Top 5 Posts from May 2016

Thankfully I was able to get this in before we got to far into June. So enough talking, here are the most viewed articles from last month:

1) Map Monday: Colonisation of the Japanese Archipelago by Rubberduck3y6 by Matt Mitrovich.

2) Map Monday: Alternate North America 1789 by YNot1989 by Matt Mitrovich.

3) Dystopia in Alternate History by Rvbomally.

4) Anime Review: Hetalia by Sam McDonald.

5) Weekly Update #233! Time After Time Picked Up by ABC and More by Matt Mitrovich.

* * *

Matt Mitrovich is the founder and editor of Alternate History Weekly Update, a blogger for Amazing Stories, a volunteer interviewer for SFFWorld and a Sidewise Awards for Alternate History judge. When not exploring alternate timelines he enjoys life with his beautiful wife Alana and prepares for the day when travel between parallel universes becomes a reality. You can follow him on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and YouTube. Learn how you can support his alternate history projects on Patreon.

The Inevitability of Tragedy or: How Alternate History tends towards Misery

Guest post Alex Wallace.

“Every civilization that has ever existed has ultimately collapsed ... History is a tale of efforts that failed, of aspirations that weren’t realized . . . So, as a historian, one has to live with a sense of the inevitability of tragedy. “ - Henry Kissinger

This piece is in part a response to rvbomally’s response, Dystopia in Alternate History, itself a response to the discussion between Matt Mitrovich and myself about the impact of Orwell’s 1984 on alternate history. In his piece, rvbomally discusses, among other things, that  alternate history follows genre conventions, and broader speculative fiction is cynical, hence alternate history will likewise be cynical. I dispute this; I believe that alternate history naturally tends towards the miserable, towards war, death and atrocity.

I struggled a while trying to formulate my views about this topic. Inspiration struck, however, when I was reading about the suicide of Robin Williams on reddit about a week before I wrote this piece. One comment stated that comedians make a living through thinking critically about the world for the purposes of comedy. That sort of critical thinking leads to a realization of the cruelty and arbitrariness of the world, and can drag comedians into depression. I believe a similar process is at work with alternate historians.

When one studies history, one realizes that it is not pretty. One learns that the narratives taught in history class are not enough in describing the sheer brutality that this species is capable of; I remember being taught that the Philippine-American War occurred, but not of what Jacob Smith did on Samar (namely, order the slaughter of everyone older than the age of ten on a quite populated island; this colors my perception of McKinley and the former Roosevelt, especially considering that half my family is Filipino). One learns that icons are no saints, that Churchill let three million Bengalis starve and that Washington burned Iroquois villages. One’s illusions of history are shattered by the bullets of armies and the edicts of tyrants.

And so one realizes why these awful things happen; one sees hate and greed and desperation as reasons why awful things happen. These things are not merely read, they become plausible, and then realistic. Atrocity becomes as natural as breathing. As such, when one writes alternate history, anything otherwise is dismissed as Utopian.

This is, however, not the only impulse driving the genre towards pessimism. The next, as rvbomally describes, is worldbuilding, and how discussing atrocity in textbook format removes the emotional investment needed to write about atrocity on a personal level. This point is where I feel that where alternate history breaks from mainstream science fiction and fantasy.

Science fiction and fantasy are based around technology and magic, respectively, while alternate history is based about, as one might expect, history. One can imagine a biological implant or a magical enchantment and see the impact on an individual person easily; this person can then do things that are spectacular but easily comprehensible on a personal level. Alternate history does not have that ease; a single person does not see all the ramifications of a point of divergence. History is necessarily big, while technology and magic are not necessarily big. Hence, the alternate historian is drawn to large scale works, such as the quasi-textbook style that dominates the genre online.

When one sees history as big, which is rightfully so, the various miseries of war, genocide, and nuclear weapons become lessened in their impact. They are reduced from atrocity to plot twist; one thinks of when to build up to a war and when to release bombers, tanks, poison gas, and atomic fire upon civilians as part of crafting a tale. The millions that inevitably die are not thought of, only dramatic impact is. Take Turtledove’s Timeline 191; we weep for the characters we have known for eleven books, but we shed not a tear for the cities charred by nuclear fire, lobbed by the Germans, the British, the Union, and the Confederacy.

This flows into another point, one that was discussed briefly by rvbomally. Those that write alternate history are almost uniformly from the first world, where they are insulated from the worst humanity has to offer. They naturally become interested in conflict and war; this has been well discussed elsewhere, as conflict drives storytelling. What I discuss is far more sinister.

Many alternate histories focus around the age of imperialism. Cartographers and writers alike love to give empires to nations that did not have them, or assign colonies to nations that did not possess them. They see dots on a map and different colored provinces. They do not see the Rapes of Nanjing, the Samar Massacre, the Holocausts, the Holodomors, the Belgian Congos, the Amritsar Massacres, the Boer Wars, the displacement and de facto enslavement of entire peoples. They think of colonies as signs of national glory and not of ruthless exploitation of one people by another. They make maps and write stories, and want the underdog to win. But they do not realize that, in a similar position, the underdog would be as vicious as the top dog.

Hence, alternate history in many ways is very much conducive to the mass dehumanization of human beings. Atrocity is at best normalized and at worst reduced to plot device. The majority of alternate historians would describe themselves as progressive and tolerant. I can only hope they at least remember the pain inflicted in their work.

* * *

Alexander "SpanishSpy" Wallace is the author of several works of alternate history on alternatehistory.com and the alternate history wikia, including the 2014 Turtledove Award Winner for Best New Speculative, The Rise of the Tri-State World Order: A Timeline of Orwell's 1984, Emancipation and Exodus, and Scorpions in a Bottle, as well as other works. 

Dystopia in Alternate History

Guest post by Rvbomally.

This article is a response of sorts to the discussion between Mitro and SpanishSpy on the topic of Orwell's 1984 and its importance to the alternate history genre. I highly recommend watching the video, and this article will reference several points brought up during the discussion.

The popularity of dystopian settings and cynical storytelling in the fantasy and science fiction genres are a source of some controversy. Common criticisms leveled against dystopias include regret that the science fiction genre in particular is no longer as optimistic as it was in the past, and thus no longer serves as a source of inspiration; that dystopias have a negative effect on genre fiction and its readers; that they represent a juvenile understanding of realism, replacing meaningful conflict with meaningless contests over which character or side can do the most damage in the most heinous manner. I am not here to address these arguments, for I believe that their answers are ultimately up to the reader's personal taste. I am here to give my two cents on why the alternate history genre in particular has a love affair with dystopias.

Alternate History as a Reflection of Genre Fiction 

The first explanation, as brought up by Mitro and SpanishSpy in their discussion, is that alternate history is merely following the trend of genre fiction as a whole. We need not look far to see cynical entertainment gaining widespread popularity. Two of the most popular shows on television, Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead, feature morally dubious characters in a gritty, unforgiving universe. Even the traditionally optimistic genre of superhero comics have become "grimdark;" the recently-released Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice comes to mind. The successful The Hunger Games films spawned an entire series of young adult dystopia film adaptations. Less outright bloody, but no less cynical, is the popular Netflix series House of Cards. This cursory observation leads us to two conclusions: 1) General audiences want dystopia, and 2) Media creators know that general audiences want dystopia. But why?

As with all media trends, causation is a tricky chicken and egg problem. Are audiences consuming what the media tells them to want, or are the media reacting to what audiences demand? I propose that it's a bit of both, but that general audiences are the ultimate arbiters of what media is created. After all, they do have the power of the purse, and the creators of mass media are ultimately after profit. This naturally leads to the question of why audiences want cynicism. I think that this is due to several reasons. First is that mass news media makes it easier to see the dark side of life. Human interest stories aside, the mantra among the news media seems to be that good news is no news. Riots, terrorism, massacres, threats of war, are all more interesting than the relative peace and security that most of us in the West enjoy. The second, related point is related to the first: disaster sells. People are just plain interested in the dark side of life. They may have their reasons, from schadenfreude to bile fascination, but the end result is the same.

The third reason is rather paradoxical, and rubs against the common wisdom that modern people are more cynical because the modern world is worse. While modern audiences are certainly more cynical, we in the West live in conditions that would be downright utopian to people just two centuries ago. We in the modern West enjoy such a peaceful and comfortable standard of living that we want our form of escapism to be different. What more can be different from our lives of relative paradise than a world where everything has gone wrong? The fourth reason is that cynicism does seem more real. Regardless of that assessment's veracity, modern audiences seem to have a low opinion of mankind and its situation in the universe. That naturally makes optimistic works more detached from audience emotions and, consequently, the audience's money.

Alternate history is ultimately a product of the greater culture. It will naturally reflect greater cultural trends, which are influenced heavily by mass media. Mass media, in turn, is influenced by audience demands, and right now, people want cynicism.

History is Depressing

Mitro and SpanishSpy bring up a brilliant point about human history: it is full of nastiness. War, famine, disease and tyranny have been humanity's constant companions since the beginning of recorded history, and assuredly for millennia before then. It is common to critique of those proclaiming that we live in the End Times by bringing up the fact that we do not live in exceptionally bad conditions. Any student of history understands well that, contrary to the predictions of doom of today, that we live in comparatively good times. We, at least those of us who live in the West, live in times where liberal democracy is the standard model of government, child mortality is a thing of the past, and we can communicate with people around the world for little cost and effort. To our sensibilities, the past is a terrible place to live. Thus, it is only natural for an alternate history scenario to continue the trend, rather than bucking it.

This is a topic which leads into arguments about the progress of history and determinism. There is a school of thought which holds that history is a linear progression to some end, that normally being a paradise state; the archetypal "end of history." Thus, conditions will grow better for man as time goes on. There could be any number of reasons for this - technology, greater education, learning from past mistakes - but the end result is always the same. Our progress, particularly in recent centuries, lends credence to this idea. Of course, others believe that history occurs in cycles (the Chinese "dynastic cycle" comes to mind), or has no set course at all. Those subscribing to the theory of linear progress are the most likely to object to historical nastiness surviving into the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Under such a worldview, the idea of a historical wrong not being "righted" by a certain stage in history is just, well, wrong.

Personally, I subscribe to the idea that history is a product of its past. Any progressions or cycles are a result of historical circumstances that precede them. If they are altered - which is the entire premise of this genre - then their results would be different. The alternate history community is generally good with calling out inappropriate parallelisms - such as the mirroring of the Third Reich's history with that of the OTL Soviet Union in Turtledove's In the Presence of Mine Enemies - but I caution them to avoid making the same mistake with a linear theory of history.

Worldbuilding Detaches Authors and Readers 

The old chestnut about one death being a tragedy, a million being a statistic, is doubtless true. The human brain has trouble comprehending such large numbers of people, so it thinks of them in inhuman abstractions. The larger the number, the more difficult it is to empathize with a person, because they become part of an amorphous group.

Mitro and SpanishSpy discuss the worldbuilding in 1984 as a feature which attracts alternate historians to the work. I agree, but I will take this thesis a step further: worldbuilding also allows alternate historians to write about dystopian settings with greater emotional ease. As nonsensical as it may be, the story of Winston Smith is far more tragic than the story of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. This is because Winston Smith is a man who we come to know, and who is mercilessly destroyed by the system, body and soul. While we know this is happening to countless people throughout the world of 1984, we are concerned with Winston because we know him. The others may as well be nonexistent, vaporized as the Party intends.

Alternate historians who go straight for the worldbuilding have a much easier time writing a dystopia. They do not have to agonize over the tragedy of the Last Man in Europe, as Orwell did. A paragraph describing nuclear annihilation, or the genocide of an ethnic group, can suffice to give the audience the necessary information without the emotional pathos. Indeed, a simple bullet point can suffice.

While detachment is of little consequence when writing fiction, it becomes a problem in the study of actual history. Good historians understand this, hence the popularity of using works such as Anne Frank's diary in education about historical atrocities. Six million Jews perishing in the Holocaust is just a number, while Anne Frank was a person.

Alternate Historians Love War

While I am sure many alternate historians are opposed to war as a vehicle of policy, it is impossible to deny that the genre has a love affair with historical wars. The reasons for this are simple. War is a competition, often with a winner and a loser, so it is easy to ask the question: What if the other guy won? Only elections rival wars for such what-ifs, and they are popular indeed. Wars are also well-documented parts of history, as they are exciting and need to be studied by future strategists. Thus, a plethora of points of divergence spring forth from war, making it convenient fodder for any alternate historian.

Wars often lead to dystopian stories because war is wedded to dystopia. Alternate historians want to write about wars, and what better way to start a war than by crafting a setting prone to violent conflict? A world dominated by ideologically fanatical states, dictatorships, or plagued with civil unrest is fertile ground for armed conflict. In some cases, the setting is just an excuse for writing about war. A famous non-alternate history example is Warhammer 40K. The real reason that there is only war in the grim darkness of the 41st millennium is that, first and foremost, the setting is a tabletop wargame. That there is considerable overlap between the wargamer, the armchair general and the alternate historian helps keep war front and center in the genre.

War also provides an undeniable "cool" factor that a genre such as history needs. History is often viewed as a dry topic of discussion, so many of those who become interested in history do so through the study of historical wars. I know that, as a teenager, I was totally disinterested in history until I started playing the WWII shooters that plagued the market in the early 2000s. My interest in history did not begin in the classroom, but rather as a natural curiosity growing out of my days playing war games.

Alternate Historians Love Dictatorships

The alternate historian is, first and foremost, a storyteller. While some alternate historians prefer to let their timelines grow organically, some of us have an idea in mind, and want to push history in that direction. This is considerably more complicated when operating with democratic nation-states. Democracies take into account complex things like popular opinion and cultural trends. While a dictatorship cannot totally ignore these trends, they are less wedded to them. Want a country to invade another, but want to keep things simple? Have a dictatorship do it.

Dictatorships are also interesting because they present a greater variety of ideological forms. One of the messages I try to present in my work is that any ideology can be used as the basis for dictatorship, and I challenge myself to come up with new ways to corrupt various ideologies. I have an entire series of corrupted ideological worlds, and even one where I try to mash as many together as possible into one world. While these dictatorial states must be similar in some ways, such as a strict hierarchy and political repression, the rationales and practices of these states can be very different. Contrast that with a democracy, which will by default be ruled by a center-left or a center-right party, with extreme elements relegated to the sidelines. This isn't as alien to readers as a dictatorship.

Further, dictatorships also allow more interesting (read: crazy) people to take charge. Most democratic leaders will be as inoffensive and moderate as possible, to appeal to a broad base. A dictator with enough support among powerful elements can get away with much more. Hitlers, Pol Pots and Ungern-Sternbergs don't rise to the top of democratic societies and stay there long enough to make the sorts of interesting changes we alternate historians want.

Of course, this header is misleading. An entire subgenre of alternate history focuses entirely on democratic elections. These are often well-researched and detailed, but are at the same time myopic. As a consequence of their complexity, the author has little time to cover topics apart from the politicking of the characters. We get a more detailed, but narrower view of the world.

Alternate Historians (Still Kinda) Love the Nazis

While some in the alternate history community (myself included) think that the Nazis and World War II are vastly overplayed, we need to remember that the genre is deeply rooted in that classic question: What if the Nazis won? While most serious alternate historians dismiss the idea of an Axis victory, and World War II has been dissected more than any other conflict by contributors to the genre, it is still a core feature in alternate history fiction, and it continues to have a strong effect in alternate history fiction. Even if overplayed among the alternate history community, Nazi victories remain popular among the general public. The success of Amazon's The Man in the High Castle adaptation demonstrates that while the alternate history veteran may roll his eyes at swastikas over the East Coast, general audiences are still hungry for it.

It's only natural that the Nazis play such a central role in the genre. As Mitro and SpanishSpy point out, World War II was the last great conflict, the war between good and evil, with all sorts of cool weapons and soldiers and uniforms. And the Nazis are great villains; to someone outside of our timeline looking in, it would seem that they were designed to be the perfect bad guys. Totalitarian, remorseless, hateful, utterly bereft of humanity, yet effective and stylish, the Nazis present a credible, easily identifiable threat for any hero to punch in the face or blast to oblivion without guilt. Just about everybody has asked themselves the question of how Hitler could have been stopped. Many time travel stories feature characters at least discussing the possibility of stopping Hitler, although stories which have the protagonists succeeding often end in disaster (e.g. the Red Alert video game series).

Asking how Hitler could have been stopped naturally brings about the question of what would have happened if he had won. Many have tried to answer this question, from the serious Robert Harris story Fatherland, to the more fantastic Philip K. Dick novel The Man in the High Castle, to the utterly campy video game Wolfenstein: The New Order. The Nazis (and the other Axis powers) being what they were, worlds which depict their endsieg are hardly cheerful places. But they are, without a doubt, interesting places: a world governed by principles diametrically opposed to our own, and enforced ruthlessly. The division of the world by the victorious Axis powers has always interested me, and helped bring me into the alternate history genre as a whole.

The use of the Third Reich as a source of villainy is also a popular way to give an alternate history scenario flavor, and their impact goes beyond WWII timelines. If the Nazis themselves are not available, a counterpart will often appear. The Confederate States in Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series fills the role of the Nazis, and the Coalition of Western Republics in my own Ad Astra Per Aspera are effectively space Nazis descended from an American empire. "Nazifying" nation-states apart from Germany can be a fun exercise; I have seen a few threads on "Nazi" Frances and Russias on AH.com.

Entertainment aside, what-if has important cultural value: it brings into focus the moral dimension of World War II. Showing the world as it would have been under a victorious Third Reich puts the sacrifice of the Allies to bring about our much better world in a much starker contrast. To paraphrase Dwight Eisenhower, even if the reader does not know what WWII was fought for, he will know what it was fought against.

Our Timeline: The Best of All Possible Worlds?

In high school, I had to read Candide, the famous satire by Voltaire. It remains one of my favorite stories, but one line stuck out to me and has remained influential in my alternate history work to this day. In the book, the philosopher Dr. Pangloss mentions time and again the Leibnizian assertion that ours is the "best of all possible worlds." This is intended to be a comforting thought, demonstrating that all of the hardships suffered by mankind happen for the purpose of a greater good, and that there is no better option than what we have now. Voltaire, through the character Candide, points out a flaw in this reasoning by asking one simple question: If this is the best of all possible worlds, what are the others like?

I sought to answer that question, first with Ad Astra Per Aspera, and then with my later timelines and scenarios. It is possible that other alternate history authors are seeking the answer to the same question, but not in such a direct fashion. Humans have a tendency to ask "what if?" whenever something goes poorly, and it is only natural to comfort ourselves with the thought that a situation would have turned out for the worst if they had gone in a way we wanted. People want to believe that the universe is ordered in a just manner, so even events that have negative consequences in the short term have positive consequences down the road. If someone is late for a meeting because he slept through his alarm, he may rationalize this by thinking that he would have perished in a car accident had he woken up on time. Those of us interested in history may expand that to disastrous historical events. The popular plot of Hitler being killed before his rise to power, only to be replaced by a greater threat, speaks directly to this. The idea that other timelines are better than our own may even inspire envy; why do they get to live in a world without this evil, and suffer no consequences for it? It just seems unfair.

Conclusions

Alternate history is a diverse and quickly growing genre, and the dystopia subgenre will remain a strong part of it. There are myriad reasons for the genre's popularity, all but ensuring its enduring legacy. While dystopia is not everybody's cup of tea, I urge alternate historians to understand why it exists, and the possible lessons that can be learned from it.

* * *

Rvbomally is some guy on the Internet who likes history and science fiction. You can find his all of work on deviantArt. You can support him on Patreon.

What If Wednesday: Leopold and Loeb Get Away with Murder

I recently read For the Thrill of It: Leopold, Loeb, and the Murder That Shocked Jazz Age Chicago by Simon Baatz. As the title suggests, it recounted the tale of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, two affluent and well-educated young men who decided to commit the perfect murder. They kidnapped young Bobby Franks (who was actually a second cousin of Loeb) and murdered him, dumping the body culvert north of Wolf Lake, which is not far from my old neighborhood. They were arrested after Leopold's glasses were found near the body and the two eventually confessed to the murder.

The crime shocked the country and many news agencies covered the trial. Leopold and Loeb's families hired famed defense attorney Clarence Darrow, who successfully managed to save them from the death penalty by having them plead guilty but requesting a lesser sentence from the judge. Loeb eventually died in prison, while Leopold was released in 1958 and died in 1971. Neither had managed to commit the "perfect" crime.

But what if they had gotten away with murder?

With so many alternate histories created by big events like battles with death tolls in the thousands, I wanted to try my hand at how the death of just one person being slightly different could have changed the timeline. In this case Leopold is a bit more careful and doesn't lose his glasses while disposing of Franks. The murder makes headlines for quite some time, but with police getting nowhere, the public's attention begins to wane. An attempt to blame one of Franks' teachers goes nowhere and prosecution accepts the fact that this will be an unsolved mystery.

Leopold and Loeb celebrate their "victory" in the only way people with a warped view of Nietzsche can. I don't believe, however, that they would commit more murders...at first. Leopold was planning on transferring to Harvard Law School after taking a trip to Europe, while Loeb would remain at the University of Chicago. If there plans aren't changed, then what would Leopold do in Europe? What would he see and experience? I have no idea if he planned to go to Italy or Germany, but I wonder how much he knew about fascism and whether he would run into anyone promoting the ideology in Europe. Certainly Nazism would probably not appeal to him because of Jewish roots (he was not practicing, but as we know that mattered little during the Holocaust), but maybe their example might stir some dark thoughts.

As I started thinking about that, I started writing down my ideas. Leopold and Loeb come up with a different type of crime. One that is even more dangerous, but the rewards of not getting caught are even greater: politics. The short story I have been picking away it is a 1930s American dystopia, essentially the Jazz Age gone bad. The more intelligent Leopold is now the face of a growing political movement sweeping the country. Loeb is still in Chicago, but he is a powerful party boss and we learn about him and his alternate relationship with Leopold from a low-level enforcer who rises through the ranks of the party.

I am having fun writing it, despite knowing I am straining plausibility to its limit. I am even enjoying all of nifty references I am including. What do you think about my scenario? What did I get right and what did I get wrong? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below and if want to submit your own scenario email me at ahwupdate at gmail dot com for a chance to be featured on the next What If Wednesday.

* * *

Matt Mitrovich is the founder and editor of Alternate History Weekly Update and a blogger on Amazing Stories. Check out his short fiction. When not writing he works as an attorney, enjoys life with his beautiful wife Alana and prepares for the inevitable zombie apocalypse. You can follow him on Facebook or Twitter.

Review: The Confederation Part 1 by Devin Nuhfer

I have been burned by self-published alternate histories before. Bad cover photo, implausibility, political bias, grammar/spelling errors and unreasonably high price. That being said, I have been pleasantly surprised on numerous occasions, Outrageous Fortunes by Steven W. White being a prime example. The Confederation: Anniversary, Part 1 by Devin Nuhfer falls somewhere in the middle.

The first part of a serial novel, the story takes place during the 1960s in a world where the Confederacy won the Civil War. Along with flashbacks and a brief background history in the beginning, we learn about this version of the CSA from Colonel James Radcliff, a war hero who made a name for himself in Cuba. Through a first-person narrative we are a shown a Confederacy that can be described as a North Korea-lite. The CSA is a police state and pariah among world nations, but has still managed to survive. As the nation celebrates its centennial, Radcliff is courted by vying political factions and witnesses growing discord among the oppressed "servant" class, the PC term for the slaves. Much of the story, however, focuses on Radcliff's experience fighting in Cuba, this timeline's Vietnam War.

I will start with the negative points since I want to end on a high note. There were many grammar/spelling errors throughout the book, highlighting a common problem among self-published authors: they either don't have their work edited or else they do not use a professional. Also, as Seb has pointed out on more than one occasion, you can judge a book by its cover in the self-publishing industry. The cover photo for The Confederation leaves much to be desired and can only hurt sales in the long-run. There are a couple implausibilities, including a type of body armor in this world that is impregnable, unless you can afford the bullets that can break through it.

Despite these issues, The Confederation is a solid dystopian story not weakened by any political bias that is often found in American Civil War alternate histories. Though most of the story is spent introducing the protagonist, you finish knowing the CSA could be on its last legs, which leaves the story open for more action-oriented sequels. With some experienced beta readers and a professional editor, Nuhfer could have an engaging novel that can be easily digested in between longer novels. Whenever Part 2 is published, I just hope a new edition of Part 1 is released correcting some of the more glaring errors I found.

* * *

Matt Mitrovich is the founder and editor of Alternate History Weekly Update, a volunteer editor for Alt Hist and a contributor to Just Below the Law. His fiction can be found at Echelon Press, Jake's Monthly and his own writing blog. When not writing he works as an attorney and enjoys life with his beautiful wife Alana.

Profiles of Terrifying Alternate Worlds, all this Month at AHWU!

Welcome again, my dear readers, and as I am sure you are aware, it is now October. In popular culture, October is often a month used for reflections of terror and horror, and in light of that, I would like to do something similar for AHWU.

Alternate History is often used to show some of the ways a simple change in the time stream could have made far different, and quite often better worlds than our own, feeding into that inate sense of wondering what might have been all fans of the genre harbor. At the same time though, there is the option to take things in another, darker direction, and in the process create a world that makes the reader thankful to exist in our own. The genre has given us countless classic examples of this, from SM Sterling's Drakaverse, TL-191's Featherston controlled CSA, and even one of the novels that helped spawn the genre, Phillip K Dick's Man in the High Castle, all veiw history view a dark lense.

So for this month, I and some of the other writers for the site will take a look at some of the most terrifying, dystopic, and disturbing worlds concieved by the genre, and feel free to give us suggestions of your own as well. If it gets too frightning my dear readers, remember - it's only alternate history...

Soldier, scholar, writer and web-voyeur, Sean CW Korsgaard has been active in the alternate history community since 2006, and was recently elected to succeed Mitro as President of the Alternate History Online Facebook group. In addition to his contributions at the Alternate History Weekly Update, he writes for several websites, including his own, which can be found here.