My opinion of Stirling's ISOT and Emberverse Series

[Susano]

Europe includes Russia and Belorus, by definition Europe stretches out to the Urals and includes all the countries west of the Urals on that landmass. People still do go to prison in Russia and Belorus for speaking their minds, and I feel a Russian would be alot more skilled in staying politically correct as far as his own country defines it and thus staying out of prison. Most Belorussians and Russians develop these skills from early childhood, American kids are taught that the truth is always better. Well in Russia, telling certain truths to the wrong people can land you in big trouble - this is no slur, it is a fact. Some European countries are better about free speech than others of course. In Great Britian, you can get away with saying alot more than you can in Russia for instance.

What? Because Belarussia is a dictatorship, I have less experience withf ree speech? Youre getting more unintentionally hilarious by the minute

 

[Kyronea]

One thing about his books that really bothers me--though it's hardly limited to him--is that he seems to think that there's no such thing as consensual bondage or BDSM type activities when it comes to sex.

I mean, with the amount of sex he puts in his books, nowhere is BDSM part of consenual activities. It is always the purview of the villains and includes rape, as well as torture that is far beyond anything one would see in a consensual BDSM relationship.

The way I see it, if you're going to use sex, at least have one of your heroes be interested in that subject. More tolerance is requested by me.

Also, his Emberverse series was absolutely boring. I gave up partway into the third book and was only interested in looking back because of the possibility of explaining why Nantucket went into the past. (ISOT was a much better series.)

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

I am posting from North Korea. All hail our glorious comrade Kim Jong-Il!

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Thank you, I had no idea that it was possible to impersonate someone online! FYI, I am not actually the Democratic Senator from Montana, just in case you were wondering.

S.M. Stirling is well-known for maintaining an active online presence in AH-related sites. He has never complained on this site or elsewhere that someone was impersonating him on alternatehistory.com, which is hardly an obscure site if you move in AH circles. Also, he was specifically banned when someone brought up comments he had made elsewhere and pointed out they were bannable here and he said "I said that before and I still believe it!"

Ok, perhaps it was him. Maybe he just said the offensive remark as a form of protest over the heavy censorship on this forum. I do think S.M. Stirling is a major contributor to the genre of Alternate History, someone famous like him, I would not want to ban. I've got a few of his books on my shelf, I don't have the Draka series so I can't comment on that. By they way where does the term ISOT which is used so frequently on this forum come from? Why its the initials for Island on the Sea Of Time A whole Genre is named after the title of his book, there is another author who writes the same kind of books, his name is Eric Flint, I've read in some biographies about him that he is a Trotskite socialist, from his books and his characters, he does seem a bit Pro-Union, his Ring of FIre series does not in principle seem all that different from Stirlings Island in the Sea of Time series.

How would you compare the Island in the Sea of Time with the Ring of Fire series? I can see how they are similar, in both a piece of real estate from America gets transferred back in time in Stirlings case its back to 1250 BC, in Flint's case its to 1632, 1633, 1634, and 1635 AD. Flint has also turned his setting into a bit of an anthology, and as far as I know Stirling has not done the same with his ISOT series. Can you find any other differences?

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

Ok, perhaps it was him. Maybe he just said the offensive remark as a form of protest over the heavy censorship on this forum.

Did you read where I said he reiterated a comment he made elsewhere where he said "kill all the Muslims"?

And on a completely unrelated not, to which "heavy censorship on this forum" are you referring? Because if you haven't noticed, this forum is very lightly moderated in comparison to most forums of comparable size.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

How would you compare the Island in the Sea of Time with the Ring of Fire series? I can see how they are similar, in both a piece of real estate from America gets transferred back in time in Stirlings case its back to 1250 BC, in Flint's case its to 1632, 1633, 1634, and 1635 AD. Flint has also turned his setting into a bit of an anthology, and as far as I know Stirling has not done the same with his ISOT series. Can you find any other differences?

I read the original ISOT trilogy and the first 1632 book. I didn't really enjoy either and am not interested in pursuing any sequels. The only real difference I saw is that Stirling's settings and plots were a bit more imaginative and Flint's characters a lot more real and less two-dimensional.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

One thing about his books that really bothers me--though it's hardly limited to him--is that he seems to think that there's no such thing as consensual bondage or BDSM type activities when it comes to sex.

I mean, with the amount of sex he puts in his books, nowhere is BDSM part of consenual activities. It is always the purview of the villains and includes rape, as well as torture that is far beyond anything one would see in a consensual BDSM relationship.

The way I see it, if you're going to use sex, at least have one of your heroes be interested in that subject. More tolerance is requested by me.

Also, his Emberverse series was absolutely boring. I gave up partway into the third book and was only interested in looking back because of the possibility of explaining why Nantucket went into the past. (ISOT was a much better series.)

I was never much interested in Emberverse, where technology has pretty much stopped working. I was wondering though, does magic work there? are their wizards who can cast spells, priests who can heal people, are their gods and monsters. One Dungeons and Dragons convention is that technology doesn't work. Is that where Emberverse is going, or is it just a place where technology doesn't work forcing people to swing swords at each other?

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

I read the original ISOT trilogy and the first 1632 book. I didn't really enjoy either and am not interested in pursuing any sequels. The only real difference I saw is that Stirling's settings and plots were a bit more imaginative and Flint's characters a lot more real and less two-dimensional.

Well Flint's series has alot more authors in it and Stirlings has just one. Alot of the authors aren't as socialist and left leaning as Flint is. The is a character named John Chandler Simpson, whp is a bit of a foil for the novel 1632's main character Mike Stearns, he was portrayed as the sterotypical "Evil Capitalist" in that book. In later books other authors have taken over that character and portrayed him in a more sympathetic light in such a way that he wasn't all bad. Capitalists are good for somethings after all it seems, they have skills that can prove useful in many different situations after all. Multiple authors tend to make characters more three dimensional when viewed from different perspectives.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

Well Flint's series has alot more authors in it and Stirlings has just one. Alot of the authors aren't as socialist and left leaning as Flint is. The is a character named John Chandler Simpson, whp is a bit of a foil for the novel 1632's main character Mike Stearns, he was portrayed as the sterotypical "Evil Capitalist" in that book. In later books other authors have taken over that character and portrayed him in a more sympathetic light in such a way that he wasn't all bad. Capitalists are good for somethings after all it seems, they have skills that can prove useful in many different situations after all. Multiple authors tend to make characters more three dimensional when viewed from different perspectives.

I only read the first book, so I can't comment on that.

 

[Calgacus]

I read the original ISOT trilogy and the first 1632 book. I didn't really enjoy either and am not interested in pursuing any sequels. The only real difference I saw is that Stirling's settings and plots were a bit more imaginative and Flint's characters a lot more real and less two-dimensional.

Their political angle is a bit different. Flint is a former union organiser I think, and possibly a socialist - certainly he has some left-leaning philosophy in his books, although like Stirling he subscribes pretty fully to the idea of the "benevolent dictator". I guess that's pretty common to Fantasy/Sci-Fi, but Flint at least has more democratic elements in his books - his "great man" is more of a consul, constrained by other political factions. Stirling doesn't seem to think that way so much - it's notable how negative his portrayal of Corvallis is (in the Emberverse books); indecisive, greedy, blind to danger.

 

[Calgacus]

Ok, perhaps it was him. Maybe he just said the offensive remark as a form of protest over the heavy censorship on this forum. I do think S.M. Stirling is a major contributor to the genre of Alternate History, someone famous like him, I would not want to ban.

People get different treatment depending on how famous they are?

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

Their political angle is a bit different. Flint is a former union organiser I think, and possibly a socialist - certainly he has some left-leaning philosophy in his books, although like Stirling he subscribes pretty fully to the idea of the "benevolent dictator". I guess that's pretty common to Fantasy/Sci-Fi, but Flint at least has more democratic elements in his books - his "great man" is more of a consul, constrained by other political factions. Stirling doesn't seem to think that way so much - it's notable how negative his portrayal of Corvallis is (in the Emberverse books); indecisive, greedy, blind to danger.

I'm aware Flint is a hardcore leftist, but it really didn't come across in the one book I read. His characters and situations were a lot more believable, but a lot of that might just have been a function of the setting being more mundane and the scope less epic. Honestly, between the two, I guess I'd recommend Stirling, though I'd really rather recommend "Why Bother?"

 

[Ravynstone]

I rather enjoyed the ISOT books, as brain candy, but the Emberverse books just got on my last nerve. Particularly, the character of Juniper Mackenzie whose every other thought seemed to be "Goddess this" or "Goddess that." I got through the first two Emberverse books on sheer inertia, and put down the third about halfway through. Recently, I picked up The Peshawar Lancers, but I don't think I'm going to finish it as I find myself actively disliking most of the characters.

 

[Ian the Admin]

I can make a clever argument here and get banned

I think you really don't need to worry about that.

 

[Archangel Michael]

I like it when members assume that the First Amendment protects them on the Internet. Guess what - it doesn't. If the Admin doesn't like what you're posting, he can get rid of you.

 

[Kyronea]

I was never much interested in Emberverse, where technology has pretty much stopped working. I was wondering though, does magic work there? are their wizards who can cast spells, priests who can heal people, are their gods and monsters. One Dungeons and Dragons convention is that technology doesn't work. Is that where Emberverse is going, or is it just a place where technology doesn't work forcing people to swing swords at each other?

Certainly not, and I think you'll find that you're wrong about that supposition about Dungeon and Dragons conventions as well.

Generally speaking, technology stops working due to some effect regarding suppressing voltages and the ability of gasses to act or something. Basically allowing neural impulses and such that animals depend upon to continue working, but preventing high powered devices such as batteries or cars or what have you from functioning.

From what I got into--which was as far as partway through the third book--there was absolutely no sign of any magic or spell casting or anything of that nature, beyond Juniper McKenzie going, at one point, into a berserker rage, which isn't a supernatural phenomena but a scientifically understood one that has no bearing in magic at all.

Now, mind, I've heard that there is some slight evidence of it--or at least the belief in it--in later novels, but I can't say that for a fact, having not read them and not planning to read them.

 

[Malta]

Certainly not, and I think you'll find that you're wrong about that supposition about Dungeon and Dragons conventions as well.

Generally speaking, technology stops working due to some effect regarding suppressing voltages and the ability of gasses to act or something. Basically allowing neural impulses and such that animals depend upon to continue working, but preventing high powered devices such as batteries or cars or what have you from functioning.

From what I got into--which was as far as partway through the third book--there was absolutely no sign of any magic or spell casting or anything of that nature, beyond Juniper McKenzie going, at one point, into a berserker rage, which isn't a supernatural phenomena but a scientifically understood one that has no bearing in magic at all.

Now, mind, I've heard that there is some slight evidence of it--or at least the belief in it--in later novels, but I can't say that for a fact, having not read them and not planning to read them.

I hope not, that would just ruin my day.

Granted I don't mind Divine Intervention-Interaction as we have been seeing lately (Deamonic Possession-Backstabber guy and the Unabomber's son, Rudy and Odin, and Father Ignatius and Holy Mary).

On that note the level of Divinity does seem interesting. There appears to be a Good ASB-Gods (Odin, Mary) vs the Bad ASB-God-Deamons (CUT's possession thing).

 

[drakkon]

Have either of you ever actually met Stirling in person? Did he, in person, actually tell you what his e-mail account was, did he pull out a laptop in front of you and actually type out a post on this forum and submit it in front of your eyes?

Never met him in person, however I'm a member of Stirling's Yahoo group, and I can assure you it was him who got banned here.

 

[Brian Boru]

I hope not, that would just ruin my day.

Granted I don't mind Divine Intervention-Interaction as we have been seeing lately (Deamonic Possession-Backstabber guy and the Unabomber's son, Rudy and Odin, and Father Ignatius and Holy Mary).

On that note the level of Divinity does seem interesting. There appears to be a Good ASB-Gods (Odin, Mary) vs the Bad ASB-God-Deamons (CUT's possession thing).

Wait, the prophet was the famous Unabomber, that lunatic? Oh heaven help the Emberverse world.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Wait, the prophet was the famous Unabomber, that lunatic? Oh heaven help the Emberverse world.

Yep. He was the Prophet all right.

Apparently he escaped from prison during the Change, traveled across the entire Western US (wow, in those conditions), and came across the cult.