18th/19th century. Monarchy triumphs over republic.

Hmm, now this makes my story seem a bit clumsy, as I introduce my ATL, briefly describing the world in a prologue. Just about the empires keeping the peace and that, perhaps I can weave it in somehow, don't know I'll think on it. Interesting read though.
 
Well, it's not that I wouldn't enjoy doing it, I actually love creating all the little details and so-on, but explaining why another planet looks like 1950s England or America would take some doing.

Fair enough!

And the story just... doesn't want to be there if you understand what I mean. I often feel that I'm not writing the story, it's arriving in my head and I'm just the secretary as it were. It's like the character that started all this in the first place. She just was there. I knew she was a dutches, and I also knew she was an American native... that is she lived in North America all her life. Changing the story from what it wants to be never works, at least for me. Yes the world I've created is quite right-wing. There are some parallels with Nazi Germany, with an entertainment industry very much under the influence of the government. It keeps the masses occupied, and dispenses government propaganda. Children who have an anti-authority attitude get sent to re-education camps or even mental hospitals. At the same time everyone can vote, and things like homosexuality are legal. So you could say it's half utopia, and half dystopia. Most people are reasonably happy, so long as they leave the government alone, the government leaves them alone. But kick up a fuss about something like... MPs expenses, and you'll be on a police watch list, and maybe in a police cell. But your comments have given me more confidence in my decision. I think the less detail I indulge in in terms of the history, the less people can pick fault heh. In terms of who doing what and where though, I wonder if sometimes we're not too quick to say so-and-so couldn't have done, or wouldn't have done... whatever. I mean take Churchill before the war. If something had happened, i.e he'd died in that accident in New York, and someone then suggested he would have been a great war leader, the alternate history buffs in that TL would probably have not believed it based on his past record. But still, I've come to the conclusion that safe is better than sorry. Thanks for the link, I shall read it with great interest. I like what you said about the cauldron of revolution. You could say history in this timeline is somewhat repeating itself? Also the buffer state idea I like. I will portray Seskachewan, which in this world encompasses our alberta and possibly some other neighbouring teratories I need a map, a tactile one as I can't see heh, as a bit like Switzerland, that is traditionally neutral, but possessing a strong defence force and intelligence service. Part of the story revolves around a burgening revolutionary movement in North America, that some in Seskachewan want to support, and others don't. The Grand Duke has a lot of power, the power to veto bills and so-on, so who sits on the throne is important. It's a major plot element in the story, or will be, so that's why the country has to exist.

Going without too many details is definitely a good idea; if you try to reveal too much of the story's background, throwing in exposition all over the place, it'll be difficult to make it sound like believable dialogue or thought. Two people in-universe who both know how the history of their world went are unlikely to spontaneously burst into discussion about the history of the world since 1776, or some such like—so I reckon it's a good idea to reveal few enough details of the history to be able to throw them in on occasion without sounding too clumsy. (e.g. Some town that the characters visit at some point might have a memorial from the X War, or something like that.)

I'm inclined to think that such a world would be darker than that; I can understand a gradual introduction of greater democracy during the 19th and early 20th century, more and more people being able to vote, but I'd think that a WW2-esque titanic ideological struggle against modernist leftist ideologies would lead to very reactionary attitudes on things like music, art, counterculture, feminism and homosexuality (i.e. conceptual art, counterculture and discordant music strangled in the cradle, women and homosexuals still viewed in a 1950s-esque way). I daresay such modern perspectives would be as unthinkingly condemned by mainstream society as people unthinkingly condemn anything that sounds like eugenics IOTL: "Do you realise what you're saying? You sound like a [insert-pejorative-for-WW2-enemy-here]!"

I must say, though, that I really like this idea for a story and I would definitely read it. When is it likely to be up?

Hmm, now this makes my story seem a bit clumsy, as I introduce my ATL, briefly describing the world in a prologue. Just about the empires keeping the peace and that, perhaps I can weave it in somehow, don't know I'll think on it. Interesting read though.

Maybe a scenic prologue, rather than just straight exposition (too much exposition has often been the biggest flaw of my writing!). Say, some guy getting arrested by the police for circulating illegal pamphlets; and you can take a look at what the pamphlets say (what parts of the government are they criticising? That can reveal what sort of thing the government does. Do they compare people they dislike to some nasty historical figure? Do they protest against particular aspects of the society, like state influence in the press? Do they, say, protest their government being "so dependent on New York merchants he does whatever the Emperor-King tells him to"? All these things can reveal parts of your world) and the conversation they have with the officers arresting them (probably with plenty of insults), being sent to a penal colony or some prison in horrific conditions (the "hang 'em" croud sounds likely to be very strong in this TL). You can use all this stuff to establish much of the background for your world as well as establishing some of your characters—though it'll have to be tied in to the rest of the story somehow, like one of the police officers, or indeed the journalist, who will be involved later in the novel. Alternatively, if you want to spin it differently, you could have an actual anti-government radical be the one arrested. And of course it doesn't have to be someone being arrested; it could be all sorts of things, as long as it avoids being a lecture.
 
A world with no conceptual art, no discordant music and no feminism? Oh happy, happy land! heheheh only kidding. I don't care for either of the first two, and while I fully respect the right of women to equality, some feminists seriously get on my whick, just as sexists do. It's like with human rights, it seems that some always want to push the boundaries. From recent newspaper articles it would appear that simply asking a woman how she is in the street counts as sexual harassment. I do though respect everyone's right to their opinion of course. But yes I would agree with that analysis, in terms of homosexuality I imagined it as being legal as the government didn't really care either way. Perhaps there could be a situation where you could get away with it in private, but publishing literature about it, being open about it could get you into trouble. As to women, yes they likely wouldn't have the same kind of equality they have in OTL. I think they could still find their way, in small numbers, over the 30 years since the war, into jobs usually occupied by men. Women did a lot of valuable work in the war, I believe that's why in England they got the vote after world war I. In my world, I think the monarchies could not have won the war against the communists without letting women work, and while they might not be encouraged to work afterwards, they would I think still be allowed to, even if there sure would be a lot of glass ceilings. One of the main characters in the story is actually a female Doctor so this is pretty important heh. Well, quite early on in the story I have mention of a government programme subjecting criminals to experiments to wipe their minds, to re-educate them from scratch, also a very under-funded child care system, in which children are given up to anyone who can prove they have the money to look after them, no CBR checks or anything like that.
Since I'm planning to set at least one chapter in a mental institution, I'm considering the idea of a minor character who has inexplicably passed from our world to this one, being admitted to hospital for something, they are then certified as insane because they talk about people and places that don't exist. I.e someone who comes from Washington DC in our world, and of course in this one the place doesn't exist. Then someone who is into history says; "Washington, I'm sure I've heard that name somewhere," and then they get this book about the French and Indian war, telling of his death at Monongahela. I also have references to paintings by Hitler, who was killed fighting in the great world war as an ordinary soldier, and who's paintings have now become a sort of art cult and so very valuable. Happens sometimes doesn't it, obscure chap in his own lifetime sees his doodlings become really admired by those into that sort of thing. I wonder just what kind of music would be popular in this world. I mean a huge amount of music in our world, jazz, rock and role and so-on have come from American, and particularly black American roots. Without a USA, would this have happened I wonder. I've imagined most people as wearing more conservative clothes, though I have said that jeans do exist, that may have to be rethought heh. As to when the story will be up, what with the editing I may have to do now, and the finishing off of it, I really have no idea ha ha.
 
By "no feminism" I don't mean merely a lack of Tumblr-style feminism, I mean "women would be expected to be good mothers and wives and that's it".

IOTL the modern west defined itself by a victorious war against the menace of the extreme political right; many things about the modern west (ideals of the march of progress, staunch opposition to racism and discrimination) come from that essential victory of the left. In your TL, the modern developed world defines itself by a victorious war against the menace of the extreme political left. There will be a corresponding reactionary shift, just as there was in OTL Britain with the American and French revolutions, associating domestic left-wing movements with treachery to the nation and firmly discrediting them—just as fascism was discredited IOTL. It would be very religious (there was enough of a pro-religious backlash IOTL from mere Cold-War opposition to communism—if we'd fought atheists in the Second World War, if the enemy demonised as the utterly evil enemy of all modern society had been atheistic, it would be OTL's anti-secular backlash multiplied by ten) and very reactionary on social issues.

I don't mean that this is a world which would suit OTL's Conservative Party; I mean that this is a world which would make OTL's Conservative Party look like left-wing radicals and even UKIP look pretty left-wing (so far as I know, even UKIP believes in universal suffrage).

For the same reason, I'm inclined to be much less optimistic than you about the role of women and government position towards homosexuality. This is an ideological war fought against the ideological forces of equality, secularism and progress (communism might be a pretty awful regime to live under but it is, unquestionably, on the far left). Even in OTL's Second World War, where the Allies were clearly the side of the left and their evil much-demonised enemy the side of the right, there was still resistance, even in the war, to making the society of Allied nations more equal; if the victorious powers are the side of the right and the demonised enemy the side of the left, any move towards equality can very easily be painted as just like [insert name of enemy ideology here].

IOTL, if something is viewed as too right-wing or too racist or too discriminatory, "Nazi" is the ultimate insult, and it is a powerful one; it's prevented more-or-less any form of eugenics from arising again in several decades, in spite of the fact that eugenics was widely predicted to be the future before the Second World War changed all that. ITTL, if something is viewed as too left-wing or too progressive or too pro-equality, there will be a similarly powerful force to oppose all of that.

I'm inclined to think that in this world there would be a knee-jerk ideological hostile rejection against anything that sounds too progressive or pro-equality. I know that sounds really alien to an OTL audience—in OTL things that sound too racist, elitist or discriminatory suffer that sort of knee-jerk ideological hostile reaction—but I honestly think it will be there. It was there in Europe after the French Revolution for the same reason.

Ultimately, though, it is your world, and you can do with it as you see fit. All I'm saying is that I think your story's difference from OTL—not just in "how far along" in terms of some idealised march of progress, but in regard to what it would view as good and moral in the first place, and whether it would like the idea of progress at all—is much greater than it seems to be.
 
But by that argument, wouldn't our world be ultra-left wing, ultra communist because we fought the right? We fought an extreme right-wing group during the war, and yes Nazi is the ultimate insult here though it's much over-used. And though now yes most of us have a dislike of anything *too* right wing, there nevertheless still is a right wing. Surely then in this world, there would still be a left wing. Yes I think things that sounded *too* progressive would be viewed with suspition, but having some progression would, in a modern world be the only way for any regime ultimately to survive. As to universal suffrage, we had it after world war I, I think for women it was older than men, but all men and women could vote at some time in their lives. While the establishment might want to control just who the public could choose to vote for, much as I think they do in this world, I would have thought taking it away again would have been a real recipe for disaster. Even the nazis so far as I know let everyone vote, even if you could only vote for one party. Yes I think this world's view of the ideal woman would as you say be a good wife and mother. But what you're describing sounds like a Christian theocracy. As I say by this argument, so far as I can read it, our world should be some kind of leftist rule, where all religion is discouraged, and the mere suggestion that a woman should stay at home would get you shot... figuratively speaking. After we fought the Nazis yes the progression to less racist, less religious societies in the west did speed up, but it took us another 20 years or so for instance to legalise homosexuality. But this is a world where a group of constitutional monarchies beat an aggressive communist Russia, and maybe France and Italy and others. Now in our war with the extreme right wing Nazis, the conservative party were never branded as a Nazi fifth column, why should anything similar happen to the labour party in my world? Well perhaps this is a little more likely given that in the 30s a lot of labour politicians were perhaps border-line communists. But the empires want to unite society, to keep a lasting and stable peace. You can't do that by demonising and crushing about half the population, which it seems to me a world such as you're suggesting would do. Since as I say fighting Nazism didn't make us all rabid leftists, I don't see why fighting communism should make the people of my world rabid rightests. I don't know if I'm getting you wrong somewhere here. But it seems that by your argument in our TL we should have overthrown our monarchy, destroyed all the churches, instituted immediate equal pay, legalized homosexuality and abortion, nationalised all property and goodness knows what else. In our society we generally lean these days a little more to the left. In this world it seems to me, people would just lean a little more to the right. I know you haven't actually said the half of this, it just seems to be what you're implying. And the Nazis were atheists, they wanted to replace God with Hitler. But they didn't do any of the things they did in the name of their lack of religion if you know what I mean, they did them in the belief in the superiority of the German race. After the French revolution, there was some reaction against reform, but for instance when the French Monarchy was put back, they had to accept certain conditions, such as keeping the tricolour and the code Napoleon and the Marseiles sorry I can't spell it. And Charles X's attempt to restore the absolute monarchy resulted in his being forced to flee. I suppose the argument I'm making here is that extremes of anything never work to build a stable society, unless of course you've a holy book to back them up. My own thought is that the ruling party in this world would look something like UKIP. And a lot of crap is spouted about them too by those on the left who can see the writing on the wall. And a party like the Greens would likely be in the same position in my TL as UKIP is in ours. So I think you'd have a UKIP-like party, a party like our conservatives occupying the middle ground, and a party like the lib-dems in labour's position, with actual labour and the greens right out on the frindges. In fact call labour UKIP and the greens the BNP. There's nastiness in all governments, even the so-called land of the free, that liberated the world from Nazi oppression still stooped to perform medical experiments on the citizens of other countries and even its own.
 
I wouldn't say we really are, since we're still discussing my TL, even if in a roundabout way, and since we're the only two folk talking on the thread it doesn't seem to matter to me, but that's fine I don't mind, guess it has spiralled into something it wasn't intended to be.
 
Top