Brainbin said:
this timeline hasn't really focused on literature to any great extent
I, for one, have no problem with it.
I find myself wondering if that would mean "serious literature" or the likes of Robbins & Suzanne, or Butterworth (better known as W.E.B. Griffin & cowriter of the M*A*S*H novels), or
Pendleton. (Don was well on his way to fame in '70 with Bolan...but without The Quagmire {for which I took Bolan's War as allegory}, he might not be, or might feel less inclined to write more. If true, a switch to Joe Copp PI novels might be due soon.)
Can I suggest a small cheat? Mention (in passing) films based on non-OTL books? Or real writers, like Isaac, Arthur, Beam, & Robert A., selling better because of TTL's movies?
Brainbin said:
Obviously, a prototype is much harder to field than one for SPS/Microwave.
Prototype is still impossible today. In the '70s, even moreso.
Brainbin said:
No, Sellers very much shied away from dramatic roles IOTL (Quilty in Lolita is about as close as he came). I'm allowing Fouche for two reasons: he's in a very desperate place at this point in his career, and needs the work; and he'll be allowed by Kubrick to play the character in a very dark comedic vein.
I did not know he avoided serious stuff. Tho with his success in comedy, I guess, "if it ain't broke..."...
Brainbin said:
I'm willing to accept that people would watch war films because it encapsulates the "glory days". Why else would period pieces be so popular in Britain?
A valid point, & IRL, there are many reasons war films get made. As said, in-TL, it's a matter of creative approach. I guess, it's me thinking, would I make a war film in this period or not? Especially given the failure of "M*A*S*H". OTOH, that was an anti-war statement OTL; TTL, what seems to be criticism of "the greatest generation" (tho the term hadn't arisen yet...) would probably not go over so well. (So, frex,
"Kelly's Heroes" would likely also bomb, if made now TTL.)
Brainbin said:
Funny you should say that...
Brainbin said:
That will require further investigation on my part.
To be clear, beyond advocating for Beam becoming better known, & classic SF getting more attention, I'm not advocating in particular. I'll say, tho,
The Iron Heel could be AH SF, almost; it's a fascinating treatment of a dystopia. (It fails on its economics, tho--but you have to think about it to realize why.) It's a bit dark for TTL, IMO, unless you want a cautionary tale. The others are pretty awful. (I once came across a list of Canadian SF novels of the 19th Century, none of which I've ever heard of, & apparently rightly so.
That Quebec one was a fantastic "Independent Quebec conquers the Martians" kind of tale, as it was described, while
Copper Cylinder was tedious {I know, I actually read it
} & less well done than Wells' Hollow Earth.) I won't defend Burroughs becoming bigger, either; John Carter is pretty cardboard IMO. So, too, Kim Kinnison.