Comment by jmyeet | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmyeet | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I don't really agree with this framing.

Science fiction is usually differentiated between hard sci-fi and space opera. The line is blurry. Hard sci-fi is, or tries to be, rooted in actual science. The science can be speculative (eg FTL travel, FTL communication, wormholes) that really have no basis in any actual theory but these still count as "science". The focus of the work is to explore the implications of some technology or science.

Space opera, on the other hand, doesn't focus on the science (speculative or otherwise). It's just "there". The focus is more on traditional melodramatic elements of narrative.

Hard sci-fi examples: pretty much anything by Larry Niven, Archur C. Clarke or Alastair Reynolds.

Space opera: Star Trek, Star Wars.

I see science fantasy as the mixing of sci-fi and traditional fantasy elements (eg wizards in spaceships) or where technology takes on the appearance of fantasy elements (eg mental powers that are essentially "magic").

There is some counter examples. Like Honorverse, which is clearly Space Opera on large scale, but at the same time at least started as rather hard sci-fi. At least if the consistency and realism inside acceptable technology is considered.

I don't think you can use space opera there. It is more about the plot than it is about the setting itself.

Basically, space opera can be science fiction, science fantasy, pure fantasy or anything else.

I feel like space opera is more about the plot. You can have hard sci-fi space opera (the Expanse) or soft sci-fi opera (Starwars, Startrek).

The Expanse is very much space opera. Don't get me wrong: I love the show. But the only real difference between it and Star Trek (science-wise) is that The Expanse has zero-gravity. It still has the inertialess movement common in space opera.

I didn't notice anything in The Expanse that contradicts the laws of motion, and it is the only fiction TV show I can think of that is careful in that way.

For example, more than once or twice a space ship is shown firing opposite the ship's direction of travel during the second half of the ship's trajectory. And I seem to recall a scene showing a ship (with only one large engine, which of course is the sensible way to do it) doing a flip at the half-way point to point the engine directly opposite to the direction of travel.

What do you mean by inertialess movement?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com