I view the begining of scif as the 60s maybe late 50s.
If you’re making a point about pulp sci fi, the golden era of sci fi was in the early 40s, and there was plenty of pulp sci fi in the decades before then.
What about War of the Worlds? That was published in 1898. Are you saying the book where aliens invade from Mars and then die because of their inability to tolerate our microbial biome isn’t science fiction?
EDIT: or what about 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea? That’s 1870.
EDIT: shit, what about The Last Man?
The Last Man is an apocalyptic, dystopian science fiction novel by Mary Shelley, first published in 1826. The narrative concerns Europe in the late 21st century, ravaged by the rise of a bubonic plague pandemic that rapidly sweeps across the entire globe, ultimately resulting in the near-extinction of humanity.
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.
If we count stuff earlier than 1898 your statement is false from the jump.
Also there are other authors that published what is considered sci-fi before 1898 as well.
I never said we should…
I view the begining of scif as the 60s maybe late 50s.
My point was if you’re taking it back to Shelly, by the same logic we’d have to take it back further. Which you apparently agree with?
If you’re making a point about pulp sci fi, the golden era of sci fi was in the early 40s, and there was plenty of pulp sci fi in the decades before then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Science_Fiction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_US_science_fiction_and_fantasy_magazines_to_1950
What about War of the Worlds? That was published in 1898. Are you saying the book where aliens invade from Mars and then die because of their inability to tolerate our microbial biome isn’t science fiction?
EDIT: or what about 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea? That’s 1870.
EDIT: shit, what about The Last Man?
that’s the most sci-fi sounding gd thing tho
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.
Maybe the popular era of sci-fi futurism, but if Frankenstein isn’t sci-fi then nothing I’ve seen labeled as sci-fi is.
And my point is if Frankenstein is scifi, then so is earlier stuff…
It’s all where you draw the line, some people draw that line where electricity is involved, because electricity was a pretty big deal.
Earlier stories have more primitive science, later stories have more futuristic science.