I’m trying to get a read on what different people define as hard or soft re: science fiction. For me the term defines not only the relevance of the science to the story but the technical complexities of the science involved. For example: Star Wars is soft science fiction. The science isn’t really a part of the story, which is why the story is often confused with fantasy. The Martian is hard science. Both stories are character driven, which apparently is seen as lacking in sci-fi.
This dichotomy of sorts extends to television where more often than not the soft science does much better than the hard. In other words, when you watch The Walking Dead you don’t think about the science fiction aspects therein. On the other hand, Orphan Black puts the science in your face.
I’m interested in both sides of line. I’m interested in telling the stories that put the science to the test as a social element, as well as the stories that use it as a backdrop.