Infinity is simply too large.
Re-reading the Paratime series by Piper (see my previous thread) reminded me of an idea that’s been simmering in the back of my mind for years now: a series of stories involving the exploration of parallel universes.
I do have some rules the stories will follow:
-
There must be a limited, albeit very large, number of parallel universes available. Meaning the notion that every decision creates a parallel time line simply doesn’t apply (read Niven’s “All The Myriad Ways”)
-
The differences between universes must be easy to see. Meaning a universe identical to our own but for the fact that you had tea rather than coffee ten years ago wouldn’t qualify.
-
The explorers will find analogues of themselves. These can be very close to the originals, but it must be clear the differences are more a function of choices made than due to the differences in environment.
-
the worlds explored can range from the very primitive, to the absence of human life entirely, to alternate versions of humanity (see the Acquatic Ape hypothesis), to the very advanced, to just about anything else.
-
There are to be no repetitions of real events in different locations. That is, no WWII fought in America between USA and CSA (see Harry Turtledove’s Great War Series). No sieges of Pittsburgh or Chicago, for example.
-
Someitmes, not always, the point of departure will be rooted in a relatively recent historical event. Examples; the South wins the USCW, Germany wins WWI or WWII, etc
I foresee multiple problems, too:
-
There are bound to be timelines too similar to “ours”, where there will aslo be teams of explorers going to toher timelines 8this was part of the problem in Niven’s story, too). Too much opportunity for the tired evil twin cliche.
-
Nature doesn’t keep secrets. menaing all sorts of people from all sorts of timelines will develop travel to parallel universes, menaing there are bound to be inter-universe wars. And I don’t want a war so unwidely.
-
there has to be an explanation of where all the timeleines come from and why they can be so similar. But as I said it can’t be the “every decision made creates a timeline” for two reasons: 1) you’d ahve timelines identical to yours except for trivial differences like how many times you stirred your coffee today and 2) the number of timelines would perforce be infinite. I don’t ahve a good double-talk explanation yet.
-
Since the Home Timeline I envision will be either our timeline (the one you’re inhabitting right now), or a better version of it, then mere exploration can’t be all that takes palce. There’s bound to be trade as well. That also complicates things.
So what is the purpose of this idea? Mainly to have fun with history. Partly the classics: what if the South won the Civil War, what if Germany won WWII, etc. But also lesser events, or events not as well known. What if Nixon had won the 1960 election? What if Congress had not cut off funding to the Contras in the 80s (I think this event had repercussions we’re still suffering from to this day)? What if Reagan had been assasinated by John Hinkley? What if Citizen kane had won Best Picture? What if Lincoln hadn’t been assasinated? What if Ayn Rand had been unable to leave the USSR? What if America had stayed out of WWII? What if Heron had implemented his steam engine and launched an industrial revolution in Acient greece? You see where I’m going, I hope.
But why explorers through timelines? Why not simply write stories set in alternate universes? Well, because part of the enjoyment comes in the comparison between the imagined timeline with the one we know. In a stand alone story, that task rests with the reader. If some of the characters are from our timeline, they can take up some of the task, pointing out things I want to point out.
Let’s take the Contras episode. Reagan wanted to support a Nicaraguan anti-communist guerilla movement, the Contras (the name comes from the Spanish Contra-Revolucionarios), and Congress did not approve the funds. Thus Reagan had the idea to sell weapons to the Iranian mullahs, including at the time the Ayatollah Khomeini, in order to get funds for the Contras and in exchange for American hostages held captive in Lebanon.
When news leaked, the Democratic dominated Congress launched the Iran-Contra hearings. I saw most of them live on TV at the time. Basically everyone missed the point completely. The adminsitration half defended itself, half offered Oliver North and the National Security Advisor as scape goats. The democrats wanted to skewer Ronald Reagan, or ridicule him at the least (in this latter they succeeded). The Republicans were angry that congress wouldn’t fund anti-communism efforts, while the democrats were angry the Adminsitration would break the law to do so.
And both missed the fact that the Adminsitration’s actions both emboldened and empowered Iran at a time when Iran was stepping up attacks against Americ and the West. Some hostages were released in Lebanon, true, but more were taken. the Marine barracks were bombed. Planes and one cruise ship were hijacked. and no one did anything about it but sell arms to Iran. This emboldened terrorists everywhere, since they could attack America with impunity at the least and profit at the most.
The hearings also angered the GOP, since they saw the Admnistrations actions as nothign less than a patriotic defense of the country’s interests. Therefore the Republican party was ready to tear to shreds any Democratic president that might arise. therefore the endless investigations and hearings on the Clinton presidency. Not that Clinton dind’t deserve some scrutiny, but the entire Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky sexual harrasment/perjury thing was really compeltely irrelevant. Meantime terrorist attaks continued, Al-Qaida was on the rise, and the GOP ignored it all to “get” Clinton.
The end result is what we see today. Each party cares more to defeat the other party than anything else. If the country is under attak, one side will do the opposite of what the other side does. If it means bringing about the defeat of America in the battlefield, so be it. if it means being critical of US troops, of examining every split-second battlefield decision to the death, that’s fine, too. And if it means ignoring dangers while they gather, neither side could possibly care less.
For example, today Bush, and McCain as presidential nominee, should be pressing for an attcak on Iran to deal with its nuclear ambitions. In fact Bush should have been doing that a long time ago. But as long as Iraq was seen as a quagmire, where no WMDs were found, Bush cannot defend the US against Iran because that would be a terrible political defeat for his party. The Democrats should aslo be pressing for an attack, but preemptive attacks against any threats are “discredited” and run agaisnt their current position, so they won’t do it either.
And all that comes from a rather good president’s decision to deal with the lesser evil in order to tackle the greater one. A decision that is even morally defensible to some point (but not entirely, and it shows lack of long term thinking).
I’m not saying that Congressional funding of the Contras would have prevented 9/11, not necessarily, but we might have an america more able to deal with foreign threats as they gather.