A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

Re:A Rant About “Technology” (2005) by arthurjj on Sunday August 02, 2026 @12:02PM (#49145751)

>And all science fiction is, in one way or another, technological. Even when it’s written by people who don’t know what the word means.

I think this goes too far and then everything is science fiction? She talks about low tech. Is Hatchet science fiction?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Rant About “Technology” (2005) by fmbb on Sunday August 02, 2026 @12:30PM (#49145966)

I haven't read Hatchet, is it about fictional technology or real technology?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Rant About “Technology” (2005) by arthurjj on Sunday August 02, 2026 @12:59PM (#49146203)

Real, although the speed of the development in the novel is fictionalized

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatchet_(novel)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Rant About “Technology” (2005) by scared_together on Monday August 03, 2026 @03:35AM (#49152431)

The essay is more concerned with the definition of “technology” than the definition of “science fiction”. It merely points out that distinguishing between hard and soft sci-fi by the presence of technology is folly, since even Bronze Age technology is still technology.

Hatchet has technology - the titular hatchet, along with the airplane that crashed and the various items the protagonist collects at the end. But the presence of technology in the work does not determine if it is science fiction or not.

This is straying away from the article, but if Hatchet were dictated to a tribe who didn’t have metallurgy, perhaps it could be perceived as science fiction.

[ Parent | on HN ]