That’s a perspective on Mary Shelley that I hadn’t considered. But she was reasonably well-adjusted and popular. And yes I do consider Frankenstein to be the first English science fiction.
I don’t refer to mary shelly. I do not distinguish her as the “inventor” of science fiction either. Rendering strange ideas in terms of esoteric disciplines for the metaphorical augmentation or whatever is as old as humanity.
Okay. So what’s the first work of science fiction to you?
If the authors believed magic and the gods to be real, would ancient works like The Epic of Gilgamesh or The Iliad count as science fiction?
Good question! Typically they get listed as fantasy because the magic isn’t manmade. Most definitions of science fiction require a human to have created the unrealistic element - or an extraterrestrial lifeform who is roughly analogous to a person. It’s not just that magic is present, but that it was derived from supernatural sources and not by human actions.
It’s something I haven’t delved into enough to arrive at a definitive conclusion, actually. The subject delivers little thrill for me.
Then I suggest you accept the common interpretation that “Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus”, is at least the first modern work of sci-fi.
I can tell this means a lot to you. I suppose it’s a matter of taste.
In what way does taste determine the genre of a work of fiction?
You misunderstand. I offered that what “means a lot to you” is a matter of taste.
Fair enough as a term, but it was one of my minors in college. Authors use both.
I don’t understand. Which authors are you referring to that created the genre and are neurodivergant?
Great question. I’m not OP. But a bunch come to mind.
Disclaimer: Even in recent classic eras of science fiction, it wouldn’t have been safe for authors (who need publisher trust to buy food) to get diagnosed as neurodivergent, so I feel like we’re left with wether neurodivergent individuals embrace their work, rather than if the author ever acknowledged any personal neurodivergence.
Disclaimer: I’m not neurodivergent. I don’t feel safe seeking a diagnosis. And things aren’t binary, so what the hell. I do acknowledge it’s interesting that I relate strongly with a bunch of these characters, and can bring them to memory quickly as some of my favorites…
With that disclaimed:
- “The November People” by Ray Bradbury comes to mind. It explores how classic Hollywood “monsters” would handle themselves as roommates, mostly through exploring their mental diversity rooted in their physical/cultural differences.
- Asimov’s robot detective stories (start with The Caves of Steel) have protagonists whose planets effectively make them neordivergent anytime they visit another planet than their birth world.
- “Stranger in a Strange Land”, by Heinlein, is about a neurodivergent (for Earth) young man who grew up as the sole human citizen of Mars.
- Philip K Dick’s detective protagonist from “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” (aka Blade Runner) is clearly neurodivergent, as is his wife.
Edit: As others have mentioned, Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, of course!
Man, you very clearly don’t know what neurodivergent means.
This comment is useless. Why don’t you start a discussion by giving some reason why you think none of the examples given are neurodivergent?
Because commenter thinks neurodivergence is an excuse to be rude.
Removed by mod
Lol, said the guy that thinks neurodivergent is when from a different culture or ignorant.
It is funny. There are so many things in modern day that would be a dream come true to young me but it all goes dystopia and all the fantasy and scifi is one of those things. I thought I would love so much but so much is not done well. I sorta feel for gay people because being into scifi was a subculture but it going mainstream has greatly diminished the subculture as it sorta becomes unnecessary but I miss that small group feeling.
That’s not entirely true. There’s still good sci-fi being made. Look at the expanse, dark, altered carbon.
I dont know much about newer books, but I m sure there’s good scifi writers out there still. What comes to mind is ready player one, red rising, pines, although these are all 10 years old by now. It illustrates that it’s not just the era of Heinlein and Asimov that counts.
Yeah its not so much good sci-fi is not being made as there is such innundation that its more of a diamond in the rough kind of thing and Im talking more media than literature.
Greg Egan, Iain Banks and Sam Hughes are good stuff, if you haven’t.
Also, there’s this amazing new genre, “LitRpg”. Basically fantasy where an rpg type videogame became real.
Most of it is the usual dreck but some of it goes hard sf, delving into the existential stuff.
A couple of the rationalists have even taken a swing.
Try
Mother of Learning
Death after death
Friendship is optimal
So ya, real development is still alive.
LitRpg
I don’t think this is new; The Sleeping Dragon by Joel Rosenberg was published in 1983 where players in a tabletop RPG get whooshed into the game world at the beginning of the book. Fun series.
Also, jumanji
Sounds like isekai.
Modern sci-fi was created by an extremely depressed widow that only thought about the social and scientific repercussions of bringing her husband back from the dead and put it in the form of literature. And appreciation for Sci Fi has been around for a very long time. Nosferatur, The Haunting, House on Haunted Hill, The Blob, The Day The Earth Stood Still, War Of The World’s, etc…
No, modern sci-fi evolved over time like all the other complex stuff tends to.
Modern sci-fi is created by every fellow with a strange idea. Who thinks maybe I could get my idea across better if I framed it as a narrative and put it in scientific terms. because science is such a lovely language for talking about strange ideas.
You know, you’re both right.
modern sci-fi is indeed a collective thing that has evolved from its roots. The seed that grew into sci-fi was indeed Mary Shelley.
However, that depends on the term modern meaning something different from sci-fi as a whole, and when you cut off the start point of modern. If you count all science based fiction as modern, then Shelley is the defining origin.
Mary Shelley’s Frankentstein is noted to be the future sci-fi story. Mary at the time was dealing with grief of the death of her husband. That’s all I’m saying
No she wasn’t. Frankenstein was published in 1818, Percy Shelley died in 1822. She did have multiple stillborn children, the first of which was within the year prior to the initial first draft of the story, plus she blamed herself for the postpartum death of her own mother. Percy helped edit Frankenstein, he wasn’t dead yet.
Sometimes an asshole is just an asshole.
Ah, you’ve read Heinlein and Lovecraft.
The worm criticizes the hawk for crawling improperly.
I don’t really think so, unless you have a very broad definition of neurodivergence. In which case, yeah sure most all art is made by people who are not balanced happy individuals, now too. If you don’t have that black hole of need inside you, you don’t need to fill it.
HG Wells
Jules Verne
Mary Shelley
L Frank Baum
Heinlein
They seem like regular minded people just brilliant. I don’t think of anyone as a “normie” though, my definition of normal is either it has to be broad enough to encompass a majority of the population, or it’s meaningless because nobody is identical to anyone else, all broken in our own way and strong in our own way.
Sure, “neurovanilla” people
Black hole of need?
How about just different shapes of people, with differing tastes. Some obsess over money. Others over art.
Sure, but happy satisfied people aren’t usually the ones who progress humanity forward in art or sport. I wouldn’t describe it as neurodivergence, but do think it’s the people who have a need that most of us don’t.
