[ilamont]

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, either. Some of the best works have ignored standard rules of "what makes great X", starting with HG Wells and up to the present day. Star Trek and Earthsea and Urth may not be great science, but they are truly fantastic fiction.

ETA: I also thought the condescending swipe at Andy Weir is unnecessary. He wrote one of the most inspiring stories in recent years about science and spaceflight ... yet it doesn't even count as science fiction? ("But whatever you call it, The Martian’s space-hackery certainly couldn’t have inspired anyone “to develop new technologies and implement them on a heroic scale.”) Seriously, an adolescent inspired by The Martian may very well be one of the first humans to walk on Mars and carry out important science.

[jordanpg]

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 fiction” to refer to works like Weir’s. But whatever you call it, The Martian’s space-hackery certainly couldn’t have inspired anyone “to develop new technologies and implement them on a heroic scale.”

The author is saying that Weir's Martian lacks a hieroglyph, which is to say that its problems are too narrow, too local, too provincial. It's missing inspiration on a "heroic scale."

[jaegerpicker]

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?

[emteycz]

Well yeah, but compare to Asimov or Banks and their super-advanced mega-civilizations of trillions of people.

Martian is cool and IMHO it is a scifi, but there are significant differences.

[jaegerpicker]

Yep totally, one of the things I love about Sci-Fi is that there could be a mix of The Culture, The Belt, and Nasa based stories and it's all Sci-Fi. I happen to be a massive fan of near future Sci-Fi because I draw hope from it. I love Foundation and The Culture also but they are SO big that for me it's hard to tell the difference between fantasy and "High Tech Sci-Fi" often. The Expanse feels within reasonable reach, The Martian or For All Mankind much more so and given the events in the world that means a lot IMO.

[dharmaturtle]

Agriculture on a "heroic scale" allowed civilizations to develop.

I submit that Martian botany will the the start of "space farming on a heroic scale" - and that The Martian will inspire future generations.

As an aside, I dislike the implication that a personal story with only one life on the line is not heroic. I'm tired of world ending stakes in stories.

[ilamont]

> 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 refer to works like Weir’s.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> 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.

[jaegerpicker]

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 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.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> The Martian not qualify as Sci-Fi, hard Sci-Fi at that?

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.

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techno-thriller

[prox]

Stargate SG-1 is holding up remarkably well as a long running series that documents the political climate of the day (collapse soviet union, rise of china as a power) as well technological advancements (the early computers in the series vs the final years with laptops and all)

Notwithstanding the great chemistry of the actors and commentary on many aspects of society and interpersonal relationships.

[toolcombinator]

I always liked SGA better, but you’re definitely right about SG 1.

Which of course begs another question: SG1 was made in a time that we can call the Golden Age of TV Sci fi, along with the Trek shows, Farscape and many more.

(Though granted: SG1 is probably more of an action adventure show at heart, if you want to get anal about classifications.)

Despite productions that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, why don’t we see show of the same quality today?

Yeah, there’s The Expanse and The Orville, but those two are the only exceptions in a media landscape almost barren of good sci-fi like SG-1.

[prox]

The whole series spans almost two decades. I think the quality of SG-1 is really the chemistry between the characters, and not a lot of plot drifting.

The Expanse is indeed the only character centered sci-fi at the moment, as I feel ST Discovery misses the mark on the chemistry bit.

I was pleasantly surprised with acting and scope in The Foundation (Apple TV), but it isn’t SciFi in the vein of SG-1 (action adventurish as you note)

[kaycebasques]

> William Gibson writing about a better future? That's not what I saw in his books

Neuromancer definitely wasn't optimistic, but the description of the software agents (can't remember the terms Gibson used) were so cool that I would interpret it as a kind of inspiration (the cousin of optimism). I'm talking about how the main character would be making his way through cyberspace and he would see the other programs, people, etc. as 3D forms.

I agree that this thesis around "SF needs to be usefully optimistic" is a bizarre presumption.

[at_a_remove]

It is more than bizarre, it is a little scary.

Looking through the various dystopian fics, films, whatever, they all started as someone's utopia. Somebody out there thought this was a great idea. And like most great ideas you will have disagreement, which must be dealt with, because it's a great idea. Can't have the nay-saying. And the transformation to dystopia begins.

Just as an example from the article, a lot of the policy and planning around the pandemic assumed almost total compliance. This is not a reasonable assumption.

[octopoc]

> Looking through the various dystopian fics, films, whatever, they all started as someone's utopia.

Exactly! This is always what happens when people have more loyalty to an ideology than to humans.

[pbourke]

“High technology within broken human systems” is how I’d describe much “cyberpunk” writing. Reading tons of it as a younger person has made the present feel eerily familiar.

The most unrealistic part of most science fiction for me are not the warp drives and teleporters, but the human civilization that has found its way to post-scarcity.

[beaconstudios]

the essence of cyberpunk is about exactly where techno-libertarianism will lead. It was so subversive because it was at its core a critique of capitalism, pointed directly at golden age scifi.

[smnrchrds]

Relevant comic: https://www.butajape.com/comic/sci-fi-predictions/

Make sure you read the description too.

[kaycebasques]

There are some interesting details in the last illustration. Seems like some hints around how the author thinks the real future will actually suck:

* Water only being available in bottles, at a very high price

* Cyborg tech

* Militarized Boston Dynamics robots

* Destroyed moon...?

[moomin]

Article could have been titled “Andy Weir consider not to be something he never tried to be by a bunch of people who tried and failed”

[tomrod]

> yet it doesn't even count as science fiction

Very dubious that the article's author doesn't consider Hard Sci-Fi to be scifi. It calls into question their assessment of everything tangentially related.

[someone7x]

> yet it doesn't even count as science fiction?

To be pedantic, it _did_ win a Golden Globe for Best Comedy or Musical, but your point stands that it should absolutely qualify as sci-fi.