Alan Lothian
2004-05-21 09:44:59 UTC
[Provoked by the comments of several respected posters on the Cuban
Missile War thread.]
Are there any ethical responsibilities involved in the creation of an
alternate history? And, if so, what might these be?
Let me start from a particular case.
I'm going to oversimplify certain people's arguments, not to traduce
them but to try to make the issues clear. That's why I won't mention
names: the responsibility for the half-arsed ideas that follow is
entirely mine.
We've had a genuinely interesting thread on the state of the world, 42
years after a nuclear war that was utterly disastrous for almost
everyone except the USA, for which it was only moderately disastrous.
The thread is historically plausible, to put it mildly. Indeed, it's
quite arguably the most probable outcome of the events of October,
1962; the fact that it didn't happen required the active intervention
of Lady Luck.
But it involved killing off about 500 million people, including a fair
proportion of shwi posters, either directly or via incineration of
parents. In the course of the thread, several people expressed at least
discomfort at the casual way that megadeaths were being chucked around
"Yeah, we'll write down the population of Germany by 95%". Note,
please, that the thread did not degenerate into some kind of murderous
wankfest. In at least one case, the discomfort amounted to something
close to ethical revulsion: we shouldn't be talking about this sort of
thing. Omen est nomen, and all that. On the other hand, it's
fascinating -- not only in a macabre sort of way, although to deny a
macabre fascination would be dishonest, I believe -- and it's quite
clearly genuine AH.
Hmm. I can see both sides of the argument, here, and am in some danger
of impaling myself on an intellectual fence; not the most comfortable
of positions. On the one hand: do novelists have any sort of moral
responsibility for their characters? "You killed Little Nell, you
bastard!" Of course not, although they most assuredly have a
responsibility for the novel as a whole. On the other: the
investigation of historical possibilities is the raison-d'etre of the
group, and nothing human is alien to us. And, despite the close
approach made by certain multi-part AHs, we're not writing novels.
(Although some of us should get off our arses and do just that, but
that's another question entirely.)
Suppose we were running an AH on the Mongol invasion of the Kwarizm;
"Given the Mongol targeting strategy, if X had done Y, we could be
looking at no more than a few kiloskull mountains, and only in the
valley of Z." Would anyone be morally squeamish about that?
Does distance lend enchantment to the view? Does the whole "ethical"
business simply relate to the intimacy of the near past? Or, as one
poster in the nukefest thread seemed to think, would
carefully-researched accuracy (not "write down Germany by 95%" but
"best studies indicate 430,000 die within 24 hours of a strike on
Mannheim") somehow resolve the dilemma?
Indeed, is it even a dilemma? *Are* there any ethics in alternate
history?
Missile War thread.]
Are there any ethical responsibilities involved in the creation of an
alternate history? And, if so, what might these be?
Let me start from a particular case.
I'm going to oversimplify certain people's arguments, not to traduce
them but to try to make the issues clear. That's why I won't mention
names: the responsibility for the half-arsed ideas that follow is
entirely mine.
We've had a genuinely interesting thread on the state of the world, 42
years after a nuclear war that was utterly disastrous for almost
everyone except the USA, for which it was only moderately disastrous.
The thread is historically plausible, to put it mildly. Indeed, it's
quite arguably the most probable outcome of the events of October,
1962; the fact that it didn't happen required the active intervention
of Lady Luck.
But it involved killing off about 500 million people, including a fair
proportion of shwi posters, either directly or via incineration of
parents. In the course of the thread, several people expressed at least
discomfort at the casual way that megadeaths were being chucked around
"Yeah, we'll write down the population of Germany by 95%". Note,
please, that the thread did not degenerate into some kind of murderous
wankfest. In at least one case, the discomfort amounted to something
close to ethical revulsion: we shouldn't be talking about this sort of
thing. Omen est nomen, and all that. On the other hand, it's
fascinating -- not only in a macabre sort of way, although to deny a
macabre fascination would be dishonest, I believe -- and it's quite
clearly genuine AH.
Hmm. I can see both sides of the argument, here, and am in some danger
of impaling myself on an intellectual fence; not the most comfortable
of positions. On the one hand: do novelists have any sort of moral
responsibility for their characters? "You killed Little Nell, you
bastard!" Of course not, although they most assuredly have a
responsibility for the novel as a whole. On the other: the
investigation of historical possibilities is the raison-d'etre of the
group, and nothing human is alien to us. And, despite the close
approach made by certain multi-part AHs, we're not writing novels.
(Although some of us should get off our arses and do just that, but
that's another question entirely.)
Suppose we were running an AH on the Mongol invasion of the Kwarizm;
"Given the Mongol targeting strategy, if X had done Y, we could be
looking at no more than a few kiloskull mountains, and only in the
valley of Z." Would anyone be morally squeamish about that?
Does distance lend enchantment to the view? Does the whole "ethical"
business simply relate to the intimacy of the near past? Or, as one
poster in the nukefest thread seemed to think, would
carefully-researched accuracy (not "write down Germany by 95%" but
"best studies indicate 430,000 die within 24 hours of a strike on
Mannheim") somehow resolve the dilemma?
Indeed, is it even a dilemma? *Are* there any ethics in alternate
history?
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun
My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try atlothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun
My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try atlothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk