Customer Reviews

Ha'penny

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I read Farthing last year and thought it was brilliant; Ha'Penny is just as good. Farthing's plot was a country-house mystery; I would call Ha'Penny more of a suspense thriller, and full of suspense it is, right up to the explosive ending.

It follows on quite shortly after Farthing: Inspector Carmichael has just come off the Farthing case and has been assigned to a bombing which killed leading actress Lauria Gilmore. Viola Lark has been chosen to act Hamlet in a gender-switching production of the play, in which Gilmore had also been cast until her untimely death. As Carmichael investigates the bombing and ponders retirement from the police force, Viola is drawn into a plot to kill Hitler at the opening night of the play, along with Prime Minister Mark Normanby, the lead figure in the increasingly fascistic government.

As in Farthing, Walton alternates voices chapter by chapter, between Viola's first person and Carmichael's third, and both are equally absorbing; I especially liked the reflections of Viola's mental state in her role as Hamlet, as she wavers about her involvement in the plot and treads the edge of sanity. As England slides further and further into fascism, Walton's alternate history, always convincing, becomes more and more frightening.

I read a lot of junk; I'll admit it. But every once and awhile, I have to read something that causes me to think. Ha'penny fits this category. A sequel to Farthing, this alternate history continues that fine book's exploration of what may have happened if the U.S. did NOT help Great Britain during WWII. Profoundly chilling, beautifully written--and challenging, Ha'Penny is a subtle and personal exploration of how individuals in postwar London are affecting by the wave of facism which has reached Britain's shore. Each successive tide strengthens the power of the wave, yet lessens the resistance. British citizens start to accept the unacceptable.

The plot is complex; I won't reveal it here. But the resistance features a pitiable, almost laughable combination of military patriots, peers, terrorists and theatre types who try to assassinate the fascist leaders of England and Germany with inept plots, and amateur explosives.

Fascinating. One of the things that amazed me is that I kept rooting for the "wrong" side! Like the protagonist, I did not know which side were the "good" guys. The Scotland Yard Inspector who becomes the "hero" realizes that he may have done more harm than good. I can not wait for the next installment of this literary jewel of a series, which combines alternate history, real history, mystery and social commentary.

Apolitical acress Viola Lark is reluctantly drawn in to a plot to assassinate Hitler. She becomes even more reluctant to get involved when she finds out who else is likely to be affected. Inspector Carmichael is upholding the law for a government he dislikes while investigating an explosion that killed a different actress. Both are sympathetic characters trying to do the right thing in morally ambiguous situations. Since this is an alternate history and anything could happen, Walton keeps the suspense high right until the end.

Great alternate history and a gripping thriller. The two protagonists (a rebel aristocrat-turned-actress--with a gaggle of eccentric, high-profile sisters obviously inspired by the real-life Mitford women--and a police inspector with 'county' roots and a few secrets of his own) are well characterized throughout. I hope Walton has more of this series to come!

Jo Walton's latest alternative history novel (the middle volume in a trilogy that will be completed next year) continues in the world of *Farthing* (and is set shortly after that novel). Where the first novel was, at its core, a country-house murder mystery, *Ha'penny* is a thriller, with its motivating engine being a race between Inspector Carmichael (who featured in *Farthing* as well) and anti-fascist plotters.

The novel alternates between two viewpoint characters, Carmichael and Viola Lark (née Larkin) an actress and daughter of an aristocratic family modelled on, but not identical to, the Mitfords.

This novel gripped me from the moment I started reading. Walton knows how to spin a story, and she manages, with a few deft touches, to give us a real sense of what this alternative world is like. I'm looking forward to the final volume, *Half a Crown*. I just wish I didn't have to wait a year.

In 1941 the Farthing Group negotiated a peace deal with Hitler that gave the Nazis the continent and made Great Britain his ally. Now eight years later, the once proud English democracy is gone replaced by a repressive regime that persecutes minorities and dissidents through violent police state tactics.

However an angry underground insurgency has caused problems for the government; culminating with a bomb exploding on the streets of London. Scotland Yard Inspector Carmichael, whose investigation into the murder of the Farthing group leader Sir James Thirkie has alienated him with the brass and the politicians, is assigned the lead because he is expendable. Pressure mounts once again for him to fix blame on some scapegoat person preferably a homosexual or a group like the Jews rather than find the truth. However as he did in the FARTHING affaire, he keeps digging. What he finds makes no sense as a vast conspiracy consisting of members of the NRA, the House of Lords, the Communist Party, and a number of other activist groups plot to assassinate the Prime Minister and Hitler with hopes of causing a revolution.

Whereas FARTHING is a terrific alternate historical police procedural, HA'PENNY is more of a fabulous alternate historical suspense thriller. Walton's world is based on the premises that the British hierarchy "exiled" Churchill and avoided war with Hitler by appeasing the Nazis. Once again the conspiracy is over the top, but the investigation is clever as loner Carmichael struggles with the directions the clues take him even as his supervisors question his loyalty. These two tales are must reading for the Harry Turtledove fans who will appreciate another well written 1940s spin.

Harriet Klausner

Last year I reviewed Walton's Farthing and was thankful to have the opportunity to read Ha'Penny. Ha'Penny takes place after the events that occurred in Farthing, in the same alternate reality in which World War Two ended with a peace between Great Britain and Nazi Germany and England, during the events in Farthing, slipped into the same fascist dictatorship that made Germany so terrifying. Ha'Penny begins with a mysterious bomb explosion in London, followed by the assignment of Carmichael to the case--the same Carmichael in Farthing, in case you're wondering. As Carmichael begins to investigate, he uncovers a conspiracy to murder Normanby--the new dictator of England--and Adolf Hitler, and finds himself in an even more compromised position than at the end of Farthing, where those with power and who know Carmichael's secrets begin to push Carmichael into the exact place they want him, even if it's against his will.

One of the things that I found enjoyable in Farthing, and even more enjoyable in Ha'Penny, was the old-time detective novel feel that Walton manages to produce. I find myself being reminded of all the old Hardy Boys that I used to read as a kid. Granted, Walton's novel is far more complex, dark, and powerful than the Hardy Boys, but this novel still awakens a little of that inner child with its nod to thirties detective fiction. Think of it as Sherlock Holmes for the alternate history crowd! Ha'Penny continues Walton's "tradition" in a big way by taking the story further into the darkness of a world converted to fascism. Many of the complaints I had with Farthing seem to have been put in their place with Ha'Penny, because I now get a greater sense of the hopelessness that Walton has created in this alternate past. I haven't read the third book yet, but I wonder if things will get any better for characters like Carmichael.

The interesting thing about Ha'Penny (and something I'm seeing somewhat more of lately) is the focus on morality in the characters we're supposed to be rooting for. Carmichael inevitably has to make a difficult, if not morally questionable, decision to save his own life and the life of his lover. But I don't blame Carmichael; in fact, I completely understand why Carmichael does what he does. Perhaps it was something I failed to acknowledge in Farthing, but Carmichael literally has little choice in the matter.

There are other characters who have to make horrible choices as well, such as Viola, who is put into a compromising situation where she will be killed if she doesn't agree to help a group of domestic terrorists--fronted by members of her own family, no less. Walton intentionally gets us (the readers) to question morality by positioning her characters in situations where they have to make decisions that make us cringe. Should Carmichael fight against authority and risk being destroyed along with his lover, or should he agree to the terms forced upon him and hope he can at least affect some change and save a few lives? What about Viola? Is it wrong to commit an act of terrorism in the name of a dead ideal or even an ideal that is not your own? These are the questions that come up for me. Like V For Vendetta, Ha'Penny follows the actions of desperate and methodical individuals on both ends of the spectrum, each trying to get a piece of the political pie for entirely different reasons.

Above all these dark images and moral quandaries, however, is a well written piece of literature that reads much as if it had been written in a much more stylistically eloquent era of modern literature. Walton's prose style, thankfully, does not draw too much from that older era, however. Her prose is a mixture of eras, with enough of today's more invigorating flavors to keep an older era at bay--lest it overwhelm the story with description and bits that would otherwise be edited out. This is perhaps a testament to Walton's ability with mimicry, or at least to her natural prose styling.

And, as if that wasn't enough, Walton has managed to create a generally realistic persona in Viola: one of those artistic and successful individuals that tend to be rather annoying at times, but still sympathetic. Perhaps the only weak part of Ha'Penny is Viola's romance with Devlin, which feels somewhat overshadowed by much of the book to the point where it feels less like a true romance and more like something contrived or too obvious. Still, I suppose in hindsight I can see what Walton was attempting to do with that relationship; it makes some sense, but I had hoped for more from it than what was given.

The end of the book, which I won't utter here, succeeds in keeping my interest. I expect things will get even worse in Half a Crown, the next book in the series. One thing I would like to see in future installments is the return of some other familiar characters, such as the Kahns and Viola. Carmichael is, I think, the main character of Walton's novels, but some of these other characters have had more lasting impacts on me and I would like to see what happens to them.

If you liked Farthing, then you're bound to enjoy Ha'Penny. If you've read neither, however, and you enjoy some cleverly written alternate history, then I suggest you check out Walton's novels and see what it's all about. Nothing like some good, elaborate, and well written WW2 alt-hist for a nice evening of reading!

I have already said what I think, and it is very favorable, of Jo Walton's alternate history in my review of Farthing. I would just like to add that Steve Stirling is correct that the rise of fascism was not supposed to let the aristos remain in power. However, Jo Walton didn't call what happened in England fascism, she just showed us what happened in England and we can call it what we will.

The specific story that Jo chooses to tell in this grim setting is also very difficult to take, even moreso than the murder mystery in Farthing, and also very rewarding. I don't need to tell you the story. Go read it.

I am looking forward to the third volume. And to Jo writing about something more CHEERFUL when she is done writing this series.

This is a solid, and in some respects cleverly constructed, alternative history story. This book , set in an alternative 1948, and its predecessor are set in a Britain that sought peace with Germany in 1941 and is becoming an authoritarian-fascist state. The book concerns a plot to assassinate Hitler and the British Prime Minister. Walton uses a clever piece of plot construction. One of the primary characters is an actress appearing in Hamlet. Walton makes good use of the play within a play device specifically with Shakespeare's own device of a play within a play and plot to kill a king in Hamlet. This is similar to her last book where she used a traditional country house murder mystery format as the basis for the plot. Walton also uses a clever appropriation of history for some of her characters. Several of her important characters are based on the notorious Mitford sisters, the daughters of the notoriously reactionary Lord Redesdale. Again, this is similar to her last book where she based characters on the prewar Cliveden set.
Other aspects of this book are less impressive. The plot is not particularly suspenseful, character development and prose are competent, as opposed to really interesting. As a alternative history, this book has problems. Its certainly plausible that Britain might have sought accomodation with Germany. Walton, however, has this happening after the Blitz. The most likely time when Britain would have attempted a peace treaty was after Dunkirk, when the British cabinet had serious discussions about opening negotiations with the Germans. I don't find the slide to authoritarianism convincing. For example, Walton presents the Labor Party as complaisant. The Labor leader Clement Atlee was hardly a "sheep" (among the admirers of his character is Margaret Thatcher, not someone predisposed to say nice things about Labor politicians) and the Labor Party included individuals like the powerful and pugnacious Ernest Bevin. Walton also has the Germans fighting the Soviets in the Western Soviet Union, hardly likely. Finally, Walton shows the Hitler of her 1948 as the vigorous Hitler of the 1930s. Hitler had Parkinson disease, was significantly affected by 1945, and would have been a wreck by 1948.
I have to address some remarks made about Nazism and its relationship to conservatism by a prior reviewer, SM Stirling. Mr. Stirling's comments deserve serious consideration as his alternative history books show him to be a serious and astute reader of history. In this case, however, Stirling is wrong. This assessment will depend on the definition of conservatism but Fascism was a logical, though not inevitable, development of several trends in 19th century conservatism. The rejection of modernity, reason as a principal value, democratic political institutions, and the ideas of universal human values and rights were held in common by all 19th century conservative strains. Stirling errs as well in stating that Nazism was an attack on the middle class. The Nazis received considerable support from many middle class groups and presented themselves as defenders of traditional values. German physicians, for example, were strong supporters of the Nazis and the Nazis also received strong support from a substantial fraction of the Protestant clergy. The disaster of the Second World War had the effect of discrediting a large spectrum of conservative political movements and contributed to making Western Europe the center to left political society it is today.

Once again, Jo Walton has written a book with a gripping plot, interesting characters, and good period flavor. It's a notable addition to the list of alternate histories centered on WWII and the 'German Question', thoroughly well-written, and I recommend it.

If there's a weakness in this book -- and its predecessor -- it's a misunderstanding of the nature of fascism.

Fascism wasn't an extreme or radical form of conservatism, which is more or less how Walton portrays it. Fascism led by aristocrats and the Establishment, which is approximately what Walton has happening in Britain, is more or less a contradiction in terms.

Fascism was, at least in every country where it actually took power on its own or came close to doing so, a form of plebian radicalism.

It was hostile to both the middle classes as the term was understood in Europe at the time, and especially to the groups which had traditionally been socially dominant, like the aristocracy. Everywhere it took power there was a 'turnover of elites' with 'new men' replacing the former old-boy networks with new ones of their own. Its aim was not to shore up traditional hierarchies but to smash them and institute new ones.

The German variety called itself "national socialism", and for good solid reasons. Organizationally and in terms of its internal political culture and general worldview it had far more in common with Third International-style Leninist parties than either did with social democrats or the ordinary conservatives of the time.

And fascism was a mass movement, numbering its supporters in the millions in the countries where it came to power, drawn mostly from rootless 'popular' elements, small farmers, and the like.

The typical modus operandi of the aspiring fascist wasn't plotting in aristocratic clubs, it was brawling in the streets or trooping _en masse_ to the voting booth, or both. Its characteristic institution was the para-military party militia in colored shirts.

Note that the only people in Germany who actually tried to kill and overthrow Hitler were Prussian military aristocrats, and most of their class had despised him from the beginning as an unspeakably vulgar parvenu, the "Bohemian corporal". He, in turn, had always hated and (with good reason) distrusted them.

Hitler, the private soldier and declasse street-artist, Himmler the chicken farmer and all-around weirdo occultist, Mussolini the sometime-socialist journalist, all these were typical fascist leaders of the interwar period. Many of them were also veterans of WWI, but usually as private soldiers and noncoms.

Fascists were sometimes _allied_ with conservatives, and conservatives sometimes opportunistically used fascist symbols and slogans, both most notably in Franco's Spain, but this was an alliance of convenience, like ours with Stalin's Russia during WWII. About the only thing that fascists and true conservatives, even ultra-conservatives, had in common was nationalism and hatred of communism.

German conservatives and big-business figures who thought they could 'use' Hitler found out to their cost when he turned on them that conservatism and fascism were enemies. The fascist Falange found out the same in Spain, where they were used and then betrayed by Franco, a perfectly traditional clerical-conservative Iberian caudillo, who was no more an actual fascist than he was a Unitarian, and who had never had the slightest intention of allowing them any real power.