4 ms·

I expected a more probing take from a sci-fi writer. After all, to examine in depth the chasm between her and chatgpt is to be at the forefront of science! But

by mimd 3y ago

I expected a more probing take from a sci-fi writer. After all, to examine in depth the chasm between her and chatgpt is to be at the forefront of science! But perhaps it's too much to hope for any deeper interest. Her scifi is and was a frosting atop political essays, to make them palatable for mass consumption. Still, I must give her the benefit of the doubt and excuse her lack of effort. The Atlantic does that to people.

SenAnder 3y ago
Sci-fi? Goodness no! She writes speculative fiction. Stuff that "could really happen". Science fiction is, according to Atwood, no more than "talking squids in outer space." https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/10/speculative-or-science-fiction-as-margaret-atwood-shows-there-isnt-much-distinction https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/10/speculative-or...
- didntcheck 3y ago
  As much as I dislike the way sci-fi is looked down on (or at least used to be), I also think referring to socially-speculative fiction like Handmaid's and 1984 as sci-fi makes no sense. Nobody's reading 1984 for the telescreens! Nor calling Animal Farm "fantasy" because it has talking animals Sure, sci-fi is often very speculative, but lots also includes (for example) mystery elements, yet it would be strange to necessarily call all mystery stories set in a slightly future or alternate-contemporary timeline "sci-fi" I guess you could roughly taxonomize stories on "socially speculative" and "technologically speculative" axes. A high value in the latter often pushes the former up, but not necessarily the other way
  - YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
    >> Nobody's reading 1984 for the telescreens! Surprisingly, nobody ever read Asimov for the positronic brains, either.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mimd 3y ago
  "Ugh nerd musk. Might be male. Might turn off the East Coast intelligentsia. They can't handle much. Ignore the bio apocalypse trilogy. It's speculative not sci-fi. I'm high brow. Market, market, market..." - Atwood "Wtf?" -Ursula --- I will give Atwood some slack, as less than half her bibliography is it. But still, evaluating the chasm between her and chatgpt is kinda what she wants on her terms.

by mimd 3y ago

SenAnder 3y ago

Sci-fi? Goodness no! She writes speculative fiction. Stuff that "could really happen". Science fiction is, according to Atwood, no more than "talking squids in outer space." https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/10/speculative-or-science-fiction-as-margaret-atwood-shows-there-isnt-much-distinction https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/10/speculative-or...

didntcheck 3y ago
As much as I dislike the way sci-fi is looked down on (or at least used to be), I also think referring to socially-speculative fiction like Handmaid's and 1984 as sci-fi makes no sense. Nobody's reading 1984 for the telescreens! Nor calling Animal Farm "fantasy" because it has talking animals Sure, sci-fi is often very speculative, but lots also includes (for example) mystery elements, yet it would be strange to necessarily call all mystery stories set in a slightly future or alternate-contemporary timeline "sci-fi" I guess you could roughly taxonomize stories on "socially speculative" and "technologically speculative" axes. A high value in the latter often pushes the former up, but not necessarily the other way
- YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
  >> Nobody's reading 1984 for the telescreens! Surprisingly, nobody ever read Asimov for the positronic brains, either.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mimd 3y ago
"Ugh nerd musk. Might be male. Might turn off the East Coast intelligentsia. They can't handle much. Ignore the bio apocalypse trilogy. It's speculative not sci-fi. I'm high brow. Market, market, market..." - Atwood "Wtf?" -Ursula --- I will give Atwood some slack, as less than half her bibliography is it. But still, evaluating the chasm between her and chatgpt is kinda what she wants on her terms.