shutsumon (shutsumon) wrote in specficwriters, |
As I understand it, the main difference between soft and hard sci-fi is that in the first, the technology is frame for the story, and in the second, the story is an excuse to explore the technology. Thus, the time spent explaining the details of how stuff works would mark the difference, wouldn't it? What do you think?
In fact, the boundaries between "hard" and "soft" are neither definite nor universally agreed-upon, so there is no single standard of scientific "hardness" or "softness." Some readers might consider any deviation from the possible or probable (for example, including faster-than-light travel or paranormal powers) to be a mark of "softness." Others might see an emphasis on character or the social implications of technological change (however possible or probable) as a departure from the science-engineering-technology issues that in their view ought to be the focus of hard SF.