Talk:Alternative future

An accepted term?

Is "alternate future" a well-known term, or was it invented by the creator of this wiki page? If the former, could someone provide some examples? And if it's the latter, the article should probably be deleted because of wikipedia's policy on "original research". Hypnosifl 03:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm very confused by your questions. Provide some examples? The page lists multiple examples: A Sound of Thunder, Marvel Comics, etc. If you're wondering whether "alternate future" is a well-known term, the fact that a Google search for "alternate future" turns up 93,400 hits and one for "alternative future" turns up 467,000 hits suggests that yes, it's a pretty well-known term. Hope that helps. —Lowellian (reply) 20:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant examples of people using the term "alternate future" as a general way of referring to these kinds of stories. A lot of the google hits don't use "alternate future" in the sense of this article, and even of those that do, it's not clear that it isn't just a case of people individually using "alternate" as an adjective to describe changed futures in particular stories, rather than thinking of a genre called "alternate future". As an analogy, one could say that Back to the Future II featured an "alternate Hill Valley" or that Star Trek's Mirror Universe features an "alternate Spock" or that Philip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle features an "alternate America" (28,400 hits on google for this one BTW, but I don't think it should have its own wiki entry), but these are not recognized as general terms for a genre of stories, they're just uses of "alternate" as an adjective to describe elements of the story that were different in an alternate history. Can you find many examples on google of people using "alternate future" as a general term for a class of stories, rather than an element of one specific story? Hypnosifl 02:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, on the point that people hardly ever use "alternate future" as a term for a general class of stories, note that googling "alternate history stories" turns up 23,600 hits, while "alternate future stories" turns up only 64. Hypnosifl 03:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The article's main point is, quoting from the first paragraph, that "an alternate future or alternative future is a possible future which never comes to pass". "Alternate/alternative future" is indisputably a well-known term for an element of many science-fiction stories. That establishes the encyclopedic-ness of the article. The article's primary claim is that "alternate/alternative future" is an element of science-fiction stories. Whether or not "alternate/alternative future" is used as a term for a general class of stories is irrelevant to whether the article is encyclopedic.

I don't think I can say much else to convince you that the article is encyclopedic; if you still feel the article should be deleted, you could go ahead and file an AFD, but I seriously doubt you could find much support for getting the article deleted. —Lowellian (reply) 23:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that whether or not it's used for a class of stories is irrelevant, since if it's just a description that a lot of people use to describe elements of particular stories, I wouldn't call it a "term" at all, just an adjective/noun pairing that comes up a lot. I'm sure a lot of people use the words "blond man" to describe blond male characters in stories, but "blond man" is not a term that should have its own wiki entry. More to the point, I already mentioned that the words "alternate america" give 28,400 hits on google, do you think this is a term which should have an entry of its own, or would you agree it's just an adjective/noun pairing which naturally comes up when describing stories set in alternate-history versions of america? If you agree, then what do you see as the crucial difference between "alternate future" and "alternate america"? Hypnosifl 01:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference is this: "blond man" and "alternate America" are just adjective-word pairings which do not have more meaning than an adjective applied to a noun, whereas "alternate future" implies more than just putting the words "alternate" and "future" together does. As an analogy, I would say that it's the difference between, say, "blue envelope", which is just an envelope that is blue, and red envelope, which has more implications than just the words "red" and "envelope" put together. —Lowellian (reply) 06:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how "alternate future" has implications beyond putting the words together while "alternate america" doesn't, can you explain? Of course in both cases, the words can be used in a non science-fiction context (as many google results for both show), but in a science-fiction context, they both imply a setting for a story (either the future or america) which has been changed by some POD at an earlier point in time. The only real difference is that "alternate future" is more likely to involve time travel, but this is only because we already know what a "normal" america looks like so we can recognize an alternate one in an AH story, whereas we can only recognize that we're seeing an "alternate" future if the story also shows us what the "normal" future is supposed to look like in the context of the author's imagined history. But this is just a condition on when it would make sense to use this particular adjective-noun pairing, it doesn't make it a "term" any more than alternate america. Hypnosifl 08:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to come to agreement on this issue. It's intuitively obvious to me that "alternate future" is a term...but if my above arguments can't convince you, then there's not much more I can say. I don't have the time to go dig through academic speculative fiction journals (these do exist!) for references. You can nominate the article for WP:AFD if you want. —Lowellian (reply) 20:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(indentation getting out of hand) OK, but before I decide whether to nominate it, can you explain what you meant when you said whereas "alternate future" implies more than just putting the words "alternate" and "future" together does? What specific implications were you thinking of, implications that don't have direct analogies to the implications (in a SF context) of "alternate America"? Hypnosifl 22:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant all the information that is currently in the article. Let me put it this way: walk up to someone who's not a futurist and who doesn't read science fiction. Ask them what they think "alternate future" means. I don't think they would come up with anywhere near all the information that is in the article, and I think the article "alternate future" as it currently stands has significant room for expansion. —Lowellian (reply) 20:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The only implication I see in the article that goes beyond the implications of similar terms like "alternate America" is the fact that "alternate future" is typically used in stories involving time travel...is this all you meant by "all the information that is currently in the article", or did you have anything else in mind? If you're just talking about the time travel thing, then I think that's just because it would make less sense to talk about an "alternate future" in a non-time-travel story...as I said before, The only real difference is that "alternate future" is more likely to involve time travel, but this is only because we already know what a "normal" america looks like so we can recognize an alternate one in an AH story, whereas we can only recognize that we're seeing an "alternate" future if the story also shows us what the "normal" future is supposed to look like in the context of the author's imagined history. Hypnosifl 09:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The term is established, see the citations at [1]. I would argue against deletion. I don't know that this warrants a really long article, but this is distinct from "alternate history". Interesting, the Google hits I'm seeing for "alternative future" seem to have much more to do with politics and policy than with science fiction. Avt tor

Thanks, that link settles the issue for me. Hypnosifl 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Now RLetson's contribution below is giving me second thoughts--does this "jessesword" site have any kind of recognized authority, in the sense of the references by Wolfe and Clute that RLetson mentions, or does it just represent one non-notable person's own opinions? In itself, the fact that people have used the words "alternate future" together for a long time does not itself justify calling it a "term", any more than showing that people have been using the words "alternate America" for a long time would. I think what's needed is either a published source that treats this as a "term", or else a web reference written by some recognized authority in SF. Hypnosifl 09:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a first citation. It's relevant because it meets the OED criterion. The citation itself is verifiable, regardless of the web site where it happens to have been noted (i.e. the jessesword site uses the same standard as Wikipedia itself). I had no problem finding other mentions. This is being discussed in the community, cf. the discussion at WFC last month, so a reference on this topic is useful. Avt tor 16:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the OED criterion"? You could probably find a citation of someone using the words "alternate America" in a published work too, but that does not in itself make it a recognized "term", any more than "blond man" (see the discussion above). When you say "the jessesword site uses the same standard as Wikipedia itself", do you mean that this entry was contributed by a visitor to Jesse Sheidlower's site rather than by Sheidlower himself? Hypnosifl 16:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I should have done a little research first, poking around that site I see the entries are indeed user-submitted. So, I think this entry has little relevance to the question of whether alternate future is indeed recognized as a "term" in SF and SF criticism. Hypnosifl 16:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, looking into the "jessesword" site, I see that "This Web site is run by Jesse Sheidlower, Editor-at-Large of the Oxford English Dictionary." So that presumably does qualify as a recognized authority in language, though not an authority in the terminology of the SF community. Hypnosifl 09:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The useful thing about Jessesword is that it is a lexicography site--its authority comes from its marshalling of examples of actual usage, which are the basis of a dictionary's entries. It's not what Jessesword says about a term on its own authority so much as what it reports about usage. Look at the "full record" for "alternate future" (four examples) compared to, say, "space opera" (23 full examples). The question isn't whether "alternate future" is a "real term" but whether it is in common use in the way the article suggests (about which see my comments below). RLetson 17:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I found this discussion in passing. I might suggest referencing "alternate timeline" (which is also a term in theoretical science), which includes everything from comic book references, to Back to the future. And when it's used, the term "alternate future" is often used as well when describing the future of such an alternate timeline. Hope this helps : ) - jc37 21:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably not notable as a term

I am not aware of "alternate future" as a term in common use in SF criticism, and despite the citation on Jessesword, one example (and in a work of fiction, not in a critical context) does not establish it as a one. You will not, for example, find an entry for it in Gary K. Wolfe's Critical Terms in Science Fiction and Fantasy (which is, to be fair, now 20 years old), nor in the Clute & Nicholls Encyclopedia. It does indeed seem "intuitive" that there ought to be such a term, and that readers familiar with SF should understand its significance, but that is not the same thing as being an established critical or descriptive term. It is better thought of as a concept belonging to the (well-established) subfield of alternate-history or alternate-world SF, where it is one of the variables that such stories can employ. An encyclopedia--particularly Wikipedia--is not in the business of establishing Nifty Ideas but of gathering already established and documentable information. The fact that SF includes portraits of ambisexual aliens does not mean that there should be an article so named--unless that particular phrase has become part of the vocabulary that readers, reviewers, fans, and other commentators have developed. Space opera and BEM (Bug-Eyed Monster), on the other hand, are just such terms, and can (and do) support articles. The challenge for editors who would like to see this term get an article is to find not examples of alternate futures in SF but uses of the term in reviews and critical or descriptive writing about SF. Otherwise, I'd say that it is not notable. RLetson 06:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

A review of use of the term on Google shows that it is really only relevant in reference to established science fiction future universes, especially well-known ones. In other words, broadly speaking, it shows up mainly in relation to discussion about comic book settings (e.g. X-Men), media settings (e.g. Star Trek), and gaming settings (e.g. Warhammer 40,000 and various computer games). Because of the commercial (i.e. somewhat derivative) nature of these settings, there isn't a tremendous amount of scholarly interest. A small selection of mentions in reviews includes

• Review: The Martians, about a collection of short stories based on Kim Stanley Robinson's "Mars" trilogy, including some alternate future stories
• Review of GURPS Infinite Worlds; this refers to both contemporary alternate history settings and the alternate future worlds that arise from them
• "In a Mirror, Darkly", review of an alternate future Doctor Who episode
• Kingdom Come, review of a book set in an alternate future of the DC Comics universe
• Terminator 3: The Redemption, a review of a computer game set in an alternate future of the Terminator universe
• Back to the Future II, a review of the classic 1989 alternate future film
• Future-Drama, a review of an alternate future episode of The Simpsons
• The Separation, review of a Christopher Priest novel in which characters move between different alternate futures

One also finds many references to "All Good Things", the series finale of Star Trek: The Next Generation, which incorporates an alternate future plot.

The "alternate history" genre, although it dates back decades, has only been discussed seriously in the past dozen years or so. "Alternate future" is a smaller related subgenre which is clearly identified, just not yet analyzed because it doesn't appear much in "serious"/literary science fiction. Avt tor 23:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Wolfe cites a 1981 bibliography dealing with alternate history (Critical Terms, 6). I still don't see "alternate future" as a genre term, as distinct from a term describing a feature of a particular story. The fact that it is used in passing in discussions of story/comic/TV show plots doesn't quite get it over the threshhold to subgenre status--I'd say it's about at the motif level. (Yeah, picky picky picky--I'm a literary taxonomist.) As for not appearing much in print SF--where do you think TV and comics writers steal their ideas? (Snob flag.) A search of time-travel and AH plot devices will yield plenty of examples of alternate futures/timelines (start with Poul Anderson's "Time Patrol" series that goes back to the 1950s and work in both directions). RLetson 20:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Prucher has written an SF dictionary using the data gathered at the OED SF project, along with other OED data. You can see it at Amazon; it'll be called Brave New Words. I helped copyedit it, and am one of the editors of the OED SF project. Brave New Words won't be out till spring, Jeff tells me, but I know it will contain an entry for "alternate future". Cites: 1941 Bester "Probable Man"; 1950 Simak "Time Quarry"; 1979 Asimov "Golden Years of SF"; Spinrad 1981 in Asimov's. There's also an entry for "alternative future": cites are 1939 C.L. Moore "Greater Than Gods"; 1941 Bester "Probable Man"; 1974 Scortia in Bretnor's "SF, Today and Tomorrow"; 2004 Fforde "Something Rotten".

There are also entries for alternate/alternative history/world/universe/reality; a total of ten entries all told, all of which refer to the concept of parallel worlds.

However, I don't think that really establishes the notability of the term for our purposes. It's certainly a term easily recognized by sf readers, but I think the concept can be covered under parallel universe. I think alternate history fiction is a large enough genre that it deserves its own entry, but I don't think there's anything here that can't be covered under parallel universe. Mike Christie (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- while it's certainly a recurring theme or motif, it's hardly a 'genre.' This whole article seems like it is more appropriate to TV Tropes than Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.154.8 (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources

This article has hung around now for 3 and a half years and has not managed to gain a single reference - I've had a look around for an authoritative overview or analysis and can't find one. Can anyone provide anything useful because at the moment (and for its entire history) this article is failing some pretty fundamental standards for inclusion here. (Emperor (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

La Jetée and 12 Monkeys

Are those of example of it? --Fixuture (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)