in 3. (though perhaps on the softer end); and the film version of \\\'\\\'2001: A Space Odyssey\\\'\\\' would be in 4 (though the \\\'\\\'book\\\'\\\' version would be on the hard end of 3).

And there you go. Four categories are all you need. You don\\\'t need eight or nine categories with confusing definitions. You don\\\'t need to analyse all the fictional science in the story and see how realistic it is compared to real-life physics. All you need to care about is the author\\\'s intent, the effort they\\\'ve put in (edit: meaning, the effort put into \\\'\\\'keeping it realistic\\\'\\\' / internally consistent / [[DidNotDoTheResearch doing the research]]; [[TropesAreNotBad I don\\\'t mean to imply soft sci-fi requires less effort]]), and the overall feel of the work. And you get a much more intuitive, much less confusing, and much more \\\'\\\'logical\\\'\\\' scale as a result.

In some cases, the categories seem primarily concerned with whether specific types of AppliedPhlebotinum are or are not featured in a story, which I think is not at all the best way to sort sci-fi hardness. To see what I mean, look no further than the FTL / No FTL categories. The \\\"No FTL\\\" description even \\\'\\\'says\\\'\\\' that the stories there may actually be somewhat \\\'\\\'softer\\\'\\\' on the whole than stories in FTL, except for that one single Einsteinian distinction. So, does it really make sense to rank stories by whether they include FTL or not? What if you\\\'re comparing a story that includes FTL, but takes a lot of time to justify how it works, and has no other super-science at all, to another work where we only have extremely fast \\\'\\\'interplanetary\\\'\\\' travel in tiny spaceships, but with no justification at all as to how \\\'\\\'this\\\'\\\' works, and also things like artificial gravity, etc.?

Or, take a look at the MinovskyParticle category. This category \\\'\\\'doesn\\\'t make sense at all.\\\'\\\' It\\\'s \\\'\\\'supposed\\\'\\\' to be, according to its description, a category for works with one single, really well-defined deviation from real-life physics, and completely internally consistent fictional physics, and completely hard science in every other way. In \\\'\\\'practice\\\'\\\', however, this category is just used as a place to cram everything a little harder than ImportedAlienPhlebotinum and a little softer than FTL, whether it involves one justified break from physics, or a dozen barely-consistent ones. Heck, if you take its description alone, this category should really be lower than FTL, since FTL just by itself would be a break from physics, and it\\\'s \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' always all that well-explored and internally-consistent, and usually comes bundled with \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\' soft stuff as well. And yet, MinovskyParticle: is somehow softer than FTL, and full of works that don\\\'t match its description at all.

And the last two categories (if not \\\'\\\'the last three\\\'\\\')? Could be merged into one without losing anything at all. The only difference seems to be the presence of space travel. Again, being obsessed with the exact technology involved just confuses the matter. I mean, \\\'\\\'G.I. Joe\\\'\\\' is harder than \\\'\\\'2001: A Space Odyssey\\\'\\\'? Just because the latter has space travel? Come on, now.

So basically, the list as it currently exists includes way more categories than needed, the descriptions of these categories are unclear and don\\\'t always fit the works in them, and the order of how hard and soft works really are doesn\\\'t always fit the order of the categories whose description they fit, because too much attention is paid to things like \\\"FTL\\\" and \\\"Space Travel\\\", rather than the over-all, big-picture hardness or softness of a work.

I think things would be better if we created categories reflecting how much research the author has done, how much attention they pay to internal consistency, and other inherent properties of the work itself, rather than exactly which forms of AppliedPhlebotinum are involved. This would be much more useful since our concern at TvTropes is really about the nature of works of fiction, rather than how realistic or unrealistic FTL travel and the like might be given real-world physics. This would also allow us to cut down on the number of categories, generally making things clearer. There would also no longer be confusion as to which category should \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' be harder or softer than which.

So, I propose a scale with the following \\\'\\\'\\\'Four Categories:\\\'\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'\\\'1: RuleOfCool :\\\'\\\'\\\' The author is completely unconcerned with realism or internal consistency. New super-science and AppliedPhlebotinum is tossed in whenever the plot demands it. [[BellisariosMaxim Bellisario\\\'s Maxim]] and the MST3KMantra are in full effect.

\\\'\\\'\\\'2: MagicAIsMagicA :\\\'\\\'\\\' RuleOfCool still trumps RealLife physics, but now the author \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' putting some effort into keeping their fictional science and AppliedPhlebotinum internally consistent. Technology will do impossible things, but it will do the \\\'\\\'same\\\'\\\' impossible things in the \\\'\\\'same\\\'\\\' way, and with the \\\'\\\'same\\\'\\\' limitations each time, and characters will be aware of, and will need to work within, these limits. The laws of physics are still broken all the time, but the laws of \\\'\\\'logic\\\'\\\' are at least mostly respected (though [[MisappliedPhlebotinum the full logical implications]] of the AppliedPhlebotinum will not always be considered).

\\\'\\\'\\\'3: MinovskyParticle :\\\'\\\'\\\' The rules of physics are broken, but only in limited ways, and only with at least some justification. Technology that is, as far as we know, completely impossible will still appear, but the author will go out of their way to justify its existence, and explore the implications of the fictional science behind it. They will also stick to reality whenever they can, and will generally make the setting seem as realistic as possible.

\\\'\\\'\\\'4: Hard Science Fiction :\\\'\\\'\\\' The rules of physics are \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' broken. Any AppliedPhlebotinum that makes an appearance is carefully extrapolated from existing technology, and never, \\\'\\\'ever\\\'\\\' does things that current science tells us should be impossible. The realism of the story is part of its appeal.

So, in category 1., the writer will say: \\\"The Hero using TransportersAndTeleporters to get to the other side of the Galaxy in an instant? That\\\'s cool and convenient! I\\\'ll throw that in!\\\" In 2., the writer will say: \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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: \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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 AppliedPhlebotinum, because I want to stay at least a little realistic.\\\" And in 4. the writer will say, \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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\\\'\\\' would be in category 1.; most (but not all) \\\'\\\'Star Trek\\\'\\\' series would be in 2.; Banks\\\' \\\'\\\'Culture\\\'\\\' novels would be in 3. (though perhaps on the softer end); and the film version of \\\'\\\'2001: A Space Odyssey\\\'\\\' would be in 4 (though the \\\'\\\'book\\\'\\\' version would be on the hard end of 3).

And there you go. Four categories are all you need. You don\\\'t need eight or nine categories with confusing definitions. You don\\\'t need to analyse all the fictional science in the story and see how realistic it is compared to real-life physics. All you need to care about is the author\\\'s intent, the effort they\\\'ve put in (edit: meaning, the effort put into \\\'\\\'keeping it realistic\\\'\\\' / [[DidNotDoTheResearch doing the research]]; [[TropesAreNotBad I don\\\'t mean to imply soft sci-fi requires less effort]]), and the overall feel of the work. And you get a much more intuitive, much less confusing, and much more \\\'\\\'logical\\\'\\\' scale as a result.

In some cases, the categories seem primarily concerned with whether specific types of AppliedPhlebotinum are or are not featured in a story, which I think is not at all the best way to sort sci-fi hardness. To see what I mean, look no further than the FTL / No FTL categories. The \\\"No FTL\\\" description even \\\'\\\'says\\\'\\\' that the stories there may actually be somewhat \\\'\\\'softer\\\'\\\' on the whole than stories in FTL, except for that one single Einsteinian distinction. So, does it really make sense to rank stories by whether they include FTL or not? What if you\\\'re comparing a story that includes FTL, but takes a lot of time to justify how it works, and has no other super-science at all, to another work where we only have extremely fast \\\'\\\'interplanetary\\\'\\\' travel in tiny spaceships, but with no justification at all as to how \\\'\\\'this\\\'\\\' works, and also things like artificial gravity, etc.?

Or, take a look at the MinovskyParticle category. This category \\\'\\\'doesn\\\'t make sense at all.\\\'\\\' It\\\'s \\\'\\\'supposed\\\'\\\' to be, according to its description, a category for works with one single, really well-defined deviation from real-life physics, and completely internally consistent fictional physics, and completely hard science in every other way. In \\\'\\\'practice\\\'\\\', however, this category is just used as a place to cram everything a little harder than ImportedAlienPhlebotinum and a little softer than FTL, whether it involves one justified break from physics, or a dozen barely-consistent ones. Heck, if you take its description alone, this category should really be lower than FTL, since FTL just by itself would be a break from physics, and it\\\'s \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' always all that well-explored and internally-consistent, and usually comes bundled with \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\' soft stuff as well. And yet, MinovskyParticle: is somehow softer than FTL, and full of works that don\\\'t match its description at all.

And the last two categories (if not \\\'\\\'the last three\\\'\\\')? Could be merged into one without losing anything at all. The only difference seems to be the presence of space travel. Again, being obsessed with the exact technology involved just confuses the matter. I mean, \\\'\\\'G.I. Joe\\\'\\\' is harder than \\\'\\\'2001: A Space Odyssey\\\'\\\'? Just because the latter has space travel? Come on, now.

So basically, the list as it currently exists includes way more categories than needed, the descriptions of these categories are unclear and don\\\'t always fit the works in them, and the order of how hard and soft works really are doesn\\\'t always fit the order of the categories whose description they fit, because too much attention is paid to things like \\\"FTL\\\" and \\\"Space Travel\\\", rather than the over-all, big-picture hardness or softness of a work.

I think things would be better if we created categories reflecting how much research the author has done, how much attention they pay to internal consistency, and other inherent properties of the work itself, rather than exactly which forms of AppliedPhlebotinum are involved. This would be much more useful since our concern at TvTropes is really about the nature of works of fiction, rather than how realistic or unrealistic FTL travel and the like might be given real-world physics. This would also allow us to cut down on the number of categories, generally making things clearer. There would also no longer be confusion as to which category should \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' be harder or softer than which.

So, I propose a scale with the following \\\'\\\'\\\'Four Categories:\\\'\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'\\\'1: RuleOfCool :\\\'\\\'\\\' The author is completely unconcerned with realism or internal consistency. New super-science and AppliedPhlebotinum is tossed in whenever the plot demands it. [[BellisariosMaxim Bellisario\\\'s Maxim]] and the MST3KMantra are in full effect.

\\\'\\\'\\\'2: MagicAIsMagicA :\\\'\\\'\\\' RuleOfCool still trumps RealLife physics, but now the author \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' putting some effort into keeping their fictional science and AppliedPhlebotinum internally consistent. Technology will do impossible things, but it will do the \\\'\\\'same\\\'\\\' impossible things in the \\\'\\\'same\\\'\\\' way, and with the \\\'\\\'same\\\'\\\' limitations each time, and characters will be aware of, and will need to work within, these limits. The laws of physics are still broken all the time, but the laws of \\\'\\\'logic\\\'\\\' are at least mostly respected (though [[MisappliedPhlebotinum the full logical implications]] of the AppliedPhlebotinum will not always be considered).

\\\'\\\'\\\'3: MinovskyParticle :\\\'\\\'\\\' The rules of physics are broken, but only in limited ways, and only with at least some justification. Technology that is, as far as we know, completely impossible will still appear, but the author will go out of their way to justify its existence, and explore the implications of the fictional science behind it. They will also stick to reality whenever they can, and will generally make the setting seem as realistic as possible.

\\\'\\\'\\\'4: Hard Science Fiction :\\\'\\\'\\\' The rules of physics are \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' broken. Any AppliedPhlebotinum that makes an appearance is carefully extrapolated from existing technology, and never, \\\'\\\'ever\\\'\\\' does things that current science tells us should be impossible. The realism of the story is part of its appeal.

So, in category 1., the writer will say: \\\"The Hero using TransportersAndTeleporters to get to the other side of the Galaxy in an instant? That\\\'s cool and convenient! I\\\'ll throw that in!\\\" In 2., the writer will say: \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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: \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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 AppliedPhlebotinum, because I want to stay at least a little realistic.\\\" And in 4. the writer will say, \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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\\\'\\\' would be in category 1.; most (but not all) \\\'\\\'Star Trek\\\'\\\' series would be in 2.; Banks\\\' \\\'\\\'Culture\\\'\\\' novels would be in 3. (though perhaps on the softer end); and the film version of \\\'\\\'2001: A Space Odyssey\\\'\\\' would be in 4 (though the \\\'\\\'book\\\'\\\' version would be on the hard end of 3).

And there you go. Four categories are all you need. You don\\\'t need eight or nine categories with confusing definitions. You don\\\'t need to analyse all the fictional science in the story and see how realistic it is compared to real-life physics. All you need to care about is the author\\\'s intent, the effort they\\\'ve put in, and the overall feel of the work. And you get a much more intuitive, much less confusing, and much more \\\'\\\'logical\\\'\\\' scale as a result.

In some cases, the categories seem primarily concerned with whether specific types of AppliedPhlebotinum are or are not featured in a story, which I think is not at all the best way to sort sci-fi hardness. To see what I mean, look no further than the FTL / No FTL categories. The \\\"No FTL\\\" description even \\\'\\\'says\\\'\\\' that the stories there may actually be somewhat \\\'\\\'softer\\\'\\\' on the whole than stories in FTL, except for that one single Einsteinian distinction. So, does it really make sense to rank stories by whether they include FTL or not? What if you\\\'re comparing a story that includes FTL, but takes a lot of time to justify how it works, and has no other super-science at all, to another work where we only have extremely fast \\\'\\\'interplanetary\\\'\\\' travel in tiny spaceships, but with no justification at all as to how \\\'\\\'this\\\'\\\' works, and also things like artificial gravity, etc.?

Or, take a look at the MinovskyParticle category. This category \\\'\\\'doesn\\\'t make sense at all.\\\'\\\' It\\\'s \\\'\\\'supposed\\\'\\\' to be, according to its description, a category for works with one single, really well-defined deviation from real-life physics, and completely internally consistent fictional physics, and completely hard science in every other way. In \\\'\\\'practice\\\'\\\', however, this category is just used as a place to cram everything a little harder than ImportedAlienPhlebotinum and a little softer than FTL, whether it involves one justified break from physics, or a dozen barely-consistent ones. Heck, if you take its description alone, this category should really be lower than FTL, since FTL just by itself would be a break from physics, and it\\\'s \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' always all that well-explored and internally-consistent, and usually comes bundled with \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\' soft stuff as well. And yet, MinovskyParticle: is somehow softer than FTL, and full of works that don\\\'t match its description at all.

And the last two categories (if not \\\'\\\'the last three\\\'\\\')? Could be merged into one without losing anything at all. The only difference seems to be the presence of space travel. Again, being obsessed with the exact technology involved just confuses the matter. I mean, \\\'\\\'G.I. Joe\\\'\\\' is harder than \\\'\\\'2001: A Space Odyssey\\\'\\\'? Just because the latter has space travel? Come on, now.

So basically, the list as it currently exists includes way more categories than needed, the descriptions of these categories are unclear and don\\\'t always fit the works in them, and the order of how hard and soft works really are doesn\\\'t always fit the order of the categories whose description they fit, because too much attention is paid to things like \\\"FTL\\\" and \\\"Space Travel\\\", rather than the over-all, big-picture hardness or softness of a work.

I think things would be better if we created categories reflecting how much research the author has done, how much attention they pay to internal consistency, and other inherent properties of the work itself, rather than exactly which forms of AppliedPhlebotinum are involved. This would be much more useful since our concern at TvTropes is really about the nature of works of fiction, rather than how realistic or unrealistic FTL travel and the like might be given real-world physics. This would also allow us to cut down on the number of categories, generally making things clearer. There would also no longer be confusion as to which category should \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' be harder or softer than which.

So, I propose a scale with the following \\\'\\\'\\\'Four Categories:\\\'\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'\\\'1: RuleOfCool :\\\'\\\'\\\' The author is completely unconcerned with realism or internal consistency. New super-science and AppliedPhlebotinum is tossed in whenever the plot demands it. [[BellisariosMaxim Bellisario\\\'s Maxim]] and the MST3KMantra are in full effect.

\\\'\\\'\\\'2: MagicAIsMagicA :\\\'\\\'\\\' RuleOfCool still trumps RealLife physics, but now the author \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' putting some effort into keeping their fictional science and AppliedPhlebotinum internally consistent. Technology will do impossible things, but it will do the \\\'\\\'same\\\'\\\' impossible things in the \\\'\\\'same\\\'\\\' way, and with the \\\'\\\'same\\\'\\\' limitations each time, and characters will be aware of, and will need to work within, these limits. The laws of physics are still broken all the time, but the laws of \\\'\\\'logic\\\'\\\' are at least mostly respected (though [[MisappliedPhlebotinum the full logical implications]] of the AppliedPhlebotinum will not always be considered).

\\\'\\\'\\\'3: MinovskyParticle :\\\'\\\'\\\' The rules of physics are broken, but only in limited ways, and only with at least some justification. Technology that is, as far as we know, completely impossible will still appear, but the author will go out of their way to justify its existence, and explore the implications of the fictional science behind it. They will also stick to reality whenever they can, and will generally make the setting seem as realistic as possible.

\\\'\\\'\\\'4: Hard Science Fiction :\\\'\\\'\\\' The rules of physics are \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' broken. Any AppliedPhlebotinum that makes an appearance is carefully extrapolated from existing technology, and never, \\\'\\\'ever\\\'\\\' does things that current science tells us should be impossible. The realism of the story is part of its appeal.

So, in category 1., the writer will say: \\\"The Hero using TransportersAndTeleporters to get to the other side of the Galaxy in an instant? That\\\'s cool and convenient! I\\\'ll throw that in!\\\" In 2., the writer will say: \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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: \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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 AppliedPhlebotinum, because I want to stay at least a little realistic.\\\" And in 4. the writer will say, \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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\\\'\\\' would be in category 1.; most (but not all) \\\'\\\'Star Trek\\\'\\\' series would be in 2.; Banks\\\' \\\'\\\'Culture\\\'\\\' novels would be in 3.; and the film version of \\\'\\\'2001: A Space Odyssey\\\'\\\' would be in 4.

And there you go. Four categories are all you need. You don\\\'t need eight or nine categories with confusing definitions. You don\\\'t need to analyse all the fictional science in the story and see how realistic it is compared to real-life physics. All you need to care about is the author\\\'s intent, the effort they\\\'ve put in, and the overall feel of the work. And you get a much more intuitive, much less confusing, and much more \\\'\\\'logical\\\'\\\' scale as a result.

In some cases, the categories seem primarily concerned with exactly what technology is or is not featured in a story, which I think is not at all the best way to sort sci-fi hardness. To see what I mean, look no further than the FTL / No FTL categories. The \\\"No FTL\\\" description even \\\'\\\'says\\\'\\\' that the stories there may actually be somewhat \\\'\\\'softer\\\'\\\' on the whole than stories in FTL, except for that one single Einsteinian distinction. So, does it really make sense to rank stories by whether they include FTL or not? What if you\\\'re comparing a story that includes FTL, but takes a lot of time to justify how it works, and has no other super-science at all, to another work where we only have extremely fast \\\'\\\'interplanetary\\\'\\\' travel in tiny spaceships, but with no justification at all as to how \\\'\\\'this\\\'\\\' works, and also things like artificial gravity, etc.?

Or, take a look at the MinovskyParticle category. This category \\\'\\\'doesn\\\'t make sense at all.\\\'\\\' It\\\'s \\\'\\\'supposed\\\'\\\' to be, according to its description, a category for works with one single, really well-defined deviation from real-life physics, and completely internally consistent fictional physics, and completely hard science in every other way. In \\\'\\\'practice\\\'\\\', however, this category is just used as a place to cram everything a little harder than ImportedAlienPhlebotinum and a little softer than FTL, whether it involves one justified break from physics, or a dozen barely-consistent ones. Heck, if you take its description alone, this category should really be lower than FTL, since FTL just by itself would be a break from physics, and it\\\'s \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' always all that well-explored and internally-consistent, and usually comes bundled with \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\' soft stuff as well. And yet, MinovskyParticle: is somehow softer than FTL, and full of works that don\\\'t match its description at all.

And the last two categories (if not \\\'\\\'the last three\\\'\\\')? Could be merged into one without losing anything at all. The only difference seems to be the presence of space travel. Again, being obsessed with the exact technology involved just confuses the matter. I mean, \\\'\\\'G.I. Joe\\\'\\\' is harder than \\\'\\\'2001: A Space Odyssey\\\'\\\'? Just because the latter has space travel? Come on, now.

So basically, the list as it currently exists includes way more categories than needed, the descriptions of these categories are unclear and don\\\'t always fit the works in them, and the order of how hard and soft works really are doesn\\\'t always fit the order of the categories whose description they fit, because too much attention is paid to things like \\\"FTL\\\" and \\\"Space Travel\\\", rather than the over-all, big-picture hardness or softness of a work.

I think things would be better if we created categories reflecting how much research the author has done, how much attention they pay to internal consistency, and other inherent properties of the work itself, rather than exactly which forms of AppliedPhlebotinum are involved. This would be much more useful since our concern at TvTropes is really about the nature of works of fiction, rather than how realistic or unrealistic FTL travel and the like might be given real-world physics. This would also allow us to cut down on the number of categories, generally making things clearer. There would also no longer be confusion as to which category should \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' be harder or softer than which.

So, I propose a scale with the following \\\'\\\'\\\'Four Categories:\\\'\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'\\\'1: RuleOfCool :\\\'\\\'\\\' The author is completely unconcerned with realism or internal consistency. New super-science and AppliedPhlebotinum is tossed in whenever the plot demands it. [[BellisariosMaxim Bellisario\\\'s Maxim]] and the MST3KMantra are in full effect.

\\\'\\\'\\\'2: MagicAIsMagicA :\\\'\\\'\\\' RuleOfCool still trumps RealLife physics, but now the author \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' putting some effort into keeping their fictional science and AppliedPhlebotinum internally consistent. Technology will do impossible things, but it will do the \\\'\\\'same\\\'\\\' impossible things in the \\\'\\\'same\\\'\\\' way, and with the \\\'\\\'same\\\'\\\' limitations each time, and characters will be aware of, and will need to work within, these limits. The laws of physics are still broken all the time, but the laws of \\\'\\\'logic\\\'\\\' are at least mostly respected (though [[MisappliedPhlebotinum the full logical implications]] of the AppliedPhlebotinum will not always be considered).

\\\'\\\'\\\'3: MinovskyParticle :\\\'\\\'\\\' The rules of physics are broken, but only in limited ways, and only with at least some justification. Technology that is, as far as we know, completely impossible will still appear, but the author will go out of their way to justify its existence, and explore the implications of the fictional science behind it. They will also stick to reality whenever they can, and will generally make the setting seem as realistic as possible.

\\\'\\\'\\\'4: Hard Science Fiction :\\\'\\\'\\\' The rules of physics are \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' broken. Any AppliedPhlebotinum that makes an appearance is carefully extrapolated from existing technology, and never, \\\'\\\'ever\\\'\\\' does things that current science tells us should be impossible. The realism of the story is part of its appeal.

So, in category 1., the writer will say: \\\"The Hero using TransportersAndTeleporters to get to the other side of the Galaxy in an instant? That\\\'s cool and convenient! I\\\'ll throw that in!\\\" In 2., the writer will say: \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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: \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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 AppliedPhlebotinum, because I want to stay at least a little realistic.\\\" And in 4. the writer will say, \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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\\\'\\\' would be in category 1.; most (but not all) \\\'\\\'Star Trek\\\'\\\' series would be in 2.; Banks\\\' \\\'\\\'Culture\\\'\\\' novels would be in 3.; and the film version of \\\'\\\'2001: A Space Odyssey\\\'\\\' would be in 4.

And there you go. Four categories are all you need. You don\\\'t need eight or nine categories with confusing definitions. You don\\\'t need to analyse all the fictional science in the story and see how realistic it is compared to real-life physics. All you need to care about is the author\\\'s intent, the effort they\\\'ve put in, and the overall feel of the work. And you get a much more intuitive, much less confusing, and much more \\\'\\\'logical\\\'\\\' scale as a result.

In some cases, the categories seem primarily concerned with exactly what technology is or is not featured in a story, which I think is not at all the best way to sort sci-fi hardness. To see what I mean, look no further than the FTL / No FTL categories. The \\\"No FTL\\\" description even \\\'\\\'says\\\'\\\' that the stories there may actually be somewhat \\\'\\\'softer\\\'\\\' on the whole than stories in FTL, except for that one single Einsteinian distinction. So, does it really make sense to rank stories by whether they include FTL or not? What if you\\\'re comparing a story that includes FTL, but takes a lot of time to justify how it works, and has no other super-science at all, to another work where we only have extremely fast \\\'\\\'interplanetary\\\'\\\' travel in tiny spaceships, but with no justification at all as to how \\\'\\\'this\\\'\\\' works, and also things like artificial gravity, etc.?

Or, take a look at the MinovskyParticle category. This category \\\'\\\'doesn\\\'t make sense at all.\\\'\\\' It\\\'s \\\'\\\'supposed\\\'\\\' to be, according to its description, a category for works with one single, really well-defined deviation from real-life physics, and completely internally consistent fictional physics, and completely hard science in every other way. In \\\'\\\'practice\\\'\\\', however, this category is just used as a place to cram everything a little harder than ImportedAlienPhlebotinum and a little softer than FTL, whether it involves one justified break from physics, or a dozen barely-consistent ones. Heck, if you take its description alone, this category should really be lower than FTL, since FTL just by itself would be a break from physics, and it\\\'s \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' always all that well-explored and internally-consistent, and usually comes bundled with \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\' soft stuff as well. And yet, MinovskyParticle: is somehow softer than FTL, and full of works that don\\\'t match its description at all.

And the last two categories (if not \\\'\\\'the last three\\\'\\\')? Could be merged into one without losing anything at all. The only difference seems to be the presence of space travel. Again, being obsessed with the exact technology involved just confuses the matter. I mean, \\\'\\\'G.I. Joe\\\'\\\' is harder than \\\'\\\'2001: A Space Odyssey\\\'\\\'? Just because the latter has space travel? Come on, now.

So basically, the list as it currently exists includes way more categories than needed, the descriptions of these categories are unclear and don\\\'t always fit the works in them, and the order of how hard and soft works really are doesn\\\'t always fit the order of the categories whose description they fit, because too much attention is paid to things like \\\"FTL\\\" and \\\"Space Travel\\\", rather than the over-all, big-picture hardness or softness of a work.

I think things would be better if we created categories reflecting how much research the author has done, how much attention they pay to internal consistency, and other inherent properties of the work itself, rather than exactly which forms of AppliedPhlebotinum are involved. This would be much more useful since our concern at TvTropes is really about the nature of works of fiction, rather than how realistic or unrealistic FTL travel and the like might be given real-world physics. This would also allow us to cut down on the number of categories, generally making things clearer. There would also no longer be confusion as to which category should \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' be harder or softer than which.

So, I propose a scale with the following \\\'\\\'\\\'Four Categories:\\\'\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'\\\'1: RuleOfCool :\\\'\\\'\\\' The author is completely unconcerned with realism or internal consistency. New super-science and AppliedPhlebotinum is tossed in whenever the plot demands it. [[BellisariosMaxim Bellisario\\\'s Maxim]] and the MST3KMantra are in full effect.

\\\'\\\'\\\'2: MagicAIsMagicA :\\\'\\\'\\\' RuleOfCool still trumps RealLife physics, but now the author \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' putting some effort into keeping their fictional science and AppliedPhlebotinum internally consistent. Technology will do impossible things, but it will do the \\\'\\\'same\\\'\\\' impossible things in the \\\'\\\'same\\\'\\\' way, and with the \\\'\\\'same\\\'\\\' limitations each time, and characters will be aware of, and will need to work within, these limits. The laws of physics are still broken all the time, but the laws of \\\'\\\'logic\\\'\\\' are at least mostly respected (though [[MisappliedPhlebotinum the full logical implications]] of the AppliedPhlebotinum will not always be considered).

\\\'\\\'\\\'3: MinovskyParticle :\\\'\\\'\\\' The rules of physics are broken, but only in limited ways, and only with at least some justification. Technology that is, as far as we know, completely impossible will still appear, but the author will go out of their way to justify its existence. They will also stick to reality whenever they can, and will generally make the setting seem as realistic as possible.

\\\'\\\'\\\'4: Hard Science Fiction :\\\'\\\'\\\' The rules of physics are \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' broken. Any AppliedPhlebotinum that makes an appearance is carefully extrapolated from existing technology, and never, \\\'\\\'ever\\\'\\\' does things that current science tells us should be impossible. The realism of the story is part of its appeal.

So, in category 1., the writer will say: \\\"The Hero using TransportersAndTeleporters to get to the other side of the Galaxy in an instant? That\\\'s cool and convenient! I\\\'ll throw that in!\\\" In 2., the writer will say: \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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: \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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 AppliedPhlebotinum, because I want to stay at least a little realistic.\\\" And in 4. the writer will say, \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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\\\'\\\' would be in category 1.; most (but not all) \\\'\\\'Star Trek\\\'\\\' series would be in 2.; Banks\\\' \\\'\\\'Culture\\\'\\\' novels would be in 3.; and the film version of \\\'\\\'2001: A Space Odyssey\\\'\\\' would be in 4.

And there you go. Four categories are all you need. You don\\\'t need eight or nine categories with confusing definitions. You don\\\'t need to analyse all the fictional science in the story and see how realistic it is compared to real-life physics. All you need to care about is the author\\\'s intent, the effort they\\\'ve put in, and the overall feel of the work. And you get a much more intuitive, much less confusing, and much more \\\'\\\'logical\\\'\\\' scale as a result.

In some cases, the categories seem primarily concerned with exactly what technology is or is not featured in a story, which I think is not at all the best way to sort sci-fi hardness. To see what I mean, look no further than the FTL / No FTL categories. The \\\"No FTL\\\" description even \\\'\\\'says\\\'\\\' that the stories there may actually be somewhat \\\'\\\'softer\\\'\\\' on the whole than stories in FTL, except for that one single Einsteinian distinction. So, does it really make sense to rank stories by whether they include FTL or not? What if you\\\'re comparing a story that includes FTL, but takes a lot of time to justify how it works, and has no other super-science at all, to another work where we only have extremely fast \\\'\\\'interplanetary\\\'\\\' travel in tiny spaceships, but with no justification at all as to how \\\'\\\'this\\\'\\\' works, and also things like artificial gravity, etc.?

Or, take a look at the MinovskyParticle category. This category \\\'\\\'doesn\\\'t make sense at all.\\\'\\\' It\\\'s \\\'\\\'supposed\\\'\\\' to be, according to its description, a category for works with one single, really well-defined deviation from real-life physics, and completely internally consistent fictional physics, and completely hard science in every other way. In \\\'\\\'practice\\\'\\\', however, this category is just used as a place to cram everything a little harder than ImportedAlienPhlebotinum and a little softer than FTL, whether it involves one justified break from physics, or a dozen barely-consistent ones. Heck, if you take its description alone, this category should really be lower than FTL, since FTL just by itself would be a break from physics, and it\\\'s \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' always all that well-explored and internally-consistent, and usually comes bundled with \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\' soft stuff as well. And yet, MinovskyParticle: is somehow softer than FTL, and full of works that don\\\'t match its description at all.

And the last two categories (if not \\\'\\\'the last three\\\'\\\')? Could be merged into one without losing anything at all. The only difference seems to be the presence of space travel. Again, being obsessed with the exact technology involved just confuses the matter. I mean, \\\'\\\'G.I. Joe\\\'\\\' is harder than \\\'\\\'2001: A Space Odyssey\\\'\\\'? Just because the latter has space travel? Come on, now.

So basically, the list as it currently exists includes way more categories than needed, the descriptions of these categories are unclear and don\\\'t always fit the works in them, and the order of how hard and soft works really are doesn\\\'t always fit the order of the categories whose description they fit, because too much attention is paid to things like \\\"FTL\\\" and \\\"Space Travel\\\", rather than the over-all, big-picture hardness or softness of a work.

I think things would be better if we created categories reflecting how much research the author has done, how much attention they pay to internal consistency, and other inherent properties of the work itself, rather than exactly which forms of AppliedPhlebotinum are involved. This would be much more useful since our concern at TvTropes is really about the nature of works of fiction, rather than how realistic or unrealistic FTL travel and the like might be given real-world physics. This would also allow us to cut down on the number of categories, generally making things clearer. There would also no longer be confusion as to which category should \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' be harder or softer than which.

So, I propose a scale with the following \\\'\\\'\\\'Four Categories:\\\'\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'\\\'1: RuleOfCool\\\'\\\'\\\'. The author is completely unconcerned with realism or internal consistency. New super-science and AppliedPhlebotinum is tossed in whenever the plot demands it. [[BellisariosMaxim Bellisario\\\'s Maxim]] and the MST3KMantra are in full effect.

\\\'\\\'\\\'2: MagicAIsMagicA\\\'\\\'\\\': RuleOfCool still trumps RealLife physics, but now the author \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' putting some effort into keeping their fictional science and AppliedPhlebotinum internally consistent. Technology will do impossible things, but it will do the \\\'\\\'same\\\'\\\' impossible things in the \\\'\\\'same\\\'\\\' way, and with the \\\'\\\'same\\\'\\\' limitations each time, and characters will be aware of, and will need to work within, these limits. The laws of physics are still broken all the time, but the laws of \\\'\\\'logic\\\'\\\' are at least mostly respected (though [[MisappliedPhlebotinum the full logical implications]] of the AppliedPhlebotinum will not always be considered).

\\\'\\\'\\\'3: MinovskyParticle:\\\'\\\'\\\': The rules of physics are broken, but only in limited ways, and only with at least some justification. Technology that is, as far as we know, completely impossible will still appear, but the author will go out of their way to justify its existence. They will also stick to reality whenever they can, and will generally make the setting seem as realistic as possible.

\\\'\\\'\\\'4: Hard Science Fiction\\\'\\\'\\\': The rules of physics are \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' broken. Any AppliedPhlebotinum that makes an appearance is carefully extrapolated from existing technology, and never, \\\'\\\'ever\\\'\\\' does things that current science tells us should be impossible. The realism of the story is part of its appeal.

So, in category 1., the writer will say: \\\"The Hero using TransportersAndTeleporters to get to the other side of the Galaxy in an instant? That\\\'s cool and convenient! I\\\'ll throw that in!\\\" In 2., the writer will say: \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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: \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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 AppliedPhlebotinum, because I want to stay at least a little realistic.\\\" And in 4. the writer will say, \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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\\\'\\\' would be in category 1.; most (but not all) \\\'\\\'Star Trek\\\'\\\' series would be in 2.; Banks\\\' \\\'\\\'Culture\\\'\\\' novels would be in 3.; and the film version of \\\'\\\'2001: A Space Odyssey\\\'\\\' would be in 4.

And there you go. Four categories are all you need. You don\\\'t need eight or nine categories with confusing definitions. You don\\\'t need to analyse all the fictional science in the story and see how realistic it is compared to real-life physics. All you need to care about is the author\\\'s intent, the effort they\\\'ve put in, and the overall feel of the work. And you get a much more intuitive, much less confusing, and much more \\\'\\\'logical\\\'\\\' scale as a result.

In some cases, the categories seem primarily concerned with exactly what technology is or is not featured in a story, which I think is not at all the best way to sort sci-fi hardness. To see what I mean, look no further than the FTL / No FTL categories. The \\\"No FTL\\\" description even \\\'\\\'says\\\'\\\' that the stories there may actually be somewhat \\\'\\\'softer\\\'\\\' on the whole than stories in FTL, except for that one single Einsteinian distinction. So, does it really make sense to rank stories by whether they include FTL or not? What if you\\\'re comparing a story that includes FTL, but takes a lot of time to justify how it works, and has no other super-science at all, to another work where we only have extremely fast \\\'\\\'interplanetary\\\'\\\' travel in tiny spaceships, but with no justification at all as to how \\\'\\\'this\\\'\\\' works, and also things like artificial gravity, etc.?

Or, take a look at the MinovskyParticle category. This category \\\'\\\'doesn\\\'t make sense at all.\\\'\\\' It\\\'s \\\'\\\'supposed\\\'\\\' to be, according to its description, a category for works with one single, really well-defined deviation from real-life physics, and completely internally consistent fictional physics, and completely hard science in every other way. In \\\'\\\'practice\\\'\\\', however, this category is just used as a place to cram everything a little harder than ImportedAlienPhlebotinum and a little softer than FTL, whether it involves one justified break from physics, or a dozen barely-consistent ones. Heck, if you take its description alone, this category should really be lower than FTL, since FTL just by itself would be a break from physics, and it\\\'s \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' always all that well-explored and internally-consistent, and usually comes bundled with \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\' soft stuff as well. And yet, MinovskyParticle: is somehow softer than FTL, and full of works that don\\\'t match its description at all.

And the last two categories (if not \\\'\\\'the last three\\\'\\\')? Could be merged into one without losing anything at all. The only difference seems to be the presence of space travel. Again, being obsessed with the exact technology involved just confuses the matter. I mean, \\\'\\\'G.I. Joe\\\'\\\' is harder than \\\'\\\'2001: A Space Odyssey\\\'\\\'? Just because the latter has space travel? Come on, now.

So basically, the list as it currently exists includes way more categories than needed, the descriptions of these categories are unclear and don\\\'t always fit the works in them, and the order of how hard and soft works really are doesn\\\'t always fit the order of the categories whose description they fit, because too much attention is paid to things like \\\"FTL\\\" and \\\"Space Travel\\\", rather than the over-all, big-picture hardness or softness of a work.

I think things would be better if we created categories reflecting how much research the author has done, how much attention they pay to internal consistency, and other inherent properties of the work itself, rather than exactly which forms of AppliedPhlebotinum are involved. This would be much more useful since our concern at TvTropes is really about the nature of works of fiction, rather than how realistic or unrealistic FTL travel and the like might be given real-world physics. This would also allow us to cut down on the number of categories, generally making things clearer. There would also no longer be confusion as to which category should \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' be harder or softer than which.

So, I propose a scale with the following \\\'\\\'\\\'Four Categories:\\\'\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'\\\'1: RuleOfCool\\\'\\\'\\\'. The author is completely unconcerned with realism or internal consistency. New super-science and AppliedPhlebotinum is tossed in whenever the plot demands it. [[BellisariosMaxim Bellisario\\\'s Maxim]] and the MST3KMantra are in full effect.

\\\'\\\'\\\'2: MagicAIsMagicA\\\'\\\'\\\': RuleOfCool still trumps RealLife physics, but now the author \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' putting some effort into keeping their fictional science and AppliedPhlebotinum internally consistent. The laws of physics are still broken all the time, but the laws of \\\'\\\'logic\\\'\\\' are at least mostly respected. The logical implications of the AppliedPhlebotinum will not always be [[MisappliedPhlebotinum fully considered]], however.

\\\'\\\'\\\'3: MinovskyParticle:\\\'\\\'\\\': The rules of physics are broken, but only in limited ways, and only with at least some justification. Technology that is, as far as we know, completely impossible will still appear, but the author will go out of their way to justify its existence. They will also stick to reality whenever they can, and will generally make the setting seem as realistic as possible.

\\\'\\\'\\\'4: Hard Science Fiction\\\'\\\'\\\': The rules of physics are \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' broken. Any AppliedPhlebotinum that makes an appearance is carefully extrapolated from existing technology, and never, \\\'\\\'ever\\\'\\\' does things that current science tells us should be impossible. The realism of the story is part of its appeal.

So, in category 1., the writer will say: \\\"The Hero using TransportersAndTeleporters to get to the other side of the Galaxy in an instant? That\\\'s cool and convenient! I\\\'ll throw that in!\\\" In 2., the writer will say: \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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: \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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 AppliedPhlebotinum, because I want to stay at least a little realistic.\\\" And in 4. the writer will say, \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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\\\'\\\' would be in category 1.; most (but not all) \\\'\\\'Star Trek\\\'\\\' series would be in 2.; Banks\\\' \\\'\\\'Culture\\\'\\\' novels would be in 3.; and the film version of \\\'\\\'2001: A Space Odyssey\\\'\\\' would be in 4.

And there you go. Four categories are all you need. You don\\\'t need eight or nine categories with confusing definitions. You don\\\'t need to analyse all the fictional science in the story and see how realistic it is compared to real-life physics. All you need to care about is the author\\\'s intent, the effort they\\\'ve put in, and the overall feel of the work. And you get a much more intuitive, much less confusing, and much more \\\'\\\'logical\\\'\\\' scale as a result.

In some cases, the categories seem primarily concerned with exactly what technology is or is not featured in a story, which I think is not at all the best way to sort sci-fi hardness. To see what I mean, look no further than the FTL / No FTL categories. The \\\"No FTL\\\" description even \\\'\\\'says\\\'\\\' that the stories there may actually be somewhat \\\'\\\'softer\\\'\\\' on the whole than stories in FTL, except for that one single Einsteinian distinction. So, does it really make sense to rank stories by whether they include FTL or not? What if you\\\'re comparing a story that includes FTL, but takes a lot of time to justify how it works, and has no other super-science at all, to another work where we only have extremely fast \\\'\\\'interplanetary\\\'\\\' travel in tiny spaceships, but with no justification at all as to how \\\'\\\'this\\\'\\\' works, and also things like artificial gravity, etc.?

Or, take a look at the MinvoskyParticle category. This category \\\'\\\'doesn\\\'t make sense at all.\\\'\\\' It\\\'s \\\'\\\'supposed\\\'\\\' to be, according to its description, a category for works with one single, really well-defined deviation from real-life physics, and completely internally consistent fictional physics, and completely hard science in every other way. In \\\'\\\'practice\\\'\\\', however, this category is just used as a place to cram everything a little harder than ImportedAlienPhlebotinum and a little softer than FTL, whether it involves one justified break from physics, or a dozen barely-consistent ones. Heck, if you take its description alone, this category should really be lower than FTL, since FTL just by itself would be a break from physics, and it\\\'s \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' always all that well-explored and internally-consistent, and usually comes bundled with \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\' soft stuff as well. And yet, Minovsky Particle is somehow softer than FTL, and full of works that don\\\'t match its description at all.

And the last two categories (if not \\\'\\\'the last three\\\'\\\')? Could be merged into one without losing anything at all. The only difference seems to be the presence of space travel. Again, being obsessed with the exact technology involved just confuses the matter. I mean, \\\'\\\'G.I. Joe\\\'\\\' is harder than \\\'\\\'2001: A Space Odyssey\\\'\\\'? Just because the latter has space travel? Come on, now.

So basically, the list as it currently exists includes way more categories than needed, the descriptions of these categories are unclear and don\\\'t always fit the works in them, and the order of how hard and soft works really are doesn\\\'t always fit the order of the categories whose description they fit, because too much attention is paid to things like \\\"FTL\\\" and \\\"Space Travel\\\", rather than the over-all, big-picture hardness or softness of a work.

I think things would be better if we created categories reflecting how much research the author has done, how much attention they pay to internal consistency, and other inherent properties of the work itself, rather than exactly which forms of AppliedPhlebotinum are involved. This would be much more useful since our concern at TvTropes is really about the nature of works of fiction, rather than how realistic or unrealistic FTL travel and the like might be given real-world physics. This would also allow us to cut down on the number of categories, generally making things clearer. There would also no longer be confusion as to which category should \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' be harder or softer than which.

So, I propose a scale with the following \\\'\\\'\\\'Four Categories:\\\'\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'\\\'1: RuleOfCool\\\'\\\'\\\'. The author is completely unconcerned with realism or internal consistency. New super-science and AppliedPhlebotinum is tossed in whenever the plot demands it. [[BellisariosMaxim Bellisario\\\'s Maxim]] and the MST3KMantra are in full effect.

\\\'\\\'\\\'2: MagicAIsMagicA\\\'\\\'\\\': RuleOfCool still trumps RealLife physics, but now the author \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' putting some effort into keeping their fictional science and AppliedPhlebotinum internally consistent. The laws of physics are still broken all the time, but the laws of \\\'\\\'logic\\\'\\\' are at least mostly respected. The logical implications of the AppliedPhlebotinum will not always be [[MisappliedPhlebotinum fully considered]], however.

\\\'\\\'\\\'3: MinovskyParticle\\\'\\\'\\\': The rules of physics are broken, but only in limited ways, and only with at least some justification. Technology that is, as far as we know, completely impossible will still appear, but the author will go out of their way to justify its existence. They will also stick to reality whenever they can, and will generally make the setting seem as realistic as possible.

\\\'\\\'\\\'4: Hard Science Fiction\\\'\\\'\\\': The rules of physics are \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' broken. Any AppliedPhlebotinum that makes an appearance is carefully extrapolated from existing technology, and never, \\\'\\\'ever\\\'\\\' does things that current science tells us should be impossible. The realism of the story is part of its appeal.

So, in category 1., the writer will say: \\\"The Hero using TransportersAndTeleporters to get to the other side of the Galaxy in an instant? That\\\'s cool and convenient! I\\\'ll throw that in!\\\" In 2., the writer will say: \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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: \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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 AppliedPhlebotinum, because I want to stay at least a little realistic.\\\" And in 4. the writer will say, \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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\\\'\\\' would be in category 1.; most (but not all) \\\'\\\'Star Trek\\\'\\\' series would be in 2.; Banks\\\' \\\'\\\'Culture\\\'\\\' novels would be in 3.; and the film version of \\\'\\\'2001: A Space Odyssey\\\'\\\' would be in 4.

And there you go. Four categories are all you need. You don\\\'t need eight or nine categories with confusing definitions. You don\\\'t need to analyse all the fictional science in the story and see how realistic it is compared to real-life physics. All you need to care about is the author\\\'s intent, the effort they\\\'ve put in, and the overall feel of the work. And you get a much more intuitive, much less confusing, and much more \\\'\\\'logical\\\'\\\' scale as a result.

In some cases, the categories seem primarily concerned with exactly what technology is or is not featured in a story, which I think is not at all the best way to sort sci-fi hardness. To see what I mean, look no further than the FTL / No FTL categories. The \\\"No FTL\\\" description even \\\'\\\'says\\\'\\\' that the stories there may actually be somewhat \\\'\\\'softer\\\'\\\' on the whole than stories in FTL, except for that one single Einsteinian distinction. So, does it really make sense to rank stories by whether they include FTL or not? What if you\\\'re comparing a story that includes FTL, but takes a lot of time to justify how it works, and has no other super-science at all, to another work where we only have extremely fast \\\'\\\'interplanetary\\\'\\\' travel in tiny spaceships, but with no justification at all as to how \\\'\\\'this\\\'\\\' works, and also things like artificial gravity, etc.?

Or, take a look at the MinvoskyParticle category. This category \\\'\\\'doesn\\\'t make sense at all.\\\'\\\' It\\\'s \\\'\\\'supposed\\\'\\\' to be, according to its description, a category for works with one single, really well-defined deviation from real-life physics, and completely internally consistent fictional physics, and completely hard science in every other way. In \\\'\\\'practice\\\'\\\', however, this category is just used as a place to cram everything a little harder than ImportedAlienPhlebotinum and a little softer than FTL, whether it involves one justified break from physics, or a dozen barely-consistent ones. Heck, if you take its description alone, this category should really be lower than FTL, since FTL just by itself would be a break from physics, and it\\\'s \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' always all that well-explored and internally-consistent, and usually comes bundled with \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\' soft stuff as well. And yet, Minovsky Particle is somehow softer than FTL, and full of works that don\\\'t match its description at all.

And the last two categories (if not \\\'\\\'the last three\\\'\\\')? Could be merged into one without losing anything at all. The only difference seems to be the presence of space travel. Again, being obsessed with the exact technology involved just confuses the matter. I mean, \\\'\\\'G.I. Joe\\\'\\\' is harder than \\\'\\\'2001: A Space Odyssey\\\'\\\'? Just because the latter has space travel? Come on, now.

So basically, the list as it currently exists includes way more categories than needed, the descriptions of these categories are unclear and don\\\'t always fit the works in them, and the order of how hard and soft works really are doesn\\\'t always fit the order of the categories whose description they fit, because too much attention is paid to things like \\\"FTL\\\" and \\\"Space Travel\\\", rather than the over-all, big-picture hardness or softness of a work.

I think things would be better if we created categories reflecting how much research the author has done, how much attention they pay to internal consistency, and other inherent properties of the work itself, rather than exactly which forms of AppliedPhlebotinum are involved. This would be much more useful since our concern at TvTropes is really about the nature of works of fiction, rather than how realistic or unrealistic FTL travel and the like might be given real-world physics. This would also allow us to cut down on the number of categories, generally making things clearer. There would also no longer be confusion as to which category should \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' be harder or softer than which.

So, I propose a scale with the following \\\'\\\'\\\'Four Categories:\\\'\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'\\\'1: RuleOfCool\\\'\\\'\\\'. The author is completely unconcerned with realism or internal consistency. New super-science and applied phlebotinum is tossed in whenever the plot demands it. [[BellisariosMaxim Bellisario\\\'s Maxim]] and the MST3KMantra are in full effect.

\\\'\\\'\\\'2: MagicAIsMagicA\\\'\\\'\\\': RuleOfCool still trumps RealLife physics, but now the author \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' putting some effort into keeping their fictional science and AppliedPhlebotinum internally consistent. The laws of physics are still broken all the time, but the laws of \\\'\\\'logic\\\'\\\' are at least mostly respected. The logical implications of the AppliedPhlebotinum will not always be [[MisappliedPhlebotinum fully considered]], however.

\\\'\\\'\\\'3: MinovskyParticle\\\'\\\'\\\': The rules of physics are broken, but only in limited ways, and only with at least some justification. Technology that is, as far as we know, completely impossible will still appear, but the author will go out of their way to justify its existence. They will also stick to reality whenever they can, and will generally make the setting seem as realistic as possible.

\\\'\\\'\\\'4: Hard Science Fiction\\\'\\\'\\\': The rules of physics are \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' broken. Any AppliedPhlebotinum that makes an appearance is carefully extrapolated from existing technology, and never, \\\'\\\'ever\\\'\\\' does things that current science tells us should be impossible. The realism of the story is part of its appeal.

So, in category 1., the writer will say: \\\"The Hero using TransportersAndTeleporters to get to the other side of the Galaxy in an instant? That\\\'s cool and convenient! I\\\'ll throw that in!\\\" In 2., the writer will say: \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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: \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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 AppliedPhlebotinum, because I want to stay at least a little realistic.\\\" And in 4. the writer will say, \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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\\\'\\\' would be in category 1.; most (but not all) \\\'\\\'Star Trek\\\'\\\' series would be in 2.; Banks\\\' \\\'\\\'Culture\\\'\\\' novels would be in 3.; and the film version of \\\'\\\'2001: A Space Odyssey\\\'\\\' would be in 4.

And there you go. Four categories are all you need. You don\\\'t need eight or nine categories with confusing definitions. You don\\\'t need to analyse all the fictional science in the story and see how realistic it is compared to real-life physics. All you need to care about is the author\\\'s intent, the effort they\\\'ve put in, and the overall feel of the work. And you get a much more intuitive, much less confusing, and much more \\\'\\\'logical\\\'\\\' scale as a result.

In some cases, the categories seem primarily concerned with exactly what technology is or is not featured in a story, which I think is not at all the best way to sort sci-fi hardness. To see what I mean, look no further than the FTL / No FTL categories. The \\\"No FTL\\\" description even \\\'\\\'says\\\'\\\' that the stories there may actually be somewhat \\\'\\\'softer\\\'\\\' on the whole than stories in FTL, except for that one single Einsteinian distinction. So, does it really make sense to rank stories by whether they include FTL or not? What if you\\\'re comparing a story that includes FTL, but takes a lot of time to justify how it works, and has no other super-science at all, to another work where we only have extremely fast \\\'\\\'interplanetary\\\'\\\' travel in tiny spaceships, but with no justification at all as to how \\\'\\\'this\\\'\\\' works, and also things like artificial gravity, etc.?

Or, take a look at the MinvoskyParticle category. This category \\\'\\\'doesn\\\'t make sense at all.\\\'\\\' It\\\'s \\\'\\\'supposed\\\'\\\' to be, according to its description, a category for works with one single, really well-defined deviation from real-life physics, and completely internally consistent fictional physics, and completely hard science in every other way. In \\\'\\\'practice\\\'\\\', however, this category is just used as a place to cram everything a little harder than ImportedAlienPhlebotinum and a little softer than FTL, whether it involves one justified break from physics, or a dozen barely-consistent ones. Heck, if you take its description alone, this category should really be lower than FTL, since FTL just by itself would be a break from physics, and it\\\'s \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' always all that well-explored and internally-consistent, and usually comes bundled with \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\' soft stuff as well. And yet, Minovsky Particle is somehow softer than FTL, and full of works that don\\\'t match its description at all.

And the last two categories (if not \\\'\\\'the last three\\\'\\\')? Could be merged into one without losing anything at all. The only difference seems to be the presence of space travel. Again, being obsessed with the exact technology involved just confuses the matter. I mean, \\\'\\\'G.I. Joe\\\'\\\' is harder than \\\'\\\'2001: A Space Odyssey\\\'\\\'? Just because the latter has space travel? Come on, now.

So basically, the list as it currently exists includes way more categories than needed, the descriptions of these categories are unclear and don\\\'t always fit the works in them, and the order of how hard and soft works really are doesn\\\'t always fit the order of the categories whose description they fit, because too much attention is paid to things like \\\"FTL\\\" and \\\"Space Travel\\\", rather than the over-all, big-picture hardness or softness of a work.

I think things would be better if we created categories reflecting how much research the author has done, how much attention they pay to internal consistency, and other inherent properties of the work itself, rather than exactly which forms of AppliedPhlebotinum are involved. This would be much more useful since our concern at TvTropes is really about the nature of works of fiction, rather than how realistic or unrealistic FTL travel and the like might be given real-world physics. This would also allow us to cut down on the number of categories, generally making things clearer. There would also no longer be confusion as to which category should \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' be harder or softer than which.

So, I propose a scale with the following \\\'\\\'\\\'Four Categories:\\\'\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'\\\'1: RuleOfCool\\\'\\\'\\\'. The author is completely unconcerned with realism or internal consistency. New super-science and applied phlebotinum is tossed in whenever the plot demands it. BelissariosMaxim and the MST3KMantra are in full effect.

\\\'\\\'\\\'2: MagicAIsMagicA\\\'\\\'\\\': RuleOfCool still trumps RealLife physics, but now the author \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' putting some effort into keeping their fictional science and AppliedPhlebotinum internally consistent. The laws of physics are still broken all the time, but the laws of \\\'\\\'logic\\\'\\\' are at least mostly respected. The logical implications of the AppliedPhlebotinum will not always be [[MisappliedPhlebotinum fully considered]], however.

\\\'\\\'\\\'3: MinovskyParticle\\\'\\\'\\\': The rules of physics are broken, but only in limited ways, and only with at least some justification. Technology that is, as far as we know, completely impossible will still appear, but the author will go out of their way to justify its existence. They will also stick to reality whenever they can, and will generally make the setting seem as realistic as possible.

\\\'\\\'\\\'4: Hard Science Fiction\\\'\\\'\\\': The rules of physics are \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' broken. Any AppliedPhlebotinum that makes an appearance is carefully extrapolated from existing technology, and never, \\\'\\\'ever\\\'\\\' does things that current science tells us should be impossible. The realism of the story is part of its appeal.

So, in category 1., the writer will say: \\\"The Hero using TransportersAndTeleporters to get to the other side of the Galaxy in an instant? That\\\'s cool and convenient! I\\\'ll throw that in!\\\" In 2., the writer will say: \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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: \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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 AppliedPhlebotinum, because I want to stay at least a little realistic.\\\" And in 4. the writer will say, \\\"TransportersAndTeleporters 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\\\'\\\' would be in category 1.; most (but not all) \\\'\\\'Star Trek\\\'\\\' series would be in 2.; Banks\\\' \\\'\\\'Culture\\\'\\\' novels would be in 3.; and the film version of \\\'\\\'2001: A Space Odyssey\\\'\\\' would be in 4.

And there you go. Four categories are all you need. You don\\\'t need eight or nine categories with confusing definitions. You don\\\'t need to analyse all the fictional science in the story and see how realistic it is compared to real-life physics. All you need to care about is the author\\\'s intent, the effort they\\\'ve put in, and the overall feel of the work. And you get a much more intuitive, much less confusing, and much more \\\'\\\'logical\\\'\\\' scale as a result.