Monday, December 27, 2004

For Want of a Nail

For want of a nail, the shoe was lost
For want of a shoe, the horse was lost
For want of a horse, the rider was lost
For want of a rider, the battle was lost
For want of a battle, the war was lost
For want of a war, the nation was lost

I’m not sure who actually penned this little saying but I know that Ben Franklin printed it in Poor Richard’s Almanac. Its used for the title of a book that I’m currently reading called For Want of a Nail. The book is written as a 200 year history of the North American continent assuming that General Johnny Burgoyne defeated the Americans under General Gates at the battle of Saratoga.

In 1777, the British launched a two-pronged attack along the Hudson River with the intent of cutting New England off from the rest of the colonies. Burgoyne’s force was coming from Canada and met an American army under General Gates and General Arnold. The Americans not only beat Burgoyne in a pitched battle, but because of the inability to retreat, he was forced to surrender completely. It was the only good news that came that year as Washington was pushed back from Philadelphia and the city was captured.

In the book, Burgoyne manages to defeat the American force, aided by reinforcements that arrived from the south and proceeds to capture Albany. With the loss of Philadelphia, the more moderate faction of Congress enters into negotiations with the British and a formal reconciliation is hammered out in 1778. In the book, the British give fairly generous terms and only end up executing a few major players in the war: Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Hancock, Roger Sherman, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Richard H. Lee, and Patrick Henry. Washington is convicted but sentenced to a prison colony.

The book then takes an interesting twist with the flight of some of the second tier founding fathers. Under Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Gen. Nathaniel Greene, a group of settlers flee, to what for us would be Texas, and found a new nation called Jefferson. Back in the colonies, the territory is reorganized with a certain level of autonomous rule under British supervision and renamed the Confederation of North America (C.N.A.)

Currently I’m in the mid 19th century where the C.N.A. has just reorganized under a strong central government (very much like Canada now) with Gen. Winfield Scott elected as Governor-General (essentially the Prime Minister). Meanwhile the country of Jefferson has grown to include all the territory from the Rio Grande to within 50 miles of the Mississippi. The chapter I’m on now jumps back in time to the early part of the 19th century and will lay the foundation for the consolidation of Jefferson with the struggling republic of Mexico to form the United States of Mexico (U.S.M.).

For the most part it’s fairly believable. I question some small aspects of the development, including the economic factors that lead to the abolition of slavery in the C.N.A. But it reads well and is fairly entertaining. My only real complaint about the book is the authors annoying lack of maps. There is one broad map at the beginning of the book but no smaller maps that would help you determine where certain cities are. Obviously I know where all the old cities are, but as new cities spring up, it’s hard to determine where certain cities are. For example, the author mentions the city of Michigan City several times, which I think is somewhere in either the location of Cleveland or Toledo, but I can’t be sure and there is no map to give me a better idea where it is. But other than that I think it’s quite well done.

Probably the most interesting aspect is the constant use of footnotes, referencing books that don’t exist. It really gives it the flavor of a true history of a world that we might have experienced in some other reality. I’m not done, but from what I’ve read, I would highly recommend it.

Monday, December 06, 2004

Tonight You Will Play Miss Saigon,

Mrs. X and I went to see Miss Saigon over the weekend. How was it? Pretty good. We both had seen it before and when I look back on it, I think this version was a little better. The quality of the singing and acting was about the same (although I liked the engineer in the previous version I saw a little better) but the set and choreography was better in this production. The helicopter scene was done with a hologram which allowed for greater capacity of movement and making it seem more real. There was also an interesting dance with a dragon and tiger puppet during the Year of the Dragon routine, which added to the intensity of the song. The theater was nice too. This was my first time to the Aronoff Center and it is quite an impressive place. Good sound, nice build and very orderly. Mrs. X and I look forward to seeing another show there.

We also had the holiday party for my work the same day. The party was somewhat bleh, especially since we had already eaten before the party started. But it was held at the ballpark downtown which meant that we could go into the Reds Hall of Fame. Very enjoyable and even had some fun interactive things. My favorite was the do it yourself press box where you got to make the call on your choice of 6 events in Reds' history. We called Lou Pinella throwing first base in 1990 and the scoring of the winning run in game 2 of the 1990 World Series. I was complemented by the way I said, "... and this one belongs to the Reds." Not bad for a 2 year transplant.

So it was a fun weekend. But now I get the fun of running out for a meeting with the finance people for the house. I can only imagine what joy that will be.

Friday, December 03, 2004

Alternate History dilemma

I was checking in with the news over at Istapundit when I noticed a link to the latest Harry Turtledove novel. His latest foray involves a land invasion by the Japanese after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Reviews are mixed and deal mostly with one of my greatest gripes against the alternative history that's out there: poor writing.

As Mrs. X can tell you, I speculate on alternative outcomes a great deal. I play wargames and constantly opine during reality shows about what tactical moves a person needs to make to further themselves. I've also got both What If? books, which are essays exploring the origins and outcomes of various alternate scenarios. However, I am greatly frustrated by most of the regular writing concerning alternate history, despite some interesting premises.

Now, some of the books wouldn't appear on my radar because the scenario is too out there. One book supposes that Germany, enraged by the US refusal to cede the Philippines and Cuba to them, mounts an invasion of Long Island in 1901. Mildly interesting premise but I can't see the British navy allowing a naval group and transport ships out of Germany on that scale. German colonies represent a threat to British interests in the Caribbean and Australia.

However, other books do have interesting ideas. A carrier group from 2021 accidentally sent back in time to 1942 and the cultural clash that results; a Roman empire that never fell but went on to conquer the world; and everyone's favorite, what if the South won the Civil War. All good premises. Most have been explored, but have fallen badly because of poor writing. I tried to read Harry Turtledove's How Few Remain and couldn't get more than a few chapters into it. The characters were poorly written, badly developed, repetitive, and strangely out of place for the time period.

I've seen others that may be good, but I have yet to have a chance to read them. Most other books seem to deal with if the Nazis had won WWII scenarios. Interesting but it becomes an old premise after a while. I'm actually interested in a book that I've seen and may give a chance to that explores 200 years of American history assuming the Americans lost the battle of Saratoga and, as a result, the American Revolution.

But, again, but for the writing style...

Thursday, December 02, 2004

TAR and Lost

First, a welcome back after the long Turkey Day weekend. It was quite tasty and we had a good time at my parent's place. The drive was a little interesting as we ran into some nasty snow just north of Peoria, but it was almost gone by the time to got my parent's place and completely gone on the way back.

Now for some TAR thoughts. I've shown once again why I am very poor at picking things on TV. In the very first episode, I picked the Mormon girls to finish in that cursed 4th spot. But they ran into a little snag in the hayfield. They kept unrolling bales and couldn't find a clue. They were out there for 9 hours and had unrolled around 100 bales before Phil mercifully went out there and told them that they had been eliminated. In all that, they must have simply overlooked some of the clues as there were 20 clues hidden in various bales. After the 8 taken by the previous teams, 12 remained and only a few bales were left by the time Phil made it out.

So, someone else will have to take the role of favorite team and finishes 4th. I've softened a little on the wrestlers but I still think that the wife is a shrew who gets frustrated a little too easily and lashes out at her husband. Mrs. X and I also think that the screamer (or Blue Hair) has taken shots at his wife with his fists before. It would be interesting to see if he gets arrested either during or after the show for assault and battery. I am still however sticking with the long distance dating couple as a favorite for the top 3 and maybe even to win it all. Now watch them get eliminated next week ;)

Now for Lost. I've been sucked into this show from the first episode. I like the mystery surrounding it which is even cleverer than The X-Files, even though X-Files had (so far) better stand-alone episodes. This week's episode was the first full trip into the metaphysical world. We were teased with it in the Doc's Dad episode, but we jumped full in. Mrs. X was not thrilled with it as she thought it was ethically unsound of the psychic to send the pregnant girl on a doomed flight so that she would be isolated to raise her child by herself. I didn't mind myself.

The other grab was the reveal of the mole. Mrs. X has been pointing out Ethan to me for the past couple of episodes but only because the actor is related to Tom Cruise in some fashion. Still, I began to think that there might be something different about this guy in the closing moments of the episode. We've seen occasional randoms but never with obvious point outs like Ethan. I shall be interested to see what this group of other people on the island are and if they are connected in any way to the French woman.

One further thing that interests me is the use of Locke to represent choice and wilderness. At least twice now he has been shown representing the choice between light and dark. First with the backgammon set and then in the dream with his eyes. There is something important about this man, but what it is, I don't know just yet. I may have to start scouting some boards such as TWoP to see what theories there are.