Comments for HardSF.net

Comment on would love to discuss writing sci fi with hard science in it–anyone? by Hardsf

Hardsf — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:16:15 +0000

Hardsf…

[...] something about hardsf[...]…

Comment on would love to discuss writing sci fi with hard science in it–anyone? by Alex Gordon

Alex Gordon — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 21:02:48 +0000

По моему мнению Вы не правы. Предлагаю это обсудить.... Hello! Just joined. I am a writer and am published.....

Comment on Good HARD SF Stories Anyone by SadBot

SadBot — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:05:50 +0000

Well, as far as good stories. One of my favorite Hard SF series is the Hyperion series by Dan Simmons. It is absolutely amazing.

I have actually published a few stories, and write a lot of Hard SF, and as far as copyright protection. As long as you have proof that you wrote the story first, (if someone stole it) than you’re fine. You typically don’t need anything official.

Comment on Good HARD SF Stories Anyone by Avatar Movie Online

Avatar Movie Online — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:03:45 +0000

Avatar Movie Blog…

Avatar is good Movie…

Comment on Long Time Ponder by Jack Zito

Jack Zito — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 05:52:49 +0000

Your concerns exactly are the difference between sci-fi, and hard sf. What I mean is: Sci Fy that’s too “fi” melds into the fantasy category, the limit in the other direction is hard sf. I think where on the spectrum you lie depnds on how what youve read has struck you, and some people move within this spectrum one way or the other depending on the mood. In this light I think its actually good that both genres are there. Now as far as the number ratio of hard sci fi to fantasy, I’d say anyone can dream fantasy, but not everyone has the technical know how to do hard sf. Now in saying this, I’ll add that dreaming up a good story line and good narrative is what makes the story entertain and reach the audience in the end. By the way does anyone have a book list. Or some original stories to contribute?

Comment on About HardSF.net by charlesancker

charlesancker — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:45:35 +0000

I had a lot of trouble with that one as well. I initially thought that it was an emphasis on technically dense stuff. By that definition, Star Trek would be harder SF since for an example, they actually try to give a plausible theory behind their propulsion systems. Contrast this with Star Wars, where it is left undiscussed, would make it less hard. I also thought it was fiction, where having a firm understanding of science would be an asset in giving a deeper understanding and fulfillment. For example, in Mark Budz’ “Till Human Voices Awake Us”, one line was “..Silicon Beach, which was crowded with colourful benzene ring shaped umbrellas…”. If you had studied chemistry, you would be able picture what the shape of the umbrellas was, and derive greater enjoyment from the words for your understanding.
Boy, was I ever wrong. Eventually I got curious and did some research (Wikipedia was a good start). Seems the hardness of science fiction has to do with how consistent it is with our current understanding of science in the real world. Travelling faster than the speed of light (wormholes not withstanding) is a big no no and will reduce the hardness of the fiction. Something like growing organs in beakers is pretty hard, as current technology allows us to grow some types of tissue (heart for instance ), so is a logical extension of current technology. Apparently there are whole subdivisions of the hardness of science fiction, with the hardest being classified as diamond hard.
It is all pretty confusing, and I am not sure it is worth the skull sweat, but regardless, I love SF of any hardness!

Comment on About HardSF.net by Emily

Emily — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:46:59 +0000

I am having trouble with your definition of ‘hard science fiction’. Can you elaborate. What do you mean, where science and fiction are blurred? Is it where the science is more plausible than it is fiction?

Comment on Long Time Ponder by randomlurker

randomlurker — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:58:42 +0000

They’re both on the continuum of speculative fiction. They may look very different superficially, but they both posit a vital “what if” around which the world of the book is built. “What if tried to solve our energy crisis by modifying people’s biology so they could live and work in a deep-sea environment to tap geothermal vents” and “What if this mythological creature really existed and interacted with humans” both require similar extrapolation in creation on the author’s part and acts of imaginative response on the readers’ part. The set rules may differ, but the process is similar and seems to frighten away people who can’t handle anything other than “reality as I see it every day.”

Not to mention, there’s always Clarke’s Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Comment on Alastair Reynolds’s work. by slartibartfast

slartibartfast — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:14:00 +0000

I first read Revelation Space, having never heard of AR before, and became ADDICTED straight away. Now have bought new (i rarely buy new books unless I am impressed by the author, I read so many I can’t afford it) almost all of his books.

Love the hard sci-fi ideas he works with, it is all so advanced yet so doable in our future and so believable. I just hate that I don’t live in a time when a lot of the technology he uses is available.

If I could choose what I was, I’d be an Ultra for sure.

SO a brief synopsis on my like for AR, anyone want to discuss his works?

Comment on Long Time Ponder by slartibartfast

slartibartfast — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:59:40 +0000

Could not agree more – I like SOME fantasy, but not a lot, it takes a really good author to grab me in that genre. So when I am searching for sci-fi, I don’t want to have to look at fantasy books as well.

Does anyone else find in a lot of book stores, the fantasy outnumbers sci-fi by at least 2-1?