Did the Emberverse series end?

Noticed the wikipedia page said that the last book has been out for a while. I stopped reading a while ago, what happened?
 
My understanding is that it is sorta... fascist-y.

More unfettered (but stupid) Arthurian/Tolkien myth, but Stirling also takes the (incorrect) quote "good authors imitate great authors steal" to dizzying heights of copy paste.

To whit, the actual quote is: That great poets imitate and improve, whereas small ones steal and spoil. Stirling has stuck to the incorrect quote in numerous interviews, which has somewhat soured me on his writing style in recent years.
 
I was really good with the series until the end of the novel, Sword of the Lady. That metaphysical hocus pocus good versus evil that S.M. Stirling wrote always confused me.

The world building he did in some of the later novels I enjoyed and the short stories collection by other authors was good.
 
I was really good with the series until the end of the novel, Sword of the Lady. That metaphysical hocus pocus good versus evil that S.M. Stirling wrote always confused me.

The world building he did in some of the later novels I enjoyed and the short stories collection by other authors was good.
Was that aroudnnthe time the Virgin Mary told a priest that he needed to help this guy who would dress up as a deer and wave his dick around for festivals to set up a made up kingdom of Montival?
 

Deleted member 92121

Is the series not that good?

I may be interested in reading the books

I really loved the first 3 novels. They're a closed series, meaning there's a conclusion in the 3rd one, but if you lime you can keep reading.

The following series starts to go down the path of magic and turns more into a "wise celtic wank" against all other groups, with a superhuman messiah as protagonist.

I still kept going for about 4 books because I LOVED the worldbuilding, but the metaphysical celtic stuff got really anoying.

There's also this famous critique of the series that says it supports "Might makes right". I really do not think that's the case. HOWEVER later in the series it certainly goes down the path of authocracy, and seems to defend that democracy is an flawed system. Every nation is lead by a strong man or woman that's either wise and just and "should be ruling" or by an evil dictator.
 
I really loved the first 3 novels. They're a closed series, meaning there's a conclusion in the 3rd one, but if you lime you can keep reading.

The following series starts to go down the path of magic and turns more into a "wise celtic wank" against all other groups, with a superhuman messiah as protagonist.

I still kept going for about 4 books because I LOVED the worldbuilding, but the metaphysical celtic stuff got really anoying.

There's also this famous critique of the series that says it supports "Might makes right". I really do not think that's the case. HOWEVER later in the series it certainly goes down the path of authocracy, and seems to defend that democracy is an flawed system. Every nation is lead by a strong man or woman that's either wise and just and "should be ruling" or by an evil dictator.

I was much the same, 4 books in to the sequel series and I was suddenly less impressed with everything. The constant cutting away from the Boise/CUT invasion of Oregon to Rudy and co having pointless conversations and weird mystical scenes was annoying as fuck.

What is this famous critique of the series? I'd be curious to read it.
 

Deleted member 92121

I was much the same, 4 books in to the sequel series and I was suddenly less impressed with everything. The constant cutting away from the Boise/CUT invasion of Oregon to Rudy and co having pointless conversations and weird mystical scenes was annoying as fuck.

What is this famous critique of the series? I'd be curious to read it.
Oh, sorry, expressed myself poorly. I meant there's this general opinion of the series as a hole, not an specific review.

The more I think about it, the Battles in the original trilogy, the McKenzie and Bearkillers agaisnt the PPA, the meeting at Corvallis, It was all really great.
And later on in the series with the United States of Boise, the CUT, Iowa, England turning into an new empire, the whole worldbuilding was really sensational!

The problem with the series really was that useless time spent with two characters discussing how "the powers" work, and the love life of minute characters. The whole idea of the perfect avatar of good fighting evil incarnate was also annoying. It took away all the nuance of human characters with grey positions, trying to make the best for their communities or themselves, as in the original trilogy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reading the first three is definitely worth it. After that, the quality takes a steep nose dive off a cliff.
The first book was definitely worth it. The second and third were all right, the fourth takes a steep nose dive, and then the fifth is in free fall. I didn't keep reading after that.
 
Oh, sorry, expressed myself poorly. I meant there's this general opinion of the series as a hole, not an specific review.

The more I think about it, the Battles in the original trilogy, the McKenzie and Bearkillers agaisnt the EPA, the meeting at Corvallis, It was all really great.
And later on in the series with the United States of Boise, the CUT, Iowa, England turning into an new empire, the whole worldbuilding was really sensational!

The problem with the series really was that useless time spent with two characters discussing how "the powers" work, and the love life of minute characters. The whole idea of the perfect avatar of good fighting evil incarnate was also annoying. It took away all the nuance of human characters with grey positions, trying to make the best for their communities or themselves, as in the original trilogy.

Ah I see what you mean. Yeah, the minutia of things was a bugger, and I often found myself thinking "why should I care?" or alternatively "the do something interesting with these powers!"

In the first three books the plot actually seemed to be moving somewhere. In all the most recent books, even the prose feels plodding and turgid. There's no real progress and characters will spend ages just talking about unimportant stuff like how they dress or different armor and I sigh. What killed the series for me was when I got to the book Lord of the Mountains and what was supposed to be the epic battle between the armies of Montival and the CUT/Boise alliance focused less on the battle and more on tedious discussions and the characters saying "oh we're going to win" with no tension of even interesting stuff. In later parts they described these epic sieges that had been going on in the background or other battles and I kept having to ask myself "why am I not reading this story??"

The first book was definitely worth it. The second and third were all right, the fourth takes a steep nose dive, and then the fifth is in free fall. I didn't keep reading after that.

I unfortunately kept at it till book 7 I think. I tried the sequel series briefly, but it was just boring. The first book felt unfinished, and honestly it didn't feel like it had an arc at all.
 
I am really surprised to find out that the entire Emberverse series are not as popular on here as I thought.

If we're not talking about TL-191 or anything relating to Dr. Turtledove, I tend to see S.M. Stirling's works being mentioned constantly. (Draka, The Peshawar Lancers)
 
@Allochronian, IMO, it is the hocus pocus unexplainable magic that keeps Emberverse discussions from being discussed with greater frequency. There are ASB's and then there is the Emberverse ASB.
 
Why, do they lament their friend with diabetes dying?
Because, IIRC, the son in Turtledove's story admits to himself that he can't really say his father doesn't have a point about how life was better before the Change, and is floored by an L.A. suburb that so many people used to live in one place.
 
Top