"Worst Mistakes That Authors of Alternate History Make" Topic

"The past is another country — but an alternate history is a whole new world. The best alternate histories can make you see the real history of our world in a whole new way, and make you realize that events that seem like they were inevitable… may not have been.

But an alternate history novel can easily turn into a disaster of historic proportions, if you don't know what you're doing. Here are 10 writing mistakes that authors of alternate history fall into. We talked to some of our favorite alt-history authors, to find out what classic mistakes bother them. Here's what they told us…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Interesting article, and I now can pick a nit with Turtledove's War That Came Early series using his own words:

Quoth he:

Turtledove says one common sin is "making the story go where you want it to go, regardless of whether the change you've made can plausibly take you there."

"Hitler's War" that takes on the interesting idea that what if Britain and France had supported Czechoslovakia and WW2 started in 1938. However, Turtledove gives the German military weapons it did not have at all, or did not have in any great operational quantity at that time in 1938 -- like Panzer IVs, me-109s, dedicated 8.8 cm Flak 18 ATG units etc. For example, the German military had maybe a few dozen PzIVs in 1938, not waves of them. Not enough to make a big difference.

Also, Hitler forms an alliance with Poland (albeit temporary) in order to carve up Czechoslovakia. But Hitler hated the Poles more than he hated the Russians, considered them inferior, too Jewish, and oppressors of the German peoples in Danzig and East Prussia. Plus he hated democracies, so this alliance is pretty unlikely.

Sooo…guilty as charged, Mr. Turtledove -- he wanted a Blitzkrieg before the Germans were capable of doing so.

I'd add Number 11…going on with an endless series, following too many characters, never wrapping anything up… long after the novelty value of the historical twist has been done to death.
My theory is best do it in one book..then do something else.

12. Having the main character meet EVERY major historical figure of the period.

Well said forrester!

13. Having two unrelated changed events in the past. Possibly relates: having the same people with the same names conceived and born generations after world-altering events. Goes to ignoring ripples, perhaps.

I've seen this article before and think it makes some good points and bad points.

Bad point: Insisting every alt history explore the ramifications for the modern day. That's stupid. Many alt history stories are fun because they explore historical events with a twist, like World War 2 starting early.

Good point: Assuming nothing will change but your one big alteration. This is what I hated about that Netflix movie Bright. Orcs, elves and magic have existed for thousands of years, with a big Lord of the Rings-style war a couple thousand years ago, and yet NOTHING has changed except you now have orcs in football jerseys. That's lazy writing.

I second Roberts observation about having the same historical figures even if the change happened generations after they're born. (Teddy Roosevelt existing if the Roman Empire never fell, for example). A related peeve of mine is having the characters meet famous versions of themselves, especially if the change happened long before they were born. (The Silders problem.)

Glad you enjoyed it my friend!.

Amicalement
Armand

14(?) Have your main characters responsible for all the innovations of your era, no matter what field of expertise they occur in.

Great ideas!

AGree!

Amicalement
Armand