What is a common thing or trope that always seem to happen?

As an aside, but one thing I feel it likely underestimated is how hard it is to actually make a democracy, especially from a position of absolute or near absolute power. I don't even mean cos greedy nobles and the Church will be against it or whatever, I mean more in a functional systemic way. As in, we have seem in real time people with the power of despots try to establish democracies and within a handful of years its a dictatorship again cos the means you use determine the end result more often than not.

What's more, trying to gift democracy from on high is a... Tenuous position to try and operate from even at the best of times. Plus, while governments can be radically re-shuffled in times of crisis it more often than not can fail big and hard, so it could easily fail miserably or otherwise leave your nation open to attacks they wouldn't have been vulnerable.

Like, if I was somehow SI-ed into the leader of the Tawantinsuyu around the arrival of the Spanish I sure as hell wouldn't be aiming for democracy cos I would not be able to afford any potential instability or disruptions to the systems when dealing with that kind of oncoming invasion. I think a lot of times it'd be better to just leave behind a journal with several copies outlining stuff like "I wish we became a democracy, and introduced free health care, and invest in solar power!" to be opened twenty years after death or what have you.

Basically, creating democracy is hard, massive disruptions to the status quo can make a nation vulnerable, trying to create a government that represents and empowers those with the least power from a position with the most power is beyond insanely difficult and one can't enforce "enlightenment" on others, so its likely best to just have faith in the people you leave after yourself over trying to do everything.
 
So how would you write it? How would you reduce the position's power?
I mean that's entirely contextual. What society are you in? What stage of its life is it in? What are its neighbors like? What is your own position? What are the available resources? ETC. There's not a one size fits all answer because the societal structures and stressors of Bronze Age Egypt are totally different to say, those of the newly minted Songhai Dynasty.
 
When did this thread become "complain about SI stories?"

Honestly, I don't feel like those should even count as alternate history.
 
So how would you write it? How would you reduce the position's power?
OK, I'll try and give a more specific answer, but keep in mind I don't think its universally applicable.

So, the Aztec Triple Alliance had schools, they had a nobles school and a commoners school and girls schools; your best bet to start laying a more equalized groundwork isn't to just mush the schools together cos that's liable to get you assassinated by the nobles. But, you likely could expand the range of topics taught in the commoners schools to offer a broader, more comprehensive education without it leading to your instant un-aliving by the nobles. This is helpful for degrading the barriers between nobles and commoner which are always artificially enforced through stuff like better access to education, money, ETC.

Of course this doesn't inherently ensure democracy but a well informed populace is incredibly useful and I would say necessary for having anything resembling a functional democracy.

Of course this also brings me to my other point that democracy isn't special as a political system. That is to say, its not immune to any of the weaknesses other governmental types were. Its a nice idea to think that it is, but ultimately, if you magically transformed late age Egypt into a democracy, the Priesthood of Amun wouldn't magically go away, their methods for trying to marginalize the pharaoh's power in favor of their own would just change. That is to say, the names change but people stay the same, this is why even in democracies we often end up with political class who expect to win seats because their dad did and their dad did and so on.

This isn't to denigrate democracy, just to highlight that its not inherently a shining light on the hill, that has evolved beyond all the systems of corruptions of other political systems, it just is a political system, capable of doing great good or great harm and so on.
 
So how would you write it? How would you reduce the position's power?
I would add that a substantial part of the problem is the argument for why it is supposed to be so important to cut and distribute power.

Depending on the time, the subtleties of what passes for political theory in the 21st century can be ignored, dismissed as naive nonsense, or outright considered inapplicable.

People accustomed to a political theory limited to "the king is king because God put him there" are not likely to understand or care about nonsensical discourses about nebulous concepts like "checks and balances", "separation of powers" or to consider downright criminal the idea that the three branches of the government dedicate themselves to "check" and sabotage each other instead of working together.
 
I would add that a substantial part of the problem is the argument for why it is supposed to be so important to cut and distribute power.

Depending on the time, the subtleties of what passes for political theory in the 21st century can be ignored, dismissed as naive nonsense, or outright considered inapplicable.

People accustomed to a political theory limited to "the king is king because God put him there" are not likely to understand or care about nonsensical discourses about nebulous concepts like "checks and balances", "separation of powers" or to consider downright criminal the idea that the three branches of the government dedicate themselves to "check" and sabotage each other instead of working together.
While I'm unsure I'd go quite that far, I do more or less agree with the point; regardless of SI or not, unless a society was already becoming democratic or had strong democratic leanings, its going to be more than an uphill climb to do more than make some motions in that direction cos its so out of context and lived experience.

Its like trying to jump to steel from copper, both are metals that can be used and shaped amazingly, but they function so radically differently that someone hos only experience is copper is going to more than struggle with steel and politics is infinitely more messy and complicated and confusing than shaping metal.

Hell, let's take a historical "democracy" Ancient Athens; if a person or SI tried to say, ensure Athenian women could vote, they'd likely be eaten alive given the violently misogynistic culture.

To quote John Gould:
The juridical status of women in Athens is beautifully indicated by the single entry under "women" in the index to Harrison's Law of Athens i: it reads simply "women, disabilities". — John Gould, "Law, Custom and Myth: Aspects of the Social Position of Women in Classical Athens

Now, obviously women in Athens would probably like a vote (On average at least) in the same and even greater vein to how slaves sure as hell didn't want to be slaves; but if you're going to overturn those societal conventions then even in a "democracy" you're in for a bad time. It'd be a good thing to try, I'd definitely support it, but under such circumstances you'd be lucky to not end up with a civil war, or mass killings, or any number of horrible events in a bid to stop it, if the idea even kind of got off the ground. If one doesn't mind breaking and remaking society, that's fine, but its not exactly an easy process and there's massive chances for total failure or ideas being rolled back ETC.

Essentially, societal inertia, traditional cultures and beliefs, those in power, structures and systems, all those things at a minimum are in the way of massive societal and structural changes but also serve as the basis for how a culture develops and changes. Radical paradigm shifts are extremely rare to near none existent without being built up to: IE Rome's Republic didn't actually change much as most of the Republic systems were already in place, they didn't create it whole cloth, it was already there, they just re-shuffled things a bit by removing the king.

In this context, a historical figure or SI is liable to be stuck with one or two options for radically altering the political landscape. Either A, nudging the nation towards a path they would want, or B, burning the entire damn system down and rebuilding it from scratch, or sub-section -B running away with one's supporters to try the idea elsewhere if there is anywhere to go.
 
I doubt that works. SI would be infamous, and widely hated
Oh I agree, I was mostly just acknowledging it for completions as we do see RL migrations of peoples and movements at times, its just not as easy or simple as one might think and it gets harder and harder the longer people have been around for the most part, but it felt fair to acknowledge option "Run away to an island and make your own civilization, with blackjack and-" you get the idea.
 
Last edited:
I believe most Si's are what I like to call ''romantics', that is to say they are what you might call extremists who aim for the goal of pushing their mindset, dreams, ideologies ect onto the rest of the world regardless of how much blood they most spill regardless of how much it may contradict their supposed beliefs. They have a certain view of the world which directs they actions and anything near them must join, be subverted and subjugated and anything that get's in the way or exists outside it must be destroyed.

For a lot of people this can mean say democracy which the SI wholeheartedly believes in even as they hate anyone who's will does not bend to them and a balance of powers as they see no contradiction in their actions, it can also be say the ideals of nationalism, their sect even ''non ideological'' views like say the world is pure dog eat dog and nothing will ever change it's best to assume a SI views the world through a prism of such and will act on it.

A SI like any member of a movement is willing to entertain ''surrendering'' certain things they want on a temporary basis like say a SI in France not having the Church completely under his dominion and the state's but best assume they will destroy them later on the second they can, regardless if it's merely being neutral or having a agenda of it's own your either with the SI or against them.

So rather than see a SI yearning to create democracy it should be seen as a SI yearning to create something they adore and believe in their heart of hearts for their checklist and anything that upsets this perfect view like say the population having different priorities to them will be dealt with.
 
what exactly is an 'SI'?

Short for self-insert. But in the context of AH.com, it means having the writer's mind and personality be ASB transplanted to a chosen historical or fictional figure. (I.E: You being SI'ed into Nicholas II in 1900 for instance).

Basically, they're the site's equivalent to the Isekai genre, for every good one there's at least 10 sub-par/outright bad ones. It's why I never touch SI fics on here. They use to flood the ASB forum before Fandom AH was created.
 
Short for self-insert. But in the context of AH.com, it means having the writer's mind and personality be ASB transplanted to a chosen historical or fictional figure. (I.E: You being SI'ed into Nicholas II in 1900 for instance).

Basically, they're the site's equivalent to the Isekai genre, for every good one there's at least 10 sub-par/outright bad ones. It's why I never touch SI fics on here. They use to flood the ASB forum before Fandom AH was created.
I mean...a Nicholas II SI doesn't really...well. The man was doomed by external circumstances
 
Ok, to deviate this a bit from the SI field, I am going to mention other tropes that I have seen very often and that are very tiresome in my opinion:

-The colonization of Antarctica.
This trope usually comes in one of two flavors, they almost never overlap.

-Antarctic Eldritch Horror:
Every word written by H.P. Lovecraft and Edgar Allan Poe about Antarctica is nothing but the truth. Antarctica is green and inhabited by monstrous creatures that have only a vague physical resemblance in common with humans. The most brutal and vile atrocities are the norm. Existential horrors are real and they are waiting for the opportunity to kill you or destroy the universe. And there is nothing you can do to prevent it.

-Postapocalyptic Antarctica:
Humanity begins to colonize Antarctica as part of a desperate attempt to escape climate change, because it has somehow become green and habitable (let's ignore all the problems that continue to make Antarctica uninhabitable even if all the ice melts) . In general, these colonies are also utopians who try to "break with the past" and create *utopian societies that only work through massive doses of author's decree. We can expect long, dense rants in which colonists lament how stupid their ancestors living outside of Antarctica were.


-Climate change:
In this case, my complaint is rather the same as it would be towards zombie apocalypses: each author puts what they want, and practically all of them can be summed up in "The world is going to shit and there is nothing What can you do about it?"


-The Second American Civil War:
It's been done so many times that it's not even funny, and often ends up degenerating into arguments in which viewers accuse each other of supporting one ideology or another. In addition to the fact that practically all the instances that I have seen can be summarized as follows:

(Summary removed to avoid breaking the rules regarding Chat, despite the fact that no real people were mentioned)
 
"checks and balances", "separation of powers"
Eh, depends on how its phrased.
i.e. In the "Middle Ages" (Yes, I am aware that this covers a massive time period, as well as a large area of very different set-ups), the idea of "The King has these rights and these limits, the Landed Nobility has these rights and these limits, the Church has these rights and these limits, the rich townsfolk have these rights and these limits, and communities of Peasants have these rights and these limits" is an entirely legible concept, and one that quite a few people agreed with.
EDIT: The "I am king because God says so, and I can do whatever I want" is really only a product of a few very specific times (mostly from 1600s to 1700s) in a few very specific places (most notably France). In fact, a constitution with formalized separation of powers/enumeration of rights and responsibilities might actually be favored by many groups in many places, simply as a solution to the endless power struggles between different classes/groups
 
Last edited:
Eh, depends on how its phrased.
i.e. In the "Middle Ages" (Yes, I am aware that this covers a massive time period, as well as a large area of very different set-ups), the idea of "The King has these rights and these limits, the Landed Nobility has these rights and these limits, the Church has these rights and these limits, the rich townsfolk have these rights and these limits, and communities of Peasants have these rights and these limits" is an entirely legible concept, and one that quite a few people agreed with.
EDIT: The "I am king because God says so, and I can do whatever I want" is really only a product of a few very specific times (mostly from 1600s to 1700s) in a few very specific places (most notably France). In fact, a constitution with formalized separation of powers/enumeration of rights and responsibilities might actually be favored by many groups in many places, simply as a solution to the endless power struggles between different classes/groups
I was thinking of the typical situation where the character tries to formulate it in the style of the 21st century without taking into account the context.

I think that's another thing that always seems to happen: characters from other times using 21st century jargon and expressions and no one questions them or asks what that means.

No one seems to appreciate the value of explaining things in language your audience can understand.

Also I thought that "I am the King because God says so and I can do whatever I want" was much more widespread than in France.
 
Okay, I'm gonna ask - I've been following this thread for a few days and am utterly bloody perplexed. What in God's good name is an SI!?!?

Like, I'm sure is a super obvious abbreviation, but I can't figure it out and even context clues aren't helping me.

Perhaps I'm an idiot. But ... help, please! :)
 
Also I thought that "I am the King because God says so and I can do whatever I want" was much more widespread than in France.

"Feudal contract" is a contract for a reason, it was not entirely one sided. Peasents, even Serfs, had certain guaranteed rights and lords/kings had certain obligations they must fulfill for them.
 
Okay, I'm gonna ask - I've been following this thread for a few days and am utterly bloody perplexed. What in God's good name is an SI!?!?

Like, I'm sure is a super obvious abbreviation, but I can't figure it out and even context clues aren't helping me.

Perhaps I'm an idiot. But ... help, please! :)

Self Insert, as was mentioned a few posts up.
 
Top