Live data from Hacker News

A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

ursulakleguin.com

21–30 of 90 posts

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#21
post #12

Fine. Sci-fi is a broad genre that intersects at the edges with fantasy, alternate history, magic realism, and all kinds of other very imaginative styles. The hard/soft axis is fuzzy. The extreme of hard is "known physics only" and generally modest technical leaps or changes (e.g. solarpunk imagines known physics but a very different technical vocabulary for how it's used). The extreme of soft becomes fantasy with sc…

what do you think of peter f. hamilton? i like the prose, but i am not sure about character development.

“The balance is the penalty of being human: the danger of allowing yourself to feel. For this we walk a narrow path high above rocky ground. On one side we have the descent into animalism, on the other a godhead delusion. Both pulling at us, both tempting. But without these forces tugging at your psyche, stirring it into conflict, you can never love. They awaken us, you see, these warring sides, they arouse our passion.” ― Peter F. Hamilton, The Reality Dysfunction

“Life alone is precious, but conscious thought is the greatest gift the universe offers.” ― Peter F. Hamilton, The Reality Dysfunction

“Resolution, the ability and determination to see things through to the end. However unexpected or disappointing that end turns out to be.” ― Peter F. Hamilton, The Reality Dysfunction

“He had used drugs and nanonic supplements to compensate at first, then supplements became replacements, with bones exchanged for carbon-fibre struts. Electrical consumption supplanted food intake. The final transition was his skin, replacing the eczema-ridden epidermis with a smooth ochre silicon membrane. Warlow didn’t need a spacesuit to work in the vacuum, he could survive for over three weeks without a power and oxygen recharge. His facial features had become purely cosmetic, a crude mannequin-like caricature of human physiognomy, although there was an inlet valve at the back of his throat for fluid intake. There was no hair, and he certainly didn’t bother with clothes. Sex was something he lost in his fifties.” ― Peter F. Hamilton, The Reality Dysfunction

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#22
post #2

Not really a rant? She’s just clarifying a reasonable difference between different types of technology to explain how her work qualifies as science fiction without being all about what she calls “hi-tech” technology. Sounded pretty reasonable to me anyway.

It’s a rant, but not about technology. It’s a rant about her chosen genre being maligned unfairly.

I think a more interesting tack on this argument would be to say that hard sci-fi tends to be more pro-technology and soft sci-fi tends to be more technology-critical. But some soft sci-fi is genuinely technology-neutral, using futuristic settings for aesthetic reasons only, not for any kind of investigation or argument either way.

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#23
post #2

Not really a rant? She’s just clarifying a reasonable difference between different types of technology to explain how her work qualifies as science fiction without being all about what she calls “hi-tech” technology. Sounded pretty reasonable to me anyway.

> Submission title is a bit misleading. It's the original title, she labeled it a rant herself. EDIT: The person I replied to has significantly edited their comment since my original reply so my comment now appears as a non sequitur. This is why I quote people, or wait a couple hours to reply once I know they're the sort to do this kind of thing.

Instead of your EDIT, you could’ve deleted your reply since it was no longer relevant.

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#24

To wit, LeGuin is the one who originally coined the term "ansible," which is about as hard sci-fi as you can get.

> which is about as hard sci-fi as you can get. Interesting, I always thought that the modern interpretation is that hard sci-fi is "rooted in science" or close to it. The ansible (i.e. FTL communication) is, to our current knowledge, not possible. But it is such a useful plot device that it could be viewed as "close enough". I understand the opposite of hard sci-fi to be the hand wavy "magic" stuff like photon torpe…

I think the critical factor that makes sci-fi hard isn't known physics, exactly, but early on establishing a known set of rules and letting them play out as they will. The narrative has to respect and adjust to those rules, not vice versa.

This ends up driving most hard sci fi to current understanding of physics, with maybe one tweak. If you diverge more from that, it's difficult or impossible to establish the rules and their implications early on, and so choices about them later end up serving the narrative.

Though, a certain irony: hard sci-fi doesn't seem to offer much predictive insight about the future compared to other subgenres. The 20th century sci-fi genre that seems to offer the most insight into our current moment is probably the one with the wildest imaginings: cyberpunk.

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#25
I find the most practical distinction of scifi vs fantasy is that scifi calls it credits and fantasy calls it coin. This classification has never steered me wrong.

But honestly categories never quite work at the edges. Some of my favorite books are post apocalyptic fantasy where the characters are definitely using scifi technology that I recognize as advanced versions of existing technology but they just think of as magic.

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#26
I've only read "The Left Hand of Darkness". It's a very well written book, but it didn't emphasize enough technology/science/engineering for me to consider it even soft science fiction. I guess she's doing the work of expanding the scope of what technology could be used in science fiction. I'm not sure that's super useful, since by her definition, almost every work of fiction will involve technology.

Now I want to write a science fiction story where the core technology is never written about explicitly and can only be inferred from its effect on the characters :P

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#27

I've only read "The Left Hand of Darkness". It's a very well written book, but it didn't emphasize enough technology/science/engineering for me to consider it even soft science fiction. I guess she's doing the work of expanding the scope of what technology could be used in science fiction. I'm not sure that's super useful, since by her definition, almost every work of fiction will involve technology. Now I want to wr…

I kind of disagree, but also, I guess, who cares if it’s sci fi or not? Is it a good story that matches your tastes? Then great. The bookstores lump all the “speculative fiction” stuff together, anyway, and I don’t usually look for my next book by genre.

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#28
post #8

To wit, LeGuin is the one who originally coined the term "ansible," which is about as hard sci-fi as you can get.

How is it hard sci-fi? It was basically magic

Half of Star Trek would basically be "magic" by that rubric. I think she reasoned through a problem and conceived of a solution, even if she didn't have the implementation details figured out.

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#29

Le Guin is a master of fiction, period. While she's very different from modern sci-fi/fantasy, her work is almost as foundational as Tolkien, Lewis, or Asimov. Take her Earthsea series (which was very loosely adapted as a Studio Ghibli movie). It's much slower paced than modern fantasy. Barely anyone dies (no Red Weddings here), and it almost reads more like an extended fairy tale. But when you start reading it you c…

A side point: when you say “Lewis” I assume you mean Charles Staple Lewis, not Sinclair Lewis. I find it hard to consider the former “foundational”. It was and is popular (much to the annoyance of his buddy Tolkien), but hardly influential in the way of JRRT (nobody writes poor pastiches on Narnia the way innumerable derivatives have been done on Middle Earth).

As for Asimov, well, one can argue about his long term influence but who can avoid calling it foundation-al?

Agree completely on Le Guin

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#30
post #7

To wit, LeGuin is the one who originally coined the term "ansible," which is about as hard sci-fi as you can get.

I don't think an ansible is "hard sci-fi". Hard sci-fi deals with known physics, and FTL communication violates that.

By that construction, it seems like "hard sci-fi" would allow little to no creativity to push the envelope unless the author is also a theoretical physicist.
Post reply on HN