Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

lareviewofbooks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 130 posts

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#11

Post by cannonedhamster »

ashark wrote: post #3

> This show is post-racism, but still believes in “culture” with a Victorian faith in white mythologies I'm fairly literate in Liberal Arts English, but I don't follow what this means, especially as the context around it seems to complain about portrayals of race . What does it mean to "believe in 'culture' with a Victorian faith in white mythologies"? What does that modifier mean about one's belief in culture (whate…

It means that the Victorian appeal of claiming oneself above the "savages" of wherever the British Empire was conquering. The writer is equating the story of Discovery with the story the British told themselves about colonialism. The reference is that The Federation is the British and the Klingons are the savages.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#12

Post by TeMPOraL »

maxlybbert wrote: post #9

Based on the website address, I thought the article would be about written science fiction, which continues to move forward if you ignore recommendations from people who don't actually like science fiction. I think "The Martian" counts as moving forward, but I'm much less happy with most of the books Amazon recommends for me. But the article is about television. I really am not qualified to say much about television…

> even if hard science fiction fans can be perfectly targeted through Netflix or Amazon, special effects will keep production costs high

It's a thing I've been wondering about - what makes special effects cost so much, compared to previous decades? I mean, everything is done with CG now, that's supposed to be orders of magnitude cheaper than what people did in the XX century.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#14

Post by occultist_throw »

ashark wrote: post #8
occultist_throw wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just attributed it to standard SJW virtue signalling. It's meaningless aside to others who understand the same lingo, and agree with it. Edit: Ah, the usual SJW refrain. Silence any criticism via flags, -1's and other tools available, instead of discussing why the quote is right/not and what it means.

A nod-ignore-and-keep-reading Lit Crit academese filler thing, then? I guess it stood out to me because the review doesn't have much of that, otherwise, and because the paragraph it's in seemed to be making some kind of point, though I couldn't decipher what it was in such a way that that sentence contributed anything.

Truthfully, these days if I see SJW buzzwords, I just skip over the rest of the text. It's not worth subjecting oneself in that sort of groupthink - lest you eat babies. Because if you don't agree with them, you must assuredly agree with rape, sex crimes, and eating babies. There is no middle ground. There is no discussion. Only fuming mouths.

Are there wrongs? Absolutely. But we can tackle those when we have clear evidence and direct corrective action. Striking out at anyone with a will to discuss and have legitimate concerns is not a way to bridge the communication gap.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#16

Post by eesmith »

micheljones wrote: post #4

Because it became saddled with SJWism and PC culture.

This is completely counter to the thesis in the article.

For example:

> Looking back from two decades later, Next Generation (1987–94), Deep Space Nine (1993–99), and Voyager (1995–2001) feel like a single continuous 1990’s moment, a moment that began in a renewed liberal optimism for multiculturalism and progress and the general advancement of humanity.

Where is the SJWism and PC culture which saddles the latest ST movies? How did all that SWJism result in Khan Noonien Singh becoming a white guy? Or Kirk switching from being "a stack of books with legs" in the Academy to the womanizer he's become now?

The essay continues:

> Alas, that moment had clearly run out of gas when September of 2001 happened, and when it brought with it the terrible, epoch-shaping tragedy of that year.

I believe your thesis is that the worldview post-9/11 had a less impact than on ST and optimism than the increased SJWism and PC culture you see, yes?

Seems rather far-fetched to me.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#17

Post by outsidetheparty »

micheljones wrote: post #4

Because it became saddled with SJWism and PC culture.

That totally makes sense. The original Star Trek, of course, was completely unconcerned with issues like race relations, social justice, equality, multiculturalism, and all that other socialist garbage. If only we could go back to those long-ago days of the 1960s when nobody ever talked about these terrible newfangled hippie-dippie ideals!

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#18

Post by krisdol »

occultist_throw wrote: post #7
ashark wrote: post #3

> This show is post-racism, but still believes in “culture” with a Victorian faith in white mythologies I'm fairly literate in Liberal Arts English, but I don't follow what this means, especially as the context around it seems to complain about portrayals of race . What does it mean to "believe in 'culture' with a Victorian faith in white mythologies"? What does that modifier mean about one's belief in culture (whate…

I just attributed it to standard SJW virtue signalling. It's meaningless aside to others who understand the same lingo, and agree with it. Edit: Ah, the usual SJW refrain. Silence any criticism via flags, -1's and other tools available, instead of discussing why the quote is right/not and what it means.

Can you rephrase what you said? Whenever I see "SJW" or "virtue signaling" in a post, I immediately stop reading and move on. Those terms are meaningless to those who don't subscribe to the groupthink of a devout cult of sheltered sexists.
Post reply on HN