3 ms·

Your understanding of the terminology sounds a lot different than mine. I always interpreted "hard" and "soft" to simply be references to "hard science" and "so

Your understanding of the terminology sounds a lot different than mine. I always interpreted "hard" and "soft" to simply be references to "hard science" and "soft science." In other words, I thought "hard sci-fi" means fiction that deals mostly with fictional facts in fields like physics, astronomy, geology, and biology, while "soft sci-fi" means fiction that deals mostly with fictional facts in fields like psychology, economics, and political science.

anbende 2y ago
Yes this is a reasonable way to misunderstand given the way we refer to “hard sciences” and “soft sciences”, but it does not map to the terms “hard scifi” and “soft scifi” in common usage. It’s not exactly about rules consistency either as stated by the GP, though that’s part of it. It’s more about strong consistent application of scientific principles even theoretical or untested principles. This is in contrast to futuristic fantasy with no real focus on the science. But futuristic or space fantasy can be very consistent just like magical systems in fantasy can be very consistent. Hard scifi has to be constrained by plausible consistent science and that science is typically a main character in the story, or even THE main character.
- tshaddox 2y ago
  I don't know if it's a misunderstanding, or if usage is just very mixed and inconsistent. Both Wikipedia articles provide both definitions, and both claim that usage is sometimes contradictory and not at all rigorous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction > The complementary term soft science fiction, formed by analogy to the popular distinction between the "hard" (natural) and "soft" (social) sciences,[6] first appeared in the late 1970s. Though there are examples generally considered as "hard" science fiction such as Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, built on mathematical sociology,[7] science fiction critic Gary Westfahl argues that while neither term is part of a rigorous taxonomy, they are approximate ways of characterizing stories that reviewers and commentators have found useful.[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_science_fiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_science_fiction > The term soft science fiction was formed as the complement of the earlier term hard science fiction. > The earliest known citation for the term is in "1975: The Year in Science Fiction" by Peter Nicholls, in Nebula Award Stories 11 (1976). He wrote "The same list reveals that an already established shift from hard sf (chemistry, physics, astronomy, technology) to soft sf (psychology, biology, anthropology, sociology, and even [...] linguistics) is continuing more strongly than ever."
mitthrowaway2 2y ago
I've only ever heard Gattaca described as hard sci-fi and Star Wars as soft sci-fi.
- nox101 2y ago
  I'll throw out one I expect I'll get lots of disagreement over. Firefly (the series, not the movie) seemed pretty "soft sci-fi" to me. They could have changed the setting to people in a Winnebago towing a trailer going from city to city on Earth and nothing would really have changed in at least the first 7 episodes.
  - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
    Good one. I think it's generally considered a Western in a sci-fi setting. They did try to stick to self-consistent rules and a realistic "feel" with the technology, physics, special effects and so on (no sound in space, etc) which would put it on the harder side of the spectrum perhaps. But since the sci-fi elements barely interact with the story, and so there's no deeply-considered exploration of how those sci-fi elements are consequential to the story / characters / society of that world, it could also be considered soft.
    - JohnFen 2y ago
      > I think it's generally considered a Western in a sci-fi setting. This is how I think of it as well. I actually don't really consider it science fiction, it just uses the scenery. Although I equally wouldn't say anyone who calls it "science fiction" is wrong. That brings up another thing: I think a story can be science fiction without involving anything futuristic or space-related at all.
  - underwater 2y ago
    For me it’s soft sci-fi because the show was about the people. Space was just the backdrop. Whereas something like Foundation is about the exploring the concept of psycho-history and galactic civilisations and the people are there to move that story forward.
lupusreal 2y ago
The Foundation series is premised on an achievement in the social sciences (soft) but is considered "hard sci-fi".
- tshaddox 2y ago
  It looks to me like both definitions are widely used. The first paragraph on Wikipedia claims that the term "hard sci-fi" was coined first, then "soft science fiction" was coined specifically to make the distinction between hard science and soft science. That paragraph also notes that there is no rigorous distinction, and mentions Foundation as a classic example.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    I strongly disagree, I don't think the "soft-science fiction" and "hard-science fiction" meanings are widely used; if you use these meanings often then you'll probaby very frequently cause confusion and prompt discussions like this one. Almost everybody is using the other meanings, at least in recent years.

anbende 2y ago

Yes this is a reasonable way to misunderstand given the way we refer to “hard sciences” and “soft sciences”, but it does not map to the terms “hard scifi” and “soft scifi” in common usage. It’s not exactly about rules consistency either as stated by the GP, though that’s part of it. It’s more about strong consistent application of scientific principles even theoretical or untested principles. This is in contrast to futuristic fantasy with no real focus on the science. But futuristic or space fantasy can be very consistent just like magical systems in fantasy can be very consistent. Hard scifi has to be constrained by plausible consistent science and that science is typically a main character in the story, or even THE main character.

tshaddox 2y ago
I don't know if it's a misunderstanding, or if usage is just very mixed and inconsistent. Both Wikipedia articles provide both definitions, and both claim that usage is sometimes contradictory and not at all rigorous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction > The complementary term soft science fiction, formed by analogy to the popular distinction between the "hard" (natural) and "soft" (social) sciences,[6] first appeared in the late 1970s. Though there are examples generally considered as "hard" science fiction such as Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, built on mathematical sociology,[7] science fiction critic Gary Westfahl argues that while neither term is part of a rigorous taxonomy, they are approximate ways of characterizing stories that reviewers and commentators have found useful.[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_science_fiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_science_fiction > The term soft science fiction was formed as the complement of the earlier term hard science fiction. > The earliest known citation for the term is in "1975: The Year in Science Fiction" by Peter Nicholls, in Nebula Award Stories 11 (1976). He wrote "The same list reveals that an already established shift from hard sf (chemistry, physics, astronomy, technology) to soft sf (psychology, biology, anthropology, sociology, and even [...] linguistics) is continuing more strongly than ever."

mitthrowaway2 2y ago

I've only ever heard Gattaca described as hard sci-fi and Star Wars as soft sci-fi.

nox101 2y ago
I'll throw out one I expect I'll get lots of disagreement over. Firefly (the series, not the movie) seemed pretty "soft sci-fi" to me. They could have changed the setting to people in a Winnebago towing a trailer going from city to city on Earth and nothing would really have changed in at least the first 7 episodes.
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  Good one. I think it's generally considered a Western in a sci-fi setting. They did try to stick to self-consistent rules and a realistic "feel" with the technology, physics, special effects and so on (no sound in space, etc) which would put it on the harder side of the spectrum perhaps. But since the sci-fi elements barely interact with the story, and so there's no deeply-considered exploration of how those sci-fi elements are consequential to the story / characters / society of that world, it could also be considered soft.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    > I think it's generally considered a Western in a sci-fi setting. This is how I think of it as well. I actually don't really consider it science fiction, it just uses the scenery. Although I equally wouldn't say anyone who calls it "science fiction" is wrong. That brings up another thing: I think a story can be science fiction without involving anything futuristic or space-related at all.
- underwater 2y ago
  For me it’s soft sci-fi because the show was about the people. Space was just the backdrop. Whereas something like Foundation is about the exploring the concept of psycho-history and galactic civilisations and the people are there to move that story forward.

lupusreal 2y ago

The Foundation series is premised on an achievement in the social sciences (soft) but is considered "hard sci-fi".

tshaddox 2y ago
It looks to me like both definitions are widely used. The first paragraph on Wikipedia claims that the term "hard sci-fi" was coined first, then "soft science fiction" was coined specifically to make the distinction between hard science and soft science. That paragraph also notes that there is no rigorous distinction, and mentions Foundation as a classic example.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  I strongly disagree, I don't think the "soft-science fiction" and "hard-science fiction" meanings are widely used; if you use these meanings often then you'll probaby very frequently cause confusion and prompt discussions like this one. Almost everybody is using the other meanings, at least in recent years.