SLIDERS From: "Paul Estin" Subject: Re: film reviews Date: Tue, 11 Apr 95 18:19:23 -0400 >RE:Sliders. Taped it - haven't watched it. True for much on TV >for me. 8) What few seconds I've seen makes me think it's kind >of juvenile. Am I right? Pretty much, but, alas, it has hit a soft spot for me. Kinda like Ken watching a show with blimps in it and music by Bruce Springsteen and with a cameo by Letterman-- even if the show is terrible, I can't help but keep watching for a while longer. Basically, the creators have a wonderfully wide-open premise (cross-dimensional travel), but they have no real interest in making a set of coherent alternate histories, and there are plenty of plot holes. They'd rather milk situations for humor value. (On the other hand, they do a pretty good job of *that*, e.g. in a communist-ruled Earth, "The People's Court" featuring Commissar Wapner.) I'm not even clear on exactly what the "rules of the game" are at this point-- it seems like they now have no control as to how long they'll be staying in any given world, minutes or days. The pilot did not explain their current situation well. Oh, except for Rhys-Davies, the acting's not too good either. And the black singer is a somewhat offensive stereotype. On the bright side, it is a reasonably *fun* show with some nifty effects, and there is potential to do better. In other words, it's a lot like Voyager. [deleted] -Paul Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,alt.tv.sliders Path: uchinews!ellis!esti From: esti@ellis.uchicago.edu (Paul A. Estin) Subject: Sliders is fun, but it's not "alternate history" X-Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.uchicago.edu Message-ID: Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Reply-To: esti@midway.uchicago.edu Organization: U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology References: <3lvubo$7rn@mark.ucdavis.edu> <3m18er$gtq@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <3m421f$jug@doc.jmu.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 22:17:35 GMT Viwers of Sliders seem to have two different sets of expectations. One can regard it, as many on this newsgroup have, as the first TV show to deal with ALTERNATE HISTORIES-- timelines which "branch" from ours at some specific point in the past. Or, one can look at Sliders as having a less constrained premise-- a world the Sliders visit could have ANYTHING POSSIBLE, not just alternate histories. For example, as Curtis Gittens put it... In article , C.G. wrote: >I think you have forgotten the premise behind sliders, and that is >simultaneously existing worlds. Each world is the result of endless >(billions) possibilities. So it means that a world could exist where >there was no nuclear bomb but the internet still exists etc. Don't >forget, that world was one out of billions. There would obviously >exist another world with no bomb and no internet etc, just as you >argued. It's just that that wasn't the world they slided to. Kapiche? OK, so there are two ways people have been looking at Sliders-- alternate-history or anything-goes. It seems clear that, after just three shows, there's NO WAY that I can consider Sliders to be "alternate history". First, because some of the possibilities aren't just a matter of different histories, they have very different physical natures (like "there's oil under San Francisco" or "there's an asteroid about to hit Earth"-- neither of these can be explained by assuming a change in history in the recent past). Second, pragmatically, because I'll drive myself nuts if I judge Sliders on the standards of alternate history fiction. Good alternate history starts with a premise ("What if turned out differently?") and follows historical logic (as best the writer understands it) forward in time to produce an alternate history. It is *fiction* because it's made up, but it's not made up haphazardly-- once the initial "what if" is established, every other change should flow logically from that one change. You want good examples, you'll have to turn off the TV and read real alternate history SF-- Poul Anderson and Harry Turtledove come first to mind. (Heck, just look at some of the better posts on alt.history.what-if) The writers on Sliders just don't seem interested in doing alternate history; they'd rather do light humor than think seriously about the consequences that follow "what if --?" Thus, in a Soviet-ruled California, we wind up with "The People's Court featuring Commissar Wapner", not a realistic alternate history. (I thought that bit was *entertaining*, but 'twasn't alternate history, 'twas something else.) On the occasions the writers do attempt alternate history, they don't do a very good job of it. Others have already pointed out the unlikelihoods in "Last Days", such as "Despite there being no nuclear weapons, the development of the Internet progresses the same as it did in our world, the history of Israel and Palestine happens exactly the same way, etc." or "Because of a coverup by a few physicists, NO ONE thinks of inventing the bomb". (These "unlikely history" flaws are distinct from physics goofs like "a mere 20 kiloton A-Bomb successfully explodes a ten-mile chunk of rock"... by definition, the explosive power is equivalent to hitting the asteroid with 20,000 tons of TNT-- though enough power to destroy the buildings in most of Hiroshima, it wouldn't have much effect on a rock that huge.) Personally, I find the light humor enjoyable (at least for now). I am disappointed, though, that the writers didn't decide to put in more effort and go the alternate-history route instead. While at first it seems like having an "anything-goes" premise allows everything that "alternate-history" does, plus some more, it isn't so. Because the "rules" are so unconstrained, it's pretty much impossible for the writers to do a serious storyline. In "Last Days", for example, I can't possibly take the ominous ending (pothead-physicist pantomiming shooting the globe) seriously, because up to that point the writers haven't taken seriously the way things really work in history (or physics, or politics, or science). Sliders will never amount to anything but fluff, so I suspect I'll get tired of it soon. And then I'll dream of what might have been. Paul Andrew Estin U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology estin@umich.edu P.S. BTW, I feel pretty much the same way about "Star Trek as science fiction"-- most of the time it simply *isn't* SF (that is, the writers don't even *attempt* to follow though on a "what if" game), and on the occasions they do try, they usually fail, because SF writing requires a certain skill. So, I watch ST:Voyager, and I often enjoy it, but I don't expect to see good SF in it. It's not a matter of "standards for books" vs. "standards for TV", it's a matter of "standards for SF" vs. "standards for allegory-in-space". Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,rec.arts.sf.tv,alt.tv.sliders Path: uchinews!kimbark!esti From: esti@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Paul A. Estin) Subject: Sliders (The Prince of Wails) Habla Espanol?? X-Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.uchicago.edu Message-ID: Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Reply-To: esti@midway.uchicago.edu Organization: U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology References: <3mikfd$rc5@mark.ucdavis.edu> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 17:58:05 GMT The episode "Prince of Wails" doesn't deserve much commentary, IMHO, so I'll just make one brief comment on how things went awry from the very start: Ah, I see. The US lost the American revolution, England retained control, and there was no French Revolution either (and thus none of the events that in our world led to Jefferson making the Louisiana Purchase and starting the westward expansion of the USA). Overall, there's been less political and technological change since the 18th century, compared to our Earth. Yet San Francisco, California is still part of the British States of America, and not Spanish-owned. Riiight. (It's *possible* that the Brits won a lot of Spanish land by some other history, but some *mention* of the fact that the borders of the nations in this world are different from the ones in ours would've been nice. And anyway, that doesn't explain the fax machine.) Now I will go follow my own advice, and stop judging Sliders by the rules of alternate history. Paul Andrew Estin U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology estin@umich.edu From: "Paul Estin" To: John Powell Cc: estin@umich.edu Subject: Re: Sliders is fun, but it's not "alternate history" In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 14 Apr 95 11:15:59 EDT. <9504141515.AA17240@server4.bell-atl.com> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 95 17:47:35 -0400 >Hello, Paul. I just wanted to say that TV has a tougher time dealing >with alternate histories than books. The show has to present an >easily recognizable alternate outcome of an event, and place a >significant role in San Francisco. Plus, it seems one of the four >main characters has to have a major role as a counterpart. I agree that there are some built-in limitations for a TV show attempting to do this sort of thing. On the other hand, it's inherently easier for TV to do plausible alternate history compared to some other forms of SF. For example, it's easier to set something in an alternate present-- costume changes are the major concern-- than to set something in the future. Also, I would prefer alternate history which errs on the side of conservatism RELATIVE TO THE HISTORICAL CHANGE. It would be better than the current situation of alternate histories which are too similar to our own reality. For example, in the last episode, I'd've prefered a 1995 British States of America that looked more like 19th century Britain (in terms of technology and political boundaries), and less like 1995 USA. Maybe that's just me? -Paul Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,alt.tv.sliders Path: uchinews!kimbark!esti From: esti@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Paul A. Estin) Subject: Re: Sliders is fun, but it's not "alternate history" X-Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.uchicago.edu Message-ID: Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Reply-To: esti@midway.uchicago.edu Organization: U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology References: <3lvubo$7rn@mark.ucdavis.edu> <3mhoda$l10@yuggoth.ucsb.edu> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 20:21:15 GMT [Supposedly alternate histories end up too much like Earth Prime; the histories don't seem very well thought-out.] Lance Purple wrote: >OK, here's an "out" for the writers: the Sliders worlds >branch off from changes in our past, but then they are >slowly pulled back towards our "normal" timeline. They >are eventually re-absorbed into our timeline and fade >away. (call 'em "Virtual Alternate Pasts", maybe?) > >For example, the "Asteroid" world starts off from a past >where there is no atom bomb, but the pull of our future >causes stuff like ICBM's and the Internet to be developed >anyway. Eventually, the atom bomb is rediscovered... > >Or in "Royal America", there was never a Reagan era, >yet the Sherrif of San Francisco ends up with a TV show >very much like Rush Limbaugh's. At the end of the show, >Prince Harrold begins preparations to turn the US into >a constitutional republic... > >In any event, the differences start out big in the past, >and get smaller in time. This "explains" why the writers >don't have to work very hard on the alternate histories. :) Ah yes, the "divergences damp out" theory. (You seem to have put more thought work into it than the _Sliders_ writers do, that's for sure. :-) I suppose that theory could work. It's an unsatisfying cop-out than raises still more questions (e.g. "Why is *one* particular timeline so damn *special* as to draw others to it?"), and that I've seen before only in poorly-thought-out Marvel comic books dealing with time travel)... but it could work. Paul Andrew Estin U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology estin@umich.edu Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv Path: uchinews!kimbark!esti From: esti@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Paul A. Estin) Subject: Re: Sliders:Alternate History! X-Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.uchicago.edu Message-ID: Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Reply-To: esti@midway.uchicago.edu Organization: U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology References: Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 20:36:03 GMT In article , Jared Gregory Benson wrote: >Someone was complaining that the writers don't take the task of >presenting alternate history properly and that it is anything goes >instead. But it is both, and frankly I don't see the dif! If there >are infinite possibilities then why is hard to accept that history >could unfold in infinite ways? there. Sliders is now both. Try reading my article again. My *point* was that alternate histories (as they are done in the SF subgenre) *don't* involve "infinite possibilities". Instead, they progress along reasonably sensible lines of historical cause-and-effect. They may wind up taking some odd twists and turns (and can be quite entertaining when they do), but there is a coherent alternate history behind it all. Of course, to *really* simulate an alternate history in every detail would be impossible; the pragmatic question is, does the writer do a good *enough* job to convince the viewer? ("Good enough" is a matter of taste and experience. Obviously, a viewer is easier to persuade if he/she has little knowledge of history or historical cause-and-effect.) >He also said there was no historical reason for oil being under San Fran. but >there could be. What if thousands of dinosaurs turned left at the rockies >and went to the area where San Fran is today (yes I know then there would be >no Rockies yet...) and died? Then there would be the matter to break down and >become oil there instead of the dinos going to texas instead! ... and you believe there would be no *other* changes to history? None? In that case I have this bridge you might be interested in. It's a lovely suspension bridge that might be to your taste, since your willing suspension of disbelief is clearly far greater than mine. Paul Andrew Estin U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology estin@umich.edu [also, z004406b@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us (George Peterson) noted: >Oil forms only in certain kinds of Geological strata, namely sedimentary >layers that form on sea bottoms. San Francisco is along the fault line >where the Pacific Plate is subducting under the North American Plate. Oil >bearing layers would be destroyed by this process. > >When creating Alternate Worlds you still are limited by laws of Nature. ] Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,rec.arts.sf.tv,alt.tv.sliders Path: uchinews!ellis!esti From: esti@ellis.uchicago.edu (Paul A. Estin) Subject: Re: Sliders (The Prince of Wails) Habla Espanol?? X-Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.uchicago.edu Message-ID: Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Reply-To: esti@midway.uchicago.edu Organization: U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology References: <3mikfd$rc5@mark.ucdavis.edu> <3mmvl3$9nm@crcnis3.unl.edu> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 00:27:39 GMT In article <3mmvl3$9nm@crcnis3.unl.edu>, Greg Berigan wrote: >In rec.arts.sf.tv, esti@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Paul A. Estin) writes: > >>Yet San Francisco, California is still part of the British States of >>America, and not Spanish-owned. Riiight. >> >>(It's *possible* that the Brits won a lot of Spanish land by some >>other history, but some *mention* of the fact that the borders of the >>nations in this world are different from the ones in ours would've >>been nice. And anyway, that doesn't explain the fax machine.) > >Well, let's see. Would the cost of creating new political globes so >that they can be seen in brief 5 second shots of the show and then be >trashed be worth addressing this point for the show? Well, compare: * for the sake of one joke, creating the book "Everything I Say is Right," - a complete duplicate of Rush Limbaugh's book, right down to the typeface and colors. * for the sake of a moment's sense of other-worldliness and history, creating a globe or world map with different political boundaries. The _Sliders_ creators had the prop people do the first, not the second. The difference is not a matter of effort, it's a matter of intent and thought (a silly show vs. a fun AND thoughtful show). (As an aside, I did think the Rush takeoff was a hoot, even though I tend to vote Republican.) >It seems that the people of alt.history.what-if are only concerned with >what would not happen, not what would happen instead. It could be that >once gold was discovered in California, Britain decided to expand the >colonies in the Americas and managed to take those lands away from >Spain in war. True. I already mentioned this possibility. It's just that I get awfully suspicious when *every* history turns out amazingly similar to our own. Shows a lack of thought, IMHO. >Was this covered in the show? Of course not. It's only >a 45 minute long television show. I don't expect a *lot* more historical information than we're already getting (the occasional research by Arturo). I realize that what would work fine in (say) a written story by Poul Anderson would slow down the action of a TV show. But I still think the history that *is* shown could be a lot better thought-out than it was in the "BSA" episode. >Sliders seems to take the view that even with major events being >different, the world would still go on in much the same patterns as we >remember, similar technical advances being made. True. But is this a matter of an actual thought-out point of view, or simple laziness on the part of the writers? I contend the latter. (At some point I wish to post speculations on the limitations of the TV *audience* vs. the *medium*, etc.-- how much of the limitations will be true of *any* hour-long TV show?-- but not right now.) >As to the fax machine, I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean >how the Oakland Raiders had a fax machine to use in that undeveloped >area? Perhaps they had an operative go back to the city and tap a line >with a stolen fax machine. No, I meant, in a world of lower technology level, why are there fax machines at all? (Real answer: to have a throw-away gag.) Paul Andrew Estin U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology estin@umich.edu Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,alt.tv.sliders Path: uchinews!ellis!esti From: esti@ellis.uchicago.edu (Paul A. Estin) Subject: Sliders: Not all infinities are equal (was Last Days....) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.uchicago.edu Message-ID: Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Reply-To: esti@midway.uchicago.edu Organization: U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology References: <3lvubo$7rn@mark.ucdavis.edu> <3m4nfu$cj9@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <40723@ursa.bear.com> <3mq88k$ctv@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 23:42:19 GMT Someone's already pointed this out, but I might as well reiterate and expand... In article <3mq88k$ctv@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, Bob Koopman wrote: >You have to figure there are an INFINITE amount of parallel universes >out there (notice I said amount and NOT number) number=something that >CAN be counted. Amount=something that cannot be counted. So basically, >ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN in ANY universe. Incorrect. An analogy: There are an infinite number (amount) of integers. But this infinite set of integers does not include any fractions or irrational numbers. Similarly, having an infinite number (amount) of possible universes (like integers) does not mean that "anything can happen". Some conceivable universes (like fractions or irrational numbers) are not represented in the set. Clear? As an aside, does anyone recall exactly what Quinn said in the pilot, as to whether the number of dimensions was infinite? I thought it was "very large, maybe infinite", or something to that effect. Are they trying to get back to the *exact* world they left, or just one that's "close enough"? Here's hoping tonight's show makes it clearer. Paul Andrew Estin U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology estin@umich.edu P.S. About Bob's definitions, "number=something that CAN be counted. Amount=something that cannot be counted"... I've never heard of those definitions. What *is* done in math, as I understand it, is to divide sets into "finite sets" and different types of "infinite sets". Note that not all infinite sets are of equal size-- that is, not all infinities are equal. If two infinite sets can be placed in one-to-one correspondence, they are considered to be of equal size. This definition has some nonintuitive effects. For example, it's not so strange that "all even integers" and "all odd integers" are infinite sets of equal size (...0:1, 2:3, 4:5, ...) But surprisingly, "all even integers" and "all integers" are also of equal size (... -2:-1, 0:0, 2:1, 4:2 ... ). In fact, if I recall, this can even be done between "all integers" and "all rational numbers". The set of integers and the set of real numbers, on the other hand, CANNOT be placed into one-to-one correspondence. The set of real numbers is a "larger infinity". And the moral of this story is, don't become a math major if you ever want to see reality again.... (Myself, I escaped during my second year of college... :-) Xref: uchinews rec.arts.sf.tv:47145 Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv Path: uchinews!ellis!esti From: esti@ellis.uchicago.edu (Paul A. Estin) Subject: Re: Timing of Sliders X-Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.uchicago.edu Message-ID: Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Reply-To: esti@midway.uchicago.edu Organization: U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology References: <3mvohs$p6o@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 23:46:32 GMT In article , Charles Daniels wrote: >Time distortion is impossible according to the physics explained and used by >the pilot, ... >is because they are showing the episodes out of order! We were >supposed to get the hippie one last week and the BSA one this week. So, the one world where time distortion is possible is in "TV world". :-) Paul Andrew Estin U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology estin@umich.edu (Message inbox:10984) Message-Id: <199504201601.MAA14963@psych.lsa.umich.edu> From: "Paul Estin" To: edhall@best.com Cc: estin@umich.edu Subject: Re: Sliders FAQ (4/13/95) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 95 12:01:31 -0400 >Please add all of the "Time Patrol" books and stories by Poul Anderson >(I don't have the titles handy, but I'll try to find them-- in the >meantime, just say '"Time Patrol" and sequels by Poul Anderson'). >They are classic alternate history stories. The two collections of "Time Patrol" stories are entitled _Guardians of Time_ and _Time Patrolman_. There is also a novel _The Shield of Time_. Paul Andrew Estin estin@umich.edu (Message inbox:11013) Xref: uchinews alt.history.what-if:15810 rec.arts.sf.tv:47429 Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,rec.arts.sf.tv,alt.tv.sliders Path: uchinews!kimbark!esti From: esti@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Paul A. Estin) Subject: Sliders: How to write alternate history (was Re: Habla Espanol?) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.uchicago.edu Message-ID: Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Reply-To: esti@midway.uchicago.edu Cc: estin@umich.edu Organization: U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology References: <3mikfd$rc5@mark.ucdavis.edu> <3mmvl3$9nm@crcnis3.unl.edu> <3mp2ft$aro@crcnis3.unl.edu> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 17:31:52 GMT The computer crashed on me twice previously when I tried to write this reply. Perhaps I should take a hint? Nah... >>Greg Berigan wrote: >>>Well, let's see. Would the cost of creating new political globes so >>>that they can be seen in brief 5 second shots of the show and then be >>>trashed be worth addressing this point for the show? I compared: >>* for the sake of one joke, creating the book "Everything I Say is >>Right," - a complete duplicate of Rush Limbaugh's book, right down to >>the typeface and colors. >>* for the sake of a moment's sense of other-worldliness and history, >>creating a globe or world map with different political boundaries. >>The _Sliders_ creators had the prop people do the first, not the >>second. The difference is not a matter of effort, it's a matter of >>intent and thought (a silly show vs. a fun AND thoughtful show). In article <3mp2ft$aro@crcnis3.unl.edu>, Greg Berigan wrote: >Imitation is a lot easier ... >There is still a lot more thought that goes into creating an alternate >political globe that would agree with an alternate history than goes >into creating a parody copy of a book cover. My point exactly. More *thought*, yes, but not much more production *effort*. The only extra *cost* might be hiring a decent history major. >Face it: shows get more flak for giving detailed information that cannot >be believed than for giving no detailed information at all. Take a look >at the gripes about inconsistent Star Trek technology for example. Probably true. But there are *three* possibilities: Possibility 1: Do a half-assed effort to think through the history/tech (a la Star Trek). Possibility 2: Don't even bother trying (the British episode of Sliders). Possibility 3: Actually put a little thought into the history. My point is, I don't think possibility 3 is all that tough to do. Nor is it that hard to avoid the problems of possibility 1. Key #1: Put in *enough* detail to satisfy the intelligent viewer, while not trying to tie up every last hole with an explanation (which is likely to go awry, and pretty dry viewing for those fans who don't care anyway). Key #2: Start with a basic concept ("Americans lose the American Revolution"), then detail the history (of course, you need to understand history and historical process to do this well), and THEN think how the Sliders will view it. In other words, integrate the history into the script, don't just tack it on to a plot you've already finished. (The same goes for SF in general... compare good SF writing to the Trek method of "We've written ourselves into a corner, let the tech advisors insert some technobabble here.") Actually, key #2 doesn't have to be followed exactly. I seem to be in a minority on this, but unlike many of those judging Sliders as alternate history, I kinda liked the Summer of Love episode (more in a separate post). There, the history seems to have been built by a thought process that went something like "How could we realistically get a 60s-like situation in the 90s? Well, no Vietnam in the 60s, of course, and something paralleling it in the 90s. What if Japan were more successful in WWII, so that the Soviets wound up with areas of the Pacific? Maybe even a "North and South Australia" situation. That would set up a Vietnam parallel, but with differences, like the world being more militaristic and paranoid. Heck, could even make someone like Ollie North president..." And so forth. The point is, the history was integrated into the show, not tacked-on or mostly ignored altogether. Whereas, for the British episode, what historical explanation was given seemed tacked-on. There either should have been more divergences from Earth-Prime, or else the startling lack of divergences should have been explained more. >>True. I already mentioned this possibility. It's just that I get >>awfully suspicious when *every* history turns out amazingly similar to >>our own. Shows a lack of thought, IMHO. >I wonder if sliders@delphi.com takes script submissions. Perhaps you >should write one up and send it in? They might accept it, and I'd love >to see it on the screen. I like attention to detail, and would like to >see more of it on Sliders, but not at the expense of an entertaining >story. It does need more detail, but not overdone. I have it on good authority that getting an unsolicited freelance script accepted for TV is pretty much impossible. Often the producers won't even look at them-- not merely because of the *effort* needed to go through submissions, but because they open themselves up to a copyright infringement suit if they read a story, reject it, and a similar plot is broadcast later. So I'm not quitting the day job, thanks. :-) Pragmatic considerations aside, you've already alluded to the difficulty in writing a good alternate history story for TV. A writer has to be able to create a good alternate history AND to know how to write well for TV. I have absolutely no experience at the latter. Most TV writers have little or no experience at the former. (For that matter, most lack experience writing plausible what-if SF in general.) Two final notes: 1) You imply that my *critique* is only valid if I'm able to *write* an episode myself. I don't agree; many fine critics (of various media) are not artists in those media themselves. Is a film review only valid if it's done by a film director? While I think a film director might have special insight, it's certainly not *required* for a review to have validity; there are many other considerations (such as experience viewing movies of a comparable genre). What do you think? 2) As for me creating alternate histories, I'm so-so. I'm not nearly as good at it as four friends of mine from college (three of whom were history majors in college, and the fourth majored in cartography and got a Master's in international relations). This may help explain why I have such high standards in critiquing alternate histories-- I got *used* to seeing better ones. Paul Andrew Estin U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology estin@umich.edu (Message inbox:11013) Xref: uchinews alt.history.what-if:15813 rec.arts.sf.tv:47432 Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.tv.sliders,rec.arts.sf.tv Path: uchinews!ellis!esti From: esti@ellis.uchicago.edu (Paul A. Estin) Subject: Sliders: Summer of Love (was Re: Sliders' writers know their history if not their science...) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.uchicago.edu Message-ID: Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Reply-To: esti@midway.uchicago.edu Cc: estin@umich.edu Organization: U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology References: <3morfn$qoi@bubba.NMSU.Edu> <4315@news01.pge.com> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 18:48:33 GMT In article <4315@news01.pge.com>, RICHARD IRVING wrote: >In this episode it was Australia not Vietnam where the war that was >being protested was taking place. Maybe Americans are more likely to >sympathize with the Australians than the Vietnamese, and therefore more >willing to fight the long fight. The explanation given on the show was >very fuzzy. [Richard goes on with reasons why he felt this episode was "the weakest one yet"] Odd... on the one hand we seem similar in the way we're "judging" Sliders (as alternate history), yet I kinda *liked* the "Summer of Love" episode... especially with regards to its alternate history. In a separate article I wrote: > I seem to be in a minority on this, but unlike many of those >judging Sliders as alternate history, I kinda liked the Summer of Love >episode.... >There, the history seems to have been built by a thought process that >went something like "How could we realistically get a 60s-like >situation in the 90s? Well, no Vietnam in the 60s, of course, and >something paralleling it in the 90s. What if Japan were more >successful in WWII, so that the Soviets wound up with areas of the >Pacific? Maybe even a "North and South Australia" situation. That >would set up a Vietnam parallel, but with differences, like the world >being more militaristic and paranoid. Heck, could even make someone >like Ollie North president..." And so forth. The point is, the >history was integrated into the show, not tacked-on or mostly ignored >altogether. Whereas, for the British episode, what historical >explanation was given seemed tacked-on. There either should have been >more divergences from Earth-Prime, or else the startling lack of >divergences should have been explained more. I thought that the writer (producer Tracy Torme) did a good enough job of explaining how the situation in Australia came to be; the explanation seemed plausible, and any missing details are easy to fill in. But I realize that an element *I* say is "an easily filled-in detail", *you* might consider "an implausibility, a huge gap requiring explanation", while someone *else* might not even notice that there's a question at all. There's room for taste to differ, I suppose, even if everyone's tastes are tempered by knowledge of history. More on the "Summer of Love" episode... Part of the reason I liked the episode was that I *didn't* think of it as "a world in which the 60s still exist", despite the ads to that effect. (Hint: NEVER judge a show by its ads, especially on Fox-- I missed out on watching X-Files for months because the ads were so hokey.) Though there are surface parallels to "our" 60s, I think it's fun to note the discrepancies. *These* hippies have a 90s sort of attitude about money. They have tie-dye, yeah, but to me the style looked like "mostly hippie with some grunge mixed in". Australia parallels our Vietnam insofar as it's a long ongoing war with some people protesting against it, but the past and possible future (if the US should win) differ. Also, from what I could tell the *pro*-war side was more polarized than in our 60s, more like McCarthyists (as would be expected in a world in which the Cold War is ongoing and the Soviet Union is stronger) or perhaps more like the less civil, more strident political groups of *our* 90s. In "Summer of Love", I also liked the fact that, unlike the British episode, the show didn't try to hit us over the head with the writer's politics. Was Wade "right" as to what she preached to the hippies? Was she wrong? More generally, is interference or noninterference the better strategy for the Sliders to follow? The British episode would say "interference"; a Star Trek attitude would be "noninterference". *This* episode, however, doesn't take a simple stand one way or the other, it merely raises the issue, likely to be an ongoing theme in future shows. (Hopefully, future shows will have a good mix of interference- going-well and interference-going-awry. The Asteroid episode, for example, did try to do both; on the one hand the sliders saved the Earth, on the other hand they opened the nuclear genie. I didn't actually *like* the Asteroid episode much-- it had too many historical and technical flaws for me to ignore-- but it had a good theme.) Now, "Summer of Love" did have its flaws. Rembrandt's family didn't come across very realistically (or, alternatively, their nonrealism wasn't adequately explained). There wasn't all that much *plot*, really, and the ending was weak. But its history was better than in the Asteroid or British episodes, and overall I did enjoy the episode. Brief words on some specific comments: >This episode I felt had the most unlikely set of alternatives: >- Women are the breadwinners, men the homemakers. As others have mentioned, that was just Rembrandt's wife's household; I'm not sure why you assumed it was true generally. They even same some clues as to how that situation arose-- the Rembrandt Brown in *that* world was so stuck on his wife, from an early age, that he kept begging for ten years to out with her, before she relented. No shock that he's p-whipped now. >- No astrology (actually this would be an improvement!) So, if we can't call it the Age of Aquarius, what then? :-) Actually, I'm a pessimist-- I assumed astrology (which dates back to the ancient Greeks) did not become part of modern "pop culture", but some equally silly pseudoscience (like Tarot or the medieval humors personality theory) took over its preeminent position. >- Benish a College Republican (President of the local chapter no less!) I assume it was thrown in as a joke, but it's not completely implausible. Perhaps Bennish simply has the type of personality to "go against the grain", whatever that grain may be (just as Arturo seems to be "always a leader of men", regardless of principles). Here, "the grain" for college students is to be anti-war, so, flipso facto, Bennish is a Young Republican. >- Oliver North in this world would have to had progressed up the ranks >say to Commandant of the Marine Corps (assuming he was Marine in this >universe.) or some other high up position. If so how does he explain >the failure of the long war in Australia? OK, the Ollie North bit was rather farfetched (though, as someone else noted, he need not have been a Marine in that world). If instead of Ollie North, the president had been some *other* charismatic, unprincipled war hawk with a penchant for appeasing the Religious Right (but whose name you wouldn't recognize), would you be more satisfied? >- The Vietnam/Australia duality makes no sense. Australia was an >independent country with strong democratic traditions. (presuming the >breakoff point as loss of the Battle of Coral Sea.) Vietnam was a >French colony where no self rule was granted. Ho Chih Minh was >portrayed as a liberator freeing Vietnam from colonial (read >French/American) oppression. (At least that's what North Vietnamese >propoaganda portrayed.) As I mention above, the parallel only holds insofar as both are long ongoing wars with some significant opposition. No one's saying that that dimension's South Australian people are just like our Earth's South Vietnamese. Our Vietnamese are *much* better capitalists. :-) :-) >- What happened to the Spiderwasp that arrived on Sixties Earth? >Hopefully it wasn't a queen. Or at least, not a pregnant queen! I did worry a bit about that. >- More of a plot point than a criticism of this Earth. What was the >opening sequence with Benish of Earth Prime in there for. (The only >thing I can think of was the joke portraying him as a College >Republican.) Also for the parallel with the FBI agents (photographing the blackboard, etc.) Plus, as others have mentioned, this episode comes in sequence after the pilot, where it'd make more sense. (Some other scenes in the show also work better if you view the shows in the right order. For example, in Asteroid-Earth, there's a comment like "Bennish-- annoying in every dimension", which makes much more sense if he's been seen more often-- I didn't even remember seeing him in the pilot.) >Overall the last episode has to be the weakest one yet. It wasn't great, but I liked it better than the previous two. >Sliders thus far has been fun, and the "what-if" history is at >least plausible (except in this last episode) and the show has a sense >of humor. The producers would be well advised to either keep the world >having one major fork from real history (postulating reasonable con- >sequences from the change.) or at least have a good feeding >ground for "cross-dimensional" jokes--a la "The People's Court" I agree totally! Thus, it surprises me that we disagreed so much on our opinions of this particular episode. Paul Andrew Estin U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology estin@umich.edu (Message inbox:11039) Xref: uchinews rec.arts.sf.tv:47627 Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv,alt.tv.sliders Path: uchinews!ellis!esti From: esti@ellis.uchicago.edu (Paul A. Estin) Subject: Re: Sliders: Not all infinities are equal (was Last Days....) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.uchicago.edu Message-ID: Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Reply-To: esti@midway.uchicago.edu Organization: U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology References: <3lvubo$7rn@mark.ucdavis.edu> <3mq88k$ctv@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <1995Apr21.214614@hobbit> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 19:09:42 GMT All those who are tired of whacking a deceased equus, bail out now. :-) >In article , esti@ellis.uchicago.edu (Paul A. Estin) writes: >> Similarly, having an infinite number (amount) of possible universes >> (analogous to integers) does not mean that "anything can happen". >> Some conceivable universes (analogous to fractions or irrational >> numbers) are not represented in the set. >> >> Clear? In article <1995Apr21.214614@hobbit>, The Great Cornholio wrote: >Well, no, not really. You must differentiate between items. If you compare >Earths to integers (X) and say, X.5 to the moon, you can have an infinite >number of earths and moons. This would hold true for every space in the >universe if you want to get right down to it. Space X.54532123424556 has a >photon in it in one universe, and not in a another. I didn't say that real >clear but you get the drift. I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but it seems to be that "there are infinite spaces as well as infinite dimensions." Yippee, so you have a bigger infinity. That *still* doesn't mean that any possibility is represented in that infinity, any more than the set of real numbers (which is a "bigger infinity" than the set of integers or rational numbers) contains numbers like sqrt(-1). Besides, I was assuming "different Earths" because that's what _Sliders_ is assuming. >Besides there aren't really an infinite number of possibilities. >Since the universe if finite, and has only existed a finite amount of >time, there can only be a finite number of quantum possibilities. Which makes it even less tenable that all possible worlds are represented. >Therefore, if the number of different possibilities is finite, there >must be an infinite number of universes that are *EXACTLY* the same. Always this assumption that there are an infinite number of dimensions. Why make that assumption? I don't. It hasn't been stated on _Sliders_. >This holds up in the number analogy. X would be an infinite series of >universes exactly like the "home" universe, and X.1 would be an >infinite series of Commie universes, and so forth. They'd be exactly the same *until* the Sliders visit one and not the others. Interesting notion. They may have screwed up the entire structure of the multiverse. Koo-ul. Paul Andrew Estin U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology estin@umich.edu Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.tv.sliders,rec.arts.sf.tv Path: uchinews!ellis!esti From: esti@ellis.uchicago.edu (Paul A. Estin) Subject: Re: Sliders' writers do NOT know their history OR their science...) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.uchicago.edu Message-ID: Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Reply-To: esti@midway.uchicago.edu Organization: U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology References: <3ncltf$qg6@bubba.NMSU.Edu> Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 02:38:14 GMT Bruce Grubb wrote: > >> After watching Sliders so far, I am reminded of Voyagers' sloppiness with >> history. The worlds are interesting but the events that lead up to them >> are not well thought out. In article , Atreyu wrote: >After reading your post, I am reminded of just how uncreative and trite >most nitpickers are. For my dollar, it's a lot more fun (and >challenging!) to create plausible answers to questions like the ones you >raise (this despite my own question about the flag previous)... [many examples of "but their whole world could have been completely different", e.g.:] >> Prince of Wails >> The idea that without the American Revolution none of the later >> revolutions would have occured nor any republics would exist is dumb. >"Huhuhuhuhuh - this sucks." Your logic assumes that people have the same >moral and social structure in that reality that they do in ours. Your >logic assumes that the desire for independence is innate. Your logic is >-flawed-. In our history, there were enough people who desired >independence to cause a Revolution. For all we know, the brain structure >of the people in the British-Earth might be such that they tend to follow >the lead of the highest authority figure - this change could go all the >way back to the origins of man... perhaps the originators of that species >of man were not hunters but rather pack-herded vegetarians who followed a >leader, and the tendency continued on down the line to present day, where >people like to be dragged around by the nose except for a select few. >Just because -we- put a high value on individual liberty does not mean >that others do as well. >> England itself had a whole host of revolutions. > >Oh! I didn't know you had a British-Earth almanac as well. You're an >amazing fellow. Are you perhaps a Slider from Earth-Uncreative/Pessimism? >There's a world I'm glad they haven't visited yet. While Atreyu's article was amusing, I think his point only goes so far. Yah, I get annoyed by some of the nitpicks which imply the writers need to spell out every last detail for us. But there's a difference between a nitpick that can be explained away pretty easily, and one which requires pulling a major rabbit out of a hat (the sort of nitpick for which some sort of explanation should have been given in the show itself). Where one draws the line is a matter of opinion, of course, but a matter of *informed* opinion. While it can be quite *fun* to come up with a wildly creative explanation to explain away some problem, it makes one wonder if the writers even noticed the problem in the first place. As I've explained in other articles, either (a) a story follows the conventions of "alternate history" (given just one major change from our history, events should follow according to historical causation, human nature, etc.), or else (b) "anything goes". "Sliders" tends to be (b)... nothing illegal or even particularly immoral about that, but, well, compared to a well-written alternate history, it's kinda weak. If, in order to make a story make sense, the viewer must suppose that on some other Earth, events are unpredictable (given human nature, science, etc. as we normally understand them), then there can be no dramatic impact to the story. I'll repeat an example I gave before: in "Last Days", the only way one can fill all the many logic and history holes is by assuming that (as Ateryu puts it) there's a very different "Earth-Asteroid" Almanac and History Book. But in that case, why should the ending-- in which we're supposed to be scared that Bennish has the bomb-- have any dramatic impact? After all, clearly we know nothing about the politics of that world, the geophysics, or of human nature-- so his action can only be meaningless to us. The concept applies to more than just alternate history, of course-- it holds true for any science fiction, fantasy, detective novel, or even nongenre fiction. Either the writer "plays by the rules", and the reader/viewer has a chance to "get caught up in the world", or else "the rules are arbitrary", if which case the fictional world lacks verisimilitude (note I don't say "reality") and it's difficult to *care*. That's why, say, a soap opera with wildly implausible plot twists may be fun to watch for the humor value, but it's hard to care about any characters or larger themes, since the events in the show are so random. Paul Andrew Estin U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology estin@umich.edu To: JERITHOMAS@delphi.com Cc: estin@umich.edu Subject: Re: Sliders' writers do NOT know their h In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 01 May 1995 22:37:04 EDT. <01HQ0748ULTU99LPKM@delphi.com> Date: Mon, 08 May 1995 12:38:40 -0400 From: Paul Estin >Paul >{truncated to get to the nub of the reply} > >> That's why, say, a soap opera with wildly implausible plot >> twists may be fun to watch for the humor value, but it's hard to care >> about any characters or larger themes, since the events in the show >> are so random. >> >Aha! Then you must =not= watch DAYS OF OUR LIVES. They're currently doing >demonic possession, but it's the number 1 fan show. > >Jeri Jo-- Well, true, I don't watch DOOL. :-) OTOH, how does the fact that it's #1 indicate people are watching it for the serious drama and character development? :-) -Paul, who tends to watch totally unrealistic *nighttime* soaps... Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.tv.sliders,rec.arts.sf.tv Path: uchinews!kimbark!esti From: esti@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Paul A. Estin) Subject: Re: Sliders' writers do NOT know their history OR their science...) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.uchicago.edu Message-ID: Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Reply-To: esti@midway.uchicago.edu Organization: U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology References: <3ncltf$qg6@bubba.NMSU.Edu> <113@ratsnest.win.net> Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 21:36:15 GMT I'd written: >As I've explained in other articles, either (a) a story follows the >conventions of "alternate history" (given just one major change from >our history, events should follow according to historical causation, >human nature, etc.), or else (b) "anything goes". >"Sliders" tends to be (b)... nothing illegal or even particularly >immoral about that, but, well, compared to a well-written alternate >history, it's kinda weak. If, in order to make a story make sense, >the viewer must suppose that on some other Earth, events are >unpredictable (given human nature, science, etc. as we normally >understand them), then there can be no dramatic impact to the story. >I'll repeat an example I gave before: in "Last Days", the only way one >can fill all the many logic and history holes is by assuming that (as >Atreyu puts it) there's a very different "Earth-Asteroid" Almanac and >History Book. But in that case, why should the ending-- in which >we're supposed to be scared that Bennish has the bomb-- have any >dramatic impact? After all, clearly we know nothing about the >politics of that world, the geophysics, or of human nature-- so his >action can only be meaningless to us. Atryeu's reply has expired from my site (I was busy with end-of-semester hell, and so did not reply to it before this-- if anyone has a copy of his article saved I'd appreciate being sent it). However, the gist of his message was that somehow my last paragraph shows that I'm a fascist who doesn't care if people are killed, if those people are of different beliefs and cultures. To which I reply: Point. Head. Whoosh. Atreyu, I'm talking about FICTION. A fictional world is created that seems to work by such different rules of human nature than our own, that in order to make sense of it, you yourself needed to hypothesize: >For all we know, the brain structure >of the people in the British-Earth might be such that they tend to follow >the lead of the highest authority figure - this change could go all the >way back to the origins of man... I'm saying: if a fictional world is *that* unpredictable and unexplained, then it will not seem real to me (it will not possess verisimilitude) and it will not have dramatic impact for me. Now, what the hell does that have to do with caring about real people? Paul Andrew Estin U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology estin@umich.edu Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,alt.tv.sliders,rec.arts.sf.tv Path: uchinews!kimbark!esti From: esti@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Paul A. Estin) Subject: Re: Sliders' writers do NOT know their history OR their science...) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.uchicago.edu Message-ID: Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Reply-To: esti@midway.uchicago.edu Organization: U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology References: <3ncltf$qg6@bubba.NMSU.Edu> <113@ratsnest.win.net> Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 21:49:53 GMT In article <113@ratsnest.win.net>, John W. Braue, III wrote: >_Sliders_, it must be remembered, is primarily *entertainment*. As >such, it has to be comprehensible to a (relatively) uneducated >audience. This will often mean references, improbable in their >context, to familiar names, people, institutions, etc. Right. I'm certainly willing to give them some leeway in that regard. For example, in Hippie-Earth, "President Oliver North" doesn't make sense, so I just treated the reference as if they intended someone *like* Ollie North. > [Problem with different languages, Star Trek's problem with humanoid aliens.] Both are good examples of how what works in text does not always work in visual form (TV or movies). >If _Sliders_ is to garner more than a .003 share, it *must* break >rules for dramatic value. The legitimate questions are what are the >minimum number of rules it *must* break, and how do the producers >and writers deal with the others? While I agree that a Poul Anderson alternate history short story, for example, would not work as well in video as it does in text, I don't see that as an excuse for Sliders to create *bad* alternate-histories. I would prefer they give minimal (but sensible and coherent) explanation of how a given world "came about" rather than having them give *poor* explanations. The "relatively uneducated" viewers wouldn't care anyway, but presumably a good show appeals to people at multiple levels. To put it another way, maybe TV producers DO need to sugar-coat Frosted Flakes for the masses, but they can still fortify them with vitamins for those who *do* care a little about nutrition. Paul "Oh, look, another Data-ex-machina ending" Estin U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology estin@umich.edu To: Atreyu Cc: estin@umich.edu Subject: Re: Sliders' writers do NOT know their history OR their science...) In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 09 May 1995 13:44:53 PDT. Date: Tue, 09 May 1995 19:06:27 -0400 From: Paul Estin >What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter if it's fiction or reality - if >you can only identify with worlds similar to your own in fiction that >is "Earthbound" you're missing out on -worlds- (literally) of good fiction. Ah-- I think I'm finally starting to see where our misunderstanding lies... I'm *NOT* saying: The "rules" in a work of fiction-- whether those are rules of "how people think in that world" or "how physics works", for example-- have to be the same as for us. What I *am* saying is: However, if the rules are *not* the same, then that fact should either be stated (e.g. in some fantasy novel, the customs of Land X are said to be different) or the rules should follow more-or-less logically from other facts given. For example, two of my all-time favorite SF stories are "Nightfall" (by Asimov) and "Frost and Fire" (by Bradbury), and what makes them so fascinating is that the characters are sufficiently human that one can relate to them, yet their mode of thought is quite different from ours. However, it's quite clear *why* their mode of thought is different! In "Nightfall", the characters have never seen a night sky, and so are overwhelmingly frightened when all six of the planet's suns set below the horizon. In "Frost and Fire", the inhabitants have only 8 days to live out their lives. In both cases, it's pretty easy to imagine how and why the characters think and act the way they do. Their "different way of thinking" is not *arbitrary*. Does that mean one can't have a good story containing aliens whose mode of thought is incomprehensible? No, it's quite possible. But, probably, the story would be about humans' *reaction* to the aliens-- being frustrated or frightened or confused. (Think of _Alice in Wonderland_, in which the reader sees things through Alice's eyes-- we aren't asked to sympathize with the Red Queen.) It would be much harder to write an engaging story in which one is meant to identify and sympathize with the *aliens*, with no frame of reference. (It *can* be done, but only by making the story a sort of "puzzle". Very difficult to keep the tale engaging.) I forget who it was, but some early SF writer said that a good work of science fiction should start with a SINGLE "what if" premise-- but everything else had to follow from that one "what if", or else be the same as we're used to. I mostly agree with that; the only exception I'd make is for works of sufficient *length*-- for a short story or TV episode, one "what if" should suffice; if you're Larry Niven creating the entire future history of Known Space over the course of multiple stories and novels, you're obviously allowed more than one "what if"! Fantasy is a bit different from SF, in that the writer is allowed to create a whole new world wholesale-- but the same basic principle applies. If there are differences between that world and ours, they should either be stated or should follow from other differences which *have* been mentioned. None of the above requires that, in fiction, "everything has to be spelled out for the reader". That would be dull indeed. Elements of mystery can remain, facts can be revealed gradually, etc. But the writer has to "play fair" and give *enough* information to keep the reader engaged, not be random. *Some* of the mysteries have to be resolved. I love _The X-Files_, but I suspect that I will eventually tire of the ever-increasing number of unresolved cases. Now, let me look at your examples: >Take anything by Clive Barker - his worlds resemble Earth but have entirely >illogical (to us) systems of function. I've never read Barker, so I can't comment. >Take the universe of STAR TREK, >which is looking more and more improbable with every passing moment. I would argue that one of the *problems* with Star Trek is *not* that it "isn't a plausible future" (it never was), but rather that it's not internally self-consistent. Huge technological breakthroughs are made, powerful new alien races are discovered-- and yet virtually nothing important in the Federation universe ever *changes*. >Take >even 2001, which is a great visual experience but at the same time is a >world that's -totally- different from our own, where the world works on >totally different principles because -obviously- we aren't going to be >there in 2001. Um... like what? The astronauts all acted and thought like normal humans, as far as I could tell. The circumstances were far-out, but not the human characters. >What about FAHRENHEIT 451? I hope to golly that the people who live there >don't think like we do, or we're in for a future of hurt. Again, did they really think that differently from us? Oh, certainly the culture was different, but I could picture myself growing up in that culture and being indoctrinated like they were. There was nothing "alien" about those people; I could relate to them. Is my point clearer now? -Paul From: Atreyu To: Paul Estin Subject: Re: Sliders' writers do NOT know their history OR their science...) In-Reply-To: <199505092306.TAA21784@psych.lsa.umich.edu> On Tue, 9 May 1995, Paul Estin wrote: > >What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter if it's fiction or reality - if > >you can only identify with worlds similar to your own in fiction that > What I *am* saying is: > > However, if the rules are *not* the same, then that fact should either > be stated (e.g. in some fantasy novel, the customs of Land X are said > to be different) Ah - you're the type who likes to have the writer do the work for you, rather than the other way around. or the rules should follow more-or-less logically > from other facts given. Leaving everything spelled out for the reader. How dull. > For example, two of my all-time favorite SF stories are "Nightfall" > (by Asimov) and "Frost and Fire" (by Bradbury), Hate 'em both. and what makes them so > fascinating is that the characters are sufficiently human that one can > relate to them Oh, yes - the computer hologram demon mother - I can relate to her. , yet their mode of thought is quite different from > ours. However, it's quite clear *why* their mode of thought is > different! In "Nightfall", the characters have never seen a night > sky, and so are overwhelmingly frightened when all six of the planet's > suns set below the horizon. Does the book give a BIG, DETAILED astronomical account? In "Frost and Fire", the inhabitants have > only 8 days to live out their lives. In both cases, it's pretty easy > to imagine how and why the characters think and act the way they do. > Their "different way of thinking" is not *arbitrary*. > > Does that mean one can't have a good story containing aliens whose > mode of thought is incomprehensible? > > No, it's quite possible. But, probably, the story would be about > humans' *reaction* to the aliens-- being frustrated or frightened or > confused. (Think of _Alice in Wonderland_, in which the reader sees > things through Alice's eyes-- we aren't asked to sympathize with the > Red Queen.) Odd - you are a different reader than I am. I sympathize with no character. I am me, reading about -their- adventures. It would be much harder to write an engaging story in > which one is meant to identify and sympathize with the *aliens*, with > no frame of reference. (It *can* be done, but only by making the > story a sort of "puzzle". Very difficult to keep the tale engaging.) Exactly. I think the writers of SLIDERS are doing that on a comic scale, and the limitations of the medium prevent it from working. That does not render the goal illegitimate. It simply states that the medium is not the correct one for this effort at this time wit this audience. > I forget who it was, but some early SF writer said that a good work of > science fiction should start with a SINGLE "what if" premise-- but > everything else had to follow from that one "what if", or else be the > same as we're used to. Bull ponkey. A story can be anything. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something (quite probably their own stories). A story can be a single word or a billion. It doesn't matter. It's the atmosphere a story creates, the world it generates in one's mind, that is important. I mostly agree with that; the only exception > I'd make is for works of sufficient *length*-- for a short story or TV > episode, one "what if" should suffice; if you're Larry Niven creating > the entire future history of Known Space over the course of multiple > stories and novels, you're obviously allowed more than one "what if"! And I happen to think Larry Niven is full of -****-! I hate him almost as much as I hate Heinlein and all the other "hard science heads". > Fantasy is a bit different from SF, in that the writer is allowed to > create a whole new world wholesale-- but the same basic principle > applies. If there are differences between that world and ours, they > should either be stated or should follow from other differences which > *have* been mentioned. > > None of the above requires that, in fiction, "everything has to be > spelled out for the reader". That would be dull indeed. Elements of > mystery can remain, facts can be revealed gradually, etc. But the > writer has to "play fair" and give *enough* information to keep the > reader engaged, not be random. *Some* of the mysteries have to be > resolved. I love _The X-Files_, but I suspect that I will eventually > tire of the ever-increasing number of unresolved cases. Once again, you need to have your gullet filled in order to be satisfied. Me, I'll be happy to see the mystery blossom more and more... > Now, let me look at your examples: > > >Take anything by Clive Barker - his worlds resemble Earth but have entirely > >illogical (to us) systems of function. > > I've never read Barker, so I can't comment. > > >Take the universe of STAR TREK, > >which is looking more and more improbable with every passing moment. > > I would argue that one of the *problems* with Star Trek is *not* that > it "isn't a plausible future" (it never was), but rather that it's not > internally self-consistent. Huge technological breakthroughs are > made, powerful new alien races are discovered-- and yet virtually > nothing important in the Federation universe ever *changes*. > > >Take > >even 2001, which is a great visual experience but at the same time is a > >world that's -totally- different from our own, where the world works on > >totally different principles because -obviously- we aren't going to be > >there in 2001. > > Um... like what? The astronauts all acted and thought like normal > humans, as far as I could tell. The circumstances were far-out, but > not the human characters. Oh? People by the year 2001 our time comfortable with talking computers as a mainstream? INTELLIGENT, sentient computers to boot (pardon)? I don't think so. Something was different. And the stone obelisk? What about that - that's a -big- leap of "What if...?" starting at the dawn of man and changing the way man behaved (the Obelisk gave him intelligence). Is this any less realistic than my explanation about shifts in social order on the BSA world? Personally, I think not. > >What about FAHRENHEIT 451? I hope to golly that the people who live there > >don't think like we do, or we're in for a future of hurt. > > Again, did they really think that differently from us? Oh, certainly > the culture was different, but I could picture myself growing up in > that culture and being indoctrinated like they were. There was > nothing "alien" about those people; I could relate to them. Personally, I found them completely alien. The idea that the human mind destroyed itself and all rational, independent thought was eliminated from expression, that books were -allowed- to be outlawed, was so outrageous to me that the entire thing was pure fantasy - but I accepted it as an alternative world... not as a "slightly different one". > Is my point clearer now? Oh, you've made yourself quite clear, all right. [I don't think I bothered replying to Atreyu after that, or, at least, I didn't save it. Wow. Talk about two totally different viewpoints.] From: "Paul Estin" To: skchoi@email.unc.edu (Dennis) Subject: Re: Sliders: Not all infinities are equal (was Last Days....) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 95 14:04:40 -0400 >just wondering.. but what were to happen if our natural laws of physics >weren't applicable to some other..possibly infinite number of universes? You get a lot of universes, with, say, nothing but sparse hydrogen atoms. :-) Basically, since physics begets chemistry begets biology begets evolutionary biology begets psychology begets history, you get something very unrecognizable, because even small changes escalate. >Wouldn't that mean that there are possibly an infinite number of >universes that the 'sliders' will never see? or yeah.. something like that. Sure. Though it would be an interesting way to end the show. "We've slid into a dimension in which the Earth formed by different processes and there's no oxygen-- URK!" Or better, slip into an anti-matter universe with a big BOOM. -Paul From: Paul Estin To: roberta chi-woon kwong cc: estin@umich.edu Subject: Re: tv fall schedule Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 17:25:30 -0400 >Read this in the paper this morning, as well as in e-mail discussion >on one of my other lists... > >Neither "Sliders" nor "VR.5" is on FOX's fall schedule. Yes, I saw the newspaper, thanks for telling me anyway, though. Actually, I'm kind of happy-- both were shows I watched because I had a weakness for them, but they were not all that great, objectively (especially Sliders). So I'm happy that'll be two hours every week I *don't* waste, come fall. Overall, I'd like to cut down the time I watch TV-- if I can manage to cut out Melrose and 90210, then considering the cancellation of the aforementioned shows, plus Northern Exposure and the Critic, I'll drop way down from about 8.5 hours per week (as of lately) to about 3, which is much more feasible. I'm sort of wondering though-- just what exactly does Fox think will do *better* in the ratings than VR5 or The Critic? Oh well, no concern of mine. Assuming I don't find new TV addictions. :-) -Paul [Sliders, alas, returned later as a midseason replacement. However, I watched it only a couple times thereafter. It's neither good enough to make me want to watch it for reasons of quality, nor bad enough for me to sustain hatred of it. :-) ]