Centuries hence, Man, seemingly alone in the universe, slowly spreads his civilizations across his corner of the galaxy. Tyrants vie for power, and in their fierce grip the colonies of the Milky Way are suffocating. In this society of many billions, a young marine, a highly trained war hero, returns home from his tour of duty. Physically powerful yet shy, awkward and unable to sway the masses with pretty speeches, Alistair Ashley 3nn makes a decision to strike at the hierarchy the only way he can. His decision starts him on a grand adventure, and as he is carried along by forces beyond his control, he comes to confront an ancient secret, one which may reveal Humanity's future.
Withűr We
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
| |||||||||||||||
Browse the best books of summer including blockbusters, beach reads, and editors' picks in our Summer Reading Store. |
Book Description
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful
By A. Cleary
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
This is a great libertarian (I'd better say "anarcho-capitalist" or the author will be upset) story, better for me than L Neil Smith's (still interesting, if flawed) books. For one, Alexander is a better writer: his prose has clearly been carefully crafted and results in some excellent passages. As a first time author, not surprisingly not *all* passages live up to his best ones; there are some rough edges to smooth out. But the promise is definitely there, and in some ways, the rough edges kind of add to the individualistic, non-mass-produced feel of the entire work that goes perfectly with the message and story.
Where Smith's books focus on the libertarian issue of guns (and more guns, and guns, and ammo, and hey, some more guns), Alexander takes a more cerebral approach, introducing the concepts of anarcho-capitalism - particularly the Rothbardian flavor - through a good but not didactic story. His story is much more "fair" than much libertarian literature: utopia does not result, and not everything works as planned, or necessarily at all. In fact, I almost wish there were more happy results; in his desire to be fair and realistic, he may have undersold the concept a little. But that's nitpicking, because overall Alexander sticks to his central theme: that markets will ultimately determine what 'works' and what doesn't in an AC world.
For example, I find the Rothbardian concept of justice pretty repugnant, but the book clearly illustrates a market with alternatives, with an ebb and flow in the market according to how well the justice firms serve their market. There's a memorable scene in which a bully who has beat up a much weaker person is captured by the agency that the weaker man has hired to protect himself. Having failed to protect him - this point was not made in the book, though in fairness, a protection agency may have many ways to achieve its promises for its customers, and perhaps this one operates only on a deterrent basis - they proceed to catch the offender, try him (themselves: not mentioned is that most likely in an advanced AC society, most of these determinations would be made by independent arbiters, not by the protection company itself), and then proceed to deliver Rothbardian justice: the offender must not only pay the victim damages for his suffering, but they then proceed to beat the offender up in exactly the same parts of the body as he had beaten the original victim. This is not my idea of justice - it's repugnant brutality to me - but the beauty of the AC world that Alexander shows us that it doesn't have to be *everybody's* idea of justice, in the end, people will vote with their wallets and the justice system will emerge. If I'm right and most people find it repugnant, then it simply won't do well in the market. There's a wonderful liberating feeling in imagining one's self in a world where every decision isn't reduced to "one size fits all" through the modern concept of "let the government decided for us all the one best way!"
If anything, I would have liked to see *more* of the dynamics of the economics, rather than the considerable number of pages dedicated to rootin-tootin action. I know that action sells and makes a better story, and in that sense the book works well from an action perspective, but since I have a particular interest in AC, I would have liked to see more of how market dynamics might play out in such a world. But I'm probably in the minority there.
Alexander chooses to illustrate his AC world in a kind of "Lord of the Flies" type primitive setting. It's easy to see why he's done this: it's easier to see these things at work in their basic form, rather than wrapped up in the institutions of modern society. It does, however, risk the possibility that people may say "sure, this can work on a small scale in primitive conditions, but would not work in a giant interconnected modern society." That conclusion isn't true, but it will be a temptation for some readers. I understandt he tradeoff that Alexander had to make, however, and the choice he makes fits more smoothly into his setting and story.
The book follows the exploits of a single, powerful character, Allistair. By doing so, Alexander gets to dive very deep into Allistair's past and personality, and he creates an interesting and largely likable character, but one with believable human failings and flaws. The character works well. The author's choice to make Allistair somewhat of a "superman" - he has been physically altered through various science fiction techniques, and was trained in an elite military capacity - creates another set of tradeoffs. On the one hand, it makes Allistair more of a hero: he can do things that others can't, he can achieve things that others can't, and for those used to feeling like one against the million - as most libertarians feel - the fantasy of actually having the physical ability to get back at those evil statists is enticing (and to be fair: Allistair does not always win; he is not invulnerable). OTOH, it again waters down some of the political message: is it that the only people who can stand up and affect change are superman, or is this really more about a battle of ideas, with ideas being equally powerful no matter who they come from? If, for example, Allistair can only form an AC society because of his physical prowess, then isn't it convenient that the most powerful physical character wasn't a statist (or worst)? IOW, did Allistair change things in an AC direction by sheer physical force, or because his ideas won out?
I guess the issue is one of identification: most readers are not supermen, and so they may have a little trouble putting themselves in Allistair's shoes. Sure, it would be nice to be able to just physically cow people into agreeing with me, but I don't have that option; how could I have achieved the same thing given the average person that I am?
Like I said, it's a set of tradeoffs and Alexander made his choice and ran with it, and the book works within the context of those choices. If I want to see how the book would have come out with a depowered Allistair, well, I suppose I'll have to write that book myself. ;-)
I really enjoyed the cast of supporting characters. They were well realized, clearly differentiated, believable, covering a spectrum of backgrounds and ideologies but never coming across as shallow stereotypes. Alexander wasn't afraid to have them grow - or shrink - over the course of the book, and did not shy away from significant consequences to the characters - including death - either as a function of their own actions or external events out of their control. It felt like a realistic mixture, hitting neither the false extremes of karma on the one hand or fate on the other.
Altogether, this is a book I have been waiting for someone to write: a good but measured story that both shows the advantages of libertarianism/AC without over promising or over preaching. There are no talking dolphins or self-healing windows here, just people interacting with each other either in peace or in force/violence, with the contrast clearly illustrated, and the conclusion accessible but not shoved in your face: that peace is a better a way to interact.
If self-published books are eligible for the Prometheus award (for best libertarian science fiction), this has to be a candidate.
Well done Matt, and I'm looking forward to a return to Allistair's world!
Where Smith's books focus on the libertarian issue of guns (and more guns, and guns, and ammo, and hey, some more guns), Alexander takes a more cerebral approach, introducing the concepts of anarcho-capitalism - particularly the Rothbardian flavor - through a good but not didactic story. His story is much more "fair" than much libertarian literature: utopia does not result, and not everything works as planned, or necessarily at all. In fact, I almost wish there were more happy results; in his desire to be fair and realistic, he may have undersold the concept a little. But that's nitpicking, because overall Alexander sticks to his central theme: that markets will ultimately determine what 'works' and what doesn't in an AC world.
For example, I find the Rothbardian concept of justice pretty repugnant, but the book clearly illustrates a market with alternatives, with an ebb and flow in the market according to how well the justice firms serve their market. There's a memorable scene in which a bully who has beat up a much weaker person is captured by the agency that the weaker man has hired to protect himself. Having failed to protect him - this point was not made in the book, though in fairness, a protection agency may have many ways to achieve its promises for its customers, and perhaps this one operates only on a deterrent basis - they proceed to catch the offender, try him (themselves: not mentioned is that most likely in an advanced AC society, most of these determinations would be made by independent arbiters, not by the protection company itself), and then proceed to deliver Rothbardian justice: the offender must not only pay the victim damages for his suffering, but they then proceed to beat the offender up in exactly the same parts of the body as he had beaten the original victim. This is not my idea of justice - it's repugnant brutality to me - but the beauty of the AC world that Alexander shows us that it doesn't have to be *everybody's* idea of justice, in the end, people will vote with their wallets and the justice system will emerge. If I'm right and most people find it repugnant, then it simply won't do well in the market. There's a wonderful liberating feeling in imagining one's self in a world where every decision isn't reduced to "one size fits all" through the modern concept of "let the government decided for us all the one best way!"
If anything, I would have liked to see *more* of the dynamics of the economics, rather than the considerable number of pages dedicated to rootin-tootin action. I know that action sells and makes a better story, and in that sense the book works well from an action perspective, but since I have a particular interest in AC, I would have liked to see more of how market dynamics might play out in such a world. But I'm probably in the minority there.
Alexander chooses to illustrate his AC world in a kind of "Lord of the Flies" type primitive setting. It's easy to see why he's done this: it's easier to see these things at work in their basic form, rather than wrapped up in the institutions of modern society. It does, however, risk the possibility that people may say "sure, this can work on a small scale in primitive conditions, but would not work in a giant interconnected modern society." That conclusion isn't true, but it will be a temptation for some readers. I understandt he tradeoff that Alexander had to make, however, and the choice he makes fits more smoothly into his setting and story.
The book follows the exploits of a single, powerful character, Allistair. By doing so, Alexander gets to dive very deep into Allistair's past and personality, and he creates an interesting and largely likable character, but one with believable human failings and flaws. The character works well. The author's choice to make Allistair somewhat of a "superman" - he has been physically altered through various science fiction techniques, and was trained in an elite military capacity - creates another set of tradeoffs. On the one hand, it makes Allistair more of a hero: he can do things that others can't, he can achieve things that others can't, and for those used to feeling like one against the million - as most libertarians feel - the fantasy of actually having the physical ability to get back at those evil statists is enticing (and to be fair: Allistair does not always win; he is not invulnerable). OTOH, it again waters down some of the political message: is it that the only people who can stand up and affect change are superman, or is this really more about a battle of ideas, with ideas being equally powerful no matter who they come from? If, for example, Allistair can only form an AC society because of his physical prowess, then isn't it convenient that the most powerful physical character wasn't a statist (or worst)? IOW, did Allistair change things in an AC direction by sheer physical force, or because his ideas won out?
I guess the issue is one of identification: most readers are not supermen, and so they may have a little trouble putting themselves in Allistair's shoes. Sure, it would be nice to be able to just physically cow people into agreeing with me, but I don't have that option; how could I have achieved the same thing given the average person that I am?
Like I said, it's a set of tradeoffs and Alexander made his choice and ran with it, and the book works within the context of those choices. If I want to see how the book would have come out with a depowered Allistair, well, I suppose I'll have to write that book myself. ;-)
I really enjoyed the cast of supporting characters. They were well realized, clearly differentiated, believable, covering a spectrum of backgrounds and ideologies but never coming across as shallow stereotypes. Alexander wasn't afraid to have them grow - or shrink - over the course of the book, and did not shy away from significant consequences to the characters - including death - either as a function of their own actions or external events out of their control. It felt like a realistic mixture, hitting neither the false extremes of karma on the one hand or fate on the other.
Altogether, this is a book I have been waiting for someone to write: a good but measured story that both shows the advantages of libertarianism/AC without over promising or over preaching. There are no talking dolphins or self-healing windows here, just people interacting with each other either in peace or in force/violence, with the contrast clearly illustrated, and the conclusion accessible but not shoved in your face: that peace is a better a way to interact.
If self-published books are eligible for the Prometheus award (for best libertarian science fiction), this has to be a candidate.
Well done Matt, and I'm looking forward to a return to Allistair's world!
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful
By Nomad
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
Finished the book a little over a week ago, and was pleasantly surprised by several things: the natural pace and style in what could be considered an overtly political novel, the same qualities together with great editing in a first time novel, and finally the scope and quality of storytelling. Most important to me was the success in giving life to a protagonist who embodies an ideal while maintaining humanity and avoiding caricature. This would be an impressive effort even by a veteran author; it is much more so by a newcomer. I very much enjoyed it, very strongly recommend it, and hope there is more to follow.
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
This review is from the Kindle edition.
Matthew Alexander's W?thűr W? is an outstanding piece of work, skillfully written and showing a concern for prose and characterization rare for a book in this genre. Better yet, while it is, at a certain level, an overtly political book, it consistently acknowledges real world complexities and manages to avoid didacticism. I never got the feel of being lectured but simply of being invited to consider possibilities. This takes a real gift.
I don't think there's any way to summarize the book adequately. It begins with the return to his home world of a young marine who was sent to fight in a ruinous and apparently pointless war on another planet. Once back, he realizes that the war is only one element in a general slide toward tyranny, and he decides to turn his talents against the government that trained him. This is simply the takeoff point for the novel, though. It is an epic work, not simply in length but in scope. And it needs to be, given the themes with which the author deals. Happily, the author has an energetic, stimulating style that draws the reader easily through the book.
While it's evident that the author has anarcho-capitalist sympathies, he is acutely aware of the practical difficulties that might be involved in trying substitute voluntary, private arrangements for their governmental equivalents. In one section of the book, the protagonist has some temporary success along these lines--this is undermined by old enmities and issues that are ultimately the aftereffects of government policies. Elsewhere, a victorious revolution becomes corrupt in its very inception, and it's not clear that this could have been avoided or that anyone is particularly culpable.
Interestingly, this tendency toward corruption in human institutions is part of a more general theme of impermanence. The cosmic background of the political plot is one in which intelligent species are infrequent, fragile phenomena doomed to eventual extinction. All the actions in the novel are, by the end, thrown into this perspective. Yet, I don't get the feeling that this is meant to lead us necessarily to pessimistic or apolitical conclusions. The emphasis on transience does, however, present the reader with a more nuanced view of political success and failure than one is typically given.
"Libertarian science fiction" seems to have become a recognized genre. If Mr. Alexander's book is any indication, it is a genre that is developing in sophistication and maturity.
Matthew Alexander's W?thűr W? is an outstanding piece of work, skillfully written and showing a concern for prose and characterization rare for a book in this genre. Better yet, while it is, at a certain level, an overtly political book, it consistently acknowledges real world complexities and manages to avoid didacticism. I never got the feel of being lectured but simply of being invited to consider possibilities. This takes a real gift.
I don't think there's any way to summarize the book adequately. It begins with the return to his home world of a young marine who was sent to fight in a ruinous and apparently pointless war on another planet. Once back, he realizes that the war is only one element in a general slide toward tyranny, and he decides to turn his talents against the government that trained him. This is simply the takeoff point for the novel, though. It is an epic work, not simply in length but in scope. And it needs to be, given the themes with which the author deals. Happily, the author has an energetic, stimulating style that draws the reader easily through the book.
While it's evident that the author has anarcho-capitalist sympathies, he is acutely aware of the practical difficulties that might be involved in trying substitute voluntary, private arrangements for their governmental equivalents. In one section of the book, the protagonist has some temporary success along these lines--this is undermined by old enmities and issues that are ultimately the aftereffects of government policies. Elsewhere, a victorious revolution becomes corrupt in its very inception, and it's not clear that this could have been avoided or that anyone is particularly culpable.
Interestingly, this tendency toward corruption in human institutions is part of a more general theme of impermanence. The cosmic background of the political plot is one in which intelligent species are infrequent, fragile phenomena doomed to eventual extinction. All the actions in the novel are, by the end, thrown into this perspective. Yet, I don't get the feeling that this is meant to lead us necessarily to pessimistic or apolitical conclusions. The emphasis on transience does, however, present the reader with a more nuanced view of political success and failure than one is typically given.
"Libertarian science fiction" seems to have become a recognized genre. If Mr. Alexander's book is any indication, it is a genre that is developing in sophistication and maturity.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
4.0 out of 5 stars
Withur We
Author: Matthew Bruce Alexander
Published By: Createspace
Age Recommended: Adult
Reviewed By: Arlena Dean
Rating: 4
Review:
"Withur We" by... Read more
Published By: Createspace
Age Recommended: Adult
Reviewed By: Arlena Dean
Rating: 4
Review:
"Withur We" by... Read more
Published 1 month ago by Arlena
4.0 out of 5 stars
Withur We
Alstair Ashley, a seasoned combat ex-marine returned to his home world from war a world light years away, but once he saw the injustice going on in Aldura he could hardly hold his... Read more
Published 2 months ago by Linda Bass
5.0 out of 5 stars
Space Opera at a personal level. Rebellion. Great action
This book was received free from the author for review purposes.
This book is a wonderful blend of high adventure, politics gone astray and the personal struggles of... Read more
This book is a wonderful blend of high adventure, politics gone astray and the personal struggles of... Read more
Published 4 months ago by fastreader
5.0 out of 5 stars
Great read! Will read it again.
This book had me hooked immediately, and I stayed up late many nights reading until my eyes wouldn't focus. Read more
Published 5 months ago by Debbie Rosen
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good science fiction; interesting political drama
Alexander creates a compelling drama around anarcho-capitalist themes while staying true to the science fiction genre. Read more
Published 6 months ago by billysixstring
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent!
This well written and very interesting story is really a reflection of modern day America and the potential loss of personal freedom we are currently facing. Read more
Published 8 months ago by Florida Police Detective
5.0 out of 5 stars
Well worth your time
This is a story about Ex Marine Alistair Ashley who returns home from war to his home planet and unable to come to peace with his surroundings. Read more
Published 13 months ago by C. Toste
5.0 out of 5 stars
Libertarian sci-fi at it's best
Withur We is a kind of epic thought experiment. Alexander's laboratory is a realistic but futuristic world of compelling characters and seismic plot shifts, interspersed with... Read more
Published 16 months ago by KT Tutors
4.0 out of 5 stars
A great book with a strong message
I don't usually read science fiction, but this is a great book with a strong message, and I highly recommend it to anyone, even those who don't generally care for science... Read more
Published 19 months ago by Daphne
5.0 out of 5 stars
Nuanced science fiction
Matthew Alexander's W?thűr W? is an outstanding piece of work, skillfully written and showing a concern for prose and characterization rare for a book in this genre. Read more
Published 20 months ago by William S. Kerr
Listmania!
|
|
