eBook Review: Citizen of the Galaxy

Robert A. Heinlein, Citizen of the Galaxy

Product Details from Baen's Books

Published 6/12/1987

SKU:	9781416505525
Ebook Price: $6.00

1. Short review: 

2. Long review:

2.1. What I liked:  Robert Heinlein's masterly writing. Hemingway, Steinbeck, Clavell, and Heinlein were the best writers of the 20th century.
Roller-coaster or walk-in-the-park? Both and both are equally engrossing.
This book gives outstanding value for your money. It was first published in 1957 as a Serial in Astounding. Later that year, Scribner published the hardback and marketed it as a juvenile (with a first edition cover that really, really sucked).

2.2. What I did not like:  Does not apply.

2.3. Who I think is the audience:  SF fans. YA, especially boys.

2.4. Is the book appropriate for children to read?  Yes.

2.5. On the basis of reading this book, will I buy the author's next book?  Yes.

2.6. Other:  I'm not going to tell you about Citizen of the Galaxy, except to say that the Baen's Books version contains a number of other Heinlein works; six novels for six bucks on your choice of platform. No better book deal exists.

I'm going to tell you about Robert A. Heinlein.

I love to read Heinlein. His work is easy to read. I read a number of books concurrently (15 books and 1 magazine right now), so I constantly have opportunities to compare writers' work. Heinlein always stands above the others.

I recall one day I came across comments about Heinlein in IO9. Two young morons calling the Grandmaster a racist 'cause they had read Heinlein's Farnham's Freehold and decided that the book cast blacks in an unfavorable light. I was furious. I have not read IO9 since. I will not read any blog that perpetrates slander against a great man.

Let me ask you something.

Have you read Heinlein's Tunnel in the Sky? Word is that Heinlein wrote Tunnel in the Sky as an answer to Lord of the Flies. It was published in 1955, when segregation was still the law in many states. The hero of the book, Rod Walker, was black. Heinlein's publisher wanted to change Walker's race to white -- times being what they were -- but Heinlein threatened to withdraw the book. The editor carefully expunged all references to Walker's race, but there remain clues in the book. Robert James says there is a letter -- likely Heinlein's letter to his editor -- in which Heinlein explicitly stated that Walker was black. And Virginia Heinlein always said that Walker was black.

Have you read Heinlein's Starship Troopers? I don't mean the terrible movie they made of it with the whitebread Johnny Rico. I mean the book. Juan Rico, aka Johnny, is Filipino. Definitely. Beyond question.

The two morons who spread defamation on IO9 are racists. They judge people by different standards based on race. 'Thou shalt not write a book that holds evil may live in the hearts of black people, lest we spit upon thee and call thee nasty names. But, yeah, verily, thou mayest write the same of white people for the Lord knows their fathers have committed iniquities for which they shall pay even unto the seventh generation. Excepting those who mouth our righteous platitudes, of course.'

Heinlein was a man. He judged men as The Reverend Dr Martin Luther King, Jr, judged:  by the content of their character. Heinlein saw in all men flights of angels and mutterings of demons. He knew some would win the struggle and others would lose.

And he knew that race made no difference.

Do yourself the biggest favor you will do this year:  buy this book.

2.7. Links:  The Heinlein Society

2.8. Buy the book:  Citizen of the Galaxy
____________________

<--Buy the short story.   <--Buy the novel.

eBook Review: The Naval War of 1812

 
Theodore Roosevelt, The Naval War of 1812

Product Details

• File Size: 575 KB
• Print length: 384 pages
• Publisher: Public Domain Books (October 1, 2005)
• Sold by: Amazon Digital Services
• Language: English
• ASIN: B000JQV2W0
• Text-to-Speech: Enabled
• Average Customer Review: 4.6 out of 5 stars (5 customer reviews)
• Price: $0.00

1. Short review: 

2. Long review:

2.1. What I liked:  Theodore Roosevelt (before he became the President of the United States) wrote in a simple, straightforward, modern style.
Roller-coaster or walk-in-the-park? Oddly, kind of a roller coast. With a catfight.
This book give good value for your money, but only for the hard-core naval history fanatics. Else it is not worth your time to download.

2.2. What I did not like: Whoever scanned and uploaded the book did so with some skill but not enough. The tables Roosevelt carefully inserted into the text are scrambled. They can be deciphered with time and patience and a lot of reader knowledge; that is, you gotta know that 1,240 must refer to a ship's tonnage, not the weight of metal that it throws in a broadside. If you do not know your way around a ship -- starboard, larboard [archaic term for port], stem, topsail, capstan, keel, beam, forecastle, quarterdeck, stern chaser, kedge -- read another book.

The Kindle edition omits the numerous action charts and paintings referred to in the text.

2.3. Who I think is the audience:  Hard-core naval history fanatics.

2.4. Is the book appropriate for children to read?  Yes, if the child in question is a hard-core naval history fanatic.

2.5. On the basis of reading this book, will I buy the author's next book?  Yes, but there aren't any.

2.6. Other:  Most people do not know that President McKinley appointed Theodore Roosevelt to the office of Assistant Secretary of the Navy. (Chase the link. It's worth your time.) [1897]

TR first published this book a year after he graduated Harvard. [1881]

This book is the equivalent of a doctoral dissertation in naval history. TR used primary sources:  original US Navy logs and documents and original letters. Where available, TR also used British source documents. In the book, he critiqued and criticized writers on both sides of the Atlantic for distorting the histories. But TR reserved his venom for British naval historian William James; TR wrote that James's history was mendacious; that is, he called the man a liar.

TR organized the book masterfully. The organization follows:

1812 [The year]
1. On the seas. [Actions that occurred on the high seas.]
2. On the lakes. [Actions that occurred on the Great Lakes or Lake Champlain.]

1813
1. On the seas.
2. On the lakes.

1814
1. On the seas.
2. On the lakes.

1815
1. On the seas.
2. On the lakes.

Simple and effective.

Each year ends with a summary table of actions and losses. These tables are scrambled and can be read only with difficulty, but I found them informative.

Those who are not hard-core naval history fanatics . . . why are you still reading this? Those who are, I found something of interest. To wit, there was only one action in which the British were clearly superior to the Americans: Shannon v Chesapeake. Why? Because Captain Broke disobeyed the Admiralty's orders and exercised his men at the guns each week for both speed and accuracy. That is, he trained his men for war. That training paid when he met the enemy. And his crew had been together for 7 years.

By contrast, the crew of the Java had only been together 6 weeks when they were defeated by the Constitution. This should have been enough. Earlier that year, in only 6 weeks, Isaac Hull trained the crew of the Constitution well enough to outrun a British squadron. A month later -- 10 weeks with the crew together -- the Constitution destroyed the Guerriere.

British crews were trained to fire fast but were not trained to fire accurately. American crews were trained to fire fast and accurately. In one of the frigate actions -- the United States v the Macedonian, I think --  the British fired three broadsides to the Americans two, but the American shot struck more often.

In actions between ships of equal broadsides (or nearly so) -- that is, brigs -- the crews both British and American showed courage, but the Americans won the majority of the actions.

Why?

The typical American crew was better trained than its British counterpart.

Why?

The typical American officer was more diligent in the performance of his duties -- training his men -- than the typical British officer.

Why?

Edward Preble.

Isaac Hull, William Bainbridge, Stephen Decatur, Charles Stewart, Thomas Macdonough, James Lawrence, David Porter -- names that ring through American naval history -- all these men captained ships during the War of 1812 and all served under Edward Preble during the First Barbary War. They were Preble's Boys. They learned their trade from a master of naval warfare, and they kept at it in the way Preble taught them. More, they passed on that diligent attention to the craft to their subordinates.

The United States Navy owes its victories from Tripoli to Mobile Bay to Edward Preble.

Four last items:

I had forgotten how young Thomas Macdonough was when he commanded the American fleet on Lake Champlain: just 30. (TR gives his age as 28 -- an error.)

TR often mentions Capitaine Jurien de la Graviere, Guerres Maritimes, as an unbiased source. I have not found an English-language edition of the work. I think that TR read it in French. Given his high praise for la Graviere's even-handedness, I would very much like to read Guerres Maritimes.

Why TR included an account of the Battle of New Orleans in an appendix I do not know. Nothing in the account -- detailed and informative though it was -- concerned naval history. TR adored Andrew Jackson, but the account of the campaign reads differently than the rest of the book. The tone is different, the style is different. It feels like a much-loved college class assignment tacked onto the end of a dissertation. (There are several appendices. Some of them indicate that the book was published in several editions, and TR updated the book with a new appendix each time. At least one appendix answered his critics from across the pond.)

The full title of the book is The Naval War of 1812 or the History of the United States Navy during the Last War with Great Britain to Which Is Appended an Account of the Battle of New Orleans. Aren't you glad I abbreviated the title? I know I am.

2.7. Links:  Wikipedia on The Naval War of 1812 
                   The Naval War of 1812 from the Gutenberg Project

2.8. Buy the book:  The Naval War of 1812
____________________

<--Buy the short story.   <--Buy the novel.

eBook Review: Memoirs of General William T Sherman

 

William T. Sherman, Memoirs of General William T. Sherman

Product Details (Volume I)

• File Size: 616 KB
• Print length: 436 pages
• Publisher: Public Domain Books (June 1, 2004)
• Sold by: Amazon Digital Services
• Language: English
• ASIN: B000JQU85C
• Text-to-Speech: Enabled
• Average Customer Review: 4.8 out of 5 stars (4 customer reviews)
• Price: $0.00

Product Details (Volume II) 

• File Size: 605 KB
• Print length: 310 pages
• Publisher: Public Domain Books (June 1, 2004)
• Sold by: Amazon Digital Services
• Language: English
• ASIN: B000JQU85M
• Text-to-Speech: Enabled
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars (1 customer review)
• Price: $0.00

1. Short review: 

2. Long review:

2.1. What I liked:  W T Sherman wrote his memoirs in a simple, straightforward, modern style.
Roller-coaster or walk-in-the-park? Neither and both.
These books give great value for your money.

2.2. What I did not like:  It appears that these books were scanned from old print editions and cleaned up but not edited. Often the dates given in the text are wrong; for example, 1881 for 1861, 1868 for 1863, March 81 for March 31. How often? By my count, V1 had 21 instances; V2 had 22. There were other errors: horse vice house; daring vice during; spars vice spurs.

Whoever scanned and uploaded Sherman's memoirs did so with skill but not love.

2.3. Who I think is the audience:  History buffs.

2.4. Is the book appropriate for children to read?  Yes.

2.5. On the basis of reading this book, will I buy the author's next book?  Yes, but there aren't any.

2.6. Other:  I read Ulysses S Grant's memoirs. I am now reading Philip Sheridan's memoirs. Grant wrote like Ernest Hemingway. Sheridan wrote like James Fenimore Cooper.

W T Sherman wrote like Grant.

I divide Sherman's memoirs into three parts:  1. California and before the War; 2. The War; and 3. After the War.

1. California and before the War.

This part is written in narrative and reads fast and easy.

Sherman's account of his early life impressed me so little that I do not remember it. Wikipedia says he was from Ohio, came from a prestigious family, his father died young and left the family destitute, and W T was then raised by a family friend -- Thomas Ewing -- who secured for W T an appointment to the US Military Academy at West Point, New York.

(Sherman had powerful political connections throughout his life; his younger brother was a US Senator. If we rely on Sherman's account, he seemed to use his connections only to keep himself out of Washington, DC, and politics.)

On graduation from West Point and commissioning, Sherman was posted to Florida. As a lieutenant, he served in Florida and toured throughout South Carolina and Georgia, often hunting with friends.

When the War with Mexico began, Sherman was posted to California. He saw no combat, and this disappointed him. But his accounts of his travels throughout California are some of the most enjoyable pages of his memoirs.

With a small troop, Sherman went to Fort Sumter to verify the claim of finding gold. He did, and the California Gold Rush began.

After rising to the rank of captain, Sherman resigned his commission and returned east. He married and journeyed to St. Louis. Connections in St. Louis offered him a position as manager of their San Francisco branch bank, and Sherman accepted and returned to California.

Sherman managed the bank well. He saw that one gentleman held 20% of the bank's outstanding notes and asked the man to settle his debts. Other banks were quick to take the fellow's business and cash out Sherman's bank. This did not end well for them. The gentleman skipped off to South America. Sherman's bank was one of the few that survived the San Francisco bank panic of 1856.

Sherman returned east to manage the bank's newest branch in New York City, but that soon ended when the home office failed in the Panic of 1857. To support his growing family, Sherman tried a succession of jobs in the west and ended with an appointment as superintendent of a military academy in Louisiana. (This academy later became Lousiana State University.) Sherman was there when the War came.

2.  The War.

This part is heavily documented with written orders interspersed with clarifying short narratives. It was written as a defense of Sherman's actions during the War.

A staunch unionist, Sherman resigned his office in Louisiana rather than turn over federal arms to Louisiana state militia. He was commissioned a colonel and fought at First Bull Run. His actions there brought him a promotion to brigadier and a posting to Kentucky. After a few months, he was posted to St. Louis. It was here that Sherman got to know Henry Halleck and Ulysses Grant.

Halleck commanded the Division of the Missouri (later, the Military Division of the Mississippi), a cumbersome assemblage of military units stretching from Kentucky to Kansas. Grant was his most pugnacious subordinate. Halleck went on to become General-in-Chief of the Union armies until Grant succeeded him. Halleck then became Chief-of-Staff. Halleck spent most of the War in Washington, DC, as a soldier-bureaucrat.

Commanding a division, Sherman served under Grant first at Shiloh, then Corinth, then Vicksburg. They became friends and supported each other with advice and encouragement.

(An aside:  One of the striking features of the Mississippi Valley Campaign was the close cooperation of the Navy under Rear Admiral David Porter with the Union Army. Grant included Porter in his war councils. The success of the Union along the Mississippi was principally due to Grant, Sherman, Porter, and Farragut.)

Sherman complained of the poor equipment the government provided his soldiers and permitted his men to strip the Confederate dead of their firearms. At this time, the Confederate Army had superior small arms.

Sherman commented that often Confederate officers would sup with them under flags of truce and discuss the affairs of the day. He also mentioned that locals appealed to him for help finding their relatives who were prisoners or for protection. These continued throughout the War.

Sherman advised Grant against executing his plan to capture Vicksburg, but Grant -- apparently more attuned to the mood of the Yankee press than others -- overrode all opposition. Sherman willingly obeyed despite his voiced opposition.

Sherman followed Grant to Chattanooga to save Rosecrans's army. The evidence is that Sherman learned how to move an army from Grant's example at Chattanooga:  materiel moved by train and wagon; men and horses marched.

After Chattanooga, Grant was promoted to General-in-Chief (and he wisely made his HQ in the field instead of in Washington, DC). Grant named his trusted friend Sherman to command the Military Division of the Mississippi, the major force of which was now encamped south of Chattanooga. From there, Sherman marched on Atlanta and, on 3 September 1864, took it from Confederate General John Hood (who succeeded Joseph Johnston when Johnston was unable to lift the siege). Sherman then made a decision that still rankles in Georgia:  He ordered Atlanta evacuated. That meant that all civilians had to leave the city. He then burned the city.

The exchange of letters between Hood and Sherman regarding Atlanta and matters related to surrendered units and prisoner exchanges amused me. Here are two major combatants in the bloodiest war Americans ever fought closing their letters with 'Your most obedient servant'. But they serve as contrast against the letters Sherman wrote Grant which he closed 'Your true friend'.

After Atlanta, the Confederates were broken. Sherman commanded a veteran force that marched without notable opposition to the sea. They took Savannah before Christmas 1864.

(Although Sherman gave orders establishing foraging parties by brigade, he related an encounter with a private who carried chickens and meal pillaged along the way and answered his commanding general's disapproving look with "Forage liberally on the country," quoting Sherman's own order. Sherman clarified his order to state that foraging was limited to properly detailed and authorized foraging parties. This anecdote illustrated that Sherman's men expected they would receive justice from the commander they called 'Uncle Billy'. It is also clear that Sherman recognized the limits of a commander's control over the actions of his men in war.)

In 1865, Sherman marched north through the Carolinas. He and Grant knew the War would soon end. Grant took Robert E. Lee's surrender on 10 April 1865 at Appomattox Courthouse (the surrender terms were penned and signed in the home of Wilmer McLean near Appomattox Courthouse). Sherman took his lead from Grant and, when Confederate General Joe Johnston sued for terms a few days later, Sherman offered Johnston similar terms. Johnston enlarged his office to include all Confederate Armies and Sherman accepted, subject to approval by the President. Shockingly, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton violently disapproved and persuaded President Andrew Johnson to disapprove and order Sherman to reengage Johnston's army. (Lincoln had been assassinated. Sherman told Gen. Johnston of the assassination when they first met to agree surrender terms. Johnston expressed his shock and dismay at the assassination.) Stanton published the terms, his opinion of them, and the President's disapproval in the New York papers. Sherman, gobsmacked, withdrew the proffered terms from Johnston and gave him notice that hostilities would begin anew 48 hours after Johnston received the notice. Without options, Johnston surrendered. Union forces continued to pursue the remaining Confederate armies until they surrendered. This included the Battle of Brownsville, the last battle of the War, which the Union lost. All the blood spilled after Johnston's first surrender falls on Stanton's head.

Sherman did not conceal his anger towards and hatred for Stanton. When the victorious Union armies marched in review through Washington, DC, Sherman refused to shake Stanton's hand.

3. After the War.

Sherman thought he knew something about conducting a war -- and he did -- and he put those thoughts into a few paragraphs near the end of his memoirs. One thing that struck me was the manner in which volunteer units were raised. Wisconsin raised volunteer regiments and supplied them with replacements to fill their losses. Other states raised volunteer regiments and, when these lost men, raised new regiments. This resulted in green regiments at full strength and veteran regiments that were in fact under-strength companies. As an example, the famed 20th Maine formed 29 August 1862 and marched out with 700 men. Less than a year later, at the Battle of Gettysburg, it held the Union left at Little Roundtop with 80 effectives.

Sherman took up the rest of his memoirs with his promotion to Lieutenant General commanding the US Army; his repeated attempts to remove his HQ from Washington, DC; and his preparations for his retirement. He mentioned his tour of Europe without detail. He ignored the various wars against the Indians except to say that the transcontinental railroads were the true instruments of the defeat to the Indians, vice the Army. He lamented the reduction of the Army and concluded with the remark that Philip Sheridan would remain at the rank of major general when he assumed command of the Army.

2.7. Links:  none

2.8. Buy the books:
Memoirs of Gen. William T. Sherman - Volume 1
Memoirs of Gen. William T. Sherman - Volume 2
____________________

Buy the book at Amazon Kindle Books.

How to make an eZine

    You see this magazine?

     I don't know if you like science fiction, but if you do, subscribe to ClarkesWorld. Neil Clarke, the publisher, leads the way in eSubmissions and eMagazine publishing. Dr Stanley Schmidt, editor of Analog, gave Mr Clarke credit for sharing his system and now Analog accepts eSubs.
     More than that, ClarkesWorld is changing style and format to better fit eReaders. For example, the em-dash. Old style manuals dictate no space before or after an em-dash; thus, "[P]eople usually merely mention this fact—doing it in a way to make a body's mouth water—and judiciously stopped (sic) there." (Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi) But Mr Clarke saw that this style can cause some awkward format adjustments on the Kindle. To avoid those, he inserts a space before and after the em-dash; thus, "[P]eople usually merely mention this fact — doing it in a way to make a body's mouth water — and judiciously stop there."
     I commend Mr Clarke for his wisdom. I shall adopt that style — a space before and after an em-dash — myself.
     Do yourself a favor. Subscribe to ClarkesWorld. It's $1.99 a month. Money well-spent.

     Yes, I am recycling this from last week. Last week, "How to lead" was the second of a double bill. "How to lose a reader" generated considerable discussion on Writers' Cafe, but "How to lead" kind of got lost. I felt bad about that. Neil Clarke deserves better, so I brought him back again.
     Every issue of ClarkesWorld includes three stories. IMO they range from good to excellent. I haven't read any story in ClarkesWorld that rivaled 'The Light of Other Days', but neither have I read any dogs.
     Look, I subscribe to Analog and ClarkesWorld. I'm thinking I may not renew my subscription to Analog. I have no such thought about ClarkesWorld.
____________________

Buy the book at Amazon Kindle Books.

How to lose a reader; How to lead

How to lose a reader

    You see these two books?

    

     I didn't buy 'em.
     Why?
     I have been burned by bad purchases, so now I sample books before I buy. If I like the sample, I buy the book.
     Both of the books above failed the sample test and for the same reason:  The 'sample' did not give me any of the book. No. Crewdogs wasted my time and exhausted my patience with a glossary of terms BUFF jockeys use. Mr Towery, the editor of the stories, could have put the glossary in the back of the book, but, no, it is up front, taking up the sample space. Mr Smallwood wasted the sample space of Warthog thanking everybody he talked to, all creatures great and small. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
     Put it in the back!
     You wanna lose me as a reader? You wanna lose a sale? Easy. Throw your copyright notice, umpteen pages of reviews, your acknowledgements, your thank yous, your Twitter links, and your Christmas list into the front of your book where it will eat up your sample space. Keep me from reading one word of your story. And color me gone!
     eBooks ain't paper. If it ain't story, put it in the back. If it was paper before, change the format to fit eReaders.
     Shame, really. I love flying stories. Give me a half a reason to buy a flying book and I will. But I need half a reason.

+++++

How to lead

     You see this magazine?

     I don't know if you like science fiction, but if you do, subscribe to ClarkesWorld. Neil Clarke, the publisher, leads the way in eSubmissions and eMagazine publishing. Dr Stanley Schmidt, editor of Analog, gave Mr Clarke credit for sharing his system and now Analog accepts eSubs.
     More than that, ClarkesWorld is changing style and format to better fit eReaders. For example, the em-dash. Old style manuals dictate no space before or after an em-dash; thus, "[P]eople usually merely mention this fact—doing it in a way to make a body's mouth water—and judiciously stopped (sic) there." (Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi) But Mr Clarke saw that this style can cause some awkward format adjustments on the Kindle. To avoid those, he inserts a space before and after the em-dash; thus, "[P]eople usually merely mention this fact — doing it in a way to make a body's mouth water — and judiciously stop there."
     I commend Mr Clarke for his wisdom. I shall adopt that style — a space before and after an em-dash — myself.
     Do yourself a favor. Subscribe to ClarkesWorld. It's $1.99 a month. Money well-spent.
____________________

Buy the book at Amazon Kindle Books.