Hard sci-fi vs soft sci-fi || measuring science fiction hardness

The term ‘hard sci-fi’ is sometimes thrown around without much explanation about what the ‘hard’ part actually refers to. In this video I introduce the 'The Book Odyssey scale of science fiction hardness', a way to measure how hard a piece of science fiction is.
#hardscifi #sciencefiction
Mohs scale of science fiction hardness - bit.ly/3w3Q63q
____________________________________________________________________
MY STUFF
linktr.ee/book...
____________________________________________________________________
vvv MORE vvv
MY SCI-FI NOVELS
linktr.ee/book...
DELPHINE DESCENDS
After her family is killed and her homeworld occupied, young Kathreen Martin is sent to the distant world of Furoris for re-education. She will live the rest of her life as a serf - to be bought and sold as a commodity of the Imperial Network.
When her only chance of escape is ruined, a chance mistaken identity offers her a new life as the orphaned daughter of a First-Citizen Senator and heiress to a vast fortune.
She vows to claw her way into power to sit among the worlds’ elite. Then, with her own hands, she will reap bloody vengeance on them all.
But to beat them, she must play their game. And she must play it better than them all.
BLACK MILK
Prometheus has the chance to bring his wife back from the dead, but doing so will mean the destruction of Earth.
Spanning time, planets and dimensions, Black Milk draws to a climactic point in a post-apocalyptic future, where humanity, stranded with no planet to call home, fights to survive against a post-human digital entity that pursues them through the depths of space.
Five lives separated by aeons are inextricably linked by Prometheus’s actions:
Ystil.3 is an AI unit sent back in time from the distant future to investigate Prometheus’s discovery...
The mysterious Lydia has devoted her life to finding a planet that the last remaining humans can call home…
Tom Jones (he’s a HUGE fan!) is an AI trapped inside a digital subspace, lost and desperate to find his way back to his beloved in real-time…
Dr Norma Stanwyck is a neuroscientist from 24th Century Earth whose personal choices ripple throughout time...
Prometheus must learn the necessity of death or the entire universe will be swallowed by his grief.
____________________________________________________________________
GOODREADS
You can stalk me on Goodreads to see what I'm currently reading. / 16006574.darrel_willia...
____________________________________________________________________

[@julianmuller7800]

The "Something something field generator" really had me laughing. It was lines like "Captain, we could reconfigure the deflector array to send an inverted anti-proton beam through the subspace to diasble their shield generators" that draw me into Star Trek as a child and ultimately into Sci-Fi. And i really enjoy the "something something science"-babbling up to this day. Sadly this isn't used in sci-fi to much any more :D

[@Datan0de]

The singer Voltaire has an album called "Banned on Vulcan" that's all funny songs about Star Trek. One of the songs (if you'll pardon the language) is called "The U.S.S. Make Shit Up" that's a hilarious take on this. Here's the chorus: "Bounce a graviton particle beam off the main deflector dish That's the way we do things - yeah! We're making shut up as we wish The Klingons and the Romulans par no threat to us 'Cuz when we find we're in a bind we just make some shit up!"

[@yellowpowr8455]

Eh, original Star Trek actually tries to keep a sense of constant, and when it does introduce something else, it's doesn't really feel out of nowhere. Unlike some of the newer stuff they make now, that actually does seem to just make up words.

[@treefarm3288]

Very good, although I don't know if I'll remember the higher subtleties. Funny.

[@TheOneTheyCallJack]

One of the things that I love about Egan is his ability to take technical jargon and turn it into poetry, the manufacturing of the orphan in the first chapter of Diaspora has such a beautiful contrast between the content and the flow of the language used that it absolutely blew me away

[@Curry-tan-]

Give exosuits a bit more credit, they already exist in Asian hospitals and began military field tests half a decade ago. There is no need to violate any laws. Wearing a robot is a parallel technology to humanoid robots, with the caveat that suits with people in them need more redundancies against basic directed-energy weapons like EMP. The technology is trivially real, an implied advance based on current principles. It's barely even SF anymore.

[@horscategorie]

Reminds me on The New Sun series... Severian jumping into a sentient being - 'violating' that being, even though the being was initially built as a suit of battle armor... ;)

[@GoranXII]

Indeed. Exosuits themselves run a gamut, from stuff we might be able to build in a few years, to stuff that's just about fantasy, like the Iron Man suits, from both the comics and movies.

[@hubertfarnsworth6824]

@@GoranXII Tbf the Iron man suit (from the MCU before they used nanotechnology to solve every problem) is actually pretty realistic, it's just that the power supply is what we lack irl.

[@maesimaesi]

The Harry Potter example reminded me of ‘Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality’, a rationalist retelling of the story where Harry’s trying to make sense of the laws of magic. Very hard sci-fi-like

[@Tartersauce101]

God I hated that story. I couldn't stomach more than the first few chapters. Harry was insufferable and selfish and short sighted and yet...somehow this was held up as some kind of virtue??? I read Ayne Rand and didn't hate it but this was like her sht on steroids...all just imo of course...

[@tzaphkielconficturus7136]

@@Tartersauce101 He gets away with it for the first few chapters, yeah. It comes back to bite him, though. He's sort of insufferable, because he's a baby Tom Riddle. It's also (spoiler but barely) why he seems so unreasonably clever, because he's got that piece of adult Voldemort's mind stuck to him.

[@saucevc8353]

@@Tartersauce101 Rationalist Harry isn't actually selfish, he's actually an idealistic humanist with some pretty hard moral standards. It doesn't really show for the first few chapters but it becomes far more relevant when the plot actually starts going.

[@FIT2BREAD]

This is great. Just starting the video...you've already hooked me in with "Greg Egan effect," not enough Egan in booktube... and the opening skit is great...especially because I dont expect it (or see it coming) from you. Very cool

[@bmoneybby]

Greg Egan is a 12 o'clock on the hardness scale if you know what I mean.

[@FIT2BREAD]

@@bmoneybby and such an enjoyable read (despite having to work for it ha)

[@FIT2BREAD]

@@bmoneybby got a favorite?

[@bmoneybby]

@@FIT2BREAD I'd probably go with Diaspora. But I also like Computation City and Schild's Ladder. Diaspora was the first one I read and I consider it the first real hard science fiction I had ever read. Even though I'd read all the classic sci fis already. Egan is different lol

[@bmoneybby]

@@FIT2BREAD You?

[@lq4322]

i like how "nano" "quantum" and the like became the new "atomic" first, and then stupid buzzwords for shavers, vacuum cleaners and tvs

[@3choblast3r4]

Yeah but it doesn't mean we should stop using quantum entanglement and nanobots etc in sci fi.

[@Schmikey2]

Are we going to get your thoughts on “The Three Body Problem” trilogy by Cixin Liu? The hardest sci-fi I’ve ever read.

[@Seven-Planets-Sci-Fi-Tuber]

I second that. I spent a small fortune on ordering 3 huge soft backs, then I failed to stick with the first book after a few chapters..

[@michaelking9818]

O you sweet summer child

[@IRosamelia]

Darrel just uploaded a video on that yesterday

[@LarryHasOpinions]

"something something field generator" hahaha

[@LarryHasOpinions]

that's a brilliant quote by clarke. Congrats on 5k!!

[@Sci-FiOdyssey]

Thanks for noticing 😀🎉🎊

[@uptown3636]

Oh my goodness, Larry. I just responded to a comment of yours on The Library of Allenxandria’s new video. I promise I’m not KZbin stalking you-we just seem to have incredibly similar tastes in books and KZbin channels. Cheers!

[@LarryHasOpinions]

@@uptown3636 haha no worries, you clearly have good taste then! :-D

[@KevTheImpaler]

I read a book by Isaac Asimov called The Gods Themselves that dealt with the strong atomic force. That seemed pretty hard. but I suppose it was only Egan Effect. The Martian was pretty good science, only the initial Martian storm was definitely not right. Larry Niven was quite good at science. Ringworld sounds scientifically plausible, but I don't know if it is.

[@volcryndarkstar]

If a ringworld large enough to envelope the Sun were built, we would need to use advanced meta-materials which don't exist in nature and may not be possible to manufacture at all. Only time and advancement will tell. But smaller rotating worlds can be built with current material science, and we can make a swarm of billions of those with the materials of the asteroid belt alone.

[@graywolf182]

This classification seems really impractical to me, like what is even the purpose of rating science fiction books in how close they are to real science. Most books will lie between categories 2 and 4, but that grade tells you nothing about the actual content of the book, in terms of concepts it discusses and how complex is the science part. A book about near future without any breakthrough technology would earn a high rating, like 5 or 6, but it may be almost devoid of discussion of scientific concepts. Meanwhile, authors like Egan, Niven, Lem, Vinge, or Asimov, would get a relatively low rating, 4 or below, despite describing complex scientific subjects or fascinating technological possibilities (often in terms that may be difficult to understand for someone not familiar with actual real world science on the topic, so that the reader can actually learn about the subject). While ringworlds and simulation universes are most likely impossible, they are the reason why we read science fiction, to expand our horizons beyond the confines of the mundane, and imagine what could be. My opinion is that the "hardness" should instead reflect how much emphasis is put on "science" in that particular work of science fiction, with books that focus on adventures, characters, history, politics, social issues and pretty much anything but the science and only using a few fictional elements to further the plot or add something to the setting (regardless of whether those elements are , or something-something field generators, or are accurate and absolutely in line with our understanding of the world) getting low ratings, and books that delve deep in exciting scientific ideas, thought experiments, futurology, and alien worlds should get high ratings (even if the technologies or world building seems implausible or had latter been proven inaccurate, as long as it's consistent with itself). That would actually inform the reader about what they are going to experience (for instance, don't read Egan if you are not prepared for a lecture on mathematics and physics woven into the story).

[@Spaceman0720]

The strong storm on mars would make sense if it was an unkown phenomenon, or whatnot in Mars that just happened cuz "The Martian" focuses mainly on the difficulty of living on mars. The storm is just a plot point after all.

[@heshangunarathna3262]

Where is xeelee sequence in hard sci fi...

[@clintonbehrends4659]

@@graywolf182 I'm pretty sure this clasification is supposed to be used in the same way the fantasy and fiction genres are used it just so people can identify the content in the book some folks (like me) really enjoy the use of actual physics in a story and sometimes people want a story that takes place in space but not worry about physics to much.

[@123witten]

Great video, you are the only KZbinr I know making this kind of deep sci-fi contet. I would have loved some extra recommendations for each Hardness-Level.

[@ccclll987]

I think there are too many points describing a harder approach to sci-fi and too few describing a softer approach. Categories are too wide. Categories 1 and 2 are wider than the last 4 put together, basically. Those two contain everything from space balls to futurama to mass effect, or star wars, start trek and stargate, and even things like Evangelion or Gundam. I like the video but I really dont agree with your categories. The first are too wide, the latter too small.

[@joshuakuruvilla]

It will be fascinating to see these levels adjust over the years, especially exo-suit, Boston Dynamics could possibly showcase something that would bring some books exo-suit concepts from 3 to 5 (Bussard Ramjet)....maybe even 6 (Clarke's Orbit)

[@horscategorie]

A 6... There are exosuits (sort of) piloted and used today. External frames to give greater strength... etc...

[@melanoc3tusii205]

Make that 7, they already exist.

[@rooderoo12]

Just started getting into reading scifi again. Great job of explaining a concept that's difficult to describe.

[@hfbdbsijenbd]

Clark's first and second laws are perfect explanations of his tier along with his third that you quoted at the beginning. 1) When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. 2) The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

[@slightexag]

You've got the most sonorous voice on KZbin. I really enjoy your content!

[@sofyacab]

It's incredible that you have so few subscribers, your topic are amazing and your videos too

[@mwright_boomer]

What are fantasy and sci-fi but two ways of explaining that which is currently impossible? I think of hardness as the continuum that bridges the two

[@faeryfetich]

Love your mug in the beginning. I have the exact same design on a T-shirt.

[@viscifi517]

In Tau Zero, wasnt the conflict generated from the Something Something Brake Field Generator? Wouldnt that force hardness down from Bussard ramjet to something-field -generator? Or split difference...

[@ArsenyMoskvichev]

I like the idea, but I feel that "hardness" is conflated with realism a little too much. I think that it might be more fruitful to look at internal "hardness" only. All sci-fi breaks reality in fundamental ways in any case. If it's possible for a thoughtful reader to predict specifically what else is possible and what is impossible-sci fi is fairly hard, otherwise it's soft. These scales correlate. If you only change one tiny and specific thing in physical reality (as Egan does), you can extrapolate easier than in the case when you are only vaguely presented with the fact that faster than light travel is possible. But I think that "internal" scale avoids many problems, e.g. comparing "unrealness" of different specific modifications of physical reality.

[@BitchspotBlog]

The problem with trying to get closer to reality is that you're getting farther away from fiction.

[@justindixon7441]

Cool, I'm sitting between Bussard Ramjet and the Egan Effect. Trying to stick as close to Bussard as possible.

[@david22262]

That was brilliant. Thank you!

[@howardmiller5381]

Funny ... I proposed the idea of using the concept of the Mohs scale to describe the 'hardness' of science fiction to some friends several years ago. I never tried to write about it, though. I guess like minds tend to run in like grooves.

[@cosmicprison9819]

So, is my story level 3 because it has centrifugal gravity only? Or is it level 6, because the ship is essentially based on the Enzmann design? 🤔

[@pourattitude4206]

I couldn't help but notice that your levels of "hardness" were mainly focused on hardware and propulsion. There are several more sciences that are used in some great sci-fi, however I'll mention only two of them. Biochemistry and nanotechnology. Yes, nanotechnology is mostly still theoretical but working upon the ideas of what is possible if it is fully exploited can be very exciting and if the author is careful enough the evolution of nanotechnology can seem very plausible. I refer to the Mars series by Kim Stanley Robinson for a likely level 6ish hardness type of sci-fi that includes both biochemistry and nanotech. One of the hardest reads (crazy heavy on science) that I can remember reading was a book by one of my all-time favorite authors. It was maddening. I enjoyed the story but was pretty irked about his need to go so far in depth. The novel "The White Plague" by Frank Herbert goes into way too much detail with what seems to ME to be very advanced biochemistry. Up to the point of reading this novel I had nothing but love for the man. During the process of reading this book it became a love/hate thing. It was one of my least favorite novels of his because of this. But, that's also kinda like saying that Starbucks is my least favorite coffee house. It may not be the best, but that doesn't make it bad.

[@LazarusRemains]

Too many people in the creative industry use that famous Arthur C Clarke quote to justify anything. It ends up looking arbitrary. A prime example is Star Trek's modern takeover. It has technology that amounts to whimsy, with no thought as to how it would alter daily life. Previously, it would at least try to keep empires at a similar technology level, implying a kinda Cold War arms race between them.

[@Lawfair]

Have you ever heard of the distinction between hard sci-fi and soft sci-fi, having more to do with social sciences vs. natural sciences? I've also seen it argued that hard and soft has to do with the difference between setting and plot.

[@surprisedchar2458]

The grading of Hard and Soft has always really been more about gatekeeping the genre than actually having any real useful application. Note how it tends to find a way to delineate between “real” science and “fake” science. It’s part of the problem with humanity’s unending need to classify everything.

[@volcryndarkstar]

@@surprisedchar2458 It's not exactly gatekeeping to judge stories based on their scientific considerations. I think a story like the Expanse is objectively "harder" than say, Star Wars.

[@pourattitude4206]

@@volcryndarkstar oh Jesus yes. But that is the distinction between science fiction and science fantasy. Star Wars doesn't even acknowledge any science. Physics is completely ignored. The Expanse accounts for everything that Star Wars and its ilk completely overlook.

[@lorensims4846]

Interesting. I don't agree with most of your examples and think an equally sophisticated explanation for the Babel Fish might also be cooked up. My scale usually runs from Harry Potter to Star Wars to Star Trek to The Expanse. I think Clarke is right up there and I read everything of his I could get my hands on when I was in eighth grade. My favorite is still "Tales From the White Hart" where he predicted noise cancellation--with explosive consequences!

[@Ruzzky_Bly4t]

The expanse is definitely not the top of hard sci-fi.

[@heshangunarathna3262]

Arthur c clarke, asimov and h.g.wells From modern sci fis i think xeelee sequence , manifold triology is right up there

[@johnbarazzuol3590]

Thank you for sharing this discussion! Awesome channel!

[@Sci-FiOdyssey]

Thanks 🙏

[@ds5436]

This is really interesting. Thank you!

[@adamharris-batt6333]

you gotta fill out that banks collection above your shoulder :D

[@ChiefSmackahoLLC]

I gave up on Chasm City, I got about halfway through but nothing was happening. People say the last few chapters are a big payoff but wow what a slog.

[@majorbrew]

Yeah Chasm City always seem to be an odd duck, stand-alone story with a dash of prequel for the Revelation space series. I really liked the book when I read it years ago but I had also just finished three books in the series and was hungry more of this universe, bonus was seeing how the Rust Belt came to be.

[@travisporco]

I was furious with the ending of the series.

[@muttineni03]

Great video, i mainly read fantasy but Project Hail Mary made me interested in sci-fi and your videos are helpful. Can Chase city be read as standalone?

[@sporeham1674]

I personally believe the opposite to Clarke's quote is also true A sufficiently advanced form of magic is indistinguishable from technology

[@babalond]

Physics is not the only science!

[@brandonboi9465]

I can't remember the name of the sci-fi novel but it was written in the 1950's and explained the process of Hydraulic Fracturing in order to obtain the hydrocarbons on some distant colonized planet, since it was all in shale deposits.

[@Phathit08653Verse]

For me I Love Soft Sci-fi and Sci-Fi Fantasy

[@baronvonbrunn8596]

This all depends on whether we're rating the story by how much it adheres to known science or by how much it explains it's own rules and how rigid they are. The former would have "something something field generator" at the very bottom, the latter at least in the top 3.

[@raphlvlogs271]

it is important to gain a balance between hardness and softness when writing an entertaining at the same time realistic enough (make sense ) sci fi

[@jayviescas7703]

Of course Douglas Adams was masterfully parodying science fiction tropes and delighting science nerds (both of my brothers were scientists in physics and computer operations and analysis, speaking fluently in its main language - maths) and fiction authors. 😊

[@Tartersauce101]

Is The Faded Sun Trilogy considered hard sci fi? I always thought so but I'm not an expert.

[@raphlvlogs271]

Magic could have been misunderstood technology

[@literaryartist1]

So I'm "fairly new" to the genre. I mean, like everyone else, I've seen the usual suspects-popular films (i.e. Star Wars, Star Trek, [the] Alien [franchise]) and played the popular games (i.e. Halo, Gears of War, Horizon Zero Dawn)-and etc. But I haven't really delved into the genre. With that said, Horizon Forbidden West just dropped and been playing it with gusto. And it has opened up in me a great deal of interest in the genre. And I'm having a hard time identifying if it is hard or soft Sci-Fi! SPOILER ALERT!!! FOR HORIZON ZERO DAWN Because in a way they do expound on the Terraforming Project but I wouldn't say that it is scientifically broken down. Idk. I'm having a hard time categorizing it. What are your thoughts?!

[@Shythalia]

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein would probably be like a Level 5 I think? Or 4.

[@john-lenin]

If it has a hot half-naked Space Amazon on the cover, I rate it Hard.

[@StevenSiew2]

You don't just rate it hard, you will feel hard yourself.

[@rishichauhan86]

A brilliant episode! A scale is definitely needed - thank you very much! 🤓

[@AlchemistOfNirnroot]

Is that a Buffy mug? What does it say?

[@yw1971]

The Bussard Ramjet is a mainstay in many of Larry Niven's books

[@volcryndarkstar]

They're relevant in Cixin Liu's Three Body Problem as well.

[@ChatarraCrow]

Current sci fi has had to dig into deeper subjects other than just the technology. There's plenty of realms in science fiction that can be explored. The social implications of alien invasions is still on the table. Think of Robotech. That's as scifi as it gets, but the show even confronts the aliens having fear of combat and death. After the invasion is defeated, the rest of humanity has to deal with countless aliens and human veterans having to settle and adjust to peace time.

[@TimMaxShift]

Hi, man, it seems to me that only the last 3 levels can be considered science fiction (not counting the real world). But ... at the time of writing the novel or reading the novel immediately after it came out, we cannot say whether this novelist predicts the future or not, so the category with Arthur C. Clarke should be removed. There are 2 categories of real science fiction. Anything below this level is fantasy in a sci-fi setting. Elves and orcs in space. Like Star Wars or Star Trek. It seems to me that here begins the confusion of the essence of the novel and the form that this essence takes. And do not forget about the principle of historicism. That is, a book that was once at the very cutting edge of scientific progress over the years with a high degree of probability may be at the level of fantasy with space orcs. That is, when we talk about the classics of science fiction, it is worth remembering that a significant part of them can only be called science fiction in the context of the history of science fiction. That is, even though they served as the progenitors of the genre, at the moment they can no longer be called hard science fiction. Conclusion: a person who wants to write a good science fiction novel should read everything in a row in all sciences, in natural sciences and in the humanities, so that you can extrapolate this knowledge and trends into the near future. An ordinary fan of science fiction, who draws all his knowledge about it from the same science fiction, with a very high degree of probability, will be able to create only the same thing, recombining some separate parts in places.

[@Scottlp2]

Look at it another way: non-hard SF is about people eg Earth Abides (post apocalyptic), Flowers for Algernon (improved intelligence-will it wear off?) or TV show under the dome (dome appears around and sealing in people in a town. perhaps king’s book is better). These are all about people. Technology sets up setting and the story is about people. The Martian is hard SF and the story is technology driven though the main character is much more fully developed than SF eg anything by Asimov .

[@NeivGabay]

Where would ice nine fit in the scale?

[@masterducky3646]

Level 7 is just Sci

[@RokStembergar]

I kinda have my own scale, and it only has one differentiator: could you shift the narrative into a different time period and still get your point across? At least from my perspective, Dune could very well be happening in the past among tribes fighting to control spice trade on the Silk road, where as something like Altered carbon can't do without technology, even if that said technology could fall somewhere around the second level of the scale you presented

[@MikhaelHausgeist]

3:15 I think Miguel Alcubierre was choked if he listened this...

[@JLchevz]

great scale

[@suleybin786]

Theres a cool game called Nebulous: Fleet command and its a real time strategy with what I consider really realistic spaceships. They all have rather boxy, and human designs and have what can be observed to be rocket thrusters for pitch yaw roll forwards and backwards thrusters. I don't think theres any fancy tech in the armaments, rather standard stuff involving naval guns, missiles, railguns, that kind of stuff. Lasers do exist, but they already do in real life. Just thought it was cool to point out.

[@tishardnatthaniel8047]

On a scale of fish to ramjet the Sci fi issa hmmm🤔🤔🤔... Sumthing sumthing field generator. Yea, its about that🤣

[@TheDeepestbluest]

I like the premise of the video but come on, the most fantastical object in all scifi is a translator object you can fit inside your ear? how about midichlorians or spice melange?

[@stevenscott2136]

If Spice is needed for interstellar travel, how did anyone get to Arrakis in order to discover it? It's been 30 years, so if Herbert had an explanation, I've forgotten it. I'm imagining something like Niven's haphazard seeder-ship program -- ship drifts at sublight for 5000 years, decides planet is good enough, starts colony, and decades later some kid dares another to snort the oddly-colored patch of sand.

[@carso1500]

@@stevenscott2136 actually people in the dune verse used to have more convenional forms of FTL travel with the usage of computers to plot the paths they took, the thing with the FTL drives in dune is that when you are traveling at those speeds crashing against something like for example a sun or a planet would be disastrous as you can imagine so they need to trace a path that circunvent this obstacles, this used to be done by computers But a long time before the start of the books there was a machine rebelion that humanity barely won and since then all "inteligente machines" have been highly illegal which is why the spice is used, is not like the spice gives you FTL capabilities is that the spice increases your inteligence and even gives you future sight capabilities allowing you to plot the path of the ship without the use of computers

[@honeyfarms2221]

Warhammer 40,000 V.S. The Martian

[@pourattitude4206]

The Force is strong in Harry Potter.

[@harrison6082]

3:24 8:35

[@unknownredspice6948]

Would mechs count as soft?

[@perryplayzzz]

Is it powered by stuff we can use now, at our current level of advancement or in the near future with some advancements; or something which we can’t use at any point in time without major advances towards Type 1 civilization or beyond?

[@unknownredspice6948]

@@perryplayzzz Its in the near future with stuff we can realistically use

[@perryplayzzz]

@@unknownredspice6948 then they’re hard mechs

[@unknownredspice6948]

@@perryplayzzz Got it thanks

[@viscifi517]

A common tool for science fiction is alternate history. Can such a story reach Clarke Orbit? (I concede Real Life would be impossible)

[@melanoc3tusii205]

Alternate history requires alteration of the universe in such a way as to deterministically result in a situation very similar, but not identical, to reality.

[@stevenscott2136]

@@melanoc3tusii205 Piece of cake! Just fire up the Quantum Probability Manipulation Field generator! We'll need some hot tea...

[@vgmaster9]

A great way to incorporate alt history in a sci fi setting is have the 20th century be vastly different from what it actually was. Have the United States do things like act on climate change and actually beat every country on the planet in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and science. Also, no things like Cold War and War on Terror.

[@feinstruktur]

Hard sci-fi focus on the"harder" natural sciences; soft sci-fi on the other hand on the "softer" human sciences.

[@kit888]

Cool. Now use it to rate a few different books.

[@SnowshoeProductions]

I wish everyone used your level system. I write level 2 and have no desire to go much harder than 3. But trying to explain that to my writing group is a pain in the butt because I still get people who end up not interested because my lack of science. Like guys, I'm stupid and I know how science works, but I just want to write about cute aliens doing cute things okay?

[@msj7872]

My geeky head loved this.

[@IRosamelia]

In conclusion, the "science hardness" of Chasm City is medium-well 🍖

[@thomasciarlariello3228]

I quote patents.

[@carso1500]

Imo real science is kicking scifi soo hard that we are level 3 scifi ourselves taking into account that exoskeletons already exist

[@walangchahangyelingden8252]

Level 7.

[@peterfmodel]

This is a good “hardness” metric that makes a lot of sense; I would rate this video hardness as very “hard”. But how does the hardness work in a novel. All stories use a framework consisting of story-arc, character-arc and visual-arc. Visual-arc’s do not apply to novels, but the other two do. Surrounding this framework is the packaging, which can include “science”, or anything else which is either used as a part of the story-arc or to get someone to start reading the book. The packaging is normally the description at the back of the novel, an example could be “Epic time-travel story”, or “Grand Space Opera”, or “A Young Woman’s struggle to become a Warrior”, etc This combined "product" achieves the following, so to speak, Go-To-Market process. The packaging attracted people to start reading the novel, while a combination of story-arc and character-arc’s keeps the reader reading the following paragraph, after completing the current paragraph. As for hardness I have never considered it very much, the main objective seems to be to make the story-arc plausible. The quickest way of destroying a story-arc is a lack of plausibility, so to avoid it I suppose “hardness” is introduced, as described in this video. You can do the same thing with magic, as long as the magic system is understandable, consistent and plausible based on the rules already established, it can pass the plausibility test. The other objective, I suppose, is education, but I have found these education types of messages neither add or subtracts from the novel, but if the novel was good then the “education” may be remembered. If the book was bad I suspect any “education” is quickly forgotten, or activity disliked.

[@adamharris-batt6333]

So The Martian would be a 7... and I think The Culture series would be a 2 lol

[@xuanbachle863]

like

[@arson338]

I came here looking for brutality ratings not reality ratings

[@ToySeeker]

Pretty Flexible 😂

[@Phathit08653Verse]

Sorry

[@aorober2007]

Level 7 is not fiction...

[@shadybeachproductions]

Love your videos! I just wanted to say that I noticed you wearing a Slytherin jacket at the beginning and just wanted to kindly ask that you not show support of HP or JK Rowling after all of her transphobic views being made public over and over again. She has tremendously hurt the trans community around the world and it would mean a lot if you were willing to show solidarity with us! Sincerely, A trans woman who loves your show

[@mattmorehouse9685]

I liked the video, right up until you said tech that's impossible to explain could possibly be explained by unknown principles. That's soft sci fi or fantasy, not hard sci fi. You seem to be asking for the reader to prove (reversing the polarity, streaming the quarks into the lepton, magic...) doesn't exist, but the nature of proof is that you can't prove a negative, such as that something doesn't exist. And that's okay. I like Star Wars a lot more than Star Trek because it doesn't put on the song and dance of technobabble and just gets to the exciting laser sword fights. Soft sci fi is not inherently lesser than hard, and I feel fans of the former all too often take that for granted, then turn their stories logic in knots "proving" their stories are "real" sci fi. Just because Harry Potter doesn't work according to the laws of physics doesn't mean it isn't a great story by itself. Stories don't need to be hard sci fi in order to be good; hard sci fi is just one part that may not fit the story you write. I see this way too often, and it is really depressing that innovative soft sci fi and fantasy need to be beaten into the "realistic" mold because the author thinks that'll please the literati.

[@jalejablonsky2396]

To be honest, I kinda prefer both but if tugged I’d go for hard science fiction cause I feel its more fun. Good challenge. Like limiting your work hour six days. Its how culture works.

[@stevenscott2136]

I suspect so many of us are nitpicking nerds who just crave "plausible" explanations. Even if the explanation is as transparently silly as "Heisenberg compensators". It's like we just need the author to say "Yes, I know about the science, and I know YOU know."

[@Phathit08653Verse]

Sorry