The Story Behind The Story

We want to thank you for dropping in on this website. We're Harry Turtledove and Bryce Zabel, a couple of writers who met back in 1999 -- strange as this may seem -- at an awards ceremony where our middle-school kids were each finalists in a WorldCon science-fiction writing contest!

We both love our history bent and twisted whenever possible. We've each had a chance to do some bending and twisting in our two different business worlds -- publishing (Turtledove, Worldwar) and TV and film (Zabel, Dark Skies). So even though we've begun this alt-history project in book form, we hope to tell the story in film eventually as well.

After meeting through our talented kids, this particular project started over lunch at Korean BBQ in the LA valley. We began to imagine a world where, rather than Watergate exploding the world of journalism and politics as it did in our timeline, the engine is the JFK meltdown from a decade earlier. Think of this alternative history as the First Wave of the New Journalism -- basically, All The President’s Men for the Kennedy generation. Since we live in bitter and partisan times, it is also worth noting that both of us have been life-long Democrats. We do this because we think it's an enormously fascinating story, not because we hate JFK. We don't.

The John Kennedy of this alternative history is still an enormously likable man -- much like Bill Clinton -- skilled in politics, charming in person, intelligent, and deeply flawed as a human being. Unlike Bill Clinton, however, we think a strong case can be made that Kennedy's transgressions would eventually have been seen by a majority of Americans as having risen to the level of impeachable offenses. And, like Richard Nixon in our timeline, John Kennedy -- having survived the bullets of assassins in Dallas -- might very well have been forced to leave office before his second term was finished.

Our sales strategy is, admittedly, a little unconventional. Winter of Our Discontent: The Impeachment and Trial of John F. Kennedy -- as a novel -- will be told on this web-site over the next few months. One installment will be offered each week (Mondays) from the first three sample chapters.

We know this goes against the "rules" of publishing. Here's why we've embraced the Internet as a way to test this premise. We think it's entirely possible that shipping off the first chapters to buyers may simply get the project quietly buried. Science fiction publishers may wonder where the time travel is. Mainstream editors might find the fact that JFK gets impeached to be at odds with their own political beliefs.

So, basically, we want to prove through this site that there is an audience for this material. If readers like reading it as much as we've enjoyed writing it, we think buyers may then act accordingly. Then, of course, we'll cheerfully finish the book and write the screenplay. And, if it doesn't work out, we know we will have given this idea a real chance to catch on and succeed.

That's why we want to encourage your comments throughout the posts on this blog. Although comments are moderated, only spam and profanity will be cause for them not to be published. We don't mind debate, discussion and disagreement. By all means, bring it on...

Comments

[Jeff Scott]

I've only read the introductory material thus far, but I think this is an excellent subject for alternative fiction. I think the detractors miss the entire point of such works--to make us realize the common threads in history and how they can easily be repeated in a new setting. I've enjoyed Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series (discussing the rise of fascism) and "The Man With the Iron Heart" (discussing the ramifications of insurgency warfare). I've heard several Kennedy historians speculate about the potential fallout of his poor health and the Mimi Beardsley scandal becoming public, stories that simply couldn't be kept secret much longer even in those days of a trusting press. I hope this project moved forward as a way of discussing the balance between our leader's private lives and the proper role of the press to inform the public, an issue that surely comes up repeatedly.

[Charles Richardson]

Forgive me in advance, but I disagree with the plausibility of an impeachment being brought forth against President Kennedy for several reasons, one being that if JFK had escaped being assasinated in 1963, then reelected in 1964, the Democratic majority in Congress would also hold, therefore it would not be in the best interests of this congress to impeach the president unless they wished to surely lose much face (and congressional seats) in the next election. Second, JFK's affairs, would not be something that would sell very well with the public. Tabloids were not as rampant in the 1960's as they are now. Thirdly, the 1960's were one of the peaks of the Cold War, and with the Soviet Union now under new leadership, China going through it's angst period, and Western Europe undergoing student movements it would not be a sign of strength or of good foreign policy to impeach the leader who of nearly anyone knew how best to negotiate with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe at this time. Fourthly any investigations done into the attempted murder of the president would be ended as far as the public was concerned with the capture of at least one gunman, what anyone discovered beneath that would in all likelihood just be shelved because assasination of a president was not a federal crime until after President Kennedy was killed. Hence it would be left entirely to the state of Texas with little to no federal involvement, that means of course that anything J. Edgar Hoover would bring to this story would not be likely as he would be operating outside his jurisdiction, and subject to exposure himself from his own skeletons in the closet. Finally, the American publics attitude of mistrust towards leaders came as a result of the Vietnam war, which would never have occured had Kennedy lived.

[Daphne Kenward]

I think it is possible that JFK could have been impeached if the laws are what they are now and it could be proved that he was having an affair with Marilyn Monroe. But I think what is more likely is that the Rich Neo cons in the CIA had other plans for JFK due to his speech about exposing them, it was his last famous speech that sealed his faith. Who was head of the CIA at the time of the assination are those I would like to see investigated for the crime of murder of a President instead of the cover up version we have been told. John McCone who was head of the CIA 1961-65. And head of Atomic Energy 1958-61 when JFK was focused on Israel Nuclear Programe. Which McCone leaked to the New-York times. Much later Civil Rights began the sit in's Voters rights for Black people became an issue. The Neo NAZIS certainly did not want to budge on these issues. Then there was the U2 was shot down spying over Cuba on 14th of October in 1962 by a surface to Air Missile killing two pilots. Secret intellegence saw the JFK's leadership as a danger to Neo con's operations of money laundering and made a speech about cleaning up across the board, which posed a threat to some rich and powerful people who made their money during the 2nd world war. The FBI decided not to protect JFK in Dallas TX and he had no protection, because the plot was to shoot to Kill a President. McCone would have known about this operation and other secret service officials. This false idea that some loan gun man had killed JFK is obviously not true. The same people organised the KILLING of Martin Luther Kings murder using almost the identical plot some loan gun man, he was stiring up the egerness of Black People wanting more and right human rights. Some one also paid a hefty sum to silence Malcom X too. These people of the 1960's was bringing around the kind of change thet the NEO NAZIS who were the rich and powerfull was not ready for in the UNITED STATES each one was murdered almost months after each other. That was a special operation mounted by secret service. The lone gun man theory was to ensure there was an easy answer, and put suspicion on these people who took money waiting around for instruction, which never came leaving them at a crime seen to get caught.

[David Medzorian]

What is happeniong with this project? Are the authors completing a book and or film project, and if so, when will it be completed?

[Harvey Goldberg]

I read your alternative history with great interest. Will additional segments or a complete book be forthcoming? I look forward to it.

[David Medzorian]

Thank you both for writing this fine piece of historical fiction. I have read and watched other "what if" accounts of JFK surviving Dallas and all of them have portrayed a romantasized version of him that never has to account for his past transgressions. Even Columnist Hugh Sidey, who was a friend of JFK, believes Kennedy would have been impeached and most likely removed from office in his second term because the dirty laundry would have come out. This work paints a more honest picture of what might have happened had the assassin's bullets not found their mark. Jack and Bobby Kennedy would have done whatever they had to to keep their secrets from the world, even if it meant a bogus investigation into the attempt on his life. Bravo Gentlemen....I would read your book on this subject or see the film in a heartbeat.

[Libertarian]

Seriously consider allying yourself with the groups who will want to buy this book. You know exactly which groups you should reach out to. No Republican would buy an alternate history book about the Reagan impeachment. If you're serious about telling this very interesting story, you might want to get yourselves booked for an interview or three on AM radio.

[S.M. Stirling]

My point was that it was _Vietnam_ which changed the rules about what journalists could do, and more broadly on how politics operated.

No Vietnam, no change; or at least not in the same direction and to the same degree. JFK would have gone right on doing what he did and he would have gotten away with it, because it was within the consensus of the acceptable.

[Technomad]

Actually, from what I've heard, FDR's wheelchair was well-known. Polio was a widespread disease at that time.

And what people "in the know" know is one thing; if the public finds out, that's another.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Mr. Zabel, I'm a bit confused by the tone you're using in this book. In the introduction and throughout the book, you write as if the book is being constructed as a third-party, after-the-fact historical coverage. While I agree with that sentiment, and think it would make an excellent story (one only has to look at Max Brooks's World War Z for a similar treatment,) the work itself is written largely from the point of view of the journalists involved, exposing their thoughts at the time in a narrative fashion. It seems a little awkward, set against the idea that we're supposed to imagine this as being written purely from notes. Some paragraphs are excellent, and I can buy some narrative construction, but quotes like "and a black bow tie with, God help us, white polka dots" throw off the whole idea of an after-the-fact reconstruction of events. Just something I noticed.

[Editor's Desk]

I think our point is that the rules didn't change in our "martyred Kennedy" timeline until later but if JFK had survived Dallas the rules would have had to change earlier. He already feared this, we know, from the current historical record. So, yes, you state the case clearly for what was, but our point is that what "was" wouldn't have stayed that way in the investigatory backwash of the assassination attempt. Or at least that's our story!

[S.M. Stirling]

I'm sure it will be very entertaining. However, I think it's a bit anachronistic.

Pre-Vietnam, it was possible to keep secrets in American politics... FDR's wheelchair comes to mind. Even his most vicious enemies (and he had plenty) didn't try to bring it up.

Nor his love affairs, which were well known.

Things just operated differently then. The real reason Nixon was impeached wasn't anything he did -- that was mostly just politics-as-usual -- but that he didn't realize the rules of the game had changed.

The 1960 and 1964 elections had shennanigans that make Watergate look like nothing, and a lot of people knew about them (the way Illinois was stolen, frex) but nobody said a damned thing.

Likewise, most of the skanky stuff about JFK wasn't a secret from people "in the know" at the time, including the press corps.

"Everyone" knew he screwed anything that moved, for example, and that if it didn't move, he shook it. He was boffing starlets on Air Force One and the press just regarded it as an in-joke.

Likewise, contacts with the Mob were fairly routine in politics at the time; the Kennedy's were more anti-Mafia than most.

And finally, you could intimidate people into silence then, using the IRS and the FBI, and quite possibly just disappearing them if the stakes were high enough.

[Rodney Britt]

This is great! Dr. Turtledove is my favorite author and what you two are doing rivals his best.

Any nibbles on getting this published? I want to read the entire book!

[Bryce Zabel]

Lisa... We're not cloaking ourselves in journalism. Our intent with the "First Wave" comment was to say that is the POV of the fiction book, as if "All the President's Men" was about JFK and not Nixon. Fiction is definitely not journalism, good point. Bryce

[Real History Lisa]

There's so much disinformation and misinformation about Kennedy. I fear from your links you're already enmeshed in some of that. I'm all for pursuing alternative history and calling it, appropriately, fiction. But calling it the "First Wave of the New Journalism" is pretty ridiculous. If people start calling fiction journalism we're in a whole heck of a lot of trouble.