Rating: 
Summary: A great read especially for history buffs.
Review: Harry Turtledove has done it again. His command of history is again at work in this fascinating book of "what if". After reading the book, I actually found myself struggling to remember how history really happened. Mr. Turtledove's tale was that convincing.
Rating: 
Summary: Turtledove demonstrates complete lack of talent
Review: "How Few Remain" is one of the most poorly written books I have ever read. If the template above would allow me to select "0 stars" rather than "1 star", such would be my rating for this book. Mr. Turtledove undoubtedly has a talent for coming up with a very interesting premise--in this case, the Confederacy winning the Civil War--but he completely lacks the writing talent to capitalize upon such a premise. Mr. Turtledove quite obviously has an ax to grind with the FACT of the Union's triumph in the Civil War. In this work of "alternative history", his characterizations of just about everyone on the Union side as venal, incompetent scoundrels shows less thoughtful insight than I'd expect from a comic book. At the same time, everyone on the Confederate side is of course noble, brilliant, far-sighted, and magnanimous. Mr. Turtledove even has the gall to imagine Frederick Douglass coming away from a meeting with Gen. Stonewall J! ackson so impressed as to be reverential. What absolute garbage! Exacerbating the situation is Mr. Turtledove's utter lack of any flair or style with the English language. He can sure pile on the pages--around 600 in the paperback version of this monstrosity--but his plodding, pedestrian approach leaves one searching for escape. Very little actually happened in this book; boil away about 580 pages of worthless filler, and Turtledove would have had a nice little short story. Instead, he apparently suffered an attack of verbal diarrhea, the result of which was "How Few Remain". I'm amazed that Turtledove actually has both a publisher and an audience for such work. I'll never again be in that audience. As an antidote to this literary poisoning, I'm going to spend some time now reading the work of some authors with writing ability. First up, Mark Helprin!!!
Rating: 
Summary: interesting premise; ho-hum execution
Review: This book demonstrates the classic Turtledove alternative history strengths: very intersting, provocative opening premises, as well as the classic Turtledove weaknesses: often the premises are the most interesting parts of the book. The opening premise: that the Confederates did not lose Gen. Lee's battle plans before Antietam, and went on to win that campaign, is an excellent example of how capricious history can be -- minor events can have monumentous consequences. He also explores an interesting -- and not at all implausable -- foreign policy reprecussion of Franco-British support for the Confederacy: growing understanding between the Union and Bismarck's German Empire. (This also sets up the universe for his projected FOUR BOOK series on WWI). Where the book bogs down (and where Turtledove as a stylist often comes up short) is in the characterizations of his main players. Turtledove may have had great fun with his Samuel Clemmens, such as depicting him fighting wri! ters' block (an ailment the fecund Turtledove seems not to share), but overall the treatment of Clemmens is wordy and flat, and we learn precious little of the motivations behind his anti-war views. Similarly, the treatment of the Union war effort in 1881 seems unhistoric. One might expect that a main focus of the Union Army from West Point on down after 1862 would be how things went wrong and and how to correct said mistakes. Perhaps Turtledove deals with this by depicting Union commander Rosecrans as being astounded when he learns that Germans planned things before going to war, but it seems implausable that the War Department -- after a stinging defeat like losing the Civil War -- would do no thinking whatsoever on future conflicts, especially with the dreaded Confederacy. Anyhow, those disappointments aside, the book does raise some interesting questions and does demonstrate how major events can hinge in small doings. The concept of a pro-German USA and a pro-British CSA ! in 1914 is fascinating. I hope Turtledove's projected tetra! logy on that conflict makes better use than he usually does of a tasty premise.
Rating:
Summary: Poorly thought-out, foolishly pro-Confederate
Review: Turtledove insists on portraying the U.S. as completely incompetent in all matters military. Not only is the peace he hypothesizes better than the South could have hoped for, he refuses to give the Union any credit for the ability rectify their errors. Most disappointing is the author's choices for positions of authority in the Union army. Pope, Wilcox and Rosecrans could not have held pride of place over John Reynolds. This is but the most glaring example. Lastly, the writing lacked the punch that I am used to from Turtledove.
Rating: 
Summary: A real page turner. Great period detail. Pro-confederate
Review: Having read Turtledove's previous work, "The Guns of the South," I greatly anticipated "How Few Remain" though it follows a different time line. Overall, I was not disappointed. He does a great job capturing the flavor of the times, the personalities and especially the weapons. Having the Rebs use a copy of the Martini Henry and the exploration of the potential of the Gatling guns was inspired. I couldn't put it down but as I read on, I felt like the U.S. couldn't buy themselves a lucky break. Surely all their leaders didn't have to be incompetents or glory hounds. The exception of course being the portrail of young Theodore Roosevelt which I thoroughly enjoyed. A great read overall. Can't wait to get the new one which I hope continues this story.
Rating:
Summary: Will wonders never cease?
Review: It's a wonder how Harry Turtledove has managed to carve out such a lucrative career for himslef by writting "alternative history" novels. Not that the premise is bad, it certainly suckered me into buying this book, but Turledove's writting style could use a hefty dose of caffine. Page after page after page of boring minutia about "what might have been" does not make a very entertaining read. Perhaps the title of his latest book "How Few Remain" is significant. Turtledove may actually be telling his readers that few of these dull alternative history books remain in his head to be written. If that's the case, the trees in the forest will rejoice at not having to be cut down anymore to be turned into paper that will be wasted on another one of Turtledove's bogus history novels.
Rating:
Summary: A very good alternate history story.
Review: A much better story than "Guns of the South", a story that I very much enjoyed. The historical recreation in this book is very plausible and presents a frighting, and disgusting alternative history. This book does not belong in the science fiction section, but on the historical novel shelf like Bernard Cornwell's "Sharps" series.
Rating: 
Summary: Turtledove Disappoints
Review: After reading The Guns Of The South and then parts of the Worldwar series, I was nearly salivating until my copy of How Few Remain came to my doorstep. Though the book was an interesting look at a possible history, it seemed far too reaching. There are too many people and situations profiled, such as Jeb Stuart's campaign in Mexico, a Mormon conflict, Abe Lincoln's socialist movement, Frederick Douglass' work to free the slaves in the Confederacy, Stonewall Jackson's campaign in Kentucky and Indiana, as well as the military exploits of Teddy Rooselvelt and George Custer and the journalist career of Sam Clemens. In The Guns Of The South, there were only maybe two main stories linked together. There was also a main character, i.e. Robert E. Lee. How Few Remain tries to explain the entire world of this time while name-dropping every person. Besides the people I already named, the book gives cameos to such people as Geronimo, Ulysses Grant, William Sherman, James G. Blaine (as President no less!), as well as other political and military figures. Though I remain loyal to the writing of Harry Turtledove, I must believe that How Few Remain could only be remembered as an excellent try that comes up there. I just hope that Turtledove's book about the Great War will fulfill my thirst.
Rating:
Summary: If the South had won the Civil War and Alienated the North
Review: I thoroughly enjoyed Harry Turtledove's "How Few Remain." I think this is one of his better alternate history books. It was gripping; I could hardly wait to find out what would happen. As usual, the last hundred pages were slow; I wish he could write better endings. The ending also left one up in the air, so it was a let down. I probably liked this more than most because I read a lot of military history. This book was not what I expected. I expected a continuation of his "Guns of the South" where Afrikaners go back in time with automatic weapons to help the south create a haven for anti-black sentiment. The basic premise of this book is that the Confederate States won in 1862, and it is 20 years later after winning a major victory and with the intervention of the British and French. The Union resents the loss. Longstreet is the Confederate president, Stonewall Jackson is in command of the Confederate Army with Stuart in command of the West. The Confederate States buy two Northern Mexican provinces such that they now have access to the pacific. The American president, the first Republican to be elected since Lincoln (who is still around and advocating workers rights), uses this as an excuse to go to war even though the Army has not been maintained in the intervening years. I have issue with many parts of the book: - Custer started the book as a colonel with his own regiment. He did not do that well at West Point, and would probably not have been popular with most of his superiors. He also did not have the family connections. - Harry Turtledove did not take advantage of a very successful Confederate General who did well at West Point, had the family connections a to be appointed a lieutenant colonel in 1861 at the age of 23. Joe Wheeler was apparently also charismatic. The most telling is the fact he fought in the Spanish American War as a Major General. - Why would the British invade through Montana. Supply would have been almost impossible, they could not use their strong Navy, and the! re would have been little gained except to cut the railroad. It would make much more sense to invade the Oregon territories. There would not be many more people to deal with in this territory than Montana. - Once the Union invaded Mexico, there would not have been much political impact of the Confederates invading the New Mexico Territory. I do not think the Union East would have cared much what happened in this desert. Might have been some issues with an invasion of California, but the New Mexican Territories! From there could have threatened railroads in Colorado. Also, helping the Mormons would have helped them. Usually helping the enemy of my enemy is - Why didn't the Confederates take advantage of regular units be pulled from Kansas to put down the Mormon insurrection, and why, after Custer's Unit left Utah, didn't the Mormons revolt again, especially considering how badly they had been treated. Even a better question is why throw in the Mormon insurrection at all considering how little it seems to have impacted the rest of the story. Also, considering - Why throw in the Custer's affair and Roosevelt's one night stand. They appear to have nothing to do with anything else. - When he created a regiment for the Spanish American War, Theodore Roosevelt signed on as a lieutenant colonel because he did not think he had the experience to the colonel. He found someone with experience to be the colonel. I would expect him to do the same thing as a young man. I am sure there would be some people in Montana with experience during the Civil War as a senior officer. - What was the point in having Stuart assassinated by the apaches, and why would he be personally worrying about the apaches with the Union still effectively at war with the Confederates. Chasing the apaches put him way up in the mountains, where it would have been difficult for him to personally deal with any effort by the Union. I could understand sending a regiment after the apaches, but that would not have required Stuart to be there.- Why didn't the Confederates have enough men available to more readily contest the second crossing of the Ohio River. They knew that the Union was preparing such a crossing, and could have conserved men in Louisville since they were on the defensive in highly defensible terrain. Would have expected Stonewall to do the same as the Germans did in Italy. Despite all these comments, I would recommend this book to anyone who enjoys alternate history. Turtledove is probably the most significant writer ever in this field, and this is one of his serious works in alternate history. Due to problems with accuracy, I would not be so enthusiastic to recommend it to Civil War Buffs, although they might not consider the problems in the book that serious.
Rating:
Summary: Not worth buying
Review: Although I enjoyed the writing and pace of Turtledove's earlier piece Guns of the South (in spite of its simplistic racial moralizing) - this book, How Few Remain, is a dud. It drags. The main premise is simplistic and unrealistic. The characters are cardboard cut-outs. It appears that Mr. Turtledove hacked this text together merely to meet a contract obligation. There are also signs that he did not do his "homework," viz. his portrayal of Stonewall Jackson as pro-slavery (he was certainly not), his supercharged-yankee portrayal of Teddy Roosevelt (whose maternal family were in fact Georgia Confederates), and, on page 216 referring to Jackson's "softer" Virginia accent compared to a Tennessee charcter's "twang." This is laughable - Jackson was a West Virginian. The WV accent is a mountain "twang" that more resembles Tennessee dialect than Tidewater Virginia speech. The almost no references to Robert E. Lee was also quite unnatural. In a post-war victorious South, Lee would have been even more reveared as a "founding father" than he is currently as an icon of the "lost cause." Also, the constant moralizing about slavery and the near-deification of Frederick Douglass reveals Turtledove's narrow, hindsight 20th-century viewpoint. I did like Lincoln's portrayal as a socialist, however. Americans would be shocked that Lincoln was quite left-wing in his politics and economics - and had some socialists in his administration. However, this single redeeming element is not enough to make the book palatable.
| 
