What do you consider to be Science Fiction? 6 6

[Mr Sneeze]

On 11/28/2023 at 11:50 AM, VintageComics said:

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. 

Remember the second or sub-title to Frankenstein - the earlier cautionary tale.

I don’t see science in such a villainous light but I imagine people will tell stories of hubris as long as there’s someone to listen.

[Mr Sneeze]

On 11/28/2023 at 12:07 PM, Dr. Balls said:

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...

Was it you who mentioned peanut butter on a burger? There was a diner in my town that served them and man, they were amazing! 

[VintageComics]

On 11/28/2023 at 11:51 AM, Sauce Dog said:

"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)

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?

On 11/28/2023 at 11:51 AM, Sauce Dog said:

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.

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. 

On 11/28/2023 at 11:51 AM, Sauce Dog said:

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. 

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. 

 

Edited November 28, 2023 by VintageComics

[VintageComics]

On 11/28/2023 at 12:21 PM, Mr Sneeze said:

I don’t see science in such a villainous light but I imagine people will tell stories of hubris as long as there’s someone to listen.

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?

Edited November 28, 2023 by VintageComics

[VintageComics]

On 11/28/2023 at 2:36 AM, comicnoir said:

Frankenstein feels more horror, although it's still more sci-fi than Star Wars which is bull.

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.

Edited November 28, 2023 by VintageComics

[Dr. Balls]

On 11/28/2023 at 10:24 AM, Mr Sneeze said:

Was it you who mentioned peanut butter on a burger? There was a diner in my town that served them and man, they were amazing! 

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.

[Dr. Balls]

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

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 think if you made the concession that The Force is a real religious and mental thing (and at the time of the original trilogy - had not been "scienced" with the whole midichlorian garbage), the show could be construed as a religious tale. But, you'd still have to explain the reasoning behind space travel and aliens, which plants it square into the scifi realm. I'm on the side of SW being sci-fi.

[VintageComics]

On 11/28/2023 at 1:16 PM, Dr. Balls said:

On 11/28/2023 at 12:24 PM, Mr Sneeze said:

Was it you who mentioned peanut butter on a burger? There was a diner in my town that served them and man, they were amazing! 

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/

[Black_Adam]

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

Twilight Zone episode if I recall? Is that right?

"Don't get on that ship! To Serve Man...it's...it's a cookbook!"

 

[Dr. Balls]

On 11/28/2023 at 11:24 AM, VintageComics said:

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/

Nice. Respect to the place that makes it's own bacon jam.

[ThothAmon]

On 11/28/2023 at 1:22 PM, Dr. Balls said:

I think if you made the concession that The Force is a real religious and mental thing (and at the time of the original trilogy - had not been "scienced" with the whole midichlorian garbage), the show could be construed as a religious tale. But, you'd still have to explain the reasoning behind space travel and aliens, which plants it square into the scifi realm. I'm on the side of SW being sci-fi.

I really want to flesh this out with you after I get back from my run to Kessel. Won’t be but a few parsecs. 

Edited November 28, 2023 by ThothAmon

[ThothAmon]

On 11/28/2023 at 12:43 PM, VintageComics said:

Isn't that at the root of the message in Frankenstein?

It’s actually the root of all genres. Sci Fi is just different packaging of age old human emotion. 

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 11/28/2023 at 6:38 PM, ThothAmon said:

It’s actually the root of all genres. Sci Fi is just different packaging of age old human emotion. 

I agree. To me Sci-Fi is entertaining but represents Fear of the Unknown, and this fear drives mankind in a lot of stuff. Religion being just one thing.

We are all victims of 'not knowing' so we create distractions to feel better...hoping secretly that we never find out.

[Bookery]

I'm late to this topic, but I think if you were to poll actual science-fiction authors, the general consensus is that Frankenstein is the first true science-fiction novel.  There were a number of voyage-to-the-moon stories prior to that, but they had no science basis (you flew to the moon in a sailing ship, or dreamed your way there, or were carried by angels, etc.).  The one possible exception is a tale by Cyrano de Bergerac, that I believed used a rocket to travel to the moon... putting it into a sort of proto-sf category... but nothing else in the story dealt with science.  To be a science-fiction story, science has to be critical to the plot structure, and the science must be speculative in nature (otherwise Medical Center would be considered sf).  In fact, I believe you'll find today a tendency by authors to want to replace science-fiction with the term Speculative Fiction.  

When I was in college, this was the subject of one of my term papers (although it dealt strictly with sf in cinema).  As I recall, at the time (late '70s) I put forth that fewer than a dozen true science-fiction movies had been made to that point.  By "true sf", I meant a story that could not exist outside the genre of science-fiction, as opposed to merely having sf trappings.  Thus Forbidden Planet and 2001 are "true sf" films, whereas Alien is a haunted house movie adorned with sf designs, and Star Wars is a WW2 movie set in "space".  Looking back, this was probably too narrow of a definition (but it got me an "A", so that's what counts).

[Mr Sneeze]

On 11/28/2023 at 3:18 PM, Bookery said:

I'm late to this topic, but I think if you were to poll actual science-fiction authors, the general consensus is that Frankenstein is the first true science-fiction novel.  There were a number of voyage-to-the-moon stories prior to that, but they had no science basis (you flew to the moon in a sailing ship, or dreamed your way there, or were carried by angels, etc.).  The one possible exception is a tale by Cyrano de Bergerac, that I believed used a rocket to travel to the moon... putting it into a sort of proto-sf category... but nothing else in the story dealt with science.  To be a science-fiction story, science has to be critical to the plot structure, and the science must be speculative in nature (otherwise Medical Center would be considered sf).  In fact, I believe you'll find today a tendency by authors to want to replace science-fiction with the term Speculative Fiction.  

When I was in college, this was the subject of one of my term papers (although it dealt strictly with sf in cinema).  As I recall, at the time (late '70s) I put forth that fewer than a dozen true science-fiction movies had been made to that point.  By "true sf", I meant a story that could not exist outside the genre of science-fiction, as opposed to merely having sf trappings.  Thus Forbidden Planet and 2001 are "true sf" films, whereas Alien is a haunted house movie adorned with sf designs, and Star Wars is a WW2 movie set in "space".  Looking back, this was probably too narrow of a definition (but it got me an "A", so that's what counts).

Great post! Thanks

[Jeffro.]

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

On 11/27/2023 at 4:48 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?

Yes, don't knock boots with body parts sewn together in a mockery of life and then animated via electricity. It's a clear message. 

[Bookery]

On 11/27/2023 at 6:54 PM, mysterymachine said:

If Frankenstein is Sci-Fi, movies like Re-Animator, From Beyond, and Return of the Living Dead would also be Sci-Fi.

A case might be made that Re-Animator is sf.  It's been awhile, but IIRC a scientist creates a device to enter another dimension in From Beyond?  But it seems that dimension has little to do with science and more to do with Lovecraft's Cthulhu dimension of gods and demons.  Zombie movies will sometimes employ a virus as their rationale, but it's a device of little consequence beyond the initial set-up, as they could just as easily risen from a magic incantation or from no known reason (as in the original Night of the Living Dead).

[Get Marwood & I]

On 11/28/2023 at 8:24 PM, Jeffro. said:

On 11/27/2023 at 9:52 PM, Black_Adam said:

On 11/27/2023 at 9:48 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?

Yes, don't knock boots with body parts sewn together in a mockery of life and then animated via electricity. It's a clear message. 

 

[Bookery]

https://search.aol.com/aol/video;_ylt=AwrijyjlTWZlO3IDpoRpCWVH;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3BpdnM-?q=lost skeleton of cadavra do science&s_it=searchtabs&v_t=loki-tb-sb#id=5&vid=c3ab6530e855c1b2d4999b157d397b17&action=view

 

[bronze_rules]

Found a pretty interesting writeup in the prestigious Nature journal. It does support the 'science' basis of the novel at that time.

"Science fiction: The science that fed Frankenstein"

And another good source of commonly accepted (or not) definitions of what constitutes science fiction can be found at stack exchange. The upshot is there is no absolute accepted criteria.

 

Edited November 28, 2023 by bronze_rules