>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
>
I think that it actually makes them more "acceptable" to the general public.
People are afraid of reading fantasy, "only children read fantasy". Science
fiction can actually be read by adults.
Just my opinion
Becca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:07:39 PDT