Discuss @David Flin 's latest article here
-
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
The Powell Effect
- Thread starter AndyC
- Start date
- Location
- Balham
- Pronouns
- he/him
A nice little piece, and I'm grateful for the shoutout to Lavender as something that avoided this trap. Powell does indeed get turned into lots of things. The opposite does exist in some places – Churchill being Really Really Good At Everything sometimes comes up, and Rommel being Totally Pure is of course a more sinister element of it.
- Location
- Derbyshire
Of course, the more currently controversial a figure is, the more people will tend to fall into these sort of cliché traps. I expect Johnson and Trump will fall prey to the same within the decade.
- Pronouns
- he/him
The line about Powell and death squads made me think of another historical figure who too often is treated in historical fiction and alternate history as a one-note fanatic: Robespierre.
Robespierre actually was an opponent of the death penalty who is... not remembered for that opposition. But if you look at how he's presented in various adaptations of The Scarlet Pimpernel, for example, he's a steely-eyed fanatic right from the get go. I've said before though that if he had died perhaps even eighteen months ahead of schedule it's quite plausible to imagine that he would be remembered as the conscience of the Jacobins.
My point is not that Powell could have walked a similar path, though I suppose a good writer could make something of that. But rather, historical characters do- as far as an author is concerned- have character arcs. If the thrust of the article is that historical figures are complicated and authors must research and account for those complexities, this is a coda: you can't just research who a person was throughout their life, you have to pay attention to the way those complexities accumulate. A Churchill who becomes PM in 1920 will not behave like he did in 1940, and if he does he will not have the same success. A Nixon who wins in 1960 may well be an amoral bastard of a president, but without eight years of self-imposed exile and paranoid brooding, his demons won't manifest in the same way.
In short, too many timelines allow circumstances to change, but not people.
Robespierre actually was an opponent of the death penalty who is... not remembered for that opposition. But if you look at how he's presented in various adaptations of The Scarlet Pimpernel, for example, he's a steely-eyed fanatic right from the get go. I've said before though that if he had died perhaps even eighteen months ahead of schedule it's quite plausible to imagine that he would be remembered as the conscience of the Jacobins.
My point is not that Powell could have walked a similar path, though I suppose a good writer could make something of that. But rather, historical characters do- as far as an author is concerned- have character arcs. If the thrust of the article is that historical figures are complicated and authors must research and account for those complexities, this is a coda: you can't just research who a person was throughout their life, you have to pay attention to the way those complexities accumulate. A Churchill who becomes PM in 1920 will not behave like he did in 1940, and if he does he will not have the same success. A Nixon who wins in 1960 may well be an amoral bastard of a president, but without eight years of self-imposed exile and paranoid brooding, his demons won't manifest in the same way.
In short, too many timelines allow circumstances to change, but not people.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
An excellent article @David Flin and I appreciate how you highlight the extremes of effort that AH writers will go to differentiate tank types*, but completely fail to invest even a fraction of that time into personalities. Because of course it's much more difficult and nuanced.
I'm reminded of the goldfish-style conversation I have with @Meadow every year or so (I always forget and then bring it up again) about the gradations with which Powell can be represented in AH fiction that's set in a more chaotic (politically, socially, economically) Britain in the 70s and 80s. The Agent Lavender Powell is ultimately a man of principles who fails to take the ultimate step to power offered to him towards the end of the novel; whereas the Powell of Gordon Banks tries to be a principled man but is refused, and ends up a husk of a Prime Minister overshadowed by Airey Neaves and the men in grey suits.
And of course there's the far less subtle gradations, such as the Powell of The Churchill Memorandum, who is presented unironically and uncritically as The Power Behind No. 10 who knows what is best for the people and the country, and wields unimaginable power, both openly and secretly.
*sorry sorry but the pedant in me wants to highlight the typo - it's a T34 and not a T-35 sorry
I'm reminded of the goldfish-style conversation I have with @Meadow every year or so (I always forget and then bring it up again) about the gradations with which Powell can be represented in AH fiction that's set in a more chaotic (politically, socially, economically) Britain in the 70s and 80s. The Agent Lavender Powell is ultimately a man of principles who fails to take the ultimate step to power offered to him towards the end of the novel; whereas the Powell of Gordon Banks tries to be a principled man but is refused, and ends up a husk of a Prime Minister overshadowed by Airey Neaves and the men in grey suits.
And of course there's the far less subtle gradations, such as the Powell of The Churchill Memorandum, who is presented unironically and uncritically as The Power Behind No. 10 who knows what is best for the people and the country, and wields unimaginable power, both openly and secretly.
*sorry sorry but the pedant in me wants to highlight the typo - it's a T34 and not a T-35 sorry
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Of course that's why I always appreciated Powell's brief appearance in You've Always Had It This Good because it's a deliberate antithesis of this when
thereby taking him out of consideration permanently
He resigns over a motorway and out of stubborn principle, even though EternalMac offers him a run at No. 10 as the Designated Successor if he doesn't resign
- Location
- Albany, NY
- Pronouns
- She/Her
I feel like its pretty straight forward that Powell is a racist no matter what he said about the Mau Mau camps.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
The whole point is about character nuance, though
No-one is arguing that he didn't hold racist views - quite obviously he did; but Powell had far more complex views, even on race, than would be suspected. And a lack of research and laziness by some AH writers means a more complex character gets missed out on.
- Location
- Derbyshire
I mean based on Powell's historic views 'Powell the integrator of the British Empire (by the way White People are still running everything)' is equally plausible. His views on British Empire Citizenship- which IIRC were basically 'either they are British, and should have British citizenship, or they are not, and so should have no form of citizenship at all' suggest that he would have been quite happy with the French approach to Algeria writ large.
- Location
- Balham
- Pronouns
- he/him
Yeah, but the article is saying that him being a racist doesn’t mean he was necessarily a death camp Nazi, as he’s been depicted as in some places. Not many people give us an actual speech for the archive where they not only condemn putting people in camps but also condemn those that are justifying doing so on racial grounds. If you want a 50s-70s Nazi stooge or white supremacist dictator, look further afield. Because there’s plenty of options.
Francisco Cojuanco
Sometime traitor to his class
- Location
- Arizona
I think the problem is that Powell, like many politicians of note, has been made to Stand For Something, and so regardless of anything else he did on even immigration, he will forever be defined as The Great Racist, with every form of intolerance ascribed towards him. It's the pitfall of the public, and of writers as well.
I suspect in future onecwill see a similar method applied to people like George W. Bush, or Al Gore, or even the last three Popes.
- Location
- Derbyshire
Al Gore is going to end up the Hubert Humphrey of the 2000s, in that very 'oh if only he'd won obviously America would have become a socially progressive environmentally conscious place by 2020' way you've tended to get with Humphrey.
- Location
- North Solihull
- Pronouns
- she/her
Agent Lavender did this really well with the not-yet-Iron Lady too
As something of a debut long-form timeline, The Loud Blast That Tears The Skies has some slightly cringe-worthy character portrayals in hindsight. Edward VIII is a bit too 'Kings Party' in how he is portrayed as an essentially benevolent figure, and Nev Chamberlain's mid-life spiritual rebirth is downright authorial 'wouldn't it be an interesting inversion if...' Even so I'm really satisfied with how I ruined Churchill's in-universe reputation as the 'in too deep' Edwardian Crisis PM who isn't quite as inspiring as he thinks he is, and who is a little too prone to seeking dubious long-shot solutions to problems (only for his 55-year post-premiership to somewhat rehabilitate him).
I know that I've banged this drum a lot, but for a public figure with so many OTL rises and falls, myths and mythologies, there must be potential for some intriguing alt-Churchills in AH. Churchill the Lloyd George Liberal is one (the acolyte second only to the Goat himself in "most hated by Tories" terms c.1908-1910). And in a universe where Lloyd George fails to escape a murderous pro-war mob at Birmingham Town Hall in 1900, who can say which party Winston ends up in come *WWI and any potential Asquith-??? split.
"I Shall Never Surrender" - derivative spiritual prequel to You've Always Had It This Good where WSC is a youthful Teddy Roosevelt-esque successor to a martyred late-Victorian Liberal PM, only to remain PM for the next 50 years (through countless coalitions, wars, Kings, and party splits).
As something of a debut long-form timeline, The Loud Blast That Tears The Skies has some slightly cringe-worthy character portrayals in hindsight. Edward VIII is a bit too 'Kings Party' in how he is portrayed as an essentially benevolent figure, and Nev Chamberlain's mid-life spiritual rebirth is downright authorial 'wouldn't it be an interesting inversion if...' Even so I'm really satisfied with how I ruined Churchill's in-universe reputation as the 'in too deep' Edwardian Crisis PM who isn't quite as inspiring as he thinks he is, and who is a little too prone to seeking dubious long-shot solutions to problems (only for his 55-year post-premiership to somewhat rehabilitate him).
I know that I've banged this drum a lot, but for a public figure with so many OTL rises and falls, myths and mythologies, there must be potential for some intriguing alt-Churchills in AH. Churchill the Lloyd George Liberal is one (the acolyte second only to the Goat himself in "most hated by Tories" terms c.1908-1910). And in a universe where Lloyd George fails to escape a murderous pro-war mob at Birmingham Town Hall in 1900, who can say which party Winston ends up in come *WWI and any potential Asquith-??? split.
"I Shall Never Surrender" - derivative spiritual prequel to You've Always Had It This Good where WSC is a youthful Teddy Roosevelt-esque successor to a martyred late-Victorian Liberal PM, only to remain PM for the next 50 years (through countless coalitions, wars, Kings, and party splits).
I let it pass when reading because the sheer cheeky audacity of it made me laugh and laugh. EDIT: Pretty sure it inspired the basic conceit of Chamberlain Resigns too, now I think of it - "ah, hang on...", my brain went
Last edited:
Elektronaut
Effectively Stood Down
- Location
- The Legendarium of Gentleman Julius
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Well yes, Powell gets caricatured as a Nazi, but frankly most Conservative politicians get caricatured as Nazis even without them having Powell's racial demagoguery baggage.
The bigger problem and in my experience the more pervasive problem is more sensible people overmythologising Powell as a Mr Iron Logic when he was clearly not that. For example, on Europe Powell is often reckoned to have wrote about a quarter of a Federalist paper that the One Nation group of MPs put out early into the Tories' opposition phase in the early sixties. He also clearly saw no contradiction between sitting in Macmillan's cabinet when entry was being pursued. It's pretty clear during this phase he was not only pro-Europe but extremely pro-Europe. This would later change after Rivers of Blood.
There's also of course the rather good circumstantial evidence that Rivers of Blood was somewhere on a spectrum of mistaken political calculation, frustration with Heath's leadership, and personal erraticism and certainly not about any great conviction. Or at least, I find it rather stretching credulity to suggest someone like Powell actually believed anecdotes about dog shit being pushed through letterboxes and thought them worthy of national politics.
Powell I think benefits from a cultural bias a lot of people have that a former classics professor couldn't actually be a pretty cheap huckster-demagogue-politician and that there has to be something more complex going on. That he wouldn't suffer from doubt, and certainly not, lord no, low motives.
Well, I think he did change his mind and certainly did suffer from low motives, he just wasn't very successful at applying them.
I don't have a lot of time for Tony Benn, but he did at least acknowledge that he went on a journey fairly late in life and didn't remotely pretend his views didn't change. I suspect he was happy to do so because there was a greater degree of authenticity to that change in his case than in Powell's.
The bigger problem and in my experience the more pervasive problem is more sensible people overmythologising Powell as a Mr Iron Logic when he was clearly not that. For example, on Europe Powell is often reckoned to have wrote about a quarter of a Federalist paper that the One Nation group of MPs put out early into the Tories' opposition phase in the early sixties. He also clearly saw no contradiction between sitting in Macmillan's cabinet when entry was being pursued. It's pretty clear during this phase he was not only pro-Europe but extremely pro-Europe. This would later change after Rivers of Blood.
There's also of course the rather good circumstantial evidence that Rivers of Blood was somewhere on a spectrum of mistaken political calculation, frustration with Heath's leadership, and personal erraticism and certainly not about any great conviction. Or at least, I find it rather stretching credulity to suggest someone like Powell actually believed anecdotes about dog shit being pushed through letterboxes and thought them worthy of national politics.
Powell I think benefits from a cultural bias a lot of people have that a former classics professor couldn't actually be a pretty cheap huckster-demagogue-politician and that there has to be something more complex going on. That he wouldn't suffer from doubt, and certainly not, lord no, low motives.
Well, I think he did change his mind and certainly did suffer from low motives, he just wasn't very successful at applying them.
I don't have a lot of time for Tony Benn, but he did at least acknowledge that he went on a journey fairly late in life and didn't remotely pretend his views didn't change. I suspect he was happy to do so because there was a greater degree of authenticity to that change in his case than in Powell's.
- Pronouns
- he/him
I'm going to shamelessly quote my own vignette here, but you're right that this tendency exists and it allowed me to have some fun with the first thing I posted on the forum.
Walpurgisnacht
It was in the Year of Maximum Danger
- Location
- Banned from the forum
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I think this comes up in Lavender--there's a section @Makemakean quoted where Powell reflects that it's a shame that Mr Patel is getting so much abuse hurled at him these days, but one has to win votes...
Elektronaut
Effectively Stood Down
- Location
- The Legendarium of Gentleman Julius
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I get a feeling EdT didn't specifically premise Powell in the epilogue of A Greater Britain being a pro-European PM - but it makes sense given the above, and given in that timeline Europe has a partially British genesis.
The way Powell went English nationalist IOTL after Rivers of Blood fits with that path he chose - but him being pro-European fitted easily with his much earlier dismissal of the Empire, of East of Suez, of - in a very advanced way - of Atlanticism etc. Particularly in those days, when Empire (Conservatives) or Commonwealth (Labour) were seen as alternative sources of loyalty to Our European Destiny.
I don't think there's a timeline here but EEC entry under PM Powell is something I might jam into a list one day.
The way Powell went English nationalist IOTL after Rivers of Blood fits with that path he chose - but him being pro-European fitted easily with his much earlier dismissal of the Empire, of East of Suez, of - in a very advanced way - of Atlanticism etc. Particularly in those days, when Empire (Conservatives) or Commonwealth (Labour) were seen as alternative sources of loyalty to Our European Destiny.
I don't think there's a timeline here but EEC entry under PM Powell is something I might jam into a list one day.
Blackadder Mk2
Well-known member
The main reason I'd say possibly not (but you may be right) would be that Powell's election was IIRC a rejection of the Mosley corporatist consensus and Europe might be included in that. Hard to confirm one way or the other since we don't know much about the world of AGB's Epilogue the way we do with FaBR, for example. If we assume Powell is the Thatcher analogue and Nazi Satellite Nukes are Cold War tensions rising, you'd be right though.
Having Butler come out on top in 1956 (or pushes for the job in 1953 when Churchill and Eden were in terrible health) might help.
Last edited: