Scan barcode
danielshelsel's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
hopeful
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
lbrex's review against another edition
5.0
I hadn't read any Griffith before and found this a very interesting work in comparison with other SF novels of the 1890s and early 1900s, such as _The Time Machine_ and _The Purple Cloud_. Griffith is very interested in ships, how they work, and the advantages that they provide, so a lot of this is somewhat technical, but I still was fascinated by the progress of the story and the fact that the protagonists form a group called the "Terrorists" in order to defeat the Tsar and all that he stands for. I wouldn't recommend this for everyone, but if you like Wells and Shiel and are interested in the early roots of British SF, then this would be worthwhile. I do plan to read the apocalyptic sequel, _Olga Romanoff_, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.
sakusha's review
challenging
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
2.0
A book that was more political than science fiction. More like Iron Heel by Jack London than anything by H.G. Wells. I didn’t agree with the socialist politics, but it was more interesting to read than pure science fiction. I give it points for having pictures too. Still the book was mostly boring. Things went according to plan too often. There was not much of a struggle.
Natasha was first portrayed as a strong woman, filled with determination to fulfill her group’s mission. And so it seems out of character that she would want to become submissive to a man so easily as she did (113). And a man so much older than herself, a newcomer to the group. It also seemed unrealistic that the newcomer was given so much power within the group so quickly. He had an invention they wanted, but that shouldn’t mean that he should be trusted so easily.
I wonder if it was intentional that the name of Natasha’s father was Natas. I can see the similarity between that and Natasha, however I also see that it’s Satan spelled backwards. One of the airships was called Lucifer (201), and the war they waged was referred to as Armageddon (339). So I wonder if this story was meant to be a metaphorical war between Satan (Natas) and God (the Tsar). Natas seemed to have some supernatural power to control Tremayne against his will and show him visions (148). I didn’t like that it was never explained how Natas got this power.
Maurice Colston is a socialist who thinks it wrong that he should be wealthy since he did nothing to deserve it, only inherited it (12). If he truly felt he didn’t deserve his wealth, that would be easy enough to rectify: simply move out, taking none of your father’s money, and get a job.
The Terrorist group has an inner circle and an outer circle. The outer circle “will not understand your orders, but simply obey them blindly, even to the death” (20). Blind obedience is a good thing?
Richard Arnold is the main character. He says, “I think that the civilised and Christian society which permits such crimes to be committed against humanity, when it has the power to stop them by force of arms is neither truly civilized nor truly Christian” (31). And he would stop them if he could, even “if it cost the lives of millions to do it! They would be better spent than the thirty million lives that were lost last century over a few bits of territory” (31). Socialists are such idealists to think that only capitalism is capable of atrocities. History has proven that socialism/communism is just as guilty of murdering people and taking over “a few bits of territory.” Communist Russia murdered many, and communist China currently has uygers in concentration camps and has its Chinese population overworked and underpaid in factories. The workers are no more in charge there than they are in a capitalist society. And they are much less free there than here in the US.
“Your subjects have starved, while you and yours have feasted. You have lavished millions in vain display upon your palaces, while they have died in their hovels for lack of bread; and when men have asked you for freedom and justice, you have given them the knout, the chain, and the prison” (360). All of those things are true of the communist rulers of Russia and China. Wealth and power corrupt people. The only way to stop government from abusing the citizens is to have checks and balances, and government officials elected by the citizens. The only country I know of that comes closest to that is the US. But the terrorists destroy the US constitution, despite it having nothing oppressing about it (280).
It would’ve been more interesting of a story if the inventor of the airship were not politically aligned with Natas, and if Natas’ victory came earlier in the book and we got to see more of the society that came about after that victory, and that it didn’t go as planned. It also would’ve been more interesting if we readers had seen the actual suffering caused by the monarchs/capitalists earlier in the book so we could feel more sympathy for the terrorists and root for their success.
Socialism/communism is like gentle discipline; it sounds nice in theory, but it doesn’t work in reality.
Richard Arnold’s “qualities would have been quite sufficient to assure his success in life on conventional lines. They would have made him rich, and perhaps famous, but they would never have made him a great inventor; for no one can do anything really great who is not a dreamer as well as a worker” (54).
In capitalism, inventing things is permitted and rewarded. In communism, all workers are to do what they are told to do in a factory setting. Entrepreneurship and therefore invention are not allowed. Nobody is allowed to profit. Everyone is a proletariat. So in a communist society, Richard Arnold would not have successful. The communist government would probably confiscate his invention, use it the way they like, and give him nothing in return. He would have done his duty for the community and would be treated no differently. Because equality. He would be forced to return to his work at the factory, and likely viewed with suspicion ever after for having an intelligent mind. (The government would fear that a person capable of such intelligence and invention could create something which would threaten the current regime staying in power.) Profit is the main motivator to success, and so without profit potential, people are not motivated to work hard or invent anything new. Slaves earn no money, and therefore have to be whipped in order to be motivated to work hard. In communism, we all become slaves, and the government must become authoritarian to stay in power. Privileged young people living in capitalism think they’re helping the poor by eliminating profit and forcing wealthy CEOs to work, but communism just makes everyone equally poor, except for the elites running the government. The government still profits, as all earnings flow to them instead of business owners. Under a bad boss, you can quit and get another job. But under a bad government that controls every business, you cannot escape unless you leave the country and therefore leave communism. It makes sense then that most communist countries in reality don’t allow their citizens to leave the country easily. Because they know that their form of government makes their people unhappy, and if they were allowed to leave, hardly anyone would stay, and the whole society would fall apart with no large worker base to feed the government’s wealth.
The terrorists/communists think they’re doing poor people a favor when they get rid of landowners and landlords, making the latter work for their money instead of earning profit passively (387). But all communists do is turn the government into the landowner and landlord, preventing regular everyday people from becoming rich. And instead of having a handful of rich landowners sprinkled around the city/country, you get the super rich government controlling every piece of land and property. And communists think that that kind of power and wealth will not corrupt?
“All incomes unearned by productive work of hand or brain were subjected to a progressive tax” (387). So government gets to collect more passive profit? Why does government deserve all this money for nothing? So they can dole out freebies to the citizens? And where is the citizens’ guarantee that the government will do its duty with all that money?
The honeymoon is described as absurd and self-centered seclusion (384). So I guess communists think it’s wrong to want to be alone sometimes.
Natas says that pride and selfishness are the reason nations are divided, but communism ruling all the western countries supposedly eliminates that problem because the communist rulers have “the fate of humanity in their hands and the wealth of earth at their disposal, [so] it will be impossible to tempt them with bribes, either of riches or of power, from the plain course of duty which will lie before them” (363). History has again proven this false. Almost every person who is wealthy and powerful is unable to stop wanting more wealth and power.
The book had strong English supremacist ideas. The English are described as “the dominant race of earth,” “the conquering race of earth, and the choicest fruit” (362, 146). The English woman is described as “perhaps the most truly lovable of all women on earth” (373). Nearly all of the terrorist members were English in blood and speech (269). The terrorists was “not merely to place Britain in the first place among the nations, but to make the Anglo-Saxon race the one dominant power in the whole world” (284). Natas was leading the terrorists in this mission, despite the fact that Natas was not even English. He was Jewish, and had a personal vendetta against Russia. But that doesn’t explain why he would want the English to reign over the whole world.
It’s unrealistic and foolish to think that just because the Terrorists possess the airships that that will end war forever (284). The power might fall into enemy hands one day, just as nuclear bombs did. And just because one country controls all others doesn’t mean peace will last forever either, especially with these racial superiority feelings being prevalent. Non-English would be bullied or discriminated against by the English, which would cause resentment and wanting to get revenge, which can lead to war. And some people want to be alone and not have government controlling every aspect of their lives. Karl Marx thought class struggle was inevitable. Well, when government becomes the sole wealthy landlord and landowner, all that does is shift the struggle to being between the citizens and their government. And that’s why communist governments always get crazy with their surveillance and control and harsh penalties, because if they lose control, they lose power and all the wealth that goes along with it.
More...