Megan Danvers

Hello, readers! So, the other day I had a discussion with someone on Twitter who responded to something I replied to another person’s post. They said that what I had described as sci-fi (tractor beams, plasma swords, and hard light arrows) was not sci-fi but fantasy. I was understandably confused as there was no magic mentioned anywhere or any other fantasy element. This conversation led to a debate on what is science fiction.

I won’t name names or even go into detail about what was said but I found it very interesting that this person’s argument could basically be wrapped up and summarized as ‘soft sci-fi isn’t sci-fi’. Because that’s what I was describing; soft sci-fi.

This person said that if the science in a story isn’t 100% plausible it’s not sci-fi. But this overlooks the entirety of soft science fiction which is based in science but is willing to bend the rules a little. (They also argued that tractor beams were implausible even though I could think of two possible ways that could work with in real life science off the top of my head and hard light arrows seem to me as a tad more implausible but that’s neither here nor there.)

Basically, the difference between hard and soft sci-fi is how strict the scientific standards of the story are. For instance, an example of hard sci-fi is The Martian by Andy Weir which is so realistic in its representation of science that the author literally put a crap-ton of research to make sure everything was legit. As for an example of a soft sci-fi you have the graphic novel Cosmoknights by Hannah Templer which can best be summarized as medieval society but high tech and add a bunch of space lesbians. The technology in Cosmoknights isn’t explained in depth nor is all of it necessarily 100% plausible but it is still very much science-based and only science-based.

If you prefer sci-fi that sticks to already established sciences to a T then hard sci-fi is for you. If you prefer sci-fi that’s a little more flexible with its laws of science then I’d recommend soft sci-fi. Now, I’m not too well-versed in subgenres but the few I do understand well enough can often be found in one or the other. Time travel fiction for instance is soft sci-fi by large, especially since there is question as to whether time travel is even possible to begin with. Space operas also seem to fall under soft sci-fi nine times out of ten. Meanwhile, you have robot-centric fiction where the sci-fi is largely stricter in how relevant modern understandings of science apply.

For instance, Star Trek is a soft sci-fi that some would even argue is a science fantasy dealing with things like the Mirror-verse or the mycelial network. But then you have a movie like I, Robot that deals more with realistic science by giving robots explained mechanics and programming with the positronic brains and the three laws of robotics. In that instance, the main robot Sonny is explained as not succumbing to the control of the evil AI because his second positronic brain was programmed to counter the pre-established three laws that led to the AI turning against humanity to begin with.

Some subgenres just lend better to hard than they do soft or vice versa.

Now some of you may be looking at this and comparing it to the differences between hard magic and soft magic and thinking “well, hard magic is usually better therefore hard sci-fi must be too” and first of all, hard magic is not any better than soft magic. Hard magic just has a better reputation because it’s easier to understand in certain cases than a soft magic system given it has structure and rules. But need I remind you that arguably the most popular fantasy series of all time, Harry Potter, is a soft magic fantasy novel? Like, I dislike Harry Potter personally, but my complaints are irrelevant to the magic system. For an example of a soft magic world I do like that is almost as popular as HP (though unfortunately not more popular): Percy Jackson, a story about demigods who use the Mist to hide everything magical and go on quests for the gods. There is little to no rule set for that magic system yet it works tremendously well.

Just like how hard magic is not inherently better than soft magic, hard sci-fi should not be assumed to be better than soft sci-fi. They both have their merits. A hard sci-fi fan would probably geek out over the specific mechanics of that specific engine or whatever and how it works because of a fascination with engines and their specs. Meanwhile, a soft sci-fi fan would probably enjoy the laidback nature of the cool tech that they don’t care to hear in-depth explanations for as to how it works and why it’s plausible in our world. Each system hard or soft has its strengths and weaknesses and most readers do have a preference of one or the other.

I personally tend toward soft sci-fi, though The Martian is one of my favorite sci-fi books.

So, where am I going with all this? Why did I make this post? Like I said before, the person from Twitter I had this debate with appeared to be insisting that soft sci-fi isn’t sci-fi but rather fantasy. Debates like this happen, unfortunately, and while everyone is allowed their preferences, trying to argue that a story can’t fit into its own genre just because it doesn’t fit your narrow definition is ludicrous. That’d be like saying Urban Fantasy isn’t fantasy because it isn’t set in medieval Europe (another argument I’ve heard about but never personally encountered; but we won’t get into that) even though it literally has magic and mythical creatures running around.

My point is, hard sci-fi, soft sci-fi, like whichever one you want, have your preferences but don’t try to argue that one is inherently better than the other or that one isn’t truly sci-fi because that just makes you look bad for a number of reasons. Thank you for reading and I’ll be back soon. Peace out, readers!