[ SECRET POST #2557 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2557 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________


11.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 013 secrets from Secret Submission Post #364.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[helenadax]

I think this year we've had some hard sci-fi movies (good and bad ones): ST:Into Darkness, Ender's Game, Oblivion, After Earth, Elysium... So it's still there even if fantasy is now in vogue.

[(Anonymous)]

I haven't watched Oblivion, After Earth, or Elysium but Ender's Game and Star Trek are not remotely hard sci fi, and never have been.

Hard sci fi is about stuff that's scientifically plausible, even if we don't have the technology at the moment: Everything that happens fits the laws of physics and the scientific data at the time

Star Trek has always been more sociological than scientific, and so is Ender's Game. Both are about how the future will affect society and people rather than technological advancements. The technological advancement stuff that is shown in the stories is pretty much pulled out of the author's imagination, with the idea of "this would be cool" or "this would really change the way people behave and think" rather than "this is something that could potentially be done in a couple decades, if we find the right materials" (concepts like the space elevator or the ringworld, where Larry Niven figured out the exact dimensions and measurements it would have to be). Jules Verne was soft sci fi, and HG Wells was Hard Sci fi for their time, even though HG Well's stuff was disproven, he was going with the scientific ideas they had at the time, where Jules Verne was like "wouldn't it be cool if there was this whole world in the middle of the Earth with DINOSAURS" when there was no scientific idea for that.

OP

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, all of this. Plus, as I stated upthread, there ARE plausible space science futures that we can extrapolate from, in the here and now. As I said: ISS in 50 years, a ringworld, Dyson sphere, Lagrange Point stations, Mars and lunar colonies, and that's all "close to home" right? So what if "they're a long ways off" in reality?? Asimov's Foundation was set millennia into the future! Wells' Morlocks and Eloi were thousands of years in his future! The scope is just way, way, way, too narrow, these days. Not big picture enough for my liking.

Same Anon from above OP

[(Anonymous)]

And yeah, I definitely agree with you on that! I feel like people's imagination when it comes to science has died? No, not their imagination, but their interest in space travel and how it could work, in theoretical but real science, has gone away, and it's really sad.

That said, I don't think it's gone for good, and I don't think it's even really gone. I think it's just harder to find because things like Game of Thrones and Twilight and Harry Potter and even Star Wars and Star Trek are so popular in comparison. It's not likely that you'll find any hard sci fi by going to your local barnes and noble, but you might find some online. Do you frequent any hard sci fi or just general sci fi forums at all? I know some of the magazines are still printing, too.

Admittedly I haven't done very much research into modern hard sci fi because I still have a huge pile of Niven et al to get through.

Re: Same Anon from above OP

[(Anonymous)]

I think maybe you guys just don't read enough sci-fi anthologies these days.