Most Helpful Customer Reviews
21 of 22 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
I want to like it, but I can't. Read Friedman's other books instead., April 7, 2006
This review is from: Harald (Hardcover)
I've read just about everything David D. Friedman has published, and enjoyed all of it, until this book. The Machinery of Freedom is a classic. Hidden Order is a wonderful introduction to economics. Law's Order is about as concise and elegant as a Law and Economics book can get. Buy those books; you won't regret it. They're well worth it.
But I simply don't get this book. I tried to like it. I kept reading even when it became clear that this book was not for me, hoping something would change (I suppose that makes me irrational). My primary complaints are as follows:
-The writing style is grating, full of incomplete (and sometimes hard-to-interpret) sentences. For example, instead of saying "Harald went to the gate and opened it. He saw soldiers outside, and loosed several arrows at them," Friedman might write "Harald to the gate. Opened; soldiers. Arrows flew." At first I thought this was simply the way that some characters talked--they were short and to the point, with no decoration in their sentences, but unfortunately I was wrong. ALL the characters talk in this way, regardless of their origin; there doesn't seem to be any difference in the way Karls and Imperials talk (except in the couple of circumstances when a character's language skills are poor). Also, the author's third-person exposition uses the same style. It is jarring at best and confusing at worst. Again, I realize that Friedman knows how to write a sentence, and this decision is intentional. I just didn't think it worked at all.
-Only two of the characters evoked any interest from me, the King of Kaerlia and the son of a prince of the Empire. Why were these characters interesting? Because they weren't perfect, and therefore they learned and grew. They made mistakes, then learned how not to make those mistakes. Harald, by contrast, makes at most one mistake in the entire book (and even then it's hard to call it that--he gets in a dangerous situation in the King's castle, which you might call a mistake, but then he artfully gets out of it). Eventually it became clear that Harald and the other vale folk would win every single engagement. This made it even harder to finish the book. There is no drama, no tension, and little surprise. Harald doesn't really seem to have a personality, as far as I can tell. He likes to tell stories, and wins battles but maybe doesn't enjoy it, and that's about it. Perhaps he's just the stoic sort.
-The battle descriptions often remind me of watching someone play one of the Total War games. It's not bad, but not as much fun as doing it oneself, and not as terrifying or exciting as being in the actual battle (which some authors would be able to convey). And again, it's always clear that Harald will win. The only question is, what trick will he use? Whatever trick it is, the Imperials will blunder into it.
-A minor note: Given the number of characters briefly introduced, sometimes with nicknames, often with no explanation, a cast of characters at the beginning might be helpful. There is a glossary at the end, which is nice, although I didn't realize it was there until I'd already finished the book.
There are some nice tricks in the book; it's full of clever ideas. But a novel is more than a list of clever military tricks and a little bit of political maneuvering. It must have a compelling story and characters about which the reader cares. The book simply doesn't succeed on this basis. We don't even get much of a look at the setting and its history. It's almost as though Friedman decided to drop almost all the things that make good novels (drama, characters, story, setting) and just provide lots of one small aspect: The "good guy" winning, over and over.
I can't shake the feeling that I missed something--that there was something going on in the book that I didn't catch. Was it really just a straightforward story of a general named Harald who never makes mistakes, is a skilled surgeon, and nearly without peer in a fight? Was there some code hidden in here that I was suppose to pick up? Is it a parable for something?
I know Friedman can write well, and I hope he tries his hand at fiction again. I just hope it doesn't turn out like this.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A libertarian in Byzantium, July 14, 2006
This review is from: Harald (Hardcover)
David Friedman, the author of Harald, is a scientist by training that teaches economics in a law school and spends much of his time exploring ancient recipes and weapons. He is also a radical libertarian that believes that even democratic government is fatally coercive and prone to uncorrectable error.
His first novel is not overtly political, but it is a fascinating insight into the dreams of a radical libertarian.
I will return to that subject in the final three paragraphs after addressing the very different issues on which prior reviewers have focused. For me, the dialogue was a moderate problem. It was confusingly elliptical at some points. I did not feel it was authentic. It neither invoked the realistic manner in which the ancients spoke nor created a sense of "differentness" that helped me enter the world the author created. My largest complaint about the diaglogue is one that the author appears to agree with -- the characters sound too much alike even when the author's characterization of their personalities suggests that they should sound distinct.
Yes, Harald wins. I agree that this is not unrealistic. There are many historical struggles in which the side that ultimately prevails in a series of battles cannot survive a single serious defeat.
I agree that the characters that are least convincing are the King and his wife, but Harald is problematic to a modern audience. He is perfect -- and not merely in battle. He is the perfect husband, grandfather, story teller, mentor, etc. -- and modest to boot. He's decisive and he does not agonize about whether he has done the right thing.
Others with far more knowledge than I of the time period that the author chooses for the novel will be better poised to comment on the accuracy of his depiction of weapons, meals, and armor. I found several strengths. He thanks an individual in the book for helping him understand logistics. Without revealing any plot details, I can say that Harald's decisive victories typically involve cutting off the enemy's supplies. Harald is a cataphract (the Byzantine heavy archer/lancer). The author is rare in noting the need to unstring the bow, the importance of the compact compound bow to a cavalry archer, and the need to store the bow and the string in a protective container. The author is also true to the limitations these facts impose -- when Harald is ambushed he cannot use his bow because it is unstrung in its protective case.
While I did not find the book so compelling that I could not put it down, I felt the plot and characterization built enough interest and tension to keep me eager to return to the book and read more. Overall, I give the book 3 1/2 stars. (Amazon does not permit half ratings.) I consider that quite good for a first novel.
The book, implicitly, deals with the most difficult challenge to radical libertarians -- how can one provide an effective national defense without government coercion? Harald is the head of a clan. His authority over the clan rests on kinship. His clan's warriors are cataphracts. They are a powerful group because of their mobility and their ability to fight both ranged and melee combat, but they are too few to stand alone against either of the large, nearby governments (led by the King and the Emperor). Harald must recruit and then rely on allies. His principal allies are the King, an order of female archers that uses longbows (which I assume is grossly unrealistic), and nomadic horsemen. The book ends with an ode to reputation, and the implication throughout the book seems to be that Harald's superior reputation is what permits him to build and keep the loyalties of his allies. They join him in part because of self-interest, but also from love and loyalty. The need to maintain reputation is the key to reinforcing virtue.
Indeed, the author's world is extraordinarily positive. Harald is almost invariably met with generous aid, even when he is a desitute stranger seeking refuge in circumstances that could lead to his hosts' deaths. Theft and lying are vanishingly rare.
Governments bring violence and destruction to this otherwise largely idyllic world. There are no democracies or republics in the book. All power is authoritarian. Harald's land is peaceful and prosperous because he uses his authoritarian power wisely (i.e., rarely and mildly) and builds alliances and avoids conflicts wherever prudent. In the author's world (as so often in real life), it is governments that threaten national security by engaging in unnecesary and self-destructive wars. His theme will resonate with many readers with particular strength given the consequences of the administration's "voluntary" war in Iraq.
William K. Black
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Problematic style, but an enjoyable read, May 16, 2006
This review is from: Harald (Hardcover)
Declaration of bias -- I know the author, and I know that this affected how willing I was to keep reading. I greatly enjoyed the book, but it uses a very terse, elliptical style that took some time to get used to, and I think this will cause many readers to bounce off the prose. I would strongly suggest finding excerpts (I think there are some on the Baen website somewhere) and reading to see if you like the style.
That said, this is a solid first novel with an interesting story and some likeable characters. It's an alternative history book that's firmly grounded in reality -- with one minor exception, not obvious to the reader, everything is physically plausible. And I am impressed with the way Friedman has worked some of his libertarian philosophy into the book without hitting the reader over the head with it. Too much political speculative fiction involves blatant sermons--this book uses a much more subtle showing-rather-than-telling approach and is so much better for it. It adds depth to the story rather than turning it into a political tract.
It's not going to be to everyone's taste, but if you can handle the elliptical prose style it's an enjoyable read.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
