Review - The Fall of Rorke's Drift by John Laband

[Gary Oswald]

Discuss the latest article by @Youngmarshall here

 

[Alex Richards]

This feels like an expansion on the 'collection of essays' approach to AH works, which usually seem to include three people who craft really interesting scenarios, 4 relatively mundane but well written things, a bizarre wish-fulfilment fantasy, an entry that just reverses everything that went wrong for someone historically (ironically making it seem less plausible to have happened), an entry that just lists things that could have happened differently without ever thinking about what the effects would be, and at least one absolute hatchet job against the writer's current political bête noir.

From the way you've talked about it, it sounds like it's 'what if somebody turned one of the former into an entire book' which is not necessarily bad but definitely a niche taste.

 

[Coiler]

From the way you've talked about it, it sounds like it's 'what if somebody turned one of the former into an entire book' which is not necessarily bad but definitely a niche taste.

I'd agree. This sort of thing has a very narrow ceiling-it's going to be a niche taste because, no matter how well done, for the most part only enthusiasts in the field will want to read something that doesn't have conventional literary appeal. It also has, IMO a very low floor, because if it isn't done well, you end with something that's both dry and implausible/doesn't come across as making sense.

 

[The Red]

I'd agree. This sort of thing has a very narrow ceiling-it's going to be a niche taste because, no matter how well done, for the most part only enthusiasts in the field will want to read something that doesn't have conventional literary appeal. It also has, IMO a very low floor, because if it isn't done well, you end with something that's both dry and implausible/doesn't come across as making sense.

I'd wager it's a worthwhile effort. The review states that Laband has attracted criticism from his peers for even engaging in counterfactuals and those of us who have a bit of contact with academic history will no doubt be aware that this is a widespread phenomenon. More works that act as a bridge between the academic and the counterfactual will hopefully help bring more varied and qualitative voices into the community or at least underline that people who like to ponder "What if" aren't all part of some sinister postmodernist and/or negationist plot.

That said, I find the sort of essays that bring up What Ifs and then never explore them as annoying as @Alex Richards does but I don't think that's what this is.

 

[Gary Oswald]

I'd wager it's a worthwhile effort. The review states that Laband has attracted criticism from his peers from even engaging in counterfactuals and those of us who have a bit of contact with academic will no doubt be aware that this is a widespread phenomenon. More works that act as a bridge between the academic and the counterfactual will hopefully help bring more varied and qualitative voices into the community or at least underline that people who like to ponder "What if" aren't all part of some sinister postmodernist and/or negationist plot.

That said, I find the sort of essays that bring up What Ifs and then never explore them as annoying as @Alex Richards does but I don't think that's what this is.

No, it very much does actually explore the war in full. He makes a choice as to how he thinks the UK would react to a second defeat to the Zulus and follows those consequences on to the end of the war.

I'm just a bit greedy in that I wanted to see how Laband thought this would effect say the Second Boer War too and the fact he doesn't attempt to throw in a bit of a look forward like say that Hynes guy does in Decisive Darkness disappointed me. Hopefully if he writes more Ah, he'll be a bit more ambitious in his exploration of consequences.

 

[The Red]

I'm just a bit greedy in that I wanted to see how Laband thought this would effect say the Second Boer War too and the fact he doesn't attempt to throw in a bit of a look forward like say that Hynes guy does in Decisive Darkness disappointed me. Hopefully if he writes more Ah, he'll be a bit more ambitious in his exploration of consequences.

He probably saw Hynes flailing around trying to remember whether or not Beijing had been nuked and decided he didn't want to similarly embarrass himself with an extended epilogue.

 

[Coiler]

The review states that Laband has attracted criticism from his peers for even engaging in counterfactuals and those of us who have a bit of contact with academic history will no doubt be aware that this is a widespread phenomenon.

I'm wondering if the bifurcation of alternate history has something to do with the lack of respect (and I've seen both commentary on and, worse, entries in what-if collections where the authors either can't or can barely hide their contempt). It probably isn't that a big a reason, but I'm thinking if associating alternate history with its most popular pulpy, Turtledove-y "Nazi Confederates Take Over The World" elements leaves a bad impression.

 

[Thande]

I'm wondering if the bifurcation of alternate history has something to do with the lack of respect (and I've seen both commentary on and, worse, entries in what-if collections where the authors either can't or can barely hide their contempt). It probably isn't that a big a reason, but I'm thinking if associating alternate history with its most popular pulpy, Turtledove-y "Nazi Confederates Take Over The World" elements leaves a bad impression.

It seems likely. It is, I think, the biggest barrier for us to overcome. Apparently too many historians are all either hardcore Calvinists or members of the Chinese Communist Party when it comes to the question of speculating about how things might have gone differently.

 

[Alex Richards]

I'm wondering if the bifurcation of alternate history has something to do with the lack of respect (and I've seen both commentary on and, worse, entries in what-if collections where the authors either can't or can barely hide their contempt). It probably isn't that a big a reason, but I'm thinking if associating alternate history with its most popular pulpy, Turtledove-y "Nazi Confederates Take Over The World" elements leaves a bad impression.

Worse than the entries, I've seen forewords from the editors of some collections that seem to be actively dismissive of the entire concept.

I can't work out why they were even asked in that case.

 

[The Red]

I'm wondering if the bifurcation of alternate history has something to do with the lack of respect (and I've seen both commentary on and, worse, entries in what-if collections where the authors either can't or can barely hide their contempt). It probably isn't that a big a reason, but I'm thinking if associating alternate history with its most popular pulpy, Turtledove-y "Nazi Confederates Take Over The World" elements leaves a bad impression.

That's probably part of it as well although I think it's easier to get around as it's hardly peculiar to AH. Sure there's a lot of wild stuff out there but how would an academic historian feel if a postmodernist writer started to dimiss their work on the basis of the History Channel's 24 part series on the Vril civilisation on New Swabia. To relate back to the area of Laband's work, I'll quote the final chapter in the third volume of the Oxford history of the British Empire, Costs and Benefits, Prosperity and Security, 1870-1914:

There is no end to counter-factuals, but only one past. Counter-factuals nevertheless help us to define which aspects of the past are significant, and what questions to ask. To evaluate the past, as opposed to merely describing it, history must be compared with what did not happen.

 

[Charles EP M.]

Worse than the entries, I've seen forewords from the editors of some collections that seem to be actively dismissive of the entire concept.

"Unfortunately my bad bet on the gee-gees is not a counterfactual and if I don't get paid to edit this, Sunglasses Ron is going to be unhappy."

 

[Thande]

"Unfortunately my bad bet on the gee-gees is not a counterfactual and if I don't get paid to edit this, Sunglasses Ron is going to be unhappy."

Thank you, Edgar Wallace.

 

[Drizzly Mary]

That's probably part of it as well although I think it's easier to get around as it's hardly peculiar to AH. Sure there's a lot of wild stuff out there but how would an academic historian feel if a postmodernist writer started to dimiss their work on the basis of the History Channel's 24 part series on the Vril civilisation on New Swabia. To relate back to the area of Laband's work, I'll quote the final chapter in the third volume of the Oxford history of the British Empire, Costs and Benefits, Prosperity and Security, 1870-1914:

Yeah many history books are pretty adamant in saying “thinking about what if this thing happened differently is dumb shit and wouldn’t affect anything”, which is kinda funny because i read said books to get an idea of said thing happening differently.