Discussion:
Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
(too old to reply)
Raymond Speer
2003-09-06 19:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Cozart Port, October 1248 BC

Dave Cozart welcomed the boat that sailed in from Nantucket. There had
been some hostile feelings over the departure of Cozart and his pals
from Nantucket some years earlier, when Steve Stirling had been a City
Councilman and derided Cozart and anyone else who had sympathy for the
Original Americans. The Draka -- as Sterling and his supporters were
scornfully known-- had gone to Europe to build empires and the successor
regime, run by Carlos Yu, was considerably more friendly than Sterling
had been.

Coyu was busy enough keeping less than eight thousand people alive
through the equivalent of a depression so bad that electricity had
ceased to function. And there was nowhere to buy modern services and
items. The Nantuckers might survive, but their descendents would, at
best, be Iron Age tribesmen with literacy.

The skipper of the ship waved at Cozart as his ship slipped into its
dock.

"Speer has found his swimming giant sloth," the skipper announced,
turning over to Cozart a pile of newspapers and journals. "It is rare
and only twelve feet long, but he did find it in Argentina, which he
named New Nebraska."

"That is the big news?"

"Well, you and Speer were obviously right. Stirling's "breathe on a
native and kill them" theory is crap. There are at least 75,000
Amerinds in New England and they are all healthy. Mike Stone is an
ancient day Dr Livingston, going from tribe to tribe and spreading to
them the gospel that he knows."

"Whatever floats his boat," commented Cozart.

"Life as a hardscrabble farmer or fisherman is horribly hard work with
few surpluses and few comforts. Stirling was also wrong about his crap
on women wanting to be baby machines only they realize there is a
continent of wilderness to tame."

"What wasn't that retard wrong on?" asked Cozart. "He had absolutely no
historical data on the Olmec, but wrote them off as stereotype cannibal
savages. He went to Britain and took sides in a war, assuming that one
side were good matriachal guys and the other were baddies. Remember that
poor Coast Guard Captain? He convinced her to make lesbo advances to a
tribal princess and got the woman executed."

Cozart shuddered. Stirling had decided that he and his fellow "20th
centurions" were going to run the world of 1250 AD. But having read of
Napoleon and Caesar does not make you Napoleon or Caesar, and Stirling
had lead his followers to massacre. Cozart wondered whatever became of
Steve Stirling.

Tiber River Valley, October 1248 BC

From a good distance, well away from the stench, Prio watched his slave,
Steve, labor, carting buckets of pig poop to fertilize the gardens.
Steve was hard to understand (not all that great a linguist) and
clumsily described things he could not make himself, like a wheelbarrow.
Prio had told the slave that he would take the fertilizer to the garden
manually: Prio was not going to waste his slave's time by letting him
mess with drawings and saws and wood.

Prio was not a cruel man, but he suspected his slave had been while
Steve was a free man. Prio had bought Steve from a Tartessian slave
dealer who had said: "This slave was a king, or at least he lead a
warband against the horse folk in the North Island. He lead his people
into an ambush and the tribe that had followed him declined to ransom
him back and he was sold to me."

Steve had kept on spewing his waste matter in a thick, comical accent.
He spoke of huge refineries of molten iron, and could not recognize iron
ore when he saw it. He spoke of military organization in the thousands,
and could not even manage a three man hunting party. He talked much, and
could do very little.
President Chester A. Arthur
2003-09-06 20:23:25 UTC
Permalink
Aw, Ray, no.


----

"What a shame wood doesn't grow on trees, otherwise you could burn that
for warmth."
-Syd Webb
Bernard Guerrero
2003-09-13 21:43:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Aw, Ray, no.
You sound surprised. The boy's been headed in this direction for a
while now, the recent hysterics being merely the natural end of the
trajectory.

Maybe we'll get to watch him self-destruct! I always love a good
show. :^)

Bernard Guerrero
Bernard Guerrero
2003-09-14 15:11:39 UTC
Permalink
I really appreciate the way you took my concern for a friend and turned it into
a weapon, Bernard. It's certainly not at all out of line given your years of
being a good poster to this newsgroup.
Concern should usually be expressed _prior_ to the car careening off
the cliff, no? Afterwards, it's condolences or rubbernecking.

But I respect friendship and concern therein, so consider any implied
attack rescinded. Back to lurking...

Bernard Guerrero
Faeelin
2003-09-06 21:59:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raymond Speer
Cozart shuddered. Stirling had decided that he and his fellow "20th
centurions" were going to run the world of 1250 AD. But having read of
Napoleon and Caesar does not make you Napoleon or Caesar, and Stirling
had lead his followers to massacre. Cozart wondered whatever became of
Steve Stirling.
Hold it. How does this happen? We're talking about people with guns and
steel weapons. I'll admit that steve's probably going to screw up, by I
can't imagine the people of nantucket not using their technological edge to
do something more than this.
H. Torrance Griffin
2003-09-07 16:29:17 UTC
Permalink
I am sensing hostility here....

HTG
Faeelin
2003-09-07 16:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by H. Torrance Griffin
I am sensing hostility here....
Nigh pathological, I think.

Incidentally, were I a nantucketer, I'd be horribly insulted by anyone
thinking there are people dumb enough to follow steve.
President Chester A. Arthur
2003-09-07 17:44:12 UTC
Permalink
This thread isn't an ISOT thread: it's fanfic. Self-insertion fanfic, to boot.
The fact that I like the original post (quite a lot, in fact) doesn't change
that. No, folks, no.


----

"What a shame wood doesn't grow on trees, otherwise you could burn that
for warmth."
-Syd Webb
Karlito
2003-09-07 17:53:43 UTC
Permalink
WHY the hostility ?
Daniel McCollum
2003-09-07 23:13:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Karlito
WHY the hostility ?
Steve Stirling used to post upon this newsgroup a while back; I
remember at the time thinking it was really cool to have an author
taking part in our discussions. As time went on though, some of his
uglier qualities came out and he began to antagonize some of the
members of this group(to say the least). I still remember the time he
managed to insult every one of my nationalities within a single
topic(one one hand, it WAS kinda impressive but, on the other, he was
being a complete ass)
Daniel McCollum
2003-09-08 18:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel McCollum
Post by Karlito
WHY the hostility ?
Steve Stirling used to post upon this newsgroup a while back; I
remember at the time thinking it was really cool to have an author
taking part in our discussions. As time went on though, some of his
uglier qualities came out and he began to antagonize some of the
members of this group(to say the least). I still remember the time he
managed to insult every one of my nationalities within a single
topic(one one hand, it WAS kinda impressive but, on the other, he was
being a complete ass)
Oh, I'm not denying he's an ass. And Raymond's was funny. I just don't think
he's worth the hatred you people give him.
Oh, I really don't care enough about him to hate him perse'; his
little anti-Irish and anti-polish comments miffed me a few months ago
but thats all gone and done as far as I'm concerned. My little Post I
did with the Walses interlude above was just for whimsy and(to tell
you the truth) I'm rather embarrised about it right now(got bored on a
Sat night before goign ot visit some friends).
Majin Kai
2003-09-11 03:23:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel McCollum
Post by Karlito
WHY the hostility ?
Steve Stirling used to post upon this newsgroup a while back; I
remember at the time thinking it was really cool to have an author
taking part in our discussions. As time went on though, some of his
uglier qualities came out and he began to antagonize some of the
members of this group(to say the least). I still remember the time he
managed to insult every one of my nationalities within a single
topic(one one hand, it WAS kinda impressive but, on the other, he was
being a complete ass)
Was he really that much of a mushroom? I'm not a huge fan of the ISOT
genre myself but I found the Nantucket books amusing while I read
them, which I did twice actually! Stirling seemed opinionated, but who
isn't? Just curious.

Robert
Daniel McCollum
2003-09-11 10:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Majin Kai
Post by Daniel McCollum
Post by Karlito
WHY the hostility ?
Steve Stirling used to post upon this newsgroup a while back; I
remember at the time thinking it was really cool to have an author
taking part in our discussions. As time went on though, some of his
uglier qualities came out and he began to antagonize some of the
members of this group(to say the least). I still remember the time he
managed to insult every one of my nationalities within a single
topic(one one hand, it WAS kinda impressive but, on the other, he was
being a complete ass)
Was he really that much of a mushroom? I'm not a huge fan of the ISOT
genre myself but I found the Nantucket books amusing while I read
them, which I did twice actually! Stirling seemed opinionated, but who
isn't? Just curious.
Robert
Oh, I own all three books and I bought the last two of them the day
they came out. The ISOT series is deeply flawed; it takes itself too
seriously, parts of it are not as well researched as they could be,
the character developement seems lax, ect. However, they ARE fun!

Can Steve be as much of a Mushroom, as you put it? Yup, no doubt
about it. Still, does that mean that the series it self is terrible?
No. Like I said before, though, I actuall feel embarrised about my
little post above, it was a low blow and not very professional.
Majin Kai
2003-09-11 18:38:30 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Daniel McCollum
Oh, I own all three books and I bought the last two of them the day
they came out. The ISOT series is deeply flawed; it takes itself too
seriously, parts of it are not as well researched as they could be,
the character developement seems lax, ect. However, they ARE fun!
I agree that the Nantucket books are fun to read and I admit that I
like the characters to a degree but that's about it. I didn't consider
them to be a triumph of literature, just something to pass the time
with. As to taking themselves to seriously I agree to that too, they
often came off as being a bit too preachy and politically correct: the
Fiernans being Good for being matriarchal and the Tartessians being
Bad for being slavers, for example.
Post by Daniel McCollum
Can Steve be as much of a Mushroom, as you put it? Yup, no doubt
about it. Still, does that mean that the series it self is terrible?
No. Like I said before, though, I actuall feel embarrised about my
little post above, it was a low blow and not very professional.
I read only a few of Stirling's posts here on s.h.w-i but I was able
to conclude that he's a bit too sensitive about certain subjects but
is also pretty damn knowledgeable as well. I never saw him engage in
any mushroom-ism (to create a new term!) but I won't second guess the
veteran posters here. It's really too bad, too, since there've been
forums in the past that I've frequented where authors have posted and
they and the regular crowds there got on just fine.

Robert
Daniel McCollum
2003-09-11 20:55:44 UTC
Permalink
It's really too bad, too, since there've been
Post by Majin Kai
forums in the past that I've frequented where authors have posted and
they and the regular crowds there got on just fine.
Robert
Me to; I've heard that Orson Scott Card is really great; and my
brief interlude in life as a Comic/Sci-Fi Geek lead to me to the
conclusion that Adam Brusiek and JMS are both really great guys.

Personally I'd love to see Turtledove on here. If he could stand a
bit of flaming over some of more recent books, I think he'd get a
better idea of wat the AH community wants. Also, I've noticed that
creativity breeds creativity, so maybe he'd be able to think up some
great stories as well. Oh well though, nichevo
Majin Kai
2003-09-12 03:57:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Majin Kai
It's really too bad, too, since there've been
Post by Majin Kai
forums in the past that I've frequented where authors have posted and
they and the regular crowds there got on just fine.
Robert
Me to; I've heard that Orson Scott Card is really great; and my
brief interlude in life as a Comic/Sci-Fi Geek lead to me to the
conclusion that Adam Brusiek and JMS are both really great guys.
Only geek I am right now is anime/manga geek with a bit of historical
fiction thrown in. I'm presently reading Colleen McCullough's 'First
Man in Rome' and am enjoying it immensely!
Post by Majin Kai
Personally I'd love to see Turtledove on here. If he could stand a
bit of flaming over some of more recent books, I think he'd get a
better idea of wat the AH community wants. Also, I've noticed that
creativity breeds creativity, so maybe he'd be able to think up some
great stories as well. Oh well though, nichevo
I was thinking of alt.fan.dragonlance, where many of the authors have
posted over the years and none of them have been disagreeable. I'd
like to see some of Stirling's past posts here to see if he lives up
to my past experiences with authors.

Robert
Robert J. Gill
2003-09-12 15:06:06 UTC
Permalink
(Majin Kai) wrote: It's really too bad, too, since
there've been forums in the past that I've frequented
where authors have posted and they and the regular
crowds there got on just fine.
(Daniel McCollum) wrote: Me to; I've heard that Orson
Scott Card is really great; and my brief interlude in
life as a Comic/Sci-Fi Geek lead to me to the conclusion
that Adam Brusiek and JMS are both really great guys.
(Majin Kai) wrote: Only geek I am right now is anime/
manga geek with a bit of historical fiction thrown in.
I'm presently reading Colleen McCullough's 'First Man in
Rome' and am enjoying it immensely!
(Daniel McCollum) wrote: Personally I'd love to see
Turtledove on here. If he could stand a bit of flaming
over some of more recent books, I think he'd get a better
idea of wat the AH community wants. Also, I've noticed
that creativity breeds creativity, so maybe he'd be able
to think up some great stories as well. Oh well though,
nichevo
(Majin Kai) wrote: I was thinking of alt.fan.dragonlance,
where many of the authors have posted over the years and
none of them have been disagreeable. I'd like to see some
of Stirling's past posts here to see if he lives up to my
past experiences with authors.



And what about Eric Flint? Given the parallels between the
Nantucket and the 1632 stories, I'm amazed that he hasn't
shown up here. I vaguely recall Coyu expressing reservations
about his inclusion on this newsgroup, although I don't recall
what those reservations are.
Coyu
2003-09-12 18:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Gill
And what about Eric Flint? Given the parallels between the
Nantucket and the 1632 stories, I'm amazed that he hasn't
shown up here. I vaguely recall Coyu expressing reservations
about his inclusion on this newsgroup, although I don't recall
what those reservations are.
Eric Flint used to frequent rasfw. His exchanges are online.

<***@ng-fe1.aol.com>

At least he's accurate with this:

"You want to know what a "realistic" alternate history would
read like? Well, it's simple. A small town gets transported
back into time. Not having excellent leadership, they fumble
around not knowing what to do. Pretty soon they are devastated
by disease and then overrun by mercenaries. Most of them die,
the few survivors leave not much of a trace. Page 50. End of
novel."

but the rest of his comments show a typical wingnut bombast
with little interest in facts if they go against the wank.

Par for the course for his publisher; not worth shwi's time.

Turtledove is at least salvageable.

Frankly, I think he might be lurking anyway.
a***@yahoo.com
2003-09-12 19:03:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Coyu
Post by Robert J. Gill
And what about Eric Flint? Given the parallels between the
Nantucket and the 1632 stories, I'm amazed that he hasn't
shown up here. I vaguely recall Coyu expressing reservations
about his inclusion on this newsgroup, although I don't recall
what those reservations are.
Eric Flint used to frequent rasfw. His exchanges are online.
"You want to know what a "realistic" alternate history would
read like? Well, it's simple. A small town gets transported
back into time. Not having excellent leadership, they fumble
around not knowing what to do. Pretty soon they are devastated
by disease and then overrun by mercenaries. Most of them die,
the few survivors leave not much of a trace. Page 50. End of
novel."
but the rest of his comments show a typical wingnut bombast
with little interest in facts if they go against the wank.
Par for the course for his publisher; not worth shwi's time.
His novels 1632 and 1633 are far worse than the ISOT series for
one-sided military encounters. And the 'rah, rahs' celebrations for
the Americans - sheesh. He writes for Baen, however, so that may
explain why. Give him credit for the above comment, but of course, no
author could get that type of novel published anyway.
Post by Coyu
Turtledove is at least salvageable.
Frankly, I think he might be lurking anyway.
Jack Linthicum
2003-09-12 21:43:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Post by Coyu
Post by Robert J. Gill
And what about Eric Flint? Given the parallels between the
Nantucket and the 1632 stories, I'm amazed that he hasn't
shown up here. I vaguely recall Coyu expressing reservations
about his inclusion on this newsgroup, although I don't recall
what those reservations are.
Eric Flint used to frequent rasfw. His exchanges are online.
"You want to know what a "realistic" alternate history would
read like? Well, it's simple. A small town gets transported
back into time. Not having excellent leadership, they fumble
around not knowing what to do. Pretty soon they are devastated
by disease and then overrun by mercenaries. Most of them die,
the few survivors leave not much of a trace. Page 50. End of
novel."
but the rest of his comments show a typical wingnut bombast
with little interest in facts if they go against the wank.
Par for the course for his publisher; not worth shwi's time.
His novels 1632 and 1633 are far worse than the ISOT series for
one-sided military encounters. And the 'rah, rahs' celebrations for
the Americans - sheesh. He writes for Baen, however, so that may
explain why. Give him credit for the above comment, but of course, no
author could get that type of novel published anyway.
Post by Coyu
Turtledove is at least salvageable.
Frankly, I think he might be lurking anyway.
I used to participate in the Turtledove natter board but it got taken
over by a bunch of rebel thirteen year olds, whose idea of an
intelligent post was to take up all of the sixty slots available with
"nya nya cant catch me". If HT lurks there or has one of his
researchers doing so they are not getting any information, useful or
not.
g***@fortalnet.com.br
2003-09-13 16:37:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Coyu
Post by Robert J. Gill
And what about Eric Flint?
Snip!
Post by Coyu
Frankly, I think he might be lurking anyway.
Couldn't he be posting under an alias?
President Chester A. Arthur
2003-09-13 16:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
Date: 9/13/2003 12:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Post by Coyu
Post by Robert J. Gill
And what about Eric Flint?
Snip!
Post by Coyu
Frankly, I think he might be lurking anyway.
Couldn't he be posting under an alias?
That's far more difficult to manage than you might imagine.

Sincerely Yours,
Wilt Chamberlain


----

"What a shame wood doesn't grow on trees, otherwise you could burn that
for warmth."
-Syd Webb
g***@fortalnet.com.br
2003-09-14 09:19:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Subject: Re: Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
Date: 9/13/2003 12:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
snip!
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Couldn't he be posting under an alias?
That's far more difficult to manage than you might imagine.
The use of "mom de plumme" is an old tradition among writers....
Phillip McGregor
2003-09-14 12:20:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@fortalnet.com.br
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Subject: Re: Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
Date: 9/13/2003 12:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
snip!
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Couldn't he be posting under an alias?
That's far more difficult to manage than you might imagine.
The use of "mom de plumme" is an old tradition among writers....
And a "mom de plume" is what relation, exactly, to a "nom de plume"
;-)

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au
cernunnos
2003-09-14 16:41:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phillip McGregor
Post by g***@fortalnet.com.br
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Subject: Re: Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
Date: 9/13/2003 12:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
snip!
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Couldn't he be posting under an alias?
That's far more difficult to manage than you might imagine.
The use of "mom de plumme" is an old tradition among writers....
And a "mom de plume" is what relation, exactly, to a "nom de plume"
;-)
I imagine it is its mother. :-P
Sam King
2003-09-14 10:48:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Coyu
Eric Flint used to frequent rasfw. His exchanges are online.
"You want to know what a "realistic" alternate history would
read like? Well, it's simple. A small town gets transported
back into time. Not having excellent leadership, they fumble
around not knowing what to do. Pretty soon they are devastated
by disease and then overrun by mercenaries. Most of them die,
the few survivors leave not much of a trace. Page 50. End of
novel."
I don't think that's right. A lot of other small towns survived
in the past. Why would this town be different?
Sam King
2003-09-14 17:01:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam King
Post by Coyu
Eric Flint used to frequent rasfw. His exchanges are online.
"You want to know what a "realistic" alternate history would
read like? Well, it's simple. A small town gets transported
back into time. Not having excellent leadership, they fumble
around not knowing what to do. Pretty soon they are devastated
by disease and then overrun by mercenaries. Most of them die,
the few survivors leave not much of a trace. Page 50. End of
novel."
I don't think that's right. A lot of other small towns survived
in the past. Why would this town be different?
Er...cite for lots of small towns surviving after being transported in time?
Good point. But I was trying to say that the survival chances of a town
sent into the past wouldn't be much worse than those of a town already
there, although it would be unlikely for them to conquer the world.
Majin Kai
2003-09-12 23:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Gill
And what about Eric Flint? Given the parallels between the
Nantucket and the 1632 stories, I'm amazed that he hasn't
shown up here. I vaguely recall Coyu expressing reservations
about his inclusion on this newsgroup, although I don't recall
what those reservations are.
1632 ugh. I honestly tried to like 1632 and I had to make myself even
pick it up the second time, and even then I didn't finish it. It just
came across to me as being yet another ISOT but without as much
technobabble and even more exaggerated characters. I don't know what
other work Eric Flint has done but I won't be picking up 1633 anytime
soon that's for sure!

The last AH book that I read was Hannibal's Children by John Maddox
Roberts and I'm looking forward to the next installment in the series
(which may or may not be out, I'm not sure).
Raymond Speer
2003-09-13 04:29:48 UTC
Permalink
In regard to Eric Flint's 1632 & 1633:

I was pleased by the fact that Flint actually portrayed members of a
labor union as good guys, not loafers and villains. (When you consider
that he is a member of the Baen stable, it is astounding that he made
such a description and even more amazing that it got to the published
page.)

I was moreover impressed by the fact that white blue-collars and
rednecks were not libelled as cretins, psychopaths, and bigots.

Also, I thought Flint did a good job on portraying Wallenstein (and
Richelieu, too, in the sequel). Wallenstein's choice of target for the
raid on the American town makes sense, though it did not occur to me
until after I read that sequence in the book.

But the military scenes --- the ISOTed people don't have the means to
repeatedly shove back armies of the period. So they win unrealistically
in grim tales seemingly lifted from _The Lost Regiment_ series. (Coyu's
excerpt shows that Flint realized that the ISOTees would lose, but
writing realistically ends the book at page 50 with the protagonists
enslaved or scattered.) And the end of the first book is rushed,
horribly compressed. The female sharpshooter's assassination of a major
historical figure is related in a short paragraph. Appropriate for an
entry on a newsgroup, maybe, but under done in the scope of a novel.

On balance, though, I admit that I'm probably going to purchase the
third book in the series. It is the best commerical ISOT that I've seen.
JoatSimeon
2003-09-13 05:46:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raymond Speer
I was pleased by the fact that Flint actually portrayed members of a
labor union as good guys

-- Eric was a labor union organizer for a long time. He's also a Marxist --
Trot, basically.
Post by Raymond Speer
the ISOTed people don't have the means to repeatedly shove back armies of the
period.

-- well, yes, they do.

They have hundreds of magazine rifles, a modern M60 machine gun, a fair amount
of ammunition, and some improvised armored vehicles.

The armies of Central Europe in 1632 were about half-and-half pikemen and
matchlockmen.

The pikemen might as well be unarmed.

Matchlocks had an effective range of 100 yards and could be fired about once a
minute.

Add up the figures.

You've got one machine gun firing 600 rounds a minute, and several hundred
riflemen firing 20-40 rounds a minute, both effective to 500 yards or more,
shooting into densely packed masses of men who can't reply at all.

That's several thousand rounds in a minute, and most of them will hit.

The targets are _very_ densely packed; shoulder to shoulder in formations 16
men deep. You can't miss.

They not only had the firepower to "push back" armies of the time, they had the
firepower to _obliterate_ them.

The "armies" they face in 1632 are also rather small -- no more than 3000 to
5000 men.
Robert A. Woodward
2003-09-13 16:14:40 UTC
Permalink
Let's see.
Flint admits his book is completely unrealistic.
But SMS goes out of his way to defend the action therein.
But Stirling does have a point. An example would be the the final attack
on the Alamo. The Texans had far more guns than people and they had
preloaded all of them. For a minute (give or take), each Texan had the
equivalent of a repeating rifle; the attack almost collapsed. Then the
Texans were reduced back to the 1830s and the Mexican army regrouped and
successfully carried the walls.
--
Robert Woodward <***@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw
Coyu
2003-09-13 16:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert A. Woodward
Let's see.
Flint admits his book is completely unrealistic.
But SMS goes out of his way to defend the action therein.
But Stirling does have a point.
To quote Steverino:

"It's horseshit, of course; as a smidgin of common sense would tell you, it's
the author who knows what's in the work best."

<***@mb-fh.aol.com>

Hm. Does Steverino's knowledge of rates of fire trump Flint's explicit
authorial intent?

Reality only becomes important when Steverino sez it is. Hence,
radical subjectivism.
Robert A. Woodward
2003-09-14 07:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Coyu
Post by Robert A. Woodward
Let's see.
Flint admits his book is completely unrealistic.
But SMS goes out of his way to defend the action therein.
But Stirling does have a point.
"It's horseshit, of course; as a smidgin of common sense would tell you, it's
the author who knows what's in the work best."
Hm. Does Steverino's knowledge of rates of fire trump Flint's explicit
authorial intent?
Reality only becomes important when Steverino sez it is. Hence,
radical subjectivism.
I don't remember seeing Flint's post you quoted in a earlier message;
but, the unrealistic part of 1632, per the quote, was that the
Grantville citizenry had good leadership.

Given that, firepower will do its thing.
--
Robert Woodward <***@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw
Richard VanHouten
2003-09-13 18:38:36 UTC
Permalink
Let's see.
Flint admits his book is completely unrealistic.
But SMS goes out of his way to defend the action therein.
Flint was talking about leadership, Stirling about firepower. Two
different things.
For a guy who likes saying that he's a "materialist monist",
Steverino sure has a hard time distinguishing between fiction
and reality.
In fact, like most power wankers, he's a radical subjectivist.
As if reality can be swayed by a really forceful opinion.
Whatever.
It's a blooming _novel_. The Good Guys are expected to triumph over all
obstacles. How about criticizing the historical setting rather than the
plot?
President Chester A. Arthur
2003-09-13 19:07:42 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
Date: 9/13/2003 2:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time
It's a blooming _novel_. The Good Guys are expected to triumph over all
obstacles.
That sounds really, really boring.


----

"What a shame wood doesn't grow on trees, otherwise you could burn that
for warmth."
-Syd Webb
David Johnson
2003-09-13 21:11:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Subject: Re: Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
Date: 9/13/2003 2:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time
It's a blooming _novel_. The Good Guys are expected to triumph over all
obstacles.
That sounds really, really boring.
It's not the destination, it's the journey...

Anywho, once at a convention, JMS while talking about a (then) recent B-5
episode - basically, where "going" to the future showed that the characters
_would_ survive the Shadow War and, indeed, would _win_ the Shadow War -
was asked (roughly) "doesn't now knowing they're going to win ruin the
whole rest of the series?" JMS didn't even blink and answered (again,
roughly) "okay, quick show of hands: who thought I was going to spend all
this time setting things up and then have my characters _lose_?"

It is _possible_ to have the Good Guys lose at the end (since we're in a
Stirling discussion here, "Draka" immediately comes to mind), but it's a)
very hard to do and b) a poor seller since few want to read about how good
fails in the end.

David
JoatSimeon
2003-09-13 21:31:04 UTC
Permalink
From: David Johnson
but it's a) very hard to do and b) a poor seller since few want to read about
how good fails in the end.

-- b) comes under a); that is, it's hard, but if you do it well, the readers
will buy.

For that matter, Nazis-win-WWII stories have always sold well. There's a
certain fascination with evil that a writer can exploit.

I find that it ups the dramatic tension if the audience isn't sure how you're
going to end something -- they think "ooops, this is Stirling, I can't count on
the good guys winning!"

Of course, it also depends on the structure of the book. The "Draka" series
were a dystopia, and like 1984 -- another "bad guys win" book -- the ending
fit.

(Not that I'm claiming to be Orwell's equal; my hubris is large, but doesn't
extend quite that far.)

OTOH, "The Peshawar Lancers", say, was templated more from the tradtional pulp
adventure story of the pre-WWII period.

Having the bad guys win would have been wholly inappropriate in _that_ context.
phil hunt
2003-09-14 01:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by JoatSimeon
Of course, it also depends on the structure of the book. The "Draka" series
were a dystopia, and like 1984 -- another "bad guys win" book -- the ending
fit.
There is an arguement that that's not the caewe in 1984.
--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?
James Nicoll
2003-09-13 13:53:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raymond Speer
I was pleased by the fact that Flint actually portrayed members of a
labor union as good guys, not loafers and villains. (When you consider
that he is a member of the Baen stable, it is astounding that he made
such a description and even more amazing that it got to the published
page.)
Baen's stable runs from Marion Zimmer Bradley to Leo Frankowski.
It's not nearly as ideologically narrow as is fashionable to think.

But I wouldn't expect a Baen book to feature floods due to
global warming. Apparently the EiC has Views about that.
--
It's amazing how the waterdrops form: a ball of water with an air bubble
inside it and inside of that one more bubble of water. It looks so beautiful
[...]. I realized something: the world is interesting for the man who can
be surprised. -Valentin Lebedev-
Gareth Wilson
2003-09-13 20:07:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raymond Speer
I was pleased by the fact that Flint actually portrayed members of a
labor union as good guys, not loafers and villains.
I was moreover impressed by the fact that white blue-collars and
rednecks were not libelled as cretins, psychopaths, and bigots.
On the other hand, after being critised for his negative protrayal of
a corporate CEO character, Eric said that CEOs and management types
really were that bad in real life and questioned whether it was even
possible to slander them. This was shortly after he posted a spirited
defense of Jim Baen to the same newsgroup...

Gareth Wilson
http://www.gareth.wilson.name
phil hunt
2003-09-15 02:50:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel McCollum
Personally I'd love to see Turtledove on here. If he could stand a
bit of flaming over some of more recent books, I think he'd get a
better idea of wat the AH community wants. Also, I've noticed that
creativity breeds creativity, so maybe he'd be able to think up some
great stories as well. Oh well though, nichevo
I kind of doubt he could handle the flaming. Turtledove and Stirling
are known to be good friends. Stirling has gained a reputation on
SHWI for plonking anyone who pokes holes with his stuff, either in his
books or his posts.
I have pointed out flaws in his books, and disagreed with his
politics on plenty of occasions, yet he seems not to have killfiled
me.
--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?
Phillip McGregor
2003-09-08 08:44:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faeelin
Post by H. Torrance Griffin
I am sensing hostility here....
Nigh pathological, I think.
Incidentally, were I a nantucketer, I'd be horribly insulted by anyone
thinking there are people dumb enough to follow steve.
One could argue that they're dumb enough not to have banned him from
the island ... or are his claims that he holidays there all BS?

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au
Eric D. Berge
2003-09-08 20:53:38 UTC
Permalink
"What did you call me", Dan snarled. "Thats it, screw you", and
with that he punched his commander dirrectly in the face. Stirling
went down into the dirt.
Notwithstanding my personal position towards Stirling (I am Not A Fan,
to put it mildly), but he claims to have at one point in his career
actually beaten a man to death with his hands.

Assuming that he is not lying, the above described scene might have
adverse consequences.
Faeelin
2003-09-08 23:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric D. Berge
"What did you call me", Dan snarled. "Thats it, screw you", and
with that he punched his commander dirrectly in the face. Stirling
went down into the dirt.
Notwithstanding my personal position towards Stirling (I am Not A Fan,
to put it mildly), but he claims to have at one point in his career
actually beaten a man to death with his hands.
What the heck did he do for a living?
Bernie
2003-09-09 01:19:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Faeelin
Post by Eric D. Berge
"What did you call me", Dan snarled. "Thats it, screw you", and
with that he punched his commander dirrectly in the face. Stirling
went down into the dirt.
Notwithstanding my personal position towards Stirling (I am Not A Fan,
to put it mildly), but he claims to have at one point in his career
actually beaten a man to death with his hands.
What the heck did he do for a living?
Newsgroup moderator, I'd say.
phil hunt
2003-09-08 23:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric D. Berge
Notwithstanding my personal position towards Stirling (I am Not A Fan,
to put it mildly), but he claims to have at one point in his career
actually beaten a man to death with his hands.
Do you have details?
--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?
Dale
2003-09-09 02:21:38 UTC
Permalink
</lurk>
Wasn't there another poster at that time that managed to get everyone ticked
off? I believe that his name started with a Q
<lurk>
--
Have Fun
Dale McGill

Life must be lived with every ounce of your being. So when you rejoice let
the heavens be filled with your laughter and when you morn let the heavens
be filled with your tears
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 20:53:38 GMT, Eric D. Berge
Post by Eric D. Berge
Notwithstanding my personal position towards Stirling (I am Not A Fan,
to put it mildly), but he claims to have at one point in his career
actually beaten a man to death with his hands.
Do you have details?
--
A: top posting
Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?
Eric D. Berge
2003-09-09 06:21:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by phil hunt
Post by Eric D. Berge
Notwithstanding my personal position towards Stirling (I am Not A Fan,
to put it mildly), but he claims to have at one point in his career
actually beaten a man to death with his hands.
Do you have details?
It was from some posts he made on rec.arts.sf.written.

Hm. <Google>

Message-ID: <***@ladder03.news.aol.com>

And

Message-ID: <***@ladder03.news.aol.com>
Richard VanHouten
2003-09-13 19:40:12 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
Date: 9/13/2003 3:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Subject: Re: Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
Date: 9/13/2003 2:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time
It's a blooming _novel_. The Good Guys are expected to triumph over all
obstacles.
That sounds really, really boring.
I said triumph over all _obstacles_. I didn't say that said triumph
would be _easy_.
Then don't buy it. Reading about an unending darkness which transpires if
anyone else wins is not enjoyable to me.
I'm reminded of an interview with Stan Lee in which he talked about early
"You want your hero to have _problems_? What business do you think we're in,
Stan?"
So how many times has Spiderman been killed?

And you still haven't addressed my main point. This is a history
newsgroup, not a lit-crit newsgroup. How about criticising the
historical setting? How accurately does Eric Flint portray Thuringia
during the 30 Years War?
President Chester A. Arthur
2003-09-13 20:00:08 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
Date: 9/13/2003 3:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time
And you still haven't addressed my main point.
You're right, I haven't, and I apologize.

This is a history
newsgroup, not a lit-crit newsgroup.
Why so it is, so it is.

How about criticising the
historical setting? How accurately does Eric Flint portray Thuringia
during the 30 Years War?
Well, since this is as you say an alternate history newsgroup, discussing works
of fiction like _1632_ and _ISOT_ are necessarily off-topic, so why not discuss
AH instead?

You make a good argument, Richard, and you've helped reinforce my earlier
feelings on the subject, thanks.


----

"What a shame wood doesn't grow on trees, otherwise you could burn that
for warmth."
-Syd Webb
Richard VanHouten
2003-09-13 20:10:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Subject: Re: Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
Date: 9/13/2003 3:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time
And you still haven't addressed my main point.
You're right, I haven't, and I apologize.
This is a history
newsgroup, not a lit-crit newsgroup.
Why so it is, so it is.
How about criticising the
historical setting? How accurately does Eric Flint portray Thuringia
during the 30 Years War?
Well, since this is as you say an alternate history newsgroup, discussing works
of fiction like _1632_ and _ISOT_ are necessarily off-topic, so why not discuss
AH instead?
You make a good argument, Richard, and you've helped reinforce my earlier
feelings on the subject, thanks.
But the historical setting is part of any work of AH, and the historical
setting of 1632 is on topic. Is the setting of 1632 more or less
accurate than, for instance, that of JATYWWS? In what areas is it
accurate, and where is it poor?
phil hunt
2003-09-14 01:23:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Well, since this is as you say an alternate history newsgroup, discussing works
of fiction like _1632_ and _ISOT_ are necessarily off-topic, so why not discuss
AH instead?
So discussing AH fiction on an AH ng is off-topic, now?
--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?
President Chester A. Arthur
2003-09-14 01:17:55 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
Date: 9/13/2003 9:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time
On 13 Sep 2003 20:00:08 GMT, President Chester A. Arthur
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Well, since this is as you say an alternate history newsgroup, discussing
works
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
of fiction like _1632_ and _ISOT_ are necessarily off-topic, so why not
discuss
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
AH instead?
So discussing AH fiction on an AH ng is off-topic, now?
There's no AH fiction mentioned in the quoted text, Phil.


----

"What a shame wood doesn't grow on trees, otherwise you could burn that
for warmth."
-Syd Webb
Robert A. Woodward
2003-09-14 07:47:43 UTC
Permalink
In article <woK8b.4797$***@news02.roc.ny>,
Richard VanHouten <***@citlink.net> wrote:

<SNIP of various>
Post by Richard VanHouten
And you still haven't addressed my main point. This is a history
newsgroup, not a lit-crit newsgroup. How about criticising the
historical setting? How accurately does Eric Flint portray Thuringia
during the 30 Years War?
I haven't read _1632_, but I did a 'grep' on a electronic copy (can be
downloaded from Baen's Free Library) and the word "smallpox" does not
appear in it. I think this is an error; possibly a very serious one
(anybody know anything about smallpox epidemics during the 30 years
war?).
--
Robert Woodward <***@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw
JoatSimeon
2003-09-13 19:44:18 UTC
Permalink
Then don't buy it. Reading about an unending darkness which transpires if
anyone else wins is not enjoyable to me.

-- besides which, of course, the victories in the actual _battles_ aren't
unrealistic at all.

Some of the political and social aspects of 1632 are implausible, IMHO.

I think Eric underestimates the differences in belief-system between
17th-century Europeans and his displaced Americans. And the Europeans are far
too ready to slap themselves on the forehead, say "How could I have been so
blind!" and adopt those of the Americans.

There would have been much harsher and more fundamental conflict over things
like religion -- again, IMHO.

An alternate history is by its nature a non-falsifiable hypothesis -- it can't
be proved or disproved. One can argue endlessly over its plausibility, but
nothing will ever be resolved.
Coyu
2003-09-13 21:35:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by JoatSimeon
An alternate history is by its nature a non-falsifiable hypothesis -- it
can't be proved or disproved.
It strikes me that the popularization of Karl Popper's ideas regarding
falsifiability and the nature of science have done quite a bit of damage
to the scientific worldview in the last fifty years. After all, some of
the most interesting areas of (what are generally thought of as hard)
science in that time have large areas not falsifiable in the Popperian
sense:

astrophysics
evolutionary biology
historical geology
paleontology
cosmology
unification physics

At the same time, sound-bite Popperism denigrates the descriptive and
the human sciences quite deliberately as part of its program. One
might suspect Popper of trying to turn back the entire humanist
program of the last six centuries, were it not for Popper's sincere
and philosophically motivated stand against totalitarianism.

Quite obviously, what Popper claims is science has very little to do
with how science is (and was) actually practiced.

So. It may be somewhat locally utopic, but what if Karl Popper died
of a surfeit of Pfeffernuesse in his youth? I don't doubt that some
other thinkers will be able to come up with the anti-totalitarianist
bent -- hell, the Czechs used _Heidegger_ in their captivity as the
source for their philosophy of freedom [1] -- but the effects on
philosophy and the history of science should be large.

Thoughts? T3, Sam Russell, these seem right up your alley.

[1] And one day I will use this in a Nazis victorious timeline.
Coyu
2003-09-13 19:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Post by Richard VanHouten
It's a blooming _novel_. The Good Guys are expected to triumph over all
obstacles.
That sounds really, really boring.
Then don't buy it. Reading about an unending darkness which transpires if
anyone else wins is not enjoyable to me.
You know, there's a whole range of intermediate possibilities for a
novel's outcome other than Good Guys Uber Alles or Darkness Eternal.

Even in ISOT adventure fiction. A good example would be Robert
Charles Wilson's _Mysterium_. (RCW is also intellectually honest
enough to make the ISOT mechanism quite literally miraculous.)

Anyway. Moving outside the scope of shwi.
cernunnos
2003-09-13 21:01:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Coyu
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Post by Richard VanHouten
It's a blooming _novel_. The Good Guys are expected to triumph over all
obstacles.
That sounds really, really boring.
Then don't buy it. Reading about an unending darkness which transpires if
anyone else wins is not enjoyable to me.
You know, there's a whole range of intermediate possibilities for a
novel's outcome other than Good Guys Uber Alles or Darkness Eternal.
Even in ISOT adventure fiction. A good example would be Robert
Charles Wilson's _Mysterium_. (RCW is also intellectually honest
enough to make the ISOT mechanism quite literally miraculous.)
Anyway. Moving outside the scope of shwi.
Actually, the good guys have and always will, win. By winning they are
enforcing that what they did, regardless of what their actions were, was
right. Winners writing the history adn all that.
President Chester A. Arthur
2003-09-13 21:03:37 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
Date: 9/13/2003 5:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Actually, the good guys have and always will, win. By winning they are
enforcing that what they did, regardless of what their actions were, was
right. Winners writing the history adn all that.
That's rather frightening to say. Winning doesn't make you right, nor do the
history books.


----

"What a shame wood doesn't grow on trees, otherwise you could burn that
for warmth."
-Syd Webb
Mike Ralls
2003-09-13 21:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
That's rather frightening to say. Winning doesn't make you right, nor do the
history books.
Well that raises the obvious question of what _does_ make you right.

"Right" is socially defined.
President Chester A. Arthur
2003-09-13 21:32:34 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
Date: 9/13/2003 5:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
That's rather frightening to say. Winning doesn't make you right, nor do
the
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
history books.
Well that raises the obvious question of what _does_ make you right.
"Right" is socially defined.
Don't go all Stevie on me, Mike. Do I know all of what correct morality is? No.
Do I know there is such a thing? Yes, of course. And so do you.


----

"What a shame wood doesn't grow on trees, otherwise you could burn that
for warmth."
-Syd Webb
Bernard Guerrero
2003-09-14 15:37:06 UTC
Permalink
***@aol.comgentboss (President Chester A. Arthur) wrote in message news:<***@mb-m02.aol.com>...
(snip)
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Don't go all Stevie on me, Mike. Do I know all of what correct morality is? No.
Do I know there is such a thing? Yes, of course. And so do you.
I must strongly, but respectfully, disagree. You, Mike and I most
certainly do not agree or disagree on all aspects of what we'd call
"morality". And while there may be a large area where those three
sets intersect, there's nothing to say that the result of that
intersection in any way covers what a 16th Century Spaniard or a
member of the Khan's Horde or an Aztec would have viewed as
"morality". People have been happy to kick freshly de-hearted corpses
down the sides of step pyramids, eat their neighbors, gas their
co-nationals, mutilate their daughters' sexual organs and all sorts of
other horrors that _you or I_ might call immoral, all within the
framework of what they consider to be perfectly moral behavior.

So on what basis can you assume that a universal morality exists?
What points you in this direction, besides the arbitrary results of
when and where and to whom you were born?

(This doesn't negate the idea that _you_ feel something in particular
is moral or not, of course, nor the idea that you must act on those
feelings. I just deny the idea that anybody else must perforce agree
with any particular judgment of yours. Or mine, for that matter.)

Bernard Guerrero, the Real Moral Relativist
(eat your heart out, Paul Johnson!)
cernunnos
2003-09-13 21:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Subject: Re: Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
Date: 9/13/2003 5:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Actually, the good guys have and always will, win. By winning they are
enforcing that what they did, regardless of what their actions were, was
right. Winners writing the history adn all that.
That's rather frightening to say. Winning doesn't make you right, nor do the
history books.
yes of course they do. If you write the history books about your valiant
conquest of the evil barbarians history views you as good, and the
barbarians as evil. Simply because you proved you were right, you won.
Coyu
2003-09-13 21:06:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by cernunnos
Actually, the good guys have and always will, win. By winning they are
enforcing that what they did, regardless of what their actions were, was
right. Winners writing the history adn all that.
Considering I live in a nation whose histories of its civil war
were written from the loser's point of view for a hundred years, I
will take this comment with a large grain of salt.
Robert A. Woodward
2003-09-14 07:40:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Coyu
Post by cernunnos
Actually, the good guys have and always will, win. By winning they are
enforcing that what they did, regardless of what their actions were, was
right. Winners writing the history adn all that.
Considering I live in a nation whose histories of its civil war
were written from the loser's point of view for a hundred years, I
will take this comment with a large grain of salt.
Oh? this i need to see, cite please.
Write down a list of Confederate generals. Write down a list of Union
generals. Which is longer?

I would guess that it would be the Confederate list.

I didn't do this, but a few minutes of trying to remember names suggests
I would produce that result and I am not a fan of Johnny Reb at all.
This suggests that the generals of the Confederate army have had more
publicity.
--
Robert Woodward <***@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw
Jussi Jalonen
2003-09-14 09:38:58 UTC
Permalink
Considering I live in a nation whose histories of its civil war were written
from the loser's point of view for a hundred years, I will take this comment
with a large grain of salt.
But that just raises an another question. Did those people _really_
lose?

(Personally, I'd say "no". Or, well, they lost the war, but won the
peace. The usual story.)



Cheers,
Jalonen
JoatSimeon
2003-09-14 10:04:02 UTC
Permalink
But that just raises an another question. Did those people _really_ lose?
-- yup. They lost, and lost very badly.

They fought to maintain slavery; slavery was abolished.

They fought to maintain the dominance of the pre-1861 ruling class in the
South, and those families were virtually obliterated by the war and its
aftermath.

Not only were the planters destroyed, but the southern white yeomanry --
overwhelmingly independent landowners in 1861 and making up 80% of the white
population -- quickly became a depressed class of sharecropping tenants in the
war's aftermath, often no better off than the blacks.

Blacks of course won their personal freedom -- Jim Crow was bad, but much
better than slavery in that respect -- but their material living standard often
declined. Malnutrition was rare in the South before the Civil War; afterwards
it became all too common, and stayed so until after WWII.

In economic terms, the South went from being the richest section of the country
to being the poorest -- and still is, for that matter. The per-capita income
within the old Confederacy is still 10% below the national average as of 2000
AD. This is particularly marked in the states which were richest in 1860, the
ones in the lower Mississippi valley.

In 1860, 2/3 of the "rich" families in the US (those with assets over $100K)
were in the slave states, and they were on average twice as rich as their
Northern counterparts.

(Multiply prices by approximately 50 to give 2003 values.)

And of course, the South lost approximately 1 in every 3 white males of
military age -- that's just the military dead, not counting the wounded and
civilian casualties.

If all this doesn't represent "defeat", I don't know what does. Short of being
wiped out, that is.
Robert J. Kolker
2003-09-14 13:24:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by JoatSimeon
declined. Malnutrition was rare in the South before the Civil War; afterwards
it became all too common, and stayed so until after WWII.
Down in the Land of the Swannee,
Where the palagra makes you scrawny,....

Bob Kolker
Coyu
2003-09-14 00:16:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Coyu
Post by cernunnos
Actually, the good guys have and always will, win. By winning they are
enforcing that what they did, regardless of what their actions were, was
right. Winners writing the history adn all that.
Considering I live in a nation whose histories of its civil war
were written from the loser's point of view for a hundred years, I
will take this comment with a large grain of salt.
Oh? this i need to see, cite please.
Hm! It's a truism in the historiography, but that being said, I'm
not finding a good cite for it off-hand. I'd bet that it's in one
of James Loewen's books, or Fitzgerald's _America Revised_.

OTOH, a Google search finds hundreds of mentions of current high
school textbooks that still have the lie that the ACW was over an
abstract belief in the devolution of governmental powers to a more
local level rather than slavery.

So my statement is wrong in that I didn't say one hundred forty
years instead of one hundred.
Doug Hoff
2003-09-14 03:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Coyu
Post by Coyu
Post by cernunnos
Actually, the good guys have and always will, win. By winning they are
enforcing that what they did, regardless of what their actions were, was
right. Winners writing the history adn all that.
Considering I live in a nation whose histories of its civil war
were written from the loser's point of view for a hundred years, I
will take this comment with a large grain of salt.
Oh? this i need to see, cite please.
Hm! It's a truism in the historiography, but that being said, I'm
not finding a good cite for it off-hand. I'd bet that it's in one
of James Loewen's books, or Fitzgerald's _America Revised_.
Let me chime in that the 'Gone With the Wind' version of Reconstruction
(i.e. corrupt Yankee carpetbaggers propped up by ignorant freemen to oppress
virtuous southern whites) was still prevalent well into the 1960s, and has
yet to go away.
--
-------------------

Doug Hoff

***@dhoff5767.eiomail.com

www.althist.com
cernunnos
2003-09-14 05:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
Date: 9/13/2003 10:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time
who would be the good buy, who the bad? its all relative
Tomorrow, Allan, skinhead thugs try to beat you to death for having sexual
desires that frighten them.
Me, I think there's nothing relative about the situation. They're wrong,
you're
right.
yes, and if the skinheads beat all of me to death, and go on to conquer the
world
they will proclaim me the great satan, and themselves heroes. and generally
such will be the case with society.

wheras if i beat them to death, and i conquer the world they are evil.

Sure its wrong and evil to me and you, but to them its all sunshine and
puppies.

This is after all, why we are here... alternate outcomes, leading to
different worlds.

Lets take the nazi analogy toi heart.. lets make them rule the world... go
back as far as you need to make it plausable.
all of us are dust, the nazi descendants are running around. The allies
were evil evil untermensch who needed to be removed before we destroyed the
world. I know they wouldnt see themselves or their history as evil. It
simply doesnt work that way.

We are all the heroes in our own little dramas.
Bernard Guerrero
2003-09-14 19:25:38 UTC
Permalink
A million
Nazi textbooks could say that the Holocaust was a glorious service to
Fuhrer and Fatherland, and every single one would be wrong.
To you. The earnest little 4th generation Nazi schoolchildren raised
by Nazi parents in the midst of a Nazi state would likely beg to
differ, and would probably act with the precepts drilled into them by
studying the moral activities of their ancestors foremost in their
thoughts, losing not an iota of sleep.

The 6th Generation Nazis schoolchildren might turn the whole thing on
its head, but I'd wager that'd be as much a response to their _own_
times and conditions as to any great awakening to the fundamental
unjustness of their forefathers. Said unjustness having been buried
along with you and me and many, many other Untermensch some time
previously.

You and Chet are falling, as I see it, into a variant of the Bassior
Fallacy. (Not meant as an insult, BTW, he's merely the most prominent
NG proponent of a social construct being somehow fixed in the
firmament of Heaven that I can think of.)

Bernard Guerrero
President Chester A. Arthur
2003-09-14 19:30:21 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
Date: 9/14/2003 3:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time
A million
Nazi textbooks could say that the Holocaust was a glorious service to
Fuhrer and Fatherland, and every single one would be wrong.
To you. The earnest little 4th generation Nazi schoolchildren raised
by Nazi parents in the midst of a Nazi state would likely beg to
differ, and would probably act with the precepts drilled into them by
studying the moral activities of their ancestors foremost in their
thoughts, losing not an iota of sleep.
The 6th Generation Nazis schoolchildren might turn the whole thing on
its head, but I'd wager that'd be as much a response to their _own_
times and conditions as to any great awakening to the fundamental
unjustness of their forefathers. Said unjustness having been buried
along with you and me and many, many other Untermensch some time
previously.
But, see, they really are wrong, Bernard. Hitler wasn't right. African slavery
really is morally wrong.
You and Chet are falling, as I see it, into a variant of the Bassior
Fallacy. (Not meant as an insult, BTW, he's merely the most prominent
NG proponent of a social construct being somehow fixed in the
firmament of Heaven that I can think of.)
And I...no, I don't really think you're just arguing for the sake of argument,
but I find your position so hard to understand that's my gut reaction.


----

"What a shame wood doesn't grow on trees, otherwise you could burn that
for warmth."
-Syd Webb
Raymond Speer
2003-09-14 13:48:31 UTC
Permalink
Recent hysterics? About to self-destruct? I cannot thank Bernard
Guerrero for such comments.

Oh, am I going to have another critic challenge me to a duel? You gonna
come to Omaha, so we can have a real life enactment of _High Noon_?

I never thought I would collect a rogue's gallery of eccentrics to match
the adversaries of the Flash or the Batiman. I guess all things come in
time.
Bernard Guerrero
2003-09-14 18:59:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raymond Speer
Recent hysterics? About to self-destruct? I cannot thank Bernard
Guerrero for such comments.
I'd hope not, they weren't meant as compliments. If you thanked me I'd
have to assume you're even sillier than I _think_ you are. :^)
Post by Raymond Speer
Oh, am I going to have another critic challenge me to a duel? You gonna
come to Omaha, so we can have a real life enactment of _High Noon_?
Hardly. Getting into fisticuffs with loons in Flyover Country over
Usenet nonsense is hardly conducive to either professional or academic
growth. And I can't spare the airfare.
Post by Raymond Speer
I never thought I would collect a rogue's gallery of eccentrics to match
the adversaries of the Flash or the Batiman. I guess all things come in
time.
Can I be the Penguin, oh Cassandra? I always liked his natty attire.
:^)

Bernard Guerrero, who will now explain in depth his plans to destroy
the world, right before he feeds you to the man-eating giant aardvarks
on page 9...
Raymond Speer
2003-09-14 19:36:59 UTC
Permalink
Re: Bernard Guerrero's application to be the "Penguin" in my Rogue's
Gallery.

Huh, no thanks.

You can be my "KGBeast," or the "Mad Hatter." Your choice.
President Chester A. Arthur
2003-09-14 16:28:35 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
Date: 9/14/2003 5:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Do I know all of what correct morality is? No. Do I know there is such a
thing? Yes, of course. And so do you.
Just to clarify, do you view morality in the Westermarckian sense - as
a concept which rises from individual human emotions, is constructed
through social intercourse, and is thus a relative phenomenon which
cannot really contain any fundamental or objective truth?
I'd have to give a cautious no to that one.
Or do you subscribe to Kant instead?
Well, Firebug and Ayn Rand both hate him, and that makes Kant OK in my book.


----

"What a shame wood doesn't grow on trees, otherwise you could burn that
for warmth."
-Syd Webb
Mike Ralls
2003-09-14 16:52:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
through social intercourse, and is thus a relative phenomenon which
cannot really contain any fundamental or objective truth?
I'd have to give a cautious no to that one.
OK.

What's your justification for that?
President Chester A. Arthur
2003-09-14 16:50:27 UTC
Permalink
Putting Ray aside, Bernard, I'm pissed off at your personal insult of me. I use
the personal interaction model of SHWI. We're all sitting in the bar.

My friend suggests a topic of conversation I think is a bad idea, and tell him
so. You walk up with a big grin on your face and say, "No, let him talk, I'm
looking forward to seeing him self-destruct."

Nobody likes a bully, Bernard, and nobody's impressed.


----

"What a shame wood doesn't grow on trees, otherwise you could burn that
for warmth."
-Syd Webb
JoatSimeon
2003-09-14 20:19:16 UTC
Permalink
(Daniel McCollum)
I think he'd get a better idea of wat the AH community wants.
-- this newsgroup is statistically utterly insignificant in terms of the sales
an author of Harry's rank gets.

We're talking _hundreds of thousands_ of buyers, the overwhelming majority of
whom wouldn't know what soc.history.what-if was if it bit them on the arse.
Phillip McGregor
2003-09-14 22:15:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by JoatSimeon
(Daniel McCollum)
I think he'd get a better idea of wat the AH community wants.
-- this newsgroup is statistically utterly insignificant in terms of the sales
an author of Harry's rank gets.
We're talking _hundreds of thousands_ of buyers, the overwhelming majority of
whom wouldn't know what soc.history.what-if was if it bit them on the arse.
As much as I disagree with Mr Stirling about many, many, things, he is
absolutely, 1000%, correct in this statement ... and we would all do
well to keep it in mind and not inflate our own sense of
self-importance.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au
a***@yahoo.com
2003-09-15 00:10:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phillip McGregor
Post by JoatSimeon
(Daniel McCollum)
I think he'd get a better idea of wat the AH community wants.
-- this newsgroup is statistically utterly insignificant in terms of the sales
an author of Harry's rank gets.
We're talking _hundreds of thousands_ of buyers, the overwhelming majority of
whom wouldn't know what soc.history.what-if was if it bit them on the arse.
As much as I disagree with Mr Stirling about many, many, things, he is
absolutely, 1000%, correct in this statement ...
I would estimate 500+ posters (regular and occasional) on this
newsgroup, and maybe the same number of lurkers who don't post. So
while not utterly insignificant, probably a very small percentage of
the total population of consumers of alternate history novels.

and we would all do
Post by Phillip McGregor
well to keep it in mind and not inflate our own sense of
self-importance.
Phil
Hmph. May as well ask the moon to stop rotating, the sun to stand
still, the tides to stay back.
phil hunt
2003-09-15 02:51:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by JoatSimeon
(Daniel McCollum)
I think he'd get a better idea of wat the AH community wants.
-- this newsgroup is statistically utterly insignificant in terms of the sales
an author of Harry's rank gets.
I probably would never have bought any of yours or his books if it
wasn't for discussions on this group and rasfw.
--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?
phil hunt
2003-09-15 02:55:45 UTC
Permalink
There's a general tendency among habitual newsgroup posters to inflate the
importance of their activity; in fact, it has little or no impact on the real
world.
Probably at least half of the SF I buy is influenced by what I read
on rasfw; if I see discussion of a book or series that sparks my
interest, I make a mental note to buy it.

Of course, it may be that I am atypical of SF buyers.
--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?
JoatSimeon
2003-09-15 03:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by phil hunt
Of course, it may be that I am atypical of SF buyers.
-- extremely. Remember, a book has to sell over 10K copies in hardcover or
five times that in softcover to be really profitable.
Raymond Speer
2003-09-14 19:56:26 UTC
Permalink
I thank Steven Stirling for telling me that Eric Flint checked it out
and determined that ordinary West Virginia towns have thousands of
rounds per rifle. I'm also pleased that authorial Fiat also delivered a
machine gun (I suppose equally abundent ammo) to that same town. And
that POL stocks in that town are ample enough to be be stretched for
more than a year with rationing.

Jeepers creepers -- it is kind of like Robinson Crusoe's ship. All
necessities and many luxuries can be accounted for thanks to that
magnificent depot.

I was judging from towns and NRA competitions in Iowa and Nebraska where
ammo is sold by the box. (From Flint's description of West Virginia, the
stalwarts of that State consume ammo by the cargo container!) No towns
around Omaha would have the resources necessary to fend off a 17th
century army, so if chronological displacement has to happen, it is best
that it happen in West Virginia where folks stock up like survivalists.
JoatSimeon
2003-09-14 20:33:34 UTC
Permalink
I'm also pleased that authorial Fiat also delivered a machine gun (I suppose
equally abundent ammo) to that same town.

-- why not? There are actually several working machine guns in Nantucket -- I
checked. I had to use a Plot Device to get _rid_ of them.

I was rather surprised to find out just how much firepower a small American
town can generate.
JoatSimeon
2003-09-14 20:37:45 UTC
Permalink
And that POL stocks in that town are ample enough to be be stretched for
more than a year with rationing.

-- the area _produces_ natural gas and small amounts of petroleum. You can
convert most IC vehicles to run on natural gas without much problem, as Flint
notes. The town also has four substantial machine shops, a power plant and a
coal mine.
No towns around Omaha would have the resources necessary to fend off a 17th
century army

-- how do you know this? Have you tallied the guns and ammunition available,
and the resources for making more?
Phillip McGregor
2003-09-14 22:11:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 21:05:32 GMT, Richard VanHouten
Post by Raymond Speer
I thank Steven Stirling for telling me that Eric Flint checked it out
and determined that ordinary West Virginia towns have thousands of
rounds per rifle. I'm also pleased that authorial Fiat also delivered a
machine gun (I suppose equally abundent ammo) to that same town.
The machine gun was the possession of an Vietnam Vet who took it with
him (quite unauthorized) on his discharge, and there were only 3 boxes
of ammo for it.
Yeah, but you could, theoretically, collect all the brass and
disintegrating bits of the link and reload and recreate the belts by
hand.

And, I guess, not a few locals would have .308 (7.62mm) ball ammo,
too, so you wouldn't even need to reload, simply put the belt back
together.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au
President Chester A. Arthur
2003-09-14 21:52:52 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
Date: 9/14/2003 5:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Its not really hard to understand, as it is to, well internalize. You have
an internal feeling that what you think is right and good. and that it is as
"god" proclaims... unforatunatly, so do your bad guys. What is anathema to
us, is perfectly moral to others. its as simple as that. The nazis thought
they were the good guys, the confederates thought they were the good guys,
hell, even satan worshippers (aside fromt he nutters) think they are the
good guys.
Yes, I know. My position is that they're not correct in their belief.


----

"What a shame wood doesn't grow on trees, otherwise you could burn that
for warmth."
-Syd Webb
Peter Bruells
2003-09-14 22:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Subject: Re: Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
Date: 9/14/2003 5:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Its not really hard to understand, as it is to, well internalize. You have
an internal feeling that what you think is right and good. and that it is as
"god" proclaims... unforatunatly, so do your bad guys. What is anathema to
us, is perfectly moral to others. its as simple as that. The nazis thought
they were the good guys, the confederates thought they were the good guys,
hell, even satan worshippers (aside fromt he nutters) think they are the
good guys.
Yes, I know. My position is that they're not correct in their belief.
Of course they aren't, we are. That's why it's okay not to give
children the vote, to outlaw polygamy and to slaughter animals for
humasn consumption.
JoatSimeon
2003-09-14 22:11:14 UTC
Permalink
Of course they aren't, we are. That's why it's okay not to give children the
vote, to outlaw polygamy and to slaughter animals for humasn consumption.

-- incidentally, there is no necessary link between a relativist position and
tolerance for other outlooks.
President Chester A. Arthur
2003-09-14 22:21:19 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
Date: 9/14/2003 6:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Subject: Re: Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
Date: 9/14/2003 5:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Its not really hard to understand, as it is to, well internalize. You
have
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
an internal feeling that what you think is right and good. and that it is
as
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
"god" proclaims... unforatunatly, so do your bad guys. What is anathema
to
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
us, is perfectly moral to others. its as simple as that. The nazis
thought
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
they were the good guys, the confederates thought they were the good guys,
hell, even satan worshippers (aside fromt he nutters) think they are the
good guys.
Yes, I know. My position is that they're not correct in their belief.
Of course they aren't, we are. That's why it's okay not to give
children the vote, to outlaw polygamy and to slaughter animals for
humasn consumption.
Or are we?


----

"What a shame wood doesn't grow on trees, otherwise you could burn that
for warmth."
-Syd Webb
phil hunt
2003-09-15 02:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Subject: Re: Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
Date: 9/14/2003 5:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Its not really hard to understand, as it is to, well internalize. You have
an internal feeling that what you think is right and good. and that it is as
"god" proclaims... unforatunatly, so do your bad guys. What is anathema to
us, is perfectly moral to others. its as simple as that. The nazis thought
they were the good guys, the confederates thought they were the good guys,
hell, even satan worshippers (aside fromt he nutters) think they are the
good guys.
Yes, I know. My position is that they're not correct in their belief.
OK, two people A and B. A says A is right and B is wrong. B says B
is right and A is wrong. How do you decide which of them is right?
--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?
JoatSimeon
2003-09-15 04:03:02 UTC
Permalink
OK, two people A and B. A says A is right and B is wrong. B says B is right
and A is wrong. How do you decide which of them is right?

-- that depends whether the matter they're discussing is falsifiable or not.

All the public opinion in the world won't affect the truth of the
inverse-square law, or alter the fact that the earth is shaped like an oblate
spheroid.
cernunnos
2003-09-15 03:50:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Subject: Re: Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
Date: 9/14/2003 5:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Its not really hard to understand, as it is to, well internalize. You have
an internal feeling that what you think is right and good. and that it is as
"god" proclaims... unforatunatly, so do your bad guys. What is anathema to
us, is perfectly moral to others. its as simple as that. The nazis thought
they were the good guys, the confederates thought they were the good guys,
hell, even satan worshippers (aside fromt he nutters) think they are the
good guys.
Yes, I know. My position is that they're not correct in their belief.
Exactly. And it is your right to think just that... of course you realize
they think the exact same thing you do. That you're misguided and wrong.

My point is this. If They were to kill you, and everyone who thought like
you. Then went on to sire history... you would be wrong, and they would be
right.
President Chester A. Arthur
2003-09-15 03:53:25 UTC
Permalink
ubject: Re: Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
Date: 9/14/2003 11:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Exactly. And it is your right to think just that... of course you realize
they think the exact same thing you do. That you're misguided and wrong.
Yes. But I'm not.
My point is this. If They were to kill you, and everyone who thought like
you. Then went on to sire history... you would be wrong, and they would be
right.
No, they'd still be wrong, there'd just be a lot more people agreeing with
them.


----

"What a shame wood doesn't grow on trees, otherwise you could burn that
for warmth."
-Syd Webb
JoatSimeon
2003-09-14 22:04:58 UTC
Permalink
What is anathema to us, is perfectly moral to others.
- the fact that people disagree does not prove that all their viewpoints are
equally valid.
President Chester A. Arthur
2003-09-15 04:09:11 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: Return to Nantucket (ISOT)
Date: 9/15/2003 12:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Post by President Chester A. Arthur
Post by cernunnos
they think the exact same thing you do. That you're misguided and wrong.
Yes. But I'm not.
How would you prove that?
Do you think they're right? No, of course not. Now, you might respond: "But why
can't both of you be wrong?"

I continue to use the example I posted for Allan earlier. Those skinheads
beating him are _wrong_, Mike. It's morally wrong to do that. In a
Nazi-dominated universe, it's still wrong to kill the Jews, whatever the
government and society says.




----

"What a shame wood doesn't grow on trees, otherwise you could burn that
for warmth."
-Syd Webb
JoatSimeon
2003-09-15 04:20:24 UTC
Permalink
See this is the sticky thing. Its all beliefs, which makes them all equally
valid,

-- you're assuming your conclusion.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...