What if Robert E. Howard Struck Oil Instead?

This panel was subtitled: Alternate History in Fantasy Literature. Moderator was Leslie Howle; panelists included Paul Park, Alma Alexander, and Howard Waldrop.

Someone said that alternate history provides a window through which to examine society.

Waldrop said "The first time [something bad happens] is tragedy; the second time is comedy."

It was agreed that there were two types of alternate history. The first mentioned, the "what if" kind, is where what's explored are the changes to society resulting from the point where the history diverges. "What if" was noted as being particularly popular in the early days of alternate history. The second was referred to as the unperceived narrative, and is the loser's side of history.

I think it was Waldrop who quoted Faulkner as having said that, if you're from the South, you hope that July day happens differently. (No quotes, because I know I paraphrased what was actually said.)

Park said, memorably, that there are as many stories of what happened as there are people it happened to.

Someone noted that you write history to explore what history is.

Books mentioned as alternate history included Philip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle, a book called The Grasshopper Lies Heavy, and Guy Gavriel Kay's Tigana.

This comment was particularly important to me, though I don't recall who first started the train of thought that led to it: Historical events determine the sorts of fiction being written, because *fiction is created to discuss events*. (Emphasis mine.) People read fiction for two reasons: to confirm their fears, or to allay their fears.

Waldrop said, after trying to explain his cone theory of history, that possibilities lie behind us and probabilities lie ahead of us. [That's semantics, but it's a useful distinction when you're trying to discuss the two.]

And another significant (and unattributed) comment from my notes: The further away we get from the present time, the simpler the frame of the story becomes; perhaps that's why so much fiction is written in times distant from the present.

This and the cliches panel were probably the two I enjoyed and appreciated the most, as they were the ones that made me think. I have only recently approached alternate history as a writer. The comment about fiction being written to discuss events I find particularly telling, for myself, because of some of the work I've done. Maybe it'll help me finally get a handle on the short (novella?) story I wrote that I know full well was in reaction to the events in Kosovo and the rest of the late 90s Balkan conflict. The story remains rather unfocused, probably because I don't understand what I was trying to say. I need to think about this some more.

And I wonder if the comment about fiction written of distant times doesn't have something to do with the fascination, in genre fiction, with pseudomedieval and feudal societal setups? (Eric Flint, in the cliches panel, noted his negative reaction to the idea of feudal societies in space, labeling them unrealistic.)

Like I said, a worthwhile panel, and lots of food for thought.

Other panels at WFC 2006

Most of the rest of my notes on panels are pretty haphazard, as many of them did not excite me. I'll jot the highlights here.

In the panel Vampire Powerhouse, Chelsea Quinn Yarbro said that "whatever you can imagine is better than what I can describe."

In that same panel, PN Elrod noted herself as squeamish in real life, and shuddered when someone mentioned the meathook episode in her Jack Fleming series. A definite example of an author exploring her limits!

~~~~~

In the panel Horror, Dark Fantasy, and Other Fictions that Go Bump in the Night, Anne Kennedy said that the two things that motivate us most strongly are sex and death.

In the same panel, it was agreed that the label used on the subgenre is a matter of acceptability - you don't want to have people seeing you holding a book dripping blood etc. or with "horror" or "terror" on the cover. *Especially* "terror," given that word's current connotation with terrorism. I found this interesting, in that I was disappointed in large part with the panel because my definition of "dark fantasy" does not necessarily equal "horror". Later days may separate the two terms again, but for the moment I may reconsider my categorization of my work as dark fantasy. It's definitely not horror.

~~~~~

In the panel Forgotten Masters: Readings from the Deep Dark Past, David Hartwell suggested that, to understand a period of history, you had to read its second and third rate fiction, that those books offered more characteristics of the period, and that they were more influential than the masterpieces.

Jess Nevins championed Varney the Vampire as the opening salvo in the treatment of the vampire as the tortured soul, rather than as the monster.

It was noted that each period twisted archetypes in response to current anxieties. (This dovetails nicely with the comments in the Alt History panel about fiction being created to discuss events, and I note that Paul Park was on both panels. He talks a lot. *g*)

Hartwell noted that some material you can't think about directly, especially if it includes concepts that are verboten in current society, but you can look at those concepts sideways, or around corners, and through fiction.

~~~~

In the panel Natural Progressions and Unnatural Spawn: Fantasy Crossovers, Gordon Van Gelder said that you should cross over genre boundaries for a meaningful reason, not just "they fight crime!"