Customer Reviews

Virtual History

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

What if?

People have been speculating about the consequences of "the path not taken" for centuries, but alternative history -- that is, the consideration, serious or otherwise, of the paths that history would have taken if a single event had gone differently -- has only come into its own in the 20th century. Beginning in the 1930's, with the publication of Squire's _What If?_, there have been numerous publications related to alternative history. Numerous authors have published fiction based on alternative histories -- though most of them could have been better written, they are valuable contributions to the alternative history canon.

Recently, alternative history scenarios -- now known as counterfactuals -- have become intellectually respectable, as historians, social scientists, and economists have used them to analyze how our society developed. It is in this light that _Virtual History : Alternatives and Counterfactuals_ was written.

The various scenarios in the book are all interesting, and based in fact. Of particular interest are the scenarios detailing the effects of:

* the survival of the Stuart monarchy in the British Isles;

* the failure of the British to intervene on behalf of the French in the First World War, written by Ferguson;

* the fate of Britain, and of eastern Europe, in the event of Nazi victory in the Second World War;

* and, the evolution of the Soviet Union if Gorbachev and _perestroika_ hadn't intervened.

Finally, a composite history of the world including elements from all nine alternative histories proposed in this book is added on, again written by Ferguson.

On the whole, this book is an essential possession for anyone interested in the question of "What if?". My only problems with the book are the facts that Ferguson's composite alternative history evolves into a ridiculously unlikely parody of our history, and that parts of his introduction are overly pompous.

Still, this is an excellent book.

Believe me, I really tried to appreciate this book as either a thought-provoking exploration of scenarios of alternate history, or as a solid study of the art of history itself. I was disappointed both ways. Strangely enough, this book is purported by the publisher and editor to be both of those things, but the results prove otherwise. This book is very unfocused and academically arrogant, and it barely even explores counterfactual history, except at an extremely basic and dry interpretation of the term. Note: This book is from England and is quite Anglo-centric, so a working knowledge of British history might be an asset before you begin (this is not a criticism, just a recommendation).

This book gets off to a horrendous start with Ferguson's 90-page introduction in which he attempts to explore the nuances and importance of counterfactual history. Instead he delivers an extremely tedious and repetitive treatise on the study of history itself, which has little to do with the supposed focus of the book. A large portion of this intro is dedicated to "determinism" vs. "predestination" in history, but this is historiography rather than an exploration of counterfactuals. This is also written in that dry and verbose academic style in which it is more important to endlessly pile on repetitive evidence in order to impress one's colleagues, than to actually enlighten the reader. Ferguson shows a sheer desperation to confound other historians who don't think highly of counterfactuals, and in the process forgets that he is writing a book for the public. He also complains about researchers in his field not being taken seriously, but then insults people in other fields who are interested in counterfactuals, such as sociologists and fiction writers.

After this tedious start, the book doesn't get much better, as various historians contribute chapters on key episodes in history. With only a few exceptions, each author commits the errors of the introduction by failing to explore counterfactuals, which is supposed to be the point, and merely shows off his own historical knowledge in tedious ways. One noteworthy exception is the essay on home rule in Northern Ireland. Otherwise, the pattern here is to spend 95% of the essay describing what really happened in a straight historical fashion, then briefly knock off a few possible alternative scenarios without really exploring them, as if the editor forced each author to do this. In the end, this book can't figure out what it wants to be, and you will be unable to figure out why you're reading it. Is it trying to comment on the study of history itself, or present straight history with an intellectual twist, or explore counterfactuals? It tries to do all of these, with disappointing levels of success, and is only unfocused as a result. If you decide to tackle this, good luck - you'll need it.

Overall, I found "Virtual History" to be an excellent exploration of the value of counterfactuals in historical writing. There is no debating the quality of the writing in this book. From the rousing introduction, to the various essays, and the clever conclusion, the authors do a superb job of engaging the reader in their various areas of expertise. That said, the work overall is somewhat uneven.

I believe this stems from the fact that the various historians don't all share the same comfort level with projecting the consequences of their counterfactuals. Some barely scratch the surface of what might have been, while others go into extensive detail (in particular, "What if Hitler had Invaded England", my favorite). However, this complaint speaks more to the flow of the work overall, and not to the quality of each essay.

In conclusion, "Virtual History" is an outstanding work, that shows top notch research and excellent writing. My one caveat to the potential reader would be that this is not a particularly light, easy reading book. If you are looking for a somewhat less rigorous, less scholarly look at counterfactual history I would recommend "What If?" (Cowley ed.).

Niall Ferguson has written several fine books that are must-reads for educated people. These include 'The Pity of War' (on WWI), 'The War of the World' (about the major conflicts in the 20th century including a stunning chapter on the 'armed slave labor camp' that was the Soviet Union), and this book -- Virtual History' on counterfactual or "what if" history. Some amazon reviewers have obviously completely misunderstood this book - it is designed to explore some counterfactual questions, but primarily it is intended to explain and defend the value of counterfactual history. Feguson makes perhaps the finest explanation and defense of counterfactual reasoning. This will obviously not make some people happy, as they would rather hear creative historical what ifs, ala Hollywood. But for historians and other social scientists who need to use counterfactual reasoning, this book is an outstanding resource. By all means read this book, and the other fine works of Niall Ferguson - one of the outstanding comparative historians of our day (or any day).

This is a collection of essays by serious historians who have plotted "virtual histories" based on the premise that one key event happened differently than in reality. (one complaint: too centered on the English-speaking world) Convincing arguments that Charles I had everything going right for him, that the American Revolution was a sheer fluke that almost nobody wanted, that Britain should have allowed Germany to win the First World War, and that the Soviet state still had many decades of life ahead of it when Gorbachev arrived, are presented with gusto. Other essays are not really counterfactual at all, and should not have been included. The editor's introduction is also too long and contains a lot of ranting about teleology and contingency equations--ignore it. Despite these holes, the book is compulsive reading for history fans.

"Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals" is a collection of thought-provoking essays, edited by historian Niall Ferguson, that explore a number of 'what if?' scenarios such as:

*What if Charles I had avoided the civil war?
*What if there had been no American Revolution?
*What if Britain had stood aside in August 1914?
*What if Germany had invaded Britain in May 1940?
*What if communism had not collapsed?

As previous reviewers have noted, this book is fairly Anglo-centric; however, that should not be surprising given that a majority of the contributors are from Britain and in particular from the Oxbridge universities.

The part I enjoyed the most was the conclusion in which Ferguson brings together all the essays and constructs an alternate history of the world over the last three hundred years. Other strong essays were the ones dealing with World Wars I and II.

Two caveats for the potential reader: first, the introduction was extremely long and dry - basically a history of the study of history, and secondly, a general knowledge of the events discussed in the book would be a great advantage.

Overall though, "Virtual History" is a very interesting read and well-worth the effort.

I find myself most agreeing with the negative reviews of this book, especially the description and evaluation of the Introduction. The individual contributions are uneven but they are not all bad if taken for what they are, which are just studies of some alternatives to the actual history that developed. The weakest is the one on JFK and is hardly more than a diatribe with absolutely nothing new to an American reader. Ferguson's last essay attempts to put together a coherent alternate history from 1646 to 1996 and shows exactly why such efforts should be left to novelists.

The book is an interesting attempt at answering the "what if" question in selected historical events. The only problem I find is the uneven quality of the essays. The best by far is Ferguson's paper on the First World War. Some essays are almost boring. The essay on Nazi England is just an overview of the people who would be sympathetic to or aligned with the Nazis. It does not provide any interesting arguments. If you are very interested in history buy the paperback edition. It is not a book worth spending too much money on.

If someone had to do a book like this it is good that it was Niall Ferguson, one of the most thoughtful and interesting of all modern historians. The human mind has a right to play, and this kind of thought is , as I feel it, more in the realm of play than of real history.
'History' is after all 'what has happened', and while 'what might of happened' can possibly illuminate what has happened, my sense is that 'what has happened' is so often problematic and questionable as to provide historians enough work with that.
This said I will admit that there is one 'counterfactual of history' that has always fascinated me. It is the question of what would have happened had the Jewish gangsters who thought to do so assassinated Hitler. Would that have meant the Shoah and World War II would never have taken place?
The question taunts and disturbs me, and I do not know how to deal with it as I do not know how really to deal with any of the 'counterfactual scenarios'.
Again the exploration of what would have happened had Britain desisted from entering the first World War, or had the Germans invaded Britain, or had the Japanese never attacked Pearl Harbor , or ( One can raise a counterfactual to every possible happening) seems to me more mindgame ( even if well researched) than true historical study.
.

What else can I say?

This book is extraordinarily dry and verbose. There is very little "alternate history" here.

It really is best described as a work about other works of alternate history, aka Stephen King's "Danse Macabre".

As a big history buff, I did not enjoy this and the last few chapters were forced reading.