Defining "Alternate History"

[Amerigo Vespucci]

What is alternate history?

It's a simple question, but it's one -- to me, at least -- that doesn't have a simple answer. Where do you draw the line in the sand and say that such-and-such falls into the alternate history genre while so-and-so doesn't? I'm sure there's lots of different views out there, but this is how I see it:

The most common definition of an alternate history (the one I run into the most, at least) is a story that asks the question "what if?" -- What if Hitler won the war, or Pearl Harbor was never bombed, or if the Cold War ended differently. Does that definition work for you? It does for me, but only on a basic level. It's not very precise, for one, and it doesn't include everything alternate history covers.

What about future history, for example? Though it asks the question "what if?", it doesn't do so by going back into history. It's speculation, but so is alternate history. To me, the line is drawn by the second word of this website's title: history. The term "future history" is an oxymoron; it hasn't been written yet. To me, a true alternate history needs to explore something that happened in the past at the time the story was written.

Note that this also excludes paleofutures. Though they can be fun to read and in many cases can be almost indistinguishable from alternate histories, given enough time, I don't consider them to be true alternate history. They weren't written in a historical context, and a reader should keep that in mind when considering the story.

Another thing to consider is whether or not the alternate history itself is the focus or if it's merely the background of the story. Plenty of otherwise non-allohistorical stories use alternate histories for their background, simply due to the author's need to have a particular background for the story. That doesn't make the story an alternate history. To me, there needs to be a focus on the elements that make the history given in the story different than our own. Introducing OTL characters into an ATL is a great way to show this.

At its widest possible definition (any story that contains a history not our own), alternate history encompasses almost all literature, let alone SF. But it is ludicrous to consider Macbeth alternate history. Few on this board would consider it such, and even fewer would do so outside of it. Defining a genre is naturally a tenuous thing -- like trying to catch a cloud, I imagine -- but it can be done.

What, to you, defines alternate history? Where do you draw the line? I'm interested to hear the arguments.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Well true enough, otherwise Tom Clancy would be alternate history since he's created a whole new timeline over the years, not to mention Jeffrey Archer with things such as Ted Kennedy becoming president or the SDP forming a government (I think ...?).

Taken thus, I would say that its writing about the past rather than the present or the future AT THE TIME OF WRITING

In this respect, something like 'On The Beach' falls out of the category since it was written looking forwards but is read looking backwards (just like History itself)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[sbegin]

I agree with your definition. That's pretty much how I see it.

But how would you classify ISOT stories? I does happen in "our" past, and therefore history as we know it will be changed; however, we would never know, as we would never be born

 

[Ivan Druzhkov]

To me, the line is drawn by the second word of this website's title: history. The term "future history" is an oxymoron; it hasn't been written yet. To me, a true alternate history needs to explore something that happened in the past at the time the story was written.

I would agree with that statement, though I would like to add a corollary. I feel that stories that do not take place in a "true" AH, but in a replica/simulation of historical Earth that exists in the far future should also be considered AH, provided that some outside event related to the replication process occurs on the historical Earth and provides grounds for ASB-type speculation. The two best examples of this I can think of would be Charles Stross' Missile Gap and Robert Charles Wilson's Darwinia.

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

I agree with your definition. That's pretty much how I see it.

But how would you classify ISOT stories? I does happen in "our" past, and therefore history as we know it will be changed; however, we would never know, as we would never be born

That's irrelevant. ISOTs (unless they deal with future items/terrain transported to the present or present items/terrain transported to the present) invariably create an alternate history. 163x and ISOT itself are definitely alternate histories, as they create and explain a history different than our own.

Secret histories, on the other hand, are a bit tricky. Would you consider a secret history ISOT (something that we "know" didn't take place, but which didn't affect history) to be alternate history? I would.

 

[Andrew Hudson]

What is Alternate History?

I would largely agree and have had several posts in the writers forums dealing with the borders. As with Tom Clancy, I would rule out Clive Cussler who has had Canada becoming part of the US in Night Probe but Cussler doesn't pretend to be AH. Hidden history would be excluded i.e Joe Poyers nazi rocket to the moon, so would alternative archaeology as it purports to be correct, revisionist history is also excluded which effectively is what Macbeth is the fictional equivalent of and arguably so was the TV holcaust series and films like the Patriot. If hidden history is included then arguably any historical fiction is when it refers to fictional characters or ships or battles or whatever.

The grey area is counterfactuals as they are historians theorising and often rather detailed and tedious although some are readable such as those edited by Duncan Bracks or Robert Cowley. However counteractual analysis is useful in constructing plausable scenarios however to much theory can ruin a good story line

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Hmm... good points, though how would you express that in the definition? As it is now, secret histories are covered under what I wrote earlier. I'd tend to agree with you, in regards to Clancy and Cussler. Clancy wouldn't qualify because his stuff wasn't historical at the time it was written. Cussler's stuff would fall more under the category of secret history, I think; most of the changes he brings happen in the present day.

 

[Tony Williams]

An entire issue of Vector, a magazine of the British Science Fiction Society, was recently devoted to AH, including lots of argument about definitions. I summarised it on my blog here: http://sciencefictionfantasy.blogspot.com/2008/03/bsfa-vector-novdec-2007.html

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

I recall you mentioning that a few weeks ago -- could you go into a bit more detail about James' piece? That would be directly appropriate to this discussion, I think.

 

[Number three]

After reading some of the Destroyermen comments, I thought this would be an interesting topic to dig up again. No point in starting a new thread...

Once they cross into an alternate realm, is it still AH or has it become something else?

Does the use of time travel make AH SF?

In a narrow definition of AH, if it takes ASB to create the POD, it can't be AH. Then again in the broadest sense, if anything varies from documented history, it could be considered AH. And let's not forget authors avoiding a dreaded SF/F/AH label. Chabon's Yiddesh Policeman is up for a Hugo, but seems to be trying to avoid the AH label...

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

I guess I'm starting to come around to the idea that AH is more of a spectrum than an exact genre.

 

[zoomar]

AH can include a wide variety of forms...but to me it all boils down to the intent of the author. If an author in 1900 wrote a book featuring predictions for the next 100 years, this fictional 20th century is not an alternate history - it is a future history. On occasion works such as "The Great Pacific War", or "Red Storm Rising" make excellent fodder for real alternative history, but they are not AH themselves.

There is close relationship between time travel or ISOTs to AH, but I am not sure they should be considered the same thing - unless the alternative timeline created by the ISOTs or time travelers has itself occurred before the main events in the story. To my mind Hogan's "Proteus Operation" is a time travel novel which is also good AH because all of the time lines in the book are alternate to ours. On the other hand, I'm not sure I consider the ISOT books, the Axis of Time trilogy, or GOTS true AH, as much as I like them. Sure, the uptime protaginists/antogonists in these books are changing things from how they would have happened OTL but that is really secondary to the story telling, which in these cases is more about a clash of cultures and how people react to things.

Interesting things to talk about.

 

[Gracie]

What is alternate history?

It's a simple question, but it's one -- to me, at least -- that doesn't have a simple answer. Where do you draw the line in the sand and say that such-and-such falls into the alternate history genre while so-and-so doesn't? I'm sure there's lots of different views out there, but this is how I see it:

The most common definition of an alternate history (the one I run into the most, at least) is a story that asks the question "what if?" -- What if Hitler won the war, or Pearl Harbor was never bombed, or if the Cold War ended differently. Does that definition work for you? It does for me, but only on a basic level. It's not very precise, for one, and it doesn't include everything alternate history covers.

What about future history, for example? Though it asks the question "what if?", it doesn't do so by going back into history. It's speculation, but so is alternate history. To me, the line is drawn by the second word of this website's title: history. The term "future history" is an oxymoron; it hasn't been written yet. To me, a true alternate history needs to explore something that happened in the past at the time the story was written.

Note that this also excludes paleofutures. Though they can be fun to read and in many cases can be almost indistinguishable from alternate histories, given enough time, I don't consider them to be true alternate history. They weren't written in a historical context, and a reader should keep that in mind when considering the story.

Another thing to consider is whether or not the alternate history itself is the focus or if it's merely the background of the story. Plenty of otherwise non-allohistorical stories use alternate histories for their background, simply due to the author's need to have a particular background for the story. That doesn't make the story an alternate history. To me, there needs to be a focus on the elements that make the history given in the story different than our own. Introducing OTL characters into an ATL is a great way to show this.

At its widest possible definition (any story that contains a history not our own), alternate history encompasses almost all literature, let alone SF. But it is ludicrous to consider Macbeth alternate history. Few on this board would consider it such, and even fewer would do so outside of it. Defining a genre is naturally a tenuous thing -- like trying to catch a cloud, I imagine -- but it can be done.

What, to you, defines alternate history? Where do you draw the line? I'm interested to hear the arguments.

My classic definition of alternate history is SIDING DOORS the Gynneth Paltrow movie, where you see a slight change mess everything up.

 

[Trotsky]

This reminds me of the time I got very cross with someone who insisted that Red Dawn was AH simply because the date had come and gone without any Soviet invasion taking place.

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

This reminds me of the time I got very cross with someone who insisted that Red Dawn was AH simply because the date had come and gone without any Soviet invasion taking place.

I'd consider it satire, myself. But there's a strong case to be made for paleofuture.

To me, it's easy enough to divide the line between paleofuture and alternate history. If the events taking place were in the future at the time the book was written (a la The Third World War), then it's a paleofuture and not an alternate history. My question is for something like The Dragon's Nine Sons: It has an allohistorical background, but the action takes place in a far future that might as well be standard scifi.