Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Drew Bittner <drewbitt at yahoo.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Alternative reality v SF
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

--- "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com> wrote:
> At 07:31 AM 4/27/05 -0700, Drew Bittner wrote:
>
> >Alt reality, to me, is exemplified by Harry
> >Turtledove. It works from the premise that
> something
> >in the past happened differently-- everything after
> >that proceeds from that change and the
> ramifications
> >are explored.
>
> Why the past?  "Alternate reality" just means a
> reality different from
> ours.  All SF and Fantasy would qualify for that
> label.
>
> "Alternate History" would make more sense as a term
> for that subset of
> alternate realities where a worldline that was the
> same as ours up to some
> past point but where something then happened
> differently and things flowed
> on from that point according to the usual laws of
> nature.

I'm willing to concede that point.

> >Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea *may* be AR (it
> >happened in that far off year of 1984, after all),
>
> At the time it was made 1984 was the near future.
> The shows aired in the
> 60s after all.  It was just speculative fiction,
> with some serious problems
> in the areas of economics, politics, engineering,
> physics, etc. glossed
> over so they could have exactly one really advanced
> submarine in the fleet,
> designed by a single human, who was then put in
> charge of it, complete with
> flying submarine auxiliary craft.  I.e. not very
> good SF, but about all
> there was to watch on TV at the time.
>
> >with Lost in Space (1999? 2000-something?) and
> >Space:1999 (see title), but I still think of them
> as
> >mainstream sf instead of alt reality.
>
> They weren't based on a different *past* event, so
> they don't fit your
> definition of AR.  They aren't Alternate History
> either, for the same
> reason.  They are just SF, and do fit the meaning of
> the term "alternate
> reality" as I would define it, same as all SF I can
> think of.  Getting out
> of our current reality for a bit is one reason I
> read SF, so this isn't a
> problem FMPOV.

My point here was that Voyage et al might be thought
of as alternate history/reality because time has
caught up with "now" in the shows I mentioned... not
that they stem from a point in the past that turned
out differently.

> On the other hand, since both of those pretended to
> be sort of maybe
> possible some day, but violated the most basic of
> known natural laws
> without any explanation, they were particularly
> *BAD* SF.  Today, when
> there are much better choices, I wouldn't give them
> a second glance.  Back
> when they were first on, I watched them because the
> alternative was worse
> (can't remember exactly what else was on...Sports?
> Lawrence Welk? The Huff
> Cook Gospel Hour?  Something like that).

Yeah, sf was in a wasteland for a long stretch there.

> When I
> think of those series
> today, the first thing that comes to mind is Dr.
> Smith's shrieking as his
> plan to sell the children to yet another passing
> alien (which he did in
> every episode I think) went bad...again

The first season of Lost in Space was played
relatively straight-- and Smith was not even known to
be a stowaway in the pilot (IIRC). It was only later
that it veered in wretched camp.

> and the
> blank faced stare of that
> female lead on 1999 who apparently was the lab test
> subject for botox or
> something and probably the mother of that guy from
> X-Files if the lack of
> expression thing is genetic rather than toxin-based.

Barbara Bain-- ex-wife of Martin Landau (they were
married during their run on Space:1999) and mother of
Juliet Landau (aka Drusilla from Buffy the Vampire
Slayer). I don't agree with your assessment.

>  With him it extended
> to the voice too.  Maybe if you did a gene splice
> between him and Shatner
> you'd get an actor with normal levels of emotion?

Ah, cloning is such a tricky beast...

> >Turning to horror/fantasy... nah, let's not go
> there.
>
> That's alternate reality too.  Farther from the set
> of possible ones maybe,
> but still a different one.

My point exactly.

Drew

__________________________________