1862
By Robert Conroy
ISBN 978-0345482372
One star out of five.
Pros: Not Stars and Stripes Forever.
Cons: Too much like Stars and Stripes Forever.
Some editors say you can throw out an author's first book; it usually takes an author until their second book to grasp all the elements of storytelling and making a plot interesting for a reader. Unfortunately, 1862 is behind the curve. As Robert Conroy's second alternate history book, I had hopes this would be better than 1901, his first published work. Unfortunately, it's not. 1862 repeats the same flaws of 1901 by using flat characters, cracker-thin heroic figures, and poor research, then aggravates them by setting the story in a far less unique setting than 1901. His first story at least had the virtue of having not been done since the early 20th century; this doesn't even have that.
1862 is yet another Trent War book, and like the Stars and Stripes Forever series, it's an utter Ameriwank that ignores the facts on the ground in order to cast a scenario that has the United States victorious over Britain, France, and the Confederate States all together, thus undoubtedly setting the stage for a glorious, happy, vanilla American empire.
The story is told through a series of historical characters, such as Lord Palmerston and Winfield Scott, and one ahistorical character, Nathan Hunter, an aide to Scott. The historical characters are all stereotypes -- Scott as a heroic leader, Palmerston as an evil, conniving machinator, and Lincoln as the gallant man shouldering the burdens of his country. Never mind the fact that none of these men filled those roles in reality. Hunter is, of course, an all-American boy who fought the Indians in the west, ran into a bit of disgrace, and is now available to serve Scott, who conveniently puts him right at the scene of every major battle in the war but still leaves him time for a trite romance.
I won't go into much detail about the fighting depicted in this story -- it's dull and unrealistic, without even the over-the-top fun absurdity that the Stars and Stripes Forever series had. Instead, this story is just as absurd, but tries to play itself straight, and the effect is utter failure. The United States in 1862 was in no position to fight the Confederate States and the world's two great powers: France and Britain. Any attempt to do so would have resulted in catastrophe. Britain alone outweighed the United States militarily, diplomatically, industrially, and economically. And that's without the Union rent by secession and France thrown into the mix.
If you want a realistic Trent War scenario, read the first scenario in the anthology Dixie Victorious, edited by Peter Tsouras. If you want a fun, over-the-top one, read the Stars and Stripes Forever series. But as fish nor fowl, don't read 1862, which tries for both and instead falls short of each.
By Robert Conroy
ISBN 978-0345482372
One star out of five.
Pros: Not Stars and Stripes Forever.
Cons: Too much like Stars and Stripes Forever.
Some editors say you can throw out an author's first book; it usually takes an author until their second book to grasp all the elements of storytelling and making a plot interesting for a reader. Unfortunately, 1862 is behind the curve. As Robert Conroy's second alternate history book, I had hopes this would be better than 1901, his first published work. Unfortunately, it's not. 1862 repeats the same flaws of 1901 by using flat characters, cracker-thin heroic figures, and poor research, then aggravates them by setting the story in a far less unique setting than 1901. His first story at least had the virtue of having not been done since the early 20th century; this doesn't even have that.
1862 is yet another Trent War book, and like the Stars and Stripes Forever series, it's an utter Ameriwank that ignores the facts on the ground in order to cast a scenario that has the United States victorious over Britain, France, and the Confederate States all together, thus undoubtedly setting the stage for a glorious, happy, vanilla American empire.
The story is told through a series of historical characters, such as Lord Palmerston and Winfield Scott, and one ahistorical character, Nathan Hunter, an aide to Scott. The historical characters are all stereotypes -- Scott as a heroic leader, Palmerston as an evil, conniving machinator, and Lincoln as the gallant man shouldering the burdens of his country. Never mind the fact that none of these men filled those roles in reality. Hunter is, of course, an all-American boy who fought the Indians in the west, ran into a bit of disgrace, and is now available to serve Scott, who conveniently puts him right at the scene of every major battle in the war but still leaves him time for a trite romance.
I won't go into much detail about the fighting depicted in this story -- it's dull and unrealistic, without even the over-the-top fun absurdity that the Stars and Stripes Forever series had. Instead, this story is just as absurd, but tries to play itself straight, and the effect is utter failure. The United States in 1862 was in no position to fight the Confederate States and the world's two great powers: France and Britain. Any attempt to do so would have resulted in catastrophe. Britain alone outweighed the United States militarily, diplomatically, industrially, and economically. And that's without the Union rent by secession and France thrown into the mix.
If you want a realistic Trent War scenario, read the first scenario in the anthology Dixie Victorious, edited by Peter Tsouras. If you want a fun, over-the-top one, read the Stars and Stripes Forever series. But as fish nor fowl, don't read 1862, which tries for both and instead falls short of each.
Wasn't the man senile by '62?
