Fallacies of alternate history

[Calgacus]

yeah, he's a very pedantic author - although personally i find flint to be equally bad (naive and simplistic when it comes to portraying characters) - having said that i read them both, and i enjoy the great war series for all it's faults, because of the premise and occasionally the writing is good - it's just that he does it seveal times over, like a joke told too many times)

recently somewhat disillusioned though at how the great war series is going - if i wanted a history of 20th century germany i could read that - i wish he could entertain the possibility that the south might be a bit different - even if they lose in the end, it'd still be ok if there wasnt the exact stalingrad equivalent and the crushing inevitability of the atomic weapons being used against the south.

oh well...he sells more books than i do!

 

[Flocculencio]

although personally i find flint to be equally bad (naive and simplistic when it comes to portraying characters)

The difference being that Flint isn't allowed to write massive attempts at epics. Baen must have a great team of editors.

recently somewhat disillusioned though at how the great war series is going - if i wanted a history of 20th century germany i could read that - i wish he could entertain the possibility that the south might be a bit different - even if they lose in the end, it'd still be ok if there wasnt the exact stalingrad equivalent and the crushing inevitability of the atomic weapons being used against the south.

That's pretty much why I stopped buying them after reading the first batch of books. I decided that I wasn't going to waste my money of that kind of crap.

 

[Calgacus]

ah my dad buys them and i nick them when im round at his. good value for money

 

[Thande]

1. That with Decades of Darkness as the exception of the rule, those TL's that aren't in TL form (1911, John does this; 1925, John did that) are viewed as "unpopular".

2. If something is implausible by historical evidence; it will not be "approved" even though it is fiction, it is historically supported, and it is giving a better fate than OTL.

I wouldn't say Decades of Darkness is like that It seems to adopt a more narrative format.

Or do you mean that it focuses on one person or area at a time?

 

[Othniel]

I don't think the title of this thread accurately reflects to topic. Shouldn't it be Fallacies in Alternate History, or Fallacies within Alternate history, rather than Fallicies of Alternate History? For the later sounds like a codemnation of the practice of alternate history, rather than pointing out problems of approaches used on timelines.

 

[eschaton]

One thing I note often on TLs is what I call "wargamer sydrome."

Wargamer syndrome is defined by treating nations as the characters of a TL, rather than individuals. Now, I'm not saying for a proper TL that you need to always get into the nitty-gritty of the personality of each king, president, ect. But you need an understanding that nations are not run by immortal god-emperors. National priorities can shift in less than a generation. Leaders of greater and lesser abilities come to the forefront. And the system can decay from corruption, be strengthened from reform, etc.

I guess my point is nations are the stages for history, not the makers of history itself. Seeing blobs move around on the map is nothing but abstraction without linking it at least in part to individuals, society at large, and culture.

 

[Max Sinister]

You're right. Only problems: Maps are cool, I like them myself too.

 

[G.Bone]

wouldn't say Decades of Darkness is like that \

It seems to adopt a more narrative format.

Or do you mean that it focuses on one person or area at a time?

Yes - it's continually spoke by persons A/b/c/d/e with A/B/C being "occasionally" related

 

[Ghost 88]

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.

I'll comment on your last two post here.

The reason he has so many POVs is that he gets paid by the word so instead of one good book like GOTS we get the multi volume ramble fests he has recently put out.

The Two Georges is clearly written by Dreyfus with HT's name attached

 

[Flocculencio]

The reason he has so many POVs is that he gets paid by the word so instead of one good book like GOTS we get the multi volume ramble fests he has recently put out.

Well, like I said, his earlier, well-edited books were published by Baen while his later ones were done by Roc. It's just a combination of poor editing (probably brought about by the publishers wish to capitalise on a 'known' name) and the fact that Turtledove needs to put his kids through university.

That still doesn't excuse him for the huge, steaming piles of literary shit he's befouled perfectly good paper with since the mid-90's. As an intelligent consumer I refuse to be insulted like that. He'll never see one more cent of my money. In the unlikely event that I actually want anything that Turtledove's muse excretes in future I'll buy it second hand or borrow it from a library.

 

[Calgacus]

ooh, harsh! i don't really think he's THAT bad. there's some interesting stuff in his novels - if he was to take more time tightening them up, they'd be perfectly all right. after all many so called 'good' authors are also really bad. anyone read william faulkner??

also, a writer can produce very good pieces of work, and still be critically mauled (stephen king).. although i suppose the money helps!

 

[HueyLong]

Although he does get repetitive in descriptions, its understandable to an extent. I read them out of sequence, so it kinda helped. But over and over, in the same book, is just stupid.

I like the narrative style other than that, and like the different POV characters.

 

[Leo Caesius]

after all many so called 'good' authors are also really bad. anyone read william faulkner??

Hey!! I like Faulkner. I couldn't stop laughing when I read As I Lay Dying.

 

[Scarecrow]

The one thing that annoys me is when people use the excuse ' its alternate history, therefore anything can happen' to cover up thier mistakes or misreaserch...

 

[Calgacus]

faulkner sucks ass. i use his name as a swearword.

 

[Bulgaroktonos]

I'm a Machiavellian butterfly fundamentalist.

Intellectually I believe in the fundamentalist view, but when I'm just too lazy, I do whatever.

I think that fundmentalism is the only way to go. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle does not just have to do with quantum mechanics, the four forces of the universe, and the nature of atomic particles. It, to borrow the words of Stephen Hawking, is an unalterable fact of the Universe. Thus, after the POD, everything is called into question.

Yes, some results will be the same, but only in a certain number of cases. In every other event following the POD, the dice must again be rolled to determine whether or not the event will occur as it did in OTL, or in any of the infinite ways in which it could have gone otherwise.

 

[Thande]

I think that fundmentalism is the only way to go. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle does not just have to do with quantum mechanics, the four forces of the universe, and the nature of atomic particles. It, to borrow the words of Stephen Hawking, is an unalterable fact of the Universe. Thus, after the POD, everything is called into question.

I personally think that view is rather arrogant. Imagine a hypothetical alternate historian of, say, Galileo's time attempting to project the future based on what were then thought to be the immutable physical laws of the universe.

In fact a combination of Newtonian determinism and predestination rather precluded the very development of counterfactual histories, because then they were held to be the unshakeable foundations of physics.

I would be extremely surprised if the alternate historians of 2106 are still using chaos theory or quantum theory-derived concepts in order to construct their timelines. Much less scientists.

 

[Glen]

For thinking about Alternate Histories, I make the assumption that the Many Worlds Hypothesis is correct, ie whatever can happen does happen somewhere.

To use the old coin flip model, where h = heads and t = tails...

Say IOTL when you flipped it five times it came up h, t, h, h, t, a high probability outcome. Heads wins.

In another timeline it could have gone t, t, h, h, t and the person flipping it forgot that the first flip was a tail, misremembering it as an h. This would then be a convergent timeline. This has a low probability of occuring, but isn't impossible.

In yet another timeline the flip goes t, h, t, h, h with heads winning, which means that though it has a pod it really is parallel. reasonable probability.

In another timeline the flip goes t, t, h, t, h tails wins, this is a diverging timeline, reasonable probability.

In yet another timeline the flip goes t, t, t, t, t tails wins, this is not only a wildly diverging timeline but also a lower probability one due to the run. However, it isn't impausible.

In a very odd one, the coin lands on its edge all five times resulting in a tie. This is such a low probability timeline that it is called implausible.

In an even odder one, the coin lands on its edge all five times resulting in a tie, but then is misremembered as a win for heads, this is wildly implausible and convergent and verging on the ASB. But not impossible, believe it or not.

If you imagine a timeline where every time you flip the coin it turns into a dove and flies away, this requires a change to the fundamental laws of the universe in a particularly unlikely manner or loads of interference in the OTL event so that it is impossible (or nearly so in the second interpretation) and counts as ASB.

Of all these timelines, the first few are the most common and should make up the bulk of timelines encountered. In comparison, the numbers of timelines where it lands on its edge are miniscule, and the one where its still remembered as heads winning is a tiny fraction of those.

One may question whether any such timelines exist for the last example.

So, we can see that probability interacts with plausibility. And we can see that parallel and even convergent timelines are possible, though not common. And of course, wildly low probability or worse impossible (or nearly so) are to used very very cautiously.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

I personally think that view is rather arrogant. Imagine a hypothetical alternate historian of, say, Galileo's time attempting to project the future based on what were then thought to be the immutable physical laws of the universe.

In fact a combination of Newtonian determinism and predestination rather precluded the very development of counterfactual histories, because then they were held to be the unshakeable foundations of physics.

I would be extremely surprised if the alternate historians of 2106 are still using chaos theory or quantum theory-derived concepts in order to construct their timelines. Much less scientists.

You have to work with what you have. Of course, maybe you can enlinghten us about what the physics of 2106 will look like.

@Glen: Do we need to go over that convergence thing again? Unless it happens at a microscopical level, it's only an illusion.

 

[Glen]

@Glen: Do we need to go over that convergence thing again? Unless it happens at a microscopical level, it's only an illusion.

No, its more than that. If there is no trace left of the differences in the timelines, they become as one. You only know about it because you are observing from outside the timeline.

Here, I'll give you another convergent timeline.

You are utterly alone, you flip the coin five times, but have your eyes closed for the first four tosses.

In timeline A the flips are t, h, t, h, t
In timeline B the flips are h, t, h, t, t

Once you open your eyes and see the last toss, all you know is that that toss is tails, so tails wins.

The timelines were different in the period of the first four tosses, but have now come together in the last one. This is an 'idealized' version of reality, where the only effects of the tosses are on your conscious self.

If you would like another one, imagine two timelines, one where Atlantis is only a story, the other where it had some historical basis. But in the world where it existed, all physical evidence of that existence is broken down to the point as to have lost any retrievable information. Therefore the two universes have become information identical, and thus are identical, and 'merged'. Prior to the last evidence of Altantis being destroyed, they were separate, but after they are one.