What do you consider to be Science Fiction? 6 6

[comicnoir]

Horror usually depends on mood and setting, like Frankenstein. Sci-fi doesn't need it as much, although genre blending can change that. Alien was marketed as a horror story in space, even the ship had an horrific texture. That being said, Frankenstein feels more horror, although it's still more sci-fi than Star Wars which is bull.

[LowGradeBronze]

There's been mention of death and CPR in this thread. I want it on record that when I die, no-one but no-one is to Crack, Press & Resubmit me. Is that clear?

[bronze_rules]

When I think of Science Fiction, a more modern author that comes to mind is Michael Crichton. When he wrote about science, he spent a lot of time discussing the historical and currently accepted hard science of whatever mechanism he was using (e.g. DNA) and modern cautionary tales about rushing to use new discoveries around the known science. What makes Frankenstein different to me, is that very little time is spent discussing the science behind Victor Frankenstein's transformation using electricity to resurrect a dead person to life. In his story, I see the transformation as more of a brief plot mechanism without much grounding nor explanation around the science of the time (and I'm sure most people of the time would find it completely implausible based on the existing science). Now I could very easily see another author like Crichton, re-spinning the tale with a more sci fi bent to it. 

Edited November 28, 2023 by bronze_rules

[namisgr]

I like that you brought up Chrichton.  The Andromeda Strain is a great example of a thriller with futuristic concepts based in a 'what if' scenario of science.  So while I saw the book version, at least, as more of a thriller than a classic work of science fiction with a richly detailed imaginary future world, the overlap is plain and the role for science is present throughout, and is much more than a brief device to advance a plot that goes elsewhere like it is in Frankenstein.  

Jurassic Park is, to me, a little more on the fence with more conventions of a thriller and even a monster story than of classic science fiction, with both being prominent but imagined futuristic science being more of a short but necessary plot device.

This is a weird thing to be discussing in Comics General, no?  I should put in a good word for early Silver Age DC for its commitment to science fiction-like storytelling with leads like Green Lantern and Adam Strange.

Edited November 28, 2023 by namisgr

[LowGradeBronze]

Maybe Mary Shelley didn't know she was writing the prototype novel for a whole new genre when she wrote Frankenstein. And that it needed to conform to certain as yet undefined criteria to properly fulfil that role in the eyes of as yet unborn 21st century people....

Edited November 28, 2023 by LowGradeBronze

[namisgr]

I can't read all the posts in this thread, but has someone mentioned a need to conform?  I certainly didn't mean to imply it, but just wanted to participate in the armchair discussion of the lines and features that distinguish different and overlapping genres.

[LowGradeBronze]

My comment wasn't intended for anyone in particular, but was meant to draw attention to the fact that we are in the lucky position to look back down the ages from Pythagoras to Pynchon and everything in between, and start to discern and discuss where this or that genre emerged, which were tentative and which full fledged examples of a type. Whereas from Mary Shelley's and other pioneers' perspectives they were in new uncharted and exciting territory. They probably didn't know that they were even starting something!

Edit: in my previous post I should really have quoted a portion from one the OPs earlier posts, but this device doesn't handle quotes well in this forum. 

 

Edited November 28, 2023 by LowGradeBronze

[VintageComics]

On 11/28/2023 at 12:14 AM, Sauce Dog said:

Medical science has progressed well beyond what once was deemed impossible, so no reason to say it would be impossible to reach a point that we can counteract the brain death that occurs (which is the main reason we cannot resuscitate people after a certain point). The issue I'm raising is you are confidently saying NEVER, how did you reach that absolute conclusion? 

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.

On 11/28/2023 at 12:14 AM, Sauce Dog said:

Not sure what that has to do with you saying the sci-fi genre can be identified because it contains a truth (which I contest as all genres contain 'truth' and so doesn't help to separate sci-fi from them in a unique way)

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. 

Edited November 28, 2023 by VintageComics

[Dr. Balls]

On 11/28/2023 at 5:29 AM, namisgr said:

This is a weird thing to be discussing in Comics General, no?  I should put in a good word for early Silver Age DC for its commitment to science fiction-like storytelling with leads like Green Lantern and Adam Strange.

It seems like it's pretty fitting - after all, we have a pretty good group of Pulp collectors here, which aside from crime - Sci Fi is almost as important of a format in those books. I think with a lot of topics, the fact that there's no governing body laying down parameters of what defines 'Science Fiction' allows for all the discussion.

And every genre of comics has a fairly strong science fiction area of it's universe. From Kirby's Fantastic Four stuff all the way up to the Infinity-Guantlet-Multiverse-Tony-Stark-T'Challa-Reed-Richards-Destruction-of-Other-Universes storyline ('Infinity' maybe?) that I can't really remember from a few years ago. It was so laden with fringe science it was hard to casually follow it.

I think just because we're talking about Mary Shelley's contribution doesn't mean it shouldn't be in CG. I'm glad this stuff appears here because I don't have interests like Soccer scores, the price of gold, how much taxi cabs cost in NYC and other discussions in the WC. I'm having a hard enough time remembering to get to the movie section as it is. (as much as I agree, it's nice to have all movie discussion in one place).

[Mr Sneeze]

Though I’m sure Shelley was influenced by cautionary tales as well, I fell like we can see that blueprint throughout Gaines EC comics, especially the Science Fiction/Fantasy runs. 

[LadyDeath]

On 11/28/2023 at 12:14 AM, Sauce Dog said:

(Frankenhooker however is camp horror)

[VintageComics]

On 11/28/2023 at 10:47 AM, Mr Sneeze said:

Though I’m sure Shelley was influenced by cautionary tales as well, I fell like we can see that blueprint throughout Gaines EC comics, especially the Science Fiction/Fantasy runs. 

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. 

[Sauce Dog]

On 11/28/2023 at 9:48 AM, VintageComics said:

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. 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. 

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. 

"unrealistic or implausible (or impossible) source, then it's no longer science fiction."
It is only personal incredulity or ignorance that might lead one to paint something as explicitly impossible. You need a solid reason/evidence to label it as such and arrive at such a hard conclusion; just a lack of ideas on how it could be done or saying the time frame needed feels overwhelming is insufficient. I personally find none of your examples to be implausible (highly unlikely maybe, but never impossible)

An egg does not create* life from nothing/scratch (aka ex nihilo) - I think this is where your argument might be faltering with some of us as you are using terms in a very loose fashion (this is why I called out your usage of the term 'scratch' in my initial post and you didn't address it when I brought up Carl Sagan's pie example). It also doesn't matter if we are not the 'same person' ever again - trauma while we are alive does that but you are not going to say PTSD is an impossibility or sci-fi, and people brought out of comas or suffer head trauma are never the "same person". Technically we are not the "same person" after a full cycle of cell replacement over the course of a decade - so I don't think me not being the 'same person' after death is all that remarkable or surprising. (*I assume by create you are speaking colloquially, right?)

Honestly, I find the egg smashing example funny since that seems very much plausible in my mind - especially in a sci-fi setting. A smashed egg is not life yet, it is the parts needed to necessitate life. The smashing does not destroy the genetic code, markers or other aspects we can currently use to 'rebuild' it, and the problem of separating physical materials seems trivial to me, nor is the shell necessary (we can already grow chicks from eggs that we have removed the shells from in order to observe the growing process clearly) - the only issue I can think of is bacteria management in such delicate initial state (and that I know we are getting better at every day).  Heck, this is without considering crazy ideas in the development of temporal sciences - even if I don't ascribe much confidence to a solution in that field I don't write it off as an impossibility. 
 

Edited November 28, 2023 by Sauce Dog

[namisgr]

On 11/28/2023 at 10:17 AM, Dr. Balls said:

I think just because we're talking about Mary Shelley's contribution doesn't mean it shouldn't be in CG. I'm glad this stuff appears here because I don't have interests like Soccer scores, the price of gold, how much taxi cabs cost in NYC and other discussions in the WC. 

There's a WC thread called 'what's for dinner' that boardie cooks of all sorts and levels of sophistication and skill use to show photos, describe cooking methods and ingredients of a wide range of cuisines and dishes, and share adventures of home growing veggies, herbs and spices.  You'd be a most welcome contributor there.

Edited November 28, 2023 by namisgr

[Sauce Dog]

On 11/28/2023 at 11:58 AM, namisgr said:

There's a thread called 'what's for dinner' that boardie cooks of all sorts levels of skill use to show photos, describe cooking methods and ingredients of a wide range of cuisines and dishes.  You'd be a most welcome contributor there.

Just don't combine that dinner topic with this Frankenstein one, as I don't think you should be using that book as a reference for a recipe to serve your family  

[VintageComics]

On 11/28/2023 at 7:29 AM, namisgr said:

This is a weird thing to be discussing in Comics General, no?

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?

Edited November 28, 2023 by VintageComics

[Dr. Balls]

On 11/28/2023 at 9:58 AM, namisgr said:

There's a WC thread called 'what's for dinner' that boardie cooks of all sorts and levels of sophistication and skill use to show photos, describe cooking methods and ingredients of a wide range of cuisines and dishes, and share adventures of home growing veggies, herbs and spices.  You'd be a most welcome contributor there.

I might drop in there for a burger recipe or two. My wife's the gardener, if I can convince her to hang out she could lend some gardening tips. However, she'd also see what I buy here on the boards so...

[bronze_rules]

On 11/28/2023 at 9:00 AM, Sauce Dog said:

Just don't combine that dinner topic with this Frankenstein one, as I don't think you should be using that book as a reference for a recipe to serve your family  

"To Serve Mankind"
SciFi Classic right there

[musicmeta]

On 11/28/2023 at 11:08 AM, bronze_rules said:

"To Serve Mankind"
SciFi Classic right there

Twilight Zone episode if I recall? Is that right?

[bronze_rules]

On 11/28/2023 at 9:13 AM, musicmeta said:

Twilight Zone episode if I recall? Is that right?

Winnah!