What are the warning signs when you're writing alternate history that your timeline is starting to "wank" a particular nation/movement/continent? Is it an improbable string of good luck in terms of wars waged and good rulers? What are some good ways to do a sanity check on your timeline and principles to keep in mind when writing a timeline?
How to know if your timeline is heading into "wank" territory?
- Thread starter leopard9
- Start date
-
- Tags
- discussion
Coincidence... This week now I was thinking just about this question you raised
Well, some things we must have in mind while drafting a TL, if you focus on a particular nation/movement/continent:
= respect the rhythm of the technological, economic, social and political evolutions, lest we fall in the "Dominion of Draka" AH. No industrial revolution happens to an impoverished country in a decade, or such. Even Japan and Russia, with its extremely peculiar technological revolutions, had a series of pre-requisites that allowed for it, but we can't expect the same to happen in early 19th Century Portugal, for example.
= Try to imagine some really bad scenarios and episodes for your focus of interest. If we look at France during the 100 Years War, Italy during the 16th Century, China during the Mongol invasions, Russia during the Bolshevik revolution... History witnessed a series of cataclysmic disasters for each one of them, but a series of historical developments allowed for their phoenix-like "ressurgence" from the ashes.
= You raised a very good point regarding the string of good luck rulers and wars. This indeed happened historically (everything related to Napoleon seems like a French wank, let's be honest), which proves that it's an useful tool, we just must be careful to not abuse it
= Finally, the most aspect that helps you to be realistic is to study the most you can about the history of the particular nation/movement/continent you are focusing on. No one imagined England/Britain would become the paramount nation in the world in the Victorian Age if you keep things going on exactly as they were in the times Boudicca. There were centuries of historical developments and revolutions that allowed for one of the most egregious "Historical Wanks". You might replicate it in your TL, of course, but that takes a while and a serious effort.
Well, some things we must have in mind while drafting a TL, if you focus on a particular nation/movement/continent:
= respect the rhythm of the technological, economic, social and political evolutions, lest we fall in the "Dominion of Draka" AH. No industrial revolution happens to an impoverished country in a decade, or such. Even Japan and Russia, with its extremely peculiar technological revolutions, had a series of pre-requisites that allowed for it, but we can't expect the same to happen in early 19th Century Portugal, for example.
= Try to imagine some really bad scenarios and episodes for your focus of interest. If we look at France during the 100 Years War, Italy during the 16th Century, China during the Mongol invasions, Russia during the Bolshevik revolution... History witnessed a series of cataclysmic disasters for each one of them, but a series of historical developments allowed for their phoenix-like "ressurgence" from the ashes.
= You raised a very good point regarding the string of good luck rulers and wars. This indeed happened historically (everything related to Napoleon seems like a French wank, let's be honest), which proves that it's an useful tool, we just must be careful to not abuse it
= Finally, the most aspect that helps you to be realistic is to study the most you can about the history of the particular nation/movement/continent you are focusing on. No one imagined England/Britain would become the paramount nation in the world in the Victorian Age if you keep things going on exactly as they were in the times Boudicca. There were centuries of historical developments and revolutions that allowed for one of the most egregious "Historical Wanks"
. You might replicate it in your TL, of course, but that takes a while and a serious effort.Well, wanking comes from the outset usually as a purpose of the TL. The big question is the wanking too unrealistic, but the problem is what up happens when reality appears to be unrealistic as well. As long as you have conflict and the TL seems believable I wouldn't be too afraid of wanks
My personal opinion is the best way to avoid a wank is to create reasons for it. Create a narrative that allows disbelief to be suspended. As has been widely noted, there are many occasions in history that have the feel of a wank but there is always an explanation. Demonstrating the reasons for the wank tend to take annoyance factor away and replace it with an interesting storyline.
Foreshadowing also helps as well. This is especially true if it's an out-of-focus area that you're trying to wank or screw. Give a few hints that things are doing better or worse, and it makes it a lot more believable down the line when X country does better or worse, as there have been little seeds planted that showed that, yes, they are getting better.
I'm thinking my TL is going into wank territory maybe.
So I got an Iberian empire in the 1140 ish period that has the Entirety of Iberia under it's control and has territories in North Africa going from around the southern border of modern day Morocco to the city of Tunis/Carthage.
I also have a Vinlandic Empire going up from Baffin Island all the way down to Nova Scotia (there are colonies south of there but they aren't very populated), to Niagara falls in the Great lakes, and gold mining towns on the southern coast of the Hudson bay.
Britian was initially invaded by Scandinavians/Normans that slowly ate England but soon the Scottish managed to get a hold in England and slowly after the years pushed to nearly conquering it all but then decided to get help from Wales which took all the remaining territory and then when the King of Scotland became someone with a very bad mental Disability the King of Wales is able to play him like a fiddle and essentially controls the Entire island and then successfully invades Ireland and Brittany.
And Finally there is Scandinavia, Some dude came along and did what Canute the Great did and united Scandinavia, then when he died his sons split it all up with the one getting Sweden eventually establishing dominance in the Eastern Baltic and taking over Northern Sweden and Finland where he was then able to invade Norway and then Denmark and making nearly all coast in the Baltic under his control.
Do you think I'm going Wank? Vinland is understandable given it doesn't have much competition, but I'm feeling I shouldn't go making super large empires (unless I decentralized them and made them into essentially the HRE).
So I got an Iberian empire in the 1140 ish period that has the Entirety of Iberia under it's control and has territories in North Africa going from around the southern border of modern day Morocco to the city of Tunis/Carthage.
I also have a Vinlandic Empire going up from Baffin Island all the way down to Nova Scotia (there are colonies south of there but they aren't very populated), to Niagara falls in the Great lakes, and gold mining towns on the southern coast of the Hudson bay.
Britian was initially invaded by Scandinavians/Normans that slowly ate England but soon the Scottish managed to get a hold in England and slowly after the years pushed to nearly conquering it all but then decided to get help from Wales which took all the remaining territory and then when the King of Scotland became someone with a very bad mental Disability the King of Wales is able to play him like a fiddle and essentially controls the Entire island and then successfully invades Ireland and Brittany.
And Finally there is Scandinavia, Some dude came along and did what Canute the Great did and united Scandinavia, then when he died his sons split it all up with the one getting Sweden eventually establishing dominance in the Eastern Baltic and taking over Northern Sweden and Finland where he was then able to invade Norway and then Denmark and making nearly all coast in the Baltic under his control.
Do you think I'm going Wank? Vinland is understandable given it doesn't have much competition, but I'm feeling I shouldn't go making super large empires (unless I decentralized them and made them into essentially the HRE).
Dragos Cel Mare
Banned
A very good way to prevent the feeling of a wank, is to have your nation actually surrender to someone else in order to survive. For example (and excuse me the shameless plugging), Renovation by Soverihn differs from the typical Byzantine Wank by having the Reformed and Expanded Byzies surrender to Timur, and in so doing, actually manage to take advantage of his departure and death. Basically, have your nation of focus actually get humiliated once in a while.
Yes, you are wanking. But it doesnt matter.
The difference between a good wank and a bad wank is the bad wank doesnt acknowledge the obstacles. If you want a fuzzy sea creature to show up in England, you need to figure out how to dispose of the RN and get a Nazi navy. You want the Japanese to show up in San Francisco in 1942, you better start identifying all the reasons why this is so unlikely and start doing away with them in a reasonable way. It's still a wank but with some creativity, it will be a good read. In a sense, it can almost serve to show just how unlikely the your outcome was. A proof or thought experiment of how unlikely the counterfactual might be.
Wank's get annoying when people handwave key issues & facts. So identify all the obstacles to creating your empires and methodically address them in your timeline. Communications, bureaucracy, transportation, religion, culture, rivals, are some of the obvious.
One of the keys that I don't think has been mentioned is intent.
What I think a lot of timelines that I would identify as wanks do is try to figure out "how do I get the CSA to win" or "how do I help the Byzantine Empire as much as possible" rather than ask what the outcome of a single altered event would be.
This isn't a perfect test: for example my own White Huns timeline fudges the initial conquests of the White Huns without really providing a single clear point of divergence for narrative purposes. However, I still would argue that all the sloppiest wanks tend to be timelines that drive inexorably towards a desired conclusion, rather than starting with a PoD and trying to let the chips fall where they may.
What I think a lot of timelines that I would identify as wanks do is try to figure out "how do I get the CSA to win" or "how do I help the Byzantine Empire as much as possible" rather than ask what the outcome of a single altered event would be.
This isn't a perfect test: for example my own White Huns timeline fudges the initial conquests of the White Huns without really providing a single clear point of divergence for narrative purposes. However, I still would argue that all the sloppiest wanks tend to be timelines that drive inexorably towards a desired conclusion, rather than starting with a PoD and trying to let the chips fall where they may.
I'll disagree a little bit. All timelines, by definition, have an intent to showcase one particular element or point in history. Asking those questions are part of the basis of the timeline. In your CSA example, I would see it as "wanting to show a CSA that wins" which leads to the question "how do I get the CSA to win" which then should lead to further questions such as "what are the repercussions of the choices that lead to the CSA winning" and 'how does this affect the world afterwards". Without that, you end up with the CSA winning and a general feeling of not knowing what happens next, so either the rest of the world becomes static/goes exactly as OTL.
Frankly, even if the objective is to do something in particular (as, after all, people who write timelines do it to write about stuff they like and are curious about), it really helps if the timeline doesn't only focus on that. Take breaks, look at other parts of the world... and consider all of the changes, for good or for ill.