Customer Reviews

Harald

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

 

 

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.

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

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.

Harald, written by David D. Freidman is the story of a legendary war leader able to protect his people from an aggressivly expanding empire. It is a fantasy set in a time period of archery and armor (approx. 1200 A.D.).

As a story it is a tale of war and leadership, strategy and tactics. Its greatest streagth is the feeling that it is written by a member of the Society for Creative Anachronism, its ability to describe the feel of the time period is memerable and makes the contests descibed the the book that much more real.

As a treatise on war it emphsizes that little known precept that war is successfully waged (and won) by the intellegent in a given society. In addition if one wanted to know the value of logistics one would only need to read Harald to understand that armies move on their bellies.

As a fantasy Harald works quite well and the author is careful to avoid both the horrors of war and the unwholesome vagories of mankind. This makes the book more enjoyable and presentable to children, however it then tends to romaticise warfare to a degree that one looks forward to the charactures engaging in the endever as opposed to regretting the entire issue.

The charactures themselves sometimes tend to speak in shorthand and more than once this reader had to reread an exchange to understand who was speaking and about what. However that tended to make the book more enjoyable as it gave the feel that the reader was spying on individuals from a different culture with a different set of morals, allthough Harald, the primary characture, clearly has had a post Renaissance brush with western style independence and prudence.

As a student of war and warfare I found the book enjoyable and look forward to any further attempts by David Freidman within this domain, perhaps with a little magic?

This is a successful novel and easy to read: the story is interesting, and I started to care about some of the characters. I don't read a lot of books set in this period, so the setting reminds me most of the human-inhabited parts of Middle Earth. The broad outline of the plot reminds me in a general way of Foundation and Empire, though I'm not suggesting any close resemblance.

The book is mainly about pre-gunpowder fighting and warfare, which will appeal to some but not to others. Unusually for such a story in such a period, female characters are quite strongly represented, which is welcome in a way, although the Ladies of the Order (nuns as horse archers?) strike me as a bit implausible. Was there ever such an Order in our own history, I wonder?

The abbreviated way of speaking used by some characters is mostly OK but sometimes not readily comprehensible. I'm a fast reader, so if I have difficulty I'm afraid I just skip it and go on with the story.

I can reveal that David Friedman is a softie: despite the many dangers of the story, he doesn't kill off any character you might care about. This is somewhat implausible, but will come as a relief to any other softies out there (such as me).

Our hero Harald is repeatedly and seriously wounded, but shrugs it all off and comes up smiling after a suitable period for recovery. Considering that he's a grandfather, I boggle a bit at this; evidently a very tough grandfather.

I've long wanted a novel that would bring to life the kind of (modern) society envisaged in Friedman's much earlier non-fiction book, The Machinery of Freedom. Obviously, Harald is not this kind of a book; however, now that he's demonstrated the ability to write fiction successfully, there may be further novels...

Contrary to other reviews which claim the setting isn't well wrought, I disagree. The setting is the only thing that saves this book from being a total dud. I like the setting. It's got a good sense of place; it feels real to me, and that's important. That being said, however, the work itself is bad. It's the choppiest book I've ever read. The author's brief prose works okay during the battle scenes, but it really blows when people are just sitting around and talking.. and there's a lot of that going on. Everything is so rushed, I couldn't get a good feel for the characters. They couldn't be bothered with taking to time to have a conversation of over 20 words, so why should I be bothered to care?

I am a great fan of historical science fiction but I found this novel to be a real disappointment. Despite the fact that the author has written that appears to be just a recounting of battles in a contrived historical setting (no science fiction,no fantasy), he fails to make either the setting or the characters come alive.

Add to this a proliferation of characters, stilted language and a lackluster plot and, as the novel progresses, it becomes more and more difficult to care about the eventual outcome.

This book is an astonishing read -- but not in a good way. Every character, from Emperor aesthete to nomad barbarian, speaks with a chopped, elliptical diction worthy of a Western Union telegram. What's even wierder is that characters will talk in the same, bizarre pidgin whether they are speaking a barely-learned foreign language or their birth tongue. What is up with that? In spite of my growing horror, I kept reading in the hopes that the author's editorial style would reveal a purpose. Alas, it was to no avail, because I never made any sense of it. Other than that, this book might appeal to wargamers and others interested in the ruses of war. Harald does attempt to develop an idea of diplomacy and strategy trumping tactics in war. It's an interesting concept but it gets overwhelmed by the repetitive recounting of the eponymous protagonists' tricky battlefield maneuvers. The enemies are also really stupid. They keep falling for the same dodges over and over. This seems odd considering they are dealing with an antagonist they've been battling off and on for 30 years. Character development in this book is pretty-much non-existent. Everyone starts out totally formed and ends the book unchanged from their starting place. This is too bad, since some of the stock characters used: The canny but humane war leader, the warrior maiden, the plucky kid, the city rube fallen in with not-so-hick hicks -- are all ripe for fresh treatment. Unfortunately, you won't find it here.

Found for free, Baen library. Mediocre worldbuilding, go there, do that, sometimes no interim scenes. Moves fast, little descrptive text. Much dialogoue.
If you like my review style I just put forward, you'll love the book. very broken and choppy, with very short sentences. I wondered if the author was trying to capture how people really talked back in that day, but then I noticed it even ran into what little scenery decription he gave. I did enjoy the story line though, almost Robert E Howard-ish, but fails to capture the readers full attention. Easy book for many to set aside.

This was the first book I've read by David Friedman and I'm sorry to say it will also be the last. He created a wonderful world full of promise and what appeared to be interesting characters, but it fell far short of its initial promise. Other reviewers have commented on the faults in this book (choppy writing, no depth to characters, difficult to follow dialog, etc) and I agree with those comments. I can only imagine that he must be a wonderful success in the other areas he writes about so that his publisher agreed to produce this less than stellar work of fiction. If not, I'd really like the name of his agent because I have this idea for a story...