Yeah right, really right

[threemonkeys]

The story: a group of George Bush voting, Fox news watching Americans with superior weaponry are inserted into another country. They pacify the locals and invading armies and their neighbours. They bring their political system and way of life to the locals who embrace them with fervour and gratitude. The world is a better place because the Americans had imposed their will. A Republican party strategist's wet dream? No it is 1632 by Eric Flint.

This novel is about a small town in West Virginia which is mysteriously transported to 17th century Germany smack in the middle of the 30 years war. These gun totin', brave and noble folk gather allies and sweep all before them with relative ease and a seemingly infinite supply of ammo as they reestablish the USA on new soil. Are these Americans caricatures? Are they a lampoon of redneck hillbillies? Not a bit of it. They are treated with sympathy and reverence by the author. These almost superhuman characters live in an irony free zone. I guess this book was supposed to be a meeting of the familiar and the strange. For me however, it is the meeting of two alien cultures.

A few things to note. First, this book was published in 2000 - you have to suspect that perhaps it would be a bit different now. Second, this book is the setup for a franchise universe. As such, it sacrifices some narrative for extensive scene setting description. The chunks of extra detail are well worked in, but it is always obvious that this is going on. Third, the historical detail seems well researched and the treatment of the local characters is no less sympathetic than the Americans. Fourth, Flint has a union background - the main political body in his small town is the union - the Republican party never gets a mention but it is hard to see a difference from this distance. Finally, Flint writes military SF. The style of writing charismatic leaders who can always second guess their opponents is clearly an entrenched habit.

Flint is a guest of honour at Conspiracy 2. I have read with interest his Baen magazine editorials on intellectual property and other aspects of publishing. He has done things with Baen which are to be much admired. I am looking forward to meeting him and talking about that stuff. Being a respectful chap, I may just quietly avoid mentioning 1632.

Comments

[lobelet.livejournal.com]

When I heard that Eric Flint was the guest at Conspiracy, my heart sank because the only thing of his with which I was familiar was 1632 and I hated it, for the same reasons you did. It made me feel uncomfortable at best and angry at worst. It's pornography, but without sex, if that makes any sense (it makes sense to me). But since he was a guest, I felt I ought to make an effort to find something that I would not be embarassed to talk to him about. I found "The Rivers Of War", an alternate history novel of the war of 1812. Actually, if he hadn't told me in the introduction that it was an alternate history, I'd have assumed it was a straight history (I know virtually nothing about the politics and personalities of the war of 1812).

Anyway, it turned out to be pretty good. It still dwells a tad too much on strategy and tactics and glorifies killing in a mildly uncomfortable way. But it's not too blatent about it and it's a pretty good book.

And of course Flint needs to be congratulated for his wonderful work at Baen Books bringing writers such as Randall Garrett, James Schmitz and Keith Laumer back into print.

Yes, I'm looking forward to talking to him as well. But like you, there is no way I can mention 1632. I might get apoplectic, and that would never do.

[threemonkeys.livejournal.com]

It's pornography, but without sex, if that makes any sense (it makes sense to me).

Makes perfect sense to me. You used the phrase "military sf pornography" or something similar during our panel on the size of the genre. At the time I nodded and said "yep" to myself.

[thoatherder.livejournal.com]

I read this series in Baen's Free books section. I didn't care for the American characters especially the lead hero whose 'love scenes' are not very well written at all. Most of the characters are cardboard.

But there are some interesting philosophical questions. A library containing twentieth century books arrives back in 1632. 11 years later Isaac Newton is born, ten years after that he can read about all his accomplishments, his dead ends (the huge amounts of time wasted on astrology for example). Then he can read about Einstein's accomplishments and quantum theory.

1663 and Newton is twenty, what does he do with his life now? Experimental physics requires equipment which can't be built for decades (no infrastructure), he has access to 300 years of mathematical thought beyond what he developed.

Will Newton be able (or want) to make great contributions to physics and mathematics? Could he?

***

Note that the 1632ers also bring something that could make a significant difference to publishing and communication, the typewriter. If it can be built in quantity with the resources of the day, it would make a huge difference to writers everywhere. The presses of Europe are waiting.

***

In this universe, Europe knows that America will one day be a super-power, and that it will be English speaking. What are they going to do about that? Once you get beyond a few years after the event of 1632 the time line is going to diverge too much, history is going to be too different from ours, and it will end up going in any direction the writers want.

It's a pity the writing isn't up to all the implications.

[threemonkeys.livejournal.com]

The reason I chose 1632 over other Flint books to sample was because it is the start of a shared universe which is supposed to be very open to other writers coming in and exploring such themes. The early 17th century is an important time in European history and it would be fun to see what direction people took things. As you say, it is a pity that this book isn't up to it.

[thoatherder.livejournal.com]

It might be an interesting time from a military history point of view, but from a science and technology viewpoint (which I happen to think is more important in the long run), the last half of the 17th century is much more interesting.

You have: Newton (b 1643), Leibniz (b 1646), John Locke (b 1632), Blaise Pascal (b 1623), Samuel Pepys (b 1633) and so on. Things started to really get underway in the early 18th century from a technological and science point of view. Fortunately Shakespeare is already dead, so he doesn't get to read his plays before he has written them.

This is all derailed by the events of 1632, I suspect it is just too hard to imagine all the ramifications of dumping 300 years of science into pre-industrial Europe. What happens when doctors and mid-wives realise they can cut infant and mother mortality just by *washing their hands*.

[threemonkeys.livejournal.com]

Can't argue with you there. That time was the birth of the modern scientific movement.

[littenz.livejournal.com]

"What happens when doctors and mid-wives realise they can cut infant and mother mortality just by *washing their hands*."

Very simply nothing. The medical profession didn't believe the science of microbiology, or the concept of sterilisation. Non-medical people were not knowledgible on medicine - end of story (with tragic results, doctors and midwives had to have the idea of medical hygiene rammed down their throats).

Once people (political leaders) realised the strategic importance of the library in "1632" then sabotage and destruction by fire is highly likely.

[thoatherder.livejournal.com]

I disagree, you already have a kernel of people who practice antisepsis in the people from 2000, so the knowledge can spread by practical application from them, also while I agree *doctors* and especially surgeons had to be hit over the head many many times to adopt antisepsis, I suspect that among the nurses and midwives it would have been accepted much more quickly because it *worked* and could be seen to work.

Thinking about it now, is surgery still the domain of barbers? Yes it is, there is no entrenched medical organization, as there was in the 19th century when the germ theory of disease took hold. So the idea of washing hands may take hold faster.

The thing about the germ theory, is that with a microscope, you can show people bacteria, and you can then communicate to them that these little crawling things are bad news.

Oh for a time machine so my theories can be proven!

[littenz.livejournal.com]

I am of the view that stupidity is much more widespread and entrenched - viz your experiences with modern midwives.

It was an uphill struggle to get the basic antispesis practice of washing hands before attending childbirth accepted. Deaths of mothers with hand washing low, deaths of mothers without hand washing high (this was a big medical argument at the start of the C19th) - acceptance of concept: nil.

Army surgeons (they did exist in C17th) would apply antispesis lessons - they were paid to get soldiers back into action - where possible, but a field hospital had a very high through put of injured. Chances for using spares or cleaning equipment - not good.