Jesus. Don’t yuck peoples yum. If you don’t like something, that’s fine. Just move on and let people like what they like.
That’s one perspective. But by another point of view, it’s IRL counterfactuals that are the silly ones. Reality is whatever it is; what happened is what happened. But in fiction, the author could have made different choices and made those what-ifs happen within the story. They could even write two or more completely different versions of the story.
I thought something like that might have been your point. I mentioned speculative fiction so as to include knowledge that we don’t currently have but that might one day be discovered, if it is presented in some way as to be, well, believably possible (it’s a fine line from there to outright fantasy, I realize). Far across that fine line is the very pseudo-scientific crap that one finds in “super hero” movies (and their source materials).
You are right about that, although I would say that the technical definition is subsumed in the wider way in which I am using the term. I refer back to this: “something that is based on the existence of magical processes or abilities.” “Wishing will make it so” is a subset of that, although a relatively small part of popular culture story-telling at present.
If the “It” in that sentence refers to what I am complaining about, then I can only say that is not what I wrote.
I don’t come into your Harry Potter thread (if you had one) and say “what a load of rubbish.” It would be nice if you gave this thread the same courtesy.
Agree completely with all of this.
Premise: imagination is a fundamental component of intelligence.
Evidence: to make something new, you need to be able to imagine it first (or at least to imagine a new use for what you’ve accidentally created), as said above.
What-ifs and counterfactuals are exercises in the imagination, building the skill and keeping it limber with regular use.
It’s also a pretty good way to ascertain what was significant and what was peripheral about reality: What if X had happened differently? Well, nothing: then X didn’t matter. Everything changes! Then X was important.
It’s also just a form of play, something humans do. Not everything has to be in service of an immediate practical goal.
My point is that “What if Gandalf decided to get the eagles to take Frodo and the ring to mount doom at the start of LoTR” is no more or less silly than “What if Butch from Pulp Fiction hadn’t gone back for the watch”.
It’s nothing to do with magic or fantasy.
Indeed, the best IRL counterfactuals require knowledge, and the alternative pathways should have a high probability of occuring (close to, or more than 50% probability). That’s why all historical events don’t make good alt-hist candidates (i.e. not enough knowledge, low probability, not something likely to result in something significant, etc.). What if JFK was wearing a titanium hat on November 22, 1963?, for example, would not make an interesting “what if.”
But, that still leaves enough significant, high probability historical pivital points to play around with and seriously analyze.
What is wrong with you?
I personally enjoy playing religious what if. I also don’t consider myself religious.
And I can tell you exactly why I enjoy it.
- I enjoy thinking about abstract problems. I refer to the act of critical thinking itself, not necessarily as a means to some other end.
- There is (or can be) a measure of certainty in theology due to its non-reliance on empirical evidence.
- I have full control over the story, premises, authorities, etc. that I decide to entertain. One that I like to assume is consistency. Props to any author(s) who manage to keep their story mostly consistent.
- I’m not caught up in the debate - maybe I have some bias in how I would prefer a scenario or question to resolve itself, but my hair isn’t turning grey from stress.
- The way I grew up with religion, I was encouraged to be critical at every turn. I have happy memories from my childhood that involve asking what if. People who have had a bad experience with religion likely have other feelings when discussing religion, obviously.
~Max
Its been a while since I saw such a pure form of “these kids are having too much fun!” around here.
Daydreaming, hypotheticals, creating fiction, and all such related activities are incredibly healthy processes, and incredibly important for adults, who often forgo such things (and play in general) because somebody has convinced them it’s a childish waste of time.
No, you instead posted this thread to let the entire board know that every single one of those posts in every single one of those threads is a load of rubbish.
I believe this is a “lighten up, Francis” situation.
(my bolding)
Anyway, OP, count me as one who likes that kind of thing because it’s interesting to me to be creative, and this is one way to do that.
Making a point of telling everyone that you’re rolling your eyes every time they do a thing you find to be a pointless waste of time is kind of the definition of begrudging folks their fun.
Moderating:
Please stop the thread shit as to whether this thread should exist
Is just rude.
And this is also inappropriate.
As are the next couple of posts
Thanks
“If Beethoven had been killed in an airplane crash at twenty-two, the history of music would have been very different. As would the history of aviation.”
— Tom Stoppard
I enjoy fantasy and play role-playing games so far be it from me to cast aspersions on someone’s creative writing/thinking exercise, be it about Hitler’s superweapon programs or Star Trek alien military tactics. Maybe it’s a little silly but a lot of fun things are a bit silly which is part of what makes them fun.
This an example. If there’s no Americas is there no super continent Pangea? IMO nothing on the planet would look remotely similar. And this is in factual questions!
I think you have to distinguish between questioner/commenters who believe the stuff actually happened and who do not. Here, the majority may concider “What if Adam hadn’t bit the apple?” to be a question akin to “What if Luke Skywalker was convinced to join Darth Vader in ESB?” but there are a large number of places where it would be considered a serious question about a genuine historical event and lead to serious debate that is thought to have a plausible answer.
He’d be played by Schwarzenegger.
Jim Butcher writes the same way. Magic in the Dresdenverse has rules and limits. For example, the wizard Harry Dresden has a spell that projects a shield of energy in front of him, that protects him against kinetic forces like gunfire. However, when he uses it to block a flamethrower, his hand gets badly burned; because the shield deflects the flame, but not the heat.
Which means, IMO, that counterfactuals from the Dresdenverse aren’t just pointless exercises in arbitrary choices; since magic in that legendarium is a coherent and structured system - an alternate physics, if you like - it is possible to debate what-ifs in a reasonable manner.
Then the quote would have been, “Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood…and bone shards…and pulverized muscle…and cerebrospinal fluid… in him?”