Good suggestion.Paksenarrion said:The Foundation books by Isaac Asimov.
By "hard", you mean based on possible or current physical sciences in the near future, as opposed to theoretical or seemingly magical science?Quantum Roberts said:Good suggestion.Paksenarrion said:The Foundation books by Isaac Asimov.
If the OP likes his science hard though, should look at Larry Niven's Ringworld books. In fact, anything by Niven is a good read.
Yes, that seems to be the most apt description of the term. Nothing against the theoretical/magical/soft kind of science, but it does tend to show it's naivete once Science has marched on.Paksenarrion said:By "hard", you mean based on possible or current physical sciences in the near future, as opposed to theoretical or seemingly magical science?Quantum Roberts said:Good suggestion.Paksenarrion said:The Foundation books by Isaac Asimov.
If the OP likes his science hard though, should look at Larry Niven's Ringworld books. In fact, anything by Niven is a good read.
Like how Star Trek portrayed small, hand-held communication devices? <_<Quantum Roberts said:Yes, that seems to be the most apt description of the term. Nothing against the theoretical/magical/soft kind of science, but it does tend to show it's naivete once Science has marched on.Paksenarrion said:By "hard", you mean based on possible or current physical sciences in the near future, as opposed to theoretical or seemingly magical science?Quantum Roberts said:Good suggestion.Paksenarrion said:The Foundation books by Isaac Asimov.
If the OP likes his science hard though, should look at Larry Niven's Ringworld books. In fact, anything by Niven is a good read.
Or how it protrayed teleportation beams, photon cannons or a black hole gun?Paksenarrion said:Like how Star Trek portrayed small, hand-held communication devices? <_<Quantum Roberts said:Yes, that seems to be the most apt description of the term. Nothing against the theoretical/magical/soft kind of science, but it does tend to show it's naivete once Science has marched on.Paksenarrion said:By "hard", you mean based on possible or current physical sciences in the near future, as opposed to theoretical or seemingly magical science?Quantum Roberts said:Good suggestion.Paksenarrion said:The Foundation books by Isaac Asimov.
If the OP likes his science hard though, should look at Larry Niven's Ringworld books. In fact, anything by Niven is a good read.
You have a point. In my opinion, [a href="http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/"]hard science fiction[/a] tends to portray new technology as dangerous...Quantum Roberts said:Or how it protrayed teleportation beams, photon cannons or a black hole gun?Paksenarrion said:Like how Star Trek portrayed small, hand-held communication devices? <_<Quantum Roberts said:Yes, that seems to be the most apt description of the term. Nothing against the theoretical/magical/soft kind of science, but it does tend to show it's naivete once Science has marched on.Paksenarrion said:By "hard", you mean based on possible or current physical sciences in the near future, as opposed to theoretical or seemingly magical science?Quantum Roberts said:Good suggestion.Paksenarrion said:The Foundation books by Isaac Asimov.
If the OP likes his science hard though, should look at Larry Niven's Ringworld books. In fact, anything by Niven is a good read.
Not saying it doesn't has its place. Hey, Jules Verne accurately described Space Travel and Calculators. I'm just saying the hard stuff usually has more to it than the soft. Of course, it's just my opinion.
Have already read The Giver, pretty good book.Loud Noise said:Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card.
The Giver by Lois Lowry.