Hard science fiction – science should be rigorous and credible, technology should drawn from known principles

Soft science fiction – science need not be rigorous, focus is on the impact on society and relationships.

Okay, it’s not a hard and firm line, but there has always been a little bit of a split between the two.

I actually draw the line more like this:

Hard science fiction – the plot is constrained by the science

Soft science fiction – the science supports the plot

So, how far does this split go back? As I’m writing this I’m thinking about a panel I’ve been tapped for at RavenCon about “scientific romances.”

Which led me to think of two classic scientific romances…and the fact that they demonstrate this split all the way back.

These books are, of course, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne and The Time Machine by H.G. Wells.