Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MinFootspace t1_j1vffoz wrote

Imaginators, not inventors.

Inventing includes all the technical aspects and goes from the idea to a functional prototype.

77

WohsHows t1_j1vgvwc wrote

A lot of science fiction writers do go into technical detail for their books. Which would be a huge reason why real inventors later down the line credit science fiction works/writers as their inspiration.

Also, imaginator sounds dumb AF.

−35

shoryurepppa t1_j1vwfd4 wrote

But anyone can come up with an idea for something, the inventor actually invents it.

11

WohsHows t1_j1w05xh wrote

Nobody is going to say Da Vinci wasn't an inventor just because he didn't have working prototypes of his flying machines

−19

Denaton_ t1_j1w0uhj wrote

Da Vinci was not called an inventor for his failed blueprints, he was called an inventor for his successful once..

17

WohsHows t1_j1w1yxr wrote

Definitely referred to as an inventor even for his blueprints.

−17

Denaton_ t1_j1w81x9 wrote

I think you misunderstood me, i said failed blueprints vs successful blueprints.

11

cyan_violet t1_j1wcy5z wrote

This is because Da Vinci's intention (as far as we can tell) when drawing and diagramming those devices was to conceptualize an object in the context of reality, not fiction.

A sci-fi writer uses prose to describe, sometimes in technical detail, an object in a fictional universe, with an implicit understanding that it is not meant for fabrication, but for entertainment.

3

TheLukeHines t1_j1wa3xd wrote

There’s a difference between drawing up complex schematics and imagining somethig. No offence to H. G. Wells but he didn’t invent a time machine because he wrote about a man who did.

2

DonKaiStorm t1_j1vkcu7 wrote

Probably why the last Skylanders game was called Imaginators...because the series was being dumbed down.

9