In at the Death
- Thread starter Michael E Johnson
- Start date
After reading that, I'm tempted to set up a poll asking everyone which Turtledove character they most want to die... And who knows, we might get lucky and have most of our wishes come true. Far too many viewpoint characters in the last book, and it sounds even worse in that one.
Beginning the series in the 1990s, the books now can be seen almost as representative of either the US involvement in Iraq, or more directly in the form of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, where the combatants are as close to each other as in these novels.
Uh, no... it's representative of WW2....
Uh, no... it's representative of WW2....
Yes, reading that review is almost embarrassing. Not everything is about Iraq or Palestine.
Suicide bombers, fanaticaly religious zealots, an unending quagmire in the occupied Confederacy...
Yes, reading that review is almost embarrassing. Not everything is about Iraq or Palestine.
Quite true, but when Turtledove insists on throwing in suicide bombers regardless of whether they make any sense or not, one begins to wonder...
Michael E Johnson
Banned
Well I'm on page 250. I'm really struck with HT's representation of the guiltless Confederates. They are just like the Southerners we all have seen from the 50's and 60's Civil Rights videos-with some OTL German Nazi grafted on-love it.
Last edited:
Just read it last night. Looks like with the exception of the puppet Republic of Texas, the USA has been reuinited, so to speak.
I wonder if there'll be one more stand-along TL-191 story taking place in the '60s or perhaps '80s. I'd be curious to see what the world looks like by then.
I wonder if there'll be one more stand-along TL-191 story taking place in the '60s or perhaps '80s. I'd be curious to see what the world looks like by then.
I would love to read one writen like A Different Flesh, so he could cover a wide spread of time without putting me to sleep. Writen like that, I think I could make it though one more book.
Picked my copy up at the library the other day. Looks as if most of the POV characters survive, but a ten-book series is more than enough tedium. I managed to read almost halfway through before I started skipping around, but I think the book needs to go back tomorrow - I really don't have enough time to read it cover to cover.
Might have been fun to set up a dead pool before this came out - I'll have to remember that next time an expected "last of the series" books is about to be issued.
Might have been fun to set up a dead pool before this came out - I'll have to remember that next time an expected "last of the series" books is about to be issued.
Michael E Johnson
Banned
Major Spoiler
Featherston's dead and killed by Cassius to boot-poetic justice for sure but too clean a death.
Featherston's dead and killed by Cassius to boot-poetic justice for sure but too clean a death.
Much better than the last book.
And I'm struck by the fact that so many US characters don't see the hypocrisy in the fact that they are killing innocents in much the same way as the CSA started killing innocents after the communist uprisings and bombings that arose from that. By the end of this book the US was definately heading down the same road. And the US characters responsible were just as guiltless.
Their justification seems to be that they aren't putting people into camps and burning them. But is lining up hundreds of civilians, whether they are mormon, indian, confederate or canadian and shooting them day after day not evil?
I really thought Turtledove was trying to say something there, for a half a second. I felt maybe Moss or Grimes were going to come through with the realization that what the US was doing now was a path towards concentration camps of their own.
And yet no one ever made that defense or that connection. I think maybe he didn't care.
I was expecting the book to end with Armstrong blowing his brains out much the way Hip did when he couldn't take the killing anymore. It did seem to be getting to him for about a paragraph.
But I guess it's ok for Chester Martin to go shooting women and children on the streets or Armstrong to shoot 'cute' women all day, because they won the war.
And I'm struck by the fact that so many US characters don't see the hypocrisy in the fact that they are killing innocents in much the same way as the CSA started killing innocents after the communist uprisings and bombings that arose from that. By the end of this book the US was definately heading down the same road. And the US characters responsible were just as guiltless.
Their justification seems to be that they aren't putting people into camps and burning them. But is lining up hundreds of civilians, whether they are mormon, indian, confederate or canadian and shooting them day after day not evil?
I really thought Turtledove was trying to say something there, for a half a second. I felt maybe Moss or Grimes were going to come through with the realization that what the US was doing now was a path towards concentration camps of their own.
And yet no one ever made that defense or that connection. I think maybe he didn't care.
I was expecting the book to end with Armstrong blowing his brains out much the way Hip did when he couldn't take the killing anymore. It did seem to be getting to him for about a paragraph.
But I guess it's ok for Chester Martin to go shooting women and children on the streets or Armstrong to shoot 'cute' women all day, because they won the war.
Michael E Johnson
Banned
Exactly. There is no actual or moral equivalent as far as I'm (and HT is ) am concerned.
But there are still degrees. Start with one, and you may end up eventually with the other.
And are you using this ID from now on?
huh?
Exactly. And that is how exactly the slaughter of the CSA black population began. There was a communist revolt, so the CSA handled it by lining up civilians and shooting them, during the great war. As far as they were concerned all blacks were communist traitors and there were no innocents. This spiraled to the freedom party actively building prisons to house all the rebels they captured and political prisoners. The soldiers were feeling the effects of becoming mass murderers so Pinkard has the idea to kill them in masse without shootings.
In this instance the US is lining up little old ladies and shooting them cause as far as they are concerned there are no innocents in the USA.
Which is how it began for the CSA. They started mass killings because they felt the black population needed payback for what they had did during the great war. I don't see how you don't see the parallel of the situation. Is it ok cause the US is just killing white people? If that is how you feel then you are no different than featherston. Would it be ok if the US lined up 1500 Iraqi civilians every time a bomb went off in Iraq and shot them? I sure as hell dont' think it would be. Mass murder is mass murder. You can't sugercoat it.
For those saying it's hardly the same thing. How come? How is this not government mandated? Do you think the US populace and government don't know that every time a bomb goes off in the CSA that they don't just line up 100's off people off the street and shoot them. Often leaving them there to rot.
Pound already wanted to build camps to put CSA civilians into. There were inklings in the book that this may have even been happening. A couple of lines about people dissappearing or going to jail and never coming out, where a couple of characters said they were being 'reduced'.
Also, like I previously said Grimes is already had instances where the daily grind of shooting innocents is getting to him. Chester Martin went in and helped kill an entire town, just gunning people down in the street. Moss had his family killed by a terrorist and then became a terrorist himself. If this was 'reality' do you think he ever wondered at night after killing and raping random women that this is how the canadian terrorists felt? It is exactly the same thing. Just because the US hasn't gotten to camps yet(and we don't know that this isn't happening), doesn't mean they won't.
Turtledove will write it as he wishes, and knowing him he'll continue to ignore the hypocrisy of what the US is doing to the populations of Indians, Canadians, Mormans and CSA civilians as being how the CSA started.
I wish he wouldn't. I wish he would take an more even approach then Socialist US good, everyone else Evil.
In the end this book is his best since Blood and Iron. Now mainly that book is so eerily profound because it came out just 2-3 months before 9/11. So I think that makes it better, while this latest book I think he was setting out to make a statement on the world today. Which is much easier to do after the fact.
Exactly. And that is how exactly the slaughter of the CSA black population began. There was a communist revolt, so the CSA handled it by lining up civilians and shooting them, during the great war. As far as they were concerned all blacks were communist traitors and there were no innocents. This spiraled to the freedom party actively building prisons to house all the rebels they captured and political prisoners. The soldiers were feeling the effects of becoming mass murderers so Pinkard has the idea to kill them in masse without shootings.
In this instance the US is lining up little old ladies and shooting them cause as far as they are concerned there are no innocents in the USA.
Which is how it began for the CSA. They started mass killings because they felt the black population needed payback for what they had did during the great war. I don't see how you don't see the parallel of the situation. Is it ok cause the US is just killing white people? If that is how you feel then you are no different than featherston. Would it be ok if the US lined up 1500 Iraqi civilians every time a bomb went off in Iraq and shot them? I sure as hell dont' think it would be. Mass murder is mass murder. You can't sugercoat it.
For those saying it's hardly the same thing. How come? How is this not government mandated? Do you think the US populace and government don't know that every time a bomb goes off in the CSA that they don't just line up 100's off people off the street and shoot them. Often leaving them there to rot.
Pound already wanted to build camps to put CSA civilians into. There were inklings in the book that this may have even been happening. A couple of lines about people dissappearing or going to jail and never coming out, where a couple of characters said they were being 'reduced'.
Also, like I previously said Grimes is already had instances where the daily grind of shooting innocents is getting to him. Chester Martin went in and helped kill an entire town, just gunning people down in the street. Moss had his family killed by a terrorist and then became a terrorist himself. If this was 'reality' do you think he ever wondered at night after killing and raping random women that this is how the canadian terrorists felt? It is exactly the same thing. Just because the US hasn't gotten to camps yet(and we don't know that this isn't happening), doesn't mean they won't.
Turtledove will write it as he wishes, and knowing him he'll continue to ignore the hypocrisy of what the US is doing to the populations of Indians, Canadians, Mormans and CSA civilians as being how the CSA started.
I wish he wouldn't. I wish he would take an more even approach then Socialist US good, everyone else Evil.
In the end this book is his best since Blood and Iron. Now mainly that book is so eerily profound because it came out just 2-3 months before 9/11. So I think that makes it better, while this latest book I think he was setting out to make a statement on the world today. Which is much easier to do after the fact.
Last edited:
Okay there is a difference between occupation duty, and the government calling for geneocide. Yes the US are lining up confederates, and Canadians but the real question is will they do it without insurgent actions?
I do not think they would. The Americans all come off as not really wanting to do what they do, but knowing that something has to scare the confederates. The comments on population reduction by the US never sounds like there are camps, it sounds more like they are just scaring the Southerners.
I do not think they would. The Americans all come off as not really wanting to do what they do, but knowing that something has to scare the confederates. The comments on population reduction by the US never sounds like there are camps, it sounds more like they are just scaring the Southerners.