Yesteryear's Future Rotating Header Image

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

What is Alternate History?

Guest Writer: Sunil Tanna

Alternate histories are stories or scenarios which consider the question of what if the events of the past had turned out differently. For example, what if the Confederacy had won the American Civil War, what if the Germans had won World War II, what if Al Gore had won the 2000 US Presidential Election, or what if Michael Portillo had become the British Prime Minister.

In most (but not all) alternate histories, these history is generally assumed to have gone the same way as our actual history, until some specific point (known as the “Point of Divergence”) when a particular event has a different outcome. Sometimes the event may be important, and seen as such as the time, (for example, a battle going to other way), whereas in other alternative history stories, even subtle changes can result in profound changes to history because of the butterfly effect. Continue reading →

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay
  • Add to favorites
  • email
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz

A Biography of Isaac Asimov

asimovonthrone.pngGuest Writer: Eoghann Irving

Isaac Asimov is one of the best known science fiction writers of all time. In part that is probably due to the sheer volume of material which he wrote, but it is also due to the scale of his imaginative vision.

Over the course of 50 years, Asimov wrote over 500 books, essays and short stories. He won four Hugo Awards and one Nebular Award along with countless other lesser known awards.

Biography

Isaac Asimov was more than simply a science fiction writer. A biochemist with a Ph.D. to his name, Asimov also wrote a number of popularized science books which explain many scientific concepts in a historical way. A long time member of Mensa (whom he described as intellectually combative), he was more proud of being president of the American Humanist Association. Continue reading →

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay
  • Add to favorites
  • email
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz

How Battlestar Galactica saved Science Fiction

battlestar_galactica.jpgGuest Writer: Groshan Fabiola

In 1977, Star Wars reintroduced the world to the serialized space opera with groundbreaking results both creatively and financially. In the wake of this paradigm shift came a gaggle of embarrassing me-too projects both for film and television. Then there was Battlestar Galactica.

Battlestar Galactica was the brain-child of producer/writer/director Glen Larson. It was both a pastiche of the Star Wars formula, and a bizarre melding of wagon train and Egyptian mythology. The series chronicled the adventures of a “Rag Tag Fleet” running from the Cylons, a mechanized horde of robots lead by a human traitor; their destination is a mythical world called “Earth”. Battlestar Galactica was a success both theatrically and on the television. Despite it’s campy acting and plot lines there was an endearing element in the quest of these characters. Battlestar Galactica never made any apologies for borrowing the character archetypes made so popular in Star Wars. Apollo is a dark haired Luke Skywalker, Sheba the strong female cut from the Princess Leia strand, and Starbuck as the charismatic scoundrel that Han Solo would surely approve of. Despite these obvious pastiches, Battlestar Galactica got away with it. Continue reading →

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay
  • Add to favorites
  • email
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Is the Fight for Recognition Over?

astoundingsept54.jpg“Because, to most people, it seemed lurid, fantastic and nonsensical trash, science fiction’s fans have tended to be a bit defensive in their attitude.”
– John W. Campbell, Jr., “Concerning Science Fiction”

I know that within my lifetime, the popular view of science fiction has changed for a lot of people. These days, TV Guide dedicates an entire issue to the new and returning genre shows — there are that many.

So, do science fiction fans still need to be defensive? Is SF still seen as “lurid, fantastic and nonsensical trash”? My answer would be, it depends on who you talk to.

I think overall, more people are open to science fiction, in part because so much of what used to be science fiction is science fact. Also, I think it some cases the quality of science fiction has improved a great deal from the early years, in part to Campbell’s work as editor of Astounding Science Fiction.

But to this day, I still meet people who are turned off by the term science fiction and use it to mean “junk.” I still meet people who won’t watch a TV show like Stargate SG-1 or Lost or Heros because it smacks too much of science fiction.

However, it seems clear that TV and movie executives are totally OK with SF if it has a strong plot.

But what of literature? I don’t see a lot of SF novels on the best seller list these days. Fantasy and horror sometimes make it, but rarely SF. Then again, I could be wrong. It’s not like I have my finger on the pulse of publishing or anything.

No matter how you look at it, I don’t feel the need to be defensive about my passion for science fiction. I wear it proudly.

What about you?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay
  • Add to favorites
  • email
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz

The Great SF Debate

sfdebate.jpgBack in 1941, Robert A. Heinlein proposed the initials “SF,” which at the time was a common abbreviation for “science fiction.” But he had another idea. He felt it should stand for the broader term “speculative fiction.” To this day, there are passionate debates about which term to use.

Is is all semantics? Here’s what I think.

Science fiction is a subset of speculative fiction, which also includes fantasy, magic realism and sometimes even horror. Speculative fiction encompasses all fiction that speculates on something that isn’t accepted as fact today (an outpost on Mars, sorcery, magical coincidence, ghosts, etc.) and treats it as a fact within the story.

Science fiction is more specific. It is a fiction that speculates on scientific concepts and theories, or at least pretends to. There is a fuzzy line there. The Barsoom novels are kind of science fiction, but are also purely fantasy (I mean really, a placental human successfully mates with a monotreme Martian?).

Now, just to let you know where I’m coming from, I tend to be a very tolerant, easy going person. I don’t like fighting and tend to find common ground when I can. Maybe that’s why I just don’t see what all the fuss over “science fiction” vs. “speculative fiction” is all about. I think they can coexist peacefully. What do you think?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay
  • Add to favorites
  • email
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz

 Powered by Max Banner Ads