21 of 22 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Weak ending, great book, January 3, 2000
This review is from: Walk In Hell (The Great War, Book 2) (Hardcover)
I can't say that the plot isn't progressing, but it seems the only reason for stopping where it did was that the book would be too thick and Dr. Turtledove had a deadline. American Front had the same problem, although we did have the dramatic Red Rebellion right at the end. Here we have more of a general shifting of fortunes. Nonetheless, if the next two books are as good as the first two, then the tetralogy will stand very well as a single story.
The thing I find most compelling about this series is the sympathy I have for the sympathetic characters on both sides while having so little sympathy for either side in the war as a whole. On the one side we have the CSA who still treat their blacks as chattel (although less and less as necessity dictates) and allied with our old WWI allies. On the other hand, we have the USA allied with the Axis powers and showing early signs of fascism, not to mention a growing Socialist movement in the absence of a powerful Republican party. How can this turn out well? Who do I want to win?
The answer is that it can't turn out well and the best thing would be for it to never have happened in the first place. Oh yeah, it didn't.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
11 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Turtledove's Dreadful World, October 30, 1999
By A Customer
This review is from: Walk In Hell (The Great War, Book 2) (Hardcover)
I agree with the readers who think that the United States and Germany will win the War. The US keeps its troops in North America instead of sending them to France to give the Western allies much-needed military and psychological support. Besides, the plot's progression points to a US-German win.
But no matter who we root for, it's hard to believe that the World will be a better place for either an American or a Confederate victory. Turtledove's World remains infinitely less attractive than ours, even if a victory for Kaiser Wilhelm prevents the rise of National-Socialism in Germany. The Great War series has nothing to offer but an arrogant and imperialistic Germany, crumpled land, burning towns, and lasting enmity between North and South, and between Canadians and Americans. Turtledove essentially applies a European scenario to North America, and shows exactly what our countries were able to avoid during the World conflicts.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
13 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Turtledove's best series keeps rolling along, June 3, 2000
This review is from: Walk In Hell (The Great War, Book 2) (Hardcover)
Although Harry Turtledove is probably best known for his World War series, the Civil War series that began with HOW FEW REMAIN is doubtless his greatest work. The back-story for this series is a plausible world in which Lee's plans for the 1862 invasion of Pennsylvania did not fall into Union hands. After battles at New Cumberland and Camp Hill in which Lee crushed the Army of the Potomac, leaving Washington cut off, England and France intervene--forcing the North to sue for peace. In HOW FEW REMAIN, the story picked up in 1881 when the North declared war on the Confederacy following the latter's purchase of Chihuahua and Sonora from the Empire of Mexico. Following another British and French intervention, the Confederacy was again victorious. The Union is left embittered and hungry for revenge. At the end of HOW FEW REMAIN, Turtledove foreshadowed the GREAT WAR tetralogy with clear hints of an emerging alliance between the Union and Imperial Germany. In AMERICAN FRONT, the story picked up in 1914. World War I has broken out in Europe. The Union and Imperial Germany are staunch allies, while the Confederacy remains allied with England and France. In short order, the Union and the Confederacy plunge into a war paralleling that in Europe. The war doesn't make a lot of sense. In World War I, all of the European players had clear war aims. The war turned out to be a tragic folly, but they all knew why they went to war. In contrast, it's not clear why the Union and Confederacy are fighting (old animosities?) or what their respective war aims are. Does the USA believe it can conquer and reabsorb the Confederacy? Perhaps this is Turtledove's point-the utter folly of war. If so, his story powerfully illustrates the utility of George Washington's advice that the US steer clear of "entangling alliances" with European powers. As made even more clear in WALK IN HELL, privation and radical social change are the war's only sure outcome.
As usual with Turtledove, there are a lot of sub-plots to keep track of--at least a dozen! Crib notes are almost a necessity. Besides being hard to keep track of, some of the plot lines are duplicative. Consider the McGregor and Galtier sub-plots. Both are based around oppressed Canadian families living in territories occupied by US forces. (Even though Germany's experience in two world wars demonstrates that two-front wars are a bad idea, the Union happily jumped into one with the Confederacy to the south and Anglo-Canada to the north.) The chief difference between the two is that they illustrate distinct reactions to occupation...resistance by the McGregors and (slower to be unveiled) a slow fall into collaboration by the Galtiers. From a dramatic perspective, Turtledove would have done better to combine these separate plot lines into a single one, in which the conflict could have been established within a single family, heightening the tension.
One of the nice points in WALK IN HELL is the way Turtledove captures the complexity of life in war and the moral ambiguities was forces upon us. Consider, for example, the interesting Cincinnatus plot line-a black southerner in Union occupied Kentucky finds himself caught between self-preservation, working a day job for the Union, entanglement with a pro-Confederacy resistance movement, and the black socialist underground. Cincinnatus must sail between Scylla and Charybdis with no room for error. Although characterization generally is not one of Turtledove's strengths, the Cincinnatus sub-plot is an excellent treatment of the hard choices such a war would have forced upon ordinary people. (On the other hand, Cincinnatus has the misfortune of being subjected to one of Turtledove's embarrassing sex scenes.)
One thing worries me: In the Jake Featherston subplot Turtledove is doing some pretty blatant foreshadowing. Featherston is a front line Confederate soldier with increasingly strong racist attitudes towards blacks. So here's a prediction as to where Turtledove is going: after two more books in THE GREAT WAR series, the south will lose the war. Economic privation and social breakdown will follow. (Think Weimar Germany.) Then a former front line soldier will rise to power as a racist demagogic leader. Featherston will be the Confederacy's Hitler and the blacks will be the south's Jews. And we'll be buying yet another tetralogy-this time dealing with WWII.
Although I still think HOW FEW REMAIN is superior to the the GREAT WAR tetralogy (to date), the latter still is highly recommended.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No