Judge - Thank you for the kind words. 'Bremen' was fun to write because I could skip around in time and link events from different eras under a single topic.
'Frankenstein' was a logical ending point for the series of essays since it was based on such strong emotions. I didn't expect to write anything else; I thought it would be anti-climactic. And above all, I wanted Gropius to remain a shadowy, mysterious figure.
Ah, well. Conan Doyle killed off Sherlock Holmes and then had to bring him back to life. Revealing the 'true identity' of Gropius is pretty small in comparison.
I'm glad you liked the work; some of it was a lot of fun. Passing off absurdities as if they were commonplace (Colonial Corporation, contract slavery, American Revolution of 1860, etc and etc) was wicked fun.
I thought I was done with these essays before, and found I had a little more to talk about. So I won't say it's over... but it probably ends here. I like the format, and may use it if I write another AAR. I recommend the essay form to other authors!
Since this AAR came immediately after 'HistoryPark: Who Wants To Be Napoleon!', it was sort of the anti-Park AAR. No plot, no central characters, no fixed setting - just philosophical discussion of policy. Restful to write, but I thought it was dull. I would be happy to admit I was wrong.
I'm very glad you enjoyed it.