[Wolery]

OK, I hope to finally make a thread that is generally useful. Here goes:

OK, I've presented some of my work for critique. Thing is, sorta like George Lucas with Star Wars , I don't really see my stories as separate entities. My stories take place in a parallel universe I call 'Controversy' (cause my writing teach told me I don't write anything uncontroversial :p ). Controversy isn't our world, it just looks it, especially from an Americans point of view circa 2000.

If I want to keep my stories in the same universe, I must become the master of what is called the 'Second Order Counterfactual' meaning, one thing changes, and another negates it. For instance, the Byzantine Empire after 1261 completely recovers the Kommenian borders of the Empire thanks to the fact that Michael VIII raised his son, Andronicus II, in the saddle, and instead of Andronicus becoming a master theologian, he becomes a master strategist. All goes relatively well for the Empire as the Ottomans expand eastward, uniting the Turkish factions behind it. The Empire survives the Kantekezous civil war, but when Constantine XI must fight off his brother for the throne in 1448, Mehmed II strikes rapidly and captures Constantinople in 1453, the rest of the Empire folds quickly. What that means is the Church comes to terms with the Turks more quickly and there is less enslavement/persecution of Greeks in Anatolia, meaning there's a hell of a lot more Greeks to fight the Turks in the 'Anatolian War' of 1919-1924. In Controversy, the Greeks, by virtue of greater numbers and a greater investment in salvaging Anatolia, rally after the battle of Ankara and more of less slaughter/expel the Turks to the Kommenian Line. Constantinople is recovered and because Greece is much stronger, Mussolini never invades Greece, and Greece remains like Spain a 'belligerent neutral' more or less in the Axis camp. The rump Turkish state under Ataturk develops more or less as it did historically.

And I have at least five more stories like this: 1. Constantine's Female Legions 2. The Vandal Kingdom Saga 3. An unnamed tale of the triumph of Christianity in Japan. 4. The Falklands Civil War (an alternate Britain tries to hold a Federation together under Thatcher) and 5. The Defender of the Reich saga (which I posted a little bit)

But because there's so much change, I'm tempted to treat this like a low level fantasy universe where the politics are the same. I've noticed in AH that culture seems to always be the same. Not in Controversy. In the Defender of the Reich saga, feminism comes early as women become soldiers in WWI, there's early electronic swing music called Futurmusik or Wave in the 30s and 40s, and good old Kaiser Bill takes a stand against Hitler from Holland in the early 30s and ends up being a founding father of the shock jocks as a broadcaster in the BBC during World War II (Boy does he hate Hitler!). Incidentally, once Hitler is removed, Bill comes back to Germany to stand against the Allies who want to carve the country up. This results in him ultimately being restored until his death in 1951.

Now, I've heard it said there's no bad ideas, only bad presentation. Not so sure about that, but how do I instill to the reader that this world they are reading about is similar but quite different from their own? I don't want to overwhelm them, but I don't want them to take anything for granted either.

Is this a bad idea? Any suggestions? Thanks! :)

[Jimmy Magnusson]

Two thoughts. Firstly, the butterfly effect. One can't (or rather, in alternate history it is not advisable to) change an isolated area without it effecting the rest of the world. Who knows how christianity would change Japan's status to the western world (assuming that it has a reasonably early breakthrough, say before the 18th century) and how it would affect the second world war, for example. The Controvesy world - which I would not label fantasy but "Alternate History" - will be more interesting if it makes sense as a whole. Secondly, you can take the story in a fantasy/SF direction by implementing new technology, or technology used in a different way. Say, bomber airships at Gettysburg or a full reliance on steam power - but then that's just me.

[Expendable]

Too many famous cameos and too much sophisticated technology - but that's my opinion. If that works for the story, then ignore me.

I think it's a good idea to pick a point where something didn't turn out like it does in our history books and work out what happens after that.

Like Jimmy said, you the writer should know how those changes affects the rest of the world but most of it might never make it into the story you're writing.

[choppy]

What I personally think works best in "alternate histories" isn't so much an interest in how the author re-writes history, but (as with most fiction), how the events that take place within the story affect characters that I care about.

[shashekar]

When you're cooking up your alternate history, keep in mind that base motives (ie, the everyday actions of ordinary peoples) and economic forces dictate the weft and warp of our world. A McGuffin simply isn't enough of a force to put behind such a story.

[Wolery]

When you're cooking up your alternate history, keep in mind that base motives (ie, the everyday actions of ordinary peoples) and economic forces dictate the weft and warp of our world. A McGuffin simply isn't enough of a force to put behind such a story.

Well, I'd have to disagree with you there Shash, with all due respect. I concur that economic forces are there, but history is the story of great men. Without Constantine, Christianity would never have come into promenince in the West, and without the Caliph Omar, Islam would be confined to Arabia. History is the story of Men, not Gods, and not Gold.

[shashekar]

I agree that people can have noble ideals and actions, although I feel that the end result is usually base.

How many Indians did Columbus inadvertently kill while pursuing what he though was a genuinely good path by civilizing them and saving their souls in the eyes of God?

This is the unfortunately cynical lens through which I look at the world, and it's an easy one to write for.

And never forget that even Constantine cold-bloodedly ordered his wife and son killed in extremely cruel ways.

[Wolery]

I agree that people can have noble ideals and actions, although I feel that the end result is usually base.

How many Indians did Columbus inadvertently kill while pursuing what he though was a genuinely good path by civilizing them and saving their souls in the eyes of God?

This is the unfortunately cynical lens through which I look at the world, and it's an easy one to write for.

And never forget that even Constantine cold-bloodedly ordered his wife and son killed in extremely cruel ways.

I'm not arguing about that. Stuff blows up in people's faces all the time, it's just I think the importance of economics is badly overplayed in recent historical thought.

The way I look at it, time is a stream, it has to flow somewhere, and without someone to direct it it goes on the path of least resistence. But some DOES come and directs it to his will, more or less where he wishes it. I mean, what did the Romans have economically that made them so great? Itally has no great resources manpower is never high, economically speaking, Ptolemic Egpyt should have dominated the Med forever, but it was rapidly overthrown by the legions of the new Roman Empire. And when I say great man, I'm thinking 'big man' not 'good man.' Constantine had his share of problems and vices I will MORE than grant you that.

[Wolery]

Getting back to the original point, I need to establish some rules for this frickin universe I think. There is certainly a steampunk/sci-fi element to this universe, but there are also angels and demons and other stuff that goes BUMP in the night. In fact, chronologically, the first story is of the fall of that world's Lucifer. And I make no apologies for planning it this way; I beleive in that stuff as surely as I do the world is round.

And remember, this isn't one stroy technically, it's as many as God let's me write. Like there will be no supernatural stuff in the Defender of the Reich story, but other places, it will show up. Now the reason I'm bumping this is becuase everytime I write I feel like a kid with a shiny coin and I'm not sure where to spend it but I can't wait to. So any advice would be nice.

[obiwanky]

A lot of ideas;sounds interesting. I think you need a really large wall map where you can plot out the history of this world, and then plot out the history of Controversy. This will let you look at points of divergence, but also let you look at the development of this world's history and why it developed the way it did.

something I noticed you didn't mention but might consider is the plague. Where does it fit in your world? It arose in this one because of commerce and invasion from the middle east to the west (if I understand history correctly). So did it make strides sooner or later in your world, or was there something different.

I'm curious why you think history isn't driven by gold. Certainly Marx had some idea about the means of production changing how society works. If you introduce steam earlier, then that will cause a reorganization of society in an earlier period.

As for whether people drive history or whatever, there's a lot to play with there, and I think it's probably a little of both. But the decisions individuals make will be decisive. Also, how do the border changes you make effect what person in history arises where? Is hitler still Austrian? Is Mussolini still Italian?

Finally, if you have steam, how early? Does this let the Europeans cross to America sooner? Had they done so, the Native Americans might have outnumbered them and done better in fending off the European threat. And think of something as simple as people bathing? If Europeans had bathed more regularly, would they have brought the same diseases to America that killed so much of the Native Americans.

So, I think just keeping careful track of all the individual changes will be important, brainstorming with people, especially people knowledgeable of history and how history works. As for how much to tell your reader -- tell them what they need to know to understand the motivations of your characters. That's the key, I think.

Good luck