Could Phil Seleski, Jack Boniface, and Master Darque Have Been Harbingers?

[ManofTheAtom]

Fantasy and science fiction are not the same genre. There is a third genre called science fantasy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasy

Stop focusing on genre, no one is debating what genre superhero stories are in. You're the only one caught up in it. No one is saying that Valiant or Marvel or DC belong in the Fantasy genre.

The debate is about the 'fantastical elements' or if you prefer 'paranormal' or 'supernatural' elements of superhero stories.

Correct. Paranormal (or, supranormal) and supernatural. Not fantasy. You're conflating fantasy with fiction.

Nanites are the latter, not the former.

[ManofTheAtom]

In the context of the conversation, "fantasy" and "science fiction" are used in reference to the genre.

You can very easily stop using fantasy -- unless you want to discuss Lord of the Rings or Magic the Gathering -- and just use fiction.

Nah dude, no one is talking about LotR or Magic the Gathering. Fantasy as a genre is tied to a specific type of setting, but it can also have extremely realistic and scientifically explained 'magic' systems.

The context of the conversation is superhero universes, which have a modern or near-future setting, and so are always in the sci-fi genre. We are all well aware of that, no one is debating that. Fiction is the fact that Faith Herbert or Pete Stanchek exist. Fantastical elements within the fiction are that Faith can fly and Pete can read minds.

Faith's ability to fly and Pete's ability to read minds are as fictional as they were, but they are not fantasy. They are science fiction.

Firestarter -- in which Charlie sets fire with her mind and her father can control minds -- is not a fantasy novel/movie, it is a science fiction novel/movie.

[Ryan]

Fantasy and science fiction are not the same genre. There is a third genre called science fantasy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasy

Stop focusing on genre, no one is debating what genre superhero stories are in. You're the only one caught up in it. No one is saying that Valiant or Marvel or DC belong in the Fantasy genre.

The debate is about the 'fantastical elements' or if you prefer 'paranormal' or 'supernatural' elements of superhero stories.

Correct. Paranormal (or, supranormal) and supernatural. Not fantasy. You're conflating fantasy with fiction.

Nanites are the latter, not the former.

You're the only who seems to have a problem with 'fantastical' or 'fantasy elements' meaning more things than just the genre of Fantasy.

Take Street Fighter II. It has a modern setting with fictional characters fighting, but includes fantastical elements like characters who can shoot fireballs and stretch their limbs beyond realistic levels, etc. Does that mean I'm saying it belongs in the fantasy genre with LotR? Of course not, no one but you would draw that conclusion.

[Ryan]

Faith's ability to fly and Pete's ability to read minds are as fictional as they were, but they are not fantasy. They are science fiction.

Firestarter -- in which Charlie sets fire with her mind and her father can control minds -- is not a fantasy novel/movie, it is a science fiction novel/movie.

Again, you're making up a debate that doesn't exist. No one is saying that Valiant or Marvel or DC are in the Fantasy genre. No one. We all know they are in the science fiction genre.

[ManofTheAtom]

Faith's ability to fly and Pete's ability to read minds are as fictional as they were, but they are not fantasy. They are science fiction.

Firestarter -- in which Charlie sets fire with her mind and her father can control minds -- is not a fantasy novel/movie, it is a science fiction novel/movie.

Again, you're making up a debate that doesn't exist. No one is saying that Valiant or Marvel or DC are in the Fantasy genre. No one. We all know they are in the science fiction genre.

And, yet, you keep using the term fantasy, which is ill-fitting to the conversation.

Nanites are no more fantasy-based than a warp drive. They're both science fiction.

You keep insisting on using the wrong term, which is what has brought the conversation to a stand still.

[ManofTheAtom]

Fantasy and science fiction are not the same genre. There is a third genre called science fantasy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasy

Stop focusing on genre, no one is debating what genre superhero stories are in. You're the only one caught up in it. No one is saying that Valiant or Marvel or DC belong in the Fantasy genre.

The debate is about the 'fantastical elements' or if you prefer 'paranormal' or 'supernatural' elements of superhero stories.

Correct. Paranormal (or, supranormal) and supernatural. Not fantasy. You're conflating fantasy with fiction.

Nanites are the latter, not the former.

You're the only who seems to have a problem with 'fantastical' or 'fantasy elements' meaning more things than just the genre of Fantasy.

Take Street Fighter II. It has a modern setting with fictional characters fighting, but includes fantastical elements like characters who can shoot fireballs and stretch their limbs beyond realistic levels, etc. Does that mean I'm saying it belongs in the fantasy genre with LotR? Of course not, no one but you would draw that conclusion.

The term "fantasy" has a specific connotation, SPECIFICALLY when the discussion at hand has to do with genre.

All these characters and their powers are equally fictional. Some have powers that come from fantasy, others have powers that come from science fiction.

Aric and Bloodshot are the latter. Shadowman is the former.

You cannot equate Bloodshot's nanites -- a form of advanced technology from the genre of science fiction -- with Master Darque's ability to manipulate necromantic energy -- a form of magic from the realm of fantasy.

You're using fantasy as a blanket statement to refer to ALL of it as if they were equal.

They're not, at least not in the context of "fantasy".

They ARE equal in the context of FICTION, which encompasses ALL genres, whether that's Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, or Law & Order...

[Ryan]

As genres, sci-fi and fantasy are linked. Or maybe, it might be better to say, that sci-fi is very dependent on fantasy. Fantasy can exist without sci-fi but most (but not all) sci-fi is not entirely stripped of fantasy elements.

Magneto is a mutant. That is a sci-fi answer. But until you come up with some way to explain how his body can generate and control magnetic fields, it is a fantasy element within that sci-fi. Saying the X-gene is the same as saying pixie dust. If you can strip the fantasy out of the sci-fi, the best example of what you get would be something like 2001, where the computer is a more human character than the people in the story.

You do offer sci-fi explanations for things - advanced technology time travelled from the future - but when you get to something like "he fell into a malfunctioning nuclear reactor [which had anti-matter for some reason?] and fell out the other end with god-like powers" there is no way to divorce the fantasy elements from that sci-fi. It is the same as falling into a vat of pixie dust!

...and nanites. There is a lot of "god of the gaps" going on there.

So true. The genres are just a convention of libraries and bookstores as a way to conveniently organize different types of fiction. You can always find stories that blur the lines and satisfy genre conventions of multiple genres, or genre-bend, etc.

I think the heart of the debate on this board is that superhero universes, while all being in the science fiction genre, all can be placed on a spectrum of less realistic to more realistic.

The 'scientific' explanation for the paranormal elements of a superhero universe is only one small part of its overall realism. Another very important aspect is how logically and realistically events effect the overall universe. Another aspect might be the art, is it realistic and consistent? Or cartoony and wildly inconsistent in how it portrays the characters? All of these factors and more contribute to the overall sense of realism in a superhero universe.

To me the debate is, where do the various iterations of Valiant fall on the spectrum of 'realism'?

[Ryan]

And, yet, you keep using the term fantasy, which is ill-fitting to the conversation.

Nanites are no more fantasy-based than a warp drive. They're both science fiction.

You keep insisting on using the wrong term, which is what has brought the conversation to a stand still.

Nah, you're the one insisting to mis-define the term I'm using, which I've proven has multiple definitions. You're intentional mis-interpretation is what's killed this conversation.

But I'll stop using it since you can't seem to handle it.

[ManofTheAtom]

And, yet, you keep using the term fantasy, which is ill-fitting to the conversation.

Nanites are no more fantasy-based than a warp drive. They're both science fiction.

You keep insisting on using the wrong term, which is what has brought the conversation to a stand still.

Nah, you're the one insisting to mis-define the term I'm using, which I've proven has multiple definitions. You're intentional mis-interpretation is what's killed this conversation.

But I'll stop using it since you can't seem to handle it.

You're using the term fantasy in a conversation about science fiction because, for reasons only you understand, you don't want to just use the term "fiction", which is the appropriate one.

Nanites are not a magic spell, they're an advanced form of technology.

[Chiclo]

And, yet, you keep using the term fantasy, which is ill-fitting to the conversation.

Nanites are no more fantasy-based than a warp drive. They're both science fiction.

You keep insisting on using the wrong term, which is what has brought the conversation to a stand still.

Nah, you're the one insisting to mis-define the term I'm using, which I've proven has multiple definitions. You're intentional mis-interpretation is what's killed this conversation.

But I'll stop using it since you can't seem to handle it.

You're using the term fantasy in a conversation about science fiction because, for reasons only you understand, you don't want to just use the term "fiction", which is the appropriate one.

Nanites are not a magic spell, they're an advanced form of technology.

Nanites might not be magical but Mortalli’s harbinger ability to telepathically communicate and control machines is pure pixie dust.

[Ryan]

And, yet, you keep using the term fantasy, which is ill-fitting to the conversation.

Nanites are no more fantasy-based than a warp drive. They're both science fiction.

You keep insisting on using the wrong term, which is what has brought the conversation to a stand still.

Nah, you're the one insisting to mis-define the term I'm using, which I've proven has multiple definitions. You're intentional mis-interpretation is what's killed this conversation.

But I'll stop using it since you can't seem to handle it.

You're using the term fantasy in a conversation about science fiction because, for reasons only you understand, you don't want to just use the term "fiction", which is the appropriate one.

Nanites are not a magic spell, they're an advanced form of technology.

Fiction is too broad of a term. A story about a person named Faith Herbert making cookies is fiction. People are real, cookies are real. Adding in the element that she can fly is a 'supernatural' element. People flying is not real, it's imaginative.

Because its in a modern setting it becomes by default a science fiction story. No one is debating that. You could say she's flying by pixie dust and it would still be sci-fi. You could explain the pixie dust by calling them quantum particles created by a super scientific genius and that would still be sci-fi, just maybe a bit more realistic.

[magnusr]

To me the debate is, where do the various iterations of Valiant fall on the spectrum of 'realism'?

Good question. I also think that "how consistantly are things explained by in-universe logic?" is a relevant question. For both questions I believe that early VH1 manages best.

/Magnus

[magnusr]

I forget how Bender got his powers. I've only read those issues once or twice, heh.

He tricked Solar into letting part of his energy be stolen. The point being that he didn't need to be a Harbinger to manipulate energy.

/Magnus

[ManofTheAtom]

And, yet, you keep using the term fantasy, which is ill-fitting to the conversation.

Nanites are no more fantasy-based than a warp drive. They're both science fiction.

You keep insisting on using the wrong term, which is what has brought the conversation to a stand still.

Nah, you're the one insisting to mis-define the term I'm using, which I've proven has multiple definitions. You're intentional mis-interpretation is what's killed this conversation.

But I'll stop using it since you can't seem to handle it.

You're using the term fantasy in a conversation about science fiction because, for reasons only you understand, you don't want to just use the term "fiction", which is the appropriate one.

Nanites are not a magic spell, they're an advanced form of technology.

Fiction is too broad of a term. A story about a person named Faith Herbert making cookies is fiction. People are real, cookies are real. Adding in the element that she can fly is a 'supernatural' element. People flying is not real, it's imaginative.

Because its in a modern setting it becomes by default a science fiction story. No one is debating that. You could say she's flying by pixie dust and it would still be sci-fi. You could explain the pixie dust by calling them quantum particles created by a super scientific genius and that would still be sci-fi, just maybe a bit more realistic.

You could. Context matters. In Peter Pan, pixie dust would be magic. In VALIANT, it may be quantum particles.

Since we're discussing VALIANT, by default is it not fantasy, it is science fiction.

When you equate nanites with fantasy you're saying they're a magic spell someone cast on Bloodshot. They're not, they're an advanced form of technology, which makes them science fiction.

[ManofTheAtom]

And, yet, you keep using the term fantasy, which is ill-fitting to the conversation.

Nanites are no more fantasy-based than a warp drive. They're both science fiction.

You keep insisting on using the wrong term, which is what has brought the conversation to a stand still.

Nah, you're the one insisting to mis-define the term I'm using, which I've proven has multiple definitions. You're intentional mis-interpretation is what's killed this conversation.

But I'll stop using it since you can't seem to handle it.

You're using the term fantasy in a conversation about science fiction because, for reasons only you understand, you don't want to just use the term "fiction", which is the appropriate one.

Nanites are not a magic spell, they're an advanced form of technology.

Nanites might not be magical but Mortalli’s harbinger ability to telepathically communicate and control machines is pure pixie dust.

Only because what Harbinger abilities are was never fully conceptualized. It was left unexplained.

Now, since, generally speaking, they're biological in nature, that makes them science (biology) fiction (powers).

[ManofTheAtom]

I forget how Bender got his powers. I've only read those issues once or twice, heh.

He tricked Solar into letting part of his energy be stolen. The point being that he didn't need to be a Harbinger to manipulate energy.

/Magnus

One could argue that since Phil was made entirely of energy what Bender stole was part of Solar himself, which then bonded with Bender. It was Solar's own power finding a new host, as it were.

[Chiclo]

And, yet, you keep using the term fantasy, which is ill-fitting to the conversation.

Nanites are no more fantasy-based than a warp drive. They're both science fiction.

You keep insisting on using the wrong term, which is what has brought the conversation to a stand still.

Nah, you're the one insisting to mis-define the term I'm using, which I've proven has multiple definitions. You're intentional mis-interpretation is what's killed this conversation.

But I'll stop using it since you can't seem to handle it.

You're using the term fantasy in a conversation about science fiction because, for reasons only you understand, you don't want to just use the term "fiction", which is the appropriate one.

Nanites are not a magic spell, they're an advanced form of technology.

Nanites might not be magical but Mortalli’s harbinger ability to telepathically communicate and control machines is pure pixie dust.

Only because what Harbinger abilities are was never fully conceptualized. It was left unexplained.

Now, since, generally speaking, they're biological in nature, that makes them science (biology) fiction (powers).

Telepaths are no less biologically fantasy than manticores and chimerae, whether the telepathy is with people or machines.

[magnusr]

One could argue that since Phil was made entirely of energy what Bender stole was part of Solar himself, which then bonded with Bender. It was Solar's own power finding a new host, as it were.

True

/Magnus

[ManofTheAtom]

And, yet, you keep using the term fantasy, which is ill-fitting to the conversation.

Nanites are no more fantasy-based than a warp drive. They're both science fiction.

You keep insisting on using the wrong term, which is what has brought the conversation to a stand still.

Nah, you're the one insisting to mis-define the term I'm using, which I've proven has multiple definitions. You're intentional mis-interpretation is what's killed this conversation.

But I'll stop using it since you can't seem to handle it.

You're using the term fantasy in a conversation about science fiction because, for reasons only you understand, you don't want to just use the term "fiction", which is the appropriate one.

Nanites are not a magic spell, they're an advanced form of technology.

Nanites might not be magical but Mortalli’s harbinger ability to telepathically communicate and control machines is pure pixie dust.

Only because what Harbinger abilities are was never fully conceptualized. It was left unexplained.

Now, since, generally speaking, they're biological in nature, that makes them science (biology) fiction (powers).

Telepaths are no less biologically fantasy than manticores and chimerae, whether the telepathy is with people or machines.

Correct, they're not fantasy.

[ManofTheAtom]

One could argue that since Phil was made entirely of energy what Bender stole was part of Solar himself, which then bonded with Bender. It was Solar's own power finding a new host, as it were.

True

/Magnus

And it was short lived, no? Which is why he sought out Darque, who did to Bender with necromantic energy what Phil did with nuclear energy.

In both instances, it was Bender being affected by outside factors that changed him.

In essence, Solar's ability to manipulate and change matter (organic and inorganic alike) on an atomic -- or even subatomic -- level changed Bender from a normal man to one able to manipulate both energy and necromantic energy.

[magnusr]

And it was short lived, no?

Solar took it back.

Which is why he sought out Darque, who did to Bender with necromantic energy what Phil did with nuclear energy.

In both instances, it was Bender being affected by outside factors that changed him.

In essence, Solar's ability to manipulate and change matter (organic and inorganic alike) on an atomic -- or even subatomic -- level changed Bender from a normal man to one able to manipulate both energy and necromantic energy.

Indeed.

/Magnus

[Ryan]

To me the debate is, where do the various iterations of Valiant fall on the spectrum of 'realism'?

Good question. I also think that "how consistently are things explained by in-universe logic?" is a relevant question. For both questions I believe that early VH1 manages best.

Great point. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Agreed, early Vh1 is the benchmark for sure. Then the debate that's been on this board since the beginning, when exactly did Vh1 start to lose its way in terms of realism and consistency? I think I would separate post-Unity, post-CE, and post-BQ and put them all on different places on the spectrum.

The new part of the debate is that we can now evaluate the VEI era in hindsight, and decide where it fits. As well as the 'DMG era' and the new Alien era.

[ManofTheAtom]

And it was short lived, no?

Solar took it back.

Which is why he sought out Darque, who did to Bender with necromantic energy what Phil did with nuclear energy.

In both instances, it was Bender being affected by outside factors that changed him.

In essence, Solar's ability to manipulate and change matter (organic and inorganic alike) on an atomic -- or even subatomic -- level changed Bender from a normal man to one able to manipulate both energy and necromantic energy.

Indeed.

/Magnus

[ManofTheAtom]

To me the debate is, where do the various iterations of Valiant fall on the spectrum of 'realism'?

Good question. I also think that "how consistently are things explained by in-universe logic?" is a relevant question. For both questions I believe that early VH1 manages best.

Great point. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Agreed, early Vh1 is the benchmark for sure. Then the debate that's been on this board since the beginning, when exactly did Vh1 start to lose its way in terms of realism and consistency? I think I would separate post-Unity, post-CE, and post-BQ and put them all on different places on the spectrum.

The new part of the debate is that we can now evaluate the VEI era in hindsight, and decide where it fits. As well as the 'DMG era' and the new Alien era.

Magic realism must enter the conversation as well.

[Ryan]

To me the debate is, where do the various iterations of Valiant fall on the spectrum of 'realism'?

Good question. I also think that "how consistently are things explained by in-universe logic?" is a relevant question. For both questions I believe that early VH1 manages best.

Great point. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Agreed, early Vh1 is the benchmark for sure. Then the debate that's been on this board since the beginning, when exactly did Vh1 start to lose its way in terms of realism and consistency? I think I would separate post-Unity, post-CE, and post-BQ and put them all on different places on the spectrum.

The new part of the debate is that we can now evaluate the VEI era in hindsight, and decide where it fits. As well as the 'DMG era' and the new Alien era.

Magic realism must enter the conversation as well.

Huh? Why? All superhero stories are categorized in science fiction. I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with genre, literally no one else has ever been debating what genre Valiant comics are in.