I’m still reading WORLDS THAT WEREN'T. Harry Turtledove’s “Daemon” was an enjoyable romp, but it was not as thought-provoking as Gentle’s story. The combined effect of the two stories though was to raise the following question: WHAT IS ALTERNATE HISTORY?

Yeah, the elementary definition is simple: it is a story which twists some “real” fact from history into a “fantasy” fact and tells a story based on that change. But sometimes simple definitions of a genre are too easy. Finding a commonly-accepted simple definition of science fiction has probably caused more disagreements than found any common ground (although, heaven knows I’ve tried a few times myself ☺). And the simplest definitions don’t necessary get to the thematical heart of a genre. What happens when the twisted fact in the alternate history story is so subtle or the changes in the story’s setting/culture/characters so minor that the story could have been told just as well as historical fiction without the change? What makes that any different than a “Bat Durston” (which, in case you don’t know, is a derogatory term for a western adventure transplanted to a science fictional setting without any intrinsic elements which require the story to be sf rather than true western).

So, is it sufficient that alternate history be a surface description of a story, or does it require a change which lies at the story’s philosophical heart? And if the changes create a nice alt-adventure tale with nothing deeper, is that truly alternate history or the alt hist version of a Bat Durston? Perhaps true alternate history stories involve some reflection about the nature of change or the nature of humans based on the change? Or am I getting too philosophical here, since how much science fiction truly involves the nature of change in the future rather than be surface descriptions themselves?

Hmm, maybe my next definition should be one of alternate history? Then I could have a complete trifecta with my previous definitions of f&sf. To be continued... (hopefully)