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

A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

ursulakleguin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 90 posts

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#71

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

GolfPopper wrote: post #51
ModernMech wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that all started with The Walking Dead

Glen Cook was killing off major characters back in the 1980s.

JG Ballard, John Brunner (and others) were writing miserabilist dystopias back in the 70s.

Also, Dune, which is certainly not a "The good guys win" story.

And movies like Soylent Green.

The Disney trope turns out not to be a trope at all. The good guys win/hero's journey is much older than Disney, and it's popular because we'd like to be believe it's how the world works.

But GoT didn't do anything really new, except wrap some porn around the various murder plots.

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#72

Post by Planktonne »

romanows wrote: post #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 wr…

I think you have a misapprehension of the genre here; science fiction isn't 'fiction with lots of science in it'; it's fiction that deals with potential future possibilities [1], and--deeper than that--fiction which uses those possibilities to explore explore current society/ideas.

There's no requirement to centrally feature technology, and it would be a weaker genre if there was.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#73

Post by jemmyw »

fsiefken wrote: post #21
api wrote: 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…

Of his work the Reality Dysfunction was the one I liked the least. Character development in his last 2 series, Salvation and Exodus, seems improved.

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#74

Post by quuxplusone »

ModernMech wrote: post #41
xg15 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Barely anyone dies (no Red Weddings here) Can I make a side-rant how since Game of Thrones, it seems to have become an expectation that characters must be killed off? Apparently readers are (expected to) be so desensitized that nothing below "the main party that is the main reason you're reading this story can die at any moment" registers anymore. In fact, even that is just the bare minimum. To really make an impac…

I think that all started with The Walking Dead

... which started with "Night of the Living Dead"... :)

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#75

Post by practal »

One of my favourite books of all time is by her: The Dispossessed.

It "features the development of the mathematical theory underlying a fictional ansible, a device capable of faster-than-light communication, which can send messages without delay, even between star systems." [1]

It doesn't get better than that. Certainly not "harder".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dispossessed

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#76

Post by habinero »

vova_hn2 wrote: post #54
hungryhobbit wrote: post #9

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…

If I haven't read any of her books, which book or series would you recommend as a starting point?

The Dispossessed. If you like that one, you'll like the rest of her work.

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#77

Post by habinero »

woopsn wrote: post #35

I have great respect for her but this isn't the only essay she's jarringly defensive (imo) in response to a critic. Ok sure, a sock is "technology"...

I mean, it is. Textiles are a technology. Extracting usable fiber from plants or animals was something we invented, so is making yarn. Knitting was invented, and shaping cloth to a foot was too. And then there's the modern side of automation. There's a lot of sophistication that goes into it.

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#78

Post by romanows »

Planktonne wrote: post #72
romanows wrote: post #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 wr…

I think you have a misapprehension of the genre here; science fiction isn't 'fiction with lots of science in it'; it's fiction that deals with potential future possibilities [1], and--deeper than that--fiction which uses those possibilities to explore explore current society/ideas. There's no requirement to centrally feature technology, and it would be a weaker genre if there was. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sc…

Your link talks about how hard it is to define science fiction, so in some ways, I'm just putting my opinion out here on the internet as a data point. I'd say the Left Hand of Darkness is more science fiction than Little Women, but it's also more like the Hobbit than it is like Foundation, Ender's Game, Snow Crash, or even 1984.

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#79

Post by mplanchard »

joebergeron wrote: post #32

> I could learn. We all can learn. That’s the neat thing about technologies. They’re what we can learn to do. What a wonderfully humble sentiment, and so plainly said. It's disarming to hear an idea stated so precisely which you've treated largely as subintellectum , despite its truthiness having a foundational effect on how you move about the world [0]. This so perfectly distills my (and I suspect others' here as we…

Just want to say, thanks for writing this! It was lovely to read this expounding upon the depths and contours of the original statement. The point seemed so obvious when she expressed it that I skimmed right over it in my reading, but your post helped me see how profound it is.

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#80

Post by woopsn »

habinero wrote: post #77
woopsn wrote: post #35

I have great respect for her but this isn't the only essay she's jarringly defensive (imo) in response to a critic. Ok sure, a sock is "technology"...

I mean, it is. Textiles are a technology. Extracting usable fiber from plants or animals was something we invented, so is making yarn. Knitting was invented, and shaping cloth to a foot was too. And then there's the modern side of automation. There's a lot of sophistication that goes into it.

I don't disagree yet it's also clear "hard science fiction" is meaningless if it's just, the people in this universe wear clothing, make campfires etc.
Post reply on HN