[004]
supergod
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
That\'s definitely one definition, but generally \
to:
That\\\'s definitely one definition, but generally \\\"soft\\\" science fiction includes both social science fiction and pulp science fiction, where scientific integrity is not important.
That said the article is still terrible and needs a rewrite. Firstly soft science fiction can still be about how the technology affects society and whatever. The only difference is that hard SF spends more time explaining how the technology works. Also, the whole idea that soft SF is \\\"for the masses\\\" and appeals to people looking for sex and violence is nonsense. That\\\'s only the pulp aspect of soft SF (like Burroughs), not writers like lain Banks who isn\\\'t actually hard, even if his stories are more plausible than Star Wars.
Then again the entire concept of \\\"hardness\\\" is so ill defined that its difficult to take seriously. For example I see in a lot of places on this site that Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, Mass Effect, and Babylon 5 are supposedly \\\"hard\\\", but to me a focus on characters makes it \\\"soft\\\".
That said the article is still terrible and needs a rewrite. Firstly soft science fiction can still be about how the technology affects society and whatever. The only difference is that hard SF spends more time explaining how the technology works. Also, the whole idea that soft SF is \\\"for the masses\\\" and appeals to people looking for sex and violence is nonsense. That\\\'s only the pulp aspect of soft SF (like Burroughs), not writers like lain Banks who isn\\\'t actually hard, even if his stories are more plausible than Star Wars.
Then again the entire concept of \\\"hardness\\\" is so ill defined that its difficult to take seriously. For example I see in a lot of places on this site that Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, Mass Effect, and Babylon 5 are supposedly \\\"hard\\\", but to me a focus on characters makes it \\\"soft\\\".
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
That\'s definitely one definition, but generally \
to:
That\\\'s definitely one definition, but generally \\\"soft\\\" science fiction includes both social science fiction and pulp science fiction, where scientific integrity is not important.
That said the article is still terrible and needs a rewrite. Firstly soft science fiction can still be about how the technology affects society and whatever. The only difference is that hard SF spends more time explaining the technology. Also the whole idea that soft SF is \\\"for the masses\\\" and appeals to people looking for sex and violence is nonsense. That\\\'s only the pulp aspect of soft SF (like Burroughs), not writers like Phil Dick and Le Guin, who aren\\\'t exactly \\\"hard\\\".
Then again the entire concept of \\\"hardness\\\" is so ill defined that its difficult to take seriously. The proper definition should be science fiction where the justification and the effects of the technology is in the foreground, and where things like character development are not as important, but this doesn\\\'t seem to be used at all. For example I see in a lot of places on this site that Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, Mass Effect, and Babylon 5 are supposedly \\\"hard\\\", but just using realistic technology isn\\\'t enough to make it so. They\\\'re still character focused.
That said the article is still terrible and needs a rewrite. Firstly soft science fiction can still be about how the technology affects society and whatever. The only difference is that hard SF spends more time explaining the technology. Also the whole idea that soft SF is \\\"for the masses\\\" and appeals to people looking for sex and violence is nonsense. That\\\'s only the pulp aspect of soft SF (like Burroughs), not writers like Phil Dick and Le Guin, who aren\\\'t exactly \\\"hard\\\".
Then again the entire concept of \\\"hardness\\\" is so ill defined that its difficult to take seriously. The proper definition should be science fiction where the justification and the effects of the technology is in the foreground, and where things like character development are not as important, but this doesn\\\'t seem to be used at all. For example I see in a lot of places on this site that Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, Mass Effect, and Babylon 5 are supposedly \\\"hard\\\", but just using realistic technology isn\\\'t enough to make it so. They\\\'re still character focused.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
That\'s definitely one definition. \
to:
That\\\'s definitely one definition, but generally \\\"soft\\\" science fiction includes both social science fiction and pulp science fiction, where scientific integrity is not important.
That said the article is still terrible and needs a rewrite. Firstly soft science fiction can still be about how the technology affects society and whatever. The only difference is that hard SF spends more time explaining the technology. Also the whole idea that soft SF is \\\"for the masses\\\" and appeals to people looking for sex and violence is nonsense. That\\\'s only the pulp aspect of soft SF (like Burroughs), not writers like Phil Dick and Le Guin, who aren\\\'t exactly \\\"hard\\\".
That said the article is still terrible and needs a rewrite. Firstly soft science fiction can still be about how the technology affects society and whatever. The only difference is that hard SF spends more time explaining the technology. Also the whole idea that soft SF is \\\"for the masses\\\" and appeals to people looking for sex and violence is nonsense. That\\\'s only the pulp aspect of soft SF (like Burroughs), not writers like Phil Dick and Le Guin, who aren\\\'t exactly \\\"hard\\\".
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
That\'s definitely one definition. \
to:
That\\\'s definitely one definition. \\\"Soft\\\" science fiction includes scocial science fiction and pulp science fiction, where scientific integrity is not important.
That said the article is still terrible and needs a rewrite. Firstly soft science fiction can still be about how the technology affects society and whatever. The only difference is that hard SF spends more time explaining the technology. Also the whole idea that soft SF is \\\"for the masses\\\" and appeals to people looking for sex and violence is nonsense. That\\\'s only the pulp aspect of soft SF (like Burroughs), not writers like Phil Dick and Le Guin, who aren\\\'t exactly \\\"hard\\\".
That said the article is still terrible and needs a rewrite. Firstly soft science fiction can still be about how the technology affects society and whatever. The only difference is that hard SF spends more time explaining the technology. Also the whole idea that soft SF is \\\"for the masses\\\" and appeals to people looking for sex and violence is nonsense. That\\\'s only the pulp aspect of soft SF (like Burroughs), not writers like Phil Dick and Le Guin, who aren\\\'t exactly \\\"hard\\\".
