I’m curious. Greg Johnson over at SF Site doesn’t deserve to be singled out, but in his review for Al Reynolds’ Zima Blue he says ‘Hard science fiction, and space opera, are styles of SF that tend to work better at lengths longer than short stories’. I’ve just edited a volume of space opera stories, and have another that contains some hard sf and space opera stories coming shortly, and they’re all short stories pretty much, and I’ve heard this view before, but is it true? I do think the novella may be the best length for science fiction, but wasn’t science fiction founded on the short story? If you run through Bob Silverberg’s The Science Fiction Hall of Fame, isn’t it filled with short stories? And, aren’t a lot of them hard SF or space opera? When did it become popular wisdom that sf works better at longer lengths? And why? Is there something that we were doing, back in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, that we’re not doing here in the Oughties?
I disagree with him. I think the short lengths (up to novella) are fine for any kind of sf.
I wondered at that assertion, too. I think I’ve actually heard the reverse — that hard sf works better at short-story length — more often.
I think he’s completely wrong. Some of the best SF ever written is novella length or shorter. If it wasn’t for SF the short-story would be all but deceased. If it wasn’t for the short-story SF would be… well, unhealthy.
Perry Rhodan disagrees with him rather strongly, as well, 3000 short space operas later.
Does that make Peter F. Hamilton his favorite author? ;-)