a lot of hard SF, in my experience is no more rigorous, and sometimes far less rigorous, than "soft" SF
-
-
-
But then there are carborundum-hard SF novels such as Poul Anderson's Tau Zero. Where the plot only works because of Einstein's special theory of relativity.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
you don't consider (say) arthur c. clarke to be more scientifically rigorous than star wars?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Why be so binary about it? There’s a WIDE spectrum between Kim Stanley Robinson and George Lucas. It’s all about where your suspension of disbelief is comfortable and whether you are looking for escapism, realism, or something between.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
True in many cases, but for example Alastair Reynolds does a good job of playing by the rules. Not many physics PhD's writing good sci fi, though.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
but it does distinguish from the fantasy and other SF genres.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@dongwon How do you feel about hard "AF" science fiction?Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The closely-related 'doing math changes reality' & quantum-woo genres are particularly annoying to me in this regard. Both are talking about magic; they're pure fantasy. But both get treated as somehow 'real' when the're classified as hard SF.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.