Let's have some fun. Imagine that some of the most popular and well-known published alternate history stories, from Turtledove, Stirling, or anyone else, had first made their debut here on AlternateHistory.com (ignoring the obvious snafu that this site wouldn't even exist if said authors hadn't been published; we're using our imagination here!). Most of us on this site appreciate the good stories given to us in published AH, but at the same time, it's certainly true that this site tends to judge stories and timelines by a different standard than most publishers.
Therefore, if most of the stories we know from published AH had not originally been published, but had been anonomously posted on this website, in their original form with the same plots and changes, how would the good people of AH.com have reacted to them? Which ones would have won the coveted Turtledove awards, which ones would have been ripped to shreds as ASB, and which ones would've resulted in the authors getting a one-way ticket to Ban City?
I first thought of this idea when I imagined what it would've been like if S.M. Stirling had first posted his stories on this site. Could you imagine how The Domination would've been received originally posted on this site? It'd probably go down as one of the most controversial TLs in its history; some people would like it as an amazing dystopia, but this would be matched by some people expressing suspicion that Stirling secretly supports the idea behind the Draka society and accusing him of being a closted "glory to the Anglo-Saxon race!" white supremacist slavery apologist. In turn, ATL AH.com poster Stirling would get all defensive and cause a heated flame war at being accused over such a thing, get kicked at the very least after insulting other users during said war, and, if things get too far, possibly banned.
If he gets far enough to post the Peshawar Lancers, that'd raise the red flags even more, with people wondering if he were some hardcore British Empire imperialist who wanted to whitewash colonialism, while expressing serious doubts over the Russians being made into "blood for the blood god" Satanic cannibals.
And don't even get me started on Robert Conroy. He strikes me as that kind of poster who starts TLs on ideas that many people will initially get intrigued about and subscribe to immediately ("Finally, a good Trent War TL!" "Been waiting to see an Operation Downfall TL done right."), will watch with interest in the first parts of the TL...and quickly get dissapointed when situations that everyone knows should be surefire military disasters for the United States (British entry into the ACW over Trent; Operation Olympic being initiated; a more effective Pearl Harbor attack; etc.) somehow magically end in a deus ex machina/sheer dumb luck turn of events and an "America, FUCK YEAH!" ending where everything works out great for the U.S.
Therefore, if most of the stories we know from published AH had not originally been published, but had been anonomously posted on this website, in their original form with the same plots and changes, how would the good people of AH.com have reacted to them? Which ones would have won the coveted Turtledove awards, which ones would have been ripped to shreds as ASB, and which ones would've resulted in the authors getting a one-way ticket to Ban City?
I first thought of this idea when I imagined what it would've been like if S.M. Stirling had first posted his stories on this site. Could you imagine how The Domination would've been received originally posted on this site? It'd probably go down as one of the most controversial TLs in its history; some people would like it as an amazing dystopia, but this would be matched by some people expressing suspicion that Stirling secretly supports the idea behind the Draka society and accusing him of being a closted "glory to the Anglo-Saxon race!" white supremacist slavery apologist. In turn, ATL AH.com poster Stirling would get all defensive and cause a heated flame war at being accused over such a thing, get kicked at the very least after insulting other users during said war, and, if things get too far, possibly banned.
If he gets far enough to post the Peshawar Lancers, that'd raise the red flags even more, with people wondering if he were some hardcore British Empire imperialist who wanted to whitewash colonialism, while expressing serious doubts over the Russians being made into "blood for the blood god" Satanic cannibals.
And don't even get me started on Robert Conroy. He strikes me as that kind of poster who starts TLs on ideas that many people will initially get intrigued about and subscribe to immediately ("Finally, a good Trent War TL!" "Been waiting to see an Operation Downfall TL done right."), will watch with interest in the first parts of the TL...and quickly get dissapointed when situations that everyone knows should be surefire military disasters for the United States (British entry into the ACW over Trent; Operation Olympic being initiated; a more effective Pearl Harbor attack; etc.) somehow magically end in a deus ex machina/sheer dumb luck turn of events and an "America, FUCK YEAH!" ending where everything works out great for the U.S.
