If All Stories Were Written Like Science Fiction Stories (2004) | Hacker News Reader

If All Stories Were Written Like Science Fiction Stories (2004)

web.archive.org

58 pointsreedwolf30 comments

Taken to extremes in actual science fiction, this tendency yields "wiring diagram fiction [1]." It was more prevalent in older SF. A few contemporary authors produce it often enough that I prefer reading the Wikipedia entries for their novels over the actual books.

I prefer the "immersion" approach where neither characters nor narrator bother to remark on what is considered ordinary from the perspective of their fictional setting. Science fiction also ages more gracefully when the author doesn't base some key element on a now-discredited New Scientist article that he read while the story was being written in 1980. Just describe the effects without being overly specific about the mechanism, and adventure-oriented readers miss nothing while technically-minded ones can fill in the blanks from their own imaginations.

[1] From the delightful Turkey City Lexicon: https://www.sfwa.org/2009/06/turkey-city-lexicon-a-primer-fo...

The Heisenberg compensator works very well, thank you.

The author(s) of that piece really don't like space westerns...

Westerns, as a family of genres, are the first fully-simulated genre. They depict a never-was fantasy-land reinvention of human society, glorifying exaggerated violent and sexual behaviors that serve both to elevate and rewrite a period of history that did not exist as depicted, and legitimizing those behaviors' analogues in our own modern world.

Space Westerns are, well, Westerns in space. They typically espouse some sort of manifest destiny and spirit of exploration, justifying victories based on being the good guys.

Can you explain what you mean by "fully-simulated genre?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation

This is just as true for new SF as for the old, and I love it. eg. Andy Weir:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/read-an-excerpt-from-andy-weirs-spac...

> Hermes is powered by ion engines. They throw argon out the back of the ship really fast to get a tiny amount of acceleration. The thing is, it doesn't take much reactant mass, so a little argon (and a nuclear reactor to power things) let us accelerate constantly the whole way there. You'd be amazed at how fast you can get going with a tiny acceleration over a long time.

A thought I had recently is that science fiction and fantasy should really be called society fiction. If we had robots/dragons, how would people behave differently, and how would that restructure society.

Traditional western literature explored all the ways that people could behave within their current society, and it wasn't until the industrial revolution/world wars/space race/information revolutions that people started seeing and imagining how societies could be changed.

Some authors do really think about how technological developments could change societies, and I love them for that.

I adore the Culture novels of Iain M. Banks, for example, while I only feel a moderately warm regard for Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Both settings have roughly the same imaginary technologies: nigh-limitless energy, replicators, faster-than-light communications and transportation, teleportation, strong AI. They both started in 1987. But ST: TNG imagined a future society that was still easily recognizable in terms of social relations and behaviors. In the Culture, AIs make most of the big decisions while most people are (effectively) beloved pets of the AIs; people are also immortal, gleefully unemployed, regular users of recreational drugs, and biologically enhanced for pleasure as well as health and intelligence.

I really hope that Amazon doesn't file off the interesting parts of the Culture setting in their upcoming adaptation of Consider Phlebas. Dennis Kelly at least seems to appreciate the source material:

https://variety.com/2018/tv/news/consider-phlebas-iain-m-ban...

I have never managed a warm regard for TNG.

Installing a Ship's Channeler killed it for me. A long time after, I learned about "teching the tech", and all was explained. Contempt for the audience is hard to hide.

> A thought I had recently is that science fiction and fantasy should really be called society fiction. If we had robots/dragons, how would people behave differently, and how would that restructure society.

While that's certainly a common theme in SciFi/Fantasy, I don't think it fits e.g. Star Wars.

If certain people could develop telepathy and telekinesis after years of practice, and then use it for good or evil, how would that affect political development and warfare?

I took a creative writing class in college. At the end of the class, we each read a section of a story we had written to the rest of the class.

I had a typed up copy of my story in my hands, eagerly awaiting my turn, but the moment I opened my mouth I realized that I had written a garbage piece of SF that was mostly S and not enough F. Devastated, I left the classroom after reading it, and didn’t return.

Sorry to hear that! Taste improve faster than ability, so when learning a creative subject there will be a stretch where it feels like your stuff is getting worse rather than better.

For me the best lesson was to have an audience if you want to improve. Something that’s not obvious when you’re writing becomes obvious when you share it with others.

I actually enjoyed it. After realizing where it was going, I imagined myself as someone from the 18th century or earlier reading about something I haven’t experienced before.

Dull SF written in the 40s I suppose. Even super hard SF will only go on about the one crucial scientific plot point. Boring is boring in any genre.

This particular SF story could of been jazzed up with more exposition about Ann's body.

This is very true. Also, it's pretty cool.

Most people forget what a difference technology makes and someone should appreciate it.

Or to put it another way "Everything is amazing and nobody is happy"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUBtKNzoKZ4

I don't think it's true for modern science fiction and also for the good classics.

I once submitted a short story to some SF mag (forget). Editor sent it back with a very short note roughly: 'Not too bad. But the character isn't changed by his experience in any way."

Well derp. The -tech- changed. Guess he wanted litrachuh.

It made me realise the SF I do read and like is people-centric and simply does not bother with technical detail. It's just taken for granted.

That is not how Science Fiction is written. At least according to the Star Trek Writers/Directors Guide https://www.bu.edu/clarion/guides/Star_Trek_Writers_Guide.pd...

I miss stories written in that style.

There are plenty being written every year. They still show up on “best SF books” lists, too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com