Alternate History and the Three-Quarter Cross

Herein Lies a Proposal for Alternate Applications of the So-Named Butterfly Effect in Depicting Post-Point-of-Divergence Historical Figures, Drawing in Perspective from Studies of the Biological Sciences.

Part 1: Name your terms.


by Matt Perry

I first heard about the butterfly effect watching Jurassic Park. It did not, however, give an explanation that was sufficient to instruct a nine year old in the complexities of the concept, even after a fifth theater viewing. Although I gradually gained hints as to the term's significance by the usual cultural osmosis, it was only the discovery of this site's predecessor in 2003 that truly acquainted me with it. As I've gone through three complete cycles of contribution followed by lurking, I've watched the concept's use by board members mature and develop. Simultaneously, my own understanding of the term has changed dramatically. I want to introduce a concept I've had for some time in using "short-term" butterflies: The Three-Quarter Cross.

A note on background ought to precede things. The butterfly effect is a mathematical concept (specifically relating to statistics) that assumes some systems are "chaotic." A chaotic system is one for which exact outcomes can not, by their nature, be predicted. The hypothesis states that an action taking place in a chaotic system will affect the outcome. Not that it will make impossible outcomes possible (rolling a 7 on a die), but it will affect it. A literal interpretation of the butterfly effect would then become utterly impractical for alternate histories. The outcome of every minor weather pattern, game of chance, stock market, and sex act would have to be revised.

You'll note above that I use the word hypothesis to describe the butterfly effect. As a tendency that can only be proved or disproved mathematically, the BE is, scientifically speaking, no more testable than the existence of a deity. While it certainly makes a degree of sense, in the end, there are valid reasons for compromising with its statements.

And that is just what we do. The actual butterfly effect as it is officially defined is almost entirely rejected by the members of this board, including some who seem to believe that they are scrupulously abiding by it. This is okay. As mentioned above, it would be impractical to apply universally. Instead we apply alternate definitions particular to this forum or simply constrain its use in the interests of narrative practicality. Both tropes are largely justifiable, and I do not condemn them, but we would be well served by their analysis.

The term butterfly effect can indicate (on this forum) [1] all consequences following from the original Point of Divergence, [2] a justification for multiple PoD's, or [3] a convenient magic wand to excuse unlikely turns of events. The first are generally accepted, while the third is typically ignored or derided.
 
Last edited:
Herein Lies a Proposal for Alternate Applications of the So-Named Butterfly Effect in Depicting Post-Point-of-Divergence Historical Figures, Drawing in Perspective from Studies of the Biological Sciences.

Part 2: What we do, and why.


by Matt Perry

[1] In the first case, each consequence is explicitly traced to the PoD, with only minor changes far along the timeline being provided without specific justification. An example of the latter would be the introduction of characters whose rise from obscurity is due to their alternate circumstances. This definition is a respectable one and if the author had sufficient information this method alone would be sufficient every time.

But the author never does. Ignoring the "real" butterflies resulting from a minor even in 1775 may have negligible effects on the first 5 years of a timeline. The trouble is that altered circumstances compound, and the more time passes since the change is made, the greater the resulting divergence will become. By 1875 little beyond climate and rough demographics could be counted on. Worse, the divergence will take place in ways and areas that are rarely predictable. Of course weather and compulsive gamblers are not the area where this causes trouble, but other areas of human.... er.... relations.

Our authors (generally speaking) accept that at a certain point they must halt the use of historical figures, no matter how narratively valuable they might be. The same people just won't be conceived, even if you can keep their parents together.

We handle this differently. Some choose to wait until direct consequences of the divergence reach a particular region before dropping historical characters. Colloquially, this is referred to as the "butterfly net." Whether robertp6165 has Hideyoshi invading Korea 2200 years after his timeline's start, or when Jared has de Houtman discover southwest Australia perhaps a 100,000 years after the fact, that's a butterfly net in action. Now it's simply wrong so far as the original mathematical concept is concerned, but a net does save author's massive amounts of time on century-spanning timelines. More than most YMMV on this one. I myself sport quite indefensible bias on the subject, unable to accept Hideyoshi yet thoroughly approving the LoRaG.

Yet others limit their writings to brief periods after the Point of Divergence. I'd always ruled this one straight out, especially for pre-modern timelines, but the last several years have produced a good number of timelines to demonstrate the potential of the medium. Faeelin's Prince of Peace and EdT's recent works all take place within the lifetime of a child born at the PoD, yet are fantastic reads.

No matter the method used, at a certain point it becomes entirely necessary to deal with what I call resource death. Our TL provides use with a vast resource in a cast of pre-detailed characters. These characters are especially valuable in their unique and often improbable personalities. In progressing past them we inevitably find ourselves trying to create from scratch a population to fill our new worlds. This is, baldly speaking, an impossible task. No matter how much we seek to flesh out such a world, we will always fall maddeningly short of the fascinating improbability of our own timeline. Ironically, even though we tend to create more plausible characters than did history itself, the characters we do create are more susceptible to criticism for their character traits.

Resource death is fought by a variety of means. I happen to have a new one.
 
This is quite interesting... especially saying that I have just realised my timeline only has about twenty/thirty years before "resource death" in my TL.
 
Herein Lies a Proposal for Alternate Applications of the So-Named Butterfly Effect in Depicting Post-Point-of-Divergence Historical Figures, Drawing in Perspective from Studies of the Biological Sciences.

Part 3: Multiple Points of Divergence.


by Matt Perry

[2] Multiple Points of Divergence are a sticky point for some members. Speaking as someone who's taught Statistics, there's a strong argument for accepting any number of PoD's, so long as they are unrelated and each one is individually plausible.

Our own Grey Wolf has made this argument in ages past. You have to remember that there is nothing sacred about the OTL turn of events. In dealing with random events ("these historical figures had a 1/3 chance of dying in WWI, 1/3 chance of lasting injury, etc.") each possible outcome is equally likely. This is occasionally brought up with much less justification in discussions of post-PoD births: Yes, two parents can produce on the order of a million different genetic individuals, essentially at random. But each of those children has the same probability of occurring. This is a bit flimsy as a way of using a child from OTL, but there is a point (if not a terribly good one).

When events involve an element of randomness, as they generally do, this can be used to support multiple divergences. Each Potential Point of Divergence (PPoD) can be treated as an effective roll of the dice. Assuming that unlikely events after the first PoD are inevitable unless clear effects from the PoD alter them is to ignore that they are still unlikely events. Example: One roll "loses," then two hundred rolls "win." Each of those events is inherently random. In imagining an alternate history of the rolls, it might be pleasant to imagine that "one" roll turning out differently and all the rest following the same regardless, but just how likely would it be?

Not a huge insight, perhaps. But it does seem a good moment to come to the defense of the sometimes-beleaguered multiple PoD.
 
Herein Lies a Proposal for Alternate Applications of the So-Named Butterfly Effect in Depicting Post-Point-of-Divergence Historical Figures, Drawing in Perspective from Studies of the Biological Sciences.

Part 4: Mothra vs. The Determinists.


by Matt Perry

[3] We the People of Alternate History are beset by extremists. Just as in any other form of politics, each extreme habitually justifies itself as a reaction to its opposite. Where the Communist and Nazi parties thrived in 1930s Germany (*cough*Godwin*cough*) through a symbiotic relationship that depended on the excesses of their opponents, so here do we have our own street battles:

The older and more common refrain is that of the forumite become sick of the excesses of deterministic alternate history. And in the most popular works of published alternate history it is a legitimate complaint. Both TL-191 and the Drakaverse, after splitting from OTL in 1862 and 1779 portray *Nazi parties rising at same time and behaving in the same way, regardless of their altered circumstances.

It's worth taking a moment to identify the difference (to the extent there is one) between Determinism and the Butterfly Net. The former is present when butterflies are not just limited, but ignored outright. Stirling, for example, is on record as saying that he feels the BE strongly overdone (see Mothra, below), and in fact is skeptical of its very existence. A Butterfly Net, by contrast, is usually limited to specific regions, or to the entire universe excepting specific regions. Note that there is a very real grey area here, where the usually-accepted butterfly "flaws" of Ancient Egypt Survives to the Present Day and Lands of Red and Gold bleed into the usually mocked butterfly flaws of TL-191 or Stirling's Sky People/In the Courts of the Crimson Kings.

The group is not limited solely to published authors of course. It can be found quite frequently among us with those who argue that the CSA or Ottoman Empire could only collapse because they were historically torn apart. Or those that opine the same two would never reform because so many reforms took place after they were destroyed. This faction has genuine complaints, and will do so eternally, as the forum will always have a new batch of neophytes to ask questions like "If the Nazis had had lighter color uniforms, could Sealion have succeeded?"

Fortunately, the forum has, by the slow process of years, largely made up its mind. Individuals can and do disagree in where to draw the line. The consensus can be vague or vary over time. But ultimately discussions tend to boil down to two points:

In timelines, Determinism is to be rooted out wherever it is clearly present.

In narratives, Determinism can be essential to the quality of a written work.

Given that we indulge in a mix of timeline and narrative, some dispute on this is probably inevitable, regardless of the consensus.

Especially as many naturally go far beyond the consensus opinion, and among these are a minority who use the Butterfly Effect to argue the opposite extreme. This is the "group" (little links them) who see nothing questionable about a Lithuanian Empire spanning Italy, Peru, and Japan, or who ask innocently about how Sealion "almost happened." From this perspective of history nearly anything is possible. Where Determinists are more common among the jaded elders of the forum, this group has more.... "temporally impaired" group contributors. This is the movement of the all powerful butterfly. Or, as I prefer it, this is Mothra.

The term does a fair job of capturing the hybrid of Alien Space Bats and Butterflies that inevitably comes from taking the latter to extremes.

Having waxed poetic about the more extreme end of the spectrum, I want to repeat that the majority of posters fall into neither camp. These viewpoints are so frequently discussed not because they dominate, but because they endure. By focusing on the ridiculous and absurd, we risk exacerbating the opposite problems. In fact, neither the Determinists nor Mothra is anywhere near as much a problem as their open and occasionally virulent conflict, which lowers the tone of site discourse. In cogently discussing alternate history, we are best served by ignoring the extremes in favor of the viewpoints actually expressed by individual forumites.

It may be too much to hope for civility on the internet, but this site is already a little on the reasonable side (opposite, say, YouTube comments). Uhm. Good job?

Up next: I actually get to the point!

Cliffhanger: Or do I!?!
 

Sachyriel

Banned
So you're discussing the boards use of the butterfly effect in the wrong forum I think, maybe it should be moved unless your point actually has some alternate history after 1900 in it?
 
This is quite interesting... especially saying that I have just realised my timeline only has about twenty/thirty years before "resource death" in my TL.

It's an idea that I've come to gradually, but value more the greater my knowledge of OTL history becomes. It's hard to compete with the creative power of a world - and that's essentially what we do when we try to write characters from scratch.

So you're discussing the boards use of the butterfly effect in the wrong forum I think, maybe it should be moved unless your point actually has some alternate history after 1900 in it?

That's possible, although I put a lot of thought into forum location, and this seemed hand's down the most logical and useful. The only other places that would make sense to my mind would be the Alternate History Writer's Forum and the Chat Forums. The latter are explicitly intended to for non-AH, and this most definitely is about AH. As for the AHWF, if a moderator insists on moving it, I'd humbly accept, but I chose not to put it there for a reason. For the most part, its readership will also be those who have little or no use for reading this. I don't mean this as a matter solely for the writers of timelines and stories, but for board members in general. We all write, read, and/or comment on timelines.

Finally, my suggestion will be most applicable to relatively short-run timelines, which is why I chose post-1900 in particular.
 
Last edited:

Sachyriel

Banned
It's an idea that I've come to gradually, but value more the greater my knowledge of OTL history becomes. It's hard to compete with the creative power of a world - and that's essentially what we do when we try to write characters from scratch.



That's possible, although I put a lot of thought into forum location, and this seemed hand's down the most logical and useful. The only other places that would make sense to my mind would be the Alternate History Writer's Forum and the Chat Forum's. The latter are explicitly intended to for non-AH, and this most definitely is about AH. As for the AHWF, if a moderator insists on moving it, I'd humbly accept, but I chose not to put it there for a reason. For the most part, its readership will also be those who have little or no use for reading this. I don't mean this as a matter solely for the writers of timelines and stories, but for board members in general. We all write, read, and comment on timelines.

Finally, my suggestion will be most applicable to relatively short-run timelines, which is why I chose post-1900 in particular.

I feel it would have gone in NPC, and while most NPC is off-topic it's probably best that this goes there because this is a meta-topic, which is like off-topic but in a different way.
 
Top