On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, AnnyMiddon wrote:
> In a message dated 97-12-02 23:41:36 EST, rstoler@MAILHOST.TCS.TULANE.EDU
> writes:
>
> > >And now a question. I agree with Becca's statement that "We are what we
> > are,
> > >fantasy with some sort of basis in science, be it current, futuristic, or
> > >otherwise." But how do Alternate History stories fit this definition?
> > They
> > >have long been considered science fiction.
> > >
> > >Anny
> > >AnnyMiddon@aol.com
> > >
> >
> > I think that alternate Histories are also sci-fi/SF they fit in too.
> > Perhaps my definition was limited. If so, my apologies
> >
> > Becca
>
> I didn't mean to imply that your definition was limited; I think it's as
> accurate as any concise definition can be.
>
> I meant it more as a general question: Alternative History stories are
> considered science fiction, instead of fantasy. Why is this so?
>
> Anny
> AnnyMiddon@aol.com
>
Perhaps alternate history is considered science fiction for either of
two reasons: 1) in much alternate history, beyond the basic
assumption that an alternative is possible, there is little that is
specifically fantastic, ie. no magic or 2) because modern physics
implies, some scientists might say requires, that alternate universes do
exist.
Mike Levy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:07:39 PDT