Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
USA vs Confederacy: Round 3, part 1, 29 Jun 2001
By A Customer
1914. The USA and Confederate States of America (see "How Few Remain" for the CSA's genesis) pick opposite sides and enter WW1 with gusto: the Confederates convinced they'll beat the USA for the third time running, the US forces nursing 50 years of resentment against their smaller neighbour. Here Harry Turtledove takes the events established in "How Few Remain" and expands on them as he details a very different world and world war. It's got a more soapy feel than the earlier book, focussing as it does more on ordinary folks than the historical figures of "How Few Remain" (Having said that, the image of a septuagenerian General Custer is an image I'll always treasure...), but it has the Turtledove hallmarks of historical sweep and thorough detail. It's the first in a tetralogy, so it's difficult to review alone, but his fully realised Confederacy and Europeanized - complete with Socialist Party! - USA commands the attention. Good, but the diffuse narrative and "first in a series" feel mean that it's not as good it could be. If you're going to buy this, get the full "Great War" set and read them back-to-back.
|
|
|
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good story of an America at war with itself, 28 Jul 2004
For fans of alternative history, the stories of Harry Turtledove have always promised enjoyable presentations of intriguing possibilities. This book is the second in his 'tetralogy' examining a world in which the South won the Civil War. American Front picks up the story in 1914 with the start of a world war between the U.S. and its ally Germany on the one hand, and the Confederate states, Britain, and France on the other. Turtledove knows his history and it shows, as the novel's events ring true enough to their real-life counterparts while developing in new and intriguing ways.
Yet this is a different novel from its predecessor. Though a sequel to How Few Remain, Turtledove examines the war from a different perspective here, following events through original characters rather than historical ones. This gives him greater flexibility in his depiction of them, yet it is the characters that are the weakest part of the book. While the plotting in most of the story arcs is quite good at sustaining interest, the characters have a sameness about them, using many of the same phrases and slang when expressing themselves. This stands in stark contrast to his previous novel, in which each of the main characters he uses is vividly and distinctly realized, and makes for a weaker work than the excellent inaugural work. Nonetheless, readers interested in an engrossing work of alternative history will find much to enjoy in this story about a divided America plunging into the hell of a 'Great War.'
|
|
|
4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Great story, shame about a few innacuracies., 1 Jan 2001
By A Customer
While I geatly enjoyed this book, and the other two in the series in terms of plot and character development I'm afraid that I have to nit pick on a few technical matters. As an author writing on military maters in this novel I feel Turtledove should have perhaps done some more reserch on a few matters. Firstly the First Richmond Howitzers are equipped with copies of the French 75 field gun. As any artillery purist will tell you there is a big difference between a field gun and a howitzer in terms of their role. A glance at any one of Ian V. Hogg's books will explain this. Perhaps the First Richmond should have been equipped with copies of the British 4.5 mm howitzer (or if Turtledove insists on them having the 75 they should be the First Richmond Field Regiment, although in my opinion they would have done better to have had British 18-pounders which were superior to the French 75). Secondly he depicts both Canadian cavalry, and the Conferderate cavalry, who seem to have modeled themselves on the British cavalry, as being equipped with carbines. In fact since the aftermath of the Boer War cavalry of the British Empire had been equipped with rifles (in fact the famous Short Lee-Enfield was designed with that arm in mind), as had the U.S cavalry. In this situation I would have imagined that the Condfedereates having adopted the British 1908 saber would also have adopted the pratice of carrying a rifle. On another related point cavalry carried their rifles on a bucket on the sadle, not on the back of the cavalry trooper. Thirdly while I said that I enjoyed the plot I must take issue with one part: the U.S attack on Pearl Harbour. Whether or not the American ships were able to defeat those of the Royal Navy is imeterial, in the situation depicted they probably would have, what I have the most problem with is the fact that the American fleet is able to silence the British shore batteries. In the real world Great War both sides found this very hard to do. The Germans were not able to silence British shore batteries in their costal raids, while the British were not able to silence Turkish batteries during the naval attack on the Dardenelles. In both cases the shore batteries were able to repeatedly strike the ships. To return to Ian V. Hogg again, he provides a good description of the first example in Allied Artillery of World War One. I believe that the U.S fleet would have probably come off worst in any such engagement. I must also agree with one other reviewer that this book is spoiled by the fact that the U.S is always superior to its enemies. This and the technical points were the only things that kept it from getting five stars. Overall apart from what I have said above this was a very enjoyable and readable book and I would recommend it.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Harry Turtledove
by Harry Turtledove
by Harry Turtledove
by Harry Turtledove
by Harry Turtledove
