[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