On 26 Sep 2001, at 11:04, Michael Flora wrote:
> I just finished reading a book called _Fox on the Rhine_. I have to
> admit I have a yen for war stories now and then. This book is an
> alternate history of WWII, assuming that Hitler was killed in the bomb
> plot of July 1944.
David Downing's _The Moscow Option_ was on a similar theme
(except the "switch" had Hitler injured in an accident and
comatose rather than dead). Westheimer's_Lighter than a feather_
and Coppel's _The burning mountain_ were both on the invasion of
Japan which ended WWII.
It's not always easy to draw the line between sf / alternative history
in some cases.
Certainly a story involving a "time machine" and the changing of
history (Asimov's _End of Eternity_, Crichton's _Timeline_ and the
MAGNIFICENT _The Proteus Operation_ by James Hogan,
Heinlein's _Door into Summer, Turtledove's _Guns of the South_,
Anderson's _Guardians of Time_ etc) is definitely science fiction.
As I think is anything involving movement between alternative
worlds (like Wyndham's _Random Quest_).
Alternative histories ***sensu stricto*** like Turtledove's _Agent of
Byzantium_ or _Great War_ series, Harrison's _Hammer &
Cross_, Harris' _Fatherland_ , Dreyfuss & Turtledove's _The Two
Georges_, Stapp's _More perfect union_ and the Downing,
Westheimer, Coppel books etc are definitely alternative history
which I have difficulty in seeing as sf. In essence, they're just
artistic licence taken very far - something that many (most?)
historical novelists do in every book. Counterfactual history (eg
Niall Ferguson's _Virtual history_, Squire's _If_ or Cowley's less
useful _What if_) is, I think, just a more disciplined version of what
we call alternative history (Ferguson's Introduction to _Virtual
History_ is well worth reading even if you don't like alternative
history).
One problem as I see it comes when the story contains elements
of science which we do not have (like Harrison's _West of Eden_
series which is alternative history but contains much science
fiction). Another problem comes when the time machine / displacer
is just a plot device to bring a (say) 20C person into an ancient
milieu; Willis' _Doomsday Book_ / _To say nothing of the Dog_ are
examples (though both are arguable). L Sprague de Camp's _Lest
darkness fall_ in which a 1930s archaeologist, sent back in time
by a lightning bolt, alters history is (as I see it) another book
difficult to classify. Roberts' _Pavane_ is perhaps the ultimate
classification puzzle although Dick's _Man in the High Castle_ or
Benford & Greenberg's _Hitler Victorious ..._ is not far behind.
> The authors do mention Isaac Asimov's "minimum action
> principle" in an appendix - when writing alternate history one
> should always choose the smallest possible change that
> produces the maximum possible effect. Does anyone know in
> what work Asimov stated this?
He says something very similar in _End of Eternity_ BUT the
comment there is not on writing history; it is in fact said during a
discussion on how to alter history to create a particular "future"
with as little disruption of the overall time fabric as possible
(Asimov's hero is a member of the time police [Eternity] who
perpetually adjust the fabric of history to lead it in a particular
direction).
Mike
|