I wrote about counterfactual history last year, and, while I find it often fascinating and enjoyable and entertaining, the most important quality in my view is that what-ifs remind us that nothing in history is inevitable, however we process events after the fact so that they seem to make sense.
Thanks for sharing your piece! And I think you’re right to point out that nothing is inevitable - there can be a tendency (perhaps less so more recently) to imply that everything in history was heading in a particular direction, but if just a few things were different, the world would not look the same today.
I think there are various sorts of counterfactual, of course; as I said in the essay, the “What if time-travelling South African arms dealers equipped the Confederacy with AK-47s?” genre is not for me, but the tiny twists - for the want of a nail, the kingdom was lost, proverbially - are useful reminders that the people experiencing history didn’t know how it turned out. There can be a tendency to start from the present day and work backwards, in a stereotype of Whiggish progress, and it will only lead to misanalysing and misunderstanding the past. And it’s fun! (Mind you, I think history’s fun, so I’m already committed.)
It's fun to go back through history, but what if we made "what if" a yearly, seasonal, monthly, weekly, daily reflection practice? Would we start to have more awareness of the choices in the present?
I should spend more time on Notes - your one would definitely have got me going, given my adoration of the what-if question and parallel worlds and suchlike.
The imagination of counterfactuals should be on the history curriculum, because one can't answer them satisfactorily without having a sufficient knowledge of not just the historical period in question, but the broad sweep of history, along with an understanding of the diverse but related subjects like psychology (call it psychohistory if you will) without which one can't really understand why history happens.
Furthermore, the other reason I love it is because I am a devoted anti-structuralist. The idea that 'history' can happen without any human agency is absurd, not to mention demonstrably false - plenty of individual personalities have changed the course of history through their decisions, for good or ill (usually for ill, it has to be said). Unfortunately most of them happened to be patriarchal men...
If only those few headstrong young men at Hastings had not fallen for the Normans' pretend withdrawal and rushed down after them. If the shield wall had not fallen, I genuinely believe the world would be a far, far better place, and we would likely be 300 years ahead of where we are.
I’m always asking big questions on Notes - and your thoughtful, detailed responses are always welcome!
I love what you say about ‘what ifs’ requiring a deep knowledge of the period. I was a teacher for a long time, and this would be such a great critical thinking task!
Wonderful review. My TBR pile is going to topple soon...
Thanks for your kind words, Terri! I do hope you manage to fit this one onto the TBR without causing total collapse - it was a wonderful little book.
Holly, did you get the arc of my novel? I sent it Monday. Just want to be sure it didn't go astray.
I did - so sorry for not replying. It’s been a wild week work wise for me. I’m so looking forward to reading it!
I'm right there with you on the wild week! Thanks!
I read the opening - I'm pretty sure it will soon be at the top of my stack. I can't wait!
I wrote about counterfactual history last year, and, while I find it often fascinating and enjoyable and entertaining, the most important quality in my view is that what-ifs remind us that nothing in history is inevitable, however we process events after the fact so that they seem to make sense.
https://theideaslab.substack.com/p/counter-factual-history-for-good
Thanks for sharing your piece! And I think you’re right to point out that nothing is inevitable - there can be a tendency (perhaps less so more recently) to imply that everything in history was heading in a particular direction, but if just a few things were different, the world would not look the same today.
I think there are various sorts of counterfactual, of course; as I said in the essay, the “What if time-travelling South African arms dealers equipped the Confederacy with AK-47s?” genre is not for me, but the tiny twists - for the want of a nail, the kingdom was lost, proverbially - are useful reminders that the people experiencing history didn’t know how it turned out. There can be a tendency to start from the present day and work backwards, in a stereotype of Whiggish progress, and it will only lead to misanalysing and misunderstanding the past. And it’s fun! (Mind you, I think history’s fun, so I’m already committed.)
I'm intrigued. Adding this to my ever-swelling to read list.
Hooray! Hope you enjoy it if it manages to make it to the top 🥰 if it helps, I found it quite a quick read.
I love the "what if" consciousness.
It's fun to go back through history, but what if we made "what if" a yearly, seasonal, monthly, weekly, daily reflection practice? Would we start to have more awareness of the choices in the present?
I love that! Building it in as a practice for ourselves 🥰
I should spend more time on Notes - your one would definitely have got me going, given my adoration of the what-if question and parallel worlds and suchlike.
The imagination of counterfactuals should be on the history curriculum, because one can't answer them satisfactorily without having a sufficient knowledge of not just the historical period in question, but the broad sweep of history, along with an understanding of the diverse but related subjects like psychology (call it psychohistory if you will) without which one can't really understand why history happens.
Furthermore, the other reason I love it is because I am a devoted anti-structuralist. The idea that 'history' can happen without any human agency is absurd, not to mention demonstrably false - plenty of individual personalities have changed the course of history through their decisions, for good or ill (usually for ill, it has to be said). Unfortunately most of them happened to be patriarchal men...
If only those few headstrong young men at Hastings had not fallen for the Normans' pretend withdrawal and rushed down after them. If the shield wall had not fallen, I genuinely believe the world would be a far, far better place, and we would likely be 300 years ahead of where we are.
I’m always asking big questions on Notes - and your thoughtful, detailed responses are always welcome!
I love what you say about ‘what ifs’ requiring a deep knowledge of the period. I was a teacher for a long time, and this would be such a great critical thinking task!
I take full credit.