Hacker News Reader

Comment by marcinzm | Hacker News Reader

Much as I like hard and realistic science fiction I feel the most impactful science fiction is one that is a lens with which to examine humanity. That may include the impact of specific technologies on humanity. The setting is a means to an end rather than and end in its own right. Overfill it with details and it's hard to see the forrest for the trees. And for the schlock side of it the details don't really matter compared to the characters, action, romance or whatnot. I'm reading it for the protagonist hilariously killing fifty aliens with a spoon and not the realistic setting.

View on HN

I don't think hard scifi is considered its own genre because its adherents think that reflection is less important than realism, but rather because if an author doesn't intentionally prioritize realistic thinking it tends to not happen at all. A lack of realistic / scientific thinking isn't a sin for any given story, but it can turn into a collective sin if everybody's mirror has the same convenience-driven blind spot.

That's kind of the point of this list, though. So-called "hard" SF tends to only be "realistic" within the narrow confines of the author's specialty (which usually means the physics equations work out). It handwaves or outright ignores other areas, let alone tries to realistically consider them. This is most especially true for the "soft" sciences that the hard SF engineering types so often sneer at.

Which is fine for fiction stories generally, they're just fiction after all, but hard SF likes to pretend it's somehow purer or more rational than other kinds of stories.

I agree. Sometimes the 'hard' Sci-Fi novels are written by scientists who have interesting scientifc ideas but aren't necessary good writers or storytellers. The enthusiasm for their intriguing scientific scenarios come through in their writing - while plot, character or drama are all lacking.

Well, yeah, realism takes a lot of work, so you'll only ever see it happen in one or two areas, if you see it at all.

> This is most especially true for the "soft" sciences that the hard SF engineering types so often sneer at.

Sneering is always inappropriate, whether it is being done by hard scifi fans looking down at soft sciences or by literary types who don't see the point of ever engaging with realism. These feed each other, of course.

To the hard scifi fan, the entire point of tangling with realism -- which is guaranteed to be difficult, involve sacrifices, and have limited scope -- is because it helps us understand humanity. Specifically, in the context of hypothetical technology. It's always frustrating when literary types stomp in and act like they have a monopoly on this type of thing, when really we ought to be on the same team. Ah well.

"Much as I like hard and realistic science fiction I feel the most impactful science fiction is one that is a lens with which to examine humanity."

This might be a controversial view, but I would argue all storytelling is ultimately an exercise in examining yourself and the context you live in.

Whether the author is aware that that is what they are doing is another matter...

I feel like Greg Egan manages to do both very well (e.g. in Diaspora or The Arrow of time series)

On the movie side, interstellar spends a lot of time on making things scientifically accurate, but also examines humanity much more than most sf movies.

So i don't think they're at odds.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com