Irritating cliches of post-1900 Alternate History:

1950s Aeternum (Because JFK Lives, Nixon Elected, No Vietnam, Etc)

This is the thing where something changes in the 60s as mentioned in my few examples, and as a result the Long 50s doesn't end and it keeps on going. There's no Hippies or long hair or adoption of casual dress and casual mores, Rock and Roll remains whatever it was if it doesn't just go away and give way to Swing Revival and Bossa Nova, everyone keeps dressing in suits and it's season 1 of Mad Men forever. Rather than growing long hair, smoking weed, criticizing the establishment and changing society, those young people all join the peace core and resemble the Clever boys.

That thing comes in different varieties and with some elements there and some left out of what I mentioned (and there's more than what I mentioned) but you get the idea. The problem with it is that it ignores the fact that things change and those changes were already socially underway, and they didn't just come into being because JFK got his brains blown out or we got involved in a quagmire in Southeast Asia. Casual dress was already coming, more open and understanding social mores were coming, Hippies were already evolving into a thing, the boomer youth is going to be open to things and change, music was changing, and social developments were arising just like they did because they were there to address the bulls**t and false assumption of utopia of the 1950s and the years before. Little Jimmy is still going to grow up with long hair, listening to rock music, smoking marijuana on occasion and thinking of changing the world; it's just that he may not go into protesting the Vietnam war and joining the Weather Underground, and he could remain Flower Power rather than "By any means necessary".

Save JFK, have Nixon elected, avoid Vietnam, etc, but you are still going to see the same sort of 60s progression and changes play out. It's just that you can avoid the extremeness of some of them, mostly where it concerns the shift that occurred in the OTL 60s of the optimistic view of anything being possible and changing things to improve them to make them the America the boomers were told America was (but which it wasn't being in reality) to the more pessimistic view that the system was totally flawed and corrupt and beyond redemption. Once the latter view came into being, because Johnson kept sending men to die in a lost cause and blacks kept being denied civil rights and the police kept bashing the brains in of peaceful demonstrators and the list of reasons go on, that is when you get things like the Weather Underground and left wing conspiracy theories that the CIA killed Kennedy and calls for violent reaction rising to challenge civil disobedience as the method for change, and so on. To have something like a Long 50s continue requires a different set of changes and circumstances, and ones specifically designed with the intent to have that be the case or at least earlier than 1959.
 
Last edited:
Some Soviet cliches

The Soviet Union can just Reform China Style:

No, it really can't. Yes, it could've reformed, but these reforms would've been differently structured than China's, and would've had different long term impacts. Additionally, it has a much harder time reforming from the impacts of the Cold War and its natural resource advantage encouraging bad policies, to name a few obstacles. Read, https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=243570&highlight=liberalization

For more details.

The Soviet Union Must Fall in the Early 90s:

Opposite problem from the above one, but still rather deterministic. Not only does this ignore possible earlier reforms, but fails to note the dozens, if not hundreds, of different factors that had to come into play to collapse the Soviet Union.

Change one event, like Cherynobl not occurring, and you possibly prevent the collapse of the Soviet Union for another decade, or butterfly in a reformer who has more time to work with.
 
Also, can we sticky this thread? I think it's rather helpful, to put things mildly.

Helpful? This thread serves but one purpose; it is a place where people can grind axes freely. It`s not a list of actual "cliches" that happen on this site; it`s a thread filled with things the member posting them doesn`t like.
 
Rommel Ist Gut Now that German might be atrocious but the point remains, in almost every timeline, Rommel is not only shown to be a competent military strategist, but also just a standup guy. Nothing but rainbows and puppy dogs as far as Alternate History is concerned.
 
Destiny, Rubberbanding and the Sentient Universe

I hate this. I Hate this. I HATE this.

This is where its assumed something has to happen, and if it doesn't then it just happens later or that thing happens to someone else to make up for it. This is where a time traveler goes back in time but can't stop something from happening, and whatever he does the universe will find a way to make it happen exactly as it did. An example I recall is a Twilight Zone where a guy keeps trying to go back in time to change history, but history makes itself happen exactly as it did. This is where if you save someone's life, they end up dying later. There's multiple examples of this, but say John Kennedy is saved, he just gets killed in 1965. This is where if you save someone from being assassinated, someone else of their same stature is assassinated that same day. An example is an 80s Twilight Zone, where a guy goes back and saves JFK, but the universe assassinates Khrushchev to make up for it that same day.

And often the universe is spiteful and malevolent. All those examples seem spiteful and malevolent on their own, but said universe will do things like when reality is changed making things much worse in the world. So, for example, in the 80s Twilight Zone, the dude saved JFK, but Khrushchev was assassinated and his successors kicked off World War 3. WW3 is a biggie for the malevolent universe.

I absolutely hate this because it's naively stupid and completely wrong. The universe does not have a brain and this reality and history is not what was destined. That's the assumption of this horrid trope; that the universe can think and that our world was the way it was meant to be. The universe is neither good nor evil, smart nor dumb. It doesn't care because it can't care and caring has no meaning or context in relation to the universe. All that guides it are laws and rules of reality, none of which relate to making sure Lincoln gets shot in Ford theatre, just that there's gravity to keep everyone in their seats and laws of thermodynamics so that people can walk around and energy and force and laws of physics to guide how the bullet fires. Actions and events are random, with overall trends and estimable reactions, but still random.

There's no destiny, there's no universe with a brain and this way reality turned out as the way it was meant to be, with the universe making sure things happen a certain way or making up for it being altered by doing the same things to someone analogues they didn't happen to, and with the universe throwing a shit-fit when things don't turn out according to destiny. The assumption that that is the way things are is childish and ignorant.
While it is of course stupid to use it in an AH that's strictly concerned with plausibility, it can be a neat narrative device. I think the best use of this that I've seen is in To Say Nothing of the Dog by Connie Willis. If you go back and alter history, the universe will make little, usually unnoticeable corrective changes elsewhere to make sure that a paradox doesn't occur.
 
Helpful? This thread serves but one purpose; it is a place where people can grind axes freely. It`s not a list of actual "cliches" that happen on this site; it`s a thread filled with things the member posting them doesn`t like.

Not really. That happens a few times, but some other of these cliches really do pop up quite a bit, to put things mildly.
 
While it is of course stupid to use it in an AH that's strictly concerned with plausibility, it can be a neat narrative device. I think the best use of this that I've seen is in To Say Nothing of the Dog by Connie Willis. If you go back and alter history, the universe will make little, usually unnoticeable corrective changes elsewhere to make sure that a paradox doesn't occur.

Still hate it. The universe doesn't work like that because it doesn't have a brain. If there is paradox, then there's paradox and the universe reacts to repercussions of a paradox. It doesn't correct it because it doesn't know to because it's not the one that made a man or a woman do anything or mankind in larger groups do anything, so it has no reason to "correct" anything in history, history being what we do and what the world does to us in the sandbox of an unconcerned universe. And anyway, there isn't such a thing as paradox here; changing history creates a divergent parallel universe and doesn't alter the one the time traveler came from which cannot be changed or altered.
 
I'm not horribly fond of timelines where Actor X makes a random, quick entrance in politics and becomes president solely based on their original popularity.
 
Some annoying cliches:

Event x leads to a directly good/bad result

Allies/Axis lose/win WW2 because of this/that battle

Country x(usually Japan, Nazis, some Fundie nation or USSR) has nuke first and takes over the world

Trotsky turns USSR into an utopia, again too many varibles

Successful "Operation that shall not be named"

Utopia if Germany and Centrals win WWI--instead it would be a different history, luckily Kaiserreich averts this. But what it doesn't avert.....


Fascism exists in every timeline..and if Mussolini is replaced we have either someone else create Fascism or replace it with Corporatism or some WTF ideology called National Populism replace Fascism in a lot of these timelines

Because
Hitler dies in WWI/becomes an artist/becomes democratic, someone else fills the role of "the Nazi" in WW2. Key offenders are Kaiserreich for the former and the latter happens in many places that I will not mention to protect the anonomity of these people and for the former has Baron Wrangel leading the most
naziesque faction, which leads to......

Deliberate historical villain upgrade to create a nazi-esque figure(again, see Kaiserreich) for the express purpose of creating one. The real Wrangel or whatever wasn't that bad.

Without Hitler, Nazis somehow get together. Kaiserreich is guilty of this as through Hitler dies in WWI, a "Greater German Worker's Party" exists and contains all of the Nazi members from BOTH SS AND SA somehow getting along

Any world becoming an utopia/dystopia cliche if a nation did this or that instead of what they did.

America is "saved" if JFK survives. No one knows how he will handle Vietnam

Switzerland remains neutral/uninvaded/peaceful

For ASB: Any modernwank against any Fantasy races ISOT to OTL. Give them a chance and plus, isn't magic vs. technology very popular for the reason of giving these groups a fighting chance?
 
Last edited:
Still hate it. The universe doesn't work like that because it doesn't have a brain. If there is paradox, then there's paradox and the universe reacts to repercussions of a paradox. It doesn't correct it because it doesn't know to because it's not the one that made a man or a woman do anything or mankind in larger groups do anything, so it has no reason to "correct" anything in history, history being what we do and what the world does to us in the sandbox of an unconcerned universe. And anyway, there isn't such a thing as paradox here; changing history creates a divergent parallel universe and doesn't alter the one the time traveler came from which cannot be changed or altered.

Those seem like pretty big assumptions to make given that we have no real way to test whether the time-space continuum as a whole does or does not possess a mind, much less what happens as a result of time travel.
 
that operation valkeryie had any hope of success with it's otl characters and plans, and that only if hitler died, they would have succeded


NO

NO

FUCK NO

Valkeryie was run by a bunch of blithering incompetents who didn't have a chance on earth of succeeding even if they did kill hitler; any number of the nazi higher ups (especially guderian) would have liquidated them regardless

oh and another irritating cliche on the same item... that the valkeryie people where good or not even hard core nazis quite worthy of being lined up against a wall and shot... treskow for example gave orders to and facilitated the movements of einsatzgruppen b and c... oh and he passed along the reichenau and commisar orders to ensure mass murder by the front line troops as well; he was a genocidal monster no better than hitler himself
 
Those seem like pretty big assumptions to make given that we have no real way to test whether the time-space continuum as a whole does or does not possess a mind, much less what happens as a result of time travel.

The branching universe view is the current one of physicists in relation to altering history via time travel. And regardless, even if that's not true (which I doubt it isn't), the universe still does not have a brain nor will it intervene to set right what once went wrong (with the assumption being anything but what happened is wrong). That's silly and assumes what is is what was intended to be rather than the end result of random happenstances and their results. There is no destiny or an intelligent universe which makes sure something happens. If there are paradoxes and there is no multiverse (no multiverse, btw, means no alternate histories or realities except this single one we inhabit as it is) then the universe just fucks up in whatever way or result that looks like. But you don't save JFK and then the universe thinks to go and kill Khrushchev and then it gets pissy at you for changing history and makes World War 3 kick off.
 
I'm so glad I don't read any ATL timelines set before 1952. I don't have to sit through the bazillions of WWII cliches that apparently annoy the piss out of everyone else.
 
Not really. That happens a few times, but some other of these cliches really do pop up quite a bit, to put things mildly.

I frequent this website too you know, and yet I haven`t seen the "sea of cliches". Tell you what, how about for every "cliche" you state, you have to link more than two timelines where they happen. Then and only then I`ll believe you.

But that`s not the point here, right? It`s not about "disproving cliches" since wherever they come up in other threads they are shot down or argued against. It`s only about complaining about what you don`t approve or like.
 
Still hate it. The universe doesn't work like that because it doesn't have a brain.

How, precisely, do you know this? I'm not saying I think you're wrong, but you're incredibly confident in a property of the universe that is completely unknowable, unproveable, and unfalsifiable without time travel, which probably doesn't exist. Again, not trying to argue that this isn't lazy, contrived, hacky writing, but don't cloak it in philosophical mumbo-jumbo about things that are not known and can never be known.

You honestly remind me of the people who lose their shit because Twilight's vampires are "wrong".
 
How, precisely, do you know this? I'm not saying I think you're wrong, but you're incredibly confident in a property of the universe that is completely unknowable, unproveable, and unfalsifiable without time travel, which probably doesn't exist. Again, not trying to argue that this isn't lazy, contrived, hacky writing, but don't cloak it in philosophical mumbo-jumbo about things that are not known and can never be known.

You honestly remind me of the people who lose their shit because Twilight's vampires are "wrong".

Because regardless of whether a change in history creates a divergent universe rather than altering the time traveler's home universe (the current view of physicists; the parallel universe one, not the single universe altered one) or if it creates a paradox, which requires altering the past to change the time traveler's universe rather than just branching off into another universe, causing whatever mayhem would proceed from that paradox, the universe is not an intelligent being. The idea that the universe planned this history to unfold like it has and that there is destiny and that the universe holds fast to that destiny assumes that it is, and it's childish. It's making the universe God.

The universe is not God; it is a thing and personifications should not be forced onto it. The universe gives us the rules, those being all the laws of physics and thermal dynamics and all the scientific principles, but it doesn't give a damn what we do within those guidelines. Lincoln can get shot or not shot, he could never be born, the United States could never form, Europe could never rise to the position of preeminent power to be colonizers, Rome may never fall, another great civilization may rise instead of Rome, civilization may alter in the time of the ancient Hellenistics, tribes may settle differently in different areas instead of where they actually did, humanity may never evolve, the dinosaurs may never die out, the dinosaurs may never evolve with something else taking their place, Earth may be rendered lifeless in the cradle, etc. What does any of that have to do with the price of tea in China to the universe? The universe doesn't care because it is just Reality, plain and simple, and personifications are irrelevant and unjustified to something that is not a being. The universe doesn't make sure through destiny John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln. It just makes sure that the laws of nature make a burst of energy that launches a bullet forward via locomotion if he pulls a trigger, and that there is gravity which keeps him from floating into space and that sperm work a certain way so there's a one in a billion shot of Booth being born as Booth and Lincoln being born as Lincoln, and so on.

The universe isn't going to set right what once went wrong because it can't (and it assumes deviations are "wrong"). That requires an intelligent universe, and again the universe is not a being and doesn't have intelligence. So the idea that JFK lives because a time travelers saved him so the universe kills Khrushchev and then throws a hissy fit and makes World War 3 is ridiculous. If time travel is possible, as physicists now believe it is, then you either cannot change history, but in actuality when you "change history" you are actually creating a divergent universe where the time traveler's original universe exists exactly as it was, but now there is a divergent universe starting from the point of the time traveler's interference and the time traveler is now within that parallel universe rather than his own (which is the current view; the idea being there is no such thing as paradox because the laws of the universe do not allow such a thing given the existence of the multiverse) or paradox do exists, and by altering history you create a paradox which screws up the universe in whatever way such a thing would look like (this view would disregard parallel universes) or you actually cannot change history, and if you travel back in time, whatever actions you undertake will just contribute to history unfolding as it did because in history, you were already and always at the point you traveled back to and things happened as they did as history unfolded. My problem with the latter most explanation is what I'll label the "Naked Time Traveler Quandary": You are a time traveler who has yet to go back, and you look to a newspaper at a major event where there was not a naked person running around and making a problem. You then travel back to that event stark naked, running around streaking and screaming and causing all sorts of problems. That is going to be reported in the news, so you've changed history. How is it not going to be? Will the universe make no one pay attention to you or somehow make it not be reported? No, because that would require a universe with a physical consciousness and intelligence which is actively going out of its way to make that happen and is going to those convoluted lengths to make the time traveler running stark naked and causing havoc at a major event never be reported. That's silly. So either you can change history or time travel is impossible, and time travel is believed to be possible, so that means you can change history.

We're not in the belly of a god who takes an antacid when we upset his stomach. That's what the thing I took issue with assumes; it thinks the universe acts like a god with an intelligent design who has everything planned and gets angered when you alter the plan, and goes and has what you stopped happen to someone of equal value or something you made happen get deducted from elsewhere of equal value, and often has a tendency to get pissy and takes revenge by making things worse. The universe isn't a persnickety god. The universe just is.
 
Last edited:
Because regardless of whether a change in history creates a divergent universe rather than altering the time traveler's home universe (the current view of physicists; the parallel universe one, not the single universe altered one) or if it creates a paradox, which requires altering the past to change the time traveler's universe rather than just branching off into another universe, causing whatever mayhem would proceed from that paradox, the universe is not an intelligent being. The idea that the universe planned this history to unfold like it has and that there is destiny and that the universe holds fast to that destiny assumes that it is, and it's childish. It's making the universe God.

The universe is not God; it is a thing and personifications should not be forced onto it. The universe gives us the rules, those being all the laws of physics and thermal dynamics and all the scientific principles, but it doesn't give a damn what we do within those guidelines. Lincoln can get shot or not shot, he could never be born, the United States could never form, Europe could never rise to the position of preeminent power to be colonizers, Rome may never fall, another great civilization may rise instead of Rome, civilization may alter in the time of the ancient Hellenistics, tribes may settle differently in different areas instead of where they actually did, humanity may never evolve, the dinosaurs may never die out, the dinosaurs may never evolve with something else taking their place, Earth may be rendered lifeless in the cradle, etc. What does any of that have to do with the price of tea in China to the universe? The universe doesn't care because it is just Reality, plain and simple, and personifications are irrelevant and unjustified to something that is not a being. The universe doesn't make sure through destiny John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln. It just makes sure that the laws of nature make a burst of energy that launches a bullet forward via locomotion if he pulls a trigger, and that there is gravity which keeps him from floating into space and that sperm work a certain way so there's a one in a billion shot of Booth being born as Booth and Lincoln being born as Lincoln, and so on.

The universe isn't going to set right what once went wrong because it can't (and it assumes deviations are "wrong"). That requires an intelligent universe, and again the universe is not a being and doesn't have intelligence. So the idea that JFK lives because a time travelers saved him so the universe kills Khrushchev and then throws a hissy fit and makes World War 3 is ridiculous. If time travel is possible, as physicists now believe it is, then you either cannot change history, but in actuality when you "change history" you are actually creating a divergent universe where the time traveler's original universe exists exactly as it was, but now there is a divergent universe starting from the point of the time traveler's interference and the time traveler is now within that parallel universe rather than his own (which is the current view; the idea being there is no such thing as paradox because the laws of the universe do not allow such a thing given the existence of the multiverse) or paradox do exists, and by altering history you create a paradox which screws up the universe in whatever way such a thing would look like (this view would disregard parallel universes) or you actually cannot change history, and if you travel back in time, whatever actions you undertake will just contribute to history unfolding as it did because in history, you were already and always at the point you traveled back to and things happened as they did as history unfolded.

We're not in the belly of a god who takes an antacid when we upset his stomach. That's what the thing I took issue with assumes; it thinks the universe acts like a god with an intelligent design who has everything planned and gets angered when you alter the plan, and goes and has what you stopped happen to someone of equal value or something you made happen get deducted from elsewhere of equal value, and often has a tendency to get pissy and takes revenge by making things worse. The universe isn't a persnickety god. The universe just is.

Listen to me, buddy: I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying that absolutely none of this is possible to know, and you are stating it as if you know it for a fact. Alternate timelines cannot be studied because, so far as experimental science is concerned, they do not exist. The universe could very well have dictated that a world leader must die on November 22, 1963, but we can never know because we cannot test it. If time travel creates alternate timeline, then we can't test that because you wouldn't be able to return to your original timeline. None of this can ever be known, barring some incredible paradigm shift in our understanding of physics.

You are essentially arguing that you know the precise number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, and become infuriated when somebody disagrees.
 
Listen to me, buddy: I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying that absolutely none of this is possible to know, and you are stating it as if you know it for a fact. Alternate timelines cannot be studied because, so far as experimental science is concerned, they do not exist. The universe could very well have dictated that a world leader must die on November 22, 1963, but we can never know because we cannot test it. If time travel creates alternate timeline, then we can't test that because you wouldn't be able to return to your original timeline. None of this can ever be known, barring some incredible paradigm shift in our understanding of physics.

You are essentially arguing that you know the precise number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, and become infuriated when somebody disagrees.

That assumes a personified and intelligent universe (not a universe with laws of nature but a universe with an actual brain). The universe is neither, hence it is wrong to assume that.

What that dictator of history is isn't the universe, it is a postulation of a god. And that is a very different discussion.
 
Top