Elektrine lite

← Feed

@CynthesisToday@sfba.social

Post #1427936

2026-03-29 02:17 UTC

@AlsoPaisleyCat @kagan Goodness... why the insult? Sure you guess what? I'm not a scientist, but I am an engineer who reads research papers and PhD theses for the thrill since retiring from chemical process development. There is some amazing science happening with the application of the sciences of interconnectedness. Bear, Benford, and Brin, The Killer B's, all great SF writers. Tiptree (nom de plume of Alice Sheldon) had no science background, but wrote very imaginative speculative fiction. Sheffield was a mathematician and physicist. How wonderful to find writers like Weir who write as well as old school SF writers. I loved Ann Leckie's Ancillary Series (mid-2010s). Can you recommend some post-2020s hard SF writers?

Replies (1)

  • @CynthesisToday No disrespect intended towards you, just towards Weir. I have seen him cited frequently in recent years as an amazing ‘hard science fiction’ author. However, much of that discussion is contemptuous of authors who know more modern physics, biological sciences/ genetics and other fields. If it’s not within the frame of undergraduate physics circa 1980, it’s not ‘hard.’ I agree about Bear, and Brin, and Leckie. I would include Vernor Vinge and CJ Cherryh in there too. Those critics do not. More problematic though is that, along with praise for Weir, there is significant signalling and outright claims that other writers who include diverse representation are somehow not writing ‘real science fiction.’ There’s coding going on around this in science fiction spaces. As long as Weir didn’t take this position himself, and taking into account some of his themes of climate change and other issues, I was willing to let it slide — in recognition that any popular science-positive writing has inherent merit. Much as you are arguing we should consider doing. But Weir has chosen to insert himself into the conversation, to argue that his work is better and to denigrate the works of others. Which is why this discussion thread took off. At which point, I am not willing to let his claims slide. @kagan

    Open ##1427937