Scan barcode
A review by diz_tn
Empire by Orson Scott Card
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.