Deleted member 2186
I consider my timeline to be unrealistic and promote it this way as such , i receive more complains about my English typing then anything else but that is to be expected for a non English writer.
How plausible do you require your AH?
- Thread starter Geekhis Khan
- Start date
I generally tend to prefer plausibility, but I'll sacrifice a little if the story is written well, and such and such. But I do prefer plausibility because it's more interesting to read about something that could have potentially happened rather than something fantastical.
This is probably why I will never make a timeline, because I just don't have the time and the drive to do the research required. If I was going to do that much research I'd forgo the timeline and just write a book out of it instead.
I much prefer plausibility. Obviously it dosnt have to be plausible to be a good read, but if a story is claiming to be AH I prefer there to be some History for the story to be Alternate too, as opposed to just random fantasy. Not that random fantasy cant also be good, in its proper place.
The only plausible sucessful S**l**n Ive ever seen is Decades of Darkness, and that required a POD ~150 years before....
s.h.w-i always seemed to have a much tighter preference for plausability.
The only plausible sucessful S**l**n Ive ever seen is Decades of Darkness, and that required a POD ~150 years before....
s.h.w-i always seemed to have a much tighter preference for plausability.
Hello together!
I think some of the problems come with a different understanding of terms like "plausibility" and "butterfly effect".
For instance, what does "plausible" mean? Is only a TL a plausible TL which chooses the most probable of all possible outcomes of a certain chain of events? This implies already a very strict interpretation of the dynamics of history. And it shows signs of some inconsistency itself. Either I accept that OTL is the most probable TL. Then any other TL should be considered as implausible. Especially since everey POD requires changes which again must be explained somehow. Or one accepts that events happened in OTL which were not probable at all. If that is the case in another TL improbable events could also happen.
So I prefer TLs which can contain unlikely events or outcomes, but these events should be "possible". That is respecting the physical laws and giving some concern to an explanation. The TL also should be internally consistent. Considering the term "possible" one should always remember that we know very little about the history of OTL. First of all everything or most of what we know is second hand knowledge. One has to consider that the narrator of events can never be objective (or to be more precise: one can never know if he was objective). It is by all means an account of the events how the person saw them and experienced them. And even if he tried to be as truthful as possible it nevertheless will be a subjective experience. Just choosing what events to report in the news is influenced by the personal feelings of importance. But often one as a certain agenda may willfully change important pieces of the information which one relays to past generations. The earlier the history the lesser the information we get. Historians have to rely on objects and tracks they found to reconstruct what happened. And that exactly is what they do: reconstructing. And since it is a construction made by the historians it can be false. Always. Furthermore when we talk about history we mean the ever changing development of our society which consists of uncountable individual lives. The huge complexity of their relations and connections over thousands of years is very difficult to understand. So every explanation of causes and origins for certain events given by historians must be taken with a grain of salt. Even more so considering the poor databases for these explanations (see above).
Forging AH relies heavily on the knowledge of real history, of cause and effect for OTL events. Since these are somehow murky there is no definite answer to a certain outcome of a chain of events. So just to say one should be careful with the word "impossible". I prefer "highly unlikely" and I can accept some "highly unlikely" events in an ATL if they do not get too numerous.
Then there is this much discussed "butterfly effect". It seems I have a rather different understanding of this effect than many forum members here. Some seem to believe that every change in OTL must wrack havoc on the chain of events we know from OTL. I do not concur with that. Of course, it is true that an important POD in 700 AD should lead to a very changed world in 1900. But what about the first ten years after a POD? I at least expect some explanation why not obviously connected persons and events should be affected by a certain divergence. Therefore I strongly oppose a "this must be different just because of butterflies". On the other hand I can accept it, if the author of a TL uses the butterfly effect to change some details after his POD without a lengthy explanation as long as this is used sparingly.
So what do I like?
I like well written science fiction. So a TL relying on strange and mysterious effects for ISOTING or time travel are ok with me. I like fantasy generally, but prefer not a mingling with AH. So no magic ASBs for me. I do like plausible AH written like an OTL history book (or at least part of it), but I tend to give more leeway to the author considering my explanations above concerning possible and highly unlikely turns of events and the use of the butterfly effect.
All in all I think any comments to a TL should be given in a polite manner. Sadly enough the internet seems to be a place where at least some people forget to be polite. If there is a newcomer on this forum there is really no need to attack him ad hominem. Every criticism can be formulated in a polite way.
Kind regards,
G.
I think some of the problems come with a different understanding of terms like "plausibility" and "butterfly effect".
For instance, what does "plausible" mean? Is only a TL a plausible TL which chooses the most probable of all possible outcomes of a certain chain of events? This implies already a very strict interpretation of the dynamics of history. And it shows signs of some inconsistency itself. Either I accept that OTL is the most probable TL. Then any other TL should be considered as implausible. Especially since everey POD requires changes which again must be explained somehow. Or one accepts that events happened in OTL which were not probable at all. If that is the case in another TL improbable events could also happen.
So I prefer TLs which can contain unlikely events or outcomes, but these events should be "possible". That is respecting the physical laws and giving some concern to an explanation. The TL also should be internally consistent. Considering the term "possible" one should always remember that we know very little about the history of OTL. First of all everything or most of what we know is second hand knowledge. One has to consider that the narrator of events can never be objective (or to be more precise: one can never know if he was objective). It is by all means an account of the events how the person saw them and experienced them. And even if he tried to be as truthful as possible it nevertheless will be a subjective experience. Just choosing what events to report in the news is influenced by the personal feelings of importance. But often one as a certain agenda may willfully change important pieces of the information which one relays to past generations. The earlier the history the lesser the information we get. Historians have to rely on objects and tracks they found to reconstruct what happened. And that exactly is what they do: reconstructing. And since it is a construction made by the historians it can be false. Always. Furthermore when we talk about history we mean the ever changing development of our society which consists of uncountable individual lives. The huge complexity of their relations and connections over thousands of years is very difficult to understand. So every explanation of causes and origins for certain events given by historians must be taken with a grain of salt. Even more so considering the poor databases for these explanations (see above).
Forging AH relies heavily on the knowledge of real history, of cause and effect for OTL events. Since these are somehow murky there is no definite answer to a certain outcome of a chain of events. So just to say one should be careful with the word "impossible". I prefer "highly unlikely" and I can accept some "highly unlikely" events in an ATL if they do not get too numerous.
Then there is this much discussed "butterfly effect". It seems I have a rather different understanding of this effect than many forum members here. Some seem to believe that every change in OTL must wrack havoc on the chain of events we know from OTL. I do not concur with that. Of course, it is true that an important POD in 700 AD should lead to a very changed world in 1900. But what about the first ten years after a POD? I at least expect some explanation why not obviously connected persons and events should be affected by a certain divergence. Therefore I strongly oppose a "this must be different just because of butterflies". On the other hand I can accept it, if the author of a TL uses the butterfly effect to change some details after his POD without a lengthy explanation as long as this is used sparingly.
So what do I like?
I like well written science fiction. So a TL relying on strange and mysterious effects for ISOTING or time travel are ok with me. I like fantasy generally, but prefer not a mingling with AH. So no magic ASBs for me. I do like plausible AH written like an OTL history book (or at least part of it), but I tend to give more leeway to the author considering my explanations above concerning possible and highly unlikely turns of events and the use of the butterfly effect.
All in all I think any comments to a TL should be given in a polite manner. Sadly enough the internet seems to be a place where at least some people forget to be polite. If there is a newcomer on this forum there is really no need to attack him ad hominem. Every criticism can be formulated in a polite way.
Kind regards,
G.
All good points, everyone.
One thing that I find interesting is exactly *what* sets people past the suspension of disbelief point. It's usually something small. We can accept the giant AI-run nuclear-powered super-airships, but a return to cravats? We can't accept that!
Reminds me of a story I heard from Kevin Siembieda of Palladium Books (Rifts RPG, Robotech RPG, etc.). Back in the 80's they wrote the original Robotech roleplaying game. Here, of course, was a world full of giant transforming space fighter/robot vehicles that use pseudoscience "protoculture" as a weapon. And when Kevin sent the manuscript to the Robotech people for approval they questioned the realism of the "infared nightvision goggles" he'd included!
One thing that I find interesting is exactly *what* sets people past the suspension of disbelief point. It's usually something small. We can accept the giant AI-run nuclear-powered super-airships, but a return to cravats? We can't accept that!
Reminds me of a story I heard from Kevin Siembieda of Palladium Books (Rifts RPG, Robotech RPG, etc.). Back in the 80's they wrote the original Robotech roleplaying game. Here, of course, was a world full of giant transforming space fighter/robot vehicles that use pseudoscience "protoculture" as a weapon. And when Kevin sent the manuscript to the Robotech people for approval they questioned the realism of the "infared nightvision goggles" he'd included!
It really depends on the context of the story. For example, since I live in the Roanoke Valley, I know that this area is totally unsuitable for trench warfare.
Yet it's one of the main settings in TL191's Great War series. (Reggie Bartlett and Chester Martin both fought there.) But I was able to look past that little inaccuracy and just go with it, so to speak.
I have to wonder, did anyone who bitches and moans about ASBs and what not ever read The Lord of The Rings or Harry Potter? Don't those series and any other sci-fi stuff require you to suspend disbelief? If you could do it for a fantasy novel, why not for an AH scenario?
As for butterflies, try this on- Do you really think that Japan's first Meiji Emperor (I forgot his name), or Otto Von Bismarck would have cared who won the ACW? In the short term at least, their efforts to modernize their respective nations would have been unaffected at first. And then as for real life historical figures who exist in ATLs when they were born AFTER the POD, why not? As long as the person's parents survive in this ATL, what's to stop them from getting their mojo on at the same time they really did? I mean, why couldn't Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton, or Douglas MacArthur have been born even after the South won?
Yet it's one of the main settings in TL191's Great War series. (Reggie Bartlett and Chester Martin both fought there.) But I was able to look past that little inaccuracy and just go with it, so to speak.
I have to wonder, did anyone who bitches and moans about ASBs and what not ever read The Lord of The Rings or Harry Potter? Don't those series and any other sci-fi stuff require you to suspend disbelief? If you could do it for a fantasy novel, why not for an AH scenario?
As for butterflies, try this on- Do you really think that Japan's first Meiji Emperor (I forgot his name), or Otto Von Bismarck would have cared who won the ACW? In the short term at least, their efforts to modernize their respective nations would have been unaffected at first. And then as for real life historical figures who exist in ATLs when they were born AFTER the POD, why not? As long as the person's parents survive in this ATL, what's to stop them from getting their mojo on at the same time they really did? I mean, why couldn't Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton, or Douglas MacArthur have been born even after the South won?
Last edited:
I'm a former Roanoke-area guy myself (my mom still lives in Salem) so I'm right there with you on that.
Plus, I think he drastically underestimated how friggin BIG Catawba mountain is. Storming its heights against entrenched forces? Right!
At least he knew to call the town "Big Lick", though, and not "Roanoke". With WV in a seperate and hostile country there's no Norfolk & Western RR shipping coal to Norfolk and setting up HQ in the Roanoke Valley and renaming the town so as to look better on the company letterhead.
Plus, I think he drastically underestimated how friggin BIG Catawba mountain is. Storming its heights against entrenched forces? Right!
At least he knew to call the town "Big Lick", though, and not "Roanoke". With WV in a seperate and hostile country there's no Norfolk & Western RR shipping coal to Norfolk and setting up HQ in the Roanoke Valley and renaming the town so as to look better on the company letterhead.
I became a fan of Alternate History through RPGs, GURPS Alternate Earths, so this has shaped my view of "good" alternate history. While I very much like the more textbook like alternate history from Greenhill and Potomac publishing, most of the stuff I write tends to be "adventure oriented alternate history." This means that my TLs are focused on being interesting and full of adventure, incorporating interesting and heroic characters.
I do a lot of research for my TLs and aim at a high level of plausibility but this remains somewhat secondary. As for butterflies, I make use of them in a more limited manner usually because I try to keep the end point of my TL within a generation or two of my POD. This makes it easier to foresee the after effects of the POD. Most of my TLs focus on the late colonial period of North America (1740 - 1770) or the mid-19th century (1840 - 1870) because those are the eras I am most interested in. I also like to make use of a select cast of characters including...Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, William Walker, Frederick T. Ward and other AH favorites.
When reading other people's TLs I have to acknowledge my own biases as I generally don't like CSA victorious TLs (especially if the CSA quickly becomes far more liberal and progressive than the north) and UK defeats anyone no matter what TLs. This, along with a more limited knowledge base on other historical eras is why I don't post as much as many of the other people here despite being a member of the boards for about 4.5 years. I often just don't feel qualified to comment on many threats, and in instances where I am I generally don't have much new to add so why piss on someone elses parade for no reason? I do ocassionally jump in on arguments where I notice egregious errors or just plain pig-headed egotistical nationalism.
Overall, I like a plausible AH but can usually plow through a hinky one if it's a good story. The historical parallels in most of HT's work get annoying but I try to remember their written for a much broader market than the AH fans of this board so the have to be easier to relate to than "true AH".
Benjamin
I do a lot of research for my TLs and aim at a high level of plausibility but this remains somewhat secondary. As for butterflies, I make use of them in a more limited manner usually because I try to keep the end point of my TL within a generation or two of my POD. This makes it easier to foresee the after effects of the POD. Most of my TLs focus on the late colonial period of North America (1740 - 1770) or the mid-19th century (1840 - 1870) because those are the eras I am most interested in. I also like to make use of a select cast of characters including...Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, William Walker, Frederick T. Ward and other AH favorites.
When reading other people's TLs I have to acknowledge my own biases as I generally don't like CSA victorious TLs (especially if the CSA quickly becomes far more liberal and progressive than the north) and UK defeats anyone no matter what TLs. This, along with a more limited knowledge base on other historical eras is why I don't post as much as many of the other people here despite being a member of the boards for about 4.5 years. I often just don't feel qualified to comment on many threats, and in instances where I am I generally don't have much new to add so why piss on someone elses parade for no reason? I do ocassionally jump in on arguments where I notice egregious errors or just plain pig-headed egotistical nationalism.
Overall, I like a plausible AH but can usually plow through a hinky one if it's a good story. The historical parallels in most of HT's work get annoying but I try to remember their written for a much broader market than the AH fans of this board so the have to be easier to relate to than "true AH".
Benjamin
With respect to published AH fiction, I consider the writing style, characterizations, and narrative far more important than whether or not I consider the AH itself plausible. In fact, good writing and storytelling can often hide an illogical AH, while an excellently researched and highly plausible AH still sucks as fiction if it is poorly written. It also matters if the AH is just a backstory to set the stage ("Yiddish Policeman's Union", "Man in the High Castle") or the entire reason the book is written ("For Want of a Nail" or the TL-191 books). In the first instance, the AH need not be explained or even logical, while in the second, it needs to be very well thought out and very thoroughly presented. Also, in the second instance, my preference is for the AH to be presented in pseudo-textbook narratives (chapter prologues, in an appendix, or the whole book), since so much info must be presented - and nobody really talks like Turtledove's characters ("Well Jim, this wet Confederate foxhole we just took here in Kentucky makes me wonder if Kaiser Bill's troops who marched into Paris a few weeks ago have things any better than we do.")
I'm a former Roanoke-area guy myself (my mom still lives in Salem) so I'm right there with you on that.
Plus, I think he drastically underestimated how friggin BIG Catawba mountain is. Storming its heights against entrenched forces? Right!
At least he knew to call the town "Big Lick", though, and not "Roanoke". With WV in a seperate and hostile country there's no Norfolk & Western RR shipping coal to Norfolk and setting up HQ in the Roanoke Valley and renaming the town so as to look better on the company letterhead.
All good points. And I did not know that's whay NW did that.
There's no reason "why not" and I like seeing familiar names pop up in ATL's. I've used several OTL people (some acting differently, like fillabuster Jim Polk, and some acting about the same) in my on-going CoHE TL. Having said that, it does bother me when small details are missed. For example, the 10th child of Samuel and Mary Davis may be born on June 3, 1808, but he likely wouldn't be named Jefferson in a TL where Thomas Jefferson either didn't exist or spent his life in academia teaching political philosophy.
I require very little other than a solid story with good characters.
If I want counterfactual history, I'll buy a counterfactual history book, thank you very much.
RealityBYTES
If I want counterfactual history, I'll buy a counterfactual history book, thank you very much.
RealityBYTES
Here is a case that would show that shows that the complaints of historical parallels in ATL tend to be culturally-centered. In the Celestial Empire series by Chris Robeson, the ATL has a very specific POD of 1424 CE, with Emperor Zhu Zhanji dying early, allowing the Treasure Fleets to continue. As such, despite the fact that you have people born many centuries after the POD (e.g. Galileo Galilei, Leonardo da Vinci, Emperor Pu Yi, and Emperor Pu Zhen, et al.). I challenge the the same people who challenge the validity of Tutledove's TL-191 to explain , why Robeson's ATL is considered accurate, while Turtledove's is considered "nigh impossible"....