: How acceptable is "alternate history" in writing (nowadays)? On another site, I wrote a critical review of a book that featured a "King Frederic II" of France who reigned between 1777-1819. I

Vote Up Vote Down

Alternate History is the same as alternate facts and also theoretical science. The short answer, is that academic teachings and 'common knowledge', CERTAINLY with regard to history, is MOSTLY, incorrect/wrong/lies. EXAMPLE: Hitler was killed in the bunker in 1945. Now, anyone with real knowledge kows that this is far from the truth, to the extent it is now confirmed, but only if asking and looking in right place. The list is endless. And no, it is not acceptable. BUT, if google or your teachers tell you so, you generally are all happy to accept that. Crazy

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Alternate History is a real (and popular) genre.

Alternate History fiction asks "what if something different happened" and then extrapolates how the world would be different. Generally, the 'this' is a very big deal and obvious to the reader that it is a departure from actual history.

Examples:

What if Nazis won Worl War II? (The Man in the High Castle, Fatherland)
What if a man from the future gave the Confederacy a futuristic weapon(The Guns of the South)
What if there were dragons during the Napoleonic War?(His Majesty's Dragon)

As you can see they can often(but not necessarily) have a fantastic element to explain why fictional history departed from actual history.

Not An Excuse for Mistakes

Alternate history should not be mistaken for historical fiction that contains a mistake. The point of departure should be clear and obvious from the start - probably featured on the cover or back of the book summary. Alternate History should not be used by a person who wants to write a historical novel without doing hisher homework and tell people all errors are because "Alternate History".

To answer your question of acceptability, here's my answer:

The point of departure from actual history vs alternate history should be obvious and have significant consequences. (For instance, changing the birthdate or name of a historical figure would not be alternate history, and more interpreted as a mistake)
All departures from actual history should be obvious or easily inferable from the departure of actual history.(e.g. If WWII never happens, then it might be acceptable that Churchill never became Prime Minister. It is not acceptable to say that if there was no Spanish Inquisition, then Pope John Paul II would instead have been Pope John XVI) If they aren't obvious or easily inferable, then the novel should explain it.

This Particular Case

If the point of the novel you're talking about was something like "what if the French Revolution never happened", then I would say this was an obvious Alternate History. If the book was a Romance novel that took place in Paris in 1815 with a brief visit to "King Frederich II" who had rules for 30+ years... then I would say that was a historical novel with a bad mistake. If it was something between those two examples, you'll have to use your own judgment.

Hope that helps!

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

I started with this as a comment but it's not really a comment. It's also not much of an answer.

Historical fiction and alternative history are separate genres in my understanding. I would expect historical fiction to be accurate and minor characters can be fictitious. A commoner living through the Black Plague should experience it correctly but need not have actually ever been a real person... But documented facts must be accurate.

I would also expect in historical fiction that the parts of history that are in focus (documented history) will remain so. The parts we don't know ( greater than 99.9% of actual history) have a lot of wiggle room.

My answer: Don't confuse Historical Fiction with Alternate History.

In alternate history, be clear up front that it is alternate.

(Even the alternate universes in Star Trek take heat from time to time for not following the 'real' history - a spore drive in Kirk's time? I don't think so!)

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Alternate history has become a scifi-fantasy subgenre (and likely can exist or co-exist with any other genre within that domain. Here are some reads: Cowboys & Aliens, Boneshaker, The Mechanical, and Ghost Talkers). It's entirely acceptable, but usually based around a large what if. If that what if doesn't reasonably change an element of the times, people expect a faithful historical rendering. So it's about as hard to write as historical fiction, but more fun, imo.

An expansion so that you can see a range of alternate histories that have been published and have become popular. Note, this is by no means a complete collection, a definition of the scope of a genre or even necessarily the best the subgenre has to offer (but the the actual books here are quite good).

Boneshaker: What if zombie making gas spilled out of a hole under Seattle during the civil war?
The Mechanical: What if The Dutch mastered clock-work technology such that all of colonial history and the war between the Protestants & Catholics was extended to the new world in a way that altered everything?
Ghost Talkers: What if mediums were used to to spy during WWI on the Germans by taking reports from ghosts?
Cowboys & Aliens: Actually a watch. "What if aliens attacked a western settlement after crashing on earth?"

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Under what circumstances is this kind of alternate history desirable, or at least acceptable?

I think in large part this depends on how well known the true history is. In this case, I think your concerns are misplaced, I think nearly all adults would not know who was the King of France of between 1777 and 1819, and would not know what the implications might be in the book's scenario with regard to Napoleon.

If the point of the novel was to capture the period involved in some way, then the audience that does not know their French history might very well enjoy it thoroughly.

To me, that is the point of fiction, entertainment, so if it succeeds for nearly everybody reading it, then it does not have to be literally true. That is the situation of "at least acceptable."

The circumstances in which it is less acceptable is when the history is well known to a large segment of the audience, and when that happens their suspension of disbelief may overwhelm them. Thus they would not be entertained, and that is unacceptable. If a large segment recognized immediately (without research) that a "King Frederic II" would dramatically change world history and make the current world effectively impossible, then they may not find the fiction plausible enough to keep reading.

For the most part, screwing up the facts (intentionally or not) of history is perfectly acceptable if the audience does not know it. I could add another Founding Father of the USA and tell his story, give him wonderful speeches given (IRL) by other Founding Fathers, the same with battles, and even most Americans would not know the difference. Or I could make up a story of an adventure by an existing founding father.

IMO the purpose of fiction is entertainment, it only fails when it does something that alienates a big chunk of the audience. If I were an editor (or reviewer), I would question whether the counter-factual elements are necessary for the story or not. If they are not necessary, then the truth should be told. But if the story is about King Frederic II, obviously that story cannot be told without being counter-factual, so then the calculus must turn to how many people would have their reading reverie broken by this counter-factual claim, and how entertaining the story is for those that can get over it.

(0)