As we wind this week down, (be sure to check out the latest link round-up), I wanted to talk a little bit more about alt history plots and why they appeal so much to me. As a historian and former history teacher I've spent years deep in the well of "What If?". You can't study history without being gobsmacked by the many times in which the most innocuous thing can have generational repercussions. If someone wasn't someplace at some certain time then everything - every little thing - would be different. (If you doubt me go watch a season or two of Quantum Leap.) I love this sort of thing and what good writers can do with it. As I mentioned yesterday, Jo Walton has had barrels of fun with the idea that Britain made peace with Nazi Germany - something the British did seriously take a stab at more than once and only failed long term because Germany got sick of it. (Basically, Hitler was too crazy to realize a weakly independent Britain was waaaay better than a pissed off threatened Britain with Churchill at the reins.) Jenny Davidson has also had a major party with one piece of seriously dead history by taking Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, spinning it into victory and then going crazy with how Europe would have been remade in the years that followed.

Does anyone even think about Napoleon anymore? Not much - especially in the U.S. But give a teen THE EXPLOSIONIST and INVISIBLE THINGS and expect a big "whoa" moment as they consider Scotland no longer part of Great Britain.

For my money (and how I wish I was gifted enough to write this), the character that is begging for some serious alt history (especially of the YA variety) is Benedict Arnold.

I reviewed Steve Sheinkin's outstanding biography THE NOTORIOUS BENEDICT ARNOLD this month in my feature on nonfiction for curious readers. Sheinkin writes for the 12 & up audience and has crafted several outstanding history titles in recent years. I love each of his books not only for his ability to keep chapters concise, informative and interesting (and highlight little known people or events) but also for the snarky humor he includes. If something seems hard to believe he will tell you - "yep, seems crazy but it's true!" instead of maintaining a staid distance from the readers. I'm sure he does this to appeal to a tween/young teen audience that is likely sick to death of history because of our memorize/recite fact focus in school but it makes his books accessible to older reluctant readers and really to anyone, regardless of age, who wants to learn a bit about some American history. Benedict Arnold is an excellent example of what Sheinkin does so well. He goes far beyond the treasonous attempt to hand West Point over to the British and makes a point of showing just how much of a hero Arnold was prior to that moment - and how downright critical he was to the Americans in more than one battle. In essence, we likely would not have won the war without Benedict Arnold and we very nearly lost it because of him.

Crazy, right?

There are several moments as Arnold attempted to hand over West Point though that would make excellent fodder for alternate history. Every time I read about those events I ask myself what if this guy had not gotten drunk, or that guy had not said what he did or these guys had not been smart enough to ask a certain question or those guys hadn't decided to fire at a distant ship. Read Sheinkin's book and you too will be shocked by how close we came to losing not only the fort but George Washington (who was visiting that day) as well. It really nearly was the end of America as we know it and honestly most of the colonists would have happily gone along with things if the British had taken the upper hand. They were tired of war (it went on for EIGHT years, people - 1775 to 1783), tired of all the privations and problems, tired of just not knowing what the heck was going to happen. Arnold may have wanted accolades and money but he also wanted it all over and he saw the Brits as the way to accomplish that most quickly.

What makes him the most interesting villain in American history (to me anyway) is that he didn't do anything out of hate, but mostly out of frustration. He had a lot of things to be frustrated over (many of his own making but still) and like everyone else he wanted to get back to having a life that didn't involve war. So what if he had been successful and ended up lauded as the man who ended it?

Where would we be now????

Somebody needs to write about this and just like Davidson and Walton, shine a piercing light on another might-of-been. That would be one wicked cool alt history book for sure.