From: mab@buphy.bu.edu (Michael Burstein)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Is QL science fiction?
Date: 28 Jan 93 19:14:23 GMT
Organization: Boston University Physics Department

This is getting ridiculous. :-)

In article <1993Jan28.015343.24803@netcom.com> sallylb@netcom.com (Sally Smith) writes:
>
>>> I'd really like to know, because no
>>>matter what the producer may think, the category a show, book, or movie
>>>may fall into sometimes does boil down to the fans who enjoy it.
>
>Rebuttal #1:
>
>Since when? We're supposed to tell Don, "No, I'm sorry, Mr.
>Bellisario, we took a poll and it's been mandated that you are
>completely wrong about the show you created and have devoted the past
>4.5 years of your life to -- you've been outvoted."?

First of all, I said "sometimes." I don't mean that fans have an
inherent right to decide what category their favorite stuff falls into,
but sometimes it just happens as a matter of circumstance.

A good example of ths is what happened to Harlan Ellison, who is mostly
known as a science fiction writer. At a writers' conference once,
Ellison pointed out that he did not consider himself a science fiction
writer. He said that he took a pit stop in the world of sf once, and
ended up stuck in that category for twenty years. At some point later in
his career, he decided to stop publshing his works under the sf label,
thus rendering them more mainstream.

And yet, his work is still considered sf, although Kurt Vonnegut's work
(for example) is not. What determined it in Ellison's case was the fact
that he was most popular with sf readers and that his work was most
easily sold to sf markets.

The same thing could happen to a TV show. If the show has sf elements to
it, which we must admit QL does, then it could conceivably find itself
appealing to one major audience that would decide that it wants to
consider the show as science fiction.
 
>Hey, the majority of people in various places used to think that the
>earth was flat, that rockets wouldn't work in space, and that blacks
>were inferior creatures to be used as slaves. Just because none of
>those things are true, didn't keep the majority of people at the time
>from believing them.

Don't you think that these beliefs are a bit more extreme than whether
or not a TV show falls into a certain category of fiction? :-)

>Rebuttal #2:
>
>I postulate that this poll is too biased to be of any use. It's only
>of people on USENET. The fact that you're reading these words proves
>that you are at least moderately computer literate, and also that
>there's a strong chance you are a science fiction fan.

I agree. But I wasn't trying to take an actual poll, and I don't plan to
present the results and say, "Aha! 95% of us think QL is sf! Therefore
it is!"  I was just wondering what other people thought, and inviting
them to join the discussion.

>But science fiction fans do NOT comprise QL's audience -- I'd be
>willing to bet they are in the *extreme* minority! Most people who

It's possible, but I don't know. Most of the people I talk to who like
QL are also sf fans. To answer this question accurately, we really would
have to take an international poll.
 
>If you mentioned to them that QL is science fiction, they'd be
>horrified and deny it immediately -- and they'd say that they'd never
>have started watching a TV show that was. And if you were able to poll
>all of *them* they would say, no, QL isn't SF -- and all of their
>votes would outweigh all the SF fan votes. And they are just as much
>and as loyal of "the fans who enjoy it" as any SF freak.

Frankly, this reminds me of the people out there who claim that all
science fiction is bad, and when you find an sf story that they like,
they claim it can't possibly be sf.

This happened to a friend of mine at NYU who took a writing course. Her
professor claimed that all sf was bad, and when my friend discovered
that a story the professor liked had originally been published as sf,
the professor claimed that the story couldn't be sf because it was good!
(This was despite the fact that the story had won the Hugo Award as a
novel; you can probably figure out which one it was.)

>[Michael and I will now argue over how many angels can dance on
>the head of a pin. :-)]

Ten angels, right, Sally? :-)

Seriously, though, I think that our discussion about the category that
QL should fall into is probably just as useless as the one you just
posed. That's why I'd rather change the discussion to "Why I started
watching QL" rather than "Is QL a science fiction show?"

>In article <1993Jan27.204214.12116@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> baylor@NEBULA.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>>time travel stories! After watching QL, though, I have a good
>>idea why Belsario doesn't want to call it science fiction.
>>It just isn't GOOD science fiction, for all that it "has the 
>>elements of SF" and is a very good TV show. The usual standards
>>for judging science fiction include consistancy and credibility
>>(in context), which QL almost totally lacks. On the other hand, 
>>the stories are well written, the characters are clearly developed, 
>>and the "chemistry" is super!
>
>Yeah, ditto all of that for me too.

I have to agree here too. If one decides to call QL science fiction,
then one may decide that it is *bad* sf, and then one may decide it's
not worth watching! This is a definite fallacy that I can see Belisario
wanting to avoid. After all, George Orwell's _1984_ could be considered
science fiction, but then, as Asimov once pointed out in an essay, it
would have to be considered bad science fiction.

But it is definitely a damn good show.

By the way, you will note that I never came out and said that QL is sf;
in fact, I posted both sides of the argument when I first responded to
Don's comment. The main point I wanted to make is that even if Belisario
doesn't consider the show to be sf, there are some of us out here who
watch the show precisely because of the sf elements.  The stories that
most interest me are the ones when we get to see Project Quantum Leap,
or we encounter the evil leaper, or a time travel cliche is used, etc.

-- 
Michael A. Burstein
Physics Department, Boston University         mab@buphy.bu.edu
590 Commonwealth Ave.                         (617) 353-9437 (o)
Boston, MA 02215                              (617) 735-9433 (h)
Xref: sparky rec.arts.tv:26175 rec.arts.sf.tv:7336