I had always thought that so-called "high" science fiction was sci fi that placed a higher emphasis on technology and science than character development. However, I recently picked up a copy of A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge (upon a Hatrack recommendation) and I've noticed that there doesn't seem to be that much techno babble or science talk in the book, despite being characterized by some as high sci fi. What exactly is high science fiction?
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Fahrenheit 420
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I have no clue what high science fiction is. But given your description, I definately would not call A Fire Upon the Deep high science fiction. Because of its emphasis on character development, I've always considered that book to be space opera.
space opera
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Maybe you're thinking of the phrase, 'Hard Science Fiction,' rather than HIGH sci-fi.
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
Beren <---- Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
-Trevor
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
and msquared misses the joke =)
Took me a double take as well.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
Fire Upon the Deep is definitely a space opera. In fact, that's the entire reason why Vinge created the "realms" in that book -- so that he could overcome the problems of the technological singularity which, in his view, would make any space opera impossible to ever happen.
Posted by His Savageness (Member # 7428) on :
I'm an idiot, I meant hard science fiction.
Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
I couldn't give away A Fire Upon the Deep at WenchCon. Nobody wanted it!
That book is definitely space opera: fleets of space-craft battling, huge jumps in distance, the fate of the galaxy hanging in the balance, etc.
I would call it hard science fiction. I disagree with the wiki at Trevor's link:
quote:Character development is almost always secondary to explorations of astronomical or physical phenomena.
Hard SF writers usually attempt to make their stories consistent with known science at the time of publication.[This is usually correct, but Vinge found a loophole--Morbo]
The best hard sci-fi writers don't neglect plot and character, and Vinge is one of the best.Fire and the prequel A Deepness in the Sky are both hard sci-fi, but the plot and character development was great, especially how Vinge made wolf-packs and other aliens (in the first), and giant spiders (the prequel) accessible to the reader without excess anthropomorpizing.
Death to vermin [i.e. humans]!--Killer butterflies in Fire.
And Vinge had a very original way of allowing fantastic technologies into a human setting using his "Realms", as Porter mentioned.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I personally prefer "soft" sci-fi most of the time. And Morbo, I'm really enjoying To Say Nothing of the Dog. Thank you! It got me through the wait, the flight, and I'm looking forward to finishing it tonight. (Since my husband cleaned the apartment and did the dishes while I was gone, I have nothing to do but laundry and play wiht the baby and organize pictures and read. )
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
I agree that Fire Upon the Deep is soft science fiction.
Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
Glad you liked it, kq. Willis can really write absurd scenes well.
I liked Tossie's screamlets, and the descriptions of Victorian furniture and stuff, and the Oxford don, and the bishop's bird stump. It's a fun book.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think we're setting up a false continuum here between hard science fiction and space opera.
My general understanding of hard science fiction is that technical correctness is the highest priority. This doesn't mean that writers of hard science fiction don't do characterization. Some are weak on it, though.
I would not say that space opera is character-driven, though. I would say that space-opera is action-oriented, and that is characterized by space-faring civilizations, battles in space, and, often, alien races at a level of advancement comparable to our own. The speed of light barrier is either absent or bypassed with the flimsiest of explanations--often wormholes or hyperdrive. As in hard science fiction, character is a secondary consideration--this time to action.
These two groupings obviously do not cover all possibilities. Nor are they entirely mutually exclusive. That is, it is no contradiction for hard science fiction to be written with excellent characterization.
I would place the works of OSC, leGuin, and others in a third category, call it character-driven science fiction.
[ March 14, 2005, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
My interest is piqued by the mentioning of the Gormenghast books. What do we know about them?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
We know many things about them, and like them a lot. Precious.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)