Editing Science fiction (section)

===Classification===
{{Further|Hard science fiction|Soft science fiction}}
Science fiction has historically been sub-divided between [[hard science fiction]] and [[soft science fiction]], with the division centering on the feasibility of the science.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.bcls.lib.nj.us/genre-science-fiction | title=BCLS: Hard Versus Soft Science Fiction | access-date=23 August 2018 | archive-date=23 August 2018 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180823210402/https://www.bcls.lib.nj.us/genre-science-fiction | url-status=live }}</ref> However, this distinction has come under increasing scrutiny in the 21st century. Some [[author]]s, such as [[Tade Thompson]] and [[Jeff VanderMeer]], have pointed out that stories that focus explicitly on [[physics]], [[astronomy]], [[mathematics]], and [[engineering]] tend to be considered "hard" science fiction, while stories that focus on [[botany]], [[mycology]], [[zoology]], and the [[social science]]s tend to be categorized as "soft", regardless of the relative [[Rigour|rigor]] of the science.<ref name="tor.com">{{cite web| url=https://www.tor.com/2017/02/20/ten-authors-on-the-hard-vs-soft-science-fiction-debate/| title=Ten Authors on the 'Hard' vs. 'Soft' Science Fiction Debate| date=20 February 2017| access-date=23 August 2018| archive-date=29 December 2018| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181229124015/https://www.tor.com/2017/02/20/ten-authors-on-the-hard-vs-soft-science-fiction-debate/| url-status=live}}</ref>

[[Max Gladstone]] defined "hard" science fiction as stories "where the [[Mathematics|math]] works", but pointed out that this ends up with stories that often seem "weirdly dated", as scientific [[paradigm]]s shift over time.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.tor.com/2016/01/21/how-do-you-like-your-science-fiction-ten-authors-weigh-in-on-hard-vs-soft-sf/|title=How Do You Like Your Science Fiction? Ten Authors Weigh In On 'Hard' vs. 'Soft' SF|last=Wilde|first=Fran|date=21 January 2016|website=Tor.com|language=en-US|access-date=4 April 2019|archive-date=4 April 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190404025029/https://www.tor.com/2016/01/21/how-do-you-like-your-science-fiction-ten-authors-weigh-in-on-hard-vs-soft-sf/|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Michael Swanwick]] dismissed the traditional definition of "hard" SF altogether, instead saying that it was defined by characters striving to solve problems "in the right way–with [[determination]], a touch of [[stoicism]], and the [[consciousness]] that the [[universe]] is not on his or her side."<ref name="tor.com"/>

[[Ursula K. Le Guin]] also criticized the more traditional view on the difference between "hard" and "soft" SF: "The 'hard' science fiction writers dismiss everything except, well, [[physics]], [[astronomy]], and maybe [[chemistry]]. [[Biology]], [[sociology]], [[anthropology]]—that's not [[science]] to them, that's soft stuff. They're not that interested in what [[Human|human beings]] do, really. But I am. I draw on the [[social science]]s a great deal."<ref>{{cite web| url=https://www.popularmechanics.com/culture/a15871082/ursula-k-le-guin-life/| title=Ursula K. Le Guin Proved That Sci-Fi is for Everyone| date=24 January 2018| access-date=23 August 2018| archive-date=23 August 2018| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180823210602/https://www.popularmechanics.com/culture/a15871082/ursula-k-le-guin-life/| url-status=live}}</ref>