• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

If you _knew_ for an absolute fact that someone was going to assassinate President Clinton tomorrow—what would you do to prevent it? Call the FBI? Sure, and when they ask you how you know, and what you know, and by the way, what is the number you are calling from, please… Go to wherever Clinton will be tomorrow (and how do you find that out? And do you have sufficient money to buy a plane ticket to get there?), and try to spot the potential assassin, and/or warn the President himself? Think about it. And then consider that an assassination is a very simple historical event, by contrast to things like battles, wars, major economic movements (how would one go about preventing the Depression of the 1930s, say?), etc.

The thing is, most “large” historical events occur as the result of the cumulative actions (pro, con, and sideways) of dozens, hundreds, _thousands_ of people. _One_ person, no matter how much he or she _knows_, is not likely to be able to exert enough power to sway things.

On the other hand… an individual quite possibly _can_ change “small” events, with the assistance of foreknowledge. That is, events that affect only one, or a few people—because those are the sort of events that a single individual normally _does_ affect, with or without specialized knowledge. You probably _could_ keep someone—an ordinary person, whom another ordinary person could easily approach—from getting on a plane you knew would crash; if necessary, you could tackle them physically, or hit them over the head.

You might not always succeed in changing small events—but I think you _could_; whereas an ordinary individual usually wouldn’t be in a position where he or she would have the power necessary to change larger events.

That help any?

Fm: Beth Shope 110137,367

To: Diana Gabaldon 76530,523

Diana,

Re: changing history. I have often wondered if Jamie and Claire’s efforts to prevent Culloden by ruining Bonnie Prince Charlie financially, did in actual fact ensure that it happened—because the Prince foolishly sailed for Scotland without the necessary resources (which they had so helpfully deprived him of). Beth

Fm: Diana Gabaldon 76530,523

To: Beth Shope 110137,367 (X)

Dear Beth—

Oh, indeed they might have—a thought that occurs to them later on, during heated discussions of time-changing in FIERY CROSS. As it happens , they didn’t, but then, we haven’t yet gotten to the revelation of what (and who) really happened to the 30,000 pounds of French gold, either. And one of these days, we might find out whose side the Duke of Sandringham was really on, too. (See above, “cumulative actions of _lots_ of people!” )

One thing we’ve got going here is the contrast between “large” and “small” historical events. They _couldn’t_ change Culloden, which was a large event (and the focus—in that particular plotline—of DRAGONFLY [middle book of the first trilogy]). In FIERY CROSS, the abiding time-change question through the book (middle book of the second trilogy) is a _personal_ question: Can Jamie and Claire avoid their own predicted fate?

They aren’t about to try to change the outcome of the American Revolution—aside from the general impossibility of such a thing (there was no climactic battle—though I do have something in mind for Yorktown ), they don’t have any objection to history continuing in its known pathway. But on a personal level?

Well, as Jamie says, “If ye ken the house is going to burn down, what sort of idiot would stand in it?”

Of course, the interesting thing about time travel, history-changing (or not-changing) etc., is the Moebius twist. — Diana

Fm: Beth Shope 110137,367

To: Diana Gabaldon 76530,523

Diana,

<< And one of these days, we might find out whose side the Duke of Sandringham was really on, too. >>

One of the burning questions of this generation of readers… .

<>

Well, can they? No, don’t answer that.… Beth

Fm: