Science Fiction Aficionados discussion

Hi! Can some expert make a list of the best hard sci-fi novels out there? Thanks!

The subgenre is not my favorite, and I'm certainly no expert despite being a mod, so I don't really have any personal recommendations outside of modern classic Blindsight by Peter Watts and classic-classic Rendezvous with Rama by Arthur C. Clarke.

However there are some interesting lists out there that you can check out. I liked this one the best:

http://bestsciencefictionbooks.com/be...

I question the inclusion of some books on these lists, but still some good recommendations on both lists:

https://bookriot.com/2018/01/02/hard-...
https://theportalist.com/10-brilliant...

and a reddit thread on the topic:
https://www.reddit.com/r/scifi/commen...

good luck!

How hard is "hard"?

Because most lists of "hard" SF include books like Asimov's Foundation Trilogy, which includes disintegration rays, nuclear power generators the size of walnuts, force fields, and other very not-hard elements. I found it to be just this side of Flash Gordon style pulp SF.

I mean there are always elements in SF that don't adhere to the known limits of physics but the spectrum of handwavium in "hard" SF is very broad and subjective.

Personally, I'd put most of the works by Alastair Reynolds and some of the work by Peter F Hamilton in Hard SF, and it's mostly very good.

Greg Bear is another favorite of mine who's done quite a lot in that genre (The Forge of God, Darwin's Radio).

I've never found Clarke interesting enough to read. Dry. Boring (to me).

Some other authors to consider IMHO would be Charles Sheffield and James P Hogan.

I agree with Micah that it is inexplicable for Foundation series to be included in so many hard science fiction lists. That series is not about realistic speculation on future science, it is about viewing humanity's future through a sociological lens. I'd also second Hamilton, Bear, and Reynolds inclusion as hard science fiction authors. I've enjoyed everything I've read by them.

But I do love what I've read of Foundation! (the first three or four books.) I just don't think it's hard science fiction, not remotely.

Mickey wrote: "...I do believe Asimov’s Robot novels does meet the hard science fiction list that does not involve FTL. "

I think Asimov meets the Hard SF definition pretty much across the board … I just don't personally like much of what I've read by him. I'm in the minority there, though, but that's nothing new!

Micah have you read the Foundation novels recently? It is very hard for me to imagine anyone classifying those books as hard science fiction. I have read them over the past 3 years and they are very, very soft on science. The only "science" that is centralized in those books is sociology.

Sociology is a social science. Science is not just technology.

Of course, but "hard science fiction" is not referring to social sciences. social sciences are also known "soft science".

Rafael wrote: "Sociology is a social science. Science is not just technology."

Technology doesn't mean science. It, technology, is about the application of a science to enable a practical real world challenge or problem.

mark wrote: "Micah have you read the Foundation novels recently? It is very hard for me to imagine anyone classifying those books as hard science fiction..."

I read the trilogy in 2014 -2015. I didn't find them "hard" at all whether you measure them on the technological, scientific theory, or sociology scale. Yet they do show up on most hard SF "best of" lists. I have no clue how Asimov ever got lumped in with the truly hard crowd.

mark wrote: "Of course, but "hard science fiction" is not referring to social sciences. social sciences are also known "soft science"."

I see. I didn't know the difference so far. Thank you.

Rafael wrote: "mark wrote: "Of course, but "hard science fiction" is not referring to social sciences. social sciences are also known "soft science"."

I see. I didn't know the difference so far. Thank you."

Ah no worries. I didn't know that either until an article explained it all to me some time ago. And I probably should have been more clear in my post too since upon rereading it, I see that I de-emphasized the idea that sociology is actually a science, which of course it is.

Micah wrote: "... I have no clue how Asimov ever got lumped in with the truly hard crowd."

Check out The Gods Themselves. Hugo winner in 1973, it incorporated some bleeding edge physics for the time. Good story too.

I think the term "hard science fiction" means different things to different people, so the books named as examples will be different depending on people's understanding of the term. I see three possible factors that make people want to classify a book as hard SF:

1) the plausibility of the science,
2) the degree to which the science figures into the plot (how much time the author spends on explaining the science or its effect), and
3) the hardness of the science.

By "hardness" in #3, I mean that social sciences (sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc.) are considered soft. The natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) get classified as "hard."

People require a story to have one, two, or, very rarely, all three of these factors be present before they'll classify it as hard SF. Thus those who classify Asimov's Foundation as hard SF point to #2, make allowances for #1, and completely ignore #3.

Those who classify Flowers for Algernon as hard SF again point to #2, make allowances for #3, and completely ignore #1.

Those who object to having FTL spacecraft in a story and think this disqualifies it as "hard SF" somehow are using an argument that confuses me, frankly. I see no objection to FTL ships on points 2 or 3, so they must think they're adhering to #1. They assume Einstein was right and that to exceed the speed of light is to move through time. I personally find exceeding the speed of light as a way to move through time far-fetched and think we likelier don't have the theoretical framework yet to explain how FTL travel can work, but that we one day will. I imagine people in the 1700s or earlier might have thought breaking the sound barrier would have more remarkable effects than it actually does. We're like them now about the speed of light "barrier."

Being something of a purist I like to require all three factors be present before I'll agree to call a work "hard SF." Writers who write that way I believe include Charles Stross, Peter Watts, Larry Niven, and Greg Bear. Perhaps Andy Weir and Greg Egan should be on the list too. I'm less familiar with their work, so can't say for sure. I don't understand how space opera writers like Peter Hamilton, Iain Banks, and Alistair Reynolds get classified by so many as "hard SF."

Anyway, isn't it odd how all these pure "hard SF" writers are male?

Norton wrote: "Anyway, isn't it odd how all these "pure hard SF" writers are male? "

Not really. Men tend to be more interested in hard science. Women tend to be more interested in what you call the soft sciences.

How about a more academic label set such as physical science and social science? This as opposed to hard and soft which come with a bias.

That works too.

Mickey wrote: "The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin About a how a same sex society and their social structure...."

probably the top example of a classic soft science novel.

I have always considered Marion Zimmer Bradley as the quintessential soft SF writer. She writes about relationships out the wazoo!

Interestingly, famous SF authors have weighed in on this debate: https://www.tor.com/2017/02/20/ten-au.... I disagree with almost everything Nancy Kress wrote, which is no surprise. I'm no fan of her writing either. I really appreciated Elizabeth Bear's point, that the SF magazine Analog is the foremost purveyor of hard SF. Every time I judge whether a story is hard SF, I don't run through those three points I gave above. I think, is this a story that Analog would print? I'd forgotten that was my (unconscious) standard.

Mickey wrote: "Would you classify “Flowers for Algernon” a soft science novel?.."

I haven't read Flowers or Diamond Age for a couple decades at least. they don't "feel" like hard science novels to me as I don't recall them centralizing any of the physical sciences. but it has been a while so I don't say that with much justification other than vague memories.

I haven't read the other novels you mentioned. i really need to read Downbelow Station though! and more Cherryh in general. she does seem to be one of the quintessential soft science authors though, in her focus on the mental state of her characters (psychology), on the development of alternate human cultures (anthropology), and on how major change impacts people on a systemic level (sociology).

although from what I've read about Cyteen, that may incorporate physical science elements to a large degree?

Norton wrote: "I disagree with almost everything Nancy Kress wrote, which is no surprise. I'm no fan of her writing either...."

I quite enjoyed the one book I've read by her (for this group, I think) but I quite disagree with her on what "soft sf" is. it is like she is ignoring why hard science fiction was even given that title and why a soft sf novel would focus on certain sciences that are not physical ones. "operating on the level of metaphor" seems like a really random way to describe soft sf.

I think of Hard SF as stories where real science or extensions of that science are the focal point of the story. Foundation is NOT hard sf! The best example of my reference is Gregory Benford's Timescape. I'm reading Poul Anderson's Tau Zero right now, and I'd lump that in the same category.

For good hard SF it is hard to beat Linda Nagata's work.

Definitely agree on both Timescape and Tau Zero. Timescape was actually my first hard science fiction book, read way back in college for a science fiction class. I remember being fascinated.

SCIENCE FICTION CLASS

they exist!

I took a English science fiction class way back when (1986?) at Ohio State. Interestingly, the instructor was a feminist and we read only female authors. We also screened the original promo video for Star Trek; it had too many female lead characters and it was nixed until round two with Kirk and friends.

BTW, enjoying this discussion! I always tended to think hard scifi had tech as a character as much as anything, often at the expense of real character building and often written by scientists or former scientists. I already mentioned Hogan (engineer) and Sheffield (physics), and Alastair Reynolds has a Ph.D. in Astronomy I believe.

My niece took a class at the University of Delaware maybe three years ago devoted to time travel. She said all the slots for it filled up fast and it quickly became closed. She also said it was one of her tougher courses. There were a lot of theories on how much of the past could be changed, if at all, and how to deal with paradoxes. Here's an article on it I found: https://sites.udel.edu/honors/time-tr...

Norton wrote: "My niece signed up for a class at the University of Delaware maybe three years ago devoted to time travel."

Was she able to time travel at the end of it?

Yes. I haven't seen her since next year.

Scott wrote: "SCIENCE FICTION CLASS"

My daughter took one last year, her junior year of college at Univ. of Texas at Dallas. She's studying animation and is really into anime, so I thought it was great. One thing they did was read and examine Frankenstein in its many forms over the years. They also read the play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots), generally accepted to be where the term "robot" came from. While she's interested in the stories, she doesn't really read much, as she is dyslexic and has limited time while in school.

Mickey wrote: "On FTL (Faster Than Light) travel.

I suppose, some may see Einstein’s theory’s as a Law of Nature rather than a Theory. Perhaps Laws are made to be broken. For me FTL is like Going back in time an..."

My thoughts too Mickey. A study of history reveals that what in the past was considered science heresy, is now accepted without question, such as, a human would die if accelerating beyond 30 mph. Ridiculous now, but then, it seemed obviously true to them. If we learn one thing from this dogmatic thinking of science in the past, it is that the dogma of today becomes the superstitions of the past. I am totally open to FTL. We just don't have the knowledge now.

Norton wrote: "Yes. I haven't seen her since next year."

Good one Norton! :)

Dragon's Egg by Robert L. Forward...very hard scifi. It stands up under multiple reads.

In my concept of hard scifi, I include Blood Music by Greg Bear. Also bears up under repeated readings.

Carolyn wrote: "Dragon's Egg by Robert L. Forward...very hard scifi. It stands up under multiple reads.

In my concept of hard scifi, I include Blood Music by Greg Bear. Also bears ..."

Oh hell yes to both of those.

the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson

McAuley is quite good-- check out his The Quiet War. It is the first in a four part series.

I think one of the best truly old school hard sci fi modern authors is Greg Bear. I am currently reading his Queen of Angels and it is absolutely incredible. For starters, it is deep and complex. It is real literature right there. A brilliant book.

Carolyn wrote: "Dragon's Egg by Robert L. Forward...very hard scifi. It stands up under multiple reads.

In my concept of hard scifi, I include Blood Music by Greg Bear. Also bears ..."

I absolutely second Greg Bear. True hard science fiction, and well developed, logical stories.

Not novels, but if you're looking for some free hard science fiction written by some of the top hard SF writers in the field, the Kindle book Future Visions: Original Science Fiction Inspired by Microsoft available at no charge from Amazon's website is a great option.

The second story in the collection is written by the late Greg Bear, about twists on the effects of the multiverse I'd never before considered. I just read it last night and found it to be really good. And I don't particularly care for hard SF.

The first story in the anthology was rather silly, hence my lack of recommendation based in it: technology that makes it possible to communicate directly with animals starting with birds.

Elizabeth Bear's (no relation) story is next (third). I don't think I've ever read anything by her before.

What is a hard science fiction novel?

John wrote: "What is a hard science fiction novel?"

Now you've done it. That is a long debate.

Me, I find the most useful description is that it's a SF novel that the author had to solve an equation in order to write.

I do not think there is a general consensus on the definition of hard science fiction; in this thread there are several attempts at defining it however!

Emanuele wrote: "Hi! Can some expert make a list of the best hard sci-fi novels out there? Thanks!"

The best I've read in 2023 is "Brave New Mars" by Somerset Meece. Intelligent but funny. Boy meets girl and they bring down the tyrannical owner of the Mars colony in 2084.
It has FTL travel and some cyberpunk computerizing!

John wrote: "What is a hard science fiction novel?"
In HARD SciFiction, the machines are high-tech and play a part in the action or the surroundings. They are described to some degree and not just named and ignored.
Something mechanical or something energetic has to be presented. I like the term "clanking scifi."
Somerset Meece, author of "Brave New Mars" has a very hard sci fi you will like a lot and long at allenmeece.com

In my younger days hard science fiction referred to sci-fi that was based on hard scientific facts. Hal Clement's work is a good example of that. This as opposed to the stuff that was based on the so-called soft sciences such as psychology or sociology. It was also referred to as "the type with rivets".

C. John wrote: "In my younger days hard science fiction referred to sci-fi that was based on hard scientific facts. Hal Clement's work is a good example of that. This as opposed to the stuff that was based on the ..."

Basically the stuff you needed to solve equations for. 0:)

I note that when Hal Clement wrote Mission of Gravity*, you couldn't write hard SF about biology. That's changed because it's marched on. (A woman who went to college in the 1960s and then back in the 1980s observed that at the time of her undergraduate degree they had known that RNA had something to do with protein synthesis.)

*Another good definition of hard SF is books like Mission of Gravity.

One good source of hard science fiction is the magazine titled Analog. If you subscribe, be careful to subscribe to the publisher itself (https://www.analogsf.com/). There are scammers who will sell you a subscription for a lower price, but you will never see an issue.

It used to be called Astounding Science Fiction, but John W. Campbell hated that title and changed it in 1960 to Analog. Campbell had been the editor since 1937, so no idea why he had to wait 23 years to make that change, but oh well. Hard to believe the magazine has been around for 93 years now.

They publish hard science fiction writers I have never heard of. For example, the latest issue contains works by

Adam-Troy Castro
Wil McCarthy
Greg Egan
Howard V. Hendrix
John G. Cramer
Carrie Vaughn

You know, if a moderator wanted to make a poll with these six authors' most GoodReads rated works, I would be prepared to read whichever of the six entries won. Seems like there is a sincere interest in finding new hard science fiction authors here at the group. Just a notion.

Although it should be noted that despite his predilection for hard science fiction Campbell was willing to publish other stuff. After all he published two of H. P. Lovecraft's works, Shadows Out of Time and The Mountains of Madness I believe. Those are about as far from hard sci-fi as you can get, though I would argue both are still SF.