I think the creative process involved is explained very effectively.
Our stories of the prehistoric world are based on scientific study and theory.quote]
Note, he doesn't say FACT.
They also tell us that these beasts died out long before man came into existence.
This too is theory.
This is fiction, not based on FACT and they have clearly stated that.
ONLY one million years ago, with MODERN, clean shaven, Humans???
This kind of work is predicated on what is known as, 'Willing suspension of disbelief'. I can live with it.
(going against all recent scientific findings)
This was written and drawn in 1954 and we are reading it in 2023.
Their 'recent' scientific findings were 79 years ago. There have been many updatings of the accepted 'theories' since then.
I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/im-a-scientist-and-i-dont-believe-in-facts/
I don't entirely agree with this guy,but the basic argument is correct.
Cheers!
I agree with you on all counts. It's just a matter of degree on which we differ, and whether or not the author's bold statement that implies that the theory they base their story upon, deserves just as much credence as the many many others that lean in the opposite direction. And my problem is the likelihood that the theory conclusions accepted by the great masses of scientists, both in 1953 and now, is opposed to a theory that is implied by Kubert's introduction statement, make me feel that it would have been better for the comic book's entertainment value, to leave that introduction out, and thus, not draw the reader's attention to that overwhelmingly lower chance of the likeliness of Kubert's scenario to have happened, and therefore, allow the reader to concentrate better (more fully) on suspending his disbelief, and enjoying the fantasy. The bold statement "This COULD have happened", SCREAMS that it's coming from the author's insecurities with the weak theory it's based upon, and says: "BELIEVE ME", you SEE? What I propose to you is based on GOOD SCIENTIFIC process and logic!"
Insisting to the hilt that something is true, or good, is usually the best indicator that the person making the plea for your belief is lying through his teeth or tremendously insecure in his belief. Again, it's my belief that including that introduction, whose theory is possible (as ALL theories are possible) but whose likelihood was much, much less likely based both on scientist accepted theory in 1953 and today. The biggest difference in the theories about when the dinosaurs died out was the discovery of the iridium layer in 1980. The theories of the great mass extinctions of animal and plantlife ending The Cretaceous Period, started already in 1825. In 1953, as a child reader, I already knew that most scientists believed that ALL species of dinosaurs had died off roughly 65 million years before (give or take 1 or 2 million years on either end). The major differences in accepted theory since then are that the dinosaurs that had already changed, or were changing, into "birds" survived, and other species of them may have survived a few million years more than previously thought, as well as the accepted theories on when Humanids and Modern Humans (Sapiens Sapiens), could have started have been moving steadily to earlier and earlier dates (but at the earliest, they are still only a few million earlier than the most commonly accepted dates in 1953.
As a story writer and artist, I was constantly advised and instructed to not introduce anything into my stories that might make the reader stop reading and think deeply, which would remove their concentration on "living in the story along with the story's protagonist". There is a fine line between giving the reader something to think deeply about (that might even change the reader's life), but allows him/her to continue living in the story, and the reader to do that deep thing after finishing the story, and the opposite result of the reader stopping his/her reading to do that deep thinking at the instant of seeing the triggering concept in print.
The great irony is that the likelihood of the scenario posed by accepting the less-accepted theory having actually occurred in The Earth's history is irrelevant to this comic book, as NO Dinosaurs appeared side-by-side with Humans in any of the stories, - only on the front cover, and in Kuburt's and Maurer's introduction, and in the zany - not-to-be-taken-seriously comedy story. In both the Tor story and Boy's dream in the "Danny Dreams" story, The Humans only encounter animals that existed in Paleolithic times, that existed when Humans did. So, the introduction shouldn't have referred to dinosaurs or animals who lived during the Cretaceous Period, or any reference to dates that far back. But, as we all know, Dinosaurs sold books back then, to young boys, and putting them on front covers and in such an introduction (especially if they weren't included in the book's stories, would sell more of these books, on net.
