Talk:Alternate history/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: What is Alternate History?

message: 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)
thread_title: ''For Want of a Nail''?

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

message: 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  to this page. — LinkBot 01:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/Alternative_history_(fiction)|Link suggestions]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: Hey [[User:Josquius|Josquius]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: I have moved the page from Peer review to Requests for comment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  SF / AH line.  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Invitation for editors 

message: ===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)
replies: text: 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)

text: '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! // <B>Fra</B>nkB 20:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate history and fantasy 

message: 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)
thread_title: Split Article PROPOSAL

message: :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)
replies: text: '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! // <B>Fra</B>nkB 20:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split Article Discussion