Thread: Russian Science Fiction - Recommended books?

Originally Posted by RedFox

Well, the Strugatsky brothers were writers of so called soft (social) SF (in contrast with Роза и Червь which is a brilliant example of hard SF).
...
And if we talk about soft SF...

Hmmm. To me, the term "soft science-fiction" in English often implies a "space opera" in which faster-than-light spaceships, time travel, telekinesis, and other very unlikely things are simply taken as real and scientifically explainable (i.e., non-magical), though without any attempt to explain how they actually work. Both Star Trek and Star Wars could be considered "soft" in this sense. But Star Trek, which frequently discussed 20th-century problems like racism and the Cold War in allegorical terms, could also be called "soft" in the "social" sense.

In contrast, Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress describes in believable and realistic terms the technical possibility of using a rail-gun catapult to launch cargo from the Earth to the Moon, without using "magical" techno-babble. For this reason the novel is often regarded as exemplifying "hard" science fiction. (Of course, Heinlein certainly gets some things quite wrong -- he assumes that photo-realistic CGI video doesn't get invented until around 2075, a time when the Moon already has several cities and a permanent population of 3 or 4 million humans!) On the other hand, to the extent that it discusses libertarian theory and male/female sex roles, TMiaHM is "soft social" sci-fi.

The en.wikipedia article about "soft science fiction", by the way, gives Orwell's 1984 as an example of "social" sci-fi, and Čapek's R.U.R. as a example of sci-fi that's "soft" in the sense that the robots might as well be magical golems.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

a rail-gun catapult to launch cargo from the Earth to the Moon, without using "magical" techno-babble. For this reason the novel is often regarded as exemplifying "hard" science fiction.

I remember those scenes from the book and I thought it was one of the silliest aspects of that book. Can anyone explain how that is scientific?


My fave Heinlein book is a kids adventure about two boys in a boarding school on Mars, who outsmart an evil corporation with the help of ancient Martians. Forgotten the name. Too bad it's totally unrealistic based on what's now known about the geology of Mars. No canals to skate on, and no exotic plants.
Love everything about Mars though - Red Mars series was fantastic, but gosh the amount of bizarre bias about Russians and other nationalities.

I realise that warp speed etc has no scientific basis, but my smart phone is probably on par with the pads from Star Trek Voyager!

Originally Posted by Hanna

I remember those scenes from the book and I thought it was one of the silliest aspects of that book. Can anyone explain how that is scientific?

Well, unlike faster-than-light travel, it doesn't blatantly violate known laws of physics; unlike telepathy, it doesn't suppose that there is some "fifth fundamental force" completely unknown to science; unlike the X-Men, it doesn't ridiculously ignore basic principles of how REAL gene mutations work; etc.

But the railgun described by Heinlein is a technically plausible extrapolation of known science. You could, of course, object that such a catapult is totally unrealistic from an economic POV -- in that it would be so enormously expensive to build that it could never pay for itself. You could also foresee that because it might take decades to build something so huge, someone might in the meantime invent a better and cheaper way to get stuff beyond Earth's orbit, thereby making the railgun project obsolete before it was finished!

There is, however, nothing inherently non-scientific or "magical" about the concept, as discussed in this Wikipedia article on Mass drivers.

Originally Posted by Hanna

My fave Heinlein book is a kids adventure about two boys in a boarding school on Mars, who outsmart an evil corporation with the help of ancient Martians. Forgotten the name.

Found it -- the title is Red Planet, first published 1949. The Wikipedia article notes that the native Martians here are physically and culturally very similar to the ones that would appear 12 years later in the much more adult-oriented Stranger in a Strange Land. (Apparently, SiaSL was originally proposed by Heinlein's wife in the late '40s as a kids-oriented "Jungle Book on Mars", so Red Planet may have been an early experiment in this direction.)

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Hmmm. To me, the term "soft science-fiction" in English often implies a "space opera" in which faster-than-light spaceships, time travel, telekinesis, and other very unlikely things are simply taken as real and scientifically explainable (i.e., non-magical), though without any attempt to explain how they actually work. Both Star Trek and Star Wars could be considered "soft" in this sense. But Star Trek, which frequently discussed 20th-century problems like racism and the Cold War in allegorical terms, could also be called "soft" in the "social" sense.

In contrast, Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress describes in believable and realistic terms the technical possibility of using a rail-gun catapult to launch cargo from the Earth to the Moon, without using "magical" techno-babble. For this reason the novel is often regarded as exemplifying "hard" science fiction. (Of course, Heinlein certainly gets some things quite wrong -- he assumes that photo-realistic CGI video doesn't get invented until around 2075, a time when the Moon already has several cities and a permanent population of 3 or 4 million humans!) On the other hand, to the extent that it discusses libertarian theory and male/female sex roles, TMiaHM is "soft social" sci-fi.

The en.wikipedia article about "soft science fiction", by the way, gives Orwell's 1984 as an example of "social" sci-fi, and Čapek's R.U.R. as a example of sci-fi that's "soft" in the sense that the robots might as well be magical golems.

Поясню, что я хотел сказать. Я использовал понятие мягкая научная фантастика в следующем значении:
Это фантастика, которая основной акцент ставит не на научной достоверности, а на описании различных социальных процессов, характеров людей и т.п., или просто на "историях про космос" ("space opera"). Например, "Обитаемый остров" Стругацких — это история о том, как человек с европейским складом ума боролся против тоталитарного государства. Инопланетные реалии в этой книге просто декорации, они не имеют решающего значения. Хотя Стругацкие пишут про людей будущего, будущее в их книгах играет роль декорации, на самом деле они описывают процессы современного общества.
Другой пример, Лукин в своих книгах свободно смешивает науку, фэнтези, мистику, сказки и т.п. Некоторые его книги можно отнести к научной фантастике, другие же это что-то вроде русского фэнтези.

Книга "Роза и Червь", о которой я говорил в самом первом посте, — противоположный пример. Автор ставит задачу описать, как было бы устроено сообщество людей в космосе, если бы в 22-м веке Земля была уничтожена пришельцами. Он описывает все аспекты жизни: технологии, производство, коммуникации, политическое устройство общества, военные конфликты, характеры людей, их привычки, обычаи, отношения и т.п. Подобные книги я называю истинная научная фантастика, в противоположность "мягкой".

Не уверен, насколько такая классификация совпадает с принятой в английском языке.