Chris Kennedy - To Slip the Surly Bonds

When I was in my early teens, my grandma had a friend who had a keen interest in the American Civil War. He owned a small library of books on the subject, he was always interested in discussing the conflictand he simply couldnt understand why I preferred reading The Guns of the South, How Few Remain and even Stars and Stripes Forever to books that covered actual history . Alternate history, I loved; real stories, novels set during the real battles and the real aftermath of the conflictnot so much. I wasnt sure I could put it into words, at the time, but it was true. I was always more interested in alternate history novels than real historical fiction.

In some ways, they were often more interestingand more informativethan pure historical fiction. The Guns of the South works, at least in part, because it allows us to see how a post-independence might have developedand why we, looking back from nearly two hundred years in the future, would regard the Confederate States of America with horror. It also allows us to see how the influx of new ideas changes the conflict, both technologicalthe storyline revolves around time-travellers introducing the AK-47 to General Lees armiesand sociological. How does a society react if it discovers that its descendants passed (will pass) a stern judgement on their ancestors? And it also touches on issueslogistics, for examplethat are rarely so clearly defined in more accurate historical fiction.

On one hand, the core of alternate history has always been to look at how things could have been different. The flow of history runs, if I may borrow a concept from Dale Cozort, through a series of floodplains and valleys. The former are the moments when a single different decision may change everything; the latter are the moments when there can be little real change, whatever happens. A small adjustment in the opening days of the First World War, for example, may change everything; no amount of adjustments will save Germany from defeat in 1918, once the Allies gained a significant technological and material superiority. These choices are both defined by peoplethe leaders on both sides of a conflict, in particularand the resources available to them. The latter constrain the former and alternate history allows us to see why.

Indeed, it often sheds new light on history. The Battle of Moscow was decisive, I believe, in the sense that it probably represented Germanys last chance to win World War Two outright. The Battle of Midway, on the other hand, was not. The balance of powereconomic as well as militarywas so badly stacked against Japan that an outright Japanese victory at Midway would not have changed matters in the long term. Midway was not the battle that doomed Japan. Japan was doomed by the decision to go to war. But Japan was caught in a vice and, again, alternate history lets us see why . Many decisions thatin hindsighthave been branded as foolish (Hitlers march to Stalingrad, the Athenian expedition to Sicily) make a great deal more sense when one looks at the issue through their eyes. They were, in many ways, the best of a set of bad options.

But, on the other hand, alternate history allows us to enjoy warsand everything from romance to detective fictionin a very different world. The panzers never drove through Dorking during the march to London, but alternate history allows us to imagine that they had and consider what sort of world they would have made, if Hitler had invaded Britain in 1940. Those of us who enjoy speculating about how alternate wars might have gonefrom an Anglo-American war in 1930 to a NATO-Warsaw Pact war in 1970can study the forces and options available to the leaders and try to form a coherent whole. Or, for that matter, a second USA-CSA War in 1890. How different would American history have been, I wonder, if the CSA had gained its independence?

And those who use alternate history as a setting for stories can pull together a vague background, then let the story flow.

My own interest in alternate history began when I was very young, when I stumbled across a book called Invasion (Kenneth Macksey). Written as a campaign history, weaving fact and fiction together into a seamless narrative, Invasion sought to portray what would have happened if Hitler had tried to invade Britain. (Spoiler alert: he won.) My interest grew and sharpened as I developed both a passionate interest in historythankfully, I didnt get much history at school; that would have killed my interest stone deadand haunted charity bookshops and libraries for alternate history books. I found it fascinating, to the point wherein my late teensI founded an online alternate history magazine, Changing the Times and spent far too much of my time browsing alternate history forums. I enjoyed asking what would have happened ifand reading the answers. I had some good times, back then. We all did.

And then I became a writer myself.

Alternate history can be a tricky genre to write in. There will always be people who will arguerightly, wrongly, does it matter?that you got it wrong. There will always be people who will insist that the purity of your timeline is more important than story-telling potential. Yes, Hitler probably couldnt have successfully occupied Britain; its still a pretty good setting for a story. (You can still get a pretty interesting flame war going on a number of alternate history forums by asking if Hitler could have succeeded). There will always be people who will have issues...

...And that isnt even touching the people who will accuse you of having a hidden agenda, of whom the less said the better. Seriously. Dont give them even a moment of your time.