Joanna ponders alternative history and the challenges it brings
I’ve been thinking about alternative history quite often recently, because our forthcoming anthology, Hauntings at the Black Cat Inn, features rather a lot of it.
Or so I thought, until a friend queried my definition.
Have we really written alternative history? Or alternate history as some call it?
If I write a novella or short story featuring a real character from history doing something that they definitely never did, is that alternative history? Or is it just another story?
Some readers would definitely say that my novella does not qualify as alternate history.
How to define alternative (or alternate) history?
Does alternative history have to be a more extended way of writing? Something long-form, with a fully developed alternative world?
One definition of alternate history holds that there are 3 key factors:
A point of divergence (often abbreviated as PoD) from the historical record, occurring at a time before the story is written;- A change that would alter the subsequent course of history; and
- An examination of the consequences or ramifications of that divergence.
I still remember reading Len Deighton’s SS-GB, a novel set in the early 1940s based on the assumption that the Nazis had won and Britain had surrendered. Chilling. And with a definite point of divergence and a much-altered course of history.
I also remember a radio programme that asked the question, “What if Alexandrina Victoria, who became Queen Victoria, had been Alexander?” The consequences would have been interesting, to say the least, because a British King Alexander would also have been King of Hanover. What would Britain have done when Bismarck sought to unify Germany under Prussia and incorporate Hanover into the new German empire? And would the First World War ever have started?
I’m not aware that anyone has written that particular alternative history but I may be wrong on that. Please let me know if I am.
Alternate History needn’t be spine-chilling
More happily, I’m reminded of Sophie’s lovely novel To Marry a Prince which is, indeed, set in a fully developed alternative world. In Sophie-world, the Prince Regent’s daughter, Princess Charlotte, did not die in childbirth in 1817. That’s the point of divergence and it changed British history.
In that alternative universe, Charlotte lived to produce children and a line of British monarchs that culminated in the father of Sophie’s hero, Prince Richard. Queen Victoria, and the cultural changes of the Victorian Age, never happened. Quite a lot to get your head round, but it’s a convincing read, nonetheless, and much recommended.
I think, too, of Alison Morton’s Roma Nova series, again set in a fully fleshed-out alternative universe. In Alison-world, some citizens of ancient Rome created a new state, somewhere not too far from Italy, but essentially run by women and extremely clever with modern technology.
Alison has written quite a few novels set there now—the image, right, shows the 10th anniversary hardback reissue of book 1. Her universe is both coherent and totally believable, provided you are the kind of reader who is prepared to suspend disbelief.
And if you’re not, why do you read fiction at all, I ask?
When does creating “new” history not count as alternative history?
All of the examples above would generally be viewed as alternative history, I think. But they’re the easy examples. Incidental use of historical characters in ways that are not true to history? That’s another kettle of fish, possibly.
So when, in His Cavalry Lady, I had my hero appointed to be liaison officer to Tsar Alexander I of Russia (and to spy on him during his visit to England in 1814) it probably would not count as alternative history.
After all, the events I included in that novel did actually happen, even down to the vicious thunderstorm that extinguished all the special lighting when the Regent took his royal guests to Oxford. And, apart from my hero and heroine, the characters in the novel were mostly historically accurate. They included the Tsar, the King of Prussia, Field Marshal Blücher, the British Prince Regent, Lord Castlereagh and other politicians from all sides. And the historical characters did what history records them as doing.
I plead guilty here. There is no real point of divergence. There is no change that would alter the course of history. In fact, the course of history runs on merrily in a way that would be totally familiar to consumers of history books. (I did enough research while writing the novel to ensure that it did. Maybe that was a mistake?)
It’s fun, but it’s not alternate history as we know it…
I love playing with historical characters, but I’ll admit I don’t write alternative history that fits the definition above. Or I haven’t done so yet…
In my latest novella, The Vampire and the Veiled Lady, my vampire hero, Theo, encounters a Veiled Lady in a broken post-chaise in the middle of a storm. It’s 1784, and they’re all en route to Falmouth on the south coast of Cornwall.
My vampire isn’t real. Of course, he isn’t.
Vampires are creatures of myth and fantasy, aren’t they?
But the Veiled Lady is a character from history and Theo thinks he recognises her. Then, being incurably nosey, he decides to find out what the Veiled Lady is doing in Cornwall. His curiosity leads him into all sorts of other encounters (including a brush with the law) that he hadn’t banked on, though. After all, The Black Cat Inn is renowned for its spooky inhabitants as well as its fine food.
Can you guess who the Veiled Lady might be? I will admit that the historical character probably never travelled to Falmouth in a storm, but she could have done. And most of the rest of my historical background is accurate, even down to the appalling summer of 1784 (caused by a volcanic eruption in Iceland, though no one knew that at the time).
If you want to know who the Veiled Lady turned out to be and what happened to Theo, you can read the novella in Hauntings at the Black Cat Inn. It’s available to preorder now at the special price of 99p/99c/AU$1.99 until after publication on 13th October.
Alternate History that would be fun to read? Or to write?
All the books I read about the Battle of Waterloo (1815) tell me that, when the battle is war-gamed these days, Napoleon wins. In real life, Wellington and Blücher won by the skin of their teeth, helped by Napoleon’s mistakes. But what if Napoleon had won? What would Europe have been like afterwards?
I’ve read a number of alternative history books assuming that Germany won the Second World War. Not only SS-GB, but also Fatherland, by Robert Harris. But I haven’t read one that assumes Napoleon won the Battle of Waterloo. Is there one I’ve missed?
Are there other turning points in history where you’d like to read an alternative take? Here are some that occur to me. Feel free to add more.
- What if Catherine of Aragon had borne Henry VIII a living son?
- What if Bonnie Prince Charlie had been victorious at the Battle of Culloden in 1746?
And, going back much further… - What if William of Normandy had lost the Battle of Hastings in 1066?
Over to you…
