I love them! And while I was deployed I was able to get several others into the series. And another similarity is that both series pretty much take place in the exact same area. Both were centered in mid-western Oregon, and Corvalis and Eugene are prominant in both books (as well as groups comming up to help from California). However, I have to admit I much prefer the sister series about Nantucket island much more then I do the Emberverse. And yes, their styles are very similar, as is Mr. Stirling with his stylistic father, Harry Turtledove. But where Mr. Brinn largely writes single books, Mr. Stirling writes grand epics (like Mr. Turtledove), which cover many years and even has main characters killed off (something which almost never happens in other books or series). If you like David Brinn, you should check out the series Prophets Of Science Fiction on Science Channel. He is a regular guest on the show, frequently commenting on other sci-fi authors like Isaac Asimov, Hobert Heinlein and Philip K. Dick.
Turtledove is way overrated... He basically write the same story over and over again by just changing the time period. He also tends to start to many subplot at the same time, meaning that the story just keep jumping from one to another to the point that it become a confused mess.
If you like reading the same plot with different players many time. He's not alone in doing that. My favorite fantasy writer, David Eddings, did the same with the Belgariad/Maloreans & Ellenium/Talmuli series.
Not hardly. I am not sure how many of his stories you have read, but that description only fits 2 series I can think of. And that is his 2 that deal with WWII (Worldwar and Timeline-191 series). You have his Videssos Cycle, which is like almost nothing he has written. Dealing with a Roman Legion dumped into another world, it is a swords and sorcery style. And with only 3 main viewpoint characters, all on the same side. Then you have his Hellenic Traders series, which deals with 2 Bronze age Greek cousins who operate a trading company. No real war (other then pirates and the local conflicts), no fantasy, simply their adventures traveling through the region in around 400 BCE. But there are som "fantasy" elements, like the skull of a gryphon (it is how they described a dinosaur skull one of them bought). Then you have one of my favorites of all, Justinian. A rather interesting biographical novel about the life of Justinian II, told in the first person. And another favorite, The Two Georges, written with Richard Dreyfuss (yes, the actor). About a world where the Revolution never happened, with many famous people making cameos in other ways (Richard Nixon is a used car salesman, JFK is a radical who wants to see the US seperate from the Commonwealth, and Dr. Martin Luther King is the Colonial Governor). I am currently reading 2 of his books now, one of them The Man With The Iron Heart. Rather interesting, imagine WWII Germany preparing for the worse, and the Werewolves being led by Reinhard Heydrich. Essentially it is trying to put an Iraq style insurgency into post-war Germany. Although what you are saying is often said of a great many sci-fi and fantasy authors. They often become famous for 1 or 2 series, and then people stereotype all of their works useing that as the standard. If you do that, it is easy to classify Piers Anthony as a "hack juvenile author" when you only look at his most famous work, Xanth. But you do so by ignoring all of his other works, from Bio of A Space Tyrant, Cluster, Tarot, and Incarnations of Immortality to stand alone books that were very different, like Steppe, Rings of Ice, and Killobyte. I am also a fan of the work of Eddings, as well as Raymond Feist. I even remember working with Midkemia role playing settings long before he became known as an author. But this is something a great many authors get classed by. They become known for one thing (Asimov and robots), and some people think that is all they do. But doing that ignores a lot of other works they have written.
I go with what is available were I live. I've read the Worldwar and the American Empire series. In both you can find some glaring similitude in the characters. You could interchange most of them from one series to the other and it wouldn't change anything. I find them both too boged down by sub plots and too many character that are only peripheral to the story anyway. This is only my own personal impression anyway. I don't pretend to be an expert or an art critique. But if these were movies I would say that they botched up the editing.
I agree in regards to Turtledove's alternate history fiction. Much of his science fiction short stories are better. But Turtledove's alternate history is along the lines of "everything could've been far, far worse so we're lucky it happened the way it did". See above.
Not nessicarily. That is mostly his series works. He has others which are way different. Like Down In The Bottomlands, where the Zanclean Flood never happened (this is the flood that broke through the Straight of Gibraltar and filled in the Mediteranian Sea). Or Agent of Byzantium, where Mohammed became a Christian Saint instead of founding Islam. The Two Georges actually presented an almost Eutopian world, where the British Empire still ruled the world, with the American Colonies still a strong member in the 20th Century. Once again, you are branding all of his work from only a few of his books.
I was doing some research for a topic in another forum, and ran across this. Thought I should add it in here. So true, so true.
At the time the book was written (by Neville Chute) there were many theories as to how the aftermath of a nuclear war would look. For it's time it was pretty accurate and not so far from the truth as some would say. Most of the bombs made in those times were much "dirtier" than those of today. Some were said to contain a cobalt layer that has a half life of 99 years, enough of those would create a really bad atmosphere. The theory of "nuclear winter" came a little later, first by a Russian scientist, much is still considered credible today.
