Deeply amused and not at all surprised....

[lagilman]

My post on using American history in fantasy over at Charlie Stross' blog seems to have evolved in comments into a "the technical aspects of how you'd write an alternate American history where the Indian tribes don't lose" alternating with arguments over the definition of Celtic and related UKcentric socioarcheology, and the only-occasional hitting of my original points.

And I am not at all surprised because, well, there seem to be a lot of literal-minded types who hang out there, and they want to get down to the factual manipulation of details, with emphasis on manipulation.  Because that's tangible and defensible, if you have enough facts and talky-bits.  There's a large section of fandom that loves that kind of worldbuilding, what I refer to, with affection, as th S.M. Stirling school of storytelling.

(I was Steve's editor, and I really do say that with affection, that's not sarcasm or dissing.)

And I have amusement, because with all the theories being thrown around, and all the how-tos and might-haves... none of them have come close to what I'm actually doing.  I'm not sure if they're so focused on Historical Events that they're missing the alternative manipulations or...  well, to presume that what I came up with is so unique would be hubris of the discomforting sort, so I won't say that.  But I am amused.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

This is why I generally don't comment on anything to do with alternate history. So much investment in fake facts.

[lagilman]

Well, technically, ANY worldbuilding is "fake facts." They're just harder for other people to disagree with. *g*

(where "harder" has never stopped some)

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

This is true. And yet... It's the furphies that get me every time, like those Celts travelling up from Spain.....