51–60 of 79 posts
Huh? This person has been to the future? What a waste of that insight if this is all he is bringing.
What a poor article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I feel like there’s this absurd amount of commentary floating on the Internet that basically boils down to “the authors aren’t concerned with what really matters, which is to bring the socialist utopia to life”. Any kind of societal, economic, human and environmental ill is caused by capitalism, so anything that tries to solve actual problems instead of eliminating or weakening capitalism isn’t doing enough
> Any kind of societal, economic, human and environmental ill is caused by capitalism, so anything that tries to solve actual problems instead of eliminating or weakening capitalism isn’t doing enough My entire life (40 years) has been feeding me the exact opposite propaganda. In the world I've lived in, capitalism is the answer to all of our ills. Things are only broken (like healthcare or education in the US) becau…
For those so quick to shit on capitalism how about proposing something better? Yup, it's flawed, but that doesn't mean it's still not better than anything else we have tried.
And the current flavor of the moment, socialism/communism, sure as hell isn't the answer. Want a good synopsis of how well such systems work in the real world? Grab a copy of the book of "The Hunt for Red October". Skip to the middle where they describe why Ramius's wife died and in particular why it was such a senseless death. Clancy does an awesome job of summarizing the biggest problem with any system that doesn't franchise every participant or provide them with natural incentives to execute their own enlightened self interest.
Yup, there are aspects to capitalism that suck - but the answer isn't to chuck it wholesale for some pie in the sky replacement, but instead work on the aspects that suck. Many of them are well understood - most people can't be bothered to get off their ass and actually do something about it; preferring to bitch online and wait for someone else to fix it for them.
Examples include Isaac Asimov’s robots, Robert Heinlein’s rocket ships, and William Gibson’s cyberspace.” He called these examples hieroglyphs: clear, inspiring symbols of what a better future might hold. William Gibson writing about a better future? That's not what I saw in his books, but great science fiction doesn't have to portray a better future. In my opinion, great science fiction doesn't have to follow dogma,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you missed the point of the Weir mention. The author wasn't taking a swipe at Weir (in the way that many sci-fi snobs do). He was discussing Weir in the taxonomy of Project Hieroglyph, which is clear from the full context: > In fact, The Martian was so modest that it may not have qualified as sci-fi in the first place. Cory Doctorow, another one of Stephenson’s Hieroglyph collaborators, uses the term “design…
> He was discussing Weir in the taxonomy of Project Hieroglyph, which is clear from the full context I'm reading it as Weir's work doesn't count as science fiction, which goes beyond following Project Hieroglyph's rules: In fact, The Martian was so modest that it may not have qualified as sci-fi in the first place. Cory Doctorow, another one of Stephenson’s Hieroglyph collaborators, uses the term “design fiction” to…
"The Martian" has only traces of Sci-Fi in it.
"Project Hail Mary" definitely has more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He was discussing Weir in the taxonomy of Project Hieroglyph, which is clear from the full context I'm reading it as Weir's work doesn't count as science fiction, which goes beyond following Project Hieroglyph's rules: In fact, The Martian was so modest that it may not have qualified as sci-fi in the first place. Cory Doctorow, another one of Stephenson’s Hieroglyph collaborators, uses the term “design fiction” to…
> Weir's work doesn't count as science fiction "The Martian" has only traces of Sci-Fi in it. "Project Hail Mary" definitely has more.
So it's set in the future, it's about scientists and science, it's about a big idea (even more so when it was written) - sending human's to Mars, and it's fiction. Honestly I don't understand how that can't be Sci-Fi through and through. Is it because the tech isn't vastly advanced over what we have now? Because 30 years ago smart phones were Sci-Fi, in 1870 submarines were Sci-Fi, in 1634 the moon and it's relationship with the Earth (Kepler's Somnium) was Sci-Fi. If those qualify I'm not sure how The Martian fails to.
Again not offended at this, just really curious how people draw that conclusion.
Did anyone else read this article and still not really get the point the author is trying to make? Sounds like someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed or finished a sci fi novel last night that ended with a little too much like Bruce Willis Saves The Day. Stephenson, who he calls out, actually worked at Blue Origin in the early days trying to come up with and design alternative fuel/rocket ideas. Did they work?…
Sci-fi has of course always veered wildly between impossible wide-eyed utopian space technomancy (e.g. Star Trek) and grimdark dystopia (e.g. I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream). Project Hieroglyph was a optimistic rejection of both of those.
The article concludes "the subsequent years have shown, optimism has very real limits", because unfortunately, as you probably already know, people.
If commenters here are not familiar with Project Hieroglyph and just want to ramble about sci-fi in general, go ahead but don't mistake that for a relevant criticism of the original article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Weir's work doesn't count as science fiction "The Martian" has only traces of Sci-Fi in it. "Project Hail Mary" definitely has more.
I mentioned this elsewhere in the thread, so at the risk of repeating myself, how does The Martian not qualify as Sci-Fi, hard Sci-Fi at that? Sure the majority of the tech exists today but not all of it (habs, the ships themselves, etc) and certainly not all of the tech has actually been built or tested. So it's set in the future, it's about scientists and science, it's about a big idea (even more so when it was wri…
I didn't say that The Martian "does not qualify as Sci-Fi" at all. You are misreading.
I said "traces" of sci-fi, i.e. a non-zero amount of it; as it's all very grounded in actual fact, despite being set in the near future.
In what way is "Sending humans to mars" a "big idea"? - it's talked about and planned for a lot. It's not a surprise if it happens. It's not a reality yet, that's the "trace" of extrapolation, of Sci-Fi.
Submarines were not actual sci-fi in 1870 https://www.history.com/news/9-groundbreaking-early-submarin...
I don't think that the "hard" part is relevant. A book set on an oil rig today, or even on the ISS, with similar "hard" engineering challenges would have a high "hard science" content, but that wouldn't make it sci-Fi. See: techno-thriller (1).
Because sci-fi is not just "fiction about science and engineering ... that already exists". It is extrapolation into the unknown. You have a point that "The Martian" does extrapolate. Counterpoint: Not by much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you missed the point of the Weir mention. The author wasn't taking a swipe at Weir (in the way that many sci-fi snobs do). He was discussing Weir in the taxonomy of Project Hieroglyph, which is clear from the full context: > In fact, The Martian was so modest that it may not have qualified as sci-fi in the first place. Cory Doctorow, another one of Stephenson’s Hieroglyph collaborators, uses the term “design…
Showing what life on Mars would REQUIRE is too narrow? Too local? Yes it's about one person surviving but it's also about what it required to survive on Mars, the political reality of what space exploration depends on. Did he miss the head of Nasa making decisions about how events effect funding? The PR department handling the news so that it plays well? How is this not about heroic scale space exploration?
Martian is cool and IMHO it is a scifi, but there are significant differences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you missed the point of the Weir mention. The author wasn't taking a swipe at Weir (in the way that many sci-fi snobs do). He was discussing Weir in the taxonomy of Project Hieroglyph, which is clear from the full context: > In fact, The Martian was so modest that it may not have qualified as sci-fi in the first place. Cory Doctorow, another one of Stephenson’s Hieroglyph collaborators, uses the term “design…
Showing what life on Mars would REQUIRE is too narrow? Too local? Yes it's about one person surviving but it's also about what it required to survive on Mars, the political reality of what space exploration depends on. Did he miss the head of Nasa making decisions about how events effect funding? The PR department handling the news so that it plays well? How is this not about heroic scale space exploration?