Rating: 
Summary: A good read
Review: Sure i read 80% of this book while trapped in a computer room for 2 12 hour stints. However I would like this book regardless of where I was trapped.While I am degreed in history and usually aschew from alternative history novels, because they just don't appeal to me (our own world's history is odd enough). However after reading The Liar and Hippopotamas and being a fan of Mr. Fry's for some time I set aside my disdain for alternative history novels. I thought the insertions of Hitler/Gloder between chapters was excellent and gave a good perspective on the changes being wrought by the protagonists. A few of the characterizations in these parts felt a bit modern, however they were still good. The devil was in the details. There were many things that I would have loved to know more about such as the historical events leading to the fall of Europe or the technology. But all we got were some tempting hints and tastes. However the focus of the story was the characters and not the world. I though Mr, Fry did a good job of showing how life was lived without Hitler being born. From a personal perspective this book really hit the mark. I thought the ending was rather weak, though there were some interesting points. It seemed rushed and some of the character motivations left me a tad baffled. This is a book that I think is best read in a couple of sessions or on holiday. Its a great read.
Rating:
Summary: Not bad for a brit...
Review: Okay...so I first encountered Stephen Fry's most recent undertaking while seated in the London Underground observing Londoner's NOT talking to one another. The gentleman across from me was reading _Making_History_ before falling asleep. As a Yank, English literature always had the same effect on me. But nevertheless, I wanted to read a novel written by an actor in one of my favorite television shows - Black Adder (Fry is General Melcher in B.A. goes forth). The novel is a page turner. What could easily turn out as a cheesy sci-fi theme - going back into history and altering the future, er, the present - is handled with great wit and sensitivity to detail. Fry demonstrates awareness of contemporary culture through citations from music, movies, novels, etc. Throughout the narrative, the protagonist, a doctoral candidate at Cambridge University comments deliciously on much of our modern foibles and idiosyncracies. Uniquely, Fry includes chapters written in the style of a television or movie screenplay. The device is entertaining and adumbrates Fry's point made early on in the book that movies are the truest contemporary art form. Nice bit of irony actually as it appears wedged into the slightly maligned form of narrative fiction. There are enough suprises to keep the reader on the edge of the proverbial seat. I am thankful to that sleepy Brit who rested the book on his lap in the London Underground while I anxiously awaited making a trip to Dillons.
Rating:
Summary: It has it's weak points, but overall a very good read
Review: Whenever the words "time machine" end up in a book there's always this little voice in my head screaming "DANGER! Lay down the book and step away from it" but in this case Stephen Fry seems to get away with it. Not so much because of the plot, which is rather thin and contains too many 'mistakes', but because of his amazing style of writing (quick, funny, detailed). In the book Michael Young, a history student specialised on Hitler's youth, and scientist Leo Zuckermann, highly interested in WW II since his father was a Nazi 'doctor', decide to create a time machine (how else can you survive boring sunday afternoons?) so they can stop Hitler from being born. Not a bad start for a book and a pretty interesting idea to work with (how would you stop Hitler from being born, Kennedy from being shot, planes from crashing into trade towers and what would happen if you would?). They succeed but since history has been changed their own lives change too and they both end up in Princeton, USA where Michael knows about his 'former' life (the first chapters of the second part with Michael walking around without having the faintest idea what's going on are dead funny) but Leo doesn't (god knows why). Even worst Hitler has been replaced by another dictator, Rudolf Gloder, who succeeds where Hitler has failed and conquered Europe and pretty much killed all Jews. Therefore Michael, Steve, a friend of the American Michael, and Leo create ANOTHER time machine to redo what they've done and they all end up back in Cambridge (where both Michael and Steve CAN remember what happened and Leo can't, again god knows why). The mistakes made, besides the fact that the effect on memory seems to change per person there's also the time schedule when they return in Cambridge (Michael and Leo meet some time before Michaels girlfriend leaves for Princeton herself, when they all return Michael and Leo HAVEN`T met but his girlfriend is already living in the USA), are irritating but don't spoil the entire book. The American Michael, and therefore the English Michael, being gay seems a bit odd and Fry doesn't give any extra info on that part. But besides all that this book is a very good read!
Rating:
Summary: Full of Stephenesque humour
Review: Making History is another classic Stephen Fry novel - an original plot, knee-trembling humour and a protagonist who so resembles Fry, you could be forgiven for thinking it was just another autobiography! All the usual Oscar Wilde flippancy, Evelyn Waugh waspishness and P. G. Wodehouse absurdity, cleverly guided by the pen of one of the world's sharpest wits with, in this case, maybe just a touch of H.G. Wells thrown in for good measure. The nub of the plot is that two Cambridge (UK) academics decide to reverse history and have Hitler 'unborn'. Simple enough, really! Unfortunately, of course, they don't foresee that the void left by a non-Hitler would be filled by someone even worse - the timing and the circumstances in Europe pretty well guaranteed it. And this is where, in my opinion, 'Making History' falls down. When you write a plot-based book, you must be certain that the plot is watertight and, unfortunately it isn't. First of all, as I say, it seems fairly clear that two bright academics would have given some thought to what might have happened in a Hitler-free world. Secondly (without giving away too much of the story) it seems that Michael Young, one of the academics, came out in the future world knowing what had happened in the other world. Leo Zuckermann, the other academic didn't. Same in reverse (not to mention a slight time shift as well). It's not good enough, Mister Fry. I love your writing, but a watertight plot is essential. Also, as with other Stephen Fry novels, the subjects of homosexuality and Judaism are always at the forefront. It would be nice to get back to something more like 'The Hippopotamus' where we didn't have to be subjected to Fry's soapbox opinions. Leave the politics to Ben Elton, and get on with telling a story. But for all my grumbling, 'Making History' was still an entertaining read and I would gladly recommend it to to anyone. The New York Times called it 'shockingly tasteless and deeply offensive'. Time said, 'Wit, cynicism and ill will are the virtues of this . . . funny, sharp-tongued novel'. I think Time got it right.
Rating: 
Summary: Making a Pig's Ear
Review: As an enthusiastic reader of alternative history fiction, I have found that certain themes seem to appeal to writers more than others. Among the more popular ones are "What if there had been no Reformation?", "What if the South had won the American Civil War?" and,of course, "What if Hitler had never been born?" and "What if the Nazis had won World War Two?" Stephen Fry exercises considerable ingenuity in combining these last two questions with the science-fiction theme "Could we travel back in time and alter the past?" The central premise of his novel is that two Cambridge academics, Michael Young, a young historian, and Leo Zuckerman, an elderly German-born physicist, decide to prevent the birth of Adolf Hitler by using a time-machine to introduce contraceptives into the water-supply of his home town of Braunau shortly before his conception. Unfortunately, this experiment goes awry. Then second half of the novel is set in a world where the Nazis still came to power in the early 1930s led by one Rudolf Gloder, a man as ruthless as Hitler but more subtle and cunning. Under Gloder's leadership, Germany develops the atomic bomb and uses it to dominate Europe. America remains independent and nominally democratic, but develops into a deeply reactionary society, racist, anti-homosexual and with an intrusive secret police. This is a clever idea, and Stephen Fry writes with a good deal of wit and style. There are a couple more, very dark, twists of the plot, which I will not reveal. Nevertheless, the book suffers from structural weaknesses. The main one is the decision to set the second part of the book in America rather than Nazi-ruled Europe. (In the alternative universe he has conjured up, Michael is a student at Princeton rather than Cambridge). This means that we never see the effects of the tyranny of Gloder and his successors for ourselves, but merely hear about it at second hand. Nor is it explained why an America engaged in a cold war with Nazi Germany should have become so much more reactionary and backward-looking than an America engaged in a cold war with Soviet Russia. The concentration on the failings of American society in the alternative universe makes the book seem rather unbalanced; indeed, when Michael and his Princeton friend Stephen Burns come up with a scheme to undo the damage by ensuring that Hitler is born after all, one is left with the impression that they are motivated less by the desire to liberate Europe from Nazi rule than by the wish to make America safe for long hair, gay pride marches and Ecstasy. The second structural weakness is that, although most of the book is written in the form of a first-person prose narrative, lengthy (and key) sections are written in the form of a film screenplay. The two styles of writing do not mesh together well, because the screenplay mode of writing does not serve to convey characters' feelings and motivations as well as does prose narrative. In a film, of course, the bare bones of the screenplay are fleshed out by the contributions of the actors and director, who have other techniques of conveying emotion, but when the screenplay stands by itself it makes for very flat reading. This adversely affects the book in one very important way. During the first half of the book, Michael is heterosexual with a girlfriend. During the second half, he becomes a homosexual and he and Stephen fall in love. Unfortunately, the scene where they realise their love for each other is one of those written in the screenplay form, so the reader is left with no idea what has prompted this sudden reversal of the sexual orientation of the central character, and Michael's sudden conversion to homosexuality seems completely implausible. Another point that interested me was the tension between Stephen Fry's obvious political liberalism and the deeper conservative theme of his book. The Law of Unintended Consequences - the law that says that in seeking to make a thing better we often make it worse and that the more radical the change we seek, the more likely it is that it will lead to disaster - is, after all, a basic element of conservative political thought, but one that is generally rejected by liberals and radicals as too pessimistic. I wonder if Mr Fry was aware of this contrast- something I would have like to have seen explored more deeply As another reader has pointed out, Hitler's home town is named Braunau, not Brunau, the spelling that appears in the book throughout. Mr Fry, however, seems to have researched the historical background thoroughly, so I presume that this error is the fault of an editor or proof-reader rather of his own. The idea behind this book is an interesting one; I would, however, like to have seen it better handled. Hence the title of this review- my grandfather's favourite expression for something done clumsily that could have been done better. To declare an interest, Stephen Fry and I were at Cambridge together, and I knew him slightly. I doubt if he remembers me (if he is reading this, he is probably thinking "James who?"), but I certainly remember him. I hope this has not coloured my review.
Rating:
Summary: Decent read for a transtlantic flight, or the beach
Review: A tall tale, cheerfully spun out, of a couple of Cambridge (UK) academics who use a time machine to improve world history by deleting Hitler, only to make things worse than ever. For those who've read much science fiction, the alternate history theme -- what would happen if you could go back in time and alter historical events? -- is hardly novel. Nevertheless, the premise is worked out skilfully, and the novel is a fast lively read, with an engaging main character, clever story twists (e.g. imagining Hitler as a child), and reasonably good writing. The other reviews I read here, however, led me to expect more; I found the book funny and clever at times, but not particularly witty, and far from brilliant. All in all, a pretty good yarn with enought intellectual content to make you think -- but not too hard.
Rating:
Summary: A Good Read
Review: This novel is well-written in the finest tradition of British humor. The classic premise that when we change things we sometimes make them worse is the basis for the novel, and it is served very well, with vivid descriptions and color. I highly recommend this book, but I think that it takes a certain type of off-color personality to really appreciate it.
Rating: 
Summary: Get the Spelling Right, Dear Americans
Review: I believe it was the American edition of the book that I was forced to read--for it was luck in itself that I got my hands on anything by Stephen Fry in this god-forsaken corner of the earth. Other than being just brilliant, like Mr Fry's other works, I was slightly frustrated with the American spelling. Not only was the main hero a bumbling Brit, but the language and accent played an important role in the story. Why the heck mix up American and British for no particular reason to produce some strange concoction? Also, Braunau is not spelt Brunau, as used in the book.
Rating:
Summary: An entertaining consideration of will and fate
Review: I have to confess that time travel has been a subject that has long made me nervous--too many hackneyed plots have been constructed around the consequences of messing around with events in the past. That said, my past enjoyment of Stephen Fry's *The Hippopotamus* overcame my trepidation, and I picked up a copy of *Making History*. The result was incredibly rewarding. This is a really entertaining novel. The central character is Michael, a Cambridge graduate student on the brink of completing his dissertation on the life of Adolf Hitler. Michael has a penchant for the sensational: his dissertation has long fictionalized passages that outrage the stuffy don who oversees his resarch, his narration of events often lapses into a screenplay format (more justification for the central thesis of Neal Gabler's *Life, The Movie*). Through entertaining exposition, Fry creates the portrait of a character who is supposed to be merely chronicling the past, but can't seem to help getting involved in more creative invention. Without giving away too much, this propensity combined with the research of a Cambridge physics professor into imaging through time makes for a volatile mix. Fry manages to develop a complex character in Michael, along with a fast-moving plot centered around the consequences of Michael's collaboration with a guilt-ridden physicist. Fry also tackles interesting ideas around free will and fate--old hat to be sure, but nicely dressed up in this treatment. Most importantly, Fry manages to treat what could be an overly dramatic story with his customary good humor.The result is an intelligent, thoroughly enjoyable book.
Rating:
Summary: A tremendous what....if... book
Review: Stephen Fry explores the classical question "What would have happened to the world if Hitler would not have been born?" In this book, which is serious, hilarious, inventive and thought-provoking all at the same time, we get a possible answer to this question and it is not a nice one... A young scientist helps an old physicist to change history by preventing Hitler from being born, but an even bigger rogue takes the place left open after this event. The problem is that this man is not as unacceptable to other nations as Hitler was, thus changing history in a way which the two had not quite imagined... So the young man has to struggle to set things right working in a society which is as grim as can be.
| 
