VintageComics

That hasn't worked the last few times. That is an unacceptable workaround in my books by internet standards, but I have done that. That is DEFINITELY something I do and it won't change. I usually have several conversations going on at once. But it SHOULD NOT happen. This is quite literally the only site this happens on, on the entire internet for me.

Time definitely changes things and I agree that many literatures can cross genres. Your point about being able to find it is exactly why we classify things. Like when you're at the grocery store, and you're looking for Pedialyte after a night of drinking. I always used to look for it in the flu and colds section, but lo and behold they'd put it in the Infant's section. Very annoying! When I first started this thread to discuss the classification of Frankenstein, the concept of Comic Ages actually came into mind because over time, we've had to adjust that as well as the hobby grew. For example, the GA became split into the GA and the AtomAge. In fact, I believe some of the comic ages need redefining again. We've been debating on here what to call the next Age for YEARS because Moderns have been Moderns for over 40 years now, which really is too long. No other ages lasted this long. When did Diamond's monopoly begin? (I'm too young to remember) It wasn't in 1982 when they opened doors, was it? Personally, I think we should call the earlier Modern Age The Diamond Age, since Diamond was the distributor and that ended around 2020, right? I think that would be a neat break and call everything post Diamond Age Moderns. Interesting discussion for another thread.

Brilliant! I edited my post above with more details but not sure if you caught the entire edit. Maybe relaying that info to them will help them figure it out.

Are you saying it's Science Fiction? It happens about 1 in 10 or 1 in 15 times for me, and usually with longer replies that take more than just a few minutes to type out (which makes it even more annoying) so it may be a time-out thing? I may have been typing that reply for 20 minutes or so? Maybe longer as I was doing a lot of editing. I don't think I've ever had it happen to a short reply, so there may be something to that.

@CGC Mike I just lost another detailed reply I was typing to @Sauce Dog It's so frustrating. Why does this keep happening?

Sounds. Sci Fi is the foundation of our entire hobby, and this is a general discussion, right? So this is actually the perfect spot for it. I even asked Mike and he confirmed.

Absolutely. Got lots to say (would anyone expect anything less from me ) but will have to do so later. Genuinely appreciate the back and forth!

Now where the heck have you been? Nice to see you back.

This is sort of where I was going with my original thoughts, and although I didn't touch on it here, I did touch on it in the Facebook discussion. As Science progresses, what we consider fiction changes and what was Sci Fi in the past is no longer Sci Fi. That was a great post, BTW.

Not everyone lives in fear, but I understand what you're trying to say.

They are! And if you really want to get weird - but these combinations are infinitely delicious, no matter how much it sounds like they aren't: Add Sharp cheddar, grape jelly and bacon (this is what we serve) or: Peanut butter, bacon, pickles, grilled onion and yes - mayo. It's crazy how good it is, despite sounding... not good at all. You have to check out the Canadian chain "The Works" They have all sorts of weird burgers with stuff on them. They're incredible. https://worksburger.com/

I couldn't even get $5K for a GRR 9.8 a year ago.

I find this really intriguing. How do you categorize Frankenstein as being more Sci-Fi than Star Wars? I think most people would say the opposite.

I agree. Science isn't villainous any more than nature is villainous. But humans definitely can be villainous and things like greed and pride are destructive forces that are unleashed through human endeavors. Isn't that at the root of the message in Frankenstein?

It's a personal belief based on my 53 years of learning about life. I genuinely believe that it's going to remain "impossible" for humans to re-animate life and restore it to what it was before death. Do you really want me to expound on it? This is where ideologies diverge. I believe that a person is not just something physical. I believe a person is spiritual or metaphysical but in a physical, human body, and so even if you re-animate the physical, ie get blood to pump and the brain to produce activity, you're not able to recapture the spirit of that person and put the "Genie back into the body". A person with PTSD is still the same person as a whole, but their spirit is molded or shaped as they learn or experience something new but the physical absolutely changes, doesn't it? Hormonally, chemically, physically (if the trauma is physical). The human body breaks. The metaphysical doesn't. That's why I think some get a different "sense" or "feeling" when watching a "Sci Fi" movie with reality that is plausible to me and a "horror movie" with an implausible reality being espoused. That's the "ring of truth" I was speaking about. Some people just sense when something is unlikely, as though it resonates with them on a vibratory level without understanding why. I thought it was the perfect parallel to the Frankenstein story. The word "impossible" is an interesting word, because it depends on context. In ancient languages, the concept of "forever" didn't exist. In Ancient Hebrew the word was "olam" which simply meant "to the horizon" or as far as the eye could see. It was "impossible" to see past the horizon 5000 years ago. They couldn't even imagine it. What is "impossible" to you may not be impossible to someone else. For example, if I was born without legs, it would literally be impossible for me to run with legs but you could. When I say impossible, I mean "impossible by human capability". Humans are not unlimited. We're limited by our physical bodies. If you have enough time, say eternity, you can probably also achieve everything, but the fact that humans will be human for eternity is highly unlikely...probably impossible. Anyway, this convo is now moving far off topic but that's where I draw the line between Sci Fi and not Sci Fi. Let me know when you can flatten an egg with your boot and make it like it was and THEN grow a chicken out of it. In the meantime, this video on actual science is probably a great fit into this discussion between you and I.

Science Fiction is one of the fundamental pillars of the entire hobby. The MAJORITY of comics have their roots in science fiction. Pulps were science fiction. Superman in Action Comics #1 was science fiction. Batman was science fiction. Marvel Comics #1 was science fiction. The entire Golden Age, Silver Age and Bronze Ages were dominated by science fiction. The Atom age is quite literally named after atomic science. How does this statement make any sense? Where should it be discussed?

Sure. Every story is built on it's predecessors. "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." The story of Frankenstein just happens to be THE classic cautionary tale that has managed to transcend the centuries. It was a warning to mankind that came out of the industrial revolution. And, science still is often not very cautionary so it resonates with people even today.

I base my personal belief on several things combined, but without dissecting my beliefs, look at it this way: An egg is a beautiful thing in many ways. It looks beautiful, the texture of the shell is gorgeous (we mimic it on the walls in our homes), the colors inside are gorgeous and the taste is sublime (I have had eggs every day for almost 20 years because I believe it's an irreplaceable power food) but the most beautiful thing about it is that it creates life out of nothing, much like the Frankenstein story. Now take that egg and step on it with your boot. After stepping on it and crushing it, try to put that egg back together the way it was. Even if by some SLIM CHANCE you are able to physically make it look like an egg on the outside by piecing together the shell, how do you get the innards back into the shell? How do you separate the yoke and the white? How do you separate the yoke / white AND place them back in the shell without damaging them while piecing the shell back together? And even, if by some slim chance you're able to somehow put that egg back together 99.99to infinity% of the way, will it hatch into a baby chicken? Good luck. I don't think any science in the world will ever be able to create life in the way I described above. To be able to create life, you'd need to fill in mental gaps so far and so wide that we'd need an eternity to figure it out. And I believe the same law that prevents us from reverse engineering that broken egg will prevent us from reaching that point. Humans will self destruct before they allow themselves to get to that point. The egg example above explains what I mean by science fiction. I view reversing the egg's destruction a parallel to the destruction of cellular life after death. Frankenstein is a reverse engineering of the egg and hatching a baby chicken. I personally believe it's never going to happen in the sense that, I don't think if VintageComics passes away or Sauce Dog passes away, we'll ever bring them back. And even if they DO manage to somehow make us breath and think, you can't undo the damage done. We would never be the same person again. It's impossible. So I don't consider everything possible, at least with humans. When you can draw a 'realistic' string from one idea to another, meaning from a Sci Fi concept to human reality, that's Sci Fi to me. I think that an idea rooted in a plausible reality is what represents Science Fiction to me. When you start to draw an idea from an unrealistic or implausible (or impossible) source, then it's no longer science fiction. It's horror, magic or something else. Or romance, because let's face it MOST romance is unrealistic. But more seriously, you are drawing from a non-human source. I think that some things science will never achieve. Science can't achieve "the impossible" because by it's very nature, it's bound by human limitations and human limitations will never fully grasp things that the physical body can't comprehend. Now, if we evolve into another body without physical limitations, that's a different story. It's also no longer human. There's your answer.

I don't think anyone will ever be able to bring back the dead to life, and I don't mean using CPR on a stopped heart. I mean once someone passes a certain point, you're never bringing them back. If that happens, I'll obviously eat my words and my shorts, but based on everything I know (which I will concede doesn't even fill a thimble) and understand about life in general, never going to happen. I think truth is absolute and can't be recreated. It either is, or it isn't. Many will disagree, but that's a philosophical and religious discussion. Truth is not a relative thing in my world.

There are MANY credible people who believe that previously existing races of humans were much more capable of tech than we give them credit for, and some even believe they were FAR more advanced than we were. Stuff like the pyramids around the world and other structures defy logic and reality as we understand it unless you accept that they could do things we couldn't do. Aliens? Maybe. Or just an ancient race that found alien material? Maybe. On an interesting side note in this vein, some people believe that the only reason aliens are being discussed in the public sphere is because it's yet another fabricated public distraction to take eyes off of other things. One theory purports that the authorities have actually captured ancient tech and harnessed it and are putting out the alien story as a distraction. There are CERTAINLY things that Ancients can do that we still haven't figured out to do. That is without question. Again, the ancient pyramids defy all logic and reality unless they knew something we didn't. And that point is pretty much irrefutable.

I just disagreed in my post, and explained why at exactly the same time you posted this.

That's a great question. I believe that the 'truth' has a 'ring' or resonance to it. Even if you disagree with it because it goes against your beliefs, or refuse to believe it, deep down you know it's true. And I believe this resonance is recognized by all humans. Some just choose not to listen to it. So when something has an element of truth to it, humans find it...I'm not sure what the word is I'm looking for...they find it "grounding" or anchoring to something within them. This is what great writers and artists find in people with their work pr art. They find that resonance and then 'play' on it, only in a good way. They 'play' with that resonance and build an experience around it, whether visual, auditory or both. I think this is why I have trouble with pure magic (magick ? ), because it isn't rooted or has any basis in any reality. I actually find things not rooted in reality abhorrent and a turn off. Sci Fi has a resonance to it that rings true to us, as though it's something that is coming, or something that has already gone before. Not something that will never be. I literally just winged that last sentence and never thought about it that way before just now, but it rings true to me...and so that actually disqualifies Frankenstein from Science Fiction for the very reason that I believe we will NEVER be able to create a human life from scratch, or from the dead. Ever. Once you introduce things like magic, non-reality, and mind-bending things that are not possible, you start to crossover into other realms or genres. For example, like Event Horizon with San Neill. Technically, it starts as a Science Fiction movie, but that movie starts to leave reality and it becomes a Horror movie. I'd never classify the 2nd part of that movie Sci Fi. It kind of blends the genres and is part Sci Fi and part Horror. So, Sci Fi needs a component of truth to it as it's basis for the story. That seems to hold true to me. Does anyone disagree?

You so smart.