In any case, it appears that “hard SF” is not a very useful label, since it has too many definitions.”

I stand corrected. :) Myself, I wouldn’t put Old Man’s War in the hard SF category, but in military SF. But others may disagree. It certainly, however, is set in the far future, etc., as are many other SF novels by American authors. I think the British authors are great, but they certainly haven’t cornered the market.

Hah. Inside every Alpha Node, the Warp Bunnies hutch.

How DARE they. Next they’ll be mocking the literary brilliance of Twillight.

THIS WILL NOT STAND>!!

“‘SF where the science is central to the plot’ is Asimov’s own defintion. ”

vs

“a story centrally about hard sciences”

Asimov’s definition is not restricted to the “hard” sciences, and indeed I would not put psychohistory in that camp.

In any case, it appears that “hard SF” is not a very useful label, since it has too many definitions. Trying to define it is probably futile, along the lines Josh@185 indicated. Which is fine by me. I don’t have a horse in this race.

Someone pointed out that if you’re lumping SF stories into categories based on real-world plausibility, OMW probably goes in the “not” category. Our esteemed host protested, so I joined my voice in support of the original point. The clever relativity-sidestepping gimmick behind the Skip drive doesn’t necessarily get you a buy into the “plausible” club. No matter what’s “really” happening behind the scenes, it quacks like FTL travel. Ergo, not, by that particular definition, hard SF.

And yes, some would argue that FTL travel takes you out of SF entirely and into fantasy, but I see no value in such a stance. If Star Wars is fantasy (which many would say it is, though I note that it is shelved with the SF), it’s because of the Force, not the jaunting about in hyperspace.

I’ve got some company too. :) Your definition is a relatively new one. Traditionally in SF, it’s been, as 188 pointed out:

‘SF where the science is central to the plot’ is Asimov’s own defintion.

Your definition sounds a bit like Mundane SF philosophy, which says far future SF is essentially fantasy, not SF at all. But your definition allows for a Kraftomatic mattress firmness adjustment that is probably going to make for a lot of arguments as to just how “firm” a particular story is. Essentially, depending on the individual person’s criteria, the author either passes the purity test of hardness or does not. Whereas the traditional definition of the sub-category — a story centrally about hard sciences — is quite simple and does not require a subjective benchtest.

That’s not me saying you shouldn’t use your definition. But it’s definitely too narrow a viewpoint of SF types for me to embrace.

185: Noooo! Not slipstream! Anything but that!

This is, of course, subjective as well.

I loves me some physics and mathematics and engineering and biology and chemistry and sociology and … And I loves me some really excellent well-written fiction. And I adore it when the fiction seem to pay attention to the science, but I don’t require it. I’m a fan of good storytelling first and foremost.

Although there’s something to be said for the very old joke that “Hard SF” is what produces emotional tumescence in the scientifically-minded reader :)

1) If Hard SF if defined as the fiction adheres to core scientific (mostly physics-based) principles that we know and can prove now, then very few people (no one?) who write about the far future adhere to this definition. Those of you who argue Hard SF should be defined this way: I am interpreting your statements globally, but feel that this is a fairly consistent definition. It seems to me that if you can’t prove it in the lab or pretty darn convincingly in theory, it shouldn’t be included in Hard SF, according to these definitions.

2) If ‘science central to the plot’ is used, then some far future would be considered Hard SF.

3) There is a middle ground here, which is that if you don’t violate known principles (at least at the time), either group should acknowledge that. I prefer these kinds of books, myself. Better knowledge of science by the author usually leads to more interesting descriptions, if they also are a gifted writer.

4) In fact, I want to propose:
if you write a far future SF novel about something that then is proven as not only not completely impossible but maybe potentially feasible during your lifetime, you get the ‘Inspissating SF’ prize.