realistic - history is different but the laws of nature are the same;
fantastic - magic works, supernatural beings exist.
HG Wells wrote one realistic alternative history novel whereas SM Stirling and Harry Turtledove have each written several such series and supernatural beings intervene in Stirling's Emberverse series;
Poul Anderson wrote four fantastic alternative history novels and two realistic alternative short stories;
however, two episodes of Anderson's Time Patrol series also present realistic alternative histories.
As ever, certain nuances occurred to me only when writing this post - over breakfast before a drive into the country.
12 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I believe we live in a universe where the laws of logic and nature are and supernatural beings also exist. That is, I mean God and the angels, good or bad.\\
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But it would still be wrong to show an angelic intervention in a realistic historical novel.
Logic (consistency between propositions) applies in every possible universe.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But what of historical and real persons in our universe who at least believed that angels had appeared to them or acted for them? In cases like that I can see historical novelists making use of such stories in their works.
I agree with your sentence. As I would have to! (Smiles)
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
I mean I have to agree with your second sentence!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That would work. Someone recounting his experience of an encounter with an angel.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Even better, perhaps, would be historical novelists drawing on the accounts left by historical persons of visions granted them of Christ. One example I've thought being Dame Julian of Norwich's visions in her book REVELATIONS OF DIVINE LOVE.
I've also read accounts of how Pope Leo XIII heard a conversation between Christ and Satan. An incident which inspired Leo's prayer to St. Michael the Archangel.
Ad astra! Sean
I would not necessarily rule that alternate history novels, or even historical novels with divine or angelic appeareances are unrealistic per see, although they would be for an atheist. They would not for a believer. For an agnostic, could they perhaps be seen as plausible at least?
Consider for example a historic novel including the battle of the Milvian Bridge, before which Constantine The Great claimed to have seen a Chi Rho in the sky with the greek legend "τούτῳ νίκα", translated to latin as "In Hoc Signo Vinces".
Should a novel be considered unrealistic if described exactkt that scene from the perspective of Constantine?
Johan,
I think not.
Please stay in touch. We haven't heard from you for a while.
Paul.
Kaor, Johan!
My answer to your concluding question would be "no," it would not be unrealistic for a historical novelist to take seriously the Chi Rho event described by Constantine the Great in two different ways. The first would be a novelist who wrote of Constantine sincerely and literally describing a real vision; the second would be a second writer who discussed such an event as merely false propaganda cooked up by Constantine.
And, as Paul said, I hope we see you more often here!
Ad astra! Sean
Or Constantine might have had a sincere vision that existed only in his head -- which makes it quite real, but subjective.
Conscious hypocrisy is actually fairly rare, because human beings don't perceive "reality" directly; everything is filtered through an interpretive framework.
And human perceptions of physical phenomena are themselves mental constructs -- as anyone who's had to deal with witness testimony can assure you.
Even fibs are based on what people -think is likely and credible-.
Eg., Entente propaganda exaggerated German atrocities in WW1 -- but the exaggerations were usually ones of degree, and few were made up out of whole cloth. The Germans did burn down Louvain (and its university and library) and shoot thousands of civilians and drive people ahead of them as human shields, and there was widespread officially-encouraged rape and plunder designed as a matter of policy to terrorize the civilian population.
The Germans, when they didn't deny the actions, attributed them to legitimate retaliation for acts of civilian resistance (terrorism, in 1914 terms).
There actually wasn't any of any note in Belgium... but the Germans -genuinely believed they were experiencing widespread terrorism/guerilla warfare- from Belgian and French civilians.
Because they'd been raised on stories of French civilian "francs-tireurs" in the war of 1870, and as human beings generally do they interpreted the evidence to support their pre-established narrative.
So even if Constantine had been making up his vision, he would have been making up something he thought credible and that his audience would agree was possible.
And human minds being what they are, he might -start- by lying, and then come to -sincerely believe- the whopper -- adjusting memory to support a story is common as dirt.
(I think we evolved the capacity to believe our own falsehoods because it makes them more convincing, a highly important survival skill in the setting which produced us.)
So, eg., the voices St. Joan heard could be genuine auditory hallucinations telling her what her subconscious wanted and/or expected to hear in the form her cultural expectations indicated.
Note that her accusers at her trial never denied that saints -could- speak to you that way; and they didn't call her an impostor either. They just argued that it was really evil spirits she was hearing. Because every single one of them believed such things were possible, and in fact happened all the time.
Even if you believe miracles are -possible-, Occam's Razor would suggest that hallucination is the most likely explanation.
Because we know that people -do- hear voices that aren't there; it's common as dirt. You don't have to be technically mentally ill for this to happen, given enough stress.
Whereas miracles, even if real, are admittedly rare.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I was delighted to see your fascinating comments here! Yes, I should have thought of the third alternative you discussed: Constantine coming to believe as true a story originating as simply a hallucination in his mind.
And I too have sometimes felt or been tempted by that all too human tendency to revise one'e memories to better fit an untruth.
Yes, I agree genuine miracles, by definition, are rare (but not quite THAT rare). And I'm one of those who believe St. Joan DID have genuine visions or conversations with the saints, that they were not hallucinations.
And what you said of how the Germans treated Belgian/French civilians was yet another example of the Germans letting their fears getting the better of their good judgment.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment