3 ms·

But isn't it what science fiction is? You get science sure, but with a little bit of fiction also. You read Ringworld or Redemption Ark, or any popular science

But isn't it what science fiction is? You get science sure, but with a little bit of fiction also. You read Ringworld or Redemption Ark, or any popular science fiction and you will read many implausible things. The ratio of science to fiction determine the type of science fiction you get. Hard sci-fi, a la Arthur C. Clarke tends more toward the science bit while Ursula K. Leguin is more fiction than science. In the end, what we look for in Sci-Fi, I believe, is the "What if" thing. It lets you explore ideas and concepts that you normally wouldn't, using some amount of "suspension of disbelief".

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
I think seveneves lives in a kind of uncanny valley of plausibility. When I read it, it seemed to be saying, "what if real life, but the moon blew up?" But it's actually quite a bit less realistic than that. With space operas, you kinda know what you're getting. This isn't a criticism of the book. The second half was pretty unpleasant but I enjoyed the first part.
- daveslash 5y ago
  I think you hit it on the head. As you said, with a Space Opera, you know what you're getting and you can easily suspend belief when needed. I would include Dune in this category to a large extend. With Hard SciFi, your "engineering brain" is turned only fully and you enjoy thinking through the actual plausibility of things; I'd include the Martian in that category. I didn't get far in Seveneves, but what I read felt to be uncomfortably in-between. I couldn't tell if I needed to suspend disbelief and look for the less technical meaning, or if I should be having fun thinking about the science/engineering plausibility. Uncanny valley is a good description to me. I think Stephenson found an interesting in between. Not a criticism of the book; just an observation/assessment.
YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
>> But isn't it what science fiction is? You get science sure, but with a little bit of fiction also. Historically, most of science fiction has been the opposite: 80% fiction and 20% "science" which usually means speculation about future technologies, without going into the details of how they could be realised. Realistic treatises of future scientific or technological breakthroughs are, to my experience (long time fan) absent from science fiction which is, after all, a genre of popular literature meant primarily for entertainment. There is a trend of "hard" science fiction (like the Stephenson novel, which I haven't read) but since it's still just some guy (or broad) writing stuff in freeform language (rather than maths) without any attempt at formal definitions, or to prove theoretical results and test them empirically, one can only make very weak claims about "realism". To boil it down to plain English: if you're looking for science, look at scientific publications, not science fiction publications.
- skywal_l 5y ago
  Funny things is that sometimes science fiction publications lead to real science innovations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago

I think seveneves lives in a kind of uncanny valley of plausibility. When I read it, it seemed to be saying, "what if real life, but the moon blew up?" But it's actually quite a bit less realistic than that. With space operas, you kinda know what you're getting. This isn't a criticism of the book. The second half was pretty unpleasant but I enjoyed the first part.

daveslash 5y ago
I think you hit it on the head. As you said, with a Space Opera, you know what you're getting and you can easily suspend belief when needed. I would include Dune in this category to a large extend. With Hard SciFi, your "engineering brain" is turned only fully and you enjoy thinking through the actual plausibility of things; I'd include the Martian in that category. I didn't get far in Seveneves, but what I read felt to be uncomfortably in-between. I couldn't tell if I needed to suspend disbelief and look for the less technical meaning, or if I should be having fun thinking about the science/engineering plausibility. Uncanny valley is a good description to me. I think Stephenson found an interesting in between. Not a criticism of the book; just an observation/assessment.

YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago

>> But isn't it what science fiction is? You get science sure, but with a little bit of fiction also. Historically, most of science fiction has been the opposite: 80% fiction and 20% "science" which usually means speculation about future technologies, without going into the details of how they could be realised. Realistic treatises of future scientific or technological breakthroughs are, to my experience (long time fan) absent from science fiction which is, after all, a genre of popular literature meant primarily for entertainment. There is a trend of "hard" science fiction (like the Stephenson novel, which I haven't read) but since it's still just some guy (or broad) writing stuff in freeform language (rather than maths) without any attempt at formal definitions, or to prove theoretical results and test them empirically, one can only make very weak claims about "realism". To boil it down to plain English: if you're looking for science, look at scientific publications, not science fiction publications.

skywal_l 5y ago
Funny things is that sometimes science fiction publications lead to real science innovations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit.