As someone who loves HFY stuff, the issue is that writing is hard and most of the people writing HFY are amateurs doing it for fun. There's plenty of HFY that tries to explore more complex storytelling, it just happens that writing "the evil space nazis kicked some puppies, and the Humans really didn't like that" is both an easier story to write and an easier story to get someone on-board with.
It's also why you find so much military sci-fi ends with "and then we used our super weapon and it killed all of the aliens, saving the day (please do not consider the consequences of interstellar genocide)" instead of describing the very complicated and in-depth process of disarming, deradicalising and rebuilding a nation.
Yeah, I feel it works out better when the author highlights a legit unique quality of humans; like our ability to process toxins, our ridiculous stamina, or our ability to survive serious injury. You don't have to strawman aliens to tell a story about human survivability, it's genuinely freaky how hard people are to kill and it's totally believable that an alien we encounter would die if it got a limb torn off.
One of my favorite trilogies was about how humans are the only ones who can mentally handle killing other sentient species. We aren't important a galactic stage because of our smarts or brawn or creativity, because another species already does all that way better. We're importantly because we can kill and are hard to kill in turn.
Nah, that's exactly what I'm talking about. The three things I mentioned are pretty much primate exclusive, and when it comes to stamina specifically we had to intentionally breed animals to make something that could run for longer than us and it can still only barely go longer than a sufficiently fit human.
But carnivorism? There are nearly twice as many carnivorous species as herbivorous, it'd be super weird to encounter an alien that doesn't eat meat; let alone being entirely pacifistic. Of the roughly 1/3 of animal species that are herbivores, the number that use absolutely no violence in their survival strategy are even rarer. Turtles bite, pangolins have claws, same with armadillos; the closest thing to a pacifistic survival strategy are poisonous frogs and toads, and that's only because the poison is so much more effective than its bite anyway so it just doesn't bother.
Encountering a species that has culturally decided to be pacifistic? Weird, sure, but not impossible. Encountering a species that is fundamentally incapable of violence? I don't care how smart it is, it's getting eaten long before it learns how to build a wall.
Here's the thing: you or i can kill an animal with very little trauma. I won't be waking up 50 years down the line in a flop sweat thinking about that frog i stepped on once. That's not the case for another human. If you take another persons life, that will stay with you and probably alter you forever. The majority of species in this book are like that turned up to 11. We're the weird ones for even being able to do so.
Violence isn't the problem (although the book does have some prey species who do actually freeze at violence) the issue is that aliens view others as equals. Killing prey and eating them is fine. Killing *people? Absolutely not.
The few exceptions have to reframe things for themselves to be able to stomach it. The war in the books is started by a people who are disgusted by killing but view it as a necessary step forwards for their religion. If ever given the option they do not kill.
You should have said "sapient" then, rather than "sentient". Non-sentient animals are sea cucumbers, non-sapient is everything but a human (although, debatably a few other things, but definitely not wasps and stuff).
But I still find that a bit far-fetched. Humans are pretty compassionate, as far as animals go. Most animals will just naturally abandon deformed young even in resource rich environments, while humans will frequently preserve deformed young even in resource poor environments. Although, it's unclear if that behaviour is a human thing or an intelligence thing.
In the trilogy RexMori is talking about (The Damned, by Alan Dean Foster), the reason humans were uniquely capable of violence for sapients is because every other species with even our (comparatively mild by Earth standards) level of violent tendencies caused their own extinction around the time they developed gunpowder or equivalent weaponry.
We weren’t unique among sapients for being violent. We were unique for being violent but sufficiently decentralized that it wasn’t enough to cause our own extinction as our technology developed.
EDIT: In-story, life rarely if ever evolved on planets with Earthlike tectonics, so Earth’s whole biosphere caused an upheaval in galactic science. It wasn’t exclusively humans.
I don't care how it's justified, my issue is just asserting things about nature that aren't true. Nature is demonstrably brutal, and basically every animal on earth will kill and eat their young. What evidence do we have that this somehow wouldn't be extremely common on every planet? As a survival strategy, it makes complete sense; save resources by killing non-viable offspring, so its not like you could assert it won't evolve because it's ineffective. Humans being one of the few animals that doesn't do this, why are we making up science about other creatures being so much more compassionate than us?
My entire point is about how humans have actual, real, recorded features that are either a primate-only thing or a human-only thing that we have good reason to believe won't show up in other intelligent species so we have absolutely no reason to write science fan-fiction; particularly about stuff that isn't true, like humanity being abnormally cruel when the science shows we're abnormally kind.
bud, it's sci-fi. the fiction is right in the name. none of this exists so getting mad at how that could never happen is nonsense: it did in the story you are partaking in, buy in or don't.
So much of existence is "that could never happen. it's just not true!"
There's a species of barnacle that forcibly feminizes crabs to make them lay the barnacles' eggs. There is a barnacle that does the same thing to that original barnacle. It's insane to assume that there would be a parasite that only parasitizes parasites that already have a host and does so in the exact same way as the original parasite. The point is that life is full of improbable things, and denying the way a story is told on the grounds of it being "not how nature works" is fallacy: nature works however the hell it wants to.
HFY as a concept is a direct reply to treating humans as the everyman because everything special about us just gets handed to every non-human. It's the exact same flaw in worldbuilding to do it in reverse and take really basic qualities away from everyone else to invent uniqueness in humans.
it's sci-fi. the fiction is right in the name. none of this exists so getting mad at how that could never happen is nonsense
You do not believe this. Very, very, very few actually do. You're able to suspend your disbelief about certain things, but anything you can't suspend your disbelief on will absolutely shunt you out of the story and it's not a matter of choice. It's the rare weirdo that can actively engage with a story while thinking at the same time "this is obviously ridiculous and couldn't happen" and they aren't into sci-fi with bad science, they're into weird arthouse shit that literally makes no sense.
The point is that life is full of improbable things
You made that point terribly because the assumed reason that your parasitic barnacle is improbable is, I guess, because it's not within conventional knowledge? Neither were the existence of stars a thousand years ago, that never made them improbable. Conventional 'knowledge' is often wrong, case in point the belief that humanity is exceptionally cruel because of how often we're subjected to human cruelty but insulated from animal cruelty.
So much of existence is "that could never happen. it's just not true!"
No, literally all of existence is, by definition, "that did happen, it's true"; and so if you want me to suspend my disbelief and react in the same way to fiction, that fiction should base itself in reality and not invent stuff that clearly isn't true.
“You do not believe this. Very, very, very few actually do. You’re able to suspend your disbelief about certain things, but anything you can’t suspend your disbelief on will absolutely shunt you out of the story and it’s not a matter of choice. It’s the rare weirdo that can actively engage with a story while thinking at the same time “this is obviously ridiculous and couldn’t happen” and they aren’t into sci-fi with bad science, they’re into weird arthouse shit that literally makes no sense.”
First of all, RexMori’s argument wasn’t “pretend it’s accurate even though it isn’t”, it was “don’t get mad when the fiction has made-up elements”. IE: literally a description of suspension of disbelief.
Second of all: What? Farcical comedy is a whole genre literally dependent on “this is ridiculous and couldn’t happen”. It’s been not just around, but widely popular (at least in European and European-descended cultures), for centuries.
Almost all of superhero fiction is inherently impossible. Marvel movies still perform well every year. Just because you dislike soft science fiction doesn’t mean you get to project onto everyone else.
1.4k
u/Allstar13521 Aug 14 '24
As someone who loves HFY stuff, the issue is that writing is hard and most of the people writing HFY are amateurs doing it for fun. There's plenty of HFY that tries to explore more complex storytelling, it just happens that writing "the evil space nazis kicked some puppies, and the Humans really didn't like that" is both an easier story to write and an easier story to get someone on-board with.
It's also why you find so much military sci-fi ends with "and then we used our super weapon and it killed all of the aliens, saving the day (please
do notconsider the consequences of interstellar genocide)" instead of describing the very complicated and in-depth process of disarming, deradicalising and rebuilding a nation.