What do you consider to be Science Fiction? 6 6

[VintageComics]

I'm posing this question because a friend of mine, who is the wife of a longer term friend of mine (20 years and a well known collector in the hobby) broached this discussion on Facebook. 

The gist was this:

Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein as a 19 year old teenager in 1818. 

There is a NYT article that attributes the 1st Science Fiction novel to Jules Verne / publisher Hugo Gernsback and H.G. Wells as the inventors of the Science Fiction genre. The article was posted 2 years ago

Discussion has since ensued, including many people saying that women are not being accredited as they should. 

I've followed the discussion, which has led me to this point. To summarise:

Frankenstein has classically been attributed as both "Gothic" and also "Romance" but not romance in the traditional, contemporary sense. 

From Study.Com

"Victor Frankenstein represents Romanticism because he is a warning against scientific pursuit without thought. Romanticism was a reaction to the Industrial Revolution, and Victor created something without considering the consequences of his actions."

I personally have always, traditionally viewed Science Fiction as "living among the stars". A quick search of top-selling Sci Fi novels shows that this seems to be the case.

Only now that we are almost quite literally living among the stars, the "Science Fiction" label isn't going to be accurate in it's traditional sense, because it's soon no longer going to be fiction. It's going to be Science Reality. 

So maybe the definition of the genre may need to change, just as comic book ages have changed as time went on?

Was Frankenstein actually "Science Fiction"?

I think this is a great discussion. 

Anyone have any thoughts?

 

Edited November 27, 2023 by VintageComics

[VintageComics]

Edited my post for clarity. 

[Chip Cataldo]

Frankenstein is science fiction to me, and it doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with outer space.

[ThothAmon]

It’s a great question and Frankenstein is a good choice. My pick might be 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea byJules Verne. Frankenstein borders on mythology for me. 

[LowGradeBronze]

The 'monster' wasn't raised by magick but by a combination of electricity and 'medicine' so in that literal sense, science (albeit a fictionalised version.) So yes, Frankie is very much sci-fi and horror too, let's not forget the horror!

[ComicsAndCode]

I think the novel crosses over genres, but even so, there are elements to the story that would make me consider it as a science fiction novel...use of "scientific" experiments on life, ethics of medicine, the dangers of interfering with nature, etc. 

I'm interested to know what are some arguments against classifying Frankenstein as science fiction.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Frankie is definitely science fiction

[Black_Adam]

I see Frankenstein as fitting the genre of Gothic Horror/Fantasy, not science fiction. I consider sci fi to be stories that deal with the "future" and technological advancements there, etc. For myself, the simple inclusion of science in a story does not make it "science" fiction.

Edited November 27, 2023 by Black_Adam

[VintageComics]

On 11/27/2023 at 4:40 PM, LowGradeBronze said:

The 'monster' wasn't raised by magick but by a combination of electricity and 'medicine' so in that literal sense, science (albeit a fictionalised version.) So yes, Frankie is very much sci-fi and horror too, let's not forget the horror!

That is the interpretation that some people have NOW, but it's not how the novel was classified Classically or traditionally.

If we just used that simple of an interpretation, then quite literally EVERYTHING that has a scientific achievement in it is science fiction. 

A story about a mechanical clock could be considered science fiction. 

If someone had an "automated horse carriage" driven by steam ahead of it's time before the automobile was created, it may be considered "science fiction" but would you really categorize that as science fiction?

To me, science fiction includes some sort of technical "electronic" wizardry ahead of it's time along with travel away from this world. 

Frankenstein was all human based. He was stitched together and animated using...electricity to jump start his heart. Not electronics to keep him alive.

It's science, but it's alchemy. And even at the time wasn't very fictional. 

And the fundamental message of the novel is actually ANTI-SCIENCE. It's a warning about the dangers of science and romance. 

And to me, that is a huge difference.

 

Edited November 27, 2023 by VintageComics

[VintageComics]

On 11/27/2023 at 4:44 PM, Black_Adam said:

I see Frankenstein as fitting the genre of Gothic Horror/Fantasy, not science fiction. I consider sci fi to be stories that deal with the "future" and technological advancements there, etc. For myself, the simple inclusion of science in a story does not make it "science" fiction.

I agree and just expounded on that. 

[Black_Adam]

On 11/27/2023 at 1:48 PM, VintageComics said:

 

...And the fundamental message of the novel is actually ANTI-SCIENCE. It's a warning about the dangers of science and romance...

 

 

The novel was a warning about the dangers of romance?

[Grendel72]

Sci-fi is a genre that usually deals with the potential impact of science and tech. Tho Frankenstein fits more neatly into the genre of Gothic horror, it does have elements that fit into sci-fi. At the most , we could let it have the mantle of a proto sci-fi novel. 

[VintageComics]

On 11/27/2023 at 4:52 PM, Black_Adam said:

The novel was a warning about the dangers of romance?

Think about it.

Slight tangent:

When my daughters first broke up with their 1st boyfriends and were heartbroken, I shared a lesson with them that I learned from a friend. That friend said to me that "love is not free".

Meaning, that if you plan to begin something, there are necessarily going to be consequences if you need to end it, so "don't start what you can't finish."

Think it through before embarking on it. 

Breakups are hard, but nobody thinks about that when going into the start of a romance. 

------------------------------------------------------

To me the greatest appeal from the Frankenstein story is the tragedy of how lonely the creature's life is. That's what drew me into the story.

From Study.Com

"Victor Frankenstein represents Romanticism because he is a warning against scientific pursuit without thought. Romanticism was a reaction to the Industrial Revolution, and Victor created something without considering the consequences of his actions."

Dr. Frankenstein performed an experiment and breathed life into the creature without considering the consequences of his actions.

The creature was never happy.

That's why subsequent sequels were based on trying to find a partner for him, weren't they?

[JC25427N]

I think what you're trying to get is the distinction between something that is of the genre science fiction, and something that includes elements of science fiction. Like for the latter an example I can think of would be medical TV dramas that have showcase medical breakthroughs or discoveries in the show that don't really exist in reality. I'd say that's science fiction, but I wouldn't classify the show as being in the science fiction category. For Frankenstein, I'd think you can argue either way for it but personally I'd say its a story that has elements of science fiction. I wouldn't put it in the science fiction shelf at a book store. 

tl;dr: I think a story can include science fiction without becoming a science fiction story

Edited November 27, 2023 by JC25427N

[Black_Adam]

I thought about it and still don't see it (the novel being a warning about the dangers of romance). Been a long time since I read the book but I see it more as a warning about the dangers of obsession.

Edited November 27, 2023 by Black_Adam

[VintageComics]

On 11/27/2023 at 5:05 PM, JC25427N said:

I think what you're trying to get is the distinction between something that is of the genre science fiction, and something that includes elements of science fiction. Like for the latter an example I can think of would be medical TV dramas that have showcase medical breakthroughs or discoveries in the show that don't really exist in reality. I'd say that's science fiction, but I wouldn't classify the show as being in the science fiction category. For Frankenstein, I'd think you can argue either way for it but personally I'd say its a story that has elements of science fiction. I wouldn't put it in the science fiction shelf at a book store. 

tl;dr: I think a story can include science fiction without becoming a science fiction story

Right. 

Science can be fiction, but it's not necessarily Science Fiction. 

On 11/27/2023 at 5:06 PM, Black_Adam said:

I thought about it and still don't see it (the novel being a warning about the dangers of romance). Been a long time since I read the book but I see it more as a warning about the dangers of obsession.

When I see Bernie Wrightson's prints from his classic retelling of the story, all I see is Gothic Romance. 

I see the love of the creator for his creation. I see the loneliness of the creation. I see the maddening rage of the crowd that doesn't understand either. 

Aren't love and obsession two different sides of the same coin in almost every romance story?

[VintageComics]

[Black_Adam]

On 11/27/2023 at 2:14 PM, VintageComics said:

...When I see Bernie Wrightson's prints from his classic retelling of the story, all I see is Gothic Romance. 

I see the love of the creator for his creation. I see the loneliness of the creation. I see the maddening rage of the crowd that doesn't understand either. 

Aren't love and obsession two different sides of the same coin in almost every romance story?

I wouldn't call the novel Frankenstein a Gothic Romance and still don't see the warning about the dangers of romance. I will find my Wrightson Frankenstein (autographed by the artist!) and take a peek but highly doubt I will ever reread the novel. I find 19th century literature can be a slog to get through

[Dr. Balls]

This may be over-simplifying it, but I would consider Science Fiction to contain within either fantastic, fringe or completely made-up scientific components to the story. Since medicine is a mix of science and art, I'd consider Frankenstein science fiction, even if it has romantic (in the sense of delving into various emotions and the deep explanations of it) overtones to it. The story still has a great deal of scientific basis to it, even if the story works beyond the initial creation of the monster and all the "sciency" description of how he was created.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a great modern example: the concept is science fiction, but the delivery is total dark romance - but I consider it a science fiction movie.

But, to each their own.

Edited November 27, 2023 by Dr. Balls

[Microchip]

On 11/28/2023 at 8:29 AM, VintageComics said:

Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein as a 19 year old teenager in 1818. 

She was hanging out with Lord Byron at the time, and their circle of aristocrat friends were holidaying in Europe, challenging each other to come up with unique and innovative stories.

She was in the right place, with the right people around her, and the masterpiece was born.