Nathan

Another great Age of Sail novel by S. Thomas Russell. The change of scenery to the Caribbean allows for some new story elements, and some interesting plot twists and events make for an engaging adventure. Only criticism would be some unoriginal (but well-handled) plot elements, and a feeling that some of the descriptions of engagements were rushed and not as detailed. However, the description of the position of ships in battle – an important element – was as good or better than ever in terms of clarity generally. The rousing and exciting concluding chapters – I could hardly put it down near the end – make up for any criticisms.

I rate Russell second only to C.S. Forester's Horatio Hornblower series (of which I have read all), and better than what I have read of Alexander Kent's Bolitho (one book read) and O'Brian (gave up partway through the second book). Will await the next outing anxiously!

Just to be upfront about it, I did not finish this book. This review is based on the first chapter.

I saw the Amazon series, and was intrigued.

I found the book to be sexist. Specifically, the main character – who I would imagine is meant to be the sympathetic hero – had sexist thoughts in an inner monologue. As a result, I had a difficult time engaging when I found the hero not redeeming in this way. Life is too short for such books, full of too many thrillers that don't have such issues, so I set it aside permanently.

Disappointing. Ken Follett can do better and has done better.

Interesting premise. Strong historical ideas, with the plot around both the plane, the particular moment in time, and the fictional (but possible!) voyage. So much potential! Set up an intriguing cast of characters, with some rather exciting/suspenseful moments. But in the end falls short, with a predictable twist, and is particularly troublesome in some ways.

Biggest issues:
* How female characters are drawn. All similar in their feebleness, insecurities, and indecisiveness (generally). Follett seems to start and/or build some up as strong, only to then disappoint. Females are both over sexualized and overstereotyped. Even taking into account the period setting, it felt sexist. Related: references to sexual assault were too often uncomfortable and cringy. Recovery from trauma feels glossed over and not given appropriate attention.
* Sexual orientation: speculation about the orientation of secondary characters feels simultanesouly irrelevant and relevant. Irrelevant because it's not related to the plot or actions of the characters, and they are otherwise given little or no characterization much other than appearance. Feels relevant because some of the characterization presented is surface stereotype, and does not feel due to period setting or from the voice of a character, but rather the voice of the omniscient narrator, the authors' voice. Feels out-of-step and out-of-place, strange and inappropriate, awkward and homophobic.
* Romances. So many! And forming so quickly! I like a good romance, but characters developing deep feelings so rapidly felt unrealistic and unearned. Done at times for the sake of creating story and plot, one in which practically every major character (females, at least) must have someone by the end, and in a relationship (usually wrapped up with a happily-ever-after bow).
* Some characters acted out of character for the sake of the plot.
* Perhaps too many characters, or rather, too many protagonists, to the point it lost some focus. Would rather have fewer with stronger arcs and whose actions impact the course of events.
* Ending felt rushed, and fell into some unoriginal story ideas.

Barely 2 stars. Ask me on another day and I'd give it one.

Abandoned after about 60+ pages, after first part.

Frustrated by slow and then radical turn of story, with author seemingly abandoning protagonist, first for a another character, and then for an entirely different setting and set of characters.

Liked prose, and characters well enough (even if they weren't brilliantly written), but so turned off I will likely not plan to try the author's Mars Trilogy anytime soon, if ever.

I'm frankly shocked that editors let an apparently good author put this out in this state.

Detail [SPOILERS]:

Author abandoned protagonist, apparently killing them off, with no conclusion, closure, resolution, or clarity with what happened. Frustrating to invest in characters, and then have this happen. Also, protagonist (Bold) slowly robbed of agency, as driving force of story became another character, who was a bit unsavory, and basically took over the story. Death/reincarnation sequence particularly difficult and frustrating. Not really enlightening, but instead confusing. Unclear of it was just random images, real religious imagery, or symbolism going on, and frankly at that very point after suddenly losing the protagonist I was frustrated and not really caring about the plight of the secondary character in the afterlife.

Put the book down at first page of second part when author basically started the story over with new setting and characters. No thanks. I won't subject myself to frustration and disappointment for another part after investing my time.

Also: I endured entirely awful and graphic depictions of castration with the hope that it would still be a good book. I'm sorry I did.

[Edit: spelling]

Summary: Underwhelming. Didn't meet high expectations. Unfortunately became a bit of a slog to get through.

The Good: Herbert creates a world, highly realized, with its unique cultures and language and history and politics. With depth and detail. Well plotted, bringing together many threads and characters with political intrigue.

The Bad: Despite such a variety of characters, with a variety of roles and actions, somehow they lack humanity. All their dialogue, all their thoughts, all their actions, tend to be in the service of the plot, or exposition, or enlightening the reader to this world. But despite seeing deep into the thoughts of the characters, we seem to get little enlightenment of their feelings on the matters at hand, let alone personal, particular, character-driven, and character-revealing aspects of their thoughts and feelings. Characters often seemed hyper-intellectual. I don't think there was a single argument based upon emotional conflict, or bit of humor in the entire book. Another for instance: the deaths of characters close to others did not seem to elicit much emotion, thought, or feelings on the matter. Characters felt too often unrelatable (as a result). I think this is why I did not feel enough care for what happened to the characters.

The Ugly: Suspenseful moments there were, but more as a result of the plot, and less the result of how he handled those plot moments, or how they actually played out on the page. Similar with the action scenes, which were intense almost despite the writing itself. A great hero, but one which did not have a lot of endearing or relatable qualities. And one who felt too entrenched in the tired (and even racist) trope of the civilized/western/white hero going in to lead and save the savage/exotic/eastern people of color (a la the films “Dances with Wolves” or “The Samurai,” which while I might have enjoyed, can nonetheless be rather troubling and problematic from a race perspective). Chapter introductions from books written about the events of the story, giving interesting insights and commentary, but whose foreshadowing crossed the line into actual spoiling what otherwise would have been suspenseful events if the outcome wasn't already known. A glossary that was helpful, but also felt a bit of a crutch, as Herbert then appeared to feel free to simply not bother to try to integrate the explanations of their meaning within the text itself (which would have required a more deft hand with storytelling, but which would have been more enjoyable and easier for the reader. The metaphysical/supernatural aspects lent some more other-worldliness to the story, but at times left me a bit confused or uncertain about their meaning, significance, or even a good sense of what was actually happening. A compelling tale, but one which at times seemed rather derivative of history (see T.E. Lawreance “of Arabia.”) Interesting cultural idea, but ones which also seemed extremely derivative. A story which might be an interesting analogy on the times in which it was written (Middle East politics, oil), but if there was something beyond just being borrowed or derivative, and which actually might be a commentary, I did not see it (though I acknowledge both that it might be my failing to see it, and that all works are derivative in some sense).

Disclaimer: Expectations can be important. I did see (at least most of) the 1984 film something over 20 years ago. My rather awful impression of it colored my view of the book. I wish I had not seen it beforehand. On the other hand, my expectations were high due to the rave reviews and #1 rankings on the all-time-best science fiction lists.

1/3 the way through, and quite enjoying it. Much less plot- and action-oriented (read: obsessed) than sci-fi often seems to be. Also no overwhelming info-dump at the start to orient you to the future world; it nicely was slowly revealed/unveiled/rolled out on a bit of a need-to-know basis. Really focuses on the characters and their wants/needs/motivations, along with character aspects, foibles, and quirks. It means that the narrative has yet to put one as the reader in that awkward position where characters act outside of or against character in service to the plot. It's the reverse (again, so far).

[A mild spoiler ahead]

Absolutely loved Part 1.

Part 2 started to lose me as the focus came off the main character a bit, and the story really changed by taking a new turn.

Then came [here comes mild spoiler]...









....a torture scene.

I should say I generally dislike such scenes. This is partly because of the kind of violence it portrays disturbs me. However, if it fits into the story and are done well, I can accept it and move forward.

However, I also partly dislike such scenes often because of how they are usually portrayed. That is, objectively wrongly and irresponsibly. Unfortunately, the one I'm referring to in this book does just that...and then some.

When I say wrongly and irresponsibly I mean: by suggesting that critical information is usually able to be extracted from someone through the torture (when in reality the opposite is true). Such portrayal perpetuates misconceptions and mistaken beliefs about torture, which has real world implications. (How many have suffered because we tolerate torture based on wrongheaded notions?) I find this irresponsible portrayal – in whatever media – as disturbing, grotesque, unnecessary, and frankly, unethical. So I chose not to engage with media that do so.

To make it worse, not only does this novel in a particular scene do so, but it makes it worse because the hero present – who we are supposed to empathize with, who (generally) does the right thing, who we are rooting for – does not condemn the torture (either outwardly or in their thoughts), or frankly seem to have much concern about the ethical implications of the torture. I found myself then having a difficult time rooted for and empathizing with this hero afterwards (as well as the character that committed the heinous act, who was also a “good guy”).

Now, if torture doesn't bother you, or the potential ethical implications of how it is portrayed in the context of the story doesn't matter to you, or you don't find issues with empathizing with heroes that are not “good” in terms of their actions ethically and morally, or real world horrid implications of perpetuating misconceptions doesn't bother you, then this novel may not be problematic for you. It is for me. Which is why I didn't finish it after that.

It's unfortunate, because I was really liking the story, and I really wanted to follow it to the end. It just lost me at that point.

I hope to find a similar novel without this unfortunate issue (and open to suggestions, please!)

Top posted review by reader Emily May says it all really.

I would only add in summary: like it's 2 predecessors, close to 1000 pages of historical fiction focused on a town in England, with romance and thrills that Ken Follett knows how to deliver. Unlike the previous two very good outings, this one has a broader historical scope (going beyond England to involved major events across the backdrop of European conflict, royals, aristocrats, merchants, sailors, civil war, and Protestants vs. Catholics), but less depth (in terms of featuring characters who are not quite as engaging).

I highly recommend the first 2 novels to any fan of historical fiction and the era, and this one (with the above disclaimer/caveat.)

It's Horatio Hornblower meets Elizabeth Bennet. It's a great combination, and Russell has somehow managed to do very well with both genres. Excellent crafted scenes at sea in the Age of Sail, matching the best of a C.S. Forester with the with the witty banter found in a Jane Austen back on shore in the English countryside.
I don't understand those who might criticize it for this. Regardless of which you may prefer or be more familiar with, if you open yourself to something new it's the best of both worlds.