/lit/ - Literature

The problem with a lot of hard sci fi novels is the almost masturbatory attention to detail that goes into explaining the universe. It's the literary equivalent of prog rock.

>>1518687

I can understand that, a lot of times I do feel like the authors are derailing their narrative with excessive exposition to appease people like me.

Do you think that's an inherent problem though? Or is it possible to just have a universe with a passive understanding of current scientific theory?

>>1518690

I think I should clarify that by that I mean that though it is obviously possible, would it be possible to establish such an understanding without such expository wanking?

>>1518690
>>1518695
I don't think hard sci fi writers can ever be successful at being simultaneously accessible and credible. It's tough because the HSF community is so anal about what HSF should be and any author who wants to attract fans of the genre feel tremendous pressure to pass the litmus test or be forever labeled unworthy.Personally, I'd really like to see a HSF novel with a lot of character development and some humor.

What? There's enmity between our boards? Why you not like us, so sad...

But while I don't think the hardness of the science detracts anything from sf novels, from what little I've read, those authors usually have a slightly poorer grasp of either characters or plotting in exchange. For example, I read Greg Egan's first short story collection, in which there were a lot of great ideas, but the characters... Not so memorable. Revelation Space was also a bit hard to get a grip on.

As for exposition, I thought Donaldson did away with it cleverly in his Gap cycle by creating separate chapters that were supposedly "documents" of either background politics, history, or the science. There were about half a dozen of these chapters evenly spaced in the books. (the Gap cycle isn't very hard SF, though)

I think we all need glasses...

>>1518722

I had always percieved there to be some conflict, but it's possible that that was in error due to the migratory patterns of trolls and individuals with personal dislikes.

Anyway, I have to admit that I haven't read the gap cycle, so I don't feel I should comment on it. However, I quite liked a lot of Egan's short stories. Though I can see where you're coming from in terms of character development, it's definitely a weak point of his. I think it might be, as a general trend, a natural result of the interests of science fiction tending towards societal trends, with individuals often being less important. In this I'm kind of thinking of Asimov's Foundation series, though that isn't exactly Egan-grade hard sci-fi. It kind of ranks somewhere in the middle.

I think >>1518713 had a point with the credibility issue. There will always be an unpleasable group who want every piece of technology introduced to have detailed schematics and various papers supporting their plausibility; however, I think a majority of readers are willing to accept that there can only be so much exposition without completely killing a story. The answer for reaching this middle ground probably lies, I think, in providing explanations for the most fantastic technologies, and either having the mechanisms of certain phenomena unknown in-universe, or simply limiting the amount of tech available.

The question then becomes though, is that too restrictive?

>>1518762
This got me.
I thought it was hidden, so I was looking in her crack and thereabouts, "Where is it?"

Oh. Yeah. Over there.

>Hey /lit/, /sci/duck here.

omg why don't we have a name that clever?

>>1520744
c/lit/oris

I for one am not a very smart boy ,thusly i tend to like the incredible, unbelievable and more on the unexplained but original sci-fi imagination.Meaning i like the awesome but unexplained technology ,as long as it's good i don't need to nitpick on details, i mean it is science fiction.

The concept of hardness is just bullshit. If you want science: read scientific literature; read non-fiction. Fiction is supposed to be an end to itself; it's supposed to be fun, irrespective of how useful it is.

Take Rendezvous with Rama, a hard sf novel. What's more captivating: the science stuff, or these mysterious aliens who built the ship?

There's plenty of nonsensical science all over sf; like ftl travel, or time travel, or death rays, or even fucking clairvoyance and telepathy. And why? Because it's cool. Because thats what fiction is supposed to be about.

>>1520744
/lit/hographs

>>1520744
/lit/tle fuckers

"Show, don't tell." I mean, nobody gives a fuck about the engineering of the common everyday shit around us. It's there.

>>1520744
/lit/erati

>>1520744
/lit/erates or /lit/erati

faci/lit/itators

nigger/lit/s

b/lit/zkriegers

c/lit/ori

I /lit/ up a fag.

You are /lit/erally worse than /Lit/ler.

/lit/ter