TL 191: Where Did Turtledove Go Wrong?

TL 191 is what Harry Turtledove is perhaps best known for, but it has also drawn a lot of criticism; mostly, it seems, on the later entries in the series. And I would agree on the criticisms of the latter entries; to be specific the Second Great War portion of that series. I think it was an idea with great promise, which was executed rather well during the First World War portion, but then went off rails afterward where it became too much rubberband history, the OTL people in ATL roles became a bit silly and that idea became a stereotype of itself, and it didn't feel like a unique world unto itself, exploring itself.

So where did Turtledove go wrong with the TL 191 series?
 
In the later books, I wish he would have made Potter into something other than just a yesman for Featherston. What that would be I'm that sure exactly.
 
clarence potter

From what I read clarence potter was anything but a yes man. He was probably the one that could tell Jake Featherston the truth and get away with it. I mean he went to Richmond in 1936 to kill him, but instead saved his life. Which he regretted later on. Also, he knew about Nathan Bedford forrest coup plot, and did nothing to stop it. He was not a Freedom Party stooge,but he was a confederate patriot, their was a difference.
 
From what I read clarence potter was anything but a yes man. He was probably the one that could tell Jake Featherston the truth and get away with it. I mean he went to Richmond in 1936 to kill him, but instead saved his life. Which he regretted later on. Also, he knew about Nathan Bedford forrest coup plot, and did nothing to stop it. He was not a Freedom Party stooge,but he was a confederate patriot, their was a difference.

I think Patton also got away with being blunt to Jake.
 
I think a big missed opportunity of the series is that Turtledove didn't expand the story beyond North America enough. After the Great War trilogy, we got two major AH premises for the price of one: a Confederate victory in the ACW AND a Central Powers victory in World War I. But the latter aspect of this TL was never explored to its fullest potential.

I really wanted to know more about what was going on in this alternate Europe (and the rest of the world too). How is the German Empire taking to victory? Are Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire improving after being on the winning side, or are they still teetering on the brink of collapse? How did the Russian Civil War end up resulting in a tsarist victory, and what were things like once the Tsar reasserted his power? How demoralized are the people of France from having lost to Germany a second time, and how is that influencing their culture, and play into the rise of Action Francaise? What is the state of things in Britain? How about in Japan, which is continuing to grow in power, and remains untouched by war?

All of these could've had a lot of potential, moving beyond the American focus to really show how the world would've been different when this second AH premise is added. But the references are few and far between, and this is really disappointing.

I think another aspect of this is just how boring and straightforward the makeup of the Second Great War is. Put it this way: the First Great War pitted Britain, France, Tsarist Russia, and the Confederate States against the United States, the Kaiser's Germany, and Austria-Hungary.

The Second Great War...pitted Britain, France, Tsarist Russia, and the Confederate States against the United States, the Kaiser's Germany, and Austria-Hungary. Just with bigger tanks and more genocide.

I joked in a previous thread about how high school kids in the TL-191 are going to flunk their history tests in the millions. How are they ever going to keep these two wars straight?

It would've been a much better idea to switch the alliances around between Great Wars, so that they're not carbon copies of each other. I once read another user give a potential example of a different makeup: the increasingly Socialist United States helps the Reds win the Russian Civil War, which angers Germany and aggravates the already increasing imperial tension between the two victors. To counter the U.S., Germany and Britain reconcile and form a postwar alliance. France still wants revenge against Germany, and allies with their enemies. Meanwhile, the Confederate States still smolder for revenge against the United States. The war ends up seeing the United States, the Soviet Union, and France vs. the Confederate States, Britain, Germany, and Austria-Hungary.
 
spit and polish

He did, but he also pulled the same stunt with slapping a soldier as in the OTL, and Featherston was not happy with it. Also, in couple of meetings Patton showed to much spit and polish for Jake liking. Also, though Patton did speak his mind, he still followed orders without question. Unfortunately he could be compared to the OTL Hood. Both men wasted an army trying to stop the Yankee's from taking Atlanta and failed.
 
Depends on each and every reader, I think. There are some who think it went wrong the moment Turtledove penned the first Great War novel, and some, like my roommate, who didn't think it went wrong at all, and enjoyed the series from beginning to end.
 
Personally I think How Few Remain couldn't have happened the way it did for the following reason:

- if the Union lost the Civil War for whatever reason, I imagine they would really want to get back at those damnable Rebs. While Revanchism would not be as serious as the post-Second Mexican War era in canon, I imagine it'll push the government to prepare for war rather aggressively (you know, border skirmishes and stuff). Of course it can still lose to the CS-UK-France coalition, but it wouldn't be as bad as it was in the book

As for the WWI-WWII analogues: I guess if Harry T is pandering to your average readers who couldn't really fathom the true effects of butterflies (and let's face it, we deal with it in a near-daily basis and even we have troubles doing so) he had to keep the really famous historical events roughly similar, or with easily recognizable analogues. Same goes for historical characters.

Marc A
 
How Few Remain was an excellent book. While the Great War trilogy was still quite good, IMHO he really started to go off the rails at the begining of that trilogy falling for the trope that Wilson, since he was born in Virginia, would be CSA President in the same time frame as his tenure as US President. Wilson was a fluke as USA president and no way someone like him would rise to the political top of an aristo dominated country such as 1914 CSA. TR yes, he was a force of nature in real life and certainly would have found his way to power in OTL and any parallel ATL USA, but not Professor Woody. That was the start of the slippery slope and then after the Great War the all too sloppy parallels between the defeated CSA and Defeated OLT Germany and the paths of their frustrated non-coms doomed the series. I also agree that I wanted more, much more, about the evolution of Europe and Asia in the ATL post-Great War. (Personal bias - I am a die hard Habsburg loyalist, so lets go A-H and Emperor Franz II in this ATL.) I admit that I read the series to the bitter end, all the way to Sam Carsten's bleeding mole, but in retrospect HT got lazy no later than the first book of American Empire and was dialing it in for cash after that. And that's a pity.
 

Japhy

Banned
American Empire wasn't that fun because at that point it sort of like watching a Prequel, you know how its going to end, the US is going to somehow lose all of this power and get jumped by the Confeder-Nazis, who were going to come in power at just the right time to allow WWII.

It wasn't that hard to figure out that stuff, the Socialists just slicing everything to pieces, Featherston losing steam and having to regain it, etc. etc. ad. nausium. The fact that to allow it he had to put in things like the scene where Upton Sinclair and the Blackfords talk about "Who needs socialist redistribution and legislation, much less regulation when the worker's can buy shares of the means of production?" and the forced two term administration of what's-his-name the only CS president between Hampton and Featherston. And the greatest sin, that stupid damned Japanese-American War that started for no reason, humiliated the United States drastically, and somehow ended with no impact except to make Blackford look like the worst President since Lincoln, which he was already going to be.

Thats not to say I didn't like the Victorious Opposition when I got to it, but the two books before it put a bad taste in my mouth, and by the end of Return Engagement I was having a very bad feeling about what was to come. I'd admit I wasn't pleasantly relived by the time things had dragged to the end of In At the Death.
 
the end

you know, I enjoyed this series from the begining to the end. But I always wondered why he didn't continue the series after In at the death. their was still so much more to tell. He did the same thing with the days of infamy/ end of the begining series.
 
TL-191 Redux

This was my attempt.

yet here is what occurs...

  1. The CSA is run by Heuy Long in the long run, and while a dictatorship it is more like South Africa then Nazi Germany.
  2. The US makes Canada into multiple nation states cutting down occupation needs, and in the most part the US post war has a single conflict not with Japan but with Russia over alaska. This is used by the Socialist government to show a big standing army is not needed, hell they even debate if conscription is needed.
  3. Japan makes aggressive moves... but does so while courting Germany, and the US. Namely as looking at the map why fight the US when all of those juicy european colonies are sitting there?
  4. WWII occurs in a similar manner in that the death of the Kaiser makes many think they can tackle germany.
  5. The CSA likewise goes to war in a similar fashion, cause I will say the idea to split the US is a smart one given the region and the terrian.
  6. Now the war has NO genocide at all but the idea of enslaving the blacks to work factories and farms to free up soldiers is a viable plan.
  7. Out in Europe the war enters german lands, but it is more static given more narrow areas, compared to the United states.
  8. Germany gets a nuclear bomb so does the US.
  9. Despite differences the Germans and Americans are allies and in effect THE world police. So post-war is a bipolar world, but said powers are allies and with the mutal interest in securing the world from war.
 

Thande

Donor
I think from The Great War onwards he went too far down the "People's War" road of having exclusively 'ordinary people' as viewpoint characters - he should have thrown in some historical viewpoint characters as in How Few Remain to give it more depth of characterisation.

Also, American Empire should just have been one book as he'd originally planned, and he should have brought more original ideas to Settling Accounts. Great War had a fair few original ideas and he tended to just let them fall by the wayside as it went along, until in Settling Accounts despite the lengths of the book, a lot of the depth of difference of the setting seemed to be forgotten. It was so easy to forget that this alt-USA has a Socialist Party and a history of French-style revanchism, it felt too identical to the OTL USA. The 'earlier war on terror' angle was a tad out of place too IMO.
 
you know, I enjoyed this series from the begining to the end. But I always wondered why he didn't continue the series after In at the death. their was still so much more to tell. He did the same thing with the days of infamy/ end of the begining series.

Because the point had been made- that Americans were just as capable of producing and living through the European horrors of the two world wars as the Europeans themselves?

Also, American Empire should just have been one book as he'd originally planned, and he should have brought more original ideas to Settling Accounts. Great War had a fair few original ideas and he tended to just let them fall by the wayside as it went along, until in Settling Accounts despite the lengths of the book, a lot of the depth of difference of the setting seemed to be forgotten. It was so easy to forget that this alt-USA has a Socialist Party and a history of French-style revanchism, it felt too identical to the OTL USA. The 'earlier war on terror' angle was a tad out of place too IMO.

American Empire was supposed to be just one book? I have never heard that one.
 

Thande

Donor
Because the point had been made- that Americans were just as capable of producing and living through the European horrors of the two world wars as the Europeans themselves?
That's half the point. The other half is that Europe is not intrinsically different to America, and that Americans would have similar social values and attitudes to the state if they had had the same historical experience as Europeans. Basically I took the overall philosophical drive of the project as mainly being an attack on American exceptionalism, both in its positive and negative forms (US: "America doesn't do X like Europe because we're so awesome" / Europe: "America doesn't do X like Europe because they're so dumb").

Trotsky said:
American Empire was supposed to be just one book? I have never heard that one.
To be precise, he originally planned to simply write one more Great War book called "The Great War: Settling Accounts". I'm not sure of the details, but I would speculate that this would have more briefly told the story of the interwar period and the Freedom Party's rise in the CSA, and probably ended with the outbreak of the second war--which I tend to think he wouldn't have actually written about, or would have come back to it later if there was demand.

This goes a way towards explaining why there is so little meat to the American Empire and Settling Accounts books - he never really bothered to develop enough content for more than one book and only did it that way to put his kids through college (according to Flocc who I believe got it from an interview with him).
 
How Few Remain was a very good stand-alone, and the hint that there would be a German-US alliance in the future made me look forward to more books set in the 1900's even before I realized HT had this series in the works.

Then the disappointments began.

My biggest disappointment with the whole series was a sense of missed opportunities. Turtledove began with a well-reasoned, plausible, and interesting background of global alliances with the USA and CSA logically on different sides. His extrapolotations of culture and society in 1914 USA and CSA was also well imagined, and the impression given that North America and the world in general was less prosperous and more autocratic than OTL rang true. I also rather liked the fact that neither the USA nor the CSA was presented positively, and that there was not a clear or positive end to the series. I saw the books as both a critique (as Thande mentioned) of American exceptionalism but also an implication that, without a unified and democratic USA, the 20th century would have been even worse overall.


Such an interesting 20th century deserved to be presented (at least occasionally) from a global perspective - both with knowledgable PoV characters and narrative devices such as newspaper articles, chapter prefaces, and the like. Instead, he populated the series with an almost infinite number of "plain folks" PoV charcters, many who were redundant, and most of whom could barely see beyond their own noses. Some of the characters, especially those that explored race relations and the culture of the increasingly genocidal CSA, were very interesting, but I could have done with a lot fewer frontline grunts, housewives, and the like saying the same things all the time.

What could have improved the series in my mind:

1. Put the whole 50-year span into at most 4 books, one each focusing on a key period in this history, rather than draw it out as a nearly year-by-account.

2. With a few exceptions (Scipio, Featherstone, and some of the "real" people,for example) don't keep the same PoV characters in each volume. Also, make more use of high-level characters (chancellors, ambassadors, presidents, foreign ministers, etc) to tell the broad historical narrative.

3. Although I understand that the purpose of the series was to explore an alternate North American, not world, history, I'd have liked to see more from the European side of things...but please not from PoV characters in the trenches!

4. While I think the historical parallelism in the series (the almost one-for-one duplication of OTL WW1 and WW2 events in North America down to the holocaust) was a legitimate literary device to emphasize Turtledove's views about American exceptionalism and not intended as an effort to present a plausible alternate history (something with which I have no objection), it was overdone to the point that it almost became comical. Surely he could have created campaigns and battles that in concept were unique to this TL (naval battles on the Great lakes with mini-dreadoughts for example, or combatants employing different technologies that were explored or considered in OTL (zeppelin aircraft carriers, cruiser submarines, hybrid cruiser/carriers, etc).
 
Last edited:
I would like to point out that he is an author of fiction not serious alternate histiography (if there even is such a thing). He's in it for profit and to write an interesting (debatable) story to entertain the masses.
 
I would like to point out that he is an author of fiction not serious alternate histiography (if there even is such a thing). He's in it for profit and to write an interesting (debatable) story to entertain the masses.

Excellent point, but I would point out that most of my compaints about the TL-191 series are not about his "alternate historography" - which I found both broadly plausible and fascinating - but his technique as a writer of fiction.
 
Things that really, really annoyed me, are especially two tiny mistakes in the books.

I. Sylvia Enos writes a book called "I sank Roger Kimball", later it is called "I shoot Roger Kimball".

II. Scipio/Xerxes is discribed as speaking educated "whiteman" English and his Congaree dialect almost as two different languages, not beeing able to do something in between, hiding his educated language from everone eccept his family; but there are at least two references to his son Cassius (Madison) speaking more educated than his pals because of his father.


-And I never understood the reason why Scipio informed Anne Colleton of the whereabouts of the rebels lead by Cassius and Cherry. (Untill now I never realised that there are two Cassius in the series, did Scipio really name his son after the man he betrayed?)
 
Top