• 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

I do feel that there is kind of a double standard sometimes, but it doesn't seem to shy away from depicting the atrocities of empires. I mean, the author himself has stated many times about his absolute hatred of the British Empire after reading so much about them, depicting the Triune Kingdom, which is a combination of Ireland, Northern France and England into one nation, as the bad guys, so I guess it doesn't mindlessly glorify empires.

It is perhaps worth noting at this point that apologists of the British Empire often tend to point to Belgian atrocities as a way of making British rule look good in comparison.

It's a classic way of justifying imperialism, where you make colonial atrocities down to having bad people with bad intentions in charge, rather than being backed into the basis injustice of conquering other people's homes.

But, on the other hand imperialism is a fact of life. You can't really write an historical story that doesn't show imperialism, its the nature of history. And demanding the author adds a sad face every time so we know he doesn't approve, is unlikely to make a story better.

I very much did not think the timeline was any good but its been years since I read it and I stopped halfway through, so I'm not the best judge of this individual case.
 
I've been wondering about this book for a while (more so after I heard about the movie adaptation) and was curious if anyone had recommendations for or against.
 
Has anyone ever heard of the timeline An Age of Miracles? It’s practically one of the gold standard stories about a resurgent Byzantine Empire. I really like it, but I feel somewhat uncomfortable in that it seems kind of pro-imperialist and the reader base seems to cheer on them conquering large swathes of land.
It is perhaps worth noting at this point that apologists of the British Empire often tend to point to Belgian atrocities as a way of making British rule look good in comparison.

It's a classic way of justifying imperialism, where you make colonial atrocities down to having bad people with bad intentions in charge, rather than being backed into the basis injustice of conquering other people's homes.

But, on the other hand imperialism is a fact of life. You can't really write an historical story that doesn't show imperialism, its the nature of history. And demanding the author adds a sad face every time so we know he doesn't approve, is unlikely to make a story better.

I very much did not think the timeline was any good but its been years since I read it and I stopped halfway through, so I'm not the best judge of this individual case.
Byzantophiles unironcially believe it was the civilisational gold standard of its era and are not interested in any kind of objectivity on it vis a vis the cultures around it. So yes they will cheer on Byzantium World Tour all day. They really are the Good Guys to them, it's that simple.


However one thing that concerns me is that when we do see timelines from these underrepresented parts of the world, they still focus on empire: imperialism does not become benign when it is done by Al-Andalus, the Ming, the Ottomans or the Mughals. These are fascinating societies- we need more fiction about them. But their prominence speaks to a more fundamental issue, which is that too much of the community is still interested in alternate history as a way to paint as much of the map as possible in the colour of their preferred society.

- @SenatorChickpea in his interview on the SLP blog.
 

Fanboyism is one of the major problems in AH but as I think was alluded to by Gary, history is problematic because human civilisation is problematic.

I don't have a problem with a TL which is foundationally about a longer lasting polity, but I want it to be both balanced/rooted and have an awareness and treatment of how society, religion, technology, trade etc are impacted.
 
It is perhaps worth noting at this point that apologists of the British Empire often tend to point to Belgian atrocities as a way of making British rule look good in comparison.

It's a classic way of justifying imperialism, where you make colonial atrocities down to having bad people with bad intentions in charge, rather than being backed into the basis injustice of conquering other people's homes.

“Every single empire in its official discourse has said that it is not like all the others, that its circumstances are special, that it has a mission to enlighten, civilize, bring order and democracy, and that it uses force only as a last resort. And, sadder still there always is a chorus of willing intellectuals to say calming words about benign or altruistic empires, as if one shouldn't trust the evidence of one's eyes watching the destruction and the misery and death brought by the latest mission civilizatrice.”

Edward Said, Orientalism

Fanboyism is one of the major problems in AH but as I think was alluded to by Gary, history is problematic because human civilisation is problematic.

I don't have a problem with a TL which is foundationally about a longer lasting polity, but I want it to be both balanced/rooted and have an awareness and treatment of how society, religion, technology, trade etc are impacted.

Quite. My objection is not to alternate history about empires: they are an extremely common method of organising complex societies. It is about alternate history that ignores the fact that injustice is a fundamental part of empire; the tyranny is baked in.

This does not mean that we should engage in the kind of moral relativism that says that the USA is the same as the USSR is the same as the Third Riech is the same as the VOC. But we have to acknowledge that the points of distinction will be lost on the victims, and there are always victims.

Reagan's America may have been more benevolent than Brezhnev's USSR, but that's not the natural viewpoint of someone being thrown out of an Argentinian helicopter.

Moreover, the focus on empire too often just stays at the level of the people running it. Empires mixed things up- how about alternate history that focuses on the border lands between empires? You could do a fantastic alternate history story based entirely around a set of 'regional recipes,' each one showing how a different governing regime has led to changes in the way people lived their lives, the food they ate, the people they fell in love with...


That's actually a major problem with the field, I think. For all we mock Turtledove's sex scenes, he at least understands that history is tactile. I enjoy writing in the Lists of Head of State thread as much as the next poster, but history wasn't just a story of governance- it's about people eating, dancing, laughing, singing, fighting, fucking. @SpanishSpy's swing dance article was so good for that reason: the very way people move is culturally constructed.

Actually, you know what? This post has made me want to see three things:

1. An alternate history told through a set of fashion ads. I have no idea who would be gifted enough to do that, but think of the possibilities...
2. The recipe book idea.
3. Here's one that could be a collaborative project- alternate history told through the program of an arts festival! Everyone writes an abstract, no more than two hundred words describing the dancers or actors or artists and their background, and thus the world is described...
 
Last edited:
The recipe book idea

Alternate Tastes of London - Andrew Brooks and Ekaterina Odnostorntseva

Here's one that could be a collaborative project- alternate history told through the program of an arts program! Everyone writes an abstract, no more than two hundred words describing the dancers or actors or artists and their background, and thus the world is described...

Might be worth resurrecting the collaborative lists thread for that one; I'd need to think of some ideas there but I'd like to chuck something in.
 
That's actually a major problem with the field, I think. For all we mock Turtledove's sex scenes, he at least understands that history is tactile. I enjoy writing in the Lists of Head of State thread as much as the next poster, but history wasn't just a story of governance- it's about people eating, dancing, laughing, singing, fighting, fucking. @SpanishSpy's swing dance article was so good for that reason: the very way people move is culturally constructed.

This has been done in internet AH, but in a mostly bad way. I'm not surprised, I think it's just inevitable Sturgeonism, but it's still interesting.

  1. It ultimately, probably for ease of writing, squanders the effect you mentioned by just falling back into the "Here's a list of stuff" TL writing style. A flat list of different video games/artists/whatever is still just a flat list.
  2. Fanboyism emerges. This obviously doesn't have the baggage of political fanboyism, but it still gets noticed. "Here's something that's different and its awesome! Oh yeah its so awesome!" As myself and my family have actually worked in creative industries, knowing the "process" and knowing all the compromises involved compared to fans who think it can just turn on a dime kind of sours it.
  3. Related to that, a pressure to have one's cake and eat it too. Oh, you'll have the 1970s superhero movies actually be good, and you'll have Alien because that's an awesome movie and it won't be either not made at all or be a forgettable monster film that only a few people know.
I think the narrative trick is to make it both different and relatable to the reader, and that's a very, very tough thing to do.
 
Oh yes, but I'm not talking about pop culture. Even the best timelines in that field tend to degenerate quickly- there's one going on at the other place which is a fascinating mix of really interesting 1980s corporate politics and 'here's another action movie from 1987 with a slightly different cast!'

I just don't get the appeal.


No, I'm thinking of something along the lines of 'Let's imagine a provincial theatre festival in Canada in 1970: how can we build a different world from the descriptions of the different troupes, companies and biographies in the program?'
 
I think fanboyism is a lesser sin - though often annoying - than the Flat List effect. At least you get an idea from the fanboyist view what they'd think is Good. I remember reading an AH.com timeline for different Doctor Whos and it had a side bit about a Ghostbusters TV show, and it didn't sound at all like a show that could actually exist as a mainstream 1980s show, but I did get a writer being very enthusiastic about what he'd want to see in a Ghostbusters TV show and that's more interesting than if it was just a fake episode guide.

(Also, boy, when it comes to the "process", history sure gets tactile, affairs and friendships and vicious bastardry abounds)
 
One of these days I'm going to do my Male Rising rant/review.

But one of the reasons it was such a stunningly influential timeline in online ah circles was it was a story that cared about creating cultures and people eating, dancing, laughing, singing, fighting, fucking .
 
I remember Radu Cosașu writing an AH short story of sorts where Eliade remained in Romania and Mihail Sebastian didn't get run over by a truck and eventually got arrested by the communist authorities (Eliade for being a fash,Sebastian for being close to Lucrețiu Pătrășcanu),Cosașu describing them being released after decades of torture from the perspective of 1965 himself and his friends,with everyone gossiping about the possibility of them meeting again and whether or not things are gonna be tense between them,given how they haven't talked to each other since 1941.

It's a great story-Cosașu is really good at capturing the cultural atmosphere of 1965 Romania that he was a part of,not to mention the complicated friendship between a fash like Eliade and a Jewish democrat like Sebastian,who both would want to argue like they used in their youth and lash out at each other,but can't because they're too tired after years of torture and isolation in prison.

So they just meet out in a cafe,drink,have an awkward talk and leave with both still in a complicated friendship. Because they're too tired and just wanna die on better terms with each other.

It's slightly touching,not gonna lie,though that doesn't make Eliade less of a fash.

Idk,just came in my mind.
 
No, I'm thinking of something along the lines of 'Let's imagine a provincial theatre festival in Canada in 1970: how can we build a different world from the descriptions of the different troupes, companies and biographies in the program?'

Depending on the exact PoD I would be very interested in participating in this. I most definitely could furnish dance AH under the right circumstances.

My big dance WI scenario is what happens to American social dance if the Spanish-American War never happens. So much American partner dance nowadays is Cuban - Mambo, Salsa, Rumba, etc. - and so without that major influence you're left with the African American dances (swing, blues, etc.). My working theory is that Eastern and Central European stuff would fill the void (Mazurka, Polka, etc. - Jazz Waltz music is a thing, so I can see Mazurka transforming into something like Foxtrot).

Likewise, there's the question if the massive promotion of things like square dance as a 'wholesome' (read: white) alternative to the black dances of the day in the 1920s-1930s, and how that affects American dance culture.

More generally I absolutely concur with Liam - much AH, and indeed much historical writing in general, reduces very human things to mere evidence to be used in theses. It renders the whole exercise feeling very sterile. Human beings are more than just pawns to politicians; that's one of the reasons I write my vignettes the way I do. I choose stories based on what makes me react emotionally, and I find it is much more compelling to write - certainly more compelling to read.

It's why I enjoyed writing both the dance article and the Israel article (if writing about that sordid tale of human viciousness can be considered 'enjoyable'): I get to engage with the humanity of the people involved in a way that I couldn't when I was writing academically. I'm certainly proud of the paper I did on municipal response to terrorist radicalization, but it wasn't very human, if you take my meaning. Similarly, in my dance article I rail against how Hollywood rarely portrays these dances with the full humanity that is in them.
 
I think fanboyism is a lesser sin - though often annoying - than the Flat List effect. At least you get an idea from the fanboyist view what they'd think is Good. I remember reading an AH.com timeline for different Doctor Whos and it had a side bit about a Ghostbusters TV show, and it didn't sound at all like a show that could actually exist as a mainstream 1980s show, but I did get a writer being very enthusiastic about what he'd want to see in a Ghostbusters TV show and that's more interesting than if it was just a fake episode guide.

(Also, boy, when it comes to the "process", history sure gets tactile, affairs and friendships and vicious bastardry abounds)

But there was a Ghostbusters TV show. Or rather, "The Ghost Busters" with Forrest Tucker, Larry Storch, and a guy in a gorilla suit (Bob Burns).

When the movie came out, an animated version of that show was rushed out as a quick ripoff, so when they did a animated set of sequels to the movie (better than Ghostbusters II, IMHO) it had to be called "The Real Ghostbusters".
 
No, I'm thinking of something along the lines of 'Let's imagine a provincial theatre festival in Canada in 1970: how can we build a different world from the descriptions of the different troupes, companies and biographies in the program?'
I do remember doing a vignette which explored an Early 20th Century American Civil War using Stuart Davis as the main character, which ended with an abstract for a drawing at the end style...

That being said, it would be fun to do something like that, maybe alternate Kitchen Sink Dramas, if certain writers hadn’t died or whatever.
 
That being said, it would be fun to do something like that, maybe alternate Kitchen Sink Dramas, if certain writers hadn’t died or whatever.

I have to use this to seuge into a sports example (which is pop culture-y but a little similar).

The designated hitter rule is adopted when the American League is formed as an offense-boosting gimmick. When the first World Series is held and the AL/NL agreement is formed, the NL follows suit to synchronize rules. George H. Ruth enters the league as a pitcher, and an excellent pitcher. But, in the opposite of OTL, his hitting atrophies as he focuses more on pitching. He ends up as a member of the Kevin Appier to Tom Zachary spectrum of "Hall of Very Good Pitchers", who might get to Cooperstown on the strength of postseason heroics, a colorful personality popularized, and/or having good raw numbers due to starting in the dead ball era. If so, he probably gets lumped in with the likes of Rube Marquard as one of the weaker Hall of Famers.

Turtledove incidentally did a somewhat similar Babe Ruth WI in The House had George Built. I think it unintentionally shows the kind of narrow vision someone can have (and which Bill James commented on in my favorite essay ever) when Ruth complained about his poor performance in the Baker Bowl. That was a monster hitters park, especially for left-handed ones thanks to its narrow right field. The Phillies would desperately need a good left-handed pitcher to swim against the tide, and Ruth would be good for the job because his strikeout rate at his pitching height was significantly above the league average (meaning there'd be fewer opportunities to have the ball in play at the mercy of the Baker Bowl and the Phillies often-bad fielders). It's like German Marquez now, who has good stats despite being home in another mega-hitter park and on a terrible team.
 
Back
Top