(urth) Hard SF

[Gerry Quinn]

From: David Stockhoff 

> Yes, I agree. Science realism is after all impossible, if you are 
> proposing scientific impossibilities such as FTL.

> On 11/28/2012 8:56 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
> > I think I've said this a number of times but, for me, 'hard sf' is 
> > that where the workings of science itself are a major driver of the 
> > plot. Little to do with being science-'realistic', except as an almost 
> > necessary implication. In that regard, Wolfe's work is not hard sf.
That’s my view too.  
There are different types of hard SF though.  There is the realistic sort where the writer tries to tell a story that could actually happen (e.g. the Mars trilogy).  And there’s the kind where the writer takes some dubious physics theory and extrapolates wildly based on that (e.g. Schild’s Ladder by Greg Egan).  
Of course, even a hard SF writer isn’t going to get the science perfect.  (I never believed you could oxygenate Mars using wind power.)  
Wolfe isn’t writing hard SF, so his standard for plausibility divided by coolness is correspondingly lower.
- Gerry Quinn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20121129/1d9820e9/attachment-0004.htm>