What if a what if isn't a what if?

[kerravonsen]

Today I read a story called "Chosen One" which was about what if Willow was the Slayer instead of Buffy? And the whole thing was pointless; a retread of the first episode of the series, and hardly anything was different. It all ended up the same way anyway -- with Buffy hanging with the "losers" crowd, just that the Slayer happens to be Willow instead.
Fine.
If that's what you want.

But what is the point of changing things if nothing changes?!!??

I really get irritated by stories like that. Like a Stargate/LotR crossover which plonks SG-1 in the middle of the story, with them travelling along with the Fellowship, and Nothing Changes. Except Sam gets the hots for Legolas. Hmmmm. Self-indulgent much?

I get irritated by AUs and crossovers where nothing happens. And AU crossovers where nothing happens, even more.

Look, the point of a "what if" is in the nature of a scientific experiment: if you change this variable here, how does it change the final outcome? Yes, it is possible that the final outcome won't be changed, but you have to convince me of that, not just inertia your way along. It could well be that the point of the story is to say "yes, they are Doomed", but, well, as I said, you have to convince me of that. Why would the Council of Elrond let these complete strangers be part of a secret mission? Why would Cordelia's crowd shun Buffy when it was Willow who was doing the wierdo stuff? (just to take these two examples of forced inertia).

(sigh) I don't think I'm saying this right...

This is similar to the irritation I feel when I read a crossover which ignores or glosses over the initial meeting of the two groups, and/or makes everybody be nice to each other because everyone is heros. It is so bland. We've lost the most interesting bit, the potential conflict, the grist to the mill, the imaginative bit.

Yes, the temptation in crossovers for many people can be to avoid the "explain" bit as much as possible because they think it will be boring. But I feel as if it's like having your cake and eating it too -- the freshness of a "first episode" (and for how many shows is the first episode one of the best -- quite a few) while at the same time being in the know: that's one of my favourite things about crossovers.

I don't have a term for this thing that is irritating me. Whatever it is, it's bland, lazy, sometimes self-indulgent... missing the point. Because I guess to me the point of AU (Alternative Universe) stories (where the "what if" is "what if this happened differently?") is to change things. And I think you have to work harder to convince me that things won't change, because I'm firmly convinced, as a matter of world-view, that individuals do make a difference. So if a particular individual is or isn't there, then that's going to make a difference.

I mean, take LotR for instance. There were so many things in the Quest that depended on such slender threads, that if you had a what-if where, say, an LotR fan got plonked in there with a copy of the book in her head, anything she did or said about it could cause the Quest to fail even as she tried to help. I mean, about the only change I can think of that wouldn't be a potential disaster would be if Boromir didn't get killed, and even then, things could go wrong. I haven't looked at very many LotR AU fics, but most of the ones I have looked at have been dark; with things worse off than before. Like the short but poignant one where Sam killed Gollum earlier, and then ended up jumping into the Cracks of Doom with Frodo in order to destroy the Ring. Dark and gloomy. But that's the point: it's biting the bullet, considering the consequences.

Having some imagination.

Which then brings me to the next most common flaw with Alternative Universes -- specifically, Alternative Histories, generally of an SF flavour (and this is with mainstream SF as well as fanfic), where some historical event happened differently. Thing is, they're usually good at the initial extrapolation, but the trap they usually fall into is to consider that the extrapolation is linear, and that history sort of stops, with no other Great Events happening between the Change point and the Now point (the point at which we enter the story). Such as stories which posit the Roman Empire going on forever just because of the avoidance of one event.

Of course, it isn't really fair of me either, because I'm asking them to imagine the unimaginable. Realism is hard to attain because truth is always stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense, you see.

Comments

[mistraltoes.livejournal.com]

But what is the point of changing things if nothing changes?!!??

I think the point with the Willow story may be simply that the writer wants everything to be the same except for Willow to be the Slayer. IME this may not be that uncommon; Willow was far and away the most popular BtVS character for a long time, and still is the most common BtVS Mary-Sue (or Willow-Sue). It's just a way of putting Willow in her perceived "rightful place". I couldn't begin to guess why it would occur in other situations, unless looking at the writers' other works there was a general dearth of fresh ideas.

I really get irritated by stories like that. Like a Stargate/LotR crossover which plonks SG-1 in the middle of the story, with them travelling along with the Fellowship, and Nothing Changes. Except Sam gets the hots for Legolas. Hmmmm. Self-indulgent much?

Ohhhh...! The point being to get Sam with Legolas, and the author didn't really think about anything else, I guess. It's the same reason (sometimes) that you see flat characters where there ought to be round ones, or glaring plot holes, that sort of thing; a kind of tunnel vision. I expect most people who write that type of fic don't even realize there is a problem.

Yes, the temptation in crossovers for many people can be to avoid the "explain" bit as much as possible because they think it will be boring. But I feel as if it's like having your cake and eating it too -- the freshness of a "first episode" (and for how many shows is the first episode one of the best -- quite a few) while at the same time being in the know: that's one of my favourite things about crossovers.

Agreed. The fun is in seeing characters you know through the eyes of people who don't know them. It's a bit like having a new and interesting fan turn up on one of your fandom lists, except that in a story, you can already know both the person you're viewing and the person whose eyes you're viewing the first person through. The whole thing does double duty and you get insight into both sides. Yummy fun.

I don't have a term for this thing that is irritating me. Whatever it is, it's bland, lazy, sometimes self-indulgent... missing the point. Because I guess to me the point of AU (Alternative Universe) stories (where the "what if" is "what if this happened differently?") is to change things. And I think you have to work harder to convince me that things won't change, because I'm firmly convinced, as a matter of world-view, that individuals do make a difference. So if a particular individual is or isn't there, then that's going to make a difference.

I guess instead of a "what if?", it's a "so what?"

[kyrre.livejournal.com]

Well, there are AU stories and there are AU stories. The first is more of the kind "I want to put my favourite character in a different setting and see how it looks..". Like putting a photo into a different frame. I believe it has more associative worth than anything o the writer and maybe reader. True, this kind just can not support a longer story and I can stand those stories only in short vignettes or snippets.

The other kind of AU deserves the name "Alternate Universe". That's where the writer puts serious thought into creating a different but believable variant of the canon. Personally I really enjoys these stories very much. I believe it's very hard work to create a good AU. But it's so rewarding for the reader, and for the writer too, I hope.

The problem is that the former type needs a different name, something like a "AU-PWP". One can not, should not, throw them together. The former cannot fulfill the expectations, the latter suffers through the muddying of this category. All in all I agree with your assessment. My opinions mainly relate to fanfiction though. I can't remember Alternate History fiction right now, except, maybe, the Belisarius series by, whatshisname, Drake?

[kerravonsen]

The problem is that the former type needs a different name, something like a "AU-PWP".

Maybe we can tack on Mistral's idea and call them an "AU-SW" -- Alternative Universe So What?

I can't remember Alternate History fiction right now, except, maybe, the Belisarius series by, whatshisname, Drake?

There's a fair few out there, some of which I've read, and some of which I haven't...
There's the alternative WWII one, and the "steampunk" one (where Babbage's Difference Engine worked), and the one where the Roman Empire didn't fall... and the bunches of parallel universes that get visited by some (Andre Norton has her "crosstime" series); like some where the Incas weren't destroyed, and ended up dominating the world, or one where the Germans won WWII (actually there was a really good movie along those lines, called "Fatherland" I think; which was basically a thriller where the heroine and hero were investigating the coverup of the Holocaust). And you also get all the parallel universes that they drop into in Sliders.

Now, some of these have been constructed well, and others, stiltedly.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

It is so bland. We've lost the most interesting bit, the potential conflict, the grist to the mill, the imaginative bit.

Got to agree with you on this. Of course writing is designed for an audience, and you or I are probably not that audience.

This is also the irritation I feel with SF in which aliens look just like humans, and their societies are minor variations on human society. Of course that premise can be handled well, but on the whole it is lazy and unimaginative.

[kerravonsen]

Of course writing is designed for an audience, and you or I are probably not that audience.

True. Though I wonder if, like Mary-Sues, they really have an audience of one. Unfortunately, considering the amount of praise I've seen for some of these stories (albeit the mindless praise of the type one sees on fanfiction.net) they actually do have an audience greater than one.

This is also the irritation I feel with SF in which aliens look just like humans, and their societies are minor variations on human society. Of course that premise can be handled well, but on the whole it is lazy and unimaginative.

I think the worst case of that, which really gives me the irrits, is when all the societies in the work resemble US culture in some area where US culture differs from the rest of the world, so it becomes plainly obvious that the author can't see beyond his own culture.
Two examples in otherwise very good works: David Brin calling jam "jelly" in "Glory Season"; and Kathy Tyers talking about "junior high" in her Firebird trilogy. And if such good authors can fall into that trap, others certainly will.

But getting back to your original comment... it's hard to write alien cultures. You can't make them too alien, or they're just incomprehensible. And you can't make them too human, or they aren't alien enough.

Hal Clement did a kind of shortcut which I'm not sure whether I should be irritated about or not: he tended to make his aliens basically charicatures of some particular human trait -- like, one lot of aliens were particularly nervous and flighty, and so on. It did make the aliens interestingly different, but they were also one-dimensional. And it made humans look like the only sane lot in the bunch.

Mind you, C.J. Cherryh tends to err on the side of the void; her aliens tend to be so alien that it feels like talking to a block of cheese.

Orson Scott Card, in his Ender series, I think managed to get aliens who were both very alien, and also comprehensible once one realized where they were coming from. Very cool.

But then I think that the way one views aliens is naturally affected by one's world-view: as Card is a theist (I think he's a Mormon, isn't he?) then he's liable to consider that all intelligent beings are of similar mind, being created by one creator, and having common morals (once one sees the context of the morals). Wheras someone who is an atheist is probably going to consider it more likely that evolution will toss up intelligent species which are mutually incomprehensible, and certainly wouldn't have a similar moral code.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

Card is a theist (I think he's a Mormon, isn't he?) then he's liable to consider that all intelligent beings are of similar mind, being created by one creator, and having common morals (once one sees the context of the morals).

Yes, Mormon, and I think that's very true.