A State of Disobedience

Rating:
Summary: An Excellent Thriller and Political Controversy
Review: "A State of Disobedience," by new author Tom Kratman, is an excellent effort. Heavily, but not primarily political, this is a book that conservatives will love, liberals will hate, but all should read very carefully.

The book hypothesizes an overreaching federal government caught in the grips of an evil, liberal and female president determined to (forcibly, if necessary) implement a repressive version of the modern Democratic Party's agenda. Anti-abortion activities in Texas (the author's home state after his self-proclaimed "defection," from what he calls "Peoples Republic of Massachusets") lead to the murder by federal law enforcement of a catholic priest and scores of orphaned children living in his mission.

The (Democratic) Governor of Texas resolves to peacefully resist the abuse of federal power, despite the fact that the dead catholic priest was her brother. Unconstrained by the governor's scruples, the president responds with massive force.
The mismatch in military force available to the combatants yields an absolutely fascinating analysis of civil disobedience and resistance techniques drawn from sources as diverse as the civil rights movement, the viet cong (a fictional alumni of which makes a cameo appearance in the book) and the early 19th century Texas fight for independence from Mexico. That this analysis occurs in the context of an exciting and fun military thriller is simply more than anyone has a right to expect from a first novel.

In writing what escalates into, in essence, a second American revolution, Kratman was forced to confront the hard, cold, utter implausibility of historical precedent. No modern state could hope to match the federal government in military power, nor do citizens widely possess the skills or motivations to become successful guerilla fighters. A refighting of either the American Revolution or the Civil War would have been laughably, ridiculously, implausible given modern weaponry and cultural attitudes.

So how to give even Texans a fighting chance to defeat the might of the U.S. government? Kratman deftly handles this thorny issue by having the Texans rely primarily on peaceful resistance, and with a few extremely sophisticated plot twists (wait until you read where the Texans make their Alamo-like stand; real brilliance went into the selection of the building).

But the Texans' reliance on peaceful resistance is not exclusive, and Kratman (a civilian lawyer and reserve infantry officer)demonstrates his military expertise in the careful crafting and utter reality of the many thrilling combat scenes. Pay particular attention to the defensive preparations Kratman creates in his future Alamo. The ghost of Santa Ana is certainly grateful that this military officer was not present to supervise the defenses at the real Alamo--The Mexicans would never have had a chance.

The book has one down side: Kratman's politics are frankly right wing. For those of you with a moderate or liberal view of the world, the political parts of this book will offend you. But you should still read it. The book is an excellent military action adventure story, and it makes some important political and social statements. And for any liberals or moderates courageous enough to read this book, you will find in the author an example of the best of the political right, the conservatives some of us even hate to admit exist: a right wing political ideology utterly free of any bigotry. The "good guys" in this book are a Mexican-American female governor, a male military officer whose race is never identified, a black male alumni of the civil rights movement, and a vietnamese communist. The people who do good in this book are as diverse as the people of Texas. (Now that I think about it, I think the bad guys are all white--I wonder if I have missed a subtle message there). Kratman clearly has little respect for diversity for the sake of diversity. Yet the heroes in his book are a diverse group. These casting decisions demonstrate a sophisticated and respectable point of view.

This book is not what many will try to caricature it as being--a right wing screed by a neonazi, bigoted thug. It is thoughtful and operates on many levels (and don't lose sight of the fact that first among those levels is exciting military adventure).

Kratman's legal training also shows through, and he demonstrates a very sophisticated understanding of some structural flaws in the federal government. One such problem, reliance on the commerce clause of the constitution to justify just about any expansion of federal power, is largely unknown outside of legal circles, but lies at the heart of some of America's most divisive political issues.

But, most of all, the book is a well-written, gripping military thriller. It took someone of Kratman's rare combination of intellect, legal and military training to do justice to some important issues including the size of the federal government and the limitations inherent in the use of force and wrap it all up in a thrill ride. But for the frankness (some will say heavy-handedness) with which the author expresses his own political beliefs, this book is deft, from beginning to end. It would make an excellent addition to the library of anyone who follows things military or things political. If you follow both, then you simply must own this book.

A last word to the publisher: This book does not occur in 2060, as you wrote on the book jacket. Kratman populates his universe with characters who served in the Viet Nam War and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Do the math. Please fix this for later print runs, and try a little harder to live up to the high standards this author has set.

Rating:
Summary: Bad, Bad, Bad...
Review: ...Bad, Bad... Did I say this is was bad? The IDEA was great, but my god this book was bad. What has Baen been smoking to let this one through? My favourite publisher, the publisher that can be relied upon to produce good books no matter what, has gone off the rails with this one.

This book was a series of 1-3 page (sometimes even shorter) fragments. The entire book was composed of disjointed POV changes and scene jumps. Some were interesting, but there was no flow. It lurched and jumped from place to place.

Didn't like it at all.

Rating:
Summary: One Need Not Eat All of an Egg...
Review: ...to know that it is bad.

After painfully slogging through the clangingly turgid prose of the first two chapters of this book, i skipped here and there ahead to confirm my initial suspicions.

Yup -- this is another Radical Reactionary Right screed against Liberalism, Big Government and the current Big Hoohoo Demon of the Radical Reactionary Right, Hilary Clinton. (I refuse to use the label "Conservative" to describe the Radical Reactionary Right; they are *not* conservatives, and have so debased the word [and, by example and misuse, have so debased the term "Liberal"] that it is no longer useable in honest debate). At least the author doesn't seem to be a racist as so many of those who claim to be "conservatives" these days seem to be, though homophobia does seem to be on the menu.

Basically, this is, as the one blurb from an established author that Baen seems to have been able to get (and more on that in a moment) establishes, thereby saving us from the trouble of actually having to read the whole book, a novel of the "Second American Revolution", when the Righteous Of The Nation shall find that they can Stand No More and Rise Up and Sweep The Libruls From The Land and then rewrite the Constitution to make sure that it clearly states those Principles Of True Americanism that all Right-Thinking Americans understand in their hearts so well that the Founding Fathers actually *meant* to put in there, had they simply been as clever as today's Radical Reactionary Right.

Along the way, it appears that we again take a few swipes at such vaguely-equine-shaped damp spots on the ground as Waco, the ATF, and, of course, that old bugaboo of Congrescritters and the American Medical Association, Socialised Medicine, which, as it appearsin the sections that i read, is Simply Horrible, as any right-thinking member of the Radical Reactionary Right knows, despite the evidence to the contrary of the British and Canadian experiences (as reported by everyone i know who has had significant contact with them...)

The Villains Of The Piece appear to be thinly-veiled caricatures of Hilary Clinton, Janet Reno and such, and the Good Guys are, of course, those Simple American Patriots who see through their lies and deceptions in the end. (One such, in particular, is presented as a simple Son Of The Soil, and not an Intellectual, by such tricks of "Characterisation" as having him amusingly misquote Dickens. Gosh, what cutting wit.) Too bad he had to have a *female* Evil Librul President for his story, there are any number of places where some really villainous mustache twirling would have helped establish characterisation.

And, at the end, there is a list of "Proposed Amendments to the Constitution" brought in by a Constitutional Convention convened after the Successful Second American Revolution; these are, really , the purpose of the book, to lay ou the author's Formula For Salvation Of the American Way:

One, recognising that those pesky words about "A well-organised militia..." can always be used to cast doubt on the legitimacy of unlimited "Keep and Bear Arms", begins by *abolishing* the old Second Amendment and writing a new one which allows private citizens to possess anything short of Weapons Of Mass Destruction.

Another specifically forbids the Federal Government from enforcing the "freedom from religion" that people like Thomas Jefferson wrote into the Constitution.

Another, which is designed to eliminate such bodies as the FCC, ICC and FDA, requires such bodies' staffs to be reduced by 10% every year for ten years; presumably this is intended to eliminate them in ten years -- in fact, a 10% annual reduction in staff would result in a strength of 34.9% of the original staffing -- assuming that there were enough in the original staff that one wouldn't have to clip a few fingers or toes to meet the year's reduction. Perhaps the author, who is a lawyer, not an engineer or mathemetician, meant "ten percent of present levels". That is not, however, what he wrote.

Yet a third amendment (i am taking them somewhat out of order) outlaws "...direct taxes ... levied upon living persons..."

And my two favourites relate to proposed changes in the Judiciary -- one allows a simple majority of Governors of the States to simply overturn any Supreme Court decision (This would be, i assume, referred to as the Jackson/Marshall Memorial Amendment), and another *requires* that one of the Justices of the Spreme Court be eliminated from the Court by popular vote of the people, every four years. After sixteen or twenty years of this, why, we would have a Court that exactly reflected the Will Of The People in its decisions. What a horrible and terrifying thought.

The rest of the proposed Amendments are as bad -- if all were to be ratified, taking us back to an even more poorly designed "nation" than existed under the original Articles of Confederation, i'd expect that it wouldn't be more than a decade or two before Georgia nuked California. (Of course, the Radical Reactionary Right would probably applaud such actions...)

As to the author blurb on the books wrapper -- it is from fellow-Baen-author John Ringo, and reads (in full) "Probably the most realistic depiction of a second American Revolution ever written." No mention of what a great book it is, or how the author brings it glowingly alive on the page, or how he thinks that, as presented by the author, it seems like a Good Idea.

The phrase "damning with faint praise" comes to mind; my own capsule review would be "Worst political SF from a mainline publisher since 'Farnham's Freehold'".

Could i give less than one star under the Amazon system --perhaps even negative numbers -- i would have.

The late Dorothy Parker, reviewing another work in another time, gave me the perfect finish for this review of this book: "This is not a book to be tossed aside lightly.....it should be thrown with great force."

Rating:
Summary: Thought provoking
Review: A good SF novel has a big idea that drives the storyline. This one does and hence on the whole I liked this book despite some limitations. The book is set in a near future USA and deals with the question of when it is justifiable to rebel against your elected government. The narative action is good and enjoyable. It's weakness is that the baddies are just too bad and somewhat cliched, however this should not distract you from reading the book. The major theme of the book is the Nanny state gone mad and how the best of intentions can be hijacked by those who wish to gain or remain in power. Despite the limitations of the characterizations I can see parallels with real people - particularly here in Europe.

Overall I recommend it.

Rating:
Summary: Right Wing - What If....?
Review: A thought provoking read, if you get past the first 30 pages. Readers who consider themselves liberal will want to throw it across the room several times in the first 30 pages, but once you get to page 60, everyone should be rapidly turning pages in an effort to find out what happens next.
Many wars and conflicts began with misunderstanding and attempts to understand the conflicts origins are often as confrontational as the conflict itself (on an academic level). Understanding this, once the conflict begins in this book, there is little doubt who the good guys are and who you want to empathize with, regardless of your stance on the origination of the conflict. ... So - Give it 60 pages, then everyone can enjoy the rest of the book.

Rating:
Summary: Uneven, but promising
Review: An interesting near-future look at political correctness and the backlash from same. This is a first novel, and uses more stereotypes than I would like, but definitely gets it's point across. I purchased an extra for lending purposes, and may have to buy yet another copy, since my father is keeping a tight hold on mine and my brother has informed me that I won't be seeing the lending copy again.

Rating:
Summary: Responding
Review: Another reviewer has said:

"Bah. If the left had their way this book which offends them so badly by portraying the truth would be burned and the author sent to a Gulag."

Actually, no -- it is the Left (by that reviewer's apparent terms) that generally opposes almost all censorship.

The same reviewer opens her review with a remark about reviewers who claim a book is Very Badly Written, but seem unable to cite so much as a single passage to bear out this claim -- in the case of this book, i again find myself quasi-quoting a marvellous catty remark -- in this case Mary McCarthy's comment on Lillian Hellman:

Every word he writes is bad, and that includes "a", "an" and "the".

Rating:
Summary: Responding
Review: Another reviewer has said:

"Bah. If the left had their way this book which offends them so badly by portraying the truth would be burned and the author sent to a Gulag."

Actually, no -- it is the Left (by that reviewer's apparent terms) that generally opposes almost all censorship.

The same reviewer opens her review with a remark about reviewers who claim a book is Very Badly Written, but seem unable to cite so much as a single passage to bear out this claim -- in the case of this book, i again find myself quasi-quoting a marvellous catty remark -- in this case Mary McCarthy's comment on Lillian Hellman:

Every word he writes is bad, and that includes "a", "an" and "the".

Rating:
Summary: An interesting "What If?" book.
Review: ASOD is an interesting "What If?" book. If you consider yourself a liberal and Clinton supporter, you won't like it. Aside from the entertaining story, it gives insight into the reservations aome conservatives have about many of the current Liberal political leaders in the USA. It also gives insight intothe concerns many people (liberal and conservative) have over the Patriot Act.

Rating:
Summary: A Clunky Read
Review: Baen's offerings these days are bit like the curate's egg. And I'm sorry to say that A State of Disobedience is not amongst the good parts. This MilSF novel is a vehicle for a slew of reactionary kneejerks, centered on a less than two-dimensional rabid lesbian Hillary Clinton knockoff and her cabal of homosexuals pollutin the Murrican bodily fluids, or whatever, a unimaginative reenactment of Waco and the usual blood'n'guts battle scenes. Now that would be ok for the usual airport page turner. The clunky prose, the execrable dialog and the all too transparent desire to get back at "Hillary, Janet and Lon" make this book a case for a speedy trip to the used book store. I'll rather take my political propaganda neat, thanks.