Rating: 
Summary: Impossible to put down without finishing
Review: The author has made a notable entry into the alternate universe scenario, wherein Texas rebels against a federal police state. The characterisations and action sequences are extremely well done, the book becomes more believable as you read on and the narative takes on a life of its own.
In this day and age we need more works of this ilke.
I fail to see why a previous viewer's pen was steeped in such vitriol, one wonders if he read the whole book.
Rating: 
Summary: Too stereotyped
Review: The book wasn't what I had hoped for. Tom Kratman uses far too many stereotypes. Hopefully, if he is published again, he will improve his style and find a more original approach to the issue at hand.
"A State of Disobedience" uses the 'war on terror' as the foundation for a radically expanded federal government, curtailing civil liberties and crushing all opposition. The basis is important, provocative, and even profoundly educational; Kurt Vonegutt or Ronald Heinlein could have made a masterpiece out of it, but Kratman's work is surprisingly unfulfilling.
The plot proceeds along the expected lines: the federal government reachs a point where resistance to its plans cannot be ignored and switches an greatly enlarged federal law enforcement into combat mode. The Surgeon General even controls a law enforcement agency. The expanding atrocities comitted by these groups pull support away in favor of the rebellious Texans, and the President finds the 'world turned upside down'.
The characters are stereotyped to the point where character development is impossible. Out of every character in the book, only one seems to have the conflicting mix of emotions, ideals and needs to be real.
The characters' stereotyping also extends to the plot. The atrocities are not new, and neither is the premise. Similar works can be found in the public domain by running a query on Google. Although they didn't receive professional editing treatment, the meat is carved from the same animal as this book.
If some true moral conflict were involved, then the book would be much more tolerable.
Rating: 
Summary: Continuing the grand tradition.
Review: The long standing tradition of underserving the Patriot, Strict Constitutionalist niche market is upheld with this book. It's got to be a book, it's hardbound and has pages. I can't call it a novel. I don't mind the format of short fragments--the headers are explanatory and are a common convention of the military thriller. My issue is with the uncomplicatedness of the characters and the roman a club feeling I get from the piece. I can't say roman a clef, a key is too subtle a concept here, the author beats you over the head with flaming stereotypes and names that are too thinly veiled approximations of people still living (too bad in some cases). I was going through the text saying that's Horiuchi, that's Hillary, that's McCain, etc. and so on. It was really obtrusive. For existential angst, if that's your thing, read Candle by Barnes. For redemption of the republic through dark dealings, read the incomparable Unintended Consequences by Ross, and for a less ponderous read (UC weighs, well, it weighs a lot) in the same vein, Enemies Foreign and Domestic by Bracken. Sincerely, no kidding, Tom Perkins [Edited 2_2_2004]
In retrospect and after rereading, I still loathe the two-bit caricatures the authors uses as characters, but the details of the less than main battle, deliberately non-lethal resistance put up by the Texas units is very interesting and even plausible, so I uprated this by one star.
Rating: 
Summary: Skip this one.
Review: This book exhibits every flaw of logic made by the supporters of the militia movement & similar far-right subcultures. 1. Demonization of the enemy:
Pro-choicers are all baby-killing lunatics, environmentalists are all chicken-little types with no grip on reality, gun control advocates will not be satisfied until until every private firearm is destroyed, etc., etc. 2. Beatification of the heroes.
Every Texan(TM) is polite, unafraid, and a crack shot. Every military man is a professional, and is only following orders, up until he Does The Right Thing, and joins the Texans. 3. Appeal to prurient interest:
The sexual orientations of the villains is clearly included to allow the readers to giggle about it. 4. There is but one true god:
All the heroes are Christian. None of the villains are religious, although Judaism is made reference to as being associated with the Eeevil(TM) Libruls(TM). I don't think the author is trying to be anti-semitic, however, as the reference is subtle, and the author displays subtlety nowhere else in the book. The author clearly interprets "freedom of religion" to mean Christians can do whatever they want in the political arena and no other religions could possibly matter. 5. War worship:
While the author is listed as having served, there is no indication in his writing of having seen the elephant. Even in the final battle at "Not The Alamo," the valiant defenders battle on, right until the very end. They never seem to react to death or danger or stress. If you've read David Drake, you know how an author can successfully protray this without making the characters seem cowardly. Overall, the biggest flaw in the book is the reduction of politics to Right=Good, Left=Bad. As a moderate (conservative for California) Republican living in Ultra-Liberal San Francisco, I've been able to see that people on every side of every issue have ideas & principles that they believe in. To simplify politics down to "My side is right, your side is wrong" is to do a grave disservice to the republic.
Rating:
Summary: The American Revolution - again!
Review: This is an inspiring book about a Second American Revolution. An extremely liberal Democrat (think Hilary Clinton) has become President of the USA, and has started to implement a third round of "progressive" changes. When an anti-abortion group is brutally shut down, a crisis develops - and after "pro-choice" Feds kill two dozen innocent children in a stockade, the Texan government rises up against the oppressive Federals. One or two of the other reviewers have complained about the writing style. I don't see what their problem is - it's as good as any other published writer. The problem I think they really have is with the politics... this is an unashamedly conservative book. If you're a liberal, you'll probably hate it. It does NOT portray liberals well. If you voted for George Bush in the 2000 election like I did, if you believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights without that "living document" interpretation, then you'll probably agree with me: this is an inspiring book.
Rating:
Summary: Great book
Review: Very difficult to put down (I've been reading for the past 3 hours with less than 5 minutes of interruption, and that for food/bathroom). Well-written, and stylistically very interesting as many of the characters (especially the bad guys) strongly parallel figures from the history of the past ten to twenty years.
It's nice to know there are other people out there who haven't given up on individual freedom, although the author gives WAAAAY too much credit to the Republicans (most of whom are no better than the Democrats) and not enough to those not in the military (armed civilians). Besides, you have to love a book that's dedicated to "Hillary, Janet, and Lon." May they rot as they hang by their necks from trees for all to see.
Rating:
Summary: Great book
Review: When a work of fiction garners almost nothing but 1 star and 5 star ratings,and those is about equal numbers, one has to wonder what the truth of the matter is. When all of the low ranking reviews cite to bad writing and yet cannot produce one bad sentence, one has to wonder about the honesty of the reviewers. When negative reviews seem to not even have read the book one might at least _consider_ the possibility that what one is seeing is a broad spectrum, left wing, knee jerk reaction to the goring of a liberal sacred cow. That is what is happening here. The writing is better than competent. The philosophy is pretty damned profound. The action grips. And so the left obviously must attack like the rabid wolves they are. 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.
Rating:
Summary: a polarizing work
Review: When a work of fiction garners almost nothing but 1 star and 5 star ratings,and those is about equal numbers, one has to wonder what the truth of the matter is. When all of the low ranking reviews cite to bad writing and yet cannot produce one bad sentence, one has to wonder about the honesty of the reviewers. When negative reviews seem to not even have read the book one might at least _consider_ the possibility that what one is seeing is a broad spectrum, left wing, knee jerk reaction to the goring of a liberal sacred cow. That is what is happening here. The writing is better than competent. The philosophy is pretty damned profound. The action grips. And so the left obviously must attack like the rabid wolves they are. 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.
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely unreadable!
Review: While I agree with some of the ideals in this book, it's barely readable. Poorly written. Childish. About as deep as cardboard, and about as exciting. The characters are about as profound as a puddle after a summer drizzle. Everyone on the left is scum. Everyone on the right is saintly. Leftist extremism is bad. Right-wing extremism is good. Condemns the left for government tyranny, but promotes right-wing tyranny without acknowledging that tyranny - in any form - is not acceptable. In other words, complete drek. Added in edit to clarify and to reply to above: I believe everyone has the right to own any weapon, including machineguns.
I believe the liberal police state is a threat to human existence.
I believe in conservative ideals.
I can't stand Clinton - either one of them.
I believe taxation is theft.
I believe Tom Kratman not only can't write worth a damn, but is an embarrassment to the conservative movement. As another reviewer noted, this is a voice those of us on the real right wish would go away. He's a loon. He wants to fix what's wrong with the government's intrusiveness by giving it different and "better" intrusiveness. As to the challenge to find "one bad sentence," here we go, assuming Amazon doesn't filter it: "To Ms. Wilhelmina Rottemeyer, President-Elect of the United States of America, the sound was orgasm. Never in her life had a thrusting man entering her body given her such a glorious feeling." Yes, you can't get higher literature than that. "The People howled their outrage and their triumph until quelled again by their leader's gentle pats." Aw, how sweet. Mr. Kratman may be the best proof anywhere that lawyers have no business in government. The constitution, as the left has forgotten, is a limitation ON the government. Kratman's novel would fix this by using the constitution to restrict my actions, for my own good. Were his revolution to take place, I think I'd be seceding myself, and shooting at both groups of nutcases, the commies and the fascists.
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely unreadable!
Review: While I agree with some of the ideals in this book, it's barely readable. Poorly written. Childish. About as deep as cardboard, and about as exciting. The characters are about as profound as a puddle after a summer drizzle. Everyone on the left is scum. Everyone on the right is saintly. Leftist extremism is bad. Right-wing extremism is good. Condemns the left for government tyranny, but promotes right-wing tyranny without acknowledging that tyranny - in any form - is not acceptable. In other words, complete drek. Added in edit to clarify and to reply to above: I believe everyone has the right to own any weapon, including machineguns.
I believe the liberal police state is a threat to human existence.
I believe in conservative ideals.
I can't stand Clinton - either one of them.
I believe taxation is theft.
I believe Tom Kratman not only can't write worth a damn, but is an embarrassment to the conservative movement. As another reviewer noted, this is a voice those of us on the real right wish would go away. He's a loon. He wants to fix what's wrong with the government's intrusiveness by giving it different and "better" intrusiveness. As to the challenge to find "one bad sentence," here we go, assuming Amazon doesn't filter it: "To Ms. Wilhelmina Rottemeyer, President-Elect of the United States of America, the sound was orgasm. Never in her life had a thrusting man entering her body given her such a glorious feeling." Yes, you can't get higher literature than that. "The People howled their outrage and their triumph until quelled again by their leader's gentle pats." Aw, how sweet. Mr. Kratman may be the best proof anywhere that lawyers have no business in government. The constitution, as the left has forgotten, is a limitation ON the government. Kratman's novel would fix this by using the constitution to restrict my actions, for my own good. Were his revolution to take place, I think I'd be seceding myself, and shooting at both groups of nutcases, the commies and the fascists.
| 
