AH: turning points 1

[jrittenhouse]

While I’m notorious in AH circles as someone who insists that a AH story be (1) A GOOD STORY and (2) have some historical basis, not to mention (3) be one simple Point Of Divergence, not a whole mess of them (I can deal with some cascade effects, but not simultaneous stuff) - I give a lot of latitude to someone who gets those points clearly covered

Comments

[seawasp]

What about an AH in which there were no AH stories? :)

[jrittenhouse]

*smack*beat*punch*

[seawasp]

OW!

Hmm. An AH in which *I* was not born, leading to a complete dystopia and requiring time travel to fix it!

[docstrange]

8/10 on the rantmeter!

The seeds of Roman imperial collapse were many and eliminating one or two elements would probably not have changed much of the eventual outcome, certainly not stabilizing it for over a thousand more years. Not to mention that the Roman Empire was rapidly changing throughout its own history; to pick a point in time and assume it would freeze like that really is ludicrous. As to the CSA, there's even more complexity to it than that, even, given the various Confederate states' rights platforms compared to each other, the issues over the slavery status of new states and expansionism, and the huge devastation with which the South would have come out of even a victorious war. Indeed, much of the "victorious" South could well have wound up as vassal states to various European powers.

[jrittenhouse]

Agree absolutely on the Romans and the Confederates; consider all of the efforts that European powers made to collect their debts from Latin America in the 1800-1940 period, and consider the idea of the Monroe Doctrine being dead. (See also the roots of the creation of the Empire of Mexico.) Such a situation is *exactly* what I would imagine for the South after the Civil War.

[angka]

I've read very little AH over the years. In fact most of them have slipped my mind. The one that I remember clearly is Suzanne Blom's Inca novels, only the first of which has actually been published. I enjoyed them because of the glimpse into the Incan empire that they provide, and the fact that she gives information on how this history varies from history -- at least as far as that comparison remains useful

[jrittenhouse]

I read Sue's first book, and haven't seen the others (no longer being in Milwaukee and able to go a few blocks over and ask for a peek at the manuscript). I thought the first book was fine, but it was written as a multipart without being noted as one, and I got to the end of it and said - well, OK, where's the rest of it?

*crickets*

So one the one hand, I can see why #2 never came around - the story didn't explain that it was just going to leave you on the downtown bus stop at 2:30 am (with the next bus running at 7 am).

The only other thing that threw me was that she directly translated all the Quetchua into English in regard to names, and Royal Flower Seed versus Gitcheegumi made it harder for me to follow things.

On the other hand, for sheer inventiveness, I gave her all sorts of Kudos. You did notice that it was on the Sidewise short list for 2000?

[kalimac]

There's some I agree with in this rant, but also

[jrittenhouse]

Don Reynolds was a different piece of things than Bobby Baker per se; there were hearing going on in Congress about Reynolds that were scheduled for November 22d, 1963. Needless to say

[kalimac]

The argument that the 1850 FSL merely reaffirmed the Constitutional provision is akin to a Scalia argument that he's merely interpreting the Constitution. It's the way you implement it that makes all the difference, and what made the 1850 FSL proto-fascist federal authoritarianism was its proto-fascist federal authoritarian enforcement provisions, unprecedented in the Constitution or in 1793

[jrittenhouse]

"You're not telling me anything I didn't already know. You're telling me things I already took into consideration before expressing my previously stated evaluations."

OK. I certainly agree with you as to the level and nastiness of the 1850 FSL; that was what made it so widely hated in the north.

I remember that the terms of the black enlistment law essentially made it masters-option; the master has to sign ove rthe slave to the government and realize that after the war, the slave would be free. (I forget about compensation term...) By the end of the war, I think there were only a few dozen slaves who had been enrolled as the country lay in extremisI'm not trying to say that the war was really fought over states' rights. The war was fought over slavery, and the states-rights things were a defense of slavery at all costs. But the pre-war USA 'union' was a looser affair in practice that it is now (or since the Civil War), and many of the southern states found even that too tight for their liking (c.f. the nullification fight under

[stickmaker]

I'm currently 80+k words into a fantasy novel. While not, strictly speaking, an alternate history, as part of the background I came up with a turning point which makes this world different from ours. In real history, Charlemagne's empire was split between two of his grandsons. In my world, one of them died of a common childhood illness.

The empire stays together for another generation, and a tradition is formed of keeping it that way. The reforms begun by Charlemagne continued, spreading wider and deeper. At some point, someone did something which brought magic back into the world. (Yeah, I did say it's a fantasy novel.)

[jrittenhouse]

As a Lotharingian by background, I dunno what I think about that idea!

(Really, do go on, minus the magic. )

[stickmaker]

One of the principles I go by in this world is that some things have deep roots. Despite the change, many things develop identically (at least for a while) or in a very similar manner

[jrittenhouse]

Interesting posit; I'm not up on the historical details of the Carolingian period, but it's a neat notion.

The idea of a Hierophant is an odd one, but...

Do let me know more!