tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13336104.post6656282530702522492..comments2024-01-07T13:24:03.640+00:00Comments on Nothing Tra La La?: Etymological space0tralalahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06818587472660040921noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13336104.post-29537825314493560412008-04-18T13:24:00.000+01:002008-04-18T13:24:00.000+01:00Everybody knows what 'alternate history' means jus...<I>Everybody knows what 'alternate history' means just like everybody knows what the idiom 'red herring' means</I><BR/><BR/>Do they really? I think it means a plot device in mysteries, something to distract the reader from the real solution. But the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_%28plot_device%29" REL="nofollow">Wikipedia list of examples of red herrings</A> includes stuff that’s just untrue or rumour.<BR/><BR/>And people <I>don’t</I> agree about the definitions of alternative history, just as they don’t agree about the definitions of science fiction. So any discussion of these things needs to define its terms of reference. It’s not pedantic, it’s first principles.<BR/><BR/>It’s important to think about the words we use because that’s how we unpack our presumptions and are more precise. Is an alternative history different from a parallel universe? Does Pullman’s His Dark Materials count as alternative history? Lyra’s Oxford is clearly just a branch away from our own – it’s not another world like Narnia. <BR/><BR/>Does alternative history have to include a Jonbar point (sometimes called a Jonbar hinge?) A recent essay by Edward James in the BSFA’s magazine argued that the detective game of sussing out the moment where history diverged is one of the great pleasures of the genre. But there’s plenty of examples in the genre that don’t do that. Does that mean they’re not alternative history, or that they’re not very good? Or is it just that the detective game thing is an added bonus?<BR/><BR/><I>Anyway: Some alternative history books are sci-fi, and some aren't. 'The Man in the High Castle' is, 'Fatherland' isn't.</I><BR/><BR/>Says you. I know people who don’t think “The Man…” is science fiction at all because it all depends on the magic of I-Ching. “Fatherland”, though, is about a man questing for truth and discovery in the historical record – an arts and humanities version of science fictions traditional physics hero.<BR/><BR/><I>Just having a spaceship in it doesn't make it sci-fi, any more than having a man and a woman in love makes it a romance: it's all about approach.</I><BR/><BR/>I don’t agree. I think many people would think it science fiction just because of the spaceship. And this is the point; the term means different things to different people. They (we) classify genre by ring fencing what we do or don’t like: fans say “that’s not science fiction” to mean “that’s not something I like”. And non-fans can dismiss anything with a spaceship, whatever the approach an author takes, because they “don’t read science fiction”.<BR/><BR/>I think the definitions say less about the work and more about our own individual tastes and prejudice.0tralalahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06818587472660040921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13336104.post-83932999708917279992008-04-18T12:33:00.000+01:002008-04-18T12:33:00.000+01:00I think you're getting too hung up on trying to de...I think you're getting too hung up on trying to decompose phrasal units into their constituent words. Everybody knows what 'alternate history' means, just like everybody knows what the idiom 'red herring' means: the fact that if you try to make sense out of it by combining its individual words is neither here nor there, and is not in fact the way we use language (unless we're trying to make a joke by pointing out the discrepancy between the individual words and the meaning of the compound phrase or, less admirably, attempting to demonstrate pedantic superiority). <BR/><BR/>Anyway: Some alternative history books are sci-fi, and some aren't. 'The Man in the High Castle' is, 'Fatherland' isn't. This is because genre isn't about the subject (there's no checklist 'if it contains these things it must be sci-fi' -- which is where most of these attempted definitions start and why they fail) but about how the subject is approached. <BR/><BR/>You could write a story about a man and a woman in love on a spaceship and, depending on the approach you take, it could be sit squarely in the sci-fi genre, squarely in the romance genre, or in that grey area between genres. Just having a spaceship in it doesn't make it sci-fi, any more than having a man and a woman in love makes it a romance: it's all about approach.SKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09102522819364312684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13336104.post-78702108081206338292008-04-17T15:34:00.000+01:002008-04-17T15:34:00.000+01:00Rob said: the former can be for its own sake.I do...Rob said:<BR/><I> the former can be for its own sake.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't wholly agree. But I'm going to have to think about exactly why. Dammit.<BR/><BR/>Nimbos:<BR/><I>Divergent universes.</I><BR/>Tend to mean ones where the laws of physics are different, rather than historical events.0tralalahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06818587472660040921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13336104.post-81264051897847666512008-04-17T15:28:00.000+01:002008-04-17T15:28:00.000+01:00Um - divergent universes. How about that?Um - divergent universes. How about that?Nimboshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09641328022362217877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13336104.post-24756378722033767652008-04-17T15:22:00.000+01:002008-04-17T15:22:00.000+01:00I think it helps to make certain general distincti...I think it helps to make certain general distinctions. I like to keep a mental discontinuity between "hard" SF - i.e. disciplined theoretical, ethical or sociological extrapolation from REAL science - from "fantasy" SF, which includes anything that uses FTL, teleport, or any other maguffin that would be dead nice but just ain't real. The latter needs to tell some kind of story beyond its fantastical setting, whereas the former can be for its own sake.<BR/><BR/>mmazil!Rob Stradlinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622504337859973159noreply@blogger.com