Rating: 
Summary: a good premise goes awry
Review: When I studied history in college my professors told us never to play the "what if" game. Of course,such speculating was too much fun to resist. Now it seems to be a healthy subgenre of science fiction, growing in popularity. My old professors must be appalled. Harrison's foray into the genre starts from one of the "what ifs" we also used to play with : what if the British had declared war over the Trent incident. Harrison's handling of that divergence is good, and he gets much else right,especially the way 19th century people thought and spoke, but too much of the book is implausible. By having North and South reunite so quickly and enthusiastically, I fear Harrison sells short the powerful animosity between the sections. Likewise, Harrison has Jefferson Davis persuaded to give up slavery after one easy lesson in economics. Racism and memories of Nat Turner would've kept slavery going despite John Stuart Mill's best arguments. The book's other flaws: no central fictional characters for us to follow through the action. The war itself is the main character, and this is of interest primarily to military buffs. In his afterword Harrison asserts he has written what would've certainly happened given his Trent divergence. The whole point of alternate history is nothing is written in stone.
Rating: 
Summary: An exceptionally disappointing work.
Review: Leaving aside the excessively period prose, leaving aside the utter predictablility of everything (except the Trent affair), leaving aside even the impossible perfidy and incompetance of the British (let me see, just how was it they ended up ruling 1/4 of the world?), this book is simply poorly researched. And, to any Civil War buff, the research is off in the most appalling ways imaginable. Simple things...how many rounds in a Spencer (7 not 20). In a Sharps (1...I repeat, 1). What was Meagher's rank in 1862 (he was not a captain)...a general (Sherman) in command of an army takes a mere regiment with him to battle (hmmm, was it a battle?) the Brits. Bah! This was such a waste of money I may never buy a Harrison book again.But wait...No, Harrison isn't a bad writer. This is impossible. Ah, I know. He wrote it as satire on the other alternate history book available on the subject. Yes, that MUST be it because NO ONE is this bad a writer. It's satire, great satire. I take back everything I said.
Rating: 
Summary: An Extremely Affecting and Moving Book.
Review: What Harrison says in his Afterword is true: the American armies in 1862 were by far the most powerful fighting force in the world; military observers from all major countries were on hand to learn what modern war was turning into. And, of course the British were arrogant imperialists in those days -- ask the Irish and those living in India and China. (Remember the Opium Wars, fought to enforce the British right to sell opium to the Chinese people?) When the British attack the USA from Canada and then mistakenly attack the Southern city of Biloxi from the sea, thinking it is the Northern outpost on Deer Island, the exhausted British soldiers break discipline after finding a warehouse of liquor, and end up raping the women of Biloxi. (Such breakdowns in British army discipline were rare, but not unknown.) This is exactly the kind of event that would have inflamed every Southern soldier with a desire for revenge, and when General Beauregard asks General Sherman for a truce so that he can move his troops to fight their common enemy, Sherman goes further by offering to join hs men with Beauregard's forces. This was a time when soldiers still thought in terms of honor, and Sherman was probably the most thoughtful and courageous general alive at the time. I was moved to tears by the scenes of the Bluecoats and Butternuts happily joining forces (they traded tobacco and coffee during truces, so this was also realistic) to attack the British forces. Add to this the genuine eloquence of people like Sherman and (especially) Lincoln, and the whole story was a moving experience. Turtledove's "Guns of the South" was extremely good (his later efforts have been more disappointing), but he never was able to capture the eloquence of Lincoln. I bought this in paperback and ordered a Hardcover copy even *before* I finished reading it.
Rating:
Summary: Very Disappointing
Review: I was hoping for a much more belivable alternative history. The point of divergence was an excellent one -- the British almost did go to war with the U.S. over the Trent Affair. But even if the British were to accidently attack the Confederacy instead of the Union, would they just say "hey, what the heck" and continue on and battle both sides? Utter foolishness. I couldn't take this novel seriously after that. Skip this one and stick to Harry Turtledove's works in alternate history.
Rating:
Summary: Now we know why Turtledove is #1
Review: Harrison is not a historian. It shows. Badly. His writing is okay -- if you happen to enjoy his somewhat unique style -- but gee whiz: there's hardly a single historically plausible idea in this whole book after the point of divergence (the British go to war over the Trent Affair). It was *drudgery* reading it after about 40% of the way through, because everytime you turned around, something else was happening that would NEVER have happened, even in an alternate world where everyone routinely did LSD. Just pitiful. The whole idea of alternate history is to show -- in an entertaining way, of course -- what *could* have been. This *never* could have been, period. If you know any more history than the average junior high student, this book will tick you off.
Rating: 
Summary: Another decent read.
Review: This novel seems to be much like another Harry Harrison novel, A Rebel in Time. Both novels are placed in the civil war period, both have very interesting concepts and both suffer from severe plot pacing problems. I enjoyed this book and will read any sequels but probably in paperback next time.
Rating: 
Summary: Good book...makes you hunger for more!
Review: Stars and Stripes Forever is indeed a enjoyable read. However there two problems with this first novel that I can see that hopefully will be corrected in the next one. The first is that the darker side of America should be portrayed a little more evenly. America and the Americans are to honorable in this novel, and England too much the antaganist. I wish that the novel dove into the complexities of the English spirit more. We must remember that The English empire DID have its dark and dirty side. They lost the war of 1812 with the Americans and that did not sit well with them at all. There appeared to be a subconcious fear of this contry. If fact England felt uncomfortable with America until just before WW2 and it is very easy to see the Trent Incident begining a road to war. I am also suprised that Harry didn't add a French invasion of the U.S. from the west. I am sure that the French would definitely see us as a long term threat. Maybe in the future novel... The dialog is pleasant and appears to correspond well to the 1800's style of speech in the US. Again this book is a great start to the Stars and Stripes trilogy, worth reading several times to get the Feel and flow of a good Alternative historical yarn.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting concept, but didn't deliver
Review: Stars and Stripes Forever delivers poorly the interesting concept of Britian invades North America during the War for Southern Independence.I'm no true expert on the war, but there were several errors, especially relating to Jefferson Davis. Davis was not a soldier thrust into politics, but rather an experienced politician in the US Congress and Mississippi legislature. He was not expecting to be appointed president of the Confederacy, but rather a command. Also, Davis favored an eventual emanicipation of slaves.The characters in this book were all rather dull, and uninspired. Lee was not the commander in chief of the Confederate Army.The British all seem violent and evil, not one speaks against the American Expedition.And, I don't think the Confederacy would be willing to fold so quickly, unless Lincoln made many concessions, something more than appointing Judah Benjamin as Secretary of the Southern States. Which reminds me, should the Confederate president become disabled, the vice president assumes the Presidency, not an appointee.The biggest thing that stuck me was all the misspellings, and especially, the sentence fragments on all fronts.Turtledove is the one you should read.
Rating: 
Summary: A response to my readers.
Review: I am fascinated by the scale of the comments--from 'love it' to 'hate it.' I seem to have pressed a lot of buttons--which I enjoy. For those historical doubters--the book is as true as I could make it. For the gentleman who found misspellings and grammatical errors; to my knowledge there are none. But there are 19th century grammatic usages. And many of the speeches by important characters are taken from the printed records. To work; I am finishing the sequel now; STARS AND STRIPES IN PERIL.
Rating:
Summary: A fun book, if historically improbable
Review: Alternate fiction must, by its very nature, deal in improbabilties. Who knows what could have happened if minor changes had occurred in history. I must admit that the series of event in this novel are highly improbable at best. The Union and Confederacy unite to fight a common enemy. However, the book is great fun and makes you feel good, unlike Turtledove's North/South alternate fiction, which is sort of depressing. You must suspend a certain degree of belief when reading this book, but it is a good time.
|
