Alternate History at the 2020 Hugos

[Gary Oswald]

Discuss this article by @SpanishSpy here

 

[Coiler]

The article brings up (even if unintentionally) one giant "hill" that AH always has to climb- a lot of stuff that could easily be considered alternate history simply isn't sold or marketed or declared as such.

 

[Gary Oswald]

The article brings up (even if unintentionally) one giant "hill" that AH always has to climb- a lot of stuff that could easily be considered alternate history simply isn't sold or marketed or declared as such.

Same with all genre fiction. I once had a furious argument with someone about whether 1984 is sci-fi, which in my view was silly because it obviously is but they felt it demeaned that book to class it as that. And don't get me started on the way people will go out of their way to pretend they're not writing romance fiction.

 

[RyanF]

Same with all genre fiction. I once had a furious argument with someone about whether 1984 is sci-fi, which in my view was silly because it obviously is but they felt it demeaned that book to class it as that. And don't get me started on the way people will go out of their way to pretend they're not writing romance fiction.

My particular favourite is where a critic feels the need to justify their liking of a horror film by stating film they enjoyed is 'not really a horror film'.

 

[Alex Richards]

My particular favourite is where a critic feels the need to justify their liking of a horror film by stating film they enjoyed is 'not really a horror film'.

Best example of this has to be the one YouTuber who's on record as saying they 'don't really know horror so don't review it', then trashed 2001: A Space Odyssey for some really silly reasons, and spent the majority of their analysis discussing the HAL:9000 bit - a.k.a. the horror short in the middle of an otherwise very pure sci-fi film.

 

[Coiler]

My particular favourite is where a critic feels the need to justify their liking of a horror film by stating film they enjoyed is 'not really a horror film'.

This is why I like people who unashamedly like genre fiction/"cheap thrillers".

 

[RyanF]

Best example of this has to be the one YouTuber who's on record as saying they 'don't really know horror so don't review it', then trashed 2001: A Space Odyssey for some really silly reasons, and spent the majority of their analysis discussing the HAL:9000 bit - a.k.a. the horror short in the middle of an otherwise very pure sci-fi film.

a.k.a. the most memorable part of the film outside of the opening and stargate sequence?

 

[Alex Richards]

a.k.a. the most memorable part of the film outside of the opening and stargate sequence?

Precisely, there's nothing wrong with spending most of your review of 2001 on that segment considering it's got the strongest plot.

It's just saying 'I don't do horror' then only really talking about the blatant horror IN SPACE part is a bit silly.

 

[Artaxerxes]

The article brings up (even if unintentionally) one giant "hill" that AH always has to climb- a lot of stuff that could easily be considered alternate history simply isn't sold or marketed or declared as such.

Analog and Asimov mags do a lot of AH, it gets classed as sci-fi by many I think.

Its usually bloody awful and the authors spend a lot of time in story explaining how the world is different to how it should be, often in a trippy dream sequence where the character has a flash of what it would be like if say "that Hitler guy actually did get to be charge and wasn't stopped by this fancy method of rewriting the past"

 

[napoleon IV]

My particular favourite is where a critic feels the need to justify their liking of a horror film by stating film they enjoyed is 'not really a horror film'.

Post horror, elevated horror, or psychological thriller are what snobs call horror

Magical realism is what snobs call fantasy


Speculative fiction is what snobs call sci-fi.

 

[Avian Overlord]

Magical realism is what snobs call fantasy

I will defend magical realism's position as a separate sub-genre/tradition. I'd define it as "fantasy without worldbuilding", personally.

 

[Arthur_Phuxache]

Magical realism is what snobs call fantasy

All fiction is fantasy, and all fantasy is fiction.

I had a late teenage/early twenties dalliance with what we are supposed to call 'literary' fiction (Martin Amis, Tom Wolfe, Alan Hollinghurst, Doris Lessing, Salman Rushdie, Ian McEwen) - and it didn't have quite enough exploding spaceships in it for my liking.

However, the number of times Rushdie, Amis and McEwen strayed into genre fiction (SF, detective, alt-hist) was ridiculous. At least Doris Lessing was blatant about writing SF.

But I don't knock it, as it lead me to Iain Banks and back to SF, and thereby AH.

 

[Alex Richards]

I will defend magical realism's position as a separate sub-genre/tradition. I'd define it as "fantasy without worldbuilding", personally.

Where do you define this as opposed to 'Urban Fantasy' in the category of 'basically it's magic in the real world.'

 

[Ncw8]

Same with all genre fiction. I once had a furious argument with someone about whether 1984 is sci-fi, which in my view was silly because it obviously is but they felt it demeaned that book to class it as that.

Yes, I’ve had that discussion about both 1984 and Brave New World. The argument on the other side was basically both books were literature, and so couldn’t possibly be SF. A bit like the saying that treason never succeeds.

 

[Arthur_Phuxache]

Where do you define this as opposed to 'Urban Fantasy' in the category of 'basically it's magic in the real world.'

All literary fantasy is indistinguishable from magical realism - it just depends on how it is marketed - Junot Diaz is aimed at a different type of reader to N K Jemisin.

 

[Jared]

Post horror, elevated horror, or psychological thriller are what snobs call horror

Magical realism is what snobs call fantasy


Speculative fiction is what snobs call sci-fi.

I'd consider all three of those as subgenres of horror.

Magical realism is a form of fantasy, and most writers I know who write it will admit as much. (Maybe there's some who don't, but I haven't come across them). The difference is more one of marketing than writing.

Speculative fiction, though, is not the same thing as science fiction. It's a broad term which includes science fiction of all stripes, fantasy, horror, science fantasy, and yes, alternate history.

 

[Charles EP M.]

Where do you define this as opposed to 'Urban Fantasy' in the category of 'basically it's magic in the real world.'

My understanding is that it's about the tone and the focus - weird and uncanny stuff just exists in the otherwise real world, there's no explanation or rules, nobody goes "everything I know is wrong". Urban fantasy puts a fantasy trope or creature in a present day setting and the real world is altered.

And there's also some association of magical realism with Latin America, which can nark off some fantasy & horror writers from the continent when their books reach a North American audience. "No, my vampire book Buckets Of Blood Pouring Out Of People's Necks is not magical realism."

 

[Arthur_Phuxache]

"No, my vampire book Buckets Of Blood Pouring Out Of People's Necks is not magical realism."

Horror is probably the oldest literary genre, with Walpole's Castle of Otranto being published in 1764.

 

[Jared]

Horror is probably the oldest literary genre, with Walpole's Castle of Otranto being published in 1764.

I think fantasy wins that one, with the Epic of Gilgamesh being published around 1800 BC.

 

[Alex Richards]

Horror is probably the oldest literary genre, with Walpole's Castle of Otranto being published in 1764.

No it's definitely Utopian 'exploration-voyage' adventures in a foreign land stuff.

Even if we don't include the original Atlantis myths, we're talking double digits of notable authors by the 1700s- Thomas More's Utopia, Margaret, Duchess of Newcastle's The Blazing World, Gulliver's Travels, The Isle of Pines.