Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by beaconstudios 1611 days ago
how about the Wikipedia definition?

> Science fiction (sometimes shortened to sci-fi or SF) is a genre of speculative fiction which typically deals with imaginative and futuristic concepts such as advanced science and technology, space exploration, time travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life. It has been called the "literature of ideas", and it often explores the potential consequences of scientific, social, and technological innovations.[1][2]

That definition doesn't really fit The Martian. If your headcanon definition of SciFi does include The Martian then that's fine, but I don't really understand how you think excluding it from the category is an insult when for most common definitions it doesn't really fit well.

In my mind, SciFi is Asimov's Foundation series, or Star Trek, or Dune. It's set in the future or an alternative universe with considerably different, more advanced technology than modern-day reality. The Martian is set 13 years from now, using today's technology.

2 comments

I think you have an overly restrictive understanding of science fiction.

The Martian deals with [...] advanced science and technology and space exploration and getting people alive to mars is definitely future rather than current technology.

There's also a rich tradition of near-future science fiction, e.g. [Halting state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_State) was published in 2007; features such advanced technology as smart phones, augmented reality, and cloud computing; and is categorised as science fiction on wikipedia, and I assume in basically any bookseller's cataloging system.

Sure, I'm more than happy to debate if The Martian is Sci-Fi or not. I actually don't feel offended about that at all. I disagree that it's not but certainly not offended. I was offended, actually annoyed but whatever, to suggest that The Martian couldn't inspire anyone because it's was practical in it's approach. I've watched it inspire my son, I've personally been inspired. It's clearly dismissive of the work and that is frustrating and annoying to me.
Ah that's fair enough. I think The Martian is pretty inspirational, for quite a few reasons - it portrays a near future where we're preparing for a permanent Mars settlement, the characters display real engineering creativity and ingenuity, and everybody's working together towards a shared, altruistic goal.

I don't think the issue raised in the article is with that aspect - but that it doesn't paint a vision of a Jetsons or Star Trek future, and Neal Stephenson wants to see more of that.