Scifi was created by neurodivergents and co-opted by normies.
-
It's something I haven't delved into enough to arrive at a definitive conclusion, actually. The subject delivers little thrill for me.
Then I suggest you accept the common interpretation that "Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus", is at least the first modern work of sci-fi.
-
LitRpg
I don't think this is new; The Sleeping Dragon by Joel Rosenberg was published in 1983 where players in a tabletop RPG get whooshed into the game world at the beginning of the book. Fun series.
Also, jumanji
-
Much like all other creative endeavors
being so acoustic about languages you make a book that is a global hit
-
Then I suggest you accept the common interpretation that "Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus", is at least the first modern work of sci-fi.
I can tell this means a lot to you. I prefer science fiction tho.
-
Greg Egan, Iain Banks and Sam Hughes are good stuff, if you haven't.
Also, there's this amazing new genre, "LitRpg". Basically fantasy where an rpg type videogame became real.
Most of it is the usual dreck but some of it goes hard sf, delving into the existential stuff.
A couple of the rationalists have even taken a swing.
Try
Mother of Learning
Death after death
Friendship is optimal
So ya, real development is still alive.
Sounds like isekai.
-
If the authors believed magic and the gods to be real, would ancient works like The Epic of Gilgamesh or The Iliad count as science fiction?
-
This post did not contain any content.
I don't really think so, unless you have a very broad definition of neurodivergence. In which case, yeah sure most all art is made by people who are not balanced happy individuals, now too. If you don't have that black hole of need inside you, you don't need to fill it.
HG Wells
Jules Verne
Mary Shelley
L Frank Baum
HeinleinThey seem like regular minded people just brilliant. I don't think of anyone as a "normie" though, my definition of normal is either it has to be broad enough to encompass a majority of the population, or it's meaningless because nobody is identical to anyone else, all broken in our own way and strong in our own way.
-
Ah, you've read Heinlein and Lovecraft.
The worm criticizes the hawk for crawling improperly.
-
I don't really think so, unless you have a very broad definition of neurodivergence. In which case, yeah sure most all art is made by people who are not balanced happy individuals, now too. If you don't have that black hole of need inside you, you don't need to fill it.
HG Wells
Jules Verne
Mary Shelley
L Frank Baum
HeinleinThey seem like regular minded people just brilliant. I don't think of anyone as a "normie" though, my definition of normal is either it has to be broad enough to encompass a majority of the population, or it's meaningless because nobody is identical to anyone else, all broken in our own way and strong in our own way.
Black hole of need?
How about just different shapes of people, with differing tastes. Some obsess over money. Others over art.
-
Black hole of need?
How about just different shapes of people, with differing tastes. Some obsess over money. Others over art.
Sure, but happy satisfied people aren't usually the ones who progress humanity forward in art or sport. I wouldn't describe it as neurodivergence, but do think it's the people who have a need that most of us don't.
-
I view the begining of scif as the 60s maybe late 50s.
If you're making a point about pulp sci fi, the golden era of sci fi was in the early 40s, and there was plenty of pulp sci fi in the decades before then.
-
No, modern sci-fi evolved over time like all the other complex stuff tends to.
Modern sci-fi is created by every fellow with strange idea. Who thinks maybe I could get my idea across better if I framed it as a narrative and put it in scientific terms. because science is such a lovely language for talking about strange ideas.
You know, you're both right.
modern sci-fi is indeed a collective thing that has evolved from its roots. The seed that grew into sci-fi was indeed Mary Shelley.
However, that depends on the term modern meaning something different from sci-fi as a whole, and when you cut off the start point of modern. If you count all science based fiction as modern, then Shelley is the defining origin.
-
Great question. Even in recent classic eras of science fiction, it wouldn't have been safe for authors (who need publisher trust to buy food) to get diagnosed as neurodivergent, so I feel like we're left with wether neurodivergent individuals embrace their work.
Disclaimer: I'm not neurodivergent. I don't feel safe seeking a diagnosis. And things aren't binary, so what the hell. I do acknowledge it's interesting that I relate strongly with a bunch of these characters, and can bring them to memory quickly as some of my favorites...
With that disclaimed:
- "The November People" by Ray Bradbury comes to mind. It explores how classic Hollywood monsters would handle themselves as roommates, mostly through exploring their mental diversity rooted in their physical/cultural differences.
- Asimov's robot detective stories (start with The Caves of Steel) have protagonists whose planets effectively make them neordivergent anytime they visit another planet than their birth world.
- "Stranger in a Strange Land", by Heinlein, is about a neurodivergent (for Earth) young man who grew up as the sole citizen of Mars.
- Philip K Dick's detective protagonist from "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" (aka Blade Runner) is clearly neurodivergent, as is his wife.
Man, you very clearly don't know what neurodivergent means.
-
Man, you very clearly don't know what neurodivergent means.
Oh fuck off - and read a book!
Every character in every book I listed is neurodivergent by the definition on Wikipedia.
There's no winning with some people. What a waste of a comment.
-
Oh fuck off - and read a book!
Every character in every book I listed is neurodivergent by the definition on Wikipedia.
There's no winning with some people. What a waste of a comment.
Lol, said the guy that thinks neurodivergent is when from a different culture or ignorant.
-
Man, you very clearly don't know what neurodivergent means.
This comment is useless. Why don't you start a discussion by giving some reason why you think none of the examples given are neurodivergent?
-
I don't really think so, unless you have a very broad definition of neurodivergence. In which case, yeah sure most all art is made by people who are not balanced happy individuals, now too. If you don't have that black hole of need inside you, you don't need to fill it.
HG Wells
Jules Verne
Mary Shelley
L Frank Baum
HeinleinThey seem like regular minded people just brilliant. I don't think of anyone as a "normie" though, my definition of normal is either it has to be broad enough to encompass a majority of the population, or it's meaningless because nobody is identical to anyone else, all broken in our own way and strong in our own way.
Sure, "neurovanilla" people
-
If keeping body parts is a sign of neurodivergence then lots of religious people are neurodivergent.
Having body parts (finger, bones, organs) from holy people or saints as relics is extremely common. -
I can tell this means a lot to you. I prefer science fiction tho.
In what way does taste determine the genre of a work of fiction?
-
Mary Shelley's Frankentstein is noted to be the future sci-fi story. Mary at the time was dealing with grief of the death of her husband. That's all I'm saying
No she wasn't. Frankenstein was published in 1818, Percy Shelley died in 1822. She did have multiple stillborn children, the first of which was within the year prior to the initial first draft of the story, plus she blamed herself for the postpartum death of her own mother. Percy helped edit Frankenstein, he wasn't dead yet.
