Science Fiction Aficionados discussion

Although I am more of a horror and fantasy fan, I have recently created a goodreads group devoted to the evolution of sci fi. We will go through each decade starting with Jules Verne until we arrive at the present. For me it will be a learning process. I specifically hope to see some knowledgeable people from this group join up to educate us, or even themselves. If you feel like checking us out here's the link:
https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...

Looks like our first read will be Mary Shelley's Frankenstein or a Jules Verne novel.

Frankenstein seems like a great pick, haven't read this in decades. I'm also very fond of Verne's Mysterious Island, probably my first science fiction.

I love Frankenstein but I would never consider it to be a science fiction novel. there are literally no scifi elements described in how the monster is created.

Bearing in mind when it was written (1818) I would have said it was clearly science fiction. The fundamental idea is science overstepping the limits of what is socially acceptable and dealing with the consequences of that.

I would say that it is clearly horror and I would also disagree with the 'fundamental idea' you note above. I think the novel's concerns are metaphysical and psychological rather than speculative. although I suppose there is a speculative nature to its critique of 'naturalism' run amok (as embodied by Victor).

just about the only concrete science fictional idea is that Victor is a student of science gone astray - and that character type is a reoccurring character type in horror as well. for example the 'science' behind the monster's creation is never described; the monster's birth and entry into the living world is portrayed entirely in terms of horror - he is described as more of a 'shadow self' rather than as a creation of science. he is not portrayed as a monstrous product of genuine scientific ambition but as an avenging Fury, a shadow self, a changeling, a Sin Eater of sorts, Victor's psyche and I suppose id given actual form.

I also think that the idea of 'science overstepping the limits of what is socially acceptable and dealing with the consequences of that', while present to a certain (and, to me, minor) degree, is actually the focus of the initial movie adaptation rather than the novel itself. in the novel, Victor is portrayed not as a mad scientist but as some hysterical romantic poet gone astray in his pursuit of beauty and life. the novel has 'romantic' (in the classic sense of the word, Byron & Shelley et al) concerns, rather than speculative ones.

Obviously it is cross-genre, but it is still sci fi.

Certainly there are early works that have science fiction elements in them, but fail the definition in some important way. This normally gets these early works classified as precursor or proto-science fiction. Some classify Shelley's Frankenstein as such. For example, here is one that does - it is a website that is a good working list of proto-science fiction (except for the inclusion of Shelley): http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Precurs...

This forum is not the first time people have argued Mary Shelley's work should not be considered science fiction for reasons already given. However, I do not consider those arguments persuasive or the website as authoritative. For one thing, the website lists Verne and Shelley as contemporaries, which is ridiculous. Verne's first science fiction work began appearing more than 10 years after Shelley's death and almost 50 years after the publication of Frankenstein. Nor, in my opinion, is there sufficient cause for considering Shelley's work to be just a precursor to the genre.

Brian Aldiss, a sceince fiction author and critic of note, contends Frankenstein is the first science fiction novel. I fully agree because Frankenstein's monster, the novel's protagonist, relies upon science not yet developed for its very existence. Shelley clearly states at the end of chapter 3 that the science Frankenstein used (at the start of chapter 5) is based in electricity and Galvanism (today's term is electrophysiology, but it is one and the same), and that these elements of Frankenstein's knowledge were the basis (in her time) for "a would-be science which could never even step within the threshold of real knowledge." What could be more science fiction? This alone is for me sufficient to classify Frankenstein a work of true science fiction.

interesting comments Dan and thanks for the link to that website. you are a real resource for this group!

I just re-read the end of chapter 3 and I'm not seeing anything relating to electricity or galvanism. rather there is much to be said about chemistry, "natural philosophy" and a brief mention of "various machines".

however I think I can recall a part earlier which mentions, briefly, Victor's interest in lightning or at least the effect that lightning had on something. I'm trying to find the sentence but am failing and now I wonder if I have imagined it or am thinking of the Whale film.

at the start of chapter 5 there is indeed a slight mention of electricity but it is very brief. later there is an equally brief comment about "infusing life". and that I think is the last the reader sees of science in the book. or rather I should say "science".

It was on a dreary night of November that I beheld the accomplishments of my toils. With an anxiety that almost amounted to agony, I collected the instruments of life around me, that I might infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet. It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it breathed hard, and a convulsive motion agitated its limbs.

How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch whom with such infinite pains and care I had endeavored to form? His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! --Great God! His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun white sockets in which they were set, his shriveled complexion and straight black lips.

The different accidents of life are not so changeable as the feelings of human nature. I had worked hard for nearly two years, for the sole purpose of infusing life into an inanimate body. For this I had deprived myself of rest and health. I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart. Unable to endure the aspect of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room...

I apologize. It was the second chapter, third to last paragraph: "Before this I was not unacquainted with the more obvious laws of electricity. On this occasion a man of great research in natural philosophy was with us, and excited by this catastrophe, he entered on the explanation of a theory which he had formed on the subject of electricity and galvanism, which was at once new and astonishing to me. All that he said threw greatly into the shade Cornelius Agrippa, Albertus Magnus, and Paracelsus, the lords of my imagination; but by some fatality the overthrow of these men disinclined me to pursue my accustomed studies. It seemed to me as if nothing would or could ever be known. All that had so long engaged my attention suddenly grew despicable. By one of those caprices of the mind which we are perhaps most subject to in early youth, I at once gave up my former occupations, set down natural history and all its progeny as a deformed and abortive creation, and entertained the greatest disdain for a would-be science which could never even step within the threshold of real knowledge. In this mood of mind I betook myself to the mathematics and the branches of study appertaining to that science as being built upon secure foundations, and so worthy of my consideration."

Twenty or twenty-one year old Mary Shelley was apparently well versed on the work of scientist Luigi Galvani. According to Wikipedia (under galvanism), Galvani "investigated the effect of electricity on dissected animals in the 1780s and 1790s. When Galvani was doing some dissection work in his lab, his scalpel touched the body of a frog, and he saw the muscles in the frog's leg twitch. Galvani referred to the phenomenon as animal electricity, believing that he had discovered a distinct form of electricity." This was the scientific work Shelley was no doubt extending, just as today's science fiction authors extend modern scientific breakthroughs in order to speculate about their affects on mankind.

ah! you are fast on the draw Dan. thanks for the actual quote.

it is interesting to look into Agrippa, Magnus, and Paracelsus and who they actually were to Frankenstein and to the author. two occultists and the third (Magnus) a philosopher-theologian!

but of course he loses interest in these three as his interest in chemistry & mathematics increase.

They were all three renowned chemists (or alchemists, same thing) of their day. Agrippa and Magnus were university professors, Paracelsus a leading physician. Magnus even published 38 works in the fields of logic, theology, botany, geography, astronomy, astrology, mineralogy, alchemy, zoology, physiology, phrenology, all of which fields one would have to master to create life in 1818.

Very interesting comments in this thread. While Frankenstein may not be outright science fiction, as it does obviously have elements of horror (more horror than sci-fi to me), but it really does seem to be the first book to solidify some of the main themes of science fiction.

I'm glad I came back to this thread, I hope to get some good conversations like this as our group begins to read what is looking to be Frankenstein. Very informative, thanks Mark and Dan. Voting ends tomorrow and it is in the lead right now.

May I ask a question out of "left field"?

Many years ago I had purchased a H.C. copy of Bernie Wrightson's "Frankenstein" (Dodd-Mead)
I've never been able to confirm this but would anyone know if this edition is the complete Mary Shelley text enhanced by Wrightson's art or has the text been edited to accomdate the art work?

I honestly have no idea. I always wanted to get a limited hard cover signed by Mr.Wrightson. He's one of my favourite artists.

We are coming to the end of our current read; Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon, and I amn looking for any new recruits interested in joining the cause. Our next book will be one from H.G. Wells and the polls end tomorrow.
https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...

Is Star Wars primarily horror then because it stars Darth Vader? He's scarier to me than Frankenstein.

No because the concepts therein are more based on horrifying and thrilling the reader, that was Shelley's goal. The scientific subject matter, while mentioned is not explored in depth. Which isn't to say it's not sci-fi, but to me it's more of a horror story. Remember genre classification is done by the readers and the critics, not the writer most of the time.

These days I see readers and critics classifying Frankenstein as science fiction rather than horror, perhaps because the movie versions as they age introduce fewer people to the tale, allowing the book to stand more and more as its own representation. If you actually read Shelley's Frankenstein, you come to see that Shelley's primary goal is to warn the reader of the error of meddling in God's domain, rather than simply scaring her reader. Such cautionary tales as Shelley's are a science fiction trope. I can provide countless examples.

Shelley herself may have stated that she intended to write a horror story, although I think she would say a Gothic Romance. She could not say that she intended to write a science fiction story. The genre didn't exist during her time. By extrapolating upon developments in the scientific field of galvanism, today called electrophysiology, and by intending her work to be primarily a cautionary tale (not unlike say Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale) Shelley's work is unambiguously science fiction. To say that Shelley's primary goal is to scare the reader and that this is sufficient reason to classify the book as horror is the same as to say that George Lucas's primary goal in creating Darth Vader was to scare people and thus sufficient reason to classify Star Wars as horror.

Throughout history, people have tried to diminish Mary Shelley's work, mostly, I think, because she was a woman, and a young one at that. For one hundred years after her work first appeared, critics speculated that the real writer had to have been Lord Byron or perhaps her husband. Surely no teenage girl could craft such a magnificent work. You can see Lovecraft an entire century later weighing in on this debate and generously granting that Mary Shelley might actually have truly written "the best parts" of Frankenstein herself here in his history of supernatural fiction: http://gaslight.mtroyal.ca/superhor.htm
Yes, I know he called her work "horror" too. This is because the genre of science fiction was not known or at least named as such by Lovecraft's time either. I noticed Lovecraft does not spend much time on Frankenstein; this may be in order to discuss truer early representatives of the horror field.

Shelley's work clearly meets the definition of science fiction, yet some people refuse to classify it as such. Is it perhaps because it is too embarrassing to have the first science fiction work be written by a teenage or twenty year old young woman?

First off I just wanted to say, thanks for the post, it was very insightful.

No I don't think that's the case (her age or gender, at least to me it doesn't matter, if anything it makes Frankenstein more impressive). I would call Frankenstein the first sci-fi book, but if someone asked me to give it a one genre discription (which would be silly) I would shelve it under horror.

Is the sci-fi scene less receptive to female authors? There's lots of famous horror authors who were women, and I think Shelley generally gets her due rights in horror circles.

Morality plays are as much a part of horror as it is sci-fi. Messing with god's design, either by trying to raise the dead, or black magic, is often featured in other horror novels especially earlier ones. Later the genre became more ambiguous, sometimes revelling in gore and amoral behaviour, other times moralizing and warning of the dangers of following a dark path.

Also refering to Frankenstein as horror isn't an insult, it's not to diminish Shelley's works, it's just for (coming from more of a horror than sci-fi fan) a quick distinguishing description.

The galvanism you refer is mentioned early in the book, long before Frankenstein starts his creation, it's not even mentioned in the segment about the creation's birth. Really no science is described in this section, Frankenstein immediately reacts with horror and runs away. Research is mentioned, the aforemention Galvanism, and alchemists like Agrippa, but the never say what is used to create life.

Honestly after Frankenstein creates life there is almost no mention of science ever again. Most of it is a psychological study of Frankenstein's wracked brain, and the creation's innocence and experiences that form him. As well as an examination of the duality between the creator and his creation. It may not be a terribly scary book (really what is?), but it does touch on dark subject matter frequently, death, guilt, murder and insanity.

The movies are almost straight horror, some mad scientist stuff which is genre crossing, but mostly falls into the horror category. The book is a different beast though.