Why do some people have to watch hard science fiction when watching science fiction?

Later, I thought about what hard science fiction and soft science fiction are, and I was very happy after studying them. I think that the readers in the Chinese science fiction circle have quite the legacy of "ancients", that is, most of them still like the works of the golden age of science fiction represented by the three giants: the stars and the sea, the courage to unite, in other words: never give up when encountering difficulties, and find ways when encountering problems. In fact, hard science fiction is hard science fiction, and its hardness is not completely that of the background set by science fiction. It is hard in logic, or in values. Some people think that hard science fiction is a scientific structure that should be extremely close to the truth, and later evolved into the "better read the paper". This is extremely one-sided, which is particularly easy to anger "hard science fiction" fans, because this view itself is "not hard in logic". At the beginning, I did a lot of research to find out what everyone said was hard, but the more I studied, the more confused I became, because I found that all kinds of people have different definitions of "hard". Since it is hard to sum up what we interpret by ourselves, we can only start from the work itself. I quickly found the answer by starting with what everyone opposed: hard science fiction means hard logic, and there should be no absurd plots; Hard science fiction means that the values should be hard, and there should be no such circumstances as the proliferation of the Virgin and forced demotion of wisdom. This idea actually comes from me. Because I am a fan of zombie novels, but most foreign zombie movies can only be pushed forward by the confusion and conflict caused by the hero's forced death and Bai Zuo's behavior, which also leads to constant negative comments. The outstanding films, not to mention how brave the protagonist is and how perfect the plot is, at least he is not so white left. He will be willing to sacrifice some humanitarianism to save everyone's lives, which is "what should be done" in the eyes of Chinese audiences. For example, the first few seasons of walking dead and wwz can also be logically self consistent. It is well known that the concept of zombie is a big bug from beginning to end, which is not scientific. Trying to tell science in zombie movies is a behavior that is far from the broad spectrum, which is definitely not hard on science. However, the critical audience did not give a bad comment to wwz and the walking dead in the previous seasons, because the protagonist abided by the values of the end, made reasonable judgments, respected the audience's IQ, and was in line with logic and hard values. What the audience wants is not the accuracy of the paper, but the basic logic. Therefore, I demand that my novels also be logically self consistent. In order to achieve this goal, I actually sacrificed a lot of powerful plots, even seemed a bit "boring", but the fact is that the score ranked first in Zhihu Yanxuan zombie area, and no readers roast about my logic problem. Of course, I know there must be many loopholes, but I have tried my best to stop them. I have done my best to respect readers' IQ.

Returning to science fiction, I compared the various science fiction quick reads on station b with the comments on Douban, and found that most of the roast were about the main characters: "brain holes", "forced dementia", and "Madonna behavior". Sometimes I doubt whether it is just the low level of screenwriting that can only be pushed into the story by this behavior. However, after communicating with several friends, I found that they thought it was OK, and it was really possible. The white left thinking of others is not pretentious, but sincere. It is extremely annoying for Chinese audiences who are accustomed to collectivism. A typical example is the Ice Age. Most of the Chinese players roast that it was the end of the world. These workers were still at work, looking at the exhaustion of resources. Although we have been clamoring that 996 is not good in our life, it is the end. Living is more important than anything, and we are all fair. One of them can be counted as one, and child labor can be counted as one. In the end, we overcame the storm. Although we sacrificed some freedom, everyone survived. At last, a "Is it worth it?" slowly appeared on the screen It's worth your xhsjnskzidh! If I can survive, you ask me if it's worth it! In fact, the "hard science fiction" trisomy that everyone likes to watch is very problematic in science, even "far from the big spectrum". Many students in the physics department have criticized it, but they still enjoy it. Because the hardness of the three bodies lies in the hardness of logic. Although it is physically impossible to block the wisdom children, assuming this premise, the development of human society may indeed be like this, which is the hardness of logic. We were even more surprised to find that he happened to make a perfect prediction about the chaos in Europe and the United States under the blockade. I personally thought it was too exaggerated when I read the Three Body Three. As a result, the reality was even more absurd than the novel. Another point is that Da Liu's works are in line with Chinese values. Not to mention personal heroism and dedication, most Chinese people agree to transfer part of their rights to achieve a greater goal under extreme circumstances. Otherwise, the epidemic in reality will not be extinguished so quickly, and there will be no such high box office and platform of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the wandering earth. We like hard science fiction, which is the hard core of logic and our values, not just the hard core of science. Although such excellent works as Matrix, Silver Wing Killer and Star Trek do not fully conform to the oriental values, they are also widely praised, and their characters are loved by the audience. We can see that Neo devoted himself to the human race in Zion and blew himself up, instead of the liberalistic "It's none of my business". We can be shocked by the death of the leader of the replicator who fought for racial freedom in the rain. We can feel sad that Matthew pushed himself into a black hole in order to complete his task. This kind of common human feelings and values can resonate. This is the real "hard core", which is not soft at all. It represents the spirit and courage of human beings, and represents the thinking and performance of the creators. It is not only sincere, but also thought-provoking.

Returning to science fiction, I compared the various science fiction quick reads on station b with the comments on Douban, and found that most of the roast were about the main characters: "brain holes", "forced dementia", and "Madonna behavior". Sometimes I doubt whether it is just the low level of screenwriting that can only be pushed into the story by this behavior. However, after communicating with several friends, I found that they thought it was OK, and it was really possible. The white left thinking of others is not pretentious, but sincere. It is extremely annoying for Chinese audiences who are accustomed to collectivism. A typical example is the Ice Age. Most of the Chinese players roast that it was the end of the world. These workers were still at work, looking at the exhaustion of resources. Although we have been clamoring that 996 is not good in our life, it is the end. Living is more important than anything, and we are all fair. One of them can be counted as one, and child labor can be counted as one. In the end, we overcame the storm. Although we sacrificed some freedom, everyone survived. At last, a "Is it worth it?" slowly appeared on the screen It's worth your xhsjnskzidh! If I can survive, you ask me if it's worth it! In fact, the "hard science fiction" trisomy that everyone likes to watch is very problematic in science, even "far from the big spectrum". Many students in the physics department have criticized it, but they still enjoy it. Because the hardness of the three bodies lies in the hardness of logic. Although it is physically impossible to block the wisdom children, assuming this premise, the development of human society may indeed be like this, which is the hardness of logic. We were even more surprised to find that he happened to make a perfect prediction about the chaos in Europe and the United States under the blockade. I personally thought it was too exaggerated when I read the Three Body Three. As a result, the reality was even more absurd than the novel. Another point is that Da Liu's works are in line with Chinese values. Not to mention personal heroism and dedication, most Chinese people agree to transfer part of their rights to achieve a greater goal under extreme circumstances. Otherwise, the epidemic in reality will not be extinguished so quickly, and there will be no such high box office and platform of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the wandering earth. We like hard science fiction, which is the hard core of logic and our values, not just the hard core of science. Although such excellent works as Matrix, Silver Wing Killer and Star Trek do not fully conform to the oriental values, they are also widely praised, and their characters are loved by the audience. We can see that Neo devoted himself to the human race in Zion and blew himself up, instead of the liberalistic "It's none of my business". We can be shocked by the death of the leader of the replicator who fought for racial freedom in the rain. We can feel sad that Matthew pushed himself into a black hole in order to complete his task. This kind of common human feelings and values can resonate. This is the real "hard core", which is not soft at all. It represents the spirit and courage of human beings, and represents the thinking and performance of the creators. It is not only sincere, but also thought-provoking.

Returning to science fiction, I compared the various science fiction quick reads on station b with the comments on Douban, and found that most of the roast were about the main characters: "brain holes", "forced dementia", and "Madonna behavior". Sometimes I doubt whether it is just the low level of screenwriting that can only be pushed into the story by this behavior. However, after communicating with several friends, I found that they thought it was OK, and it was really possible. The white left thinking of others is not pretentious, but sincere. It is extremely annoying for Chinese audiences who are accustomed to collectivism. A typical example is the Ice Age. Most of the Chinese players roast that it was the end of the world. These workers were still at work, looking at the exhaustion of resources. Although we have been clamoring that 996 is not good in our life, it is the end. Living is more important than anything, and we are all fair. One of them can be counted as one, and child labor can be counted as one. In the end, we overcame the storm. Although we sacrificed some freedom, everyone survived. At last, a "Is it worth it?" slowly appeared on the screen It's worth your xhsjnskzidh! If I can survive, you ask me if it's worth it! In fact, the "hard science fiction" trisomy that everyone likes to watch is very problematic in science, even "far from the big spectrum". Many students in the physics department have criticized it, but they still enjoy it. Because the hardness of the three bodies lies in the hardness of logic. Although it is physically impossible to block the wisdom children, assuming this premise, the development of human society may indeed be like this, which is the hardness of logic. We were even more surprised to find that he happened to make a perfect prediction about the chaos in Europe and the United States under the blockade. I personally thought it was too exaggerated when I read the Three Body Three. As a result, the reality was even more absurd than the novel. Another point is that Da Liu's works are in line with Chinese values. Not to mention personal heroism and dedication, most Chinese people agree to transfer part of their rights to achieve a greater goal under extreme circumstances. Otherwise, the epidemic in reality will not be extinguished so quickly, and there will be no such high box office and platform of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the wandering earth. We like hard science fiction, which is the hard core of logic and our values, not just the hard core of science. Although such excellent works as Matrix, Silver Wing Killer and Star Trek do not fully conform to the oriental values, they are also widely praised, and their characters are loved by the audience. We can see that Neo devoted himself to the human race in Zion and blew himself up, instead of the liberalistic "It's none of my business". We can be shocked by the death of the leader of the replicator who fought for racial freedom in the rain. We can feel sad that Matthew pushed himself into a black hole in order to complete his task. This kind of common human feelings and values can resonate. This is the real "hard core", which is not soft at all. It represents the spirit and courage of human beings, and represents the thinking and performance of the creators. It is not only sincere, but also thought-provoking.

To avoid communication with some readers who dislike discussing details. You can understand it as following the trend, which is also true. In fact, for readers of hard science fiction, the logical and reasonable details of detailed design and settings are part of the cool points of reading articles. But there is always a group of readers who believe that "there is something wrong with the readers who tangle with real details in fiction". This is chicken talk with duck. Whenever I meet someone who seriously discusses the details setting, but he insists on posting this sentence on the forum, I get angry. If you don't want to discuss the details, can you turn off the browser or simply shut up? For hard science fiction readers, they will at least acquiesce that "technical details are a topic that can be discussed" or "technical details are a cool point worth discussing", or that "discussing technical details is a happy part of reading this novel". My personal division of hard science fiction still depends on what the target novel's reader community looks like: based on the scientific details of the novel itself, the discussion can be carried out happily in the target reader group without making people feel unique, so I think such works are hard science fiction. There is no hard science fiction in the real sense, which is called scientific paper. So what kind of novels are the rest called hard science fiction? If the readers who read it are willing to discuss it as hard science fiction, it can be regarded as hard science fiction regardless of its own kernel. If based on a work, when you discuss scientific details, most people will laugh, "Isn't it funny to discuss the scientific rigor of this work?"? Then, this work is not hard science fiction.

The so-called difference between soft and hard lies in the "thickness" of the world outlook, rather than the piling up of technical details - the proper application of technical details will certainly make the world described in the works become thick, but it does not mean that the number and accuracy of technical details is everything. We know that what drives the story gradually is the contradiction between different forces in the worldview or with the world background, and the depth of these contradictions determines the depth of the worldview to a large extent. Overhead literary works describe contradictions and stories in a world different from daily life (not reality, we are not familiar with reality, but only familiar with daily life), while the contradictions in successful stories must have enough novelty - in other words, stay away from those daily contradictions, such as internal family quarrels or street fights. In a word, readers expect to see a story pattern that is far away from daily life (and at least justifiable) in the world away from daily life. The more stories that meet this standard, the harder they will be. This actually points to a kind of "novel but realistic" stories, specifically, two requirements, that is, the contradictions in the story should be as far away from the paradoxical patterns in daily life as possible, so that it is enough for the novel and the aerial basis for the existence of these contradictions to be as self consistent as possible, so that the story has a sense of reality. Combining these two requirements will become a way to promote the contradictions in the story to be as far as possible related to the aerial basis, At the same time, try not to make too absurd bugs to make readers feel that this overhead world has no sense of substitution. The second half of this requirement is a general requirement for all works, while the first half is the classic Star Wars Boat Test - we can find that "hard science fiction" and "beautiful novel stories" basically coincide. Looking back, this requirement almost completely covers the existing "soft/hard classification". The contradictions in the stories called "soft" generally have little to do with those far away from daily settings, or there are simply too many obvious bugs. For example, in Harry Potter (continuing to persecute iceberg stickers), the origin of all the contradictions is that a black devil king who has no brain is determined to do things at the end of the semester. There are almost no historical contradictions, almost no political wisdom and social contradictions, and magic will not fade away, Neither will it change or impact the values of modern human beings in the Beautiful New World or other similar dystopian works. The origin of the contradiction is the social order in which the awakener and the mode of operation have problems. There is no historical contradiction, and the social contradiction completely disappears (the beautiful new world) or is basically completely suppressed (1984). So although the grand design seems to be an interesting political metaphor, However, the performance is not rigid. The contradictions related to Cheng Xin/human internal problems (rather than the relationship between man and the universe) in Three Bodies are basically the same as the previous category. Only the isolated awakeners and the problematic social order, but the social contradictions are not highlighted at all. It seems to belong to the same type as the former dystopia. Only the grand setting seems to be an interesting political metaphor, but it is not hard to express the latter two parts of the Hebrian series. The contradiction is manifested as a road style escape from pursuing soldiers, and the church and the technical core "lack of love". Although the rich historical details shown in the first two parts give a great bonus, it is hindered by the narrative techniques, The rich and interesting historical background and main lines are too far away... And what is very typical is that if a reader thinks that the strong setting of the social model itself is new enough, then the beautiful new world and 1984 really look no more "soft" than some classic "hard" science fiction. On the other hand, look at some very typical "hard" stories, such as the part of "Three Bodies" that involves people and the universe. The weird universe has become a stage that will affect the fate of mankind. The technological gap between the three bodies and mankind has created a big scene of the Armageddon battle, the setting of the dark forest has exploded the mother star of mankind and the three bodies, and the setting of the regular weapons has created a final two-dimensional scene that determines the final fate of mankind. The core contradiction is almost driven by the technological and cosmic settings. The historical and geographical details are so rich that they are outrageous, and even the botany. The reality is appalling. The contradictions in the story can basically be traced back to ancient legends - and then turned over the fairy diamond to find that Tolkien really wrote... Blindness. The core contradiction is based on the counter intuitive part of cognitive science and human consciousness. What is absurd is that research papers can be found, almost perfectly meeting the requirements of novelty and authenticity. In a word, the readers of science fiction and fantasy works originally pursue a sense of novelty and authenticity. The former becomes a requirement for technology/magic to set and promote core contradictions, while the latter becomes a requirement for as few bugs as possible (or writing skills to paste bugs into the past), and thus the pursuit of the so-called "hard science fiction" is still very natural on the whole.