There is an article over on i09 called “Why is Hard Science Fiction So Unrealistic?” which offers up the treatise “hard science fiction is not always realistic”. Really? How could something about speculative technology possibly be unrealistic?
The article’s main thrust is that a “hard science fiction” story should only be considered realistic if it also contains Literary Realism. It doesn’t matter how hard, or plausible, the science is, if there is no “grit” to the situation, or there are no “real” characters with flaws, then the story cannot be called “realistic”. OK, fine. That is true enough. But who says we want hard science fiction to be “realistic” anyway?
The first line in the article:
In science fiction, people often confuse narrative realism with “hard,” or scientifically-accurate, storytelling.
They do?
I don’t.
Personally, I have never thought that hard science fiction also had to conform to the literary realism movement. Surprisingly enough, hard science fiction to me has always been about “hard science”: the realism of the characters or their situations have never really come into it. As long as the story has an engaging plot and is halfway well written, then I don’t care that the hero is an unrealistic post-human genius who can defeat any problem with a wave of his sonic screwdriver.
To prove my point, I turn to that arbiter of all that is true and real, Wikipedia. Its first sentence in its Hard science fiction article:
Hard science fiction is a category of science fiction characterized by an emphasis on scientific or technical detail, or on scientific accuracy, or on both.
Exactly. Realistic characters or situations have not been, and nor should be, prerequisites for hard science fiction. It’s up to the author to write what they want. If they want to write in realistic characters or situations, fine, they can write them in. If they want to write escapism with implausibly competent protagonists and dastardly villains, then also fine. You know, occasionally implausibly competent protagonists and dastardly villains turn up in real life. Asking everyone who writes hard science fiction to make it “realistic” would be taking all the fun out of the genre.
The last line in the article (where literary realism suddenly became SF realism, but I think they’re the same thing):
…we start demanding SF realism to go along with scientific accuracy.
We do?
I don’t.
If a book combines hard science fiction and literary realism: great. If a book is hard science fiction with unrealistic characters: great as well. If it’s any good, I’ll just enjoy it. Just leave hard science as hard science without accoutrements. I’ll leave quibbling over sub-genre boundaries to people who write giant screeds on internet forums and websites.
Oh wait. I’m one of them. Maybe I shouldn’t generalise or compartmentalise.