A Question on The Future of Historical Narrative

For Janet Murray, the computer is the medium for the next generation of fiction. Do you agree? Is it also the medium for the next generation of historical writing?

Janet Murray’s contention is that a new type of fiction is evolving, one which requires the computer as the medium of presentation. She presents as her end state the “Holodeck”, a dramatic device from the Star Trek series of television programs. This is totally computer dependent medium for presenting a type of fiction in which all an individuals senses are completely engaged and with which the individual is an active participant in the developing plot line and ultimate conclusion. While technology has a ways to go to reach this stage Ms. Murray sees the precursors in computer games, amusement park rides, and the plot lines of science fiction. Will this new form of narrative be appropriate to history? The answer is yes.

One of the concepts Ms. Murray explores is the multiform story. This concept is based on a standard science fiction device that there are multiple parallel timelines in history each breaking off at key decision points. The best presentation of this concept is in the Paratime Series by H. Beam Piper. Another sub-genres of science fiction is the alternate history story which attempts to extrapalte from one of these branching points into some future time (e.g., the British win the Revolution so what is the late 19th Century like in Boston). While speculating on alternate histories of this type might not the proper work of historians there are in fact alternate histories of events.

One of the historical questions of interest to me is the settlement of the Oregon Territory from the establishment of Fort Astoria in 1805 to the first of the great overland migrations in 1847. There are at least three points of view from which the story could be told: the Native American, the British, and the American. All three groups were present in nearly equal numbers during this time. Each had different agendas they were pursuing with respect to the other two. The traditional telling would require focusing on one or else the narrative would not flow properly in print. Using a computer would permit the construction of the three versions interlinked so that the reader could follow on primary line but also jump over to see what the other points of view were to specific events. While there would only be three different narrative line, the interconnectivity would create a document that could be read differently by each reader with each taking away a unique perspective.

Ms. Murray also stresses interactivity as a characteristic of this new fiction. Here too there is an application to history. This is through the application of gaming and simulation. My own experience in this area is with war games as a tool for teaching history. While refighting the Battle of Gettysburg may seem like creating “alternative history” it isn’t. The game is a tool for understanding an event. By working out the solutions to the same problems faced by Lee and Meade with the same resources available the player gains an understanding of why certain decision were made and others rejected. The game or simulation itself doesn’t create the narrative, it only aids in understanding. This understanding can then aid in bringing events into sharper focus which in turn leads to the narrative. With computers these games and simulations could be included with the narrative to assist in the understanding of events. Playing the game and having Lee win at Gettysburg doesn’t invalidate the historical record. It just adds to understanding.