Rating: 
Summary: Would have made a better short story or article
Review: The part of this book that I enjoyed the most was the opening in which General Sherman summarized the events from the previous book in the series ("Stars and Stripes Forever"). That's how I would have liked the entire book to have been handled: In a short story format. The ideas presented in the book were interesting, but I didn't enjoy having to wade through 336 pages to find them. Rather than read this book, I'd recommend waiting for the third book in the series ("Stars and Stripes Triumphant") and read the summary of the first two books that will probably appear there.
Rating:
Summary: alternate history as snack food
Review: This is alternate history as snack food: quick and clever but ultimately unsatisfying. Harrison's vision of nineteenth-century blitzkrieg warfare is plausible and sometimes fascinating, but his pacing is off, and the well-known characters throughout this book seem no livelier than figures in a diorama. What little character development we have to go on suggests that Harrison's views of Lincoln, Lee, Grant, and Sherman are entirely conventional. A subplot involving Jefferson Davis becomes a botched attempt to add a bass line to a narrative that somehow couldn't find one in the carnage of war. In fairness, however, the book does entertain, and it might be too much to expect Harrison to rise above the commonplace wisdom he affirms here. Having established that Mexico is hot, Ireland is green, and American audacity is not to be trifled with, I look forward to more gripping summer reads from other books.
Rating: 
Summary: Alternate Fantasy - A New Genre?
Review: This is more of a commentary on both books in the series to date, but I'll focus on Peril for the sake of relevance. Up until recently, most of my alternate history experience has been limited to Turtledove, who, although he overlooks many small points about causality, paints a picture of an interesting and fairly believable world. Then, I began reading the S&S series, expecting an informative development to an interesting idea (Britain attacking the U.S. during the Civil War). It was a total letdown. I have never read any of Mr. Harrison's works previous to this, but I do not feel any particular desire to now. He portrays every character in one-dimensional descriptions, based along the lines of U.S. = good, everyone else = bad. He doesn't even take the time to develop any of the non-U.S.-and-allied characters beyond their immediate motives relating to the war and their own pompous convictions, regardless of what kind of person they were in reality. Though I know little about the actual Queen Victoria, I am more than a little suspicious that she did slightly more than scream at bad news and throw incessant fits. Likewise, the lack of real development of civil issues in the reunified U.S., primarily the treatment of freed slaves, was irritating. That most people would practically ignore the existance of a problem save for philosophical argument is almost mind-boggling, and the section dealing with a negro teacher in Mississippi is resolved with impossible simplicity. Why no social backlash? It wasn't even mentioned again, and given the magnitude of what happened it could easily have sparked major riots at the very least. Finally, issues abroad. I find it more than a little unlikely that the British would make such a pointless effort at building a road across a several hundred mile section of mountain and jungle in a country the U.S. has major interest in. Wouldn't it make more sense to build a road across Panama, near to where the canal is? The distance is much shorter, the terrain more hospitable, and it's much more remote from the U.S., making attack harder and it's existance more difficult to be known about. In fact, why didn't the British just bring their Asian troops around the world the OTHER WAY? By going around Africa from Asia would take only a little longer than crossing the whole Pacific, landing hundreds of thousands of troops, crossing harsh country, then reloading the troops (on ships that would have had to be in the Atlantic ANYWAY). The author makes huge logical errors on the part of the British. And the Irish invasion! Why would the British just give up on Ireland after one week, attempting just one troop landing? And that the resulting situation would be so stable even after the Americans had left, as in Canada in the last book (since when do ALL the British live in just three cities, then give up after each is attacked?). I will read the last, although I can imagine how it will finish. Mr. Harrison may even throw in some suspense for once.
Rating: 
Summary: Fun alternative history read
Review: This sequel did not grab me as quickly as the first book. Things happen very, very fast which can leave you feeling like you are reading a series of blurbs rather than a novel. An example of this would be the invasion of Ireland. From conception to execution Harrison uses maybe 20 pages. There are paragraphs here and there about the amazing amount of logistics and planning that would have been required for this undertaking but one gets the impression it was not that hard to do. Besides the sinking of one U.S. iron clad things also go amazingly well for the U.S. forces. I'm sure the Brits will take issue with how they are written as well. At best the Brits are arrogant elitists in this book. While Harrison does present many historical facts to build his case against the English he is a little heavy handed with it. Nothing new there though, the Brits have been catching it left and right in movies and books over the last few years.
What this book does best is what I think most alternative history books do best. It gives the reader a chance to learn a lot of real history "spiced" up with some "what if" scenarios. It's tremendous fun to imagine what would happen if Civil War era troops and generals went up against Britain's best in Ireland of all places. I really think that the recent popular boom in alternative history writing will change the way history is taught in the future. Alternative history does not just ask people to memorize fact, it asks them to become critical thinkers. To know what would happen in a "what if" people must know what each player in the new scenario brings to the game, where their motivation lay, how their culture will influence reaction and so on and so on. Harrison makes a good go of this invloving the U.S., Mexico, England, France and Ireland. No easy feat and if not particularly detailed it is a fun read. John
Rating:
Summary: Better than the first book...
Review: Yeah, that kind of surprised me too, till I figured out why - it is no longer based on our REAL history. It has gone so far off track that Harry Harrison can write it anyway he wants and as long as he keeps to the logic and reality he set up in the first book it works. I also loved the scene between John Ericsson and William P. Parrott as well as the scene between Mr. Ericsson and Captain Raphael Semmes.
But most of the book feels rushed and the characters are bland, cut out paper dolls, set up to do certain actions and say certain things for the plot to go in THAT direction.
Anyway, the plot is England and allied European nations invade Mexico. The invasion of the US is just around the corner and Lincoln decides he has to do something about it. So they decide the best way to open a second front and force Britain to withdraw its troops is to invade Ireland.
It sounds simple, but even Mr. Harrison shows that the United States Army and Navy would have a few problems they couldn't foresee.
But after 334 pages you know there is going to be a third book.
| 
