[ SECRET POST #2557 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2557 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________


11.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 013 secrets from Secret Submission Post #364.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Semi-related rant about terminology

[(Anonymous)]

I'm starting to really hate the terms "hard SF" and "soft SF." Each of them has two distinct and only tangentially connected definitions, and people rarely define their terms before jumping into a discussion about genres.

Hard SF
Definition #1: SF that extrapolates from the "hard" sciences, e.g. astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics.
Definition #2: SF that's scientifically plausible, to the best of our knowledge.

Soft SF
Definition #1: SF that extrapolates from the "soft" or social sciences, e.g. anthropology, economics, linguistics, political science, psychology, and sociology.
Definition #2: SF that's scientifically impossible, to the best of our knowledge. (Purists put any SF involving FTL travel in this category.)

In theory, these divergent definitions should lead to unending confusion over whether, for instance, a scientifically plausible SF story that extrapolates from economics is hard or soft SF.

In practice, it's actually worse than that. Common usage tends to be that "hard SF" is manly SF that's written by men (and the occasional, often ex-military, woman), and it usually gets called scientifically plausible by its fans even when it's...um...not. It extrapolates from astronomy, chemistry, geology, physics, and/or computer science, but not biology because that's too girly. Depending on who's writing it, though, (*cough* a dude) economics and political science can sneak onto this list. Military SF--unless it's space opera, and sometimes even then--almost always gets called hard SF, regardless of whether it fits either of the above definitions.

Meanwhile, in common usage "soft SF" is a catch-all category for any SF that extrapolates from the social sciences + biology (minus the exceptions noted in the previous paragraph) and/or any SF that focuses more on the characters than on technology and/or any SF written by a woman (when her work isn't straight-up miscategorized as fantasy, that is). And, of course, it's generally assumed to be less than scientifically rigorous, regardless of each work's actual credentials.

Re: Semi-related rant about terminology

[(Anonymous)]

God.

Military sci-fi.

It's not even bad, I enjoy it sometimes, it's just so... military sci-fi. And some of its fans are just so... yeah.