• 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

Alternate History General Discussion

Damn it all, why do things that interest me have to be tainted with a bunch of alt-right wackos?
Because its inherently fascist adjacent to imagine worlds where fascism wins and works long term (Not saying that it in and of itself is a bad thing but its something we should all take into account), and because Byzantine Wanks generally can serve the purpose of "turning back the tide" that the alt-right views as one continual wave hitting "Europe" from Manzikert to contemporary paranoia about "Eurabia".
 
Last edited:
Because its inherently fascist adjacent to imagine worlds where fascism wins and works long term (Not saying that it in and of itself is a bad thing but its something we should all take into account)
Statements like this remind me of why I think the 1964 film, It Happened Here is probably one of the best ‘Sealion Victorious’ scenarios and why I could write an essay on it.

Mainly because of it’s inherently Anti-Fascist nature that not only dismantles British World War myths of exceptionalism and ignorance of homegrown Fascist movements but also literally ends with Left Wing Partisans (with Free British and American help) succeeding in liberating Britain and has them remove any trace of Fascism that remains.
 
Statements like this remind me of why I think the 1964 film, It Happened Here is probably one of the best ‘Sealion Victorious’ scenarios and why I could write an essay on it.

Mainly because of it’s inherently Anti-Fascist nature that not only dismantles British World War myths of exceptionalism and ignorance of homegrown Fascist movements but also literally ends with Left Wing Partisans (with Free British and American help) succeeding in liberating Britain and has them remove any trace of Fascism that remains.
That's the way to do it.

I was being too flippant I think. I was thinking in the context of Victory not "Just doing better" which are two different things. Defeating the UK and seeing an uprising in 1945 is a very different ballgame then "It's 1964 and Hitler must choose his successor." One is o think fairly reasonable AH, the other is what becomes Fash-Adjacent.
 
"It's 1964 and Hitler must choose his successor." One is o think fairly reasonable AH, the other is what becomes Fash-Adjacent.

Even if (just being contrarian here) the successor in question is to rule over an utterly shattered Reich and all of their resource shortages, mismanagement, infighting, and brutality are not shied away from in the least?
 
Even if (just being contrarian here) the successor in question is to rule over an utterly shattered Reich and all of their resource shortages, mismanagement, infighting, and brutality are not shied away from in the least?
Fascist-adjacent is a term that also includes varied things such as "Military History", "Vegetarianism", "liking certain types of art" its not a value judgment, its saying that this stuff can when put in a blender lead people to being someone who needs to be punched in public.

But I would say the same way that so many anti-war films get jerked off at by war film fans that showing the hollowing out can still be taken up by the worst people as a shining example.
 
Damn it all, why do things that interest me have to be tainted with a bunch of alt-right wackos?

If you look at any large fanbase, you'll notice a bunch of wackos - don't even get me started on the Harry Potter fanbase.

The trick is to remember that just because they're bad people, it doesn't make you a bad person because you share an interest in something.

Chris
 
If you look at any large fanbase, you'll notice a bunch of wackos - don't even get me started on the Harry Potter fanbase.

The trick is to remember that just because they're bad people, it doesn't make you a bad person because you share an interest in something.

Chris

Weren't you a Sad Puppies supporter? I think you're maybe not the right person to make that case.
 
So there was a youtube video today in which alternatehistoryhub describes an AH iceberg he'd found online. You can find the iceberg here. And I'll post the full image below a spoiler cut. Cos I think it's quite interesting what are picked as prominent media and where in the iceberg of notoriety things are put. Not sure who made it, the video says it's a collaborative effort but there's a very specific kind of ww2 focused, recency biased, ah.com focused viewpoint here.

image

It's an interesting image for a lot of reasons but what stood out to me is just how prominent @The Red and his work is in it. Decisive Darkness apparently three layers more notable than Guns of the South.
 
So there was a youtube video today in which alternatehistoryhub describes an AH iceberg he'd found online. You can find the iceberg here. And I'll post the full image below a spoiler cut. Cos I think it's quite interesting what are picked as prominent media and where in the iceberg of notoriety things are put. Not sure who made it, the video says it's a collaborative effort but there's a very specific kind of ww2 focused, recency biased, ah.com focused viewpoint here.

image

It's an interesting image for a lot of reasons but what stood out to me is just how prominent @The Red and his work is in it. Decisive Darkness apparently three layers more notable than Guns of the South.
Guns of the South is rated weirdly low. Your point about recency bias makes me think that it might be a generational thing; that book has not aged well and I suspect that in general younger people getting into alternate history are probably not getting into it through Turtledove. Whereas to people my age (mid 20s) or older Guns of the South was one of the defining books of AH, there's a good chance its the first AH book you read.
 
It's an interesting mix of things - I mean, Watchmen is a lot more notable than it's being presented here I think, it's just that people don't really think of it as a work of alternate history. Meanwhile Fallout is... barely AH, isn't it? Though I suppose I don't know.
Fallout is pretty clear AH. It takes place in a world where the transistor was never invented, which is why everything is perpetually stuck in the 1950s. Admittedly as far as the games themselves go this is a pretty minor detail (you could be forgiven for missing it completely and just thinking everything was 50s themed because the 50s are cool), but it's a key part of the backstory.
 
Congratulations to Decisive Darkness, the objectively most noteworthy work of Sea Lion Press.

Stephen King is also rated kind of low, no? Didn't 11/22/63 get a tv series, or did I imagine that?

Also, I've never heard of it, but The Neanderthal Parallax is a cool name.
In addition to getting a TV series it was also a #1 bestseller, and I think that any book which is on the bestsellers list should automatically be in the top two tiers. Online nerds like us may not be huge on it, but for 99% of the public that's what they think of when they think AH.
 
Guns of the South is rated weirdly low. Your point about recency bias makes me think that it might be a generational thing; that book has not aged well and I suspect that in general younger people getting into alternate history are probably not getting into it through Turtledove. Whereas to people my age (mid 20s) or older Guns of the South was one of the defining books of AH, there's a good chance its the first AH book you read.
Incidentally,congrats on your old TL being mentioned.
 
It's an interesting image for a lot of reasons but what stood out to me is just how prominent @The Red and his work is in it. Decisive Darkness apparently three layers more notable than Guns of the South.
These sorts of notability lists are inevitably subjective in any number of ways, but I refuse to take seriously anything which has The Two Georges as absolute top-tier while The Guns of the South is only on Tier 7. There's not even any notable recency effect in play, since TTG was only published three years later than GotS.
 
So much this. I could point to a dozen "Hang on a minute, do they really mean that?" I mean, are we really saying Male Rising is more famous than A Connecticut Yankee?

I think if you were ask people to name ah stories, connecticut yankee wouldn't come first. Which I suppose is the logic but that means you're intermixing fame as an ah, with fame as a story which is untidy.

If I was doing it, the top level (above the iceberg) would be 'things I expect people who have never heard of the genre to know'. So from this list that would be the video games, Twain, the hbo series and watchmen.

Turtledove, Sterling and the modern mainstream novels would be the levels of the iceberg above the surface than small press, online fiction and stuff of primarily historical interest, livy, churchill etc. below that.

But you know the whole distribution model of lists like this is to be infuriatingly wrong so as to provoke conversation and rage clicks. Always has been since the first newspaper column about the 50 greatest books ever came out.
 
So much this. I could point to a dozen "Hang on a minute, do they really mean that?" I mean, are we really saying Male Rising is more famous than A Connecticut Yankee?

There are books I love I rate highly, but not everyone agrees. They loom large to me, but not to others.

There's also a point where one's entry book isn't the best, even at that level. Stars and Stripes Forever was amongst the first AH books I read, but it makes If Britain Had Fallen seem like Guns of the South or Island in the Sea of Time.

Chris
 
These sorts of notability lists are inevitably subjective in any number of ways, but I refuse to take seriously anything which has The Two Georges as absolute top-tier while The Guns of the South is only on Tier 7. There's not even any notable recency effect in play, since TTG was only published three years later than GotS.
I think you need to remember the coauthor of Two Georges, he will add a few more readers than Turtledove's usual
 
Back
Top