Sometimes a Mistake is Just a Mistake

 It's May the 4th, which Star Wars fans corrupted into some kind of holiday.  So appropriately let's talk about "science fiction" and mistakes.  A couple months ago one of my Facebook "friends" shared this Tweet:

And as sometimes happens, I took a moderate point of view and got yelled at by someone else:

There's really no profit in arguing with people on someone else's Facebook feed so I just laughing reacted and left it at that.  But really I don't think the comment is valid.  It doesn't matter that the books came before the movies.  I was talking about how people see the book in 2021, not when it was written.

I think if you go out and ask 100 people on the street, you would struggle to find one who would label Frankenstein as "science fiction."  In large part because of the movies we've focused mostly on the monster aspect, not the mad science aspect.  So if you go out and ask people what genre the book is, I'm sure 99% of those who actually know there's a book would consider it horror, not science fiction.  Checking on Amazon it's listed under categories like Classic Literature and Gothic Literature these days.  Not science fiction.

I also have plenty of stories that feature weird science, like the Chances Are books.  Do I consider them science fiction?  No.  Technically could you call them science fiction?  Yes.  There is "science" and they are fiction.  In the same way there is "science" in Frankenstein and it's obviously fiction, so it can be described that way.  Is that how even the author would describe it?  I have no idea.  But when I shelved the Chances Are books I didn't put them in science fiction; I put them like in Thrillers and Paranormal Mystery or something.  The same is true for a lot of Eric Filler books.  A few like The Cage, Reunion, and Only Human I would consider sci-fi because they were based on sci-fi properties:  Star Trek, Voltron, and Transformers respectively.  The rest, even if they feature weird science, I don't consider them science fiction because the "science" isn't really the major point of the story.  

That's less true with Frankenstein because Victor's obsession with raising the dead is a major part of the story.  But it's not necessarily the core of the story.  Really it's about the relationship between Victor and the monster and, really, who is the actual monster?

So to me this idea that The New York Times is trying to "erase" her is false.  It's just our perception of what is "science fiction" doesn't tend to include books like this.

But in today's culture it's easier to jump straight to outrage rather than consider it might just be a mistake or oversight.  That's not nearly as attention grabbing, is it?  But then I'm a middle-aged white guy, so it's easier for me to be less paranoid about this stuff.  If you're a woman--especially a black woman--you're probably a lot more skeptical about these things.

Still, it'd be nice if we could just chill out a bit.  Not everything is a conspiracy to discriminate against someone or some group of people.  Sometimes it's just a...