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

21–30 of 130 posts

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#21

Post by ashark »

cannonedhamster wrote: post #11
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.

(Belief in) cultural superiority as racism, then? OK.

I'd be (genuinely) curious to see what form Klingon-hating in the show could have taken that would have been similar in form but different enough that the writer'd not have labeled it white and Victorian. I'd like to know what the diff looks like between the two. Is "they have always attacked us before, so better to start shooting if you see them and skip the trying-to-talk-then-being-fired-on-anyway bits" necessarily white and Victorian?

[EDIT] and if it's not necessarily so, then what about the show's actual depiction was?

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#22

Post by orless »

zokier wrote: post #10
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…

> I think "The Martian" counts as moving forward, but I'm much less happy with most of the books Amazon recommends for me I'd believe that more if there would have been any wider followup of similar works. But alas, there hasn't been (or at least I haven't heard of them), so I'm more likely to categorize The Martian as an outlier rather than a herald of new era.

I actually think Seveneves might have pretty much been inspired by The Martian.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#23

Post by WalterSear »

outsidetheparty wrote: post #17
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!

Not everyone equates the later with the former, fwiw.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#24

Post by eesmith »

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.

I've not read Lit Crit. I have read history. The European colonial period was justified using logic very similar to the argument described in this article.

British colonialism specifically argued for Anglo-Saxon superiority, and the Kipling's "The White Man's Burden: The United States and the Philippine Islands" used a similar logic to argue that the US should take over the Philippines.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#26

Post by outsidetheparty »

WalterSear wrote: post #23
outsidetheparty wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Not everyone equates the later with the former, fwiw.

I honestly don't know what you mean by this?

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#27

Post by pixl97 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #12
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.

I would think that practical effects would cost even more due to inflation.

Also you may miss how much of the shows are CGI if you aren't looking hard. Watch a few shows from the 70s and 80s, ones with high production values, then watch the average show today and you'll see that audiences demand much more realistic sets and scenery. Just about everything in the background of a sci-fi show is CGI.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#28

Post by lfowles »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #12
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.

We also want orders of magnitude more special effects done!

See the Wolf of Wall Street VFX highlights: https://vimeo.com/83523133

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#29

Post by orless »

toxicFork wrote: post #19
quickben wrote: post #6

Tv always played it safe. Books are where it's at.

Can you recommend a few good books that take risks?

Anathem by Neal Stephenson. You need to get through the first 100 or so pages and then it clicks in. Blue Bacon Fat by Vladimir Sorokin.

Re: Why did science fiction stop moving forward?

#30

Post by acover »

occultist_throw wrote: post #14
ashark wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

I think you are being downvoted because there is little information in what you are saying.

Off topic. Well known argument. Tone seems angry.

Just a guess

Post reply on HN