Talk:History of science fiction

Genre Toppling

I'm reading Beowulf by Tolkien, and if the actual text invokes a natural process or technology, perhaps even in their terms as such, I am editing this article to cease reflecting two ideologies...A, that Science means physics, therefore physics did not exist before Science, a mere method of study. Ancients knew physics and technology without the method or a formalized recognition of those practicing the method. They were not superstitious, not as one imagines in general. Often older civilizations are derided for being older without a thought or care. B, that there is such thing as genre in the first place, or that the line between fantasy, dreaming of something unreal, and the desire for new invention, also fantasy, but in favor of dreaming of technology, discovery, etc., is even a real line. I will respect two things equally: Science Fiction is not generally the things that are true, much like the errant scientific method and its massive failings...Rather it is the things that may or may not be true without knowing whatsoever and simply dreaming of something being true, being discovered, and being used. That is sci fi. An idea of What If, like fantasy, and what if this is so. It is more of a topical difference between our ideas of genre, technology and research, versus wonders of anything else I guess. You technically could form a million more genres of Story or fantasy and call them many things, from sci fi to fairy tales, and beyond into other topics. We just don't as humans. Second, that the idea is not just a superstitious miracle...Unless that miracle is related to the technology! Genre is a make believe generalization of make believe, yet historically something that is not real but hypothetical made up tech or discoveries is what concerns sci fi, and then sometimes these are explained without atheism, saying that physical things are controlled by the supernatural discovered, or by a more powerful natural thing or process in itself. Also we have this wavering line of H.G. Wells Heat Ray which is not a real laser at all, though close in likeness. So one has to be choosy about such a subjective and artificial concept to the reality and facts of any Story, genre, and simply pick something. A Jetpack is not Icarus's wings, no, but some things may come close enough to include.

Realistically, all I want to do is edit the part about things being more magical than sci fi if they are in fact nonmagical, however imagined, within the tale. Unfairly choosing what is more realistic or less without the fortune telling skill, 3D6+9, in the process of discovery, when in the Story of sci fi it is factually discovered already, period, and the fact it is just subjective to our liking of an idea for being possible or not, or being "science" or not, or is good to imagine as technology or not, is irrelevant to the fact sci fi is about things we do not have being imagined still. Usually tech and discovery, again, which is more than science. Otherwise we might as well write that sci fi did not exist because the formal recognition of the method of science is too new. Anyone want to check Metamorphosis and the others for features of technology or discovery rather than merely writing it off as magic? 64.109.54.132 (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Yes, yes...The Alexander Romance mentions are good and what I mean by close to the mark as far as new discovery held back by God. Some of this is similar to comparisons with Prometheus and fire from the gods, but realistically some of this is about invention and discovery, and relates to the plane. The orb of glass like a submarine, someone should almost mention Talhoffer. But he was not writing fiction at the time. So who knows what to say. Then some other things, like golden tubes through the body with fluid. If the fluid is natural, maybe. This is the hard part. Even alchemy was very much early chemistry and sci fi in many ways. All of this may be for not with arbitrary concepts human invoked running about, like science vs nature. Genre vs Secondary World, Story World. And a tech or nature of magic and gods being a part of their interpretation of nature and laws of physics as surely as I am no atheist when the Bible says meteors are just rocks, sorcerers conmen, the dead stay dead, and idols made up gods. Supernature gave birth to nature. So this is why fantasy and sci fi are already pretty much the same, as I said before. There is more to it, which I also said. But this is why genre definitions are kind of whack, especially one of such a modern anachronistic ideology, unfortunately biased by atheism and the superstition that the scientific method requires atheism or proves atheism, therefore sci fi must exclude magic...Even when atheistic sci fi writers have included many gods and supernatural beings in their own science fiction really. In fact, there may be more discussion of faith and science in sci fi than in the old mythologies that have technologies run by gods. Yikes guys! This article may be self-sundering... 64.109.54.132 (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I believe there is a clear difference between "true" sci-fi and that which is more properly called fantasy, and that is simply whether the author bothers to use scientific (or even pseudo-scientific) reasoning for what would otherwise be accepted by readers as implausible "magic." Fantasy offers no explanations, simply forcing a reader to accept everything that happens no matter how outlandish as plausible simply because it's fiction and anything goes with fiction (much the same as we accept that cartoon characters can blow themselves back into shape after being smashed into accordians). Sci-fi demands explanations. Where the lines blur is that sci-fi is allowed to use implausible explanations so long as they aren't too ridiculous by normal standards. There is one extreme that is most certainly Science Fiction, and the opposite extreme that is most certainly Fantasy (capitalization intended to convey "officialness"). However there is a vast array (shall we say spectrum?) between the two where authors unabashedly mix the two, sometimes explaining, sometimes leaving the unexplained to the reader's imagination.

Important to authors and readers alike, is that if we simply mash all of them into one homogeneous ball of wax (see what I did there?), aficionados of both Science Fiction and Fantasy (the extremes were purists live), would have our heads and either boil them in cauldrons, causing the end of our universes, or rocket them into galactic black holes with the same result. I much prefer to keep my head thank you very much, AND my universe. The separate genres exist for a reason and they aren't about to be mashed because too many people have accepted they exist and want it to stay that way. SentientParadox (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Modern SF

I think Netflix's Black Mirror may merit mention on this page. If there can be some consensus I wouldn't mind writing up a few paragraphs about the show. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:4480:2D00:6DA0:9CAC:937E:5070 (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Science Fiction

Science fiction could be an artical about how the cheese is moon. well it is. every year a sombody volunters to put a pound of cheese on the moon. that my friend is not fiction, that is truht. Thank you, your mom <3

Burroughs

The article describes Naked Lunch as the first in a series of novels using the cut-up method. Although episodic and fragmented, Naked Lunch did not use the cut-up method. I'm not sure if he had started using cut-ups before Naked Lunch was published, but NL itself was done before the discovery of cut-ups. Adkins (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

lucian's "a true story"

should the above mentioned story be considered science fiction? Manumaker08 (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Proto-SF Gets Way Too Much Emphasis

Brian Aldiss (and I) consider Frankenstein (1818) to be the earliest work of science fiction. Why then in an article purported to be about the history of science fiction is this earliest work not mentioned until almost the halfway point of this chronological entry? In my opinion, all that proto-SF stuff that comes before 1818 needs to either be greatly condensed, comprising no more than 10% of the article, or have its own article titled "proto-SF". There has been a lot that has happened these past forty-odd years in SF. The last two sections could/should be considerably expanded. I'm for a better balanced article by reducing the front load and expanding the latter part. DanQuigley 04:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanQuigley (talk • contribs)

I agree. In fact, the proto part contains unsourced POV. As an example, I would immediately delete the following:

The ancient Hindu mythological epic the Mahabharata (8th and 9th centuries BCE) includes the story of King Kakudmi, who travels to heaven to meet the creator Brahma and is shocked to learn that many ages have passed when he returns to Earth, anticipating the concept of time travel.

This is unsourced opinion (the citation is merely a summary of the myth). To say this is time travel in the science-fictional sense is silly. The concept of time dilation while visiting the gods or fairies is common and is pure fantasy when it lacks any connection with science or logic. Zaslav (talk) 06:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

References