Talk:Bring the Jubilee
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bring the Jubilee article.|
|WikiProject Novels / Sci-fi||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Alternate History||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Expansion of article
Just added the headlines and worked the existing material into these. Will work more on themes later. Also not sure Hodge actually kills the Confederate officer or just stops the advance because the troops suspect an ambush ahead or something like that. Will re-read it for a university assignment anyway.
- explanation is in order. if hodgins causes the death of the confederate officer who occupied little round top, the implication (as you have written it) is that the 20th maine holds the hill and the federals win the battle. the whole plot falls apart. please clarify. Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Changed "kills" to "cause the death". The officer is killed in a squabble after one of the men tries to steal Hodge's boots.
Also note that the Confederate officer who occupied Little Round Top was the direct ancestor of the woman who invented the time machine. Presumably she was descended from a child he fathered after the Battle of Gettysburg. (I read this novel many years ago and I don't remember whether Ward Moore says this explicitly.) Since she was never born, the time machine was never invented, and that's why Hodge Backmaker can't return to his own time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
War of Southron Independence
The first sentence of the third paragraph of the first page in the paperback version published by [Del Rey] Ballantine Books, New York, 1997 (c. 1953, 1981) reads as follows: "Grandpa Hodgins, after whom I was named, perhaps a little grandiloquently, Hodgins McCormick Backmaker, had been a veteran of the War of Southron Independence." "Southron" for the more plebian "Southern" is a perfectly legitimate old Southern poeticism, often (though not always) associated with grandiose pretension. (I say that as a Southerner born and bred, albeit from a anti-Secessionist Tennessee family that gave two sons to the Union cause.) I hope I won't have to correct this again.--Orange Mike 16:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- If the problem does persist, a [sic] would be in order. -- Rob C (Alarob) 02:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
According to the book, the CSA got California and "the southern tip of Nevada, for obvious reasons" (apparently Moore was unaware that New Mexico included that part of Nevada), very generous, since the Confederacy could have detached the west as a sattelite.
Also, Haiti's independent, which is an important point in the book.
Overall, I think that the book was pretty unrealistic. The Confederates would have been hard pressed to occupy Mexico and Central America, let alone conquer Brazil and Argentina, a dystopian moral fable rather than a real alternate history. But that's just my take, any rate, my real point is the problem with the map. --220.127.116.11 21:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree the book was unrealistic: the North would not have been so utterly crushed and demorlaised, and the South would not have been so all-powerful, just from adifferent outcome of one battle. But that is the book which Moore did write. Anyway, re the map - there is missing the Spanish Empire, which is not much an empire really (only Cuba and Puerto Rico, essentially, since the war of 1898 did not happen in this hisoty) but the term "Spanish Empire" ocurs in the book many times and should be also in the map. Adam Keller 14:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The map seems to be completely missing. 18.104.22.168 17:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
deleting reference to McKinlay Kantor's IF THE SOUTH HAD WON THE CIVIL WAR
The paragraph/sentence "MacKinlay Kantor's If the South had won the Civil War is credited with having inspired the premise for Moore's own version of alternate history Confederate States victory." is deleted for gross innaccuracy.
BRING THE JUBILEE is copyright 1953; IF THE SOUTH HAD WON THE CIVIL WAR first appeared in LOOK in 1960 (and is copyright that year) as a Civil War Bicentennial special article. For reference, go to each at Amazon.com and read the COPYRIGHT PAGE. Sans some extremely alternate history, a 1960 book cannot "inspire" a 1953 book.
More map inaccuracies
I am unable to find any reference in the book to the South having conquered the entirety of South America. Where does this information supposedly come from? Also, the extent of the German Empire in Europe appears to have been conjured up, unreferenced, from the mapmaker's head. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- ...Haiti, the only American republic south of the Mason-Dixon line to preserve its independence...
- However, the book refers to the South African Republic (p. 10 in Del Rey) as a place ambitious young Northerners often emigrated to (as they did to the West and Australia), so apparently the Boer War never happened in this timeline and the map's inclusion of South Africa in the British Empire is in error. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Differences in histories which are not necessitiated by Southern victory
Many of the differences from the actual timeline which are depicted in the book are in no way natural consequences of the Southern triumph. For example, the succession to the British throne includes a "William V". There are other, similar details. Somehow I think that this should be addressed, but it does not seem to flow logically into any part of the existing article. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)