Scan barcode
diz_tn's review against another edition
1.0
I am left dumbfounded by this book. I don't really even know how to write this review.
Let me start by saying that as a kid I loved Card's books. They were some of my favorites. Now I'm wondering if they really were good books or if my judgment was a little off back then. (Time to revisit some of those old books.)
Card sounds like a novice writer in this book. Most of the book is written (badly) from an omniscient narrator perspective. In spite of being a book about deception, treason, and war, it felt like there was no action. It felt like I was reading a history book - this person did this, then this other person did this, and this 3rd person did this. No real depth to it at all. In some places it sounded like there were 2 different writers. For instance, the prologue was one of those scenes that lacked any action at all in spite of the fact that it was during a war/fighting/shooting scene, yet the first chapter flipped that and sounded almost normal (almost decent writing) when we have a group of people conversing.
Not a single character was well-developed. We get very few hints as to people's backgrounds, motivations, loves, or hates. The plot pitted two opposing philosophical sides against each other in a civil war. Yet the ideology of neither side was clear, and it was extremely difficult to distinguish the sides (beyond the stereotypes he threw at us) because of the lack of character development. What I mean is that there was no person(s) that embodied either side. There were no real leaders. Any "main characters" were supposed to be moderates that didn't fully support either side (more on that below). So because I didn't get a glimpse into why a person would do one thing or another, I didn't understand how the sides got polarized as Card described them. I never did understand which side it was that assassinated the president or did any of the other acts of war.
This book is political satire in the form of a hellfire and brimstone sermon. In my opinion, satire needs to be subtly disguised so as not to sound preachy in order to be good writing. In Empire, the political commentary was screaming at you instead of whispering. Not only is the US divided according to the same issues and across the same geographic regions as in the mid 2000s, but Card uses well-known celebrities (with political agendas) in the book! In the afterward, Card implies that he tried to make both sides equally absurd. If that's what he was trying to do then he failed miserably. Card either showed us what his true political views are, or he did an excellent job of playing devil's advocate (and since the writing is so bad in general, I don't think it's the later). For instance, he actually uses Fox News' slogan of "fair and balanced" and presents it as such. He puts Bill O'Reilly in as a character and says that he really does give people a fair interview (i.e. doesn't yell at them). There is only 1 democrat/liberal character in the entire book that is presented as a reasonable person (dude's wife - can't even remember either of their names, that's how much I remember the characters) while numerous republicans/conservatives are supposedly reasonable. And finally, if you have to explain yourself in an afterward as to your intentions and what the book is supposed to mean, then you damn sure enough didn't do a good enough job writing the book!
Finally, Card literally equated children of working mothers to ORPHANED KIDS. That's right, he said that if that woman character (the one I can't remember her name) worked, then her kids would be like orphaned kids. That may not bother most of you, but it pissed me the hell off. As a woman working in scientific research and trying to battle stereotypes my entire life, I was quite offended by this attitude from a science fiction writer that I used to respect.
Let me start by saying that as a kid I loved Card's books. They were some of my favorites. Now I'm wondering if they really were good books or if my judgment was a little off back then. (Time to revisit some of those old books.)
Card sounds like a novice writer in this book. Most of the book is written (badly) from an omniscient narrator perspective. In spite of being a book about deception, treason, and war, it felt like there was no action. It felt like I was reading a history book - this person did this, then this other person did this, and this 3rd person did this. No real depth to it at all. In some places it sounded like there were 2 different writers. For instance, the prologue was one of those scenes that lacked any action at all in spite of the fact that it was during a war/fighting/shooting scene, yet the first chapter flipped that and sounded almost normal (almost decent writing) when we have a group of people conversing.
Not a single character was well-developed. We get very few hints as to people's backgrounds, motivations, loves, or hates. The plot pitted two opposing philosophical sides against each other in a civil war. Yet the ideology of neither side was clear, and it was extremely difficult to distinguish the sides (beyond the stereotypes he threw at us) because of the lack of character development. What I mean is that there was no person(s) that embodied either side. There were no real leaders. Any "main characters" were supposed to be moderates that didn't fully support either side (more on that below). So because I didn't get a glimpse into why a person would do one thing or another, I didn't understand how the sides got polarized as Card described them. I never did understand which side it was that assassinated the president or did any of the other acts of war.
This book is political satire in the form of a hellfire and brimstone sermon. In my opinion, satire needs to be subtly disguised so as not to sound preachy in order to be good writing. In Empire, the political commentary was screaming at you instead of whispering. Not only is the US divided according to the same issues and across the same geographic regions as in the mid 2000s, but Card uses well-known celebrities (with political agendas) in the book! In the afterward, Card implies that he tried to make both sides equally absurd. If that's what he was trying to do then he failed miserably. Card either showed us what his true political views are, or he did an excellent job of playing devil's advocate (and since the writing is so bad in general, I don't think it's the later). For instance, he actually uses Fox News' slogan of "fair and balanced" and presents it as such. He puts Bill O'Reilly in as a character and says that he really does give people a fair interview (i.e. doesn't yell at them). There is only 1 democrat/liberal character in the entire book that is presented as a reasonable person (dude's wife - can't even remember either of their names, that's how much I remember the characters) while numerous republicans/conservatives are supposedly reasonable. And finally, if you have to explain yourself in an afterward as to your intentions and what the book is supposed to mean, then you damn sure enough didn't do a good enough job writing the book!
Finally, Card literally equated children of working mothers to ORPHANED KIDS. That's right, he said that if that woman character (the one I can't remember her name) worked, then her kids would be like orphaned kids. That may not bother most of you, but it pissed me the hell off. As a woman working in scientific research and trying to battle stereotypes my entire life, I was quite offended by this attitude from a science fiction writer that I used to respect.
rebeccacider's review against another edition
2.0
Reading this essentially because the book flap lied to me regarding its plot. It's interesting, but not really a novel - more of a historical/political thought experiment in story form. Which if you're going to write something like this set so close to the present is not a bad thing; if he'd written an actual novel, it would be harder for the reader to think critically about its ideas. However, it's not really art.
melissadegraffbooks's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting idea, but I mainly enjoyed this for the political aspects. The writing was not very impressive.
zachswain's review against another edition
1.0
Ugh.
Spoiler Alert, though I don't recommend you read this book, so whatever.
This book is bad. The plot is largely unbelievable (without spoiling anything, the main plot is plausible, but the sci-fi elements introduced halfway through make you go "Wha...?"). It has way too much dialogue from characters that you wouldn't expect to be wordy. Card throws in a few mysteries that are, frankly, uninteresting.
Additionally, the flow just didn't work for me. From the first action sequence where things are setup just a little too perfectly and the main characters spring into action, to the last one where a hidden base assault reads like a group of friends jaunting through a cave, the storytelling is just bad.
Save yourself some time, read the synopsis on amazon/here, and just nod your head knowingly.
Spoiler Alert, though I don't recommend you read this book, so whatever.
This book is bad. The plot is largely unbelievable (without spoiling anything, the main plot is plausible, but the sci-fi elements introduced halfway through make you go "Wha...?"). It has way too much dialogue from characters that you wouldn't expect to be wordy. Card throws in a few mysteries that are, frankly, uninteresting.
Additionally, the flow just didn't work for me. From the first action sequence where things are setup just a little too perfectly and the main characters spring into action, to the last one where a hidden base assault reads like a group of friends jaunting through a cave, the storytelling is just bad.
Save yourself some time, read the synopsis on amazon/here, and just nod your head knowingly.
leannaaker's review against another edition
5.0
Wow, how relevant is this right now!!! What a fun read.
blanyon's review against another edition
3.0
The story is interesting and the concept is entirely plausible to some extent.. the biggest issue with the book is that Card clearly hates anyone who isn’t a Christian conservative. Spoiler, the progressives are the bad guys and he spends a lot of time having characters voice his disdain for them and how they’re ruining America (even before the rebellion). Yes he occasionally throws in cessily who chimes “this could easily be the other way around with the fanatic right rebelling,” but shortly after it goes back to the same old song and dance. (What’s ironic, writing this in 2023, is that the plot revolves around the progressive left being unhinged because they can’t accept the results of an election… and yet I’m sure to Cards dismay, it wasn’t the progressives that played this out in reality, but his darling fanatic conservatives who became unhinged failing to accept an election and stormed Congress…
dindywilcox's review against another edition
5.0
Really liked this book. I haven't read many Orson Scott Card books and really enjoyed his writing style. Major twist in the middle that I wasn't expecting and definitely kept me guessing through out. Also made me think a lot about government and and how fragile our society and way of life is.
tabatha_shipley's review against another edition
3.0
What I Did Like:
-The afterword is AMAZING. Even if you decide this isn’t the book for you, I highly recommend googling the afterword for this book and giving it a listen. It was some amazing commentary on politics in this country. Very insightful.
-Controversial on purpose. This book takes a hard look at a dystopian future based squarely in American politics. That means it’s putting some political aspects of our culture on blast. It’s controversial and it knows it.
-Ending. I actually liked the way this one ended, which isn’t going to surprise anyone. The messages were clear, the warning signs that point to this dystopian future were clear, and I kept thinking after I closed it. I’m actually disappointed to hear this has a sequel because it doesn’t need one.
Who Should Read This One:
-You have to be a reader who is interested in or can handle political books. If you are on a political extreme or are easily angered by politics, I’m not sure you’d enjoy this one as much.
My Rating: 3 Stars. This one is marketed as science fiction because of the dystopian angle. It will not appeal to all science fiction fans. But it is a GREAT book for looking at a dystopian future for America based on where we are politically.
For Full Review (including what I didn’t like): https://youtu.be/e27XHLzNjdg
-The afterword is AMAZING. Even if you decide this isn’t the book for you, I highly recommend googling the afterword for this book and giving it a listen. It was some amazing commentary on politics in this country. Very insightful.
-Controversial on purpose. This book takes a hard look at a dystopian future based squarely in American politics. That means it’s putting some political aspects of our culture on blast. It’s controversial and it knows it.
-Ending. I actually liked the way this one ended, which isn’t going to surprise anyone. The messages were clear, the warning signs that point to this dystopian future were clear, and I kept thinking after I closed it. I’m actually disappointed to hear this has a sequel because it doesn’t need one.
Who Should Read This One:
-You have to be a reader who is interested in or can handle political books. If you are on a political extreme or are easily angered by politics, I’m not sure you’d enjoy this one as much.
My Rating: 3 Stars. This one is marketed as science fiction because of the dystopian angle. It will not appeal to all science fiction fans. But it is a GREAT book for looking at a dystopian future for America based on where we are politically.
For Full Review (including what I didn’t like): https://youtu.be/e27XHLzNjdg