Scifi was created by neurodivergents and co-opted by normies.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
and yet, you felt it was needed to point out the credit/value between neurodivergents and "normies" lol
-
This post did not contain any content.
It is funny. There are so many things in modern day that would be a dream come true to young me but it all goes dystopia and all the fantasy and scifi is one of those things. I thought I would love so much but so much is not done well. I sorta feel for gay people because being into scifi was a subculture but it going mainstream has greatly diminished the subculture as it sorta becomes unnecessary but I miss that small group feeling.
-
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.
since our modern understanding of the scientific method didn’t really exist back then,
Didn't exist when Mary Shelly did either...
That's my point, by it's very nature "the first scifi" isn't a fixed date due to scientific advancement.
Agriculture is a science, and it was a bigger deal than electricity when it was new, but we don't say every story with a plow is scifi anymore.
Hell, look at Jason and the Argonauts using bleeding edge navigation skills to travel to far off lands we couldn't imagine. The only difference is water instead of space.
This isn't a new process, we're talking about where modern humans draw a line that's been redrawn since the dawn of humanity.
-
and yet, you felt it was needed to point out the credit/value between neurodivergents and "normies" lol
No, that's just your damn limited, dominance games obsessed perspective talking.
My point is actually the quality and appreciation of modern science fiction.
-
It is funny. There are so many things in modern day that would be a dream come true to young me but it all goes dystopia and all the fantasy and scifi is one of those things. I thought I would love so much but so much is not done well. I sorta feel for gay people because being into scifi was a subculture but it going mainstream has greatly diminished the subculture as it sorta becomes unnecessary but I miss that small group feeling.
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.
