Subject: Historical determinism.
Author:
Posted on: 2016-01-12 11:11:00 UTC

The trouble I have with this kind of AU is that it assumes history stays the same except when you specifically changes. It's like having the Aztecs beat the Conquistadors and take over North America - but then insisting that the southern members of the United States of Aztlan attempt to secede from the northern ones over the issue of slavery.

You have Ar-Pharazon still being the king who brings about the Downfall; Galadriel still ending up in Lorien; Elrond still building Imladris; Gondor and Arnor still splitting (Isildur was heading north to claim the throne of a United Kingdom when he was killed!); Arnor still breaking up, and in exactly the same way; Rhudaur still becoming a subject of Sauron; Umbar still splitting off. You've assumed that the canon history is almost inevitable, with only minor changes from your point of departure.

I go (if anything, too far) the other way: history is fragile. 'Stray but a little, and it will fail'. For storytelling purposes, it's useful to keep the same names - so I've still used Gondor to describe the Numenorean kingdoms-in-exile, for instance - but in practical terms, a tiny change will lead to massive differences when you get thousands of years down the line.

I guess they're two different ways of looking at AUs, so I'm not precisely telling you you're wrong. I just think my way is better more fun. ^_^

hS

Reply Return to messages