Fallacies of alternate history
- Thread starter Akiyama
- Start date
That border isn't as implausble as it looks... it's a geographic line I believe, so something roughly similar is quite possible.
But the point is that it doesn't. It doesn't follow any river or mountain range. It would make a whole lot more sense to go along the Ural River and then the Irtish River, and it did, historically, since 1800. But in the middle of that century they decided to create a new province (gubernia) with the capital of Uralsk. If they had subdivided the lands even slightly differently, the border would also be different.
Added: On the other hand, of course, is the fact that it's often impossible to divide territories by rivers, because... cities usually stand on rivers, and cities can sprawl on both sides... The scenarios that annoyed me was post ww1 where Poland gets the East bank of the Oder, while Germany keeps the West bank. WTF happens to Breslau then?
Last edited:
What about China being conquered by Japan? Its happened enough to become a cliche.
And of course, there's CSA victories and Nazi victories, which I won't discuss.
And of course, there's CSA victories and Nazi victories, which I won't discuss.
I would agree with this conditionally. I would suggest that, for most of human history, nations/kingdoms/whatever have been seperated from each other enough that the danger of cross-contamination is minimal. For instance, I can't really see how the internal developments of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica could have much of an impact on events in Europe before contact was made. Likewise, it's hard to see how events in Tang China would be affected by no Muslim invasion of Spain. Eventually, of course, the changes would ripple out to affect those distant places, but you'd still have a grace period of a few hundred years or so. However, it goes without saying that this grace period would get shorter as communications and transport technology improves.
Glen
Moderator
This is definitely a syndrome, though don't know if it is a 'fallacy' as I don't think anyone REALLY believes that is what the borders would be, just that they get lazy as stated.
Glen
Moderator
Post Civil War? I think it is a very strong likelihood, though.
Pre Columbian may be a different story....
Glen
Moderator
And also a fundamentalist approach tends to make things incredibly boring because you rapidly run out of OTL figures that the reader will recognise; anyone born after the POD is different...
Unless you're Jared and can flesh out the ATL until it seems more real than OTL, that is
Couple things -
1) You can get a good 60 years after a POD out of OTL figures.
2) Probably can get about 80 years out of OTL 'siblings' born to the same parents, maybe even with the same names, though with some different traits.
3) There are always families with tendencies and traditions that mean that you can see prominent members with at least familiar last names popping up for generations after a POD.
4) You SHOULD be developing non-OTL characters in the latter part of the OTL window for a seamless transition to non-OTL characters who keep the continuity AND the butterflies.
5) Don't forget that your SOCIETIES are also 'characters'. They are often the 'OTL figures' that we recognize and continue to follow through the centuries of alternity.
6) All good fiction is also good AH. What else is a fictional character but someone not born in OTL? So write good characters!
Agree. But to me this is quite contradictive to the "elastic history fallacy" of yours. If I understand you right, you find it quite plausible that big changes have little effect and opposite. But then I do not understand why you think that changes somwhere MUST imply changes elsewere
You are right that these two are contradictory. However, alternate histories usually assume not a single change, but a long series of changes, which are bound to have an effect on the rest of the world.
Personally, I am a "butterfly fundamentalist"; I think any change anywhere would have effects on people's lives all over the world within months due the butterfly effect, although these changes would at first be trivial enough not to be worth mentioning in a timeline.
I accept that the broad pattern of history could remain the same even with butterflies changing all the details: what I particularly object to is history being the same in detail. For example, for a timeline with a POD in 1950s China, I would have no problem with a Muslim terrorist organisation attacking the USA in 2001, but if Al Qaeda attacks the World Trade Centre by flying aeroplanes into it on September 11th 2001 then I can't take that timeline seriously.
Darkest
Banned
I too am a butterfly fundamentalist... in fact I take that as a doctrine, even in my medieval timelines. What I've discovered is that it becomes a quagmire of thought and research when you take this approach.
So, I've moved on into butterfly moderatism. Here's my code:
1) Only things directly effected by the POD are changed. However, those things can be changed, and later make further changes. Eventually, there are going to be ripples everywhere.
2) Butterflies can happen but only[/i] in a 'risky event'... an event that could have easily gone the other way... these include quite a few American Presidential Elections, as well as more classic examples such as 'General Order Number 191'. These can gather pretty quickly when writing a timeline, and so ripples quickly spread.
Otherwise, assume things are happening differently, but not different enough to be mentioned... otherwise you'll drive yourself MAD.
So, I've moved on into butterfly moderatism. Here's my code:
1) Only things directly effected by the POD are changed. However, those things can be changed, and later make further changes. Eventually, there are going to be ripples everywhere.
2) Butterflies can happen but only[/i] in a 'risky event'... an event that could have easily gone the other way... these include quite a few American Presidential Elections, as well as more classic examples such as 'General Order Number 191'. These can gather pretty quickly when writing a timeline, and so ripples quickly spread.
Otherwise, assume things are happening differently, but not different enough to be mentioned... otherwise you'll drive yourself MAD.
i meant that while they may still settle the colonies etc, it wasn't a given that they would be able to dominate the seas (and therefore the world). looking back, we can say that they were the best positioned etc, but hindsight is 20-20, and it wouldnt have seemed so inevitable at the time.
indeed if you said to an average educated european in 1492 that england would dominate the world in little more than 300 years, theyd have thought you were taking crazy pills. english history is only given the importance it is because they went on to become preeminent - at the time for most europeans, england and the british isles were provincial backwaters, far from the places where important things happened.
Flocculencio
Donor
I tend to be very liberal when it comes to butterflies. I'm willing to accept moderate implausibilities if it adds to the overall quality of the TL.
Flocculencio
Donor
Although I admit you do have to be careful otherwise you end up like some of Turtledove's worse stuff
Oddball
Monthly Donor
Well then Im probably a "butterfly liberal leftist;"
I do not thing all changes immediately will change everything else. They will rather spread themself like rings in water at highly variable speed. And somwher they will perhaps not reach at all. But I agree that a POD in the 14th century is unlikely to produce a identical 21th century. But the shorter timespan the more likelyhood of recogniceable timelines.This should NOT imply that I in ANY way think that a "fundamentalist butterfly" TL is invalide! IMHO both views are equaly interesting and plausible. Its all up to the authors taste.
So my disagreement was actualy more to your labeling of "my" view as a fallacy
Now, that is a view that is quite similar to mine. The broad pattern is recognicable but the details (even large) have changed.
You certainly express yourself better than I do...
Max Sinister
Banned
Some of those "Richard Nixon as a used steamcars salesman" books are still good to lure newbies into AH.
Flocculencio
Donor
Actually, my problems with Turtledove stem mainly from his technical abilities as a writer (or lack thereof) more than from the actual AH.
The problem with Turtledove is that he's often not very imaginative, he uses historical parallelism too much. Also, I have major problems with his writing style. He's a decent writer when he keeps it short- Ruled Britannia was fun, for example, and his earlier pulp fantasy/AH (e.g. the Videssos books) were a nice popcorn read. The trouble is that he obviously needs an editor to ride herd on him- the WorldWar series was a great idea but should have been edited ruthlessly. The Great War series was an interesting idea but again shows far too much historical parallelism and needed ruthless editing. He tries to write these huge monster novels but isn't a good enough writer to actually pull it off.
For example, about half the POV characters in WorldWar and the Great War should have been cut out. It gets confusing keeping track of everyone and the story would be better served by giving more detail from fewer characters. Also, Turtledove has this inane tendency to repeat a description of each character, word-for-word every thing said character shows up.
"Scipio had been born on the plantation, the son of a pair of field hands but had been picked as a playmate for young Master Callahan. He'd learned to read and write and had risen to the position of butler, a valued house servant. Still, he always had to bite back the lingering resentment he felt whenever he saw the field hands being whipped. Though fluent in English, he'd visit them and talk to them later in their Gullah dialect..."
And on and on. And every time we see Scipio after that this paragraph will be repeated.
Or an example from his shorter novels- In the Presence of Mine Enemies could have been a decent, if uninspired, "Nazis Win" novel, using Turtledove's usual practice of copying events from history and changing the names (in this case the events surrounding the fall of the USSR). And it was, for the most part. But the bridge games- the endless, boring bridge games. Any half decent editor would have cut those.
Turtledove is a decent, mediocre journeyman writer like David Weber, Eric Flint and the rest of the chaps at Baen. The difference is that the people at Baen obviously have decent editors who know how to improve on the rough work their people pump out. It's telling that Turtledove's best work e.g. Sailing to Byzantium and the Videssos series was done when he was published by Baen- they obviously knew how to keep him under control.
However, IIRC, Roc has published most of Turtledove's later work and the difference is startling. They've let him make clumsy and inept attempts at vomiting everything his mediocre talents can produce onto reams of paper. He's trying to write epic scale novels but just isn't good enough. He needs careful editing and Roc just aren't doing that presumably because he's too good a money-spinner.
I love his early stuff- fun, pulpy reads. He just needs to be cut down to size.
Flocculencio
Donor
Again, I had no problem with The Two Georges it was an interesting world which was tightly edited. If TTG had been written as a huge 500-page novel with ten different POV characters it would have been crap.