The Hard Sci-fi thread

[Psychosplodge]

Right I think I follow, Alaistair Reynolds and Iain M Banks would be two authors that I'd also suggest then.

[Deadlift]

I read one Iain M Banks book, I struggled to be honest. I often freely admit that most of you guys seem to be a bit more intellectual than myself and maybe you guys "get" his style. For me it's just a bit weird and confusing

[Psychosplodge]

No, I'll admit I can't race through them like the bolter pron the black library churns out, I have to slow down and really read it.

[Wolfshade]

Where the physics and/or social implications of advanced technologies involved are explained rather than implied or handwaved. Star Wars is soft sci-fi, because they never explain how anything actually works (actually, Star Wars is as much fantasy as sci-fi). I, Robot is a classic hard sci-fi, because the entire point of the story is to explore the implications of the Three Laws of Robotics in minute detail.

So what happens when they explain things in detail but the science is buncombe?

[DarkLink]

I read one Iain M Banks book, I struggled to be honest. I often freely admit that most of you guys seem to be a bit more intellectual than myself and maybe you guys "get" his style. For me it's just a bit weird and confusing

You should read The Quantum Thief, by some guy with a long non-western name I can't remember. It's so complex it actively detracts from the plot, as it's neigh impossible to tell what's actually going on when literally every other sentence makes up some new far-out crazy technology that is never explained what it actually is or why it's important to the plot yet is vital to know in order to understand what's actually happening. Fortunately, as long as you can understand the shared-memory stuff, you can at least get the basic idea of what's happening. But, yeah, definitely a case of an author a bit too smart for his own good.

[scadugenga]

The main issue I find with a lot of "hard" sci fi authors, is that they seem more oriented in proving how smart their thought-processes and universe-building skils are than they are in actually telling a story.

[Brakkart]

I've not read much of what would be considered as hard sci-fi (which is really more science-possible, than science-fiction when you think about it). The only ones I can honestly say I really enjoyed was Kim Stanley Robinson's amazing Mars trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars and Blue Mars) dealing with the colonisation and terraforming of Mars. I found those a fascinating read and think that they would make for a great HBO style tv series, though not movies as too much would have to be chopped out to fit them into movies.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

The main issue I find with a lot of "hard" sci fi authors, is that they seem more oriented in proving how smart their thought-processes and universe-building skils are than they are in actually telling a story.

It's definitely a tricky genre to get right - fluid storytelling and physics lessons take a skilled writer to blend. The general rule of thumb I've run into would be that hard scifi which has the narrator discuss the science behind it is a slog, but hard scifi which successfully includes the science in dialogue reads well.

The only ones I can honestly say I really enjoyed was Kim Stanley Robinson's amazing Mars trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars and Blue Mars) dealing with the colonisation and terraforming of Mars.

Mmm, enjoyed that trilogy a lot. Kinda liked how he had the occasional graph/chart to quickly explain a concept if it was faster than text, and tied most of the science into discussions between characters.

[DarkLink]

It's a worldbuilding problem. Stories are driven by plot, which is made interesting by characters and worldbuilding/setting. A book with a fantastic setting that lacks good characters and/or plot will end up sounding like a physics textbook.

[Aspire to Glory]

Is hard sci fi when you see the penetration and there's less story?