Contrafactual History and Alternative History

Joseph Wurtenbaugh, author of A Prophet Without Honor: A Novel of Alternative History, makes a difference between what he writes and and what most of us go for:

‘A Prophet Without Honor’ is subtitled ‘A Novel of Alternative History’ because there is no better genre description at present. But the book is actually a novel of what might be called ‘contrafactual hisrory’. ‘Alternative history’ is exemplified by Philip Dick’s ‘Man in the High Castle’ and the Harry Turtledove novels. There are strong elements of science fiction and even fantasy in such books. There is little or no attempt to root the plot in the realities of actual history.
‘Contrafactual history’ is developed on far narrower and more realistic premises. Philip Roth’s book ‘The Plot Against America’ is one such, as is Stephen Carter’s ‘The Impeachment of Abraham Lincoln’. Roth’s contrafactual history is intended to show just how strong the isolationist elements were in United States politics before the Second World War. Carter shows off the complexity of post-Civil War politics. Both develop plausible scenarios out of the actual history of the period. Neither could be fairly characterized as science fiction or fantasy.

I apologize for having given such a large amount of quoted matter, but he only put it up on his Facebook page, which I don't think people want to link to. If the Moderators think I have overindulged I will try to do the right thing.

However . . . what do you think of his distinction? Is he making a real case, or merely quibbling? Or is this a case of "Uchronian fiction" or some other renaming?

If anyone likes I will put up my review of A Prophet Without Honor. I liked the book but had some comments about his historical background.
 
I have no problem with the snippet from his facebook page.

It's possible he might be overthinking things. While I haven't read the book as of yet, the underlying premise of "a lost opportunity" strikes me as well inside the wheelhouse of alternate history/alternative history/Uchronia or whatever choice of words we use to describe our genre. I've long heard of our genre being defined as counterfactual, so his use of contrafactual isn't anything new, IMO.

Consider how many posts here on AH use an "epistolary" formats. It might not be as common as a bullet-point format, but I think they are more common than the narrative format. Also, I think that most of the pre and post 1900 timelines strive very hard to be grounded in the idea of "lost opportunity" or as Dreyfus/Turtledove said, "for want of a nail."

But if we step back from the types of Timelines and stories that populate this forum, and look at the top 20 AH books on Amazon and you'll see that at least 6 of the top 20 are apparently fantastical settings or romances with a AH setting.

Now my disclaimer is that my own published story's point of divergence is a quantum leap event, but beyond that handwavium, it's grounded firmly in history, as are most of the published timelines that originate on AH.com.
 
When I wrote A Man and a Plane (Buy it buy it buy it pretty please), I did take two OTL events that had happened when they did, and based what happened to Richthofen to keep him from flying that day on them. (Yes, making the dog that tripped him Snoopy, in effect, was a bit of a joke, but I don't think it damaged the narrative.)

I tried to have things follow logically from that change. There are no SI's, no Sea of Times, no zombies, no vampires, and no Gallatinite gunmen.

This may be why the book isn't selling all that well.
 
The Plot Against America is probably the least realistic piece of AH I've read(I haven't read the Draka); it literally ends with everything going back exactly to how it was, and with a stupid deus ex machina.
 
The Plot Against America is probably the least realistic piece of AH I've read(I haven't read the Draka); it literally ends with everything going back exactly to how it was, and with a stupid deus ex machina.

Among other things. I mean, he had Hitler flying to Iceland to meet with Lindbergh. You know . . . British occupied Iceland? Campaigning by flying around the country in the Spirit of St. Louis? I'm sure the Smithsonian Institution would have something to say about someone, even the original donor, abstracting one of their exhibits.

And so on.
 
There are AH genres already for those that peruse this site and elsewhere. People seem to do it with science fiction too, "hard" SciFi versus "IT'S A COOKBOOK!" etc.

There are plausibility panjandrums, rule of cool hedonists, and people who keep purple bats with monocles and space suits in their living rooms.

If someone wants to waste time insisting that their sweet purity puts them above fun-loving alternate history ruffians, fuuuuuuck them that's fine.
 
I think that how "hard"[1] the alternate history is depends partly on the timeframe. If you are writing AH that takes place within a few years of the POD, then researching the history of what actually happened in OTL is vital if you want at least some plausibility. As you get further and further away from the POD and the history becomes more and more different, the number of different directions that the AH could take becomes astronomical, and information from OTL becomes somewhat less relevant and also less helpful. By the time you get decades or centuries beyond a major POD, you are writing about a very different world from anything that existed in OTL, so it basically becomes an exercise in creative writing.

I'm sure that there are exceptions to this, but I think that it holds true most of the time.

[1] To borrow a term from science fiction.

Edit: Added footnote
 
Last edited:
Wurtenbaugh is wrong. The difference between counterfactual history and alternate history is not a matter of plasubikity but one of discipline. Alternate history covers all narrative work. Counterfactual history is the term used for scholarly works, like Robert Fogel's Railroads and American Economic Growth, that use historical models and sratistics (in Fogel's case econometrics) to come as close as we can to testing a historical hypothesis. The other one I can think of, but can't remember the title, extrapolated the economic trends in the US to if the South hadn't seceded to see why the Confederacy seceded when it did.

Anyone defining the term counterfactual by a plausibility metric has the term wrong and is only using it to try and be pretentious and present their story as being high literature and above the "lesser" genre fiction. Just look at the Fogel example above. It's one of the seminal counterfactual works and it's scenario is "what if railroads never existed?"
 
Review of A Prophet Without Honor
DOWNFALL
Review by Joseph T Major of
A PROPHET WITHOUT HONOR:
A Novel of Alternative History
by Joseph Wurtenbaugh
(2017; Amazon Digital Services; $7.99)

YouTube editors of various types have had a great success in distributing what is called “Hitler Rants”, adding different humorous subtitles to a particular movie scene. The movie Downfall [Der Untergang] (2004) has a scene where Hitler (Bruno Ganz) is informed that SS General Steiner’s army will be unable to relieve Berlin. Hitler’s response to this news is to launch into a epic tantrum, throwing things, cursing his subordinates, and screaming that he had been betrayed.

This was not the first time he had done so.

The book is a collection of messages and selections from (entirely fictional) memoirs and histories. One can tell that there is a big difference on the second page, where there is a quote from My Name Is Ike — Reflections on Fifty Years of Service as Soldier and Statesman (1986) by Senator Dwight D. Eisenhower. Not to mention the aggressively pro-Hitler memoir of one Harald Quandt (Magda Goebbels’s son by her first marriage). But the principal focus of the narrative is a diary kept by a young Bavarian Adelmann named Karl von Haydenreich.

The young life of von Haydenreich was particularly tragic. His mother died when he was an infant. His uncle was killed in the trenches. And his father (who was hated by his grandfather for the temerity of having dared to restore the family’s finances) also died young. Not to mention his stepmother, who was, horror of horrors, Jewish.

Once he became able to get around, von Haydenreich did something that sounds incredibly out of context and of class; he became an ardent Nazi, at the age of twelve. Just in time to see the Beer Hall Putsch, and see Hitler fleeing.

His subsequent life was exotic; going to an English boarding school, somehow coming out not homosexual, meeting a young British activist of a rather outré political attitude — no not Communist, Imperialist! — and developing his musical talent.

Then he had to go back home. He had connections, and managed to get into the Reichswehr. Much to Robert Heinlein’s disappointment, von Haydenreich describes his career in the ranks as an officer candidate. (I refer, of course, to the claim in Starship Troopers (1959; NHOL G.149) that uniquely for a military “every [officer] candidate must be a trained trooper, blooded under fire, a veteran of combat drops”. Unless there will be a constant state of war, the Mobile Infantry is going to run out of officers and have to lower its standards.)

Meanwhile, Germany continues its slow downfall. Hitler gets into power. By some ill omen, von Haydenreich gets to see the arrest of Ernst Röhm and his commanders, and is torn between disgust for their personal lives and disgust at the illegality of their trials.

He has been approached by the former chief of the Truppenamt, Generaloberst Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord. The general is getting information on the Führer’s military buildup and things some other people would be interested to know. As it happens, von Haydenreich has a potentially helpful foreign contact.

It seems that Major Eisenhower had met von Haydenreich’s father, and having a mind to the shortness of life and abruptness of death, Vati asked the friendly Ami to be his son Kurt’s godfather, overseeing his estate. (His own father and inlaws weren’t the most suited.) Ike has done this well, and continued an interest in the young man.

But he fell afoul of Douglas MacArthur during the Bonus Army march, and with little enough hope for an army career, got himself posted as US Army Military Attaché to Berlin. This enables him to meet Kurt every now and then — and pass on information. (The SIS officer in the British Embassy seems a little torpid; C [Sir Hugh “Quex” Sinclair] was probably Not Happy at this.)

Meanwhile the German military preparation begins. Part of this is the Reoccupation of the Rhineland — the Germans had been forbidden to station troops in the areas west of the Rhine river or fifty kilometers to the east of it. This was not to be endured.

But the reoccupation force was a joke. It was mostly police, and soldiers without heavy arms. And they had orders to withdraw if they met any resistance.

This is one of the things that gets passed on to the British. Here we have relevant comments from the memoirs of higher officials; those of Stanley Baldwin and of various French officials — along with A. A. Milne, who was a member of something called the Peace Ballot, utterly opposed to any sort of aggressive moves. Oh Pooh.

The British can back it up. But the French have to send in the troops. And with many trepidations and outright dislikes on both sides they send in a armored column under the command of France’s armored expert — yes, Charles de Gaulle.

Sure enough, the Germans withdraw. Except the Führer vacillates, and one German officer is wounded. In the spirit of conciliation de Gaulle has the man tended to. This causes problems.

Pause for a Hitler Rant.

Fortunately the Gestapo is not asleep and quickly pins the leak on von Haydenreich, who is brought down for some aggresive questioning. But the Gestapo is so focused on this that they don’t even seem to notice that von Hammerstein-Equord is mobilizing for a coup.

And it happens, with a dramatic ending — too late for von Haydenreich. Though his comment to Heydrich is particularly wounding.

There are a lot of editing errors in this. For example, von Hammerstein-Equord and his unwilling collaborator the Reichswehrminister Werner von Blomberg (the „Rubberlöwe” [“Rubber Lion”]) were not Generalmajor, they were Generaloberst. Karl von Haydenrich’s stepmother was from a German-Jewish family (actually it’s even more complicated that that, and how they didn’t know is a wonder) and would be unlikely to speak Yiddish. Worst of all, Hitler’s first name is given throughout the book as “Adolph”. Nein! Nein! Nein! „Adolf”!


There were so many times when Hitler could have been stopped, so many times when the world could have been changed for the better, that we have the proof that Leibnitz was wrong, that the hideous misfortunes that Dr. Pangloss endures, cheerfully burbling all the while that “this is the best of all possible worlds”, are more realistic, and could be better.
 
Top