Updated Sunday 15 May, 2011 12:18 PM

The Great Debate

- What Makes A Man

and

Why Use Historical Characters In Alternative History

The internet has a curious way of making you face your past. In 2000, under the name Wolverine, I wrote an essay on Alternate History. Although primarily concerned with the development of technology and the discipline of science, it included the following paragraphs about the use of historical characters in alternate history.

For example if we diverged in 1914 and avoided the First World War countless millions of people of all nationalities would live who did not - not just those killed by warfare in all its forms , but by the Flu epidemic afterwards and the civil wars in many countries , and probably other conditions we cannot easily foresee - e.g. a natural disaster in the immediate aftermath may have claimed a vastly increased number of victims because no organisations were in any position to intervene.

People who would have married didn't, children who would have been born were not, people who would have met never had the chance, but the converse is also true ! People who did marry, did produce children, did move into an area where they met someone who decided their future would not have gone down this path - with many others, different circumstances, and different immediate-term developments , the effects on the long term can be enormous . . .

The effects of alternate history on the identity of the people who inhabit its pages depend largely upon how deeply a nation is affected by these interpersonal relationships. For example a country which keeps out of historic events and is not largely affected by international events may well see an almost exact replication of reality in its alternate history until such a point as external events impinge heavily upon it. Mongolia is unlikely to be affected in any serious way by there having been no First World War so the generations coming to maturity in the 1940s will be composed of roughly the same personalities as in reality.

As soon as a country is hit by divergent timelines the interpersonal relationships begin to warp and change to an increasingly serious extent. By at the very most twenty years afterwards nobody who would have been born in our reality can hope to have been created except by the most amazing of coincidences, some sort of huge body-chemistry issue if the people involved would have come into contact (e.g. being upper class and attending the same ultimate university), or have been so extremely remote that their coming together is unaffected - but so also is their usually non-existent effect on domestic history , let alone that of the world as a whole.

The speed of this process depends upon the size of the initial change. It may be a linear relationship but is not an equal one - if drawn upon a graph the line would be steep indicating that as time progresses the effects become more and more noticeable. If the initial change is massive the line of change would reflect this by showing a swift sweep off the chart. If the initial change is smaller the line of the graph would sweep slowly at first then accelerate upwards as the cumulative effects and combined inter-relationship effects massive changes in the longer term - e.g. twenty percent of marriage/childbirth changes would be perhaps double that in the next generation , with additions perhaps up to another twenty percent from longer-term effects on pre-existing individuals , and shortly these figures would mean very very very few of the partnerships and children we know twenty to forty years after an event would have any chance whatsoever of coming into being.

Logically, this is the most realistic. Indeed, only the following arguments could be ranged against it on a logical basis :-

If the same two people are married, although the child may result from different circumstances, have different DNA and birthdate at least slightly different, its genetic inheritance will be similar, the atmosphere it grows up in will at least be similar, and it is likely to bear the same name. Most names in past ages had some significance in family past. Others reflected the names of royalty, which by basing their names on certain conventions would be chosen from the same 'pot' of names as historical. Only names based on historical or current figures of note will differ, to the degree that the alternate history has removed some figures or raised others to greatness.

If a marriage is contracted between royalty, or between noble houses, the likelihood of such a match remains high. Alliances, fortunes and war may change the circumstances of their meeting, but if they come into contact other forces are at play. Despite a degree of arrangement, most dynastic marriages occur because in the circles the man and woman move in, they come together, find a mutual attraction and the marriage is approved by their families. Perhaps the coming together has been arranged artificially, but it would still be one of many, most of which fail except for those where attraction occurs. Thus, unless there are reasons in the alternate history to prevent the meeting from occurring, or unless one party is raised higher or smitten lower by events, there exists at least a reasonable chance of their marrying.

Of course, the exceptions accelerate over time. What is almost as likely in thge first generation becomes somewhat unlikely in the second, and very surprising in the third. But - unless you have killed an ancestor - it does NOT become impossible

Which leads us into the possible versus the probable. This is not just a debate about who will marry, and who will be born. It is also a debate about whether such a person born will still make something of himself in the alternate history.

This is more complicated than it seems. Not only are the circumstances which led to someone's fame and fortune not going to be the same in the alternate history - they may in fact be completely the opposite. But that does not mean that a determined man would not use these very different opportunities to rise to prominence. Thus the argument that Person X only became famous by Event 1 so if the latter is removed, so is the fame, does not wash. Who is to say that in very different circumstances, Person X may not in fact use Event 2 even if historically inimical to him, in order to further his fortune ?

Of course one cannot say that he WOULD, we can only say that he COULD. But, after the immediate Point of Departure, alternate history moves away from probabilities and into the possibilities.

Consider the circumstances where a politician owes his prominence to a friendship with the party leader. If that leader dies in reality than the politician's influence crashes. But if the party leader lives longer in your alternate timeline, what does this say for the politician's future ? His position will not disappear as it did in reality, but five years down the line will he still be prominent ? It is possible. It is also possible that the party leader will nominate him his successor. But it is possible that this will not be the case. We have moved from the certainty that the politician will not lose his position on the historical date of his party leader's death, through the probability that he will retain his influence for a measurably longer period, to the possibility that he will still be prominent in five years time.

As time goes by we leave the probable and can entertain only the possible.

Probability, as a statistical science, is a difficult subject to get a grasp of. If ten people go for the same job, all external factors being equal, the probability that any individual will get the position is 1 in 10. If ten people go for two jobs, conventional wisdom would say that the probability of getting one is 1 in 5. Conventional wisdom would be wrong. After appointing a person to Job One, the selectors then look at the remaining nine candidates for Job Two. Thus the possibility is 1 in 9. If there is a third job, it would be 1 in 8 and so on.

Where does the above situation regularly occur ? In the formation of cabinets after victory in an election. In a party system, the most senior party members will compete for the most important cabinet positions - typically the finance, interior, foreign and defence portfolios.

This group of senior individuals have different strengths, different attributes and different baggage. If, in your alternate history, a senior politician has been born more or less analogous to reality, has risen to prominence through the manipulation of circumstances (and what was distasteful in reality might be considered pragmatic in this alternative history) and put himself in contention for an important position, the likelihood that it will be he who gets it us not less than possible. Possible may be all it needs to be.

Put 10 blue, 5 red, 3 green and 2 black balls into a bag and draw them blind. Probability says that every second ball will be blue, every fourth red, every sixth or seventh green, and every tenth black. But probability only comes into play in the long run if many draws are averaged out. At the moment of the drawing of the ball, it is JUST AS LIKELY to be 'Black 2' as it is to be 'Blue 1' or 'Blue 2' or 'Blue 3'. Each individual ball has an equal chance.

Let is look at a specific example. Let us assume that the POD is no Crimean War. Sixty years later, is Winston Churchill in government ? Let us allow his parents to meet. The historical attraction is there, and they marry. His mother and father are fertile. He is born, perhaps not on the same date, perhaps not at the same weight. But he has the same genetic heritage, and the reason behind his name would be the same. Having the same, or similar, abilities he makes his way in life. He progresses, gains ambitions. His experiences are different, his luck dependant on different factors, but he is aiming high. By 1910 he has risen to prominence. Perhaps he had had the luck and opportunity of reality and been in government for a few years. Perhaps he has not and has risen more slowly. But getting into contention he is vying for a major cabinet position. And being in that position, the possibility is that he gets it.

Just that. The POSSIBILITY. It is EQUALLY possible that he does not, but it is not more possible that he does not. Each ball in the bag has an equal chance of being picked. They may, or they may not. It is NO LESS POSSIBLE for Churchill to be First Lord of the Admiralty in 1914 than it is for someone we have never heard of whom the alternate history has brought to prominence.

Which leads us to the question, "Who does the author want to use ?" If the historical figure is equally as likely as any specific non-historical character, the author gains by using the historical character ? It is entirely up to them. Alternate history can be a fascinating way of exploring character, motivation and the nature of fame. It can be a way of twisting the familiar so that looks are now deceiving. It can be about showing how someone the author admires could have been greater - or how someone they think is over-rated could have been less. A known character has traits, foibles and abilities with which the reader will often already be familiar. A non-historical character could seem, in the same place, a mere cypher for the development of the plot.

Or not. If the use of a historical character adds nothing, asks no questions or serves no purpose, perhaps a non-historical character is best in that role.

But neither argument, neither POSSIBILITY, is better than the other. The answer, as ever, is "It depends."