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.
She would have had to be Frankenstein if she somehow had her living husband’s heart. Taking out the heart does tend to have the property of leading to death
If keeping body parts is a sign of neurodivergence then lots of religious people are neurodivergent.
Having body parts (finger, bones, organs) from holy people or saints as relics is extremely common.
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.
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.
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.
Bruh…
She kept her dead husbands heart and would carry it around with her
That’s not neurodivergent that’s just goth bro.
Victorian goth no less.
Reasonably well-adjusted not perfectly well-adjusted.
Weird but also romantic. At least it was her deceased husband’s heart, and not her living husband’s?
She would have had to be Frankenstein if she somehow had her living husband’s heart. Taking out the heart does tend to have the property of leading to death
If keeping body parts is a sign of neurodivergence then lots of religious people are neurodivergent. Having body parts (finger, bones, organs) from holy people or saints as relics is extremely common.
Reasonable
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.
Fair enough as a term, but it was one of my minors in college. Authors use both.
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.