Most Helpful Customer Reviews
15 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Don't Judge a Book by it's Cover, December 30, 2002
This review is from: CSA - Confederate States of America (Hardcover)
When I first saw the title "CSA" and read the summary of the plot, I felt I had to own this book. Alternative History is a fascinating subject, and I have always enjoyed this kind of speculative fiction. However, the premise for the creation of the Confederate States and the destruction of the North is so flimsy and historically unsound that the entire novel fell apart around it. Means starts the book with the assumption that the South won the war after 1865. Any historian can tell you that this would have been impossible. By 1864 the Cause of the Confederacy was lost, and no final, great display by Jefferson Davis in Richmond could have saved it. Lee's Army had crumbled to less than a quarter of Grant's by 1865, with desertions winnowing the number down every day. There is no concieveable way that the Army of Northern Virginia could have ressurected itself and conqured the North. If the setting for the Southern victory had taken place after a Lee victory at Gettysburg, the premise could have been kept up, but assuming the destruction of the USA after 1865? Please. Suspension of disbelief is one thing. Being asked to swallow this tripe is absurd. Based solely on that, I would recommend never picking up this book, but the story itself is just as awful. The CSA Means envisions seperates the races but makes them truly equal. But freedom in the South is a tenuous thing, and if you're bad, you're sent to the "badlands" of the industrial wassteland that is the North. The Vice-President's son(a mixed-up kid cliche), is kidnapped by an SLA-like northern group and taken to the former USA, where he learns that things like the mixing of the races and secular humanisim are all great things that the South has denied itself. No arguments from me about the positive aspects of TRUE racial equality and whatnot, but he becomes a Patty Hearst type, falling in with his kidnappers. The book offers no real insight into the workings of the CSA, except for a few token paragraphs about how the President is always white, the Veep always black, and how the two chambers of Congress are one white and one black. Also, the University of Virginia built an identical campus just for blacks, and it can be assumed that these Jim Crow-esque rules apply accross this nation. It's all rather sad, as the opportunity to explore what a real victorious South would be like are lost. Why would the North, with all it's resources, be turned into a wasteland by the South? Why would everyone be so happy with segregation? Means seems to think that race relations in the South would be better than our current state of affairs because seperate but equal is truly achieved. But come on! Assuming that the South won, wouldn't slavery, although logically eventually abolished, last longer, and wouldn't the kind of seperation depicted in the novel be impossible in a South that would have been slave-free for such a short amount of time? CSA paints the Confederate cause as flawed but right, which is downright stupid. The book insulted my intelligence again and again. For a good review of what a victorious South would look like, see Harry Turtledove's "Great War" series, which starts with the excellent "How Few Remain". He paints a much more realistic portrait of Southern victory, which results in a CSA and USA, which is what the South wanted, anyway. Read that series, which paints vivid portraits of historical and fictional charachters, not this mess of a novel that had me itching for my $4.99 back.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Poor History, Poor Premise, Worse Execution, January 20, 2000
This review is from: CSA - Confederate States of America (Hardcover)
A descendant of the SS-GB genre, this book is flawed by the lack of historical versimilitude coupled with pedestrian writing. To have the CSA win the war in 1865 because it was "renewed" by Jefferson Davis' heroic sacrifice was a stretch. To then add a black House and a white Senate only stretches credibility beyond comprehension. In effect, the author's approval of Plessy vs. Ferguson {1896, "separate but equal") is taken to ridiculous heights/depths. European history still has a Nazi Germany, but Britain is a virtual sinecure of the CSA. History between 1865 and 2000 is slapdash and more than unlikely. The "detective" novel has a plot which is somewhat reminiscent of GUNS OF THE SOUTH in terms of race relations and GORKY PARK in terms of plot line, but it is handled so poorly that no one really cares. To top it off, the protagonist police detective Clark Haddon's mere name is insulting (the author, located in the DC metro area, has to be aware that Haddon Clark is a local serial killer). But then again, this novel is bad in so many different aspects that this is only one of the lesser faults. Poor historical development, poor plotline, poor writing -- and these are its strengths. I have probably read worse books, but it is difficult to say when.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
I have a review, but I didn't finish the book., July 22, 1999
By A Customer
This review is from: CSA - Confederate States of America (Hardcover)
As an avid, amateur, Civil War historian, I was anxious to read this book. Now mind you, I consider myself a flexible person and I can be entertained by a suppostion or opinion that contradicts my own. But in the opening pages of this book I'm asked to believe that Robert Edward Lee, upon winning the Civil War, would sack and burn New York! In addition, I'm asked to believe that military governer Lee would threaten Mary Todd Lincoln's *children and grandchildren* with death if the under-house-arrest Abe Lincoln ever left Springfield. Even a cursory study of Lee's life indicates that these suppositions are so impossible as to be ludicrous. Now sure, someone else in the CSA could have done the above--Nathan Bedford Forrest springs to mind--but not Lee, and not most of the Confederate Army Commanders. I think the author, Howard Means, has Lee doing this because it's convienant for the plot that such events happen. Unfortunately, he's disregarding everything known about Lee the man. I put the book down after reading ten pages. I recommend you don't even bother to pick it up.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|