Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:33:47 -0400
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Alternative reality v SF
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

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.

>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.

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).  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, 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.  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?

>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.

-- Mike B.
--
Sometimes when it's very quiet, you can hear the brain cells die.