Stirling is by far and away one of my two “go-to”, of whom I will by new material at retail cost regardless of what it is, simply based on my past experiences with their work (Peter Hamilton being the other). In fact, I won’t buy paperbacks from either author at this point, insisting on hardbacks as soon as they come out.

Stirlings style gels very well with my own sense of things or how I would approach a story given one of his very original premises. This, along with his sense of scope and obvious dedication to his craft, make me a die-hard Stirling fan.

I would have to take issue with Stirling himself, though, at his invocation of Niven’s Law. I believe that it’s impossible to have a large body of work without stamping it with your own opinions or views of the real world. For instance, there have been more than a couple of mentions, in different works, where Stirling observes that it is also gratifying to watch someone at work who is clearly a master of their craft. Likewise, his treatment of character archtypes like Lisketer (the save-the-whales tree-hugger in Island) seems to have a pretty consistent bent as well. In my humble opinion, this is a sort of common-sense conservatism, which, again, is more in line my my own outlook on life and thus, more enjoyable to read.

I have noticed something lately, though, after finishing Crimson Kings. In true Stirling form, the beginning of each chapter is small piece taken from (supposedly) a much larger body of scholarly or journalistic work and always a good obtuse insight into the universe we’re reading about.

Kentucket, The Change, and now the events taking place in the Kingdom Under The Mountain (et tu Tolkien?) all seem to occur in 1998. I’m curious about this as it seems to coincedental to be pure chance. Might there be a Stirling-Multiverse tying it all together? Or am I now targeted for termination for noticing?

Either way, S.M. Stirling has been and remains one of the brightest lights in the sci-fi sky.