What means "hard" SF writer? Does Bradbury count? Atwood? Also is "The Children of Men" SF? I tend to think it is, but maybe there's some other category for apocolyptic stuff. What about Adams? I'm assuming he doesn't count because his is satire set in SFland- but then, should he not be counted as SF just because he's funny? Parts of The Martian Chronicals struck me funny too.

I've always thought of hard as SF that puts ideas and technology above characters and atmosphere.

Asimov's my favourite.

I like Cherryh's Cyteen too, in that same category.

I don't think of Bradbury as Hard SF generally, because he wrote a lot of character-centric stories. He does have some stories of ideas, which revolve around some scientific concept or other, but I think of the Hard SF writers as being much more rule-driven, than people-driven.

Hmm. But what if there's lots of ideas and technology and stuff, but not at the expense of the characters? -Still thinking TMC right now.

I think they can all be present in a story, but when I feel the ideas and tech are exalted, I feel it's hard SF. The rest is just SF.

What's Michael Chriton?

Agreed. My take on Martian Chronicles is that it isn't Hard SF. Too squishy, and I mean that as someone who doesn't have much taste for the science over character stuff, and who enjoyed the Martian Chronicles.

What's Michael Chriton?

Crap.

t /kneejerk

I haven't read him, so I don't actually know.

That's probably fair, or at least the actual science is somewhat based on actual principles and has an important part in the story. As opposed to Bradbury-style SF, which goes about as far as using "rockets" and everything else is character/atmosphere.

I don't really think of Crichton as an SF writer, more of a pot-boiler writer who occasionally uses SF themes. I gather his science is also occasionally more than a little dubious, which the Hard SF folks would seriously frown on.