|
|
|
|
|
|
by jaegerpicker
1611 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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