Alternate History Timelines- Themes and Criticisms
An introduction to the sometimes-dangerous underworld of Alternate History criticism

Alternate History Timelines are subject to heavy criticism. That's just the way it is, and, frankly, the way it should be, since this uncovers many flaws and helps make them more believable. However, there are some criticisms that are unwarranted, unfair and slightly immature, not to mention sloppily ignorant. Knowing the difference between fair and unfair criticism is important if you want to be taken seriously.

1. "Implausible" is not the same as "Impossible" "Just because it's happening differently, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened that way." That's what I tell some people who just can't stand to see things turn out other than they did, and object to every change in history, as if they were history's Guardian Angel. When history happens, it's by definition "plausible". But it's just as plausible for infinite other possibilities to occur, in succession, which can cause large and significant changes in history, though the farther away from the "point of divergence", the larger the change, and the more implausible. Those who argue that an event isn't plausible because it didn't happen are both totally unimaginative and ignorant of the fact that history is made up of people, and that people make choices daily that can change history immeasurably. I believe that individuals are largely autonomous - unbound by fatalism and the "larger forces" of history- can change their minds, and, I believe, individuals can have a significant effect on history. Just as historian David McCullough recently said, "Nothing had to have happened as it happened." (Though I've noticed that it's in fashion online to say that this "Great Man" theory has been "discredited". I don't buy it, obviously, since the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of this view.)

2. "Alternate History" is NOT the same as "Revisionist History"- Those who participate in creating alternate histories are sometimes accused of  pushing "revisionist" beliefs through their timelines. Some of these criticisms can be valid, for example, if the author of a timeline on the Nazi Holocaust lets it slip that he believes no gas chambers ever existed, that would constitute an example- perhaps the classic example- of someone who wishes to seek a revision of history, as we commonly know it, and it would be valid to conclude that the person suggesting the Alternate History timeline may in some way be wishing that events had turned out that way, based on his biases.

However, this same accusation cannot be laid at the doorstep of the vast majority of Alternate Historians, who clearly are in the business of exploring all manner of changes in history - including changes that would have seen the "other" side win, in many cases. (For without changes, even "bad" changes, to history, there would be NO " Alternate" History.) It's always wrong to perform an online "inquisition" of the author's political beliefs if, in a timeline they've written, history doesn't turn out the same way as it did in our timeline, with the "good guys" or the "right" side losing a war, or if they encounter plausible setbacks. I personally choose to accept an Alternate History timeline as a pure exploration of a historical "what if?", and I don't feel the need to question an author's motives unless it's revealed that he/she is engaging in "wishful thinking" rather than Alternate History, and I have to tell you, it's pretty rare, and it's really not worth offending someone with false accusations.

3. A "timeline" is not a "book", and shouldn't be judged on the same level. Some critics hold such incredibly high standards for Alternate History Timelines that they forget what they are - blueprints and rough sketches. Timelines are the main medium used to convey an Alternate History on the soc.hist.what-if newsgroup and on Alternate History Web sites on the internet. They are short, for the most part, and usually serve to just introduce the reader to a brief scenario through a listing of characters and events in chronological order. Most of the time, the "point of divergence" is indicated, or is obvious from the title or the events portrayed. Characters are not given dialogue, and when they do, it's to quickly illustrate their importance to the chronological list of events. What many people look for in these timelines, sound reasoning ("A" leading to "B", leading to "C" which results in "D") is a good and valid goal, and any courteous suggestions leading to better continuity is always graciously accepted.

We must remember that a true Alternate History story, to be meticulously argued and "fleshed out", would take a book. But a timeline is only a blueprint for a much larger, more thought out, treatment of an Alternate History story, and should not be held to the same exhaustive standards as professional writers and their completed book length works. To do so would be like subjecting their notes and rough drafts to book reviews, and judging their work upon those, incomplete drafts.

How to Criticize: There are three kinds of people who comment about other people's timelines: those who enjoy timelines and want to point out inadvertent inconsistencies and wish to help the author of the timeline with historical points to make it more realistic - and do it nicely; and those who have a political or social agenda and want to destroy a person's timeline idea because it's somehow "wrong" philosophically, in their opinion; and then there are those who just get their jollies from ticking other people off with off-base, non-constructive criticism. Obviously, only the first kind of person is exhibiting "netiquitte". I certainly don't want to hear from the other two kinds, and won't respond to those exhibiting a willful misunderstanding of the concepts I've listed above.

=Back to Menu=

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Alternate History Links:

• Some Great AH Pages and Timelines: