How acceptable is "alternate history" in writing (nowadays)?

Alternate History is a real (and popular) genre.

Alternate History fiction asks "what if something different happened" and then extrapolates how the world would be different. Generally, the 'this' is a very big deal and obvious to the reader that it is a departure from actual history.

Examples:

• What if Nazis won Worl War II? (The Man in the High Castle, Fatherland)
• What if a man from the future gave the Confederacy a futuristic weapon(The Guns of the South)
• What if there were dragons during the Napoleonic War?(His Majesty's Dragon)

As you can see they can often(but not necessarily) have a fantastic element to explain why fictional history departed from actual history.

Not An Excuse for Mistakes

Alternate history should not be mistaken for historical fiction that contains a mistake. The point of departure should be clear and obvious from the start - probably featured on the cover or back of the book summary. Alternate History should not be used by a person who wants to write a historical novel without doing his\her homework and tell people all errors are because "Alternate History".

To answer your question of acceptability, here's my answer:

1. The point of departure from actual history vs alternate history should be obvious and have significant consequences. (For instance, changing the birthdate or name of a historical figure would not be alternate history, and more interpreted as a mistake)
2. All departures from actual history should be obvious or easily inferable from the departure of actual history.(e.g. If WWII never happens, then it might be acceptable that Churchill never became Prime Minister. It is not acceptable to say that if there was no Spanish Inquisition, then Pope John Paul II would instead have been Pope John XVI) If they aren't obvious or easily inferable, then the novel should explain it.

This Particular Case

If the point of the novel you're talking about was something like "what if the French Revolution never happened", then I would say this was an obvious Alternate History. If the book was a Romance novel that took place in Paris in 1815 with a brief visit to "King Frederich II" who had rules for 30+ years... then I would say that was a historical novel with a bad mistake. If it was something between those two examples, you'll have to use your own judgment.

Hope that helps!

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Dustin‭

15 reputation 0 3 3 0

Under what circumstances is this kind of alternate history desirable, or at least acceptable?

I think in large part this depends on how well known the true history is. In this case, I think your concerns are misplaced, I think nearly all adults would not know who was the King of France of between 1777 and 1819, and would not know what the implications might be in the book's scenario with regard to Napoleon.

If the point of the novel was to capture the period involved in some way, then the audience that does not know their French history might very well enjoy it thoroughly.

To me, that is the point of fiction, entertainment, so if it succeeds for nearly everybody reading it, then it does not have to be literally true. That is the situation of "at least acceptable."

The circumstances in which it is less acceptable is when the history is well known to a large segment of the audience, and when that happens their suspension of disbelief may overwhelm them. Thus they would not be entertained, and that is unacceptable. If a large segment recognized immediately (without research) that a "King Frederic II" would dramatically change world history and make the current world effectively impossible, then they may not find the fiction plausible enough to keep reading.

For the most part, screwing up the facts (intentionally or not) of history is perfectly acceptable if the audience does not know it. I could add another Founding Father of the USA and tell his story, give him wonderful speeches given (IRL) by other Founding Fathers, the same with battles, and even most Americans would not know the difference. Or I could make up a story of an adventure by an existing founding father.

IMO the purpose of fiction is entertainment, it only fails when it does something that alienates a big chunk of the audience. If I were an editor (or reviewer), I would question whether the counter-factual elements are necessary for the story or not. If they are not necessary, then the truth should be told. But if the story is about King Frederic II, obviously that story cannot be told without being counter-factual, so then the calculus must turn to how many people would have their reading reverie broken by this counter-factual claim, and how entertaining the story is for those that can get over it.

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Amadeus‭

3156 reputation 2 1399 613 37

You were right about your own taste. You may have been right about the taste of many other people as well. But as a general principle, you were wrong.

Fiction is fiction. Fiction is all the stuff that didn't happen but should have. There is no part of life, experience, or history that is not ripe for fictionalizing.

This notion of stuff that didn't happen but should have is important. Stories are part of how we make sense of the world and of our lives. (I think you could make a good argument that stories are all of how we make sense of the world and of our lives.) And because they are about making sense of lives that may not actually make any sense, or that may only make sense in the next life (if there is one), they are often neater and simple than reality. But they can also be wilder and weirder than reality, because it is often in the wild and weird that we find, or at least highlight, the things that make life make sense to us.

Alternate history is a way of making sense of the world by examining consequences. What if X had happened instead of Y? If we can project the consequences of that, we understand something about the way human affairs develop.

But if stories are about what didn't happen but should have, some people will have different tastes in stories because some people will have different views about what should have happened. (This is not simply a moral question. It can be about what would be cool. It can be about what would make human life make more sense.)

To some, feeling comfortable in their skin involves pinning down as many facts and their causes a possible. Supposition contrary to fact is anathema to them. They may enjoy historical fiction because it feels comfortably close to fact. They will be proportionally uncomfortable if they suspect that anything that happens in the story is contrary to established fact. (They often have a naive and trusting view of just how established established facts really are.)

Those people are never going to like alternate history. They are never going to like four buttons on a lady's glove in an age where there should be five.

Given that they take comfort in surrounding themselves with a buffer of established facts, they are quite likely to assert that their own taste is a matter of established fact as well, that a style they don't like is simply a violation of the natural order of things.

But they are not the whole of the audience. For many of us, the things that didn't happen but should have are wildly contrary to established fact, and may call established fact into question. Some of us like nothing better than to trample an established fact underfoot, spit in its eye, and call it's mother a whore.

Fiction is fiction and may do as it pleases. Who it pleases, is, of course a different matter. We should not ask what it is right or wrong to fictionalize, but as professionals we do have to ask what will sell. And today, at least, fiction that cleaves to fact like ivy to an oak seems to be more to the popular taste.

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Mark Baker‭

4371 reputation 12 1104 744 58