The phrase “alternate history” is an oxymoron. ( Or must it be oxymoronic if it’s more than one word? )
History, by definition strives to be linear and fixed. That historians never succeed in this does not change the nature of the endeavor.
An alternate history is always about somebody else — not about the same people following a different ( alternate ) path.
Have I lost you already ? Play along for a little longer … this is incoherent because I don’t have enough time to piece it together properly, but you are clever enough to work it through by yourself … if you wish.
Hold the history thoughts for a minute and shift to this idea. Imagine a sporting event or a movie. Audience is here. Players are there. Clear division. Now imagine yourself taking photos of your family. It’s blurring a bit. You recording, they performing but the boundary is fuzzier. Now think about making a self-portrait. You observe and you perform. The boundary is thin as a placental membrane — but just as tough. You are never quite both at the same time.
When does that membrane ever dissolve? When you go into an alternate reality — not an alternate history. Yes, that word shift does matter because you have specifically not including history in the mix. Reading a really good book, watching a really good show — one can merge from audience into participant — go into another reality. The fact that one does not stay there is because of history. History is what denies “alternate.”
Consider this quote from a recent multi-book review, How the Mind Works: Revelations by Israel Rosenfield and Edward Ziff about how the brain works ( don’t bother with the link; I’ve given you the best quote … ):
In general, every recollection refers not only to the remembered event or person or object but to the person who is remembering. The very essence of memory is subjective, not mechanical, reproduction; and essential to that subjective psychology is that every remembered image of a person, place, idea, or object inevitably contains, whether explicitly or implicitly, a basic reference to the person who is remembering.
The “person who is remembering” is remembering … history. To get yourself into an alternate reality, you have to stop remembering. Forget history. Deny history. Give up the whole concept of history.
=====================
This is a response to some good stuff posted by Felix Grant which was, in turn a response to more good stuff posted by Ray Girvan, on the subject of Alternate Histories.
This seems to be my week for terrorizing poor Felix ( and, to a lesser degree, Ray Girvan ). Sorry about that ! ( I have a feeling that “poor” Felix is fully capable of inflicting terror in return if sufficiently provoked. )
I read stuff and it sends out tentacles and weaves webs ( mind weeds … ) resulting in these mutated fur-balls being barfed up in this blog. ( *cough* Oh, almost forgot, on the bottled water thing, there was this connection in this weeks Economist. *cough* )
Luckily, I am almost out of time, and I have two more posts I want to do this morning.
-Julie
Coloring 
The phrase “alternate history” is an oxymoron.
It could well be just a semantic point: I meant “history” only in the sense of “timeline” (i.e. “alternate history” = a genre label for works whose central premise is that some past pivotal event happened differently). Some “alternate history” works could equally be classed as a form of magic realism: for instance, Kim Newman’s Dracula novels or Gibson & Sterling’s The Difference Engine, which in addition bring in characters from the fiction of our world.
Comment by Ray Girvan — July 27, 2008 @ 11:13 am
“Oxymoron” is always about semantics, isn’t it?
I think “alternate history” falls into the category of “you know what I mean” phrases — and I do know what you mean. And I find it annoying when people do what I did in this post, which is to act as if I did *not* know what you meant.
I should have made it clear that I was interested in exploring, or dissecting what was put on the table by you and by Felix — just for fun, working out why the phrase is oxy-ish, where this leads, and how one could get around the resulting roadblocks since so much good stuff ( such as rerouted replays and magical realism ) lies beyond.
Comment by unrealnature — July 27, 2008 @ 11:46 am
It’s a pity Felix doesn’t have Comments enabled –> hint <– because I was interested in his response, that “history” is already a bunch of alternatives: accounts framed by different philosophical constructs – for instance, the traditional “Great Men” narrative; Marxist history that places more focus on the collective role of non-famous people (see Unsung scientists), Whig History (that sees everything as a goal-driven progress toward the wonderful present), the various flavours of the Annales School (that breaks away from the trad historical focus on political events), and so on.
Comment by Ray Girvan — July 27, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
“History” used alone, yes. Reading close history; some narrow episode — as seen from a different mind-set or social class — is wonderful ( as opposed to the usual history from 40,000 feet; all graphs and colored maps and 2D kings and queens ).
Alternate + history, on the other hand, to me means history that 1) starts from known history ( as it may be … ) 2) uses real characters, 3) changes one thing/parameter, and then 4) tells what would ( necessarily; as a result, according to the writer ) happen. To do an alternate history, you have to be willing to “give” (1).
[ Ray, you really shouldn’t link a book addict like me to a post on your blog that is full of such interesting books — that I might have to have. ]
Comment by unrealnature — July 27, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
Oh, I meant to add, though, that history as you and Felix are now using it ( without alternate ) strives to be “true” — regardless of the fact that it’s different ( or because it’s different ). Alternate history starts from “true” but then to depart from “true.” It is specifically trying to not be “true” as in “what really happened”. That’s where/why it’s “alternate” — and that’s where/why it goes all oxy.
Comment by unrealnature — July 27, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
I’m deeply troubled by all this use of “true”, even in double quotes, with reference to “history” (with or without them).
Comment by Felix Grant — July 27, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
“deeply troubled”. This is good! We’re making progress. A great day in the true history of disagreeable-ness.
What’s the alternative to true history ? False history ? Wrong history ? Bad history ? Criminal history ? Digital photography ?
Comment by unrealnature — July 27, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
JH> What’s the alternative to true history?
JH> False history? Wrong history? Bad history?
JH> Criminal history? Digital photography?
No … just history.
“True history” comes much closer to being your oxymoron than does “alternate history”.
Comment by Felix Grant — July 28, 2008 @ 7:42 am