• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Least favorite alt-history story?

I'm strongly on the 'lets stick to ripping apart published authors guys, going after amateur writers is a little mean' bandwagon.
Makes sense, just remembered that Kindle Published book in which Oswald Mosley and the BUF wins a general election and then ends with Britain nuking Thessaloniki in 1941 after helping the Nazi’s curb stomp France and the Soviet Union.

You can’t find it because I think the author is embarrassed.
 
I don't think we should be critiquing anything from the ASB forum or Chat, because that's like eating something you found in a skip and writing a food review of it.

I am totally and completely fine with people critquing popular, 'serious' non-published works. However, I understand why some of the people who've been published authors would take a different view. Most of us aren't, though, and I think people who aren't should be free to critique those works.

I also think there should be a general alternate history writing discussion thread.
 
I can see Mosley teaming up with Hitler to beat up on the Soviets and France too if it got in the way, but Greece? If Mussolini's not Hitler's big European ally and Allied forces aren't there, why are they bothering with Greece??
 
I'd be up for restarting the Writers' Guild, I think the blog and forum go a long way in carrying out the initial aims but something more surgical couldn't hurt.

I was thinking the exact opposite of surgical, a very general thread for discussion of alternate history. This thread is kind of like a negative, critical expression of a need for that sort of space. It's also a very popular and enduring thread because there's no general AH discussion thread on this forum.
 
I can see Mosley teaming up with Hitler to beat up on the Soviets and France too if it got in the way, but Greece? If Mussolini's not Hitler's big European ally and Allied forces aren't there, why are they bothering with Greece??
Mussolini still dances the Mussolini. It is kind of weird, since it feels like over kill. Like I really doubt Hitler would give much a shit about Mussolini, actually this scenario seems like the perfect way to get Fascist on Fascist War eventually, since I doubt British and Italian interests overlap.
Does Gabb think the Jews destroyed the British Empire or some shit?
This ain’t Gabb, this was some obscure author who I stumbled upon at some random time.
 
IMO the argument that we shouldn't criticize online AH threads because they're not professional and so criticizing them isn't fair falls apart given that we are also in the online AH community. If you post a story in the online AH community it's fair for online AH people to criticize you for it. I do however think there are three criteria that make an online AH story worth criticizing (I'll use Queen Nixon as an example of each criteria because this thread has talked about it to death):

1. It's intended as a more or less finished piece: I think a lot of published authors in this thread are coming in with the assumption that if you post a story on an online forum it's clearly intended as a first draft, but that doesn't really hold up when talking about stuff on AH.com and the like. I would say that most content on AH.com is intended as mostly finished, and Queen Nixon is a good example of that. The author clearly intends this to be the final (or close to final) version of the story. I agree that we shouldn't be attacking first draft as the "worst thing ever", but finished pieces are fair game.

2. It's popular and prominent: Sturgeon's Law says that 90% of everything is crap, but from a reviewing perspective most crap isn't that worth commenting upon. Who cares about a story that only 3 people (including the author's mother) have read? However, popular works are inherently worth talking about. For instance, Queen Nixon was at one point one of the most popular works on the forum, generated a ton of discussion, and was nominated for a Turtledove. This is as close as an unpublished AH work can get to being a bestseller, and as members of the community it's fair of us to offer our perspective.

3. The author has decided to ignore constructive criticism: All writers make mistakes, and the best way to get a writer to improve is to offer constructive criticism. "This is shit" isn't at all useful, and if that's all an author hears they're not going to improve their craft and may even be driven away. However, some authors refuse to listen to constructive criticism. The author of Queen Nixon basically declared that anyone who offered criticisms of his work were trolls and that they should fuck off. At that point further constructive criticism is useless, and so going "Well actually here's all the reasons this is complete shit" is the only way to criticize a work. I understand the idea of simply ignoring works you don't like, and this thread has definitely talked about works like Queen Nixon far more than is warranted, but I also think that there's nothing wrong with really harshly criticizing terrible works from time to time. As long as you aren't spending too much time obsessing about bad works it's fine and actually pretty fun to pick apart the flaws of terrible media.
 
Back
Top