What do you consider to be Science Fiction? 6 6

[Bookery]

On 12/2/2023 at 8:56 AM, Amazeron said:

If Mary was a man this argument wouldn’t exist. It is simply history being altered in which a woman can’t win. 

See my above post.

[Prince Namor]

On 12/2/2023 at 10:11 PM, Bookery said:

Whoa!  I think you're reading a lot into something that I don't think is there.  First off, as I said, I believe the consensus, at least among creators of science-fiction, IS that Frankenstein in the first sf novel.  So I'm not sure who it is you're attacking here.  And for those that want to move that qualification up to the latter 19th century, I think it has more to do with the gothic romance traditions of Frankenstein than the gender of the writer.  As I stated earlier, this has been amplified by the movies, which is where the vast majority of people have their concept of the material.  Verne and Wells are more technically-oriented Victorian authors, and have a drier less poetic approach to the material.  The early writers of Amazing Stories were probably more inspired by Verne and Wells in their styles, and so a link was established.  The traditions of Shelley and Poe inspired a different direction, taken up by the likes of Gaston Leroux, Ambrose Bierce, Bram Stoker, etc.  I think if you were to poll the writing community you would find that Shelley ranks higher in the literary hierarchy than Wells and especially Verne, who is seen more of as an adventure writer in line with H. Rider Haggard and others.  So I'm not sure where you're seeing the bias.

Did you not read the opening post?

New York Times - 2 years ago - attributes the 1st Science Fiction novel to Jules Verne / publisher Hugo Gernsback and H.G. Wells as the inventors of the Science Fiction genre - conversation has opened up about IS Frankenstein really science fiction. 

So yes, it IS being questioned. 

[VintageComics]

On 12/1/2023 at 11:09 PM, Amazeron said:

Because it makes some people uncomfortable. And that unsteadiness, that indifference and willingness to see everything through one gender is a danger to human life. 

Nobody throughout this entire discussion has discussed the writer being a woman. That's a common baiting tactic that just distracts from the conversation. 

This entire discussion has solely been on the merits of the work and how it is categorized both historically and currently. Nothing more, and anything else is just an unnecessary distraction. 

Let's not go down that road.

[Mr Sneeze]

Just for fun… sorry about the orientation, I’ll try to fix it later 

[Bookery]

On 12/2/2023 at 10:51 AM, Prince Namor said:

Did you not read the opening post?

New York Times - 2 years ago - attributes the 1st Science Fiction novel to Jules Verne / publisher Hugo Gernsback and H.G. Wells as the inventors of the Science Fiction genre - conversation has opened up about IS Frankenstein really science fiction. 

So yes, it IS being questioned. 

So?  People can have differing opinions without being bigots.  There's a case to be made for Verne and Wells, but I think you're limiting the definition of science-fiction by doing so.  But that's just my opinion.  As far as I know there is only one major genre that can be ascribed as to having been created by a single person, and that's the detective story invented by Poe.  And even in that case, I suspect if you dug around into really obscure and forgotten stories you might find other contenders... if you are early and famous, you're more likely to be given credit than someone nobody has ever heard of.  Hammett and Chandler are often given credit for creating the sub-genre of the hard-boiled detective story.  But the first hard-boiled detective was Three-Gun Terry created by Carroll John Daly.  However, Hammett's first hard-boiled story came out just weeks afterward, so he couldn't have been inspired by Daly.  It was just the right time for that sort of story to appear, and clearly more than one writer was developing it at the same time.

Shelley's Frankenstein did not immediately inspire imitators, insomuch as the science-fiction aspect of it.  So obviously other writers of the time still saw it as a gothic novel rather than some new genre they couldn't imagine.  A half-century later Wells and Verne did inspire numerous imitators.  A lot of that clearly had to do with the industrial revolution and the new cultural obsessions with machines and inventions.  Shelley was ahead of her time, but wouldn't have even known it herself.  She saw science as an angle to tell her morality play... but remember, the story was born of a contest to create a "ghost story", not to invent a new literary genre.  That doesn't mean it's not the first sf story (clearly I think it is)... but it means there are lot of factors involved in its evolution.  Also Shelley never wrote anything else along that line, whereas Wells and Verne defined their careers in the genre (though Wells wasn't happy about it).

[Prince Namor]

On 12/2/2023 at 11:24 PM, Bookery said:

So?  People can have differing opinions without being bigots. 

Of course. And I didn't use the word bigot. But to ignore the idea that people ARE biased is to not see the same type of thing in those movies I listed. It happens. It's still happening. 

On 12/2/2023 at 11:24 PM, Bookery said:

Shelley's Frankenstein did not immediately inspire imitators, insomuch as the science-fiction aspect of it.  So obviously other writers of the time still saw it as a gothic novel rather than some new genre they couldn't imagine.  A half-century later Wells and Verne did inspire numerous imitators.  A lot of that clearly had to do with the industrial revolution and the new cultural obsessions with machines and inventions.  Shelley was ahead of her time, but wouldn't have even known it herself.  She saw science as an angle to tell her morality play... but remember, the story was born of a contest to create a "ghost story", not to invent a new literary genre.  That doesn't mean it's not the first sf story (clearly I think it is)... but it means there are lot of factors involved in its evolution.  Also Shelley never wrote anything else along that line, whereas Wells and Verne defined their careers in the genre (though Wells wasn't happy about it).

Well... I think we need to take into account all that happened to Mary Shelly and the obstacles she faced because she WAS a woman...

[Prince Namor]

On 12/2/2023 at 11:19 PM, VintageComics said:

Nobody throughout this entire discussion has discussed the writer being a woman. That's a common baiting tactic that just distracts from the conversation. 

This entire discussion has solely been on the merits of the work and how it is categorized both historically and currently. Nothing more, and anything else is just an unnecessary distraction. 

Let's not go down that road.

You brought it up in the OP: 

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

[VintageComics]

On 12/2/2023 at 10:12 AM, Mr Sneeze said:

On 12/2/2023 at 8:56 AM, Amazeron said:

The whole point of the book is a cautionary tale about the lengths we’ll go for science. We are willing to destroy things to create.

I would take issue here in that Victor has to live with what he has created in that his over reaching pride or hubris created something that will haunt him for what time is left of his fife. Shelley added the Promethean sub-title did she not - and there is undeniable horror in that fate - and I would add Icarus as well. We see a modern take in the recent Oppenheimer movie. There is no denying the science in either we can see both chained to that stone and the horror it entails.

I would go one step further and say (esp. re: Amazeron's reply) that "The whole point of the book is a cautionary tale about the lengths we’ll go for science." and would personally add that the main point is that science DOES things it can't undo. 

The story was specifically described as a reaction to the Industrial Revolution. 

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."

That is how I have always perceived the story as well. 

Just because I or others perceive the story that way doesn't mean it's the only way to perceive it. 

The discussion about classification is an interesting one, ONLY because it's more interesting to know WHY people think a certain way then to actually know WHAT they think. The "what" is a blip on the radar. The "why" is everything else. 

On 12/2/2023 at 10:12 AM, Mr Sneeze said:

The great thing about this book are the endless ways you can interpret it.

Agreed. Literary masterpieces, or any artistic masterpiece transcends classification because they touch the human spirit in ways that large masses of people across many boundaries can relate to. 

Certain artists transcend generations, societies, demographics and especially their intended audience, because they stir the soul in ways that most can't. 

Nobody has made the case that Shelley hasn't transcended these barriers so I'm not sure why it's even being discussed. 

[VintageComics]

On 12/2/2023 at 11:35 AM, Prince Namor said:

You brought it up in the OP: 

 

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

I brought it up because that is where the discussion originated with a female friend of mine. The fact that nobody has discussed that point in this entire discussion until you brought it up is a testimony to the integrity of the discussion and how everyone has stayed on point. 

Since nobody has been discussing it, it's entirely irrelevant and you shouldn't have brought it up either. I'm pretty sure everyone will agree on that. 

[Bookery]

On 12/2/2023 at 11:33 AM, Prince Namor said:

Of course. And I didn't use the word bigot. But to ignore the idea that people ARE biased is to not see the same type of thing in those movies I listed. It happens. It's still happening. 

Well... I think we need to take into account all that happened to Mary Shelly and the obstacles she faced because she WAS a woman...

You can if you want, I guess.  Not sure I see the point in this context.  In the end -- the book is the book.  She wasn't the first or last author to have had a troubled life.  In general, I don't think there have been many works of fiction created by happy, trouble-free people.  She is one of the most famous names in ALL of literary history... hardly a good candidate for someone not being given her historical due!  

We have a need to want to categorize and organize information.  But not everything fits into easy definitions.  Ray Bradbury never wrote a true science-fiction story in his life, and yet is often lumped into that genre.  He certainly didn't consider himself a science-fiction writer.  Harlan Ellison never though of himself as a science-fiction writer either, and only some of his material would probably fit the category.  Editor Ted White, one of the ones who hated the term "sci-fi", would not have considered Buck Rogers or Star Wars to be science-fiction at all.  In fact, he felt Rogers and Flash Gordon were responsible for taking science-fiction out of the literary arena it once held, reducing it to B-movie fodder and kid's stuff in the public and media's eyes.  Personally, I see Verne as being an adventure writer, and Wells' works having far more science-fiction about them.  And to dovetail this back to comics... the super-hero genre obvious owes its allegiance to Buck and Flash, and not to Captain Nemo or Dr. Moreau.

I think it is most fair to say that Shelley wrote the first science-fiction novel... and that Verne and Wells established the science-fiction genre.

[VintageComics]

On 12/2/2023 at 11:24 AM, Bookery said:

Shelley's Frankenstein did not immediately inspire imitators, insomuch as the science-fiction aspect of it.  So obviously other writers of the time still saw it as a gothic novel rather than some new genre they couldn't imagine.  A half-century later Wells and Verne did inspire numerous imitators.  A lot of that clearly had to do with the industrial revolution and the new cultural obsessions with machines and inventions.  Shelley was ahead of her time, but wouldn't have even known it herself.  She saw science as an angle to tell her morality play... but remember, the story was born of a contest to create a "ghost story", not to invent a new literary genre.  That doesn't mean it's not the first sf story (clearly I think it is)... but it means there are lot of factors involved in its evolution.  Also Shelley never wrote anything else along that line, whereas Wells and Verne defined their careers in the genre (though Wells wasn't happy about it).

I love it when you post. 

[VintageComics]

On 12/2/2023 at 12:08 PM, Bookery said:

You can if you want, I guess.  Not sure I see the point in this context.  In the end -- the book is the book.  She wasn't the first or last author to have had a troubled life.  In general, I don't think there have been many works of fiction created by happy, trouble-free people.  She is one of the most famous names in ALL of literary history... hardly a good candidate for someone not being given her historical due!  

We have a need to want to categorize and organize information.  But not everything fits into easy definitions.  Ray Bradbury never wrote a true science-fiction story in his life, and yet is often lumped into that genre.  He certainly didn't consider himself a science-fiction writer.  Harlan Ellison never though of himself as a science-fiction writer either, and only some of his material would probably fit the category.  Editor Ted White, one of the ones who hated the term "sci-fi", would not have considered Buck Rogers or Star Wars to be science-fiction at all.  In fact, he felt Rogers and Flash Gordon were responsible for taking science-fiction out of the literary arena it once held, reducing it to B-movie fodder and kid's stuff in the public and media's eyes.  Personally, I see Verne as being an adventure writer, and Wells' works having far more science-fiction about them.  And to dovetail this back to comics... the super-hero genre obvious owes its allegiance to Buck and Flash, and not to Captain Nemo or Dr. Moreau.

I think it is most fair to say that Shelley wrote the first science-fiction novel... and that Verne and Wells established the science-fiction genre.

Did I mention that I love it when you post?

[Chip Cataldo]

On 12/2/2023 at 12:15 PM, VintageComics said:

I love it when you post. 

Okay Roy, we get it. 

[Bookery]

On 12/2/2023 at 12:18 PM, Chip Cataldo said:

Okay Roy, we get it. 

I'm not sure I follow.  Roy should continue to expound on this.

[Chip Cataldo]

On 12/2/2023 at 12:45 PM, Bookery said:

I'm not sure I follow.  Roy should continue to expound on this.

LOL. Please do NOT encourage him on this. 

[VintageComics]

On 12/2/2023 at 12:45 PM, Bookery said:

I'm not sure I follow.  Roy should continue to expound on this.

I think nuanced discussion is a beautiful thing. I've always loved it, which is why I used to prefer to write longform handwritten letters than emails. 

Discussions take time, and there are times when I won't even reply quickly because I want to digest the points. Sometimes I even CHANGE MY MIND after waiting a while and my reply is totally different. 

I may be a bit more nostalgic than most, but I do believe that by losing the little nuances in things we lose what really made them beautiful in the first place and they get replaced by caricatures that are just a semblance of what they once were. 

Most of this discussion was a beautiful thing because I think everyone learned a lot about the history of our hobby through the evolution of the Sci Fi genre and more importantly why Sci Fi evolved the way it did. 

[Bookery]

On 12/1/2023 at 11:06 PM, Cat said:

Who came up with the term 'science fiction'? Was it Forrest Ackerman? 

No. Hugo Gernsback released a special issue of Scientific Experimenter magazine in Aug. 1923 dedicated to "scientific fiction".  For awhile afterward, it was referred to as "scienti-fiction" before finally settling on "science-fiction".  Ackerman claimed to have originated the term "sci-fi".  Sci-Fi is now used almost exclusively in describing film or television productions, and rarely with written stories and novels.

[Bookery]

To wrap this back into comic books... I wonder what is the first true "science-fiction" story in comic format (let's say 1933-on).  I don't consider super-heroes to be science-fiction at all... they are mostly adventure-fantasy.  Early on there are obviously reprints of newspaper strips of Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon.  But even these are marginally sf... mostly space swashbucklers.  I'm thinking more of an original unabashedly science-fiction story created for a comic book that would have the qualities more associated with literary sf.  EC certainly had some... often adapted from known sf writers... but those aren't particularly early.  

[VintageComics]

On 12/2/2023 at 4:41 PM, Bookery said:

To wrap this back into comic books... I wonder what is the first true "science-fiction" story in comic format (let's say 1933-on).  I don't consider super-heroes to be science-fiction at all... they are mostly adventure-fantasy.  Early on there are obviously reprints of newspaper strips of Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon.  But even these are marginally sf... mostly space swashbucklers.  I'm thinking more of an original unabashedly science-fiction story created for a comic book that would have the qualities more associated with literary sf.  EC certainly had some... often adapted from known sf writers... but those aren't particularly early.  

You can definitely argue that Superman is Sci Fi. 

He's an alien, pure and simple and alien life is still within the realm of [human] possibility. 

[waaaghboss]

Planet Comics?  

 

Googled around, Wikipedia has this as the first Sci fi strip, running from 1907-11.  Features a martian observing humans.   Thought it was cute 

Edited December 3, 2023 by waaaghboss