> 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."
Martian is cool and IMHO it is a scifi, but there are significant differences.
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.
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.
"The Martian" has only traces of Sci-Fi in it.
"Project Hail Mary" definitely has more.
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.
Notwithstanding the great chemistry of the actors and commentary on many aspects of society and interpersonal relationships.
Which of course begs another question: SG1 was made in a time that we can call the Golden Age of TV Sci fi, along with the Trek shows, Farscape and many more.
(Though granted: SG1 is probably more of an action adventure show at heart, if you want to get anal about classifications.)
Despite productions that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, why don’t we see show of the same quality today?
Yeah, there’s The Expanse and The Orville, but those two are the only exceptions in a media landscape almost barren of good sci-fi like SG-1.
The Expanse is indeed the only character centered sci-fi at the moment, as I feel ST Discovery misses the mark on the chemistry bit.
I was pleasantly surprised with acting and scope in The Foundation (Apple TV), but it isn’t SciFi in the vein of SG-1 (action adventurish as you note)
Neuromancer definitely wasn't optimistic, but the description of the software agents (can't remember the terms Gibson used) were so cool that I would interpret it as a kind of inspiration (the cousin of optimism). I'm talking about how the main character would be making his way through cyberspace and he would see the other programs, people, etc. as 3D forms.
I agree that this thesis around "SF needs to be usefully optimistic" is a bizarre presumption.
Looking through the various dystopian fics, films, whatever, they all started as someone's utopia. Somebody out there thought this was a great idea. And like most great ideas you will have disagreement, which must be dealt with, because it's a great idea. Can't have the nay-saying. And the transformation to dystopia begins.
Just as an example from the article, a lot of the policy and planning around the pandemic assumed almost total compliance. This is not a reasonable assumption.
Exactly! This is always what happens when people have more loyalty to an ideology than to humans.
The most unrealistic part of most science fiction for me are not the warp drives and teleporters, but the human civilization that has found its way to post-scarcity.
Make sure you read the description too.
* Water only being available in bottles, at a very high price
* Cyborg tech
* Militarized Boston Dynamics robots
* Destroyed moon...?
Very dubious that the article's author doesn't consider Hard Sci-Fi to be scifi. It calls into question their assessment of everything tangentially related.
To be pedantic, it _did_ win a Golden Globe for Best Comedy or Musical, but your point stands that it should absolutely qualify as sci-fi.
William Gibson writing about a better future? That's not what I saw in his books, but great science fiction doesn't have to portray a better future.
In my opinion, great science fiction doesn't have to follow dogma, either. Some of the best works have ignored standard rules of "what makes great X", starting with HG Wells and up to the present day. Star Trek and Earthsea and Urth may not be great science, but they are truly fantastic fiction.
ETA: I also thought the condescending swipe at Andy Weir is unnecessary. He wrote one of the most inspiring stories in recent years about science and spaceflight ... yet it doesn't even count as science fiction? ("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.”) Seriously, an adolescent inspired by The Martian may very well be one of the first humans to walk on Mars and carry out important science.