*Frankenstein* was published in 1818. So Mary Shelley's ahead of Verne by a bit.
L. Sprague de Camp argued on behalf of Baron Munchausen as at least an early prototype. But then, if I recall correctly (and it's been many years), de Camp also is of the "SF is a sub-genre of Fantasy" school, so fantasy with inventive elements is going to look like a direct forebear of SF to him. That's not Verne, obviously; Verne is doing something that is different from the satirical fantasy of Munchausen or Cervantes in that while there's usually an element of commentary and often some satire involved, the machines are intended to be taken seriously and literally as machines, not as metaphors for something else. I think that's probably new with him, or at least with his generation. (I've also heard people cite Charles Brockden Brown's *Wieland* as a forerunner of SF, but it would have to be more of a forerunner than early example. It's got elements of Mary Shelley-esque gothic horror and detective fiction about it, but doesn't quite make it all the way into either. Interesting but [for me] unsatisfying book.) I've heard Poe offered as an early exemplar (wikipedia entry claims him as the "inventor" of SF...stand in line on that one...), but I'm not sure what they're referring to. Wells is the earliest I know of who gets the thought experiment aspect of it down. Steve or someone could probably cite an earlier example. Verne's the earliest I can think of who's approaching the task with 20th century interests (cooler machines! verisimilitude!) at heart, but his prose style is archaic by our standards and there's less of a sense of thought-experiment. He's definitely the earliest I can think of that I think most people wouldn't argue with. Though personally I'd go with Mary Shelley, because she more clearly defines what SF people usually seem to be looking for in SF when they say it's really good: Some kind of (moral) thought experiment. She and Verne bring different aspects to the table. She's doing the same thing in making the magic real by making the monster more than a metaphor. Put them together in some proportion and you get H. G. Wells or Jack London. Verne (even as he laments it by proxy) clearly loves technology on the balance, so he's more consistent with the Gernsbackian Positivist tradition; Shelley clearly wants you to think about what you're bloody doing, but I don't think it's a given that she's as anti-technology as she's often cast. On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > In a discussion on another list, someone just posted, "I may be wrong, > but it seems to me that Jules Verne was the first prolific sf writer. > Can anyone come up with an earlier author?" > > I know if anyone can answer that question, it's the R-SPEC gang. :) > > On this other list we are working on a virtual book fair. If any of > you wants to post names of early sf authors/titles, I would forward > them to a library list serv. > > Thanks! > > Pat > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<r-spec%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en.
