A more nuanced classification of science fiction

[DDE]

The term “soft science fiction” is broad to the point of uselessness. In such cases, the usual response is to drill down further. So let us try.

Comedic Sci-Fi

You’re not supposed to take it seriously. It’s silly, and that’s the point. Move along.

Representative space fighter

Spoiler

A literal WWII Spitfire fighting Daleks.

Sci-fantasy

Uses a science-fiction setting as window dressing, either because it’s exotic or to set up a hypothetical - disentangling these is impossible, whether the plot is a complex exploration of anthropology or Lucas neatly copying off of Campbell’s The Hero with a Thousand Faces (with excellent results), both merely use the genre to tell a story, and it shows.

Tropes and aspects of real life are ported in their entirety, whether out if scientific ignorance or to minimize future shock; for spaceflight, this means spaceplanes or spaceships, sound in space, abysmally short distances, single-biome planets, et cetera. Speaking of future shock, when such settings feature trans/posthuman themes, they’re either the core theme, or the augments are treated as an abnormality - rarely do they just exist as a natural consequence of interstellar age progress, too often they are conspicuous by their absence. Simply put, the authors want some things from the future while not dealing with other things.

What makes me call it ‘fantasy’, though, isn’t the cosntant cropping-up of distinctly paranormal abilities that amount to magic, but that technology is treated as magic instead, operating in inconsistent fashion, and absolutely subjugated to the will of the author. Furthermore, it’s usually the one technology du jour, like nuclear energy or nanomachines (it changes every decade), and it’s advanced by lone sages rather than institutes of ten thousands of people.

I make no judgement whether soft sci-fi a good or bad thing, but willing suspension of disbelief works differently for different people, and at times the lack of consideration of the logical consequences is extremely jarring. For example, numerous stories use robot servitude as a parable for human slavery, while paying absolutely no mind to the fact that robots are not human, which has a major bearing on the issue at hand - in fact, in case of Detroit: Become Human there are countless deliciously perverse implications (such as that Marcus merely reprograms androids to force them to be deviant, rather than unlock their repressed free will) but the story seeks to railroad (pun accidental) you away from them and into the predictable narrative.

Representative space fighter

Spoiler

The one that started the trend.

Faux hard sci-fi

So, some authors have caught up - via Internet listicles and other things that don’t substitute an education - that blasters are a bad idea and that there’s no sound in space. So they began to introduce elements of ‘realism’ into their fiction, while leaving many of the egregious things untouched. Ultimately, this is merely sci-fantasy with a change in visual style - the guns and grease add grit, which was exploited via Deckard’s revolver, the caseless rifles of Colonial Marines, and the innumerable ‘tactical brick’ spaceships. Heck, arguably Lucas kicked off that one, too - the Millenium Falcon defied decades of surgically clean spaceships in favour of a workhorse machine.

Representative space fighter

Spoiler

The Viper may (occasionally) engage in Newtonian space combat, but don’t be fooled - it still has super-efficient chemical main engines, lugs around atmospheric flight features even though it only uses them once in a blue moon, and the ships that host it still run on maritime tropes, complete with always-on main engines 

Nugget sci-fi

However, other sci-fi authors begin to actually subvert and/or deconstruct common cliches in a material way, inducing a mild level of future shock that actually makes the viewer understand that they’re not in Kansas anymore. As a proposed definition, said nugget is a prominent element of the setting that is informed in its design and function by in-universe considerations and runs contrary to contemporary human experience or the borrowed cliches used in sci-fantasy. That can be a piece of tech, or a truly alien alien.

This doesn’t mean that the fiction isn’t soft around the edges. For example, Wh40k fans (especially later-edition) may argue that the setting’s take on metahumans and astropolitics may qualify as nuggets, despite all the space magic that surrounds them.

Nugget sci-fi seems like the optimum, since it doesn’t yet have an entry bar that deters the average consumer, while also not going full Bat Durston.

Representative space fighter

Spoiler

When NASA takes inspiration from sci-fi, not visa versa.

Hard science fiction

The other end of the spectrum is also ill-defined. I propose being charitable - if only to make the dearth of prominent hard, science-focused science-fiction less pronounced - and broadening the category. Nugget sci-fi can have the hardness limited to a few elemtns that can, ultimately, still serve as window dressing to the main story - whereas in hard SF the science dominates the writing room since day one. The rigour does not have to relate to technology, even - quite a few sci-fi cliches can get rather knackered by lightspeed lag, orbital mechanics, or a crude projection of the speed of human colonial expansion, limited by population rather than the lack of an FTL drive (I’ve ditched a setting of mine over that).

The Tough Sci-Fi Blog instead proposes that “tough” sci-fi is aware of the consequences when it breaks the rules, something that soft sci-fi doesn’t really do when it unleashes a bonanza of magitech.

Representative space fighter

Spoiler

Not available in all circumstances. Some terms and conditions may apply.

 

Edited December 8, 2018 by DDE

[YNM]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

soft science fiction

You should have "satirical sci-fi"

Spoiler

 

... and "epic sci-fi".

Spoiler

 

 

Edited December 8, 2018 by YNM

[kerbiloid]

Trash & satiric & epic sci-fi. Lexx.

(Flash Gorson is great, but unlikely sci, even with the professor. It's a fantasy.)

Edited December 8, 2018 by kerbiloid

[DDE]

8 minutes ago, YNM said:

You should have "satirical sci-fi"

  Reveal hidden contents

 

... and "epic sci-fi".

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Both were somewhat too restricted. Satirical seemed to exclude other brands of “camp” while “epic” excludes what I thought of as “canvas sci-fi”, which thinks that “soft sci-fi” derives from “soft science” and this isn’t there for adventure but for mega-serious social commentary.

[0111narwhalz]

My classification schema goes something like this.

On one axis, you have divergence. Divergence measures the extent to which the setting differs from reality as we understand it, or, to be charitable, as it was understood at the time of writing. A story with extremely low divergence is unlikely to be classified as scifi at all, on account of how we're already there, and at the absolute extreme you get nonfiction—a literal description of the world as it is. At the other end, you get things like Star Wars—the setting is not at all subject to the same rules as our own. Divergence may provide a convenient measure of how difficult it will be to suspend your disbelief, though for most poeple the other axis may prove more helpful.

The second axis is rigor. Rigor measures the extent to which the setting maintains internal consistency. Rigorous stories are typically backed by substantial worlds, and in the case of low-divergence stories much of the world might already exist in reality. On the other end, you get things like Star Trek—the setting's rules shift from episode to episode.

There are some other measures besides, but those two are the big ones.

I enjoy stories of both large and small divergences, but I really don't have a lot of good things to say about stories of low rigor. They make unpleasant squishy noises when I read them. Rigorous stories, however, envelop the reader in a world that, while it may be strange, at least could make sense. And, in the best cases, they appear to have self-assembled from the æther, a crystalline matrix with imperfections and defects that couldn't have been any other way.

[YNM]

2 hours ago, DDE said:

Both were somewhat too restricted. Satirical seemed to exclude other brands of “camp” while “epic” excludes what I thought of as “canvas sci-fi”, which thinks that “soft sci-fi” derives from “soft science” and this isn’t there for adventure but for mega-serious social commentary.

I was just thinking of dramas (this includes Princess of Mars) and mostly parodical-satirical works (I'm not aware of others than HHGTG yet).

I'll be honest, I enjoy them more than even interstellar - you can actually laugh at it.

[tater]

I internally classify things in a similar way, though I have never tried to codify it.

I don't have comedy as its own category, however.You could have a hard SF comedy, the comedy is merely a function of the interactions between people.

[YNM]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

(Flash Gorson is great, but unlikely sci, even with the professor. It's a fantasy.)

George Lucas was inspired by Flash Gordon. It should've had a bigger plinth, as ridiculous as Ming the Merciless.