[LMB] Amazing (ly ignorant) Stories
howard at brazee.net
Fri Sep 6 16:04:57 BST 2013
On Sep 6, 2013, at 1:32 AM, Steve Osgood <morfusmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd grown up thinking the difference between hard SF and soft SF was how
> accurate/consistent/believable/non-magical the science was.
> Star Trek: hard SF. Doctor Who: soft SF.
> Westworld: hard SF. Star Wars: soft SF.
> Honestly, ma'am, your stuff falls into the hard SF bin for me. The science
> has been sufficiently consistent and believable for me that it's background
> and setting rather than focus and distraction. I can care about the
> characters because I can accept and respect, and therefore not care about,
> the science.
"Believable" is variable. Is Doc Smith believable these days? How about Campbell's desire for hard science psi powers?
One reason fantasy has grown in popularity relative to science fiction is this change in what we believe is possible.
A recent change is the idea of the human event horizon - along with our trying to extrapolate our computer age without making the story irrelevant to what is meaningful to us now.
More information about the Lois-Bujold