Scifi was created by neurodivergents and co-opted by normies.
-
I don't refer to mary shelly. I do not distinguish her as the "inventor" of science fiction either. Rendering strange ideas in terms of esoteric disciplines to leverage the metaphorical augmentation or whatever is as old as humanity.
-
No, it was invented by poverty ridden meth addicts...
It's not ancient history
Methbwas first discoved in 1898, Mary Shelly published Frankenstein in 1818.
-
Methbwas first discoved in 1898, Mary Shelly published Frankenstein in 1818.
If we count Frankenstein as scifi...
Then stuff centuries earlier also count as scifi, and she's out of the discussion again.
-
If we count Frankenstein as scifi...
Then stuff centuries earlier also count as scifi, and she's out of the discussion again.
-
That’s not neurodivergent that’s just goth bro.
-
Victorian goth no less.
-
Reasonably well-adjusted not perfectly well-adjusted.
-
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.
-
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
