171–180 of 205 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's a webnovel? Fanfiction? Or like an online Japanese visual novel?
Guessing, but maybe an original novel published freely on the web? That’s what the name appears to imply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I couldn't help but read that with historical-political overtones, which in light of 19th century Chinese history and the modern CCP seemed terrifying. I also took issue with the implicit assumption that two civilizations cooperating would develop no faster than a single civilization. Or, another way, that all civilizations would climb the same technology ladder the same way. On Earth, historical competition between…
> I also took issue with the implicit assumption that two civilizations cooperating would develop no faster than a single civilization. I don't remember that assumption; I felt the implicit assumption was that development of any civilization can experience unpredictable rapid acceleration, so even if two civilizations cooperated, it doesn't help them much against others out there. > Or, another way, that all civiliza…
From memory, the basic tenant of dark forest theory was 'In the time it takes to communicate, you could become more powerful than me.'
My point is that if two+ interacting (I don't believe cooperation is strictly necessary) civilizations make technological progress at an exponentially faster rate than a single civilization, then they are highly unlikely to be outclassed.
Furthermore, this provides a disincentive (where 3BP notes none) to wipe out other civilizations, as you're giving up their potential benefits.
> history of China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_China#Qing_dynasty_...
tl;dr - late-Qing+ China (like the Muslim world) goes from a thriving, scientifically leading, expansionist trading society to an isolationist stagnant one, then suffers 200 years of being taken advantage of by foreign powers.
Culminating in both the British and Japanese invading with radically advanced military hardware and imposing their will.
It's hard not to see parallels, but a bit terrifying that the 3BP take-away is 'you should launch a first strike on your enemies the second you can obliterate them without retribution.'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not dismissive to call it fantasy. Do we have any scientific evidence that any of higher-dimensional antics in 3BP are possible? If not, then the author is making up his own world building rules (completely acceptable). But that makes the story more akin to scientific fantasy than hard scientific fiction. And unless the English translation excised a LOT of technical details, there are some huge leaps of scientif…
There's a rule I remember, that in hard-ish sci-fi, the author gets to invent one unrealistic thing. I wouldn't put Cixin Liu's trilogy as hard hard sci-fi, as it invents a few more, but all in all, there aren't that many "fantasy devices" there. It definitely has a flavour of hardness.
If you're going to take 1,800 pages (English translation) to lay out your series, and you can't spare a few for 'well, now we're building giant fusion-powered warship fleets'? That's not anything approaching hard sci-fi in my book.
Yes, all the technologies used on the ships are extrapolated and believable, but the realignment of society, economics, and the organization of such a construction effort boggles the mind. And to say 'it just happens'? That's kind of like going from WWII to 'and so we landed on the moon' in a single page.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not dismissive to call it fantasy. Do we have any scientific evidence that any of higher-dimensional antics in 3BP are possible? If not, then the author is making up his own world building rules (completely acceptable). But that makes the story more akin to scientific fantasy than hard scientific fiction. And unless the English translation excised a LOT of technical details, there are some huge leaps of scientif…
There's a rule I remember, that in hard-ish sci-fi, the author gets to invent one unrealistic thing. I wouldn't put Cixin Liu's trilogy as hard hard sci-fi, as it invents a few more, but all in all, there aren't that many "fantasy devices" there. It definitely has a flavour of hardness.
Even that much is being overly kind (at least to the first book - I gave up after that). Hard SF introduces a small number of well-defined ideas and then works through their logical consequences. Science fantasy introduces magical devices with particular consequences as and when the plot demands. The magical VR system and magical particle computer - essentially all the SF elements of Three Body Problem - were examples of the latter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a rule I remember, that in hard-ish sci-fi, the author gets to invent one unrealistic thing. I wouldn't put Cixin Liu's trilogy as hard hard sci-fi, as it invents a few more, but all in all, there aren't that many "fantasy devices" there. It definitely has a flavour of hardness.
I guess the piercing of my suspension of hard sci-fi disbelief happened in the 2nd book(?), where post-Fall they rebuild into a militarily space capable society with relatively advanced weaponry. If you're going to take 1,800 pages (English translation) to lay out your series, and you can't spare a few for 'well, now we're building giant fusion-powered warship fleets'? That's not anything approaching hard sci-fi in m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a rule I remember, that in hard-ish sci-fi, the author gets to invent one unrealistic thing. I wouldn't put Cixin Liu's trilogy as hard hard sci-fi, as it invents a few more, but all in all, there aren't that many "fantasy devices" there. It definitely has a flavour of hardness.
> I wouldn't put Cixin Liu's trilogy as hard hard sci-fi, as it invents a few more, but all in all, there aren't that many "fantasy devices" there. It definitely has a flavour of hardness. Even that much is being overly kind (at least to the first book - I gave up after that). Hard SF introduces a small number of well-defined ideas and then works through their logical consequences. Science fantasy introduces magical…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Dark Forest" is a fascinating idea that would make for an interesting short story, but I agree with you that the characters and plot are extremely lacking.
That's from the second book, right? A lot of people appear to be saying that the second one is the best. But then the same people mostly say that the first one is, if not great, then at least okay, and that's where my calibration goes off.
for me personally, i approached it less as a hard sci-fi book and more of a fantasy/sci-fi novel with some big ideas, and loved it for that!
Three body problem does suffer the problem of weak characterization. Liu's account of his characters are often robotic and functional, in a way that is pretty anti-climatic, since you hardly feel for those characters and their fate. They are disposable vehicles with string attached, who don't control their own fate or make their own decisions but simply carry out appointed missions from the author himself. Granted, h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Curious, have you read Asimov? Specifically Foundation?
Not yet. I've been meaning to, and recently my wife bought me hardcover Foundation books for my birthday; it's my next fiction to read after I finish the newest Safehold book!
I don’t need my sci-fi to be literature, but I need the story to move every ten or twenty pages, or characters I care about. Character development is an alternative to plot development, basically, but to go along side your interesting science bits, you have to give me at least one of:
A) short
B) characters who I care at least slightly about
C) a plot that moves faster than your average snail
The Three Body Problem had none of the above. Although the last 40 or so pages was at least a perfectly good short story in its own right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no objective definition for a line between "science fiction" and "science fantasy," but I've come to view Star Trek as no less science fantasy than Star Wars. Replicators and transporters violate physical laws to such a degree that they might as well be magic. The way the universe and tech are described (subspace, particles of the week, negative space wedgies, etc.) have little to do with the actual universe…
Fair point. Totally forgot about Q (assuming we're not in a simulation, the feats that Q pulled off are most probably not realistic in the real world.) As with most things, I think it's probably more on a spectrum. I probably should have said that Star Trek leans more towards science fiction than Star Wars - so yes - I agree with your points. Another one that's more 'science fictional' is the Expanse - worth checking…
All the proto-molecule derived stuff isn’t particularly plausible, but it’s not really worse than most sufficiently-advanced-technology tropes, and it tries pretty hard to express a universe with rules, just different rules.
I would give Star Wars an F for science-y-ness, Star Trek a varying score depending on the episode (ranging from A to F) but overall a C, and The Expanse a B+.
It is galling when people define sci-fi by its cinematic imitators, for sure.