3 ms·

There's no hard boundary between the two categories, since nearly every sci-fi is going to have fantastical elements to them. For example The Expanse authors ha

There's no hard boundary between the two categories, since nearly every sci-fi is going to have fantastical elements to them. For example The Expanse authors have paid careful attention to the physics of space-flight, which they then use create their vision of "realistic" space battles. But they also have interdimensional stargates that instantly transport you across the universe. So hard sci-fi or fantasy? People can argue endlessly about which category a book belongs in. Personally I think the most useful metric is "would my non-science geek fans like this?". Or to put it another way, is one of the primary appeals of this novel the extrapolation of realistic science. An appreciation that may be lost on someone who isn't as interested in that subject. My fantasy loving friend has been an interesting barometer in this way. Didn't like The Martian therefore, it's Hard SciFi. Dune: sci-fantasy Star Wars Sci-fantasy Three Body Problem: Hard sci-fi The Expanse Book 1: Hard sci-fi The Expanse Season 1: Sci Fantasy

SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
> Expanse authors have paid careful attention to the physics of space-flight, which they then use create their vision of "realistic" space battles Yes and no. I'm told that if you do the math on the "Epstein Drive" fusion rockets that are in use throughout The Expanse, they are actually _impossibly_ effective regarding reaction mass. Still, unlike the star gates, they don't take you across light-years in less than actual years, so they're "harder" than the later books. There is indeed no hard boundary.
- throw0101a 3y ago
  When asked on Twitter how the Epstein Drive works, the authors responded: "Efficiency"
  - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
    Alternative answer: blackmail
  - amalcon 3y ago
    Reminds me of the time a Star Trek writer was asked how the Heisenberg compensator works. The response was that "It works very well, thank you!"
- SonicScrub 3y ago
  Sure the engine tech is fantastical, but the "realism" is in the attention paid to g-loading, momentum, the vast expanse (heh) of space, etc. The authors have chosen strategically which aspects of their story to be fantastical and which parts to keep hard. And of course, every good sci-fi has to do this. Which is why I personally like the metric of "does part of the enjoyment of this story come from a (somewhat) realistic portrayal of real science". Conveniently categorized by my non-sciencey reading buddy. The more it does this, the "harder" it is. However that means the location of the fuzzy boundary is subjective, but we can probably rank different stories relative to each other. The Martian is harder than The Expanse is hard than Star Wars. Pretty clear I'd say. The Expanse may have unrealistic engine tech, but at least the spaceships aren't dogfighting Second World War style.

SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago

> Expanse authors have paid careful attention to the physics of space-flight, which they then use create their vision of "realistic" space battles Yes and no. I'm told that if you do the math on the "Epstein Drive" fusion rockets that are in use throughout The Expanse, they are actually _impossibly_ effective regarding reaction mass. Still, unlike the star gates, they don't take you across light-years in less than actual years, so they're "harder" than the later books. There is indeed no hard boundary.

throw0101a 3y ago
When asked on Twitter how the Epstein Drive works, the authors responded: "Efficiency"
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  Alternative answer: blackmail
- amalcon 3y ago
  Reminds me of the time a Star Trek writer was asked how the Heisenberg compensator works. The response was that "It works very well, thank you!"
SonicScrub 3y ago
Sure the engine tech is fantastical, but the "realism" is in the attention paid to g-loading, momentum, the vast expanse (heh) of space, etc. The authors have chosen strategically which aspects of their story to be fantastical and which parts to keep hard. And of course, every good sci-fi has to do this. Which is why I personally like the metric of "does part of the enjoyment of this story come from a (somewhat) realistic portrayal of real science". Conveniently categorized by my non-sciencey reading buddy. The more it does this, the "harder" it is. However that means the location of the fuzzy boundary is subjective, but we can probably rank different stories relative to each other. The Martian is harder than The Expanse is hard than Star Wars. Pretty clear I'd say. The Expanse may have unrealistic engine tech, but at least the spaceships aren't dogfighting Second World War style.