Kinda! I wouldn’t say that it is exactly science fiction since our modern understanding of the scientific method didn’t really exist back then, but it’s fiction using extrapolations of what might be possible based upon the natural rules of the world. Those extrapolations are used to justify and explain the things that would otherwise be impossible, which is the core of what science fiction is to me. It probably doesn’t vibe like modern sci-fi, but science fiction is not based on vibes.
Like, don’t get me wrong, I fucking love 50s and 60s sci-fi. I read Rendezvous with Rama (EDIT: 70s, not 60s! I’m surprised, I thought Rama came out before 2001) when I was 8 and the novelization of 2001 right afterwards and that had a tremendous impact on my life. I just don’t think Arthur C. Clarke or Heinlein or Asimov created science fiction. They pioneered new subgenres and ideas that have been hugely influential for everything that came afterwards.
since our modern understanding of the scientific method didn’t really exist back then,
Didn’t exist when Mary Shelly did either…
That’s my point, by it’s very nature “the first scifi” isn’t a fixed date due to scientific advancement.
Agriculture is a science, and it was a bigger deal than electricity when it was new, but we don’t say every story with a plow is scifi anymore.
Hell, look at Jason and the Argonauts using bleeding edge navigation skills to travel to far off lands we couldn’t imagine. The only difference is water instead of space.
This isn’t a new process, we’re talking about where modern humans draw a line that’s been redrawn since the dawn of humanity.
Like, I think your conception of science fiction is very specific, and that’s fine. I’m guessing you really love sci-fi and feel strongly about it, and you think this shit is just weird af. The general consensus is that Frankenstein is the first novel to really be considered science fiction and not, say, proto sci-fi, and there are plenty of reasons why people think that which you can read about if you care to. I personally feel like Frankenstein is science fiction because it explicitly uses a contemporary understanding of science and the modern scientific method to tell a story about something that had previously been entirely supernatural—the creation of new life. You have your reasons for disagreeing with that. I don’t know what those are, but you’ve got them and clearly feel pretty strongly about them.
In the 2nd century some guy wrote about travelling to the moon…
Where he found Moon people who were at war with the sun people.
By your definition, isn’t that also SciFi?
Kinda! I wouldn’t say that it is exactly science fiction since our modern understanding of the scientific method didn’t really exist back then, but it’s fiction using extrapolations of what might be possible based upon the natural rules of the world. Those extrapolations are used to justify and explain the things that would otherwise be impossible, which is the core of what science fiction is to me. It probably doesn’t vibe like modern sci-fi, but science fiction is not based on vibes.
Like, don’t get me wrong, I fucking love 50s and 60s sci-fi. I read Rendezvous with Rama (EDIT: 70s, not 60s! I’m surprised, I thought Rama came out before 2001) when I was 8 and the novelization of 2001 right afterwards and that had a tremendous impact on my life. I just don’t think Arthur C. Clarke or Heinlein or Asimov created science fiction. They pioneered new subgenres and ideas that have been hugely influential for everything that came afterwards.
Didn’t exist when Mary Shelly did either…
That’s my point, by it’s very nature “the first scifi” isn’t a fixed date due to scientific advancement.
Agriculture is a science, and it was a bigger deal than electricity when it was new, but we don’t say every story with a plow is scifi anymore.
Hell, look at Jason and the Argonauts using bleeding edge navigation skills to travel to far off lands we couldn’t imagine. The only difference is water instead of space.
This isn’t a new process, we’re talking about where modern humans draw a line that’s been redrawn since the dawn of humanity.
Sounds like it.
It’s been a long journey since:
But I’m glad you understand now.
Like, I think your conception of science fiction is very specific, and that’s fine. I’m guessing you really love sci-fi and feel strongly about it, and you think this shit is just weird af. The general consensus is that Frankenstein is the first novel to really be considered science fiction and not, say, proto sci-fi, and there are plenty of reasons why people think that which you can read about if you care to. I personally feel like Frankenstein is science fiction because it explicitly uses a contemporary understanding of science and the modern scientific method to tell a story about something that had previously been entirely supernatural—the creation of new life. You have your reasons for disagreeing with that. I don’t know what those are, but you’ve got them and clearly feel pretty strongly about them.
Seems like you got pissy.
I used Shelly dude to the prominence of her being called “the first sci-fi author” as an example as to why it wasn’t created by poor meth heads.
YOU took issue with that.
What are you trying to prove?
What I just quoted and you just agreed with…
I’m not sure why you’re upset with me, now that we’re on the same page…
We’re not. And my point has always been your initial comment in this thread is false at best.