Firstly, a few general comments, please.

I have just received my eagerly awaited Winter edition of Paradox. Perhaps when I have had time to digest its contents, I shall offer a review of at least one of the stories, as I hope others might as well.

First and foremost, I'm certain that I speak for all when I offer congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. Cevasco on their upcoming blessed sequel! <g> Considering young Master or Miss Cevasco's lineage, we anxiously await his or her first review of a story from his or her father's splendid magazine, perhaps premiering at age five (or thereabouts <g>)!

The objectivity of a literary critic aside, I would advise that in regard to such criticism that the future Master or Miss Cevasco act with the utmost degree of circumspection. What's a little lapse of literary integrity when one's allowance is at issue?

In regard to the Cevascos' upcoming relocation, I'm certain once again that we all wish them all the happiness in the world and good fortune from the move. In regard to the new schedule for issues, although I am, of course, disappointed that such a lengthy period of time will go by before we see another issue, in light of Mr. Cevasco's uncommon courtesy as an editor these days in his consideration of unsolicited material, I'm sure we all extend him the same consideration in the spirit of a quid pro quo. Good things, after all, are indeed worth waiting for.

Now, I have a question regarding the ground rules of sorts for alternate history stories which, of course, are such a mainstay of Paradox.

In regard to the last issue, I thought I had noted an anachronism in a fine story entitled "The Meteor of the War." The author had a character smoking a cigarette in the late 1850s, while I had thought that cigarettes had not made their debut until somewhat later, perhaps in the 1870s. In response, Mr. Cevasco provided research that showed that the first manufactured cigarette premiered in l860, with hand-rolled ones antedating that.  I acknowledged my error. However, what if I had been right?

Although "The Meteor of the War" is not really a good example to use in regard to this question, I shall use it anyway. I do not really consider this story to be alternate history. Rather, it is a time travel tale in which the original timeline is altered by the intervention of TT. To my mind, true AH is where an author simply fantasizes a history that never was and presents it as if it had been so.

Solipsism is the philosophical theory that one is the only one and thing that exists, and that everyone and everything else is merely a figment of one's imagination. Solipsism is impossible to refute. No matter what proof you try to offer the solipsist that others actually do exist in reality, he or she can merely counter: "That too is part of my illusion."

Is it likewise with AH? For example, had I been right in my belief that cigarettes did not premier until the 1870s or so, could the author of the aforementioned story and his editor have simply countered: "This is alternate history, and in this alternate history cigarettes were invented somewhat earlier."?  (So there!)

Does Paradox insist in AH stories that while a basic fact or scenario of history may be changed, the attendant bits of ambience be consistent with the actual time period? Or can there be no such thing as an anachronism within AH?

Best regards,

Don

Dear Caliban and Chris:

In regard to your assertion that anachronisms, unless deliberate, are not acceptable even in AH, we are in agreement. However, Chris, in regard to your contention that "The Meteor of the War" is alternate history, reasonable minds can disagree--as we do here.

When I stipulated that using "TMW" to pose my question was a poor example, I was indicating that had I been correct about the anachronistic usage of cigarettes within the story, then there could be no excuse for such shoddiness of research on the part of the author; with yourself being complicit as editor for your failure to catch the error. However, if the story had been in actuality an AH story, then there would be grounds for at least debating such a contention.

The difference between "TMW" and, for example, "Amante Dore'e," in the current issue is that whereas the author of the latter piece offers no explanation whatsoever for her radically altered history from the one we know as fact, the author of the former does; and, that explanation is not only logical but perhaps even possible.* [Please see below.]

Therefore, "TMW" would be classified as a sub-genre of SF (if one extends that status to TT stories), whereas the latter piece is a sub-genre of fantasy.

Caliban (Che) is quite correct when he asserts that certain boundaries should be adhered to in regard to AH. Because AH is fantasy, if every writer in the world were to write nothing but AH stories for the next fifty years, the remaining scenarios to future generations of writers would still constitute a virtual infinity; which is why some sort of discriminating standards and boundaries must be instituted in order to maintain a degree of quality and interest in the sub-genre.

Another editor of a professional print magazine (SF) took almost five months to reject my TT story with: "I thought the story was nicely done, but I'm afraid the idea struck me as kind of old."

Perhaps so, but after over 150 years of SF, it is exceedingly difficult for writers to come up with entirely new concepts. With AH, the basic concept never changes and the emphasis seems to be on a story's appointments rather than substance. Thus, I believe that it is absolutely essential that standards be instituted and generally accepted within the field.

You're quite welcome, Chris, concerning my proffered congratulations. Please make certain to extend them to your wife. She is, after all, co-author!

Best regards,

Don

*I have reservations concerning all TT scenarios which utilize a single timeline schme of reality as with "TMW."  I have no idea if TT is possible, but I'm firmly convinced that if someone eventually proves that it is, then he or she will also prove the validity of "The Many-Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics. I simply see no way around the "grandfather paradox" other than by invoking the MWI.

In fact, the story's author alludes to the problem when he mentions that a considerable portion of the African-American population of contemporary times have "white blood" within them. He fails, however, to fully address the concern and its resulting ramifications within the context of the story.

Asimov in his The End of Eternity got around the problem with the simple--and lame--expediency of invoking a "device" to shield the time traveler, and his cohorts of Eternity, from any effects wrought by altering the past. That is why in my TT story I invoked my own variation of the MWI to render the plot tenable.

Although not expressly addressed within the story, in my scheme diverging timelines do not occur on a regular basis as a force of nature, but rather only when forced by the intervention of TT. As long as my time traveler is careful to travel back and forth in time so as to arrive at each destination at least a second after he last departed them, then he will not force reality to diverge into yet another timeline.  (In effect, another "parallel universe.")

(The story was intended to contain many layers of consideration which I regret that few readers comprehended. It is indeed a poor general who blames his men for a defeat on the battlefield, and it is the poor writer who blames his or her readers for not sufficiently comprehending his or her work. It is thus best that I stick with literary criticism as an avocation and leave creativity to such talented and successful writers as Mr. Santa and Ms. Jensen!)

Dear Chris:

I don't suppose you desire this forum to become a debate board or to belabor points of detail indeterminately. I do however wish to clarify a point I made.

When I stated that Ms. Monette's story provides no explanation for her positioned radically altered history and simply presents it as such, that was not intended as negative criticism of her beautifully-crafted story or of AH stories in general. Rather, I wanted to point out what I view as the distinction between true AH stories like hers and TT intervention stories that change reality like "The Meteor of the War."

The point was not that Ms. Monette could have begun her story along the lines of: "In the wake of Napoleon the Great's resounding victory at Waterloo...." My point lies deeper than that.

If such an explanation would be deemed sufficient, then one might ask why Napoleon triumphed at Waterloo in this alternate history. What was different about what he or his adversaries did that so radically changed the battle's outcome and history? If those differences were in turn explained, then one asks why they were different. What made Nappy zig when he should have zigged whereas he had zagged in the history we know? Before long, we are into an infinite regress of antecedent changed causes and "whys."

The point is that somewhere within the chain of events one must arbitrarily change something that leads to the revised history. ("He just did.")

With TT intervention stories, the premise is that with the benefit of hindsight, the time traveler knows where and how to intervene in order to maximize the chances of affecting the desired change within the timeline. There is nothing arbitrary about it. It is not fantasy, but science (fiction). The explanation is not: "That's just the way it was." Rather, there is a deliberate and precise cause of time being altered from its original pattern of events.

Thus, a time traveler--with the benefit of hindsight--goes back and warns Nappy about the Prussians' last minute rescue of Wellington. In AH--in the absence of the SF element--whatever sequence of events that occurred to warn Napoleon must be explained by a regression of antecedent changed causes which ultimately hinge upon some change having been made at some point in the history of events without any apparent cause--and that is fantasy.

Best regards,

Don