Hard SF

Lee Berman · 29 Nov 2012, 16:35 · from 2012-November.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: severiansola at hotmail.com (Lee Berman)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:35:49 -0500
Subject: (urth) Hard SF
Message-ID: <SNT123-W868D646FC715E70D21A04CF5C0 at phx.gbl>

>Andrew Mason: I think 'hard SF' is an essentially ambiguous term. It can mean what
>Antonio says - I think Asimov defined it that way, for instance - or
>it can mean SF which is scientifically accurate. It is widely used in
>the latter sense as well.

Thanks, Andrew. I think the recognition of both meanings is helpful. 

I think Urth and its dying red sun qualify as hard SF in Antonio's/Asimov's sense
of being driven by a scientific premise but doesn't qualify as being scientifically
accurate. Would a sun that drastically diminished really still be able to support tropical
jungles on Urth? I'd question the liklihood of any major plant growth under those conditions.

I suppose you could make some sort of elaborate argument for how it could happen but I think
Wolfe's red sun was more of a literary choice than a scienfific one.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net