Harry Turtledove

So I go to a sci-fi forum where The Race are semi-frequently pitted against other aliens. i was intrigued by the idea of an alien invasion interrupting World War 2 and so I decided to check out World War.

I'm quite enjoying it so far. I'm only about halfway through Book 1 though.

Much to my surprise though, as I did searches on other of Mr. Turtledove's works, I found a rather vocal hatedom for him. I'm not one to judge, even if I had read more of his stuff.

I'm just curious what people here think of his works? What have you read and what did you like or dislike?

edited 8th Jan '12 4:21:25 PM by Nikkolas

I read Elabon, Hellenic Traders, and Videssos. so not much.

is he really have a lot of hatedom ? isn't most hatedom come only from his civil war series ?

What i like ? hmm, probably the character and the setting. he is good at describing ancient society and how people live inside it. What i dislike in Elabon is excesssive Deus on Machina on it. Hellenic and Videssos is alot more realistic.

edited 7th Feb '12 11:17:50 PM by PhilippeO

I was once a fan of Harry Turtledove. I read the whole Timeline-191 series, but the same series kind of soured me against him because of how lazy it got. How Few Remain was alright (the unsettling Mark Twain sex scene notwithstanding) but after that, he was just copying out a Second World War history book and replacing every mention of "Nazi Germany" with "the Confederate States" and "the Soviet Union" with "the USA".

I think he's better when he's not trying to be realistic (Guns of the South, to some degree Worldwar, though I only read the first book of the latter).

Still, he's better than Robert Conroy.

I found his books too repetitive and uncreative. Similar to what the previous poster said - if WWI had actually occurred between a USA and a CSA, and Germany had won in Europe, the global consequences would have been massive. Just changing the names of the countries and around while keeping the same events shows a stunning lack of creativity.

Also, Britain would never have backed the CSA during the Civil War. Turtledove underestimates the depth and power of public anti-slavery sentiment within Britain at the time.

Also, the Republican Party was, in addition to being the party of anti-slavery, very much the party of business/capitalism as well, which makes the idea of it merging with a socialist party nonsensical. I don't get the sense that Turtledove's understanding of history goes very deep, which is a major failing in anyone who wants to write alternate histories.

edited 8th Feb '12 9:48:57 AM by WarriorEowyn

A good point.

That being said, he's better than Robert Conroy and Harry Harrison, both of whom portray the USS Monitor as inherently superior to any ship in the Royal Navy in 1862 (up to and including the Warrior and Defence class ships - the stuff written by naval historians on this very topic seems to suggest that this would be unlikely) and both of them seem to think the USA could have mounted a land invasion of Great Britain and won.

At least Turtledove didn't try to make the USA fight the British in 1863; if they'd lost the saltpetre they were importing from India, they'd have faced a serious problem in regard to their gunpowder supply.

edited 8th Feb '12 11:49:33 AM by TheGloomer

and both of them seem to think the USA could have mounted a land invasion of Great Britain and won.

Bwahahaha WHAT? That's one of the dumber things I've ever heard. Britain had the greatest navy in the world at the time, the US would have had major issues regarding the length of their supply lines, Britain was a major US trading partner so going to war against them would have done a number on the US economy...it just makes no sense. And if this was supposed to be concurrent with the Civil War, the US would have to launch this major foreign invasion at the same time as they were fighting a two-front war against the Confederacy and a British invasion through Canada.

And they'd be doing this with fairly slim justification, as there was never any idea that the British would become militarily involved in the Civil War - the Union fear was simply that they would give the Confederacy diplomatic recognition and thus legitimize it. Invading Britain over such a decision would be something virtually no one in the US would support.

The whole premise is nonsensical. People shouldn't write alternate history unless they've studied the actual history.

edited 8th Feb '12 3:34:54 PM by WarriorEowyn

Conroy takes the easier route, and uses the Trent Affair as the justification for British intervention. As far as I know, Harrison (whose series, Stars and Stripes Forever, I admittedly haven't read myself) attempts to link the Americans to the death of Prince Albert, which results in Queen Victoria declaring war on both the Union and the Confederacy.

In Conroy's book, the US is able to fight a war on two fronts because he assumes the Monitor provides them an instant naval advantage over the Royal Navy (try wrapping your head around that) and because General Grant becomes a sort of invincible genius whose mere presence on the field ensures victory.

Still, it's better than Harrison's book, which has the Union and the Confederacy resolve their differences pretty much immediately so they can team up and fight the British.

Regarding Turtledove's knowledge of history, to the best of my knowledge he actually has a doctorate in some field of Roman/Byzantine study, but obviously he doesn't put the zeal you'd expect into writing stories set in the 20th-century.

edited 8th Feb '12 6:42:53 PM by TheGloomer

I've read several of Turtledove's books, and World War is by far my favorite. Homeward Bound kind of dissapointed me in general, even though it was definitely satisfying to see the humans develop FTL and thus ensure their dominance over the Race.

I'd say that the books' greatest flaw was probably that the sex scenes seemed tropery, in a bad way.

edited 8th Feb '12 8:18:14 PM by PDown

I've read a few of his books, mainly The World War series, Guns of the South, and the two books where Japan decides to invade Hawaii rather than just bombing Pearl Harbor. Some things are done quite well and are enjoyable, some things aren't. For example, I don't think he truly grasps politics, how unlikely some of the political things that happen in his books are, or how much time and effort is needed to something like shift public opinion.

Also, he either needs a better editor, or needs to lose his Protection from Editors. He frequently has characters think the same thoughts make the observations and say the same things over and over and over and over again in their various chapters. There might be a touch of realism there, but it can be done better and it's not fun to read.

Lastly, I've read that in some of his books he has a tendency to shove his own beliefs/biases/politics into things. I haven't read any that fall under that, but it would certainly explain some hatedom.

The World War series was good but the Colonization series started dragging on and on and Homeword Bound wasn't really worth reading. I never understood why he made the Yeager character central to all the stories, he was easily the most forgettable and uninteresting character.

The War Between The Provinces series I really enjoyed.

edited 9th Feb '12 9:19:40 AM by Parable

It never even crossed his mind that he might need an editor.

Only really read World War 1 and 4, and the Colonization series (and Homeward Bound), oh and "A World Of Difference" which IMO was the best of them, the others just got boring after a while.

The World War stories were probably his best because they avoided the biggest problem he has. He comes up with really good ideas, like in World of Difference and then doesn't do enough with them.

Read all the World War books, trying to pimp them to my Dad. Gave him the first one but I don't know if he has read it.

What I find annoying is the way that Mr Turtledove seems to have a “historical inevitability” approach to history. The one I found hardest to swallow was the Wall Street Crash still happening in 1929. The fact that there’s a Socialist President would probably result in a less pronounced boom and probably a softer crash, so it seems unlikely that the economy would proceed in the same way (You can throw in enough alternate events to make the two World Wars break out at the same time, but Economics isn’t so easy to Handwave away).

That aside, it was considerably more plausible than “Stars & Stripes Forever”, where the USA and CSA resolve their issues as soon as the British (mistakenly) attack a Confederate town, causing the two sides to unite with the just the throwaway comment that they’ll have to sort out the whole slavery issue. Gee, if only the politicians had realised that!

Reminds me of those times politicians suggested before and during the Civil War that a war with Britain or France would certainly unite the country around a popular cause and stop the fighting.

edited 12th Mar '13 10:00:11 PM by Parable

Only because it would divert Lincoln's attention away from abolishing slavery.

Sigh...I wanted Jens to make it to The Race. He was probably my favorite human character and with him gone the last book will be weaker for it. Upsetting the Balance was hands down the best so far though.

Fuck you Sam Yeager. And I know he sells out America or something in Colonization which I haven't reached yet. Not sure about circumstances (and don't want spoilers) there but regardless of that, I hate him just for what he and Barb did to Jens.

edited 11th Jul '14 1:09:39 PM by Nikkolas

Colonization was definitely weaker despite its wham plots and I blame relying on Yeager for being the most important character. He was boring in the first series, and he was boring in the second, and he was boring in Homeword Bound. If you ask me, taking out Heinrich and Ludmilla hurt the series. They were by far the best characters.

I agree. That was a pretty dumb choice on his part.

I liked Sam Yeager. He had more integrity in one of his toe-nails than the dickhead who ordered the nuclear attack on the Race ships by submarine launched missile had in his whole body. The Americans done fucked up, y'all. Losing a city was a small price to pay compared to what could have happened.

The Race are certainly far more heroic and noble on average than humans, that is true. Given the choice, I'd probably have sided with them.

My hatred for Yeager has more to do with him being a wife stealer.

@John Potts: Wasn't Stars and Stripes Forever by Harry Harrison, not Turtledove.

As far as I'm aware, yes.