Talk:Alternate history/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Alternate history. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

What is Alternate History?

Turtledove looks interesting (+wishlist), but it's not Alternate History, it's common SF placed in the future, while Alternate History may or may not be placed in the past. A key element of Alternate History is that only a small thing happens which changes everything. An alien invasion is not a small thing.

Very little of Turtledove's writing is set in the future. And AH does not depend on a "small thing" happening. It depends on a change on something historical happening. The size is inconsequential. An alien invasion occuring in 1941 is alternate history unless you have some proof that it did, in fact, happen.

Why must it be a small thing? "The Man In The High Castle" is premised on the Axis powers winning WWII, not a small thing but undeniably an Alternate history novel -- GWO

"Undeniably"? Please.

For practical reasons: What other qualifier is there? Any SF story is Alternate History, I'd even say any story is alternate history.

The thing must only be small at the very beginning. There are several points in the history that could have changed the war's outcome. Just kill Hitler at age 25, as Yulsman did.

Most SF stories take place in the future -alternate history have to involve a change in the known story we call history. Some may be set in the present or future but they must involve a change in the past. I agree that the "World war" books combine alternate history and standard scifi. Turtledove's Civil War books are better examples. -rmhermen

There are lots of SF stories requiring change in our past, because they were written decades ago. Have they transmogrified into Alternate History?

The key feature of AH is IMHO that any random piece of trivia would modify our world. What if Helium would not be found in Kansas, but in Sachsen? Lots of Zeppelins in the air. What if some unknown Austrian artist died at age 25? No WWII. What if aliens invade the earth? An invaded earth.

Turtledove's WWII series looks interesting and has something AHish about it, it's only not a prime example, TMITHC is, and the Civil War series probably too.

I cannot find details about J. C. Squire's collection. Someone? --Yooden

Now that I think of it, Darcy doesn't qualify. The stories are about crime and magic, not about alternate history. --Yooden

Not true. The Darcy stories are set in a world in which Richard I of England lived to an old age, settled down, became an enlightened monarch, and led to England turning into the Western Empire. RickK 22:33, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

All SF is not alternate history. Alternate history is based on known ahistorical events that took place in the past. Any number of SF stories put their change in the future.

The size of the event is irrelevant. Consider Harry Harrison's "Eden" novels. There the event is the lack of a 100 km diameter asteroid slamming into the Earth 65 million years ago. It doesn't get much bigger than that.

There's a decent discussion of what is/is not AH at http://www.uchronia.net/intro.html --Paul Drye

The asteroid was (not) long ago. Is the movie Armageddon alternate history?

Fatherland is not the best AH book, but it may be the most archetypical.

On the other hand -is all alternate history sci fi? All that I have read was classed as such but why would it need to be. ---rmhermen

No, Fatherland, for example, is mainstream fiction. Len Deighton's XPD is another example of mainstream alternate history. Also, Robert Musil's Viennese epic, Man Without Qualities, plays with alternate outcomes and historical actualities. sjc

It should be important whether AH is SF. SF is often categorized wrong.

Fatherland is no SF because of what? No time machine? Success?

--Yooden

Success, mainly, but it is mainstream principally because it deals with the alternate nature of history without implying any major technological differences, and was marketed as a mainstream novel. Certainly there was an acute shortage of time-machines...sjc

The thing about Fatherland, as I see it, is that it's a detective/thriller novel. It has a detective/thriller plot, it is constructed as a detective/thriller novel, it has no SF elements in it. Apart from the setting, of course, but the fact that it's set in an alternate history is not in any way the point of the novel - it's a detective/thriller novel that just happens to have an unusual setting, more like (insert name of detective novel set in historical ancient Japan) than like (insert example of novel where the fact that it's an alternate history is the whole point). --Paul A

Are you sure that Jonbar hinge is ever used? Google only has three results. In shwi, the word is POD for Point of divergence -- Error

I was coming here to post the same thing. I changed the article before even reading this comment. I changed it to POD (although in my case it was Point of Departure. I'll change that to Point of divergernce. RickK 22:28, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Nobody yet seems to have mentioned the source of "Jonbar Hinge".

It's from Jack Williamson's story "The Legion of Time", which first appeared in "Astounding" in 1938, and has since been published in book form. The alternatives are the good civilisation of Jonbar or the bad one of Gyronchi, and the pivotal event is whether a child called John Barr picks up an old magnet, or a pebble .

Paul Magnussen

AS far as I am concerned, I would be sad to see a decision ending the question of whether early Science Fiction that does not portray the existing present is or is not alternate history. I think the question itself is one of those "fun to argue about but never settle" issues that should be mentioned as such in the article on alternate history, and should not be settled. Separate lists of alternate history fiction could be maintained to satisfy the purists.

'Alternate' or 'Alternative?'

'Alternate history' as a phrase always bothers me. To alternate is to switch between two states (as in alternating current). The phrase ought to be 'alternative history', surely! --Suitov 11:53, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I've just fixed that. I'll fix the links over the next few days. — Chameleon 15:47, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Alternate History is the term commonly used by the people who actually use it. Google search for alternate-history-novel gives 14,800 hits. alternative-history-novel gives only 889 hits. The former is used 1564% more often than the latter. Clearly the latter is not the accepted term. Even within wikipedia alternate history is used more often in things like category names: see category:alternate history characters, category:alternate history films, category:alternate history games, category:alternate history novels, category:alternate history writers etc. etc. Most of the articles linking to alternative history actually say "alternate history"in the text; "alternative" is only in the link. When such a discrepancy exists between common usage and what you believe the correct usage should be, it is likely that your analysis of the terminology used is at fault rather than the common usage being incorrect. Please see the American Heritage dictionary under "alternate"—the usage here of "alternate" is adj. 3 "Serving or used in place of another; substitute:an alternate plan." But whatever the reasoning behind what the correct term is, it is not Wikipedia's job to change overwhelming common usage; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). I am beginning the link correction process. pfahlstrom 01:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

What's this "very commonly but incorrectly" stuff? Google says "alternate history" beats "alternative history" 170k to 44k. (Actually, the latter was bigger than I expected.) ––wwoods 18:12, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Google also reports over three million results for ‘ain't’, without this making the word standard English. Get over Google! — Chameleon 07:36, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not a persuasive example. Google says that "isn't" beats "ain't", 12.9M to 4.2M. "Alternate history" may not be to your taste, and I've got language peeves of my own, but it just ain't "incorrect". ––wwoods 08:14, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's not a matter of my taste. This grammatical confusion is common but a confusion nevertheless. In distinguishing properly between the terms ‘alternate’ and ‘alternative’, I am following the Wikipedia Manual of Style and, more generally, the writing habits of educated people.

The Google test is not a good one. The phrase "alternate history" gets 180,000 results on Google, yes. But there are 284,000 pages' worth of people thinking ‘tongue’ is spelt ‘tounge’. Netizens' illiteracy is irrelevant to us in our task of building and improving Wikipedia. — Chameleon 09:15, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it is both a matter of taste and grammer. Grammar because, yes, grammatically, it should be alternative. Taste, because through common (and long) usage, the incorrect (grammatically) form of alternate history is accepted as a marketing tool and the name of the genre which Chameleon disagrees with. More people will recognize the term alternate history than alternative history and the question then comes down to: is the purpose of Wikipedia to be correct in a manner which diminishes its usefulness or incorrect in a manner which allows people to find what they are looking for. You can find many books with the phrase "Alternate History" on the spine (as you would find "science fiction," "mystery," "fiction," etc.) but you won't find any with the more grammatically correct "alternative history." - shsilver

Using the correct term doesn't make anything less useful to anyone in any way: anybody searching for the term "Alternate Fiction" will be redirected to the article. Don't make out that people will be wondering around deprived of information because we have good grammar. On the other hand, opting for the incorrect term has the negative effect of a) making Wikipedia look stupid and b) condoning the error. It is much the same as not correcting spelling mistakes in articles.

Actually I don't think alternate is "wrong" here in modern usage. The term is used as a synonym for alternative in modern English in a variety of contexts. Correctness is dictated by usage, after all: many of the words you currently use would have been "incorrect" in that usage a mere 300 years ago, but the meaning has shifted. --Delirium 11:13, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the 2000 American Heritage dictionary lists this as a correct usage as well: "alternate, n., 3. Serving or used in place of another; substitute: an alternate plan." --Delirium 11:16, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

-- Rewrote article to make it more useful and get away from semantic disagreements.- shsilver

Bah, whatever. — Chameleon 08:58, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For Want of a Nail?

If this article is about alternate history fiction in particular, rather than about the concept of alternate history/virtual history, does 'For Want of a Nail' really belong there? 'For Want of a Nail' is not a story set in an alternate timeline, but a history book from an alternate timeline. Does it belong in the Virtual history article? GCarty

I would suggest that it is fiction and does tell a story, just not one that uses a traditional narrative style.

'For Want of a Nail' is definitely fiction, of the tongue-in-cheek variety, in that it purports to be a work of academic history. Libraries always classify it as fiction, FWIW. --Michael K. Smith 12:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the newsgroup soc.history.what-if is mainly composed of serious counterfactual history discussion - in fact its own FAQ states that discussion of published alternate-history fiction should be done on rec.arts.sf.written only. GCarty

Categorization

I removed the article from Category:Fictional events and Category:Fictional universes, see Category_talk:Fictional -- Pjacobi 21:12, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Alternative_history_(fiction) article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Alternative_history_(fiction)}} to this page. — LinkBot 01:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added the links that made sense. Edward 09:58, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alternate Personal History

Has anyone coined a term for these stories? (e.g. It's a Wonderful Life, etc) Osprey 21:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Um, no. I enjoy a lot of stuff like this (movies like Sliding Doors, etc) and APH is probably a good title for such things. Strict AH involves some kind of a change in 'public' history, but 'personal' could become AH in this manner: say that John F Kennedy was crippled by his combat experience in WW2, and ended up in a wheelchair, and lost all interest in politics. The story starts with a older Kennedy, say, around 1970, tsking about public affairs as he's reading the paper, and we'll say further that he's enough of an invalid that he's never married, and has muddled along as the administrator of some charity organization. The story goes on to have him meet old friends, and maybe a politician that he knew well in our time-line, but here is just a benefactor to the charity. The story hints of his restlessness, and desire to *do* something, and closes with him dying of a stroke in his sleep.

Sad, but...here, you have a public figure going off on the what-ifs in his life, in a quiet enough way that it's really quite personal.--Jrittenh 7 July 2005 08:25 (UTC)

There is an extremely good example of this "alternate personal history" that actually does involve JFK. It's a short story called "The Winterberry" by Nicholas Dichario. In this future, JFK survived his assassination, but in a severely brain-damaged state, and his family, for the sake of the country, covered up his survival. However, the future history remains entirely unchanged; there's a strong hint that JFK would have been better off dead than in the mentally-retarded state he is in during the story. --L. 22:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

As a working (but retired) historian, I have professional problems with the "Great Man" theory of history. On the other hand, as a lifelong SF fan with a particular soft spot for alternate history, I have to say it's (at least) much more interesting when the individual to whom something different happens -- to create a POD -- is one of the movers and shakers, like JFK or FDR or Genghis Khan or whomever.

A purely personal alternate history, especially when it involves a purely fictional person (as in It's a Wonderful Life), is purely pointless. This is because part of the fun of reading alternate history, at least to me, is evaluating the cause-and-effect of the author's chosen POD. Is it reasonable and believable? For this reason, I don't have much use for many of Turtledove's novels. In Guns of the South, he posits transporting AK-47s back in time, which is not the sort of subtle POD that might actually happen in our version of the real world. Likewise, having aliens invade in the middle of WWII smacks of deus ex machina to me. (Harry's earlier works with a Byzantine setting were much better in this regard.) --Michael K. Smith 12:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Future History

Josquius seems intent that future histories (i.e. science fiction) becomes alternate history when the time in which it is set has passed. To support this, Josquius has cited ah.com (which is Advanced Healthcare, S.C.). Looking at definitions used by Uchronia and the Sidewise Award for Alternate History, this is not alternate history (see discussion above, "becoming alternate history"). Shsilver 13:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't be facetious, I meant alternatehistory.com... A well written story set in a future which has passed and has not happened does become a honourary alternate history. 1984 is a main example of this, its a popular discussion topic of exactly what the alternate timeline behind 1984 is. They were not alternate history at the time they were written but they are now. - Josquius

Not facetious at all. If the goal is to be accurate, please be accurate. If somebody doesn't know about alternatehistory.com and followed your link... Anyway, by your definition, other classics of alternate history include Jane Eyre, Bleak House, and The Scarlet Letter since the time in which they are set is passed. Being alternate history is as much a matter of intent as anything else. Shsilver 17:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If ' Jane Eyre, Bleak House, and The Scarlet Letter' were written about what the writer thought the future would be like then yes they would be. I am only familiar with Jane Eyre there and I'm pretty certain its a Victorian love story, not a future history. -Josquius

But by your argument, it has talen place in our past and didn't really happen, therefore it is alternate history, even if not on an earth shaking scale (see above, the discussion on personal alternate history). Sure, it wasn't intended as alternate history, but to look at it from now, it would be if your definition fit. Some sources which agtree that your definition for AH is incorrect include Karen Hellekson, author of The Alternate History: Refiguring Historical Time, Uchronia, Andy Duncan, who wrote the article on alternate history for The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction, and the rules for the Sidewise Award for Alternate History.Shsilver 18:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...no that's not my argument at all... Every book except science fiction is alternate history by your definition there as books set in the present when wrote were obviously published in the past. I can see how you could regard my original edit as incorrect however my new revision is totally correct. You are obviously a semi-decent computer user with being on wikipedia and claim to be a expert on what alternate history is yet you hadn't heard of ah.com... Most strange. -Josquius

No, I've heard of alternatehistory.com, not ah.com (which is a healthcare company), which has nothing to do with my most recent argument, which cited several sources in support of my argument. By your definition, all SF would eventually be considered alternate history, which is not the case. Interestingly, I was discussing your assertion with a couple of the judges of the Sidewise Award over the weekend and they both found it, well, ridiculous.Shsilver 18:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since you now say that you are wanting a reply…

To your sources: uchronia says ‘You might argue that excluding all such retroactive alternate histories from this bibliography is "limiting", in which case you'd be exactly right. A limit must be drawn or else this bibliography would have the impossible goal of including a significant fraction of the books and stories that have ever been published, and potentially the majority of all science fiction.’. It says here that retroactive alternate history does exist. It is simply choosing not to list them. It is not denying their existence. This source backs up my argument not yours, in fact it goes beyond mine in saying every outdated sci-fi is alternate history.

For the sidewise award- 1: I can find no criteria of their own 2: They are part of the uchronia site so I would assume they use the above - Josquius

And by your definition, ah would "includ[e] a significant fraction of the books and stories that have ever been published, and potentially the majority of all science fiction." and therefor be an essentially meaningless term.

And just because the Sidewise Awards are hosted on the website, doesn't mean they share Uchronia's definition (they don't).

Interesting how four tildes works for everyone but you.Shsilver 20:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

And I like your latest edit and can be happy with it.Shsilver 20:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Well what is the sidewise definition then? They do not include it on their main site. I do not think too highly of some minor Internet award though which is what they seem to be (though forgive me if I am wrong on that). How many times must I say THAT IS NOT MY DEFINITION. That is your fictitious warping of my definition. The likes of (original) Flash Gordon where its just a case of ‘ohh it’s the 1980s and we fly around in space ships fighting aliens’ are not honorary alternate history. They are atrociously bad alien space bat alternate histories though in my opinion they lack the honour to be honorary alternate history (though some will disagree with me here). The likes of 1984 however where the world is perfectly plausible had things gone differently (i.e. the technology is all proven to be possible) are honorary alternate history. You hang around at that alternate history newsgroup. Surely you have encountered the conversations about it and other honorary alternate histories that appear? It is not just ah.com that agrees with me, many at that newsgroup seem to too despite your warping of my definition. - Josquius

Hey, you got the tildes to work. Congratulations. Actually, that is your definition, just taken to its logical (or illogical, your choice) extremes. One of the problems I see with your definition is that it requires a qualitative call as to whether something is AH, which shouldn't be the case.

As for the Sidewise Award, it has been around for ten years and many of the judges are considered by publishers, editors and authors to be experts in the field of ah. Two of them have written dissertations on the topic. It may be a minor award, but it isn't an internet one, and authors like Charles Stross, S.M. Stirling, and others (who haven't won the award) view it rather highly.

I have known how to get a link to my page to work all along, I am simply not typing it out every time. It is close at hand here though so I'm using it. Most genres require some sort of definition in them. The line between sci fi and fantasy for instance is very vague in places. - Josquius

Hey Josquius

I've provided several sources, from many respected experts in the field to refute your assertion. Your comment is based, apparently, on one argument and you haven't tried to refute what I've written. Please either make a specific argument for your case or stop changing the entry in error. So far, your argument amounts to "because I say so" and one minor website (which points to the sites I've mentioned as comprehensive).Shsilver 28 June 2005 14:33 (UTC)

I have been unable to post on the discussion page for a day or two. It keeps coming up with the preview screen when I click on save. What I wrote last was: Of course judges of some award would not class them as being alternate history as awards by their nature usually go to new books. They won't suddenly out of the blue give it to something written a few decades ago. I remember a book I read last year called ‘Total War:2006’. The version I read was a reprint and one of the many comments they take from reviews was that the book was a good example of what might have been if things had gone differently in the late 90s. The book was originally written in the mid 90s and post 11/9 it was re-released as a story of what might have been. This also applies to other books set in a future that wasn’t. They are still published despite what they depict not having happened.

Stop your close minded straight reverts. Its immature. -Josquius

Not immature. Accurate. And several of the names I mentioned are of academics who study Alternate History. Oh, and the Sidewise Award can be given out to older books (notable Sobel's For Want of a Nail and Garrett's "Lord Darcy" series.Shsilver 29 June 2005 16:50 (UTC)

I've documented my claims that most people view it as not AH. You haven't, instead blindly changing it back without answering claims to the contrary.Shsilver 6 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)

I understand the idea of claiming things that are 'fictional history' that has passed as 'alternate history', but here's my viewpoint.

FWIW, I'm one of the Sidewise judges that shsilver was going on about, and among those worthies, I seem to be the toughest grader and the toughest on definitions. So here's the story:

"Fictional History" is what you'd call 1984, any of the Clancy books, things like Heinlein's historical setup of stories and novels that follow a similar timeline, and political novels like Seven Days in May.

"Alternate History" requires a simple Point of Divergence. Not a complex one. Not "well, what if this and this and this changed." Like, what if Marilyn Monroe was President, and Jackie Kennedy was the head of the Soviet Union and the Pope was openly gay, and....

That's not AH, that's some kind of weird fantasy. Period. --Jrittenh 6 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)

I am not claiming these books are alternate history. I am just stating the fact that they are commonly regarded as honourary alternate history. Go and check out places where alternate history is discussed by fans of the genre (alternatehistory.com being the biggest place) you will find that many wrong future histories always pop up. Those bad PODs you mentioned. They would make a alternate history. A very bad one. But it would still be a alternate history. Just as all of that pulp sci fi nonsense of the 1930s is classed in the same genre as A.C. Clarke and other respected writers bad alternate history does exist. Something that springs to mind here is The Two Georges which just has a vague 'ugh well...The American Revolution sort of didn't happen' POD. There is no way that agreement between the two Georges could have happened. For the purposes of fiction though it did. I can not find the original poll from the old ah.com forum, it is just not worth my time however there was one created a week or two ago which shows that fans do agree with me on this. http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=17295 -Josquius

Josquius, linking to a poll that you created and in which you refer to Shsilver as an "idiot" does absolutely nothing to lend weight to your side of the debate -Rjo 09:53, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as 'honorary' alternate history fiction = any future history. I went to that poll, and thought that 20-odd people on that board agreeing on anything doth not decree that the moon is made of green cheese. I don't care how well something is written, AH is dependant on a POD. I read very POD-based true AH all the time that is utter crap.

The only things that a lot of people consider AH that is iffy in my book is where the POD is caused by time travellers and the like. ISLAND IN THE SEA OF TIME and THE GUNS OF THE SOUTH are the best-written of that sort. They make me itch, but I'll deal with a few like that as 'honorary' because it's a manufactured by time travel POD. --Jrittenh 05:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Print Sources

I've added a short bibliography of printed sources whcih discuss alternate history and its place within science fiction, literature, and historiography. These tend to be more academic works and are extremely useful in understanding what alternate history is.

Please end the edit war

Shsilver and Josquius should both stop and count to ten before editing any more. (And, Josquius, it would be polite for you to sign your posts on the talk page with the special code ~~~~.) If you can't agree between yourselves, then I highly recommend that you submit your dispute to peer review or mediation and see whether a consensus approach to the issue can be reached. Russ Blau (talk) July 6, 2005 19:26 (UTC)

Signing posts no longer works for some reason. I do try to do so.

I have tried many times to compromise and I too am getting sick of this. - Josquius

I have moved the page from Peer review to Requests for comment

Russ Blau, I appreciate your intervention. Peer review isn't the right place for content disputes, though, so I have moved the article to Requests for comments, which is. I hope you get good input from that. If it doesn't help, then the next step would indeed be mediation. WP:M seems to be broken, unfortunately, but there are two new, experimental, very simple mediation pages to try: Wikimediation and WP:TINMC, take a look! I've removed the peer review template from this page. Bishonen | talk 15:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

SF / AH line.

would a discussion of the sf-ah line explicitly in the text help? I would propose something like the following to be posted after the bullet points of what characterises AH:

This leads to readers encountering stories which read as though they were alternate history, but which are not. An example would be Robert A. Heinlein's The Man Who Sold the Moon. Written in the 1940's, it posits that the first moon launch is run by a private organization rather than a govenment agency in the 1960's. New readers encountering the book may well presume that this is alternative history since it is clearly a counter-factual depiction of the first moon lauch, now almost 40 years in the past. however, when written the first moon launch was nearly 30 years in the future. Thus, The Man Who Sold the Moon is Science fiction, not alternative history. The point of divergance happend after the time at which the author was writing.

The boundary, like many in literature, is a broad line with grey edges. Would a 2005 author writing a story set in 1970 in Heinlein's universe, or Jules Verne's Captain Nemo universe be writing SF or AH? Opinions differ.

I think that helps... but I'm not jumping into an edit war, so I am posting it in TALK FIRST. Rick Boatright 15:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I rather like this and it discusses the difference between an author's intent and the tropes with which the later reader might approach the issue.Shsilver 17:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Moved into articleRick Boatright 00:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Boundaries of AH; cross-time tales

If someone notices that the sentence about "secret history" has been removed from the first paragraph, don't panic. It has merely been moved to its logical place under "Boundaries of Alternative History" (a new subhead in the article's T of C). I also added some stuff about cross-time stories, since it is really impossible to separate them from alternative history (essentially they are alternate history tales that include a framing that allows the exploration of multiple alternate histories in a single novel).--Nov. 27, 2005

Battle of Dorking/alt history

As far as I can tell (not having read it), the Battle of Dorking wasn't an alternative history because it posits a 'what-if' (the invasion of England) that begins at the time of the book's publication (1871--at least that's what I remember reading about it in the New Yorker last week. Invasion literature in general is not alternative history. --Birdmessenger 23:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree. Of course, I'd also say that much of what has been added in the last week isn't ah and tends to dilute the usefulness of the entry.Shsilver 00:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Reading the section "Elements of Alternate History", the Battle of Dorking fits those qualifiers. Written in 1871, it outlines an alternative history of England from 1871 forward 50 years to around 1930(?). --Stbalbach 01:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Of those, this one is crucial:

A point of change from the history of our world prior to the time at which the author is writing

Battle of Dorking fails to meet that standard entirely, unless I'm missing something. The author did not fictionalize a historical event.

--Birdmessenger 01:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

True, but it also says "Alternate histories do not Need to be set in the past". I don't disagree that the usefulness of the article is better with a more specific view, in which case I think it needs stronger language about what defines the genre. But currently, one could consider an alternative future history as alternative history. --Stbalbach 01:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It has been discussed before. Works don't become alternate history simply because they are set in the past. There is the matter of intent. Had "The Battle of Dorking" been written in 1910 and detailed things differently from 1871, it woul dhave been AH. As it is, it isn't, any more than 1984 or The Man Who Sold the Moon is.Shsilver 02:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

In a nutshell, it doesn't need to be set in the past, but it needs to stem from a change in the past.

My own personal view on this is that, critical to the writing of alternate history is an understanding of the difference between true history and the counterfactual history; comparison between truth and the fiction is the core of the genre, and that's obviously impossible if one is just guessing at what the true history is. Binabik80 02:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone said the new material dilutes AH and cites the example of Battle of Dorking. But the whole point of the paragraph added about what-if's such as Dorking was to draw a distinction between them and AH. At the same time, there IS the grey area which turns on whether the historical changes are treated as having occurred prior to the time the author is writing.--Nov. 29

Removed reference in alternative history media section to the movie "Red Dawn," which is a cautionary tale but not alternate history.--January 23, 2006

List of published histories needs reorganizing

Everyone is putting their favorites books into this list, which is fun for all (and alerted me to some works I'd never heard of), but I think it would be best to divide them into at least four categories: conventional (self-contained) AH, time-splitting AH, cross-time AH, and magical pseudo-AH. (Some works would probably end up on at least two lists!) Also, the lists within each category should be alphabetized by author's last name. If people persist in adding works of secret history, mythical history, cautionary tales, etc., well let's just make separate categories for them and clearly label them as not AH or as borderline AH. -- 10 February 2006

Invitation for editors

Hey, I'm working on the related article Parallel universe (fiction) which needs help and TLC. I just did a complete re-write of the lead section, and imposed some structure, as well as merging in content from the hideously-named Many worlds and possible worlds in literature and art but I now have a main article body that's a laundry-list of novels, stories, role-playing games and Magic: The Gathering :( I'd like any help from interested editors. --Saswann 21:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternate history and fantasy

Split Article PROPOSAL

The section on alternate history and fantasy just keeps growing and growing. Obviously, this is a subgenre that lots of wikipedians enjoy and feel passionate about. I'm wondering however if this shouldn't be turned into a separate article since alternate history with magic is really a kind of grey area. It should certainly be mentioned in this article but perhaps the full treatment should be spun off. As a fan of alternate history with or without magic both, I don't feel strongly about this. I'm just throwing it out as a possibility, especially since this section will probably continue to grow.--03 April 2006

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.222.71.17 (talk • contribs) Revision as of 01:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC) (FrankB 20:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC))

Split Article Discussion

Spliting into two articles is probably wise, especially since the fantasy section could probably endure being given further subdivision. Goldfritha 02:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

:'Split' per nom.' —This seems to be technically a sort of 'Uchronia', which merger suggestion brought me here to check into. Same deal as Harry Potter, I would think. Such long sections can be split out and referenced as for example, see History of India (I get '37', count them!), uses of the phrase Main article:), or other long articles with tons of information (like British Empire). While I like both genre's, I think your suggestion has merit aside from length. The two are different beasts, save both are technically genre's of speculative fiction. This is supposed to also be a sub-genre of Science fiction which disdains and turns up it's noses at mere Fantasy. <g> So, agree! // FrankB 20:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Many Worlds Theory

re (out of sequence... Late post): science article: Many-worlds interpretation FrankB

I removed for the second time in recent months a reference to an Everettian "wave function collapse". There is no wave function collapse in MWT; instead the universe splits so that Schrodinger's cat both lives and dies--in separate universes. "Wave function collapse" is what is presumed to occur in the older Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

However, the author of the disputed paragraph has a valid point about some universes being possible and others not, although this is an issue of literary framing (and possibly of philosophy) rather than of quantum mechnics. I clarified the phrasing on this point and will later move it to the subsection on Points of Departure, with examples.--10 April 2006 —The preceding comment is by 64.12.116.65 (talk • contribs) Revision as of 19:31, 10 April 2006: Please sign your posts!

Then the term "wave function collapse" should be replaced with a different reference to a quantum level event. Especially since the example given -- the Puritans deciding to convert to Catholicism on land -- is not, like the life/death of Schrodinger's cat, dependant on a single particle's action. Goldfritha 02:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I tinkered with this a bit more; if you don't like it, change it. Also, you added something about "all" possibilities and about how characters just happen to end up in the world where they just happen to avoid behaving in a cowardly manner. There were grammar problems with this paragraph which I tried to clean up, but I may inadvertently have distorted your meaning. Try to make your point more clearly, perhaps with an example. -- 17 April 2006 (unsigned post by user:152.163.100.65)

(Attrib. Annoted: FrankB 17:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC))

Incidentially, your claims about "possible" universes do not seem proper to me. In a fictional multiverse, we can meaningfully state that a universe is not possible -- the author can say so. But to claim that Victoria Woodhull's election is not possible? How would we know? The most we can say is that it is implausible, which is an eminently arguable point, and not a criterion for distinguishing an alternate history from works of another genre. Goldfritha 23:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course the election of Woodhull would have been possible PROVIDED THAT a prior point of departure (for instance, a virus wiping out two thirds of all men in the United States) had produced huge changes in American society and culture. Without such major POD changes I still maintain her election would have been utterly impossible. American voters of the post-Civil War era (when the franchise was only available to men and the viewpoint of the average American on religious and sexual matters was such that Jerry Falwell would be regarded as daringly liberated by comparison) would simply not have voted for a woman candidate who advocated free love. To suggest that anything is possible under any historical circumstance is to deny the lawful nature of history (and of physical reality). Of course the portrayal of bizarre happenings AS IF they were possible is perfectly valid for literary purposes, and the fine short story about Woodhull's Presidency can be said to obey the "higher principle" of satiric license.--dking 31 May 2006

You can maintain it all you like, but on what grounds? I don't see how you could have any evidence for that view that bizarre happenings can not happen in an alternate universe. Goldfritha 23:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre things happen all the time, but the election of Woodhull in the 1870s would have been something far beyond "bizarre." Nevertheless, I conceded above that yes, it could have happened in a parallel universe, provided that a point of departure at a prior moment had created the conditions for transforming the beyond-bizarre into the merely bizarre (or, if the POD was a virus killing the majority of U.S. men) transforming the beyond-bizarre into the commonplace. The key concept here is that of an adequate POD. The author of the short story did not provide an adequate POD because she was writing satire, which does not require it.--dking 1 June 2006

"Adequate POD" is your opinion. It does not belong in this article except as a statement that some people don't regard alternate histories as alternate histories if they don't think the POD is plausible enough. Goldfritha 00:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A distinction has to be made between alternate history that deals with things that are possible given a certain POD, and things that are simply impossible (as in certain satires as well as the fantasy-based alternate history novels). "Possibility" is an important dialectical category in philosophy and indeed in all rational thought and implies "impossibility." "Plausibility" is a different concept with a fundamentally different meaning from possibility. The recognition of the distinction between possible and impossible events in alternate history is owed to those military historians and other scholars who use alternate history in the classical sense as a means of illuminating real history through the study of possible outcomes different from those that actually occurred. I have nowhere suggested that "impossible" events (events for which an adequate historical POD has not been suggested or that posit a reality that violates the basic physical laws of our universe) are not part of the alternative history genre, but they are a different category of the genre. I am merely applying to alternate history the same distinctions that are commonly made in science fiction between "hard" and "soft" science fiction and between science fiction proper and science fantasy, all of which are regarded as honorable categories within one and the same genre.--dking 1 June 2006

A distinction has to be made between distinctions that can be made, and distinctions that can not. Unless you are hiding some quite interesting evidence, what really is impossible is your knowing that some alternate histories are "impossible." Philosophical smokescreens about words and pointing to other distinctions between genre are beside the point. Goldfritha 01:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You are applying these distinctions? Original research does not belong on Wikipedia. Goldfritha 23:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

All right, then, I'm deleting as original research Goldfritha 23:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)