Posted January 07, 2017
I thought this might be interesting enough to avoid derailing a different thread and give it its very own.
How would you define these concepts? Keep in mind there's a sliding scale between them, it's possible to be somewhere in between. What category would you put some of your favorite stories in?
I would perhaps go with the popular definition that says Hard Sci-Fi focuses on hard sciences (physics, biology, chemistry), and Soft Sci-Fi focuses on soft or social sciences (psychology, sociology, etc.):
Hard Sci-Fi: It's interested mostly on the technology, speculating ways in which it could be realized and how it might work (ex.: Neuromancer).
Soft Sci-Fi: It's interested on the societal consequences of the technology at play, it gives only cursory explanations of how that technology works, it's where technobabble comes from (ex.: Star Trek).
Science Fantasy: It's a fantasy story in space, doesn't bother to explain how its technology works at all, it's just a means to an end allowing the intended story to be told, may introduce outright supernatural elements (ex.: Princess of Mars)
This is of course very subjective. Some people put great emphasis on scientific accuracy, that what separates the genres is how much it sticks to the scientific theories generally accepted at the time it was written, and that the introduction of any supernatural element taints the universe as a whole and transforms all the work into Science Fantasy. For me it doesn't matter if it all turns out to be nonsense, just how much time was dedicated to explain and develop the technology.
How does this work for videogames though? The narrative and themes of Mass Effect strike me as Soft Sci-Fi, yet the game does feature a codex that goes highly in depth on the workings of every piece of technology in the game, as well as the biology of all the different races. Do you take that in mind when classifying it since it is baked right into the game? Or do you consider it supplementary material and only consider the parts where you actually play through and the main narrative?
How does it work for large franchises? I argued in the other thread that Star Wars is Science Fantasy, but I wouldn't doubt that in one of the many extended universe works all the technology present may have been explained. Can you make both Science Fantasy and Science Fiction in the same universe? Does one override the other? Does the existence of scientific explanations in the larger universe make future works automatically Sci-Fi? Or is the presence of the Force, and Force ghosts, etc. make it forever Science Fantasy regardless of how much time you spend trying to explain hyperspace?
How would you define these concepts? Keep in mind there's a sliding scale between them, it's possible to be somewhere in between. What category would you put some of your favorite stories in?
I would perhaps go with the popular definition that says Hard Sci-Fi focuses on hard sciences (physics, biology, chemistry), and Soft Sci-Fi focuses on soft or social sciences (psychology, sociology, etc.):
Hard Sci-Fi: It's interested mostly on the technology, speculating ways in which it could be realized and how it might work (ex.: Neuromancer).
Soft Sci-Fi: It's interested on the societal consequences of the technology at play, it gives only cursory explanations of how that technology works, it's where technobabble comes from (ex.: Star Trek).
Science Fantasy: It's a fantasy story in space, doesn't bother to explain how its technology works at all, it's just a means to an end allowing the intended story to be told, may introduce outright supernatural elements (ex.: Princess of Mars)
This is of course very subjective. Some people put great emphasis on scientific accuracy, that what separates the genres is how much it sticks to the scientific theories generally accepted at the time it was written, and that the introduction of any supernatural element taints the universe as a whole and transforms all the work into Science Fantasy. For me it doesn't matter if it all turns out to be nonsense, just how much time was dedicated to explain and develop the technology.
How does this work for videogames though? The narrative and themes of Mass Effect strike me as Soft Sci-Fi, yet the game does feature a codex that goes highly in depth on the workings of every piece of technology in the game, as well as the biology of all the different races. Do you take that in mind when classifying it since it is baked right into the game? Or do you consider it supplementary material and only consider the parts where you actually play through and the main narrative?
How does it work for large franchises? I argued in the other thread that Star Wars is Science Fantasy, but I wouldn't doubt that in one of the many extended universe works all the technology present may have been explained. Can you make both Science Fantasy and Science Fiction in the same universe? Does one override the other? Does the existence of scientific explanations in the larger universe make future works automatically Sci-Fi? Or is the presence of the Force, and Force ghosts, etc. make it forever Science Fantasy regardless of how much time you spend trying to explain hyperspace?
Post edited January 07, 2017 by DaCostaBR
