TheRPGSite

The Lounge => Media and Inspiration => Topic started by: Trond on September 17, 2020, 11:12:56 PM

Title: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Trond on September 17, 2020, 11:12:56 PM
I have talked about this a couple of times before (specifically the Dune thread). People often subdivide science fiction into "hard" (science focus) or "soft" (focus on human interactions). But I have often noticed that some science fiction is just completely "out there" and psychedelic. I first noticed this reading some comics by Jodorowsky and Moebius; there is hardly any "science" and they seemed to be high on something while making that stuff. Sure enough, in an interview they said that they were experimenting with mushrooms. Hence "mushroom SF". You could put hard, soft, and "mushroom" in a triangular coordinate system.

Here are a few examples in a triangular coordinate system:5th Element : almost complete mushroom, maybe a bit soft but everything seems exaggerated and "trippy"
2001 Space Odyssey film: I'd put this right between "hard SF" and "mushroom", not so much soft if I remember correctly
Dune (original book) : almost right in the middle or leaning a bit "mushroomy" over "hard", it has bits of everything but I don't think science really was Herbert's strength
Expanse: in the middle between hard and soft, not so much mushroom
Star Wars: between soft and mushroom, not hard at all

Seems to work?
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Spinachcat on September 18, 2020, 04:37:36 AM
If hard sci-fi is science focus, and soft sci-fi is human interaction focus, then what is the focus of mushroom sci-fi?


And how does mushroom sci-fi differentiate from space fantasy?


Also, is there mushrooom fantasy? Is there psychedelic sword & sorcery?
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: jeff37923 on September 18, 2020, 06:39:02 AM
Dudes, just about any story taken from either Heavy Metal magazine or Epic Illustrated magazine would be science fantasy or Mushroom Sci-Fi.
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Trond on September 18, 2020, 04:59:06 PM
If hard sci-fi is science focus, and soft sci-fi is human interaction focus, then what is the focus of mushroom sci-fi?

And how does mushroom sci-fi differentiate from space fantasy?
I suppose it does not have to be in space. But those are pretty similar. The mushroom "future" is full of trippy visions of bizarre technologies rather than something that would "make sense" scientifically or even practically. Weird creatures often pop up without much logical sense as to why they are there. Star Wars (what I think of in terms of space fantasy) does have elements of this (less than 5th Element though), with some fantasy "knights" and princesses mixed in. 


Also, is there mushrooom fantasy? Is there psychedelic sword & sorcery?
Good question. I guess maybe there is. Some fantasy stories don't seem to make much internal sense to me at least, it's more about conjuring up weird fever fantasies. Contrast Lord of the Rings with Labyrinth, I suppose. But fantasy wasn't my main focus here.
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Omega on September 18, 2020, 05:01:01 PM
5th Element falls into the really soft SF, and somewhere along the line slides into fantasy.
2001 is hard SF overall, as is overall 2010.

Expanse seems to fall somewhere between hard and soft, with magic nanites and other neo-fantasy stuff popping up more and more frequently. I saw one episode and it was very firmly in the soft SF and then jumped into pretty much fantasy.
As for Heavy Metal. The stories in that covered everything from brutally hard SF to straight up fantasy and everything in between. Same with Epic. Though it had fewer hard SF stories. Then you have all the freakish stuff from Warren's SF lines of magazine comics which tended to be mostly sci-fantasy, or really soft SF. But occasionally youd get some hard SF stories in there. And pretty much same for DCs sci-fi anthology comic. Every possible type of SF and s-fantacy showed up at some point.
For me some good hard SF movies worth watching are...Silent Running: One of my favourite relatively hard SF movies. Though the linear ship design docks it several points. But its never explained so I just mark it off to the model designers not thinking it through. Which is really common.Outland: While I am not a fan of the movie, it was well presented.Star Cops: A short lived TV series from the UK. Pretty well done and overall stays firmly in the hard SF side of things.
Moonbase 3: Another really short lived british SF series from the same production crew as worked on Doctor Who. Surprisingly hard SF overall. They never mentioned the gravity issue that I recall but thats one I mark off to budgetary limits.2001: Fairly hard SF show. Since nothing is ever really explained about the trippy ending it could be anything really. Clark did love the idea of "sufficiently advanced science" so all bets are off on what the heck is going on. 2010 feels like it slides more into the soft SF moreso than the book did.And while not really a SF movie, Marooned still stands out to me as a really good little movie.And if you can find it, look up the failed hard SF pilot called Plymouth, about the residents of a town ruined by an industrial accident who are offered a new life as the first inhabitants of a Moon colony. Pretty good for a TV series pilot and touches on the various problems of trying to live on the Moon.
Theres others. But those are a few come to mind right off.
As for shows transitioning from Hard to Soft to Fantasy. That happens sometimes when you get a series that wants to do alot of things, or has different writers, or changes executive hands and now the tone changes.
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Spinachcat on September 19, 2020, 05:47:46 PM
Would y'all agree Space:1999 (first season) was hard(ish) scifi?

Second season of Space:1999 had lots of mushroom, definitely went deep into space fantasy (which I do love).
 
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: VisionStorm on September 20, 2020, 03:59:36 PM
Also, is there mushrooom fantasy? Is there psychedelic sword & sorcery?

Wizards was pure mushroom fantasy. Not sure if Legend and maybe Dark Crystal may qualify as well. Lots of stuff from that era was pretty much mushroom fantasy, but not many come to mind right now, cuz my memory is shit and I was just a preteen kid back then.
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Lurkndog on September 20, 2020, 09:08:23 PM
Historically, science fiction and fantasy and lovecraftian horror were all the same genre. My educated guess is that they only separated because the market grew large enough to allow some magazines to specialize.

In recent history, TV shows like Doctor Who and The Twilight Zone have tended to stray between hard sf, soft sf, mushroom sf and various types of horror.

I'm not a big fan of the term "mushroom sf" because I don't think the druggies have a monopoly on imagination. Most of what has been mentioned would fall under "science fantasy" for me.
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Ghostmaker on September 21, 2020, 08:37:25 AM
Most hard sci-fi, with rare exceptions, usually has one or two 'gimmes' (future tech, improbable event) to move things along.


A good example is The Martian. There are a few errors in the film, the most glaring being that Mars's atmosphere is too thin to generate that kind of tear-shit-up storm at the start. Still, it serves to boot the plot up, so I can forgive it.


2001, similarly, has the Monolith as well as HAL the artificial intelligence. Although humorously, there is one tiny but important special effects failure in the film; while riding the spaceplane, Heywood Floyd is served an in-flight meal. While sipping from his beverage, the fluid goes back down in the straw -- but in zero-g it wouldn't do that. A tiny and forgivable error, though, considering the limitations of filmmaking in that era (hell, I was impressed with the shot where the stewardess -walks up a wall- to the flight deck to deliver the crew's meals).
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Spike on September 22, 2020, 02:57:05 AM
I have an issue with the breakdown you use between hard and soft first. I've always seen it argued that the difference between hard and soft was purely how sciency it was... all good fiction, and especially all good Sci-Fi focuses on 'human issues', or social interaction or what have you by default, so its all about the qualities of teh setting.


Beyond that the breakdown is also a bit weird, because while Star Wars, for example, is clearly labled as Sci-Fi by most people, it's so soft that fans (who make these sorts of distinction and will often fight to the knife over them) generally classify it as "Space Opera", mostly because space wizards with magic swords make a mockery of 'science' on the face of it.


Beyond that, I also must take umberage at the Mushroom classification. Perhaps I'm being contrarian, but for example Philip K. Dick was tripping balls most of his damn life, but his science fiction could be quite grounded for all that, generally making an exception for his naming conventions (Bladerunner, or Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, is a prime example of why Dick should have let his editors name his books...).  The science we see in Bladerunner (or 'DADES?' which is unweildy as fuck) is generally quite plausibe (I've read the book so I'm trying (probably failing) to stick to that...), and the story is coherent and focused deeply on the human/social implications of the setting.


So should it be Mushroom, as Dick was perma-baked from psychadelics for most of his life? Should it be 'hard' because the science was/is plausible? Should it be 'Soft' because the emphasis is on how the setting shapes and reveals the human characteristics of its characters? Because it asks hard questions about the human condition through the medium of speculative fiction?


Genre is, or rather should be, at best a post-hoc thing, and you, my fine chapeau'd friend, are wading into a morass, I fear.
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Trond on September 22, 2020, 08:56:10 AM
I have an issue with the breakdown you use between hard and soft first. I've always seen it argued that the difference between hard and soft was purely how sciency it was... all good fiction, and especially all good Sci-Fi focuses on 'human issues', or social interaction or what have you by default, so its all about the qualities of teh setting.


Beyond that the breakdown is also a bit weird, because while Star Wars, for example, is clearly labled as Sci-Fi by most people, it's so soft that fans (who make these sorts of distinction and will often fight to the knife over them) generally classify it as "Space Opera", mostly because space wizards with magic swords make a mockery of 'science' on the face of it.


Beyond that, I also must take umberage at the Mushroom classification. Perhaps I'm being contrarian, but for example Philip K. Dick was tripping balls most of his damn life, but his science fiction could be quite grounded for all that, generally making an exception for his naming conventions (Bladerunner, or Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, is a prime example of why Dick should have let his editors name his books...).  The science we see in Bladerunner (or 'DADES?' which is unweildy as fuck) is generally quite plausibe (I've read the book so I'm trying (probably failing) to stick to that...), and the story is coherent and focused deeply on the human/social implications of the setting.


So should it be Mushroom, as Dick was perma-baked from psychadelics for most of his life? Should it be 'hard' because the science was/is plausible? Should it be 'Soft' because the emphasis is on how the setting shapes and reveals the human characteristics of its characters? Because it asks hard questions about the human condition through the medium of speculative fiction?


Genre is, or rather should be, at best a post-hoc thing, and you, my fine chapeau'd friend, are wading into a morass, I fear.


The last one is easy: if it’s more science -based it’s “hard”. As far as categorization goes I frankly don’t care what the author was taking at the time. The “mushroom” category is based on what you see (the name is just based on the origin of some of it).


What you say is exactly why I suggest Star Wars is not hard, but soft and mushroomy. Are you saying it isn’t Science Fiction at all? I have seen that argument before but I don’t agree. If it has space ships and such it’s science fiction IMO. Fifth element is even less science-based I think, not that there is much science in Star Wars of course.
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Trond on September 22, 2020, 10:36:35 AM
As you  can see, it is all very scientific  ;D

Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Armchair Gamer on September 22, 2020, 11:00:57 AM
I'm not a big fan of the term "mushroom sf" because I don't think the druggies have a monopoly on imagination. Most of what has been mentioned would fall under "science fantasy" for me.



  Not only that, 'mushroom sf' makes me think of Star Trek: Discovery … :)
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Spike on September 23, 2020, 01:48:49 PM


The last one is easy: if it’s more science -based it’s “hard”. As far as categorization goes I frankly don’t care what the author was taking at the time. The “mushroom” category is based on what you see (the name is just based on the origin of some of it).


What you say is exactly why I suggest Star Wars is not hard, but soft and mushroomy. Are you saying it isn’t Science Fiction at all? I have seen that argument before but I don’t agree. If it has space ships and such it’s science fiction IMO. Fifth element is even less science-based I think, not that there is much science in Star Wars of course.


I think you missed the point in my wall of text: When discussing the relative rockwell scale placement of Sci-Fi there is literally only one consideration: The science.


Starwars is at one extreme end of squishy because there is literally no science in it. Parsecs are units of time not distance, space wizards use laser swords because they work better than guns. Guns are blasters. What's a blaster? Its a gun in star wars.  Robots have personalities that need to be wiped occasionally because fuck programming.


On the extreme of the other end you have sci-fi mired in the rocketry of the 1970s, where man can never escape the solar system of his birth because we have learned all there is to know about space travel in 1964 and no speculation can occur because by its definition speculation is fantasy.  Examples escape me at hte moment, because I find that pedantic obsession with 'realism' utterly misguided and more than a little nihilistic.


Every other consideration you named, from 'people issues' to 'psychadelic head trip presentation' are entirely removed from the 'hardness' spectrum.   


If you need spectrums for them, I'd consider that 'people issue themes' falls on 'good fiction' vs 'bad fiction' spectrum, with all good fiction handling people issues.


For the psychadelic mushroomland I'd say that's purely a stylistic consideration, with psychadelic mushroomland on, or near,  one end of the spectrum, with the other end being... I dunno... ruthlessly, aggressively grounded in the empirical reality? 
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Trond on September 23, 2020, 05:06:29 PM


The last one is easy: if it’s more science -based it’s “hard”. As far as categorization goes I frankly don’t care what the author was taking at the time. The “mushroom” category is based on what you see (the name is just based on the origin of some of it).


What you say is exactly why I suggest Star Wars is not hard, but soft and mushroomy. Are you saying it isn’t Science Fiction at all? I have seen that argument before but I don’t agree. If it has space ships and such it’s science fiction IMO. Fifth element is even less science-based I think, not that there is much science in Star Wars of course.


I think you missed the point in my wall of text: When discussing the relative rockwell scale placement of Sci-Fi there is literally only one consideration: The science.


Starwars is at one extreme end of squishy because there is literally no science in it. Parsecs are units of time not distance, space wizards use laser swords because they work better than guns. Guns are blasters. What's a blaster? Its a gun in star wars.  Robots have personalities that need to be wiped occasionally because fuck programming.


On the extreme of the other end you have sci-fi mired in the rocketry of the 1970s, where man can never escape the solar system of his birth because we have learned all there is to know about space travel in 1964 and no speculation can occur because by its definition speculation is fantasy.  Examples escape me at hte moment, because I find that pedantic obsession with 'realism' utterly misguided and more than a little nihilistic.


Every other consideration you named, from 'people issues' to 'psychadelic head trip presentation' are entirely removed from the 'hardness' spectrum.   


If you need spectrums for them, I'd consider that 'people issue themes' falls on 'good fiction' vs 'bad fiction' spectrum, with all good fiction handling people issues.


For the psychadelic mushroomland I'd say that's purely a stylistic consideration, with psychadelic mushroomland on, or near,  one end of the spectrum, with the other end being... I dunno... ruthlessly, aggressively grounded in the empirical reality?
Thing is, I have noticed two kinds of "science" in science fiction, and you can have more or less of either. One is actual science (as perceived at the time it was written) and the other is a hodgepodge of ideas and "mushroomy" fever dreams presented as "science". Still, we tend to call it "science fiction" if it includes planets, futuristic weapons and such. That was the point of this thread actually, but I guess your objection helped to pinpoint what's going on.

For instance; have you noticed science fiction stories where a planet seems to have a "soul" and react like a living being? (there was one film with George Clooney if I remember correctly) We think of it as science fiction because it has space flight and planets in it, but aint very scientific (pretty trippy actually). In a number of others, such as Dune, they talk about "genetic memories" going back innumerable generations. So it sounds science-ish, but it really isn't. I guess that in Dune the idea is that it is so far in the future that they have discovered something entirely different in the genes, but it still seems highly unlikely. The Dune books are still among my favorites though.
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Spike on September 23, 2020, 10:54:59 PM
I believe the film you are talking about is Solaris, which I believe is based on very well regarded russian Sci-fi (Stanislaw Lem?)...


Its an interesting case, actually. The science is fairly hard, with regard to the interstellar travel (I guess. I mean part of the point is that they are sort of stuck out there because easy, fast FTL isn't an option... I've never seen it. I have better ways to take naps.), so the issue is the planet, which is clearly psychic (is it the planet or a planet covering life form? One being sentient is Hard, the other is obviously far more speculative. THe relatively hardness of psychic stuff is debatable, I suppose), while the entire point of the story, and the reason it is well regarded (again: Never seen/read it) is to reflect humanity back on itself by showing us ourselves... in this case George Clooney and his survivors guilt over a suicided wife or something... by having an alien intelligence try to communicate through our own memories.  The core idea of the story is classic sci-fi territory, if the presentation is a bit wonkish that's a stylish issue, but how is it much different in 'topic' than, say, The Uller Uprising from H. Beam Piper? Or perhaps more accessably: The Fuzzy Papers?


Dune again drips into that strange catagory of Space Opera that I mentioned earlier. There really isn't any science at all. Shiga-wire is a common feature in the technology, but what is Shiga-wire? Its a metal fiber taken from an alien plant root... if I recall the same plant that produces the Semuta drug (from the ashy reside of burning said plant), which gives you a better trip when paired with music.


Herbert, compared to Lucas, at least pretends to care about the process of science, but that's mostly because he is writing in the future and not in some nebulous 'galaxy far away', so we have names for the principles and processes, like the Holtzman effect.


But like Solaris, the actual purpose of ALL of this is to address universal human themes. I've mentioned it is an explicit response to the Great Man theory of History, and a reflection of Herberts own interest in Ecological Conservation.   The technology might be handwavium (well, the idea of dynamic optics using liquids suspended in force fields is pretty hard science-ish, if you can replace generic and impossible force fields with a more practical idea, a flexible transparent membrane perhaps?), but the ideas and even the cultures presented are grounded very much in the real.


Is Space Opera sci-fi? You asked me earlier. I say it is, just very soft, and because I think Genre Assignment is a fools errand so I prefer to err on the side of easy communication rather than grognardy pedantry.
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Omega on September 24, 2020, 12:56:32 AM
Solaris I have the original movie, and have read the book it is based on, and seen the US made movie.
The book and original Russian movie are mostly in the hard SF range and is an early SF book to explore the idea of something so alien that we may never really be able to comprehend it and the unreasoning fear impulse some will have when confronted with something so outside the norm, even when wrapped in a form meant to be comforting or familliar.
Base premise of Solaris is theres been discovered an alien world with just one planet covering organism like a living ocean that is constantly making shapes from its mass and then re-absorbing them. In the book the reason for the investigator is that the research station personell have been acting weird and I believe one of the main characters friends there died.
In book and movie he gets there and soon finds out the hard way why everyone is acting weird. The planet has been trying to communicate with them. How? By searching their memories and creating a copy of someone important to them. Problem is, the scientists kept freaking out and killing the doppelgangers. Theres a beautiful line in there going to the effect of.
"An alien mind reached out to us to make contact. And ran screaming from it in terror."Its mostly hard fiction with the research station floating in the atmosphere, rather than in orbit I believe. Its been a few decades! And the space travel takes some time. I believe it was some manner of FTL, but not a very fast one as it takes the main character a month or more in cryo to get there.It then jumps into soft SF as Solaris has some manner of ability to scan memories and create its doppelgangers from nothing. It does get explained some eventually. But for most this power falls into the soft SF.
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Omega on September 24, 2020, 12:58:04 AM
As for Space Opera. Depends on the type? Early space opera was more hard than soft. The opera part came from the focus on adventures and romances.
But seems over time its just become another term for "science Fantasy".
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Lurkndog on September 24, 2020, 07:19:46 AM
The term "Space Opera" always makes me think of E.E. "Doc" Smith's Lensman books, where the "opera" part is clearly the huge space battles. They are larger than life, filled with over the top prose and big ideas. Coruscating beams of lambent force!

(Obligatory note: If you want to read Lensman, start with Galactic Patrol, which was the first one written and the true beginning of the series. It is usually listed as Book #3 in modern printings. Triplanetary and First Lensman are prequels that were added later, and are not as good.
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Trond on September 24, 2020, 11:08:58 AM

Is Space Opera sci-fi? You asked me earlier. I say it is, just very soft, and because I think Genre Assignment is a fools errand so I prefer to err on the side of easy communication rather than grognardy pedantry.
To me it definitely is. I'm just following what most people agree is SF and spin around that, and as long as it has futuristic tech etc, it is generally thought of as SF.
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Trond on September 24, 2020, 11:13:38 AM
Solaris I have the original movie, and have read the book it is based on, and seen the US made movie.
The book and original Russian movie are mostly in the hard SF range and is an early SF book to explore the idea of something so alien that we may never really be able to comprehend it and the unreasoning fear impulse some will have when confronted with something so outside the norm, even when wrapped in a form meant to be comforting or familliar.
Base premise of Solaris is theres been discovered an alien world with just one planet covering organism like a living ocean that is constantly making shapes from its mass and then re-absorbing them. In the book the reason for the investigator is that the research station personell have been acting weird and I believe one of the main characters friends there died.
In book and movie he gets there and soon finds out the hard way why everyone is acting weird. The planet has been trying to communicate with them. How? By searching their memories and creating a copy of someone important to them. Problem is, the scientists kept freaking out and killing the doppelgangers. Theres a beautiful line in there going to the effect of.
"An alien mind reached out to us to make contact. And ran screaming from it in terror."Its mostly hard fiction with the research station floating in the atmosphere, rather than in orbit I believe. Its been a few decades! And the space travel takes some time. I believe it was some manner of FTL, but not a very fast one as it takes the main character a month or more in cryo to get there.It then jumps into soft SF as Solaris has some manner of ability to scan memories and create its doppelgangers from nothing. It does get explained some eventually. But for most this power falls into the soft SF.
Interesting! To me, the Hollywood version came across as pretty "trippy", but who knows how much they had changed it. It is possible that the beginning was more hard SF.
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Pat on September 24, 2020, 01:44:25 PM
Lem is hard to fit on the soft to hard spectrum.

While he was intensely interested in science and its possibilities, his stories aren't built on cutting edge research. Instead, he focuses on the nature and culture of science. To give an example, in Fiasco, the method they use to travel is called sidereal engineering. There is no physical or theoretical justification provided. He doesn't throw out words like Einstein-Rosen bridges, or talk about tachyons. Does that sound like soft sf? Well, not quite. Because sidereal engineering is internally consistent. It's not magic handwavium gobbleygook. He follows basic principles through to their inevitable consequences. It's not a science based on anything we currently know, but it's still plausible as a framework for a possible science. He doesn't get into the nuts and bolts of how it operates, but as a black box science, it's believable. In addition, he's also very interested in the human constructs that surround science. His scientists act like scientists, and thus the social elements around the new science also ring true.

Highly recommended author, BTW. Incredibly original, and had a fantastic range. Kandel's translations seem to be the best.
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Trond on September 24, 2020, 10:47:27 PM

...... what is the focus of mushroom sci-fi?

:D

(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/00/df/6c/00df6cd2fdbb5426b059b03f13543c79.jpg)

Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Spike on September 24, 2020, 11:59:56 PM
Yup, That is Definitely 'Mushroom Fiction' right there.  You got me on that one!
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: hedgehobbit on November 07, 2020, 09:47:13 AM
The term "Space Opera" always makes me think of E.E. "Doc" Smith's Lensman books, where the "opera" part is clearly the huge space battles. They are larger than life, filled with over the top prose and big ideas.

The term space opera was originally meant as a pejorative. According to wikipedia, the first known instance if the term space opera is from a sci-fi fanzine in 1941. Here's how they described it:

"In these hectic days of phrase-coining, we offer one. Westerns are called "horse operas", the morning housewife tear-jerkers are called "soap operas". For a hacky, grinding, stinking, outworn space-ship yarn, or world-saving for that matter, we offer "space opera""

Of that description, I think the "world-saving" part is the most relevant delineator for the genre. If there is an all power Galactic Empire or alien invasion fleet that the heroes must defeat, then it's space opera.


As an aside, is there a name for the current trend of near-future, lower tech science fiction such as The Expanse, The Martian, Ad Astra (the recent movie) or For All Mankind? Stuff that doesn't include other near future tropes such as cybernetics or transhumanism.
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: myleftnut on November 07, 2020, 06:40:47 PM
Hey I hope this isn’t considered derailing the thread but since we’re talking sci-fi genres. What do people think of the Dune stuff written by Frank Herbert’s son?   I finally got around to reading all the original stuff and I’m curious if Brian Herbert’s books compare.
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: myleftnut on November 07, 2020, 06:41:23 PM
Sorry double post.
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: HappyDaze on November 07, 2020, 08:12:38 PM
The term "Space Opera" always makes me think of E.E. "Doc" Smith's Lensman books, where the "opera" part is clearly the huge space battles. They are larger than life, filled with over the top prose and big ideas.

The term space opera was originally meant as a pejorative. According to wikipedia, the first known instance if the term space opera is from a sci-fi fanzine in 1941. Here's how they described it:

"In these hectic days of phrase-coining, we offer one. Westerns are called "horse operas", the morning housewife tear-jerkers are called "soap operas". For a hacky, grinding, stinking, outworn space-ship yarn, or world-saving for that matter, we offer "space opera""

Of that description, I think the "world-saving" part is the most relevant delineator for the genre. If there is an all power Galactic Empire or alien invasion fleet that the heroes must defeat, then it's space opera.


As an aside, is there a name for the current trend of near-future, lower tech science fiction such as The Expanse, The Martian, Ad Astra (the recent movie) or For All Mankind? Stuff that doesn't include other near future tropes such as cybernetics or transhumanism.
Expanse includes cyber/bio-modifications ("Peaches") along with human/alien hybrids.
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Spike on November 10, 2020, 11:17:36 AM

As an aside, is there a name for the current trend of near-future, lower tech science fiction such as The Expanse, The Martian, Ad Astra (the recent movie) or For All Mankind? Stuff that doesn't include other near future tropes such as cybernetics or transhumanism.

Generally the sort of stuff you are asking about (not the specific shows, per se, as any given story may fail any arbitrary test), tends to fall under 'Hard Sci-Fi', the harder the better, which is personally why I tend to avoid the science purists, personally.  Well into the nineties and beyond it seemed that in order to be considered Hard Science Fiction you had to be grounded in not just 'hard science' but in 'hard science circa 1972'.

But if that happens to be your itch, then there is a wealth of literature, and no real shortage of other story media, for you out there, my friend!

So yeah: Hard Sci Fi, or Science Fiction. Needs no other lable, since all other Sci Fi genres are considered deviations from that.
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: BoxCrayonTales on December 04, 2020, 04:03:52 PM
You may find these articles by M. Alan Kazlev useful: https://web.archive.org/web/20200110064338/http://www.kheper.net/topics/scifi/grading.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20180826085442/http://freehauleralcione.com/2015/12/07/scale-of-science-fiction-hardness/
https://vocal.media/futurism/the-scale-of-hardness-in-science-fiction
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Wicked Woodpecker of West on December 08, 2020, 01:40:49 PM
Quote
I believe the film you are talking about is Solaris, which I believe is based on very well regarded russian Sci-fi (Stanislaw Lem?)...

Polish sci-fi.
I deeply advice to read "Solaris" it's excelent mix of speculative scientific prose describing centuries of mankind trying to understand Solaris (due to it's anomalous nature) with personal trial of main hero, which is described in more dry less romanticised fashion - Lem was not much for romanticism.
I'd definitely put it as like 90% in hard part, 40% into Mushroom part, 0% soft
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: rytrasmi on December 10, 2020, 05:35:00 PM
I like this idea...a lot. If I may ramble...

Mushroom Sci-Fi embraces the fact that the future is unpredictable. We can't predict future science and technology as we try to do with Hard Sci-Fi. It's like a bronze-age farmer trying to predict an autonomous combine harvester. We can't take for granted that present day themes, morality, desires, etc. will be the same in the future as we do with Soft Sci-Fi. We no longer wage war for sake of personal honor or perform ritual animal/human sacrifice, but some bronze-age aspiring Soft Sci-Fi author probably would not have considered that. And that's only 3000 years ago!

Mushroom Sci-Fi throws out the idea of trying to predict future science and technology or show that human stories are timeless. (But, regarding the latter, there's only so much of present day themes etc. that you can toss before it becomes uninteresting to the present day reader.)

I would offer up Zardoz and Fantastic Planet as two examples of Mushroom Sci-Fi.
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Ghostmaker on December 15, 2020, 08:14:21 AM
I like this idea...a lot. If I may ramble...

Mushroom Sci-Fi embraces the fact that the future is unpredictable. We can't predict future science and technology as we try to do with Hard Sci-Fi. It's like a bronze-age farmer trying to predict an autonomous combine harvester. We can't take for granted that present day themes, morality, desires, etc. will be the same in the future as we do with Soft Sci-Fi. We no longer wage war for sake of personal honor or perform ritual animal/human sacrifice, but some bronze-age aspiring Soft Sci-Fi author probably would not have considered that. And that's only 3000 years ago!

Mushroom Sci-Fi throws out the idea of trying to predict future science and technology or show that human stories are timeless. (But, regarding the latter, there's only so much of present day themes etc. that you can toss before it becomes uninteresting to the present day reader.)

I would offer up Zardoz and Fantastic Planet as two examples of Mushroom Sci-Fi.
Zardoz is more like LSD Sci-Fi to be honest :D
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: Trond on December 18, 2020, 08:03:16 PM
I like this idea...a lot. If I may ramble...

Mushroom Sci-Fi embraces the fact that the future is unpredictable. We can't predict future science and technology as we try to do with Hard Sci-Fi. It's like a bronze-age farmer trying to predict an autonomous combine harvester. We can't take for granted that present day themes, morality, desires, etc. will be the same in the future as we do with Soft Sci-Fi. We no longer wage war for sake of personal honor or perform ritual animal/human sacrifice, but some bronze-age aspiring Soft Sci-Fi author probably would not have considered that. And that's only 3000 years ago!

Mushroom Sci-Fi throws out the idea of trying to predict future science and technology or show that human stories are timeless. (But, regarding the latter, there's only so much of present day themes etc. that you can toss before it becomes uninteresting to the present day reader.)

I would offer up Zardoz and Fantastic Planet as two examples of Mushroom Sci-Fi.

Makes sense to me.
Title: Re: Science fiction subgenres: hard vs soft vs mushroom fiction :D
Post by: consolcwby on December 20, 2020, 11:05:09 PM
I like this idea...a lot. If I may ramble...

Mushroom Sci-Fi embraces the fact that the future is unpredictable. We can't predict future science and technology as we try to do with Hard Sci-Fi. It's like a bronze-age farmer trying to predict an autonomous combine harvester. We can't take for granted that present day themes, morality, desires, etc. will be the same in the future as we do with Soft Sci-Fi. We no longer wage war for sake of personal honor or perform ritual animal/human sacrifice, but some bronze-age aspiring Soft Sci-Fi author probably would not have considered that. And that's only 3000 years ago!

Mushroom Sci-Fi throws out the idea of trying to predict future science and technology or show that human stories are timeless. (But, regarding the latter, there's only so much of present day themes etc. that you can toss before it becomes uninteresting to the present day reader.)

I would offer up Zardoz and Fantastic Planet as two examples of Mushroom Sci-Fi.
Zardoz is more like LSD Sci-Fi to be honest :D
Zardoz is more like James Bond in a diaper to be honest :D
*FIX'D!*
I gotta admit, I love me some Zardoz, and not just for da BEWBS! But, I never consider most of this 'Mushroom Sci-Fi' to be anything other than a niche part of Sci-Fi. However, I am a more classics reader (Asimov, Heinlein, Ellison, Dick, etc.) But I did like Ender's Game and loved The Forever War! But the Shroom as a vital part of Sci Fi? Nope. Not buying it!