Scifi was created by neurodivergents and co-opted by normies.
-
But she was reasonably well-adjusted
Bruh...
She kept her dead husbands heart and would carry it around with her
Weird but also romantic. At least it was her deceased husband's heart, and not her living husband's?
-
But she was reasonably well-adjusted
Bruh...
She kept her dead husbands heart and would carry it around with her
That’s not neurodivergent that’s just goth bro.
-
Victorian goth no less.
-
But she was reasonably well-adjusted
Bruh...
She kept her dead husbands heart and would carry it around with her
Reasonably well-adjusted not perfectly well-adjusted.
-
If we count stuff earlier than 1898 your statement is false from the jump.
Also there are other authors that published what is considered sci-fi before 1898 as well.
If we count stuff earlier than 1898 your statement is false from the jump
I never said we should...
I view the begining of scif as the 60s maybe late 50s.
My point was if you're taking it back to Shelly, by the same logic we'd have to take it back further. Which you apparently agree with?
-
If we count stuff earlier than 1898 your statement is false from the jump
I never said we should...
I view the begining of scif as the 60s maybe late 50s.
My point was if you're taking it back to Shelly, by the same logic we'd have to take it back further. Which you apparently agree with?
Maybe the popular era of sci-fi futurism, but if Frankenstein isn't sci-fi then nothing I've seen labeled as sci-fi is.
-
If we count stuff earlier than 1898 your statement is false from the jump
I never said we should...
I view the begining of scif as the 60s maybe late 50s.
My point was if you're taking it back to Shelly, by the same logic we'd have to take it back further. Which you apparently agree with?
What about War of the Worlds? That was published in 1898. Are you saying the book where aliens invade from Mars and then die because of their inability to tolerate our microbial biome isn't science fiction?
EDIT: or what about 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea? That's 1870.
-
Weird but also romantic. At least it was her deceased husband's heart, and not her living husband's?
She would have had to be Frankenstein if she somehow had her living husband's heart. Taking out the heart does tend to have the property of leading to death
-
Maybe the popular era of sci-fi futurism, but if Frankenstein isn't sci-fi then nothing I've seen labeled as sci-fi is.
but if Frankenstein isn’t sci-fi then nothing I’ve seen labeled as sci-fi is.
And my point is if Frankenstein is scifi, then so is earlier stuff...
It's all where you draw the line, some people draw that line where electricity is involved, because electricity was a pretty big deal.
Earlier stories have more primitive science, later stories have more futuristic science.
-
This post did not contain any content.
i dunno, ok, but that's like saying the theory of relativity, or the mona lisa, was created by a neurodivergent and co-opted by normies. some of us are artists, and some of us work the fields. without either we all starve.
-
What about War of the Worlds? That was published in 1898. Are you saying the book where aliens invade from Mars and then die because of their inability to tolerate our microbial biome isn't science fiction?
EDIT: or what about 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea? That's 1870.
In the 2nd century some guy wrote about travelling to the moon...
Where he found Moon people who were at war with the sun people.
By your definition, isn't that also SciFi?
-
In the 2nd century some guy wrote about travelling to the moon...
Where he found Moon people who were at war with the sun people.
By your definition, isn't that also SciFi?
Sounds like it.
-
Sounds like it.
It's been a long journey since:
If we count Frankenstein as scifi…
Then stuff centuries earlier also count as scifi, and she’s out of the discussion again.
But I'm glad you understand now.
-
i dunno, ok, but that's like saying the theory of relativity, or the mona lisa, was created by a neurodivergent and co-opted by normies. some of us are artists, and some of us work the fields. without either we all starve.
It's always an argument over value with you people.
-
In the 2nd century some guy wrote about travelling to the moon...
Where he found Moon people who were at war with the sun people.
By your definition, isn't that also SciFi?
Kinda! I wouldn't say that it is exactly science fiction since our modern understanding of the scientific method didn't really exist back then, but it's fiction using extrapolations of what might be possible based upon the natural rules of the world. Those extrapolations are used to justify and explain the things that would otherwise be impossible, which is the core of what science fiction is to me. It probably doesn't vibe like modern sci-fi, but science fiction is not based on vibes.
Like, don't get me wrong, I fucking love 50s and 60s sci-fi. I read Rendezvous with Rama (EDIT: 70s, not 60s! I'm surprised, I thought Rama came out before 2001) when I was 8 and the novelization of 2001 right afterwards and that had a tremendous impact on my life. I just don't think Arthur C. Clarke or Heinlein or Asimov created science fiction. They pioneered new subgenres and ideas that have been hugely influential for everything that came afterwards.
-
It's always an argument over value with you people.
It's always an argument over just how special a snowflake you are with you people
-
It's been a long journey since:
If we count Frankenstein as scifi…
Then stuff centuries earlier also count as scifi, and she’s out of the discussion again.
But I'm glad you understand now.
Seems like you got pissy.
I used Shelly dude to the prominence of her being called "the first sci-fi author" as an example as to why it wasn't created by poor meth heads.
YOU took issue with that.
What are you trying to prove?
-
Seems like you got pissy.
I used Shelly dude to the prominence of her being called "the first sci-fi author" as an example as to why it wasn't created by poor meth heads.
YOU took issue with that.
What are you trying to prove?
What are you trying to prove?
What I just quoted and you just agreed with...
If we count Frankenstein as scifi…
Then stuff centuries earlier also count as scifi, and she’s out of the discussion again.
I'm not sure why you're upset with me, now that we're on the same page...
-
It's always an argument over just how special a snowflake you are with you people
Oh zing!
See, it's always about value with you people.
So it's always about who gets the credit. Who gets valued and who doesn't. Who wins and who loses. That eternal muck of monkey dominance battles that we call politics.
This bs dominates the common mind utterly. There's no room for art there. It's invisible.
-
What are you trying to prove?
What I just quoted and you just agreed with...
If we count Frankenstein as scifi…
Then stuff centuries earlier also count as scifi, and she’s out of the discussion again.
I'm not sure why you're upset with me, now that we're on the same page...
We're not. And my point has always been your initial comment in this thread is false at best.
