Forum:Future timelines

While some people might like both in the same way some people who like sci-fi also like heroic-fantasy, they tend to be based on different approach to creating them. Alt-history is about showing what could have been, futurism is about showing what could be.

Because of this, they tend to be judged by a different set of criteria: plausibility in Alt-history is usually a question of whether a given person acted in accordance with what we know of him or her (or as Carlos put it, the lack of mind-control by alien space bats) in the situation described while in futuristic timelines, known persons are rarely presented (and if yes, usually not in a primary role). While technology is an important part of futurism, alt-history usually only present it as part of alternate trends resulting from the POD (lower technological level or survival of a science that was abandoned *here*). Prerequisite knowledge (or at least, area of interest) to appreciate and contribute tends similarly to be different: social sciences for alt-history, pure science for futurism.


 * I began a discussion about this topic with the author of the Second American Civil War TL, which appears to be a future history - with events going well into the next decade even though its POD is in 2004. I'd be interested to read a discussion hear about whether people think that kind of TL is considered Future History or Alt-history. Or in this case, is it a (slightly paranoid, I must say) political statement, or a combination of all of these? Nhprman 05:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I (Theophilus) would say that it is primarily a future timeline (which I love dearly) because most people alive in 2004 are alive in 2006. Given a POD sufficiently far back from the relative present (whatever that means), I think it would be acceptable to extend slightly into the relative future. The paranoia, I'm not so certain about - one man's paranoia is another's reasonable extrapolation, although one ought to maintain a certain detachment while composing alternate histories. Vale!128.138.230.168


 * I really like future histories too, but my question was one of genre. If this site is primarily Alternate history, then definitions matter. If generally accepted literary definitions were stricter and more tightly define (which I admit they are not in the case of AH) I'd say any story that extends into the future, regardless of the POD in the past, may have an alternate element but is NOT alternate history, but instead, a FUTURE history. Since those solid lines in the wider academic world don't exist, I won't push that point. However, what about HERE in this Wiki, where we may have more latitude for definitions? Are TL's that have PODs, say, three weeks ago, and extend 500 years into the future appropriate here? Should some rule be established by the moderators, or by vote of the Users? As for paranoia, my point was that this also treads a fine line into political commentary. Sure, I can create a timeline in which Al Gore's head explodes on the stage last Summer when he was ranting about "losing democracy," but is that Alternate history, per se, or would it simply be chance for me to post a thinly veiled political rant? I will grant that politics surely has a place in TLs, as does religion and host of other topics. My question is one of EMPHASIS and the INTENT of the User. Nhprman 16:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't feel too badly about it. (At least) one of my althists extend into 2054. This is mostly to have a nice round figure of 300 years, though. However, I have read several future histories, some of which are quite good. --Sikulu 13:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)