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. Â I’m not sure if they’re so focused on Historical Events that they’re missing the alternative manipulations or… Â 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. Â But I am amused.
what I refer to, with affection, as th S.M. Stirling school of storytelling.
And I’ve read a lot of Steve’s work, so sometimes, but not always, that IS the kind of Jam I want to read.
“They’d definitely need some sort of military edge,” seems to miss the whole “entity known as the Devil” thing. I mean I don’t know from Adam but I definitely found the thread (which I only skimmed) amusing.
Paul – Sometimes that’s the jam I want to read, too. But it’s not the only jam….
Chrysoula – I suspect none of them actually drilled down that far. And yeah, the thread is both interesting, and amusing.