Back

@FredKiesche If it doesn't take tens of generations to get to the next star, it is not Hard SF.

@alan @FredKiesche @nyrath I'd say it's a spectrum, tbh. If you have FTL but keep everything else scientific I'd say it's still hard, just not fully hard. This seems to be the general consensus: if you pay more attention to physics than the average popular SF franchise, then it's hard.

I generally think that any definition of a genre that excludes the way 90% of its fanbase uses it, is rather pedantic and misses the point of genre classification.

@maxthefox @FredKiesche @nyrath That's a fair point.

@maxthefox @FredKiesche @nyrath After thinking about this for a bit, what we need is a sliding scale of SF "hardness". I think something like the way we categorize Tofu: soft, medium, firm, extra-firm and then hard (not actually a tofu term)! Hard would be bound to our solar system, but extra-firm could do FTL.

@alan @maxthefox @FredKiesche @nyrath

"Hard" Hard SF need not be limited to our solar system.

@isaackuo @maxthefox @FredKiesche @nyrath In the meaning I propose, it would be. Anything involving FTL travel, wormholes, star-gates, et. al. would be in the domain of extra-firm.

@alan @maxthefox @FredKiesche @nyrath

I mean the meaning you mean. No FTL, no wormholes, no star-gates. Just plain old known physics, including photons which can communicate across interstellar distances, and all sorts of slower-than-light propulsion methods that can be used to send probes (and crewed spacecraft) across interstellar distances.