@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