Explain why Harry Turtledove does NOT royally suck

OK, first of all, it’s taken me almost two years to get around to writing this thread, so my memory of the book’s gotten a bit hazy. Forgiveness, please.

I’d seen Harry Turtledove’s name thrown around both on these boards and in other places online in quite a positive light. He was considered the master of alternative history and whatnot, which sounded kind of interesting, so I filed his name away in the back of my head in the “stuff I want to check out sometime when I get around to it” file.

Then one day I found myself in a used bookstore, looking at one of his books. Specifically, “Into the Darkness”. “Groovy,” I thought to myself. I checked to make sure it was book one of a series (it was) and read the back cover, which said it was the story of a world war in a world where magic still worked. “Nifty,” I thought, and bought it, took it home, and read it.

That was the mistake. With the notable exception of L. Ron Hubbard’s dung-pile Mission Earth, this was one of the worst books I’ve ever read.

Firstly, it was notably unimaginative. Yes, it’s a world war in a land with magic and monsters and whatnot. So instead of shooting each other with guns, they have some sort of sticks (I forget what he called them) that fire death rays. Instead of airplanes dropping bombs, they have dragons that drop exploding eggs. Instead of submarines, they have sea monsters and magic spells that allow the rider to breathe underwater. Instead of roads, they have ley lines. Instead of tanks, they have big land monsters that they ride, armed with REALLY BIG sticks. You get the idea.

Even the overall plot was, I thought, derivative and predictable. There was a racial group that began to be ostracized and persecuted. There was a group of scientists that were working on an ultimate weapon - but it’s MAGICAL! Don’t forget that.

I mean, yeah, OK, it’s supposed to be an alternate history, but that doesn’t mean you can’t throw in SOMETHING original and interesting.

Secondly, and more damningly, it was just very very poorly written, I thought. It was extremely pedantic. He apparently felt he had to explain even the most obvious joke. A typical exchange that I just made up, because I can’t be bothered to dig up a real one:

“You better leave before the lieutenant sees you lounging around and assigns you to clean the latrines,” said Person A.

“Yes, I suppose you’re right, although it’s almost worth it,” said Person B.

They both chuckled, because they both knew that as relaxing as it was to be sitting on this beach, cleaning latrines was so unpleasant that it wasn’t even close to being actually worth it, and person A knew that person B felt that way as well, since they had both had latrine duty in the past, so that he understood the joking nature of his comment…

GET ON WITH IT!!! It wasn’t even funny to begin with, and after the fourth paragraph of explanation, any sort of enjoyment it may have originally contained has long since been wrung out. And he didn’t do that just with jokes, no. He did it to comments, plot points, arguments, reminiscences, and basically just about every other line in the book. After four or five hundred pages of this, it was a physical effort for me to finish the dang thing, and this is coming from a person that has NEVER failed to finish a book he’s started. Needless to say, I decided against finishing the rest of the trilogy.

So what is it? Did I just happen to pick his all time worst book out of many much better quality choices? Or is this just one of those things we’ll have to chalk up to differing tastes?

Either way, it’s going to take a LOT of convincing to get me to make another attempt at one of his books.

the plots of THE TWO GEORGES and AGENT OF BYZANTIUM

Forgot anything he wrote that involves aliens & magick tho

I’m about to start “Agent of Byzantium” tonight. Hope it’s good.

That’s an interesting story. ‘Guns of the South’ though is his masterpiece, a pretty good yarn.

“Worldwar” was fun, although there’s two notable problems. First, it relies heavily on fictionalized characters in a historical setting (even “Guns of the South” had mostly real people with fictional personalities), so it’s a little disorienting. Second, after four books, the series has a lot of unresolved issues and leaves you awaiting the sequel…which DID suck, and its fourth chapter STILL isn’t written.

I’m a big fan of Harry Turtledove’s work. But, in my opinion, fantasy is his weakest genre (I prefer his science fiction or historical fiction). In addition, I think his productivity is now working against him. He is capable of writing several novels a year, but I think his work is better when he slows down. And finally, Turtledove himself admits he tends towards certain cliches and has weakspots as an author. Your enjoyment as a reader depends on how much these weakpoints annoy you.

For what it’s worth, I consider Turtledove’s “Darkness” books his second to the worst series. The worst is his “War Between the Provinces” series which uses a similar idea of moving the American Civil War to a fantasy setting.

Hate to be the one to break it to you, but the series is now five books long and it isn’t over yet. I personally dropped out around the middle of book two after noticing that I was reading a description of a tunic for about the twentieth time in forty pages.

Yeah, Into the Darkness was almost comically bad. Most of his other stuff is so-so at best. Guns of the South is quite good, though.

In direct answer to the thread title…because when he is good, he is very, very good. Writing alternative histories is not for the faint of heart. To do it properly, you have to be well-versed in what did happen, with an understanding of all the patterns and forces involved (political, technological, sociological, etc.), then postulate a change in one or more of the major elements, then realistically work out the consequences. And that’s just for the background. In order to make a good story out of all this, he needs sympathetic, realistically motivated charcters, a good plot, pacing, dialogue, etc. that seamlessly interweaves details of the changed history.

He does all of this, sometimes exceedingly well. Agent of Byzantium is a standout, and I enjoyed the Worldwar saga as well. It combined two staple movie/book/pulp fiction genres – WWII combat and SF – and did so entertainingly. Guns of the South, though, is probably his finest. It is richly detailed and if you think SF fanboys are fanatical, you just haven’t seen a roused pack of nitpicking Civil War/War Between The States buffs. It takes guts to do an alternative history set in that melieu.

By the way, he’s also a superb short story writer. One in particular, “Hindsight,” from is collection Kaleidoscope involving a thinly disguised John W. Campbell and Poul Anderson set in the 1950s and meeting a time traveler from roughly our era is one of the most truly satifying stories I’ve run across in 40+ years of reading SF.

Am I a fan? Yep, though I will have to say his fantasy stories are not the place to start.

In direct answer to the thread title…because when he is good, he is very, very good. Writing alternative histories is not for the faint of heart. To do it properly, you have to be well-versed in what did happen, with an understanding of all the patterns and forces involved (political, technological, sociological, etc.), then postulate a change in one or more of the major elements, then realistically work out the consequences. And that’s just for the background. In order to make a good story out of all this, he needs sympathetic, realistically motivated charcters, a good plot, pacing, dialogue, etc. that seamlessly interweaves details of the changed history.

He does all of this, sometimes exceedingly well. Agent of Byzantium is a standout, and I enjoyed the Worldwar saga as well. It combined two staple movie/book/pulp fiction genres – WWII combat and SF – and did so entertainingly. Guns of the South, though, is probably his finest. It is richly detailed and if you think SF fanboys are fanatical, you just haven’t seen a roused pack of nitpicking Civil War/War Between The States buffs. It takes guts to do an alternative history set in that melieu.

By the way, he’s also a superb short story writer. One in particular, “Hindsight,” from is collection Kaleidoscope involving a thinly disguised John W. Campbell and Poul Anderson set in the 1950s and meeting a time traveler from roughly our era is one of the most truly satifying stories I’ve run across in 40+ years of reading SF.

Am I a fan? Yep, though I will have to say his fantasy stories are not the place to start.

I started reading his world at war series where aliens invade during WW2 but stopped at the third book, reading 500 pages where the plot stands still was getting tiresome.

Turtledove comes up with great alternate history ideas (such as the Mediterranean being an enormous inhabited valley called “The Bottomlands”, rather than a sea, which could have happened). His style varies from exasperating to pretty good.

I also recommend The Guns of the South. His fantasy is pretty clunky, but when he’s dealing with real historical questions, it’s fascinating stuff. In fact, my favorite book of his is a straight historical fiction about the Byzantine Emperor Justinian II (Justinian, published under the name Henry Turtletaub).

He does have a tendancy to really slow down the dialogue with unnecessary explanations of characters’ reactions. For example, in the Worldwar series:

Character A states an opinion;
Character B provides an alternate opinion based on a different perspective;
Character A consider’s the alternate opinion, decides it has some merit, and nods thoughtfully.

Fine. But this happens over and over and over again, possibly hundreds of times throughout these very long books.

I think Hometownboy pretty much nailed it. I enjoy his purely historical alternative fiction. His Great War and American Empire series are brilliant, I am enthralled by a world where the USA and CSA fought a bitter conflict of trench warfare, and how the CSA has just elected ( by the end of the second book ) it’s own version of Hitler president. I can’t wait to see what happens next. ( book 3 comes out in June, IIRC ) I really have a deeper apreciation for what we do have in this country as opposed to how things could easily have turned out.

I like Turtledove, but there are definite flaws (too many characters, clunky dialogue, creepy sex scenes, thinking up something nifty and then badgering it to death) which are more visible in some books than the others. I haven’t read Into the Darkness, but I’d imagine it’s one of the books where the flaws are more visible. I’d also recommend Guns of the South, as it’s clearly the best of the books. I’d shy from calling him the “master” of alternative history, which is a title I reserve for Robert Sobel for his magnum opus “For Want of a Nail”, written like a history book from a world where the Americans lost their revolutionary war. Why can’t there be more books like FWoaN?

I’d also recommend, if you can find them somewhere, the short stories “Must and Shall” and “Islands in the Sea.” The first one is a detective story set in a world where Union brutally occupied the Confederacy after the Civil War with the occupation lasting at least until WW2, and the second one about Christian and Moslem envoys trying to convert the Khan of the Bulgars in a world where the Arabs conquered Constantinople.

I really like Harry Turtledove, but you can’t read most of his books like regular novels. I think I’d find most of his alternate history more enjoyable if he wrote them as history textbooks, frankly. “Guns of the South” is an obvious exception. You can tell he put a lot of effort into that. But the man writes 3 or 4 books a year. He cranks out almost as much as Piers Anthony! And although each book/series has a great premise, and is interesting enough to read, the characters and dialog really start to creak. He should really really slow down. Not every good idea needs to be turned into a book. Keep a notebook of ideas for when you are old and burned out and need inspiration, and restrict yourself to writing one book a year.

In defense of Turtledove’s fantasy …
The Case of the Toxic Spell Dump is great.

Harry Turtledove’s work may or may not suck (I say it does) but whoever is supposed to be editing his stuff sure sucks. Writers are not supposed to go for word volume. As Twain wrote (I think), good writers must “eschew surplusage.”

Hometownboy/Weirddave nailed the OP for me. Fair criticism alot of you: esp. PatrickM.

The caveat I’d offer to the former two is Ruled Britania which is one of the worst books I have ever read — & it had the earmarks of what makes him great: alot of Alternative History & “what if”… I could go on in a positive vein but it would just repeat what has already been said

He’s hit and miss, like everybody else has said. I’ve really, really enjoyed the How Few Remain/Great War/American Empire series. It’s just enthralling. That said, I’ve read some of his fantasy and it was less-than-good.

Thanks for the nod, weirddave and jimmmy. And not to hijack but in the slightest, if Kantalooppi is going to mention Sobel, I’ll have to give props to what I think is the best alternate history novel, H. Beam Piper and his Lord Kalvin of Otherwhen, expanded from a novellette “Down Styphon” with a fascinating premise about a Pennsylvania state trooper who gets whooshed to an alternate history where a powerful church stifles development and controls the affairs of the feudal world because it keeps as the institutional secret the knowledge of how to make gunpowder. Fortunately, our protagonist is a student of military history, a good strategist, a born leader, and just happens to know how to make a higher quality gunpowder than the church…