Personal "demoting", I think, of hitherto much-liked author

After a couple of decades of – considerably qualified – Harry Turtledove fandom on my part: the past couple of days’ doings have given me cause to wonder whether this will continue.

Result of my long having been vaguely aware of a work of this author’s, called Every Inch A King, first published some fifteen years ago. I knew that it was a stand-alone novel (which often, with Harry, tends for me to be good news); about a likeable and resourceful rogue who seeks to run a scam by which he will accede, at least for a time, to the kingship of Albania which is just then “going begging”. It has proved not totally easy to come by, at any rate where I am; at last I managed to get a copy – not cheap, but not at an “arm-and-a-leg” price – via Amazon.

Having acquired the book, I discovered that it is among that sector of Turtledove’s fiction which is set (the “universes” and their characteristics differ from each other as regards details) in alternative Earths or strongly Earth-like planets, where modern technology of all and any kinds, does not exist – being replaced by magic, and by the use in various capacities of trained giant, and essentially mythical, beasts. Societies are overall archaic-ish – kings and barons, etc., rather than republics and plebeian “strong-man” rulers. Where there is formal religion: the religions are supposedly fictional, but correspond closely enough for there to be no mistake, with the appropriate ones from “our world”. There are those who enjoy Turtledove’s writings where “Earth is Earth as we know it”, but can’t stand his “sorcerous” stuff at any price. This is not necessarily the way with me: his magic-and-sorcery material I seem – not always for the same reasons – to like (Videssos, the “Darkness” series) or loathe (The Case Of The Toxic Spell Dump, the “sorcerous American Civil War” books).

Hadn’t been expecting “sorcerous Harry”; but obviously it was appropriate to give this one a go, and judge it on its merits. As things unfold, it becomes clear that this tale is tied to a very specific “our real world” time and place: the action beginning in northern Greece, in the latter stages in early-ish 1913, of the First Balkan War. The various nations of Europe at that time, show up in the text – re-named by the author, but via pretty transparent allusions which make identification easy: the ultimate being Albania, which is called Shqiperi. Also, the author is at pains to mention stock “trade-mark” characteristics of each nation and its people. The first-person-narrator hero and would-be king of Shqiperi / Albania, comes originally from this scene’s Germany-equivalent; though he is too laid-back, rascally, and non-law-abiding, to be a cliche German.

For me, any initial pleasure taken in matching up of names and hackneyed traits, to countries; was quite quickly overtaken by coming to find virtually the whole thing and everything about it, wearisome. Turtledove’s writing is often felt to be excruciatingly heavy-handed; not least, by me – “on a good day” for him, I can enjoy him – on a not-so-good day, things can be painful. Here, I found the highly-exact corresponding with everything about “our real world” at a particular moment in history, the reverse of enjoyable. Strong feelings prompted, re Turtledove – as often in his enormous output – shamelessly “doing the business by numbers / phoning it in”. The sheer mechanistic character of the thing, and the countless cutesy “likenesses and devices”, became embarrassing to me. If this same tale had been set straightforwardly in “our real world” in 1913 – no sorcerous stuff – I feel it likely that I’d have quite enjoyed it, and read it to the end; while not thinking it among the author’s very best. As things were, I gave up on it about a third of the way through, when our hero had just arrived in Shqiperi / Albania. I felt that this just wasn’t fun; and was unable to care less, what was going to happen to the guy – even should it be a horrible death upon discovery of his imposture. (He’s telling the tale himself; and makes reference to the terrible and long-lasting “War of the Kingdoms” which breaks out the following year – so I suppose he survives the “Shqiperi” thing.)

This disappointment, re something which had long piqued my curiosity and interest; has me reckoning to be probably, to a large extent at the end of my road with Turtledove. I might in the future, re-read material by him which I have already read and liked – but am coming to feel more strongly than before, concerning this author’s output, that – thinking Sturgeon – “a large percentage of it (and likely, anything by him which I might encounter, hitherto unknown”) is crap".

I don’t think anyone ever really thought Turtledove was all that great of a writer, at least not in the sense of having an exceptional command of the language and how to manipulate it to convey ideas and stories. His popularity AFAIK, has always been with the stories and concepts themselves- he’s got some really interesting ideas and stories, but the actual writing done to convey them is only adequate at best.

And beyond that, alternate history is kind of a weird thing to write I suspect, in that you have to be very true to life, right up until the point when your tale diverges from real life, and even then, you can’t just totally freestyle; you still have to work within the historical constraints.

Sounds like Turtledove might have bit off more than his literary talent could chew- alternate history AND fantasy all wound up? I haven’t seen it done overly well yet. Plenty of good fantasy, and plenty of good alternate history, but the blend seems to be problematic.

Agreed on fantasy/alt-history being hard to do well.

I don’t think an author should be down-voted for one book you didn’t like. I’d put down the book and re-read a beloved Turtledove instead.

He falls into the “guilty pleasure” category for me, and that’s an uneven category, I’ve found. One of my guilty pleasures is Dean Koontz, and his work is all over the place, quality-wise. I pick up a Koontz I haven’t read with NO idea if it’ll be a delight (Seize The Night)* or embarrassingly clunky (my personal opinion of his Frankenstein books).

*especially the audiobook.

You’re demoting the author based on the fact that you didn’t like this book of his, in one of his genres that you already knew you didn’t like?

I like a lot of Turtledove’s older and shorter stuff, he has some really amazing short stories. I liked his ‘more recent’ (which is now like two decades ago, lol) works up to a point, but felt like at some point he stopped really crafting interesting novels and started just churning out word count for money. Note that I don’t fault any author for doing that, but I also lose interest in reading them. What really cinched it for me was when I was in a bookstore, couldn’t remember the title of the last of the books in the WW1 that I had read, so I used my technique of flipping through the book to see if I remembered reading it. I found that I was unable to tell if I had actually read it or not, as there were so many ‘filler’ pieces of writing that he recycles. (I also raised an eyebrow when the latter part of the ‘Lizards invade during WW2’ series degenerated into ‘female lizards take ginger and go into heat, here’s some lizard orgy scenes,’ but I was willing to let that go).

I kinda liked The Case of the Toxic Spell Dump, or at least found it mildly entertaining.

Been a gradual process for me – not just on the basis of one solitary work, be it found no matter how much of a “turkey”. I mentioned in my OP that I like some of Turtledove’s “sorcerous” material – but: that coupled with very-precise adherence to “real history” with which one is basically familiar, has proved for me, pretty much “kiss of death” stuff. I will in all probability re-read in future, things by the guy which I’ve read and do like.

(My bolding) – I do feel that that very largely says it about Turtledove in relatively recent times. As you say, hard to blame an author who manages to make that ploy work – who doesn’t like money? – but I have to wonder whether Turtledove is sometimes uncomfortably aware that to a great extent, he’s spewing out large quantities of “autopilot” trash.

It is indeed quite possible in his series, to lose track of “which is which”. Re the “Worldwar / Lizards” series (which I do greatly like, except for the abysmal last book Homeward Bound) – this was experienced in spades by my brother; who uncharacteristically, was very taken with the “Lizards” saga (his tastes in fiction are usually pretty “highbrow”). After the first phase (World War II) he went on to read, and enjoy, the second phase (colonisation fleet arrives in the 1960s); but subsequently found that he’d read the first two volumes of that trilogy in the wrong order, without noticing anything amiss. That would seem to say something not altogether good, about Mr. Turtledove’s writings. (The titles concerned, don’t help to clarify things – they are Colonisation – Second Contact and Colonisation – Down to Earth, and I forget what’s the correct order for the two !)

Many readers do indeed greatly like “TSD” – a fair number positively consider it Turtledove’s chef d’ouevre. It just signally failed to do it for me. Sometimes Harry’s humour works for me, sometimes it greatly doesn’t – I found “TSD” feeble at best: endless, laboured parallels between numerous and assorted features of our present-day civilisation, and “sorcerous” ditto – plus, he lets rip in a big way, with puns. At the risk of sounding like Turtledove: IMO, he thinks himself the world’s greatest pun-master – but in that, he thinks wrong. I struggled through “TSD” until Henry Legion, the CIA “spook” who is a literal, spectral spook, showed up – at which I threw the book violently against the opposite wall, and read no more.

I think part of it is that Turtledove is extremely prolific- he’s been at it for about 40 years (first novel was in 1979, IIRC), and he’s written more than 3 times that many books.

With that kind of output, getting a few duds is inevitable.

As for your point about authors just churning out word count for money, I think that applies to numerous authors I have enjoyed in the past: John Grisham, Dean Koontz, and Stephen King among. Especially King.

Then there is Tom Clancy who had his Jack Ryan series continued after death by various authors.

Well he’s no Eric G. Iverson.

Or H.N. Turteltaub?

It’s pretty unusual for an author to have bulletproof consistency in their body of work - if anything that would be a sign that they’re not very good or ambitious as a writer, as they’re not taking chances.

I think I can relate to what you’re saying though, although I’ve not read Turtledove. I like a good formulaic fantasy book myself, so if I pick one up with that expectation and it turns out to be not what I expected then it feels like false advertising. I don’t mind reading something by a quality writer that doesn’t work, falls flat on its arse, but I ain’t got time to read hack writers trying to spread their wings in this fashion. A Big Mac should be a Big Mac, not a medium rare Big Mac.

As an aside - Cormac McCarthy would be a rare example of a high quality writer with a staggeringly consistent output. His weakest book (No country for old men, IMHO), is still solidly good. But he’s clearly achieving that sustained brilliance by being fairly narrow in the type of books he’s writing.

As a teenager, my two favorite authors were Richard Brautigan and Harlan Ellison. I lost patience with both of them in my 20s. I retain a nostalgic fondness for both, but neither really defines “good writing” for me any more.