Sci-fi and Heroic Fantasy discussion

This is our discussion of the contemporary fantasy novel...

Guns of the Dawn by Adrian Tchaikovsky
(2015)

I hope to start reading this today. Probably.

Suggested alternate title: Boot Camps and Ballrooms.

I've just started this one; I have to say I lost a little momentum when I realized the jump back in time after Ch. 1 was going to be a multi-chapter thing.

I've got it sitting ready to go, I'm just waiting for people to start commenting on it because the blurb didn't grab me as much as the GR description.

I liked this book. Very easy read. A female protagonist who is really tough.

Oops, posted by mistake! Anyway, the book was fun to read. The characters were interesting and I liked that each side had reasons for doing what they thought was the right thing. The battle scenes were well done. Really interested in what others think of this one.

I enjoyed it. I agree with Hillary that it's a slow start, but once you get to the battle I felt it was up there with Wexler's Shadow Campaigns and McClellan's Powder Mage series. The fact the setting was in a swamp made it interesting (and very unpleasant to picture yourself in their situation, not that it's ever pleasant picturing yourself in battle). I found the characters appealing, the writing was easy to ready, lots of action once things get started. The love triangle thing was meh, but wasn't too much the focus of things to detract. And even enjoyed the fact that it was a standalone, since some things don't need to be dragged out into a full series.

And the reminder that the soldiers fighting for a cause may not in fact know what cause they are truly fighting for. Very true even in the modern day (like why did the world get involved in Libya but not Syria...oh right, Libya has oil and Syria doesn't), the US civil wasn't just about slavery, etc.

Hillary wrote: "I've just started this one; I have to say I lost a little momentum when I realized the jump back in time after Ch. 1 was going to be a multi-chapter thing."

I liked chapter 1. Battles ought to be a confusing mess like that. Though (view spoiler)[Elise's abrupt death (surprise!) (hide spoiler)] was kind of a cliche.

I forgot to mention that I thought "I killed my first man today . . ." was a pretty catchy first sentence.


Hillary wrote: "I have to say I lost a little momentum when I realized the jump back in time after Ch. 1 was going to be a multi-chapter thing."

Yeah, the flashback is getting a bit long, flashy first line or not.

There is an odd genteelness to the violence (or threat thereof),

I ended up liking this pretty well (despite some slow parts -- the narrative finally catches to the opening teaser with Ch. 12). I thought the "Big Push" battle was particularly well written -- enough of a sense of chaos while still giving a sense of overarching tactics & of Emily's immediate options.

(Yes, Emily is often unusually lucky or in the right place at the right time, but I was willing to suspend my disbelief; for one, there's a reason we're reading her story & not some random soldiers; for another, you can find stories equally or almost as unlikely in most military histories.)

While I think the section at the front is strongest, I enjoyed the pride & prejudice vibe & thought there was a fair amount of complexity from many of the character, including Norrhway & Scabian (view spoiler)[ I kept getting an ambiguous, somewhat creepy vibe from the latter even if his ultimate characterization was more one-note idealism/friendliness (hide spoiler)]

33%. Gotta say I thought I was reading Little Women in the first few chapters.

And of course there had to be a ball.

In 46%, the first big battle, finally the book gets much better. I liked that elements played a big role in battles, and I think the author managed to described the environment to make it more real. It reminds me of Robin Hobb's excellent novella (I forget the title) but basically it was an epistolary about the first settlers of the Rainwilds.

The love triangle still irked me though. Girl needs to make up her mine.

Silvana wrote: "The love triangle still irked me though. Girl needs to make up her mine."

Ending spoilers follow:(view spoiler)[Good thinking of Emily to have a fling with the hot (literally) studmuffin before settling down with the rich guy. (hide spoiler)]

Brendan wrote: "Silvana wrote: "The love triangle still irked me though. Girl needs to make up her mine."

Ending spoilers follow:[spoilers removed]"

Hah! True that. Oh well. I wish the romance parts were cut a bit.

I finally finished the book and gave it three stars for the battle scenes.

Some characters I like, like the kickass Marlen (I might even developed a slight crush on him), Tubal, Brocky, Not-Stockton and some others, not because they're likable but because they portray some typical characters you find in warfare from the pompous to the coward and the ignorant.

Question: did people find that the presence of magic added much to the story?

I think in this case, it muddles the intended message of the story a bit. If kings are literally magic and noble bloodlines have real meaning in this universe, then what message is the author sending about the common folk who are not so gifted?

I did find that the magic was more of a "oh, this is a fantasy, better have some magic in it". Was an interesting concept, and makes for really cool wizard duels but didn't really add anything.

I wasn't sure though that magic was entirely inherited...the king was the source, but I got the impression anyone could do magic but you needed his handprint to enable the power? Though of course he would only bestow such a gift on someone *cough* worthy (i.e. nobles). I found I wasn't very clear on that part, because if nobles got the power just by being nobles, they wouldn't need that handprint to use magic, but seems they do?

Right, anyone could use magic once the king gave it to them, but only the king's bloodline could bestow the ability.

There were other references to noble blood mattering for non-magic using reasons, for example some characters remark that Marshwic is a good fighter because its in her blood, though whether that is true or just a misperception by the characters is left ambiguous.

Brendan wrote: "There were other references to noble blood mattering for non-magic using reason..."

I suspect that was just ingrained assumptions. People didn't think women could be soldiers but here we have one flying up through the ranks. Also probably didn't think women could run estates, or be butchers, or other things they had to be when the men were all gone. Since she was the only noblewoman there, and she was the one doing so well, I could see why some characters would make that assumption. But the other girl, Brocky's girlfriend whose name I don't recall, she wasn't noble at all, was originally an actress yet she was second in command of her group.

I'm sure nobles like to think their bloodlines make them special, after all what other excuse do they have for being better than the rest :)

Brendan wrote: "Question: did people find that the presence of magic added much to the story?

I think in this case, it muddles the intended message of the story a bit. If kings are literally magic and noble blood..."

I'd have to agree it's muddling, though I wish it were better developed rather than omitted -- similarly, I wish there was both more & more complexity in dealing w/the indigenes (on both fronts).

I kept wondering if the magic of the Denlanders' rifles would turn out to be due to the distribution across the whole army of powers that would formerly have been reserved to the king (view spoiler)[ actually, it's that they've developed rifles vs. muskets (hide spoiler)] In terms of muddling, I was also bothered by the amount of credence given to "national disposition," the Denlanders as an efficient nation of clerks (which also seems to rely on some Cold War commie stereotypes?). So much of the moral of the story seems devoted to showing that they two sides aren't as different as they seem, yet the Denlanders are presented as having pretty significant cultural differences. Are we supposed to believe that ALL the Denlander nobles fled next door to Lascanne? Even the Lascanne PR machine didn't spread the story that they were wiped out in a Reign of Terror, so presumably they survived. Are we supposed to think they haven't moved in, Northway-style, to dominate the new Parliament, and they aren't sending Denlander Polvederes out to fight?

I also kept wondering if Emily was going to spontaneously combust, the dance with the king having activated her bloodline's magical ability.

Nah, the fantasy bits are useless to me. The novel serves better as a pseudo-historical fiction. Instead of the Warlocks, we could just have flamethrowers. The world has already got trains and rifles, after all.

I started reading this about two weeks ago, but am still only 40% through. It just hasn't grabbed me, probably because, as has been pointed out, the first third is more like a period piece.

Things have started to pick up, but even with the impending 'Big Push', I still have my reservations. know its Fantasy, rather than Historical Fiction, but the accuracy of the military detail still seems lacking. The idea that, in their initial training, marching in formation wasn't regarded as important, made me wince, as did the reference to shooting at moving targets suspended on some kind of zip-wire. These are muskets we're talking about here. The accuracy of a musket is lamentable, and no army would attempt to train their standard soldiers to hit any kind of target, moving or otherwise. It was a time of mass infantry warfare; soldiers would be trained to march shoulder to shoulder, to change formation efficiently to meet enemy attacks, and to reload and fire their weapons as quickly as possible. That was pretty much it.

You wouldn't see the kind of skirmish warfare as described in these earlier scenes. Soldiers wouldn't be spread out, losing sight of their comrades. I know it's set in a swamp, rather than a nice flat open plain, but I would still expect more military order.

There; that's my little niggle out of the way :)

In terms of the Warlocks, I was assuming they all had magical talent, and had undergone training, before the king laid hands on them. I took the laying on of hands as being confirmation that their training was done, and they could be given the title of Warlock, in much the same way that a king would confer the title of 'knight' on someone in the medieval period. Then again, the book does mention that, because Denland no longer had a king, they didn't have Warlocks any more, so I don't know.

I haven't read far enough to say if the inclusion of magic makes any difference to the story, but I did like the idea that Warlocks would be specifically targeted by the enemy, because they were so powerful. It's like in the Napoleonic wars, where riflemen would target the enemy's commanding officers, because their uniforms were so glitzy.

Matt wrote: "I started reading this about two weeks ago, but am still only 40% through. It just hasn't grabbed me, probably because, as has been pointed out, the first third is more like a period piece.

Things have started to pick up, but even with the impending 'Big Push'..."

You and I are just about at the same spot. (I've been stinting on this topic because others have clearly read further and I'm avoiding spoilers.)

I think I'm more interested in it so far than you (not that it's been an action-fest, but Emily's view of her world is interesting (I emphasize her view because I think Tchaikovsky has given her tunnel vision; she's an honest narrator, but not always well informed.)

Both in Chalcaster & the front lines, it's interesting to see Emily's naïveté crash into reality. I'm looking forward to reading more about Northway as his story develops.

The military stuff is, as you say, a bit... uneven. It's not exactly Bernard Cornwell. I'll accept that Sergeants in this universe want to be called "Sir," even if they do work for a living and aren't noblemen who purchase their commissions.

I did like Emily's observation that it's like there are two entirely different worlds: there is the War (Levant), and there is the World (Grammaine). And as I mentioned before I like the very messy, conmfusing and disordered nature of the skirmish lines.

Anyway, now that the weekend football is out of the way, I hope to be able to settle down for some serious reading.

G33z3r wrote: "I think I'm more interested in it so far than you (not that it's been an action-fest, but Emily's view of her world is interesting (I emphasize her view because I think Tchaikovsky has given her tunnel vision; she's an honest narrator, but not always well informed.)

Both in Chalcaster & the front lines, it's interesting to see Emily's naïveté crash into reality. I'm looking forward to reading more about Northway as his story develops...."

The inclusion of Northway did keep the first third of this book interesting. Not so much in terms of the potential for romantic interests, but more for the fact that it was good to see someone doing their job in difficult circumstances, and employing some nefarious practices to do so. The things he reveals give Emily the first of her many reality checks.

Okay, so I've just read the chapter on the 'Big Push' and it was a lot better than I was expecting. The scenes were suitably chaotic, with Emily taking charge when everything goes to hell. The military realism is better depicted, with Emily understanding that she had to close the distance with the enemy before firing, and then charging. Still,I can't help thinking this scene could have had more impact if the reader had been given a better grounding in the capabilities and limitations of the weapons being used.

I'm assuming Captain Goss' final utterance before being shot had something to do with the fact that he believed his troops were well out of practical range of the enemy muskets. From his soldier's point of view, imagine finding out there and then, that, because the enemy was equipped with rifles rather than muskets, all their military training in loading and firing and fighting in formation, suddenly counted for nothing, because they were hideously out-ranged.

They did still win though, thanks to one historical accuracy I was pleased to see the author acknowledge, and that was the fact that rifles take longer to reload than muskets. Rifles were a game changer on the battlefield, but they still had their limitations.

All in all, I'm a bit more confidant that I'll be able to carry on reading without wincing too much :)

Matt wrote: "I've just read the chapter on the 'Big Push' and it was a lot better than I was expecting. ..."

I find bran and prunes help a lot. ("We talk of it jokingly, as though it is a bowel disorder." :)

Matt wrote: "I'm assuming Captain Goss' final utterance before being shot had something to do with the fact that he believed his troops were well out of practical range of the enemy muskets...."

I noticed the narrator refers to the Denlander weapons as muskets as well. I initially attributed Capt. Goss's remark as misunderstanding that in a large volley at a large force, accuracy isn't important. Even a blind chicken gets some corn.

It's not until later, after the battle, that Emily obsesses about "magic muskets".

G33z3r wrote: "I find bran and prunes help a lot. (We talk of it jokingly, as though it is a bowel disorder"

Regular actions are no joke in the army :)

G33z3r wrote: "I initially attributed Capt. Goss's remark as misunderstanding that in a large volley at a large force, accuracy isn't important. Even a blind chicken gets some corn."

Goss is an experienced soldier, and would have understood the musket's limitations at range. So would Mallen, so it was interesting that he ordered the troops to lie down. The only reason I can think of for him doing that is because he knows the enemy is armed with rifles. Not sure why he hasn't reported that fact to the higher command. Maybe its something to do with the indigenes revealing information to him that they shouldn't have.
I'll have to read on to find out.

One of the things that bemused me about the Big Push was the aftermath.

SPOILER for the 50% mark (view spoiler)[
This seems an indisputable Lascanne victory, but following it they seem to regroup back at their original base*, rather than moving into the former Denland camp to hold the territory. So it's a simple sweep, not in advance of the front line. Militarily, that simply invites the Denlanders to move back in. I don't understand the strategy, especially since people keep saying Colonel Resnic thinks in very traditional warfare doctrine.

What's the Lascanne strategy here? Surely there is an opposite into the swamp, presumably in or on the border of Denland, that might even make an easier frontline. (Come to think of it, I'm not sure which nation originally claimed the swamp. Mallen speaks of both nations sending the rare scholar to have a look at it.)

*Tchaikovsky never really says that explicitly, nor does he provide any maps. But the evidence is that the few wooden buildings (quartermaster, hospital) still seem to be there, and it's in the same location for the messenger Belchere, etc.
(hide spoiler)]

G33z3r wrote: "(Come to think of it, I'm not sure which nation originally claimed the swamp. Mallen speaks of both nations sending the rare scholar to have a look at it.)"

Might even be irrelevant since probably neither side really cared. Like the North Pole that so far as I had always been told belonged to Canada but now Denmark is laying claims to it. Because there might be oil up there those fuzzy borders are being disputed. So even if the swamp did belong to one or the other (or shared) they probably didn't care if someone from the other side wandered in to do some research.

Not very spoilery, but (view spoiler)[ Good point on the Big Push aftermath. Is Lascanne resigned that the entire Levant front is a holding action only, with any territory gains to be made on the Couchant? Still doesn't make much sense. (hide spoiler)]

So - I'm afraid I gave up round about the point the young ladies were all in a doo-dah about the ball. Just didn't have the patience. Reading through this thread has enlightened me as to what I've missed and my conclusion is "some interesting ideas there, but glad I gave up" :) I'd have been well irritated by the poorly done battle stuff.






POSSIBLE SPOILER (BTW- how do you set up those hidden spoilers?)
Incidentally - all the talk about rifles, range and someone's remark - it isn't by any chance "they couldn't hit an elephant at this distance....." is it?
If so, that really happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Se...

Re: elephants -- close, but not exactly. My military history nonfic reading is far from comprehensive, but the battle descriptions (at least on the Levant front) did remind me most of U.S. Civil War battle descriptions.

While I found the ball section of the book slow reading -- partly because the opening teaser, partly because of the way time was compressed in other ways -- I think I appreciated those Grammaine/ball parts more than some other readers. I saw a heavy Austen inspiration but also an interest in mixing up some of the stock regency-esque situations (though I don't think most of these were fully developed).

So many knowledgeable readers here, glad to read this thread :)

@Carro: I too had some issues with the overlengthy ball and who danced with whom but I would suggest to skip those chapters, since the story really picks up after Emily got drafted. The battles are worth to read, at least.

The whole reason for them fighting in the swamps of Levant is indeed not very clear, as is who the territory originally belonged to. I would have thought that, if Lascanne is fighting defensively, in order to protect themselves from attack on their homeland, their primary aim would be to destroy the enemy's armies, and eliminate their threat. That's a pretty tough thing to do, when the enemy can disappear into the mists and regroup so easily.

Lascanne probably wouldn't be looking to capture land, unless there was a strategic advantage in doing so, and the swamp seems to have no strategic value. All the 'Big Push' seems to do is capture a big chunk of it, which, as G33z3r says, they then abandon, apart from sending in troops to sweep the area to make sure the enemy doesn't come back.

So if Lascanne can't annihilate Denland's armies in the Levant, or gain any strategic ground, why are they fighting there? As Hillary says, it may just be a holding action, but if that were the case, why not find a more advantageous position to fight from. In the Napoleonic wars, Wellington gained many of his victories because he chose the field of battle.

A swamp is the worst place for any kind of military action, but for the massed infantry tactics normally employed when using muskets, it would be damned near impossible. Tchaikovsky does do an excellent job of portraying the chaos and difficulty of fighting in a swamp, and the battle scenes are gripping, but as I've said before, I'd like to have seen some nod towards the fact that the tactics they were employing were not what they were used to. (I know I keep comparing the military elements of this book to historical reality, but I can't help it. They're wearing red coats for flip's sake, and their commanding offices are a bunch of upper class nobs. Some of the detail is just too close to reality to be able to ignore the omissions.)

The tactics described are indeed more reminiscent of the type of fighting you would see in the U.S. Civil war, and would be fine if both sides were using rifles. Rifles were a game changer in warfare, especially when the breach loading versions were developed. The whole face of warfare changed after that. This book seems to hint that that change is already taking place.

Thanks Hillary

Thanks Silvana. I gave up while they were still worrying about dresses.....they hadn't even reached the ball :) And it was a library book and I've returned it......
Will keep on reading this thread though as some very interesting discussions on battle tactics.

Wish it was possible to "like" individual posts in a thread to thank the poster....

Carro wrote: "POSSIBLE SPOILER (BTW- how do you set up those hidden spoilers?)..."

Spoiler pseudo-tag:
<spoiler>Vade is Luke's pappy.</spoiler>

Ah, thanks.

Matt wrote: "So if Lascanne can't annihilate Denland's armies in the Levant, or gain any strategic ground, why are they fighting there? As Hillary says, it may just be a holding action, but if that were the case, why not find a more advantageous position to fight from. ..."

Since I've now gotten through more of the book, they do explain at the end that the Lascanne camp in the Levant is a "choke point" that prevents the Denlanders from spreading out into Lascanne. Tchaikovsky doesn't explain how it's a chokepoint, though presumably something to do with the terrain?

That explains why after various sweep operations they always return to the original base.

But it then raises the question: why haven't they done anything to fortify the camp with fences, barricades, trenches, etc? The whole idea of holding a key strategic point is you turn it into a Fort or Castle.

Agreed, with many of your comments, basically if they just built a blockade on the Levant side of the swamp they could just sit there and let the other army trudge through the mess, come out exhausted and miserable on the other side, and then have to lay siege given their supplies are coming from the whole other side of the swamp. Obviously it couldn't be undefended entirely since the Denlanders would just swarm through, but there didn't seem to be any expectation that they would actually succeed in breaking through the other side themselves. Could have been like WWI where each side sat in their trenches with no-man's-land in the middle and it stayed that way for years.

On the other hand there was this certain monarch that was in a bit of a hurry to get the war over and done with...so maybe the tactics weren't as logical as it could have been if you could ignore the whims of those not actually getting their hands dirty in the fight. (view spoiler)[ As we find out in the end that this war was never about defending themselves against Denland as it was in fact about conquering them, which does change one's POV about what they were trying to achieve at Levant. (hide spoiler)]

G33z3r wrote: "Tchaikovsky doesn't explain how it's a chokepoint, though presumably something to do with the terrain"

I think there were mountains on either side? At least that's the impression I got, I know during one of the attacks they had moved around to the far side of the swamp up against some cliffs, and that Couchant couldn't be seen due to the mountains on that side? I could be wrong, I'm terrible at visualizing both people's faces and terrain based on verbal descriptions. Maybe my brain just added them in because otherwise it wouldn't make sense.

I meant to mention earlier the observation that for the second big battle, (view spoiler)[in which Emily is captured (hide spoiler)], Tchaikovsky suddenly decides to go all flashback crazy. Not counting the opening chapter, that's not something he does anywhere else.

Andrea wrote: "The love triangle thing was meh, but wasn't too much the focus of things to detract...."

Actually, now that I finished reading, I think the "love triangle" is pretty much a distillation of the entire theme. The pair make an interesting contrast, and in the end Emily has to make a choice.

On the one hand is Scavian, the totally loyal King's Servant, idealistic(?), handsome & charming, ready to fight to the last, even if the entire kingdom burns. On the other hand is Northway, a bit shabby & unsavory, the shady pragmatist, ready to get his hands dirty and to endure the public's scorn for it.

And in the end this "romantic choice" is the same as the nature of the political choice Emily has to make (view spoiler)[between continuing the fruitless war, regardless of the cost, or resigning herself to a Denland victory. In the end, she chooses Northway as well as his pragmatic do-what-ya-gotta-do philosophy. The Hero of the Levant betrays her King for the common weal. It's as much a philosophical choice as a romantic one. (hide spoiler)]

(view spoiler)[Interesting, I found I reacted when you wrote Emily betrayed her king, considering he betrayed his people first. By assassinating the other king for his own gain, then lying to his own people so they would die to help him claim the land but believing that they were dying to protect their own, and just being sleazy overall. In fact I found her loyal to Lascanne by removing it's worst danger. (hide spoiler)]

Maybe my problem with the two love interests is that it was a bit cliched, the flashy nobleman wizard pretty boy versus the boring bland regular guy (though the fact he was kind of shady and tended to be on the wrong side of the law spiced it up a bit) and to me it seemed obvious who she would end up with, even if there were times the reader actually wants her to end up with the other one. However I wasn't sure how she was going to pick one, and then how to break up with the loser, so that kept me interested in that aspect of the story.

Andrea wrote: "Maybe my problem with the two love interests is that it was a bit cliched, the flashy nobleman wizard pretty boy versus the boring bland regular guy (though the fact he was kind of shady and tended to be on the wrong side of the law spiced it up a bit)..."

It kind of bemused me that Northway is as old as Emily's father. I don't recall Emily's age is explicitly given. Around 20, perhaps?

G33z3r wrote: "Tchaikovsky doesn't explain how it's a chokepoint, though presumably something to do with the terrain""
Andrea wrote: "I think there were mountains on either side? At least that's the impression I got,"

Now I think about it, I do remember it being mentioned that, while traveling from Lock to the camp. they pass between some cliffs. I got the impression it was some kind or canyon/mountain pass, so thatwould explain the choke point. I do agree with both of you that it was a bit bemusing that the camp wasn't fortified. It does mention towards the end that the Lascanne army had managed to push forward into Denland at the beginning of the war, but then had to fall back in the face of the enemy advance. I'm assuming that the Lascanne command were more intent on trying to push forward, rather than fortify Although that doesn't make a lot of sense in the face of what they did after the big push). Whether it was down to the king's wishes, or the Colonel only knowing how to fight wars one way, I can't tell, but it does seem like a case of inferior tactics. Or maybe it was a device of the author to let Emily shine at the end by having the bright idea to build a barricade.

Page 113: Alice said Emily was around 25 years old.

Matt wrote: "G33z3r wrote: "Tchaikovsky doesn't explain how it's a chokepoint, though presumably something to do with the terrain""
Andrea wrote: "I think there were mountains on either side? At least that's th..."

The Romans managed to fortify a camp every night while on the march. Not massively fortify, but at least a ditch and palisade.

Well, I've had my own 'Big Push' over the weekend, and managed to get this finished. No prunes or bran required, because the book does get a lot better as it goes on.
(view spoiler)[The turning point for me was around the time of Emily's capture, after her discussion with Doctor Lem. With the reversal of aggressors, the whole thing is turned very satisfactorily on its head. Even though Emily doesn't believe him until the end, it is likely that most readers will. The Denlanders just aren't the aggressive type, and seem to treat Emily quite fairly. Sure, they tie her up, but that's because they are scared of her due to the Lascanne reputation for being violent and bloodthirsty. It was interesting to note Emily's fear of being raped, especially considering the fact that, on the two occasions when she did almost face it, it was from people supposedly on her own side.
It was also interesting to note how the Denlanders were viewed as cowards, because they did not use direct, head on action, employing the 'heroic charge into battle despite the odds' to win their battles. That's not cowardice, that's just good tactics, something that Lascanne were sorely missing.

And that brings me onto another interesting point, which is also linked to what G33z3r mentioned earlier, about the 'Love Triangle' being a distillation of the theme. On the one hand you have the Lascanne army; steeped in tradition, loyal to the king, commanded by the nobility, employing tried and tested tactics. On the other you have the Denlanders; progressive, republican, commanded by shopkeepers and men of science, employing new tactics based on new technology. It was an interesting reflection on how the real world works, and how the nature of warfare continually changes. The traction cannons were quite horrific, but then, when it comes to warfare, new technology often is.

I liked the end with the Northway/Scavian decision being pinned together with the whole loyalty to king/country thing, but I thought Tchaikovsky made Emily's choice just a little too easy. Once she is presented with the fact that many of the members of the king's 'rebellion' are low life criminals, and all the king is bothered about is regaining his power, whatever the cost, her decision is a bit of a no brainer. It wasn't a difficult moral choice for her, so it was no surprise at all when she shot the king. (hide spoiler)]

On the whole, it was a satisfying ending, which would almost garner this book four stars, but because of the rather long first third of the book, and the slight obscureness of the military tactics, I'm gonna give it a respectable three.

Matt wrote: "Well, I've had my own 'Big Push' over the weekend, and managed to get this finished.

(view spoiler)[It wasn't a difficult moral choice for her, so it was no surprise at all when she shot the king. (hide spoiler)]

I agree. It was not surprising at all.

Interesting points you had on the Denlanders. It seemed that the propaganda worked for Emily and that she viewed them as evil/uncivilized/unworthy/beneath her people. I liked that she gradually became more open minded and found out herself about the reality. While Scavian could be a little overbearing (for me) with his mansplaining I think Emily is lucky to have opportunities to see the real battle-torn world, compared to her isolated siblings.

And Dr Lem is I think a (reversed) nod to Dr Heim from World War II. Or is there another historical figure that's more suitable?

Carro wrote: "The Romans managed to fortify a camp every night while on the march. Not massively fortify, but at least a ditch and palisade."

They did indeed, when in enemy territory. From what I can tell, the war with Denland has been going on for three years or so. In that time they could have developed some fairly extensive fortifications. Even trenches, and palisades of wood would have done, because no mention is made of the enemy having canon in the Levant. Presumably they are just too heavy and impractical to get through the swamp.

Silvana wrote: "Interesting points you had on the Denlanders. It seemed that the propaganda worked for Emily and that she viewed them as evil/uncivilized/unworthy/beneath her people."

The great thing about this book is that you get to see the war from both sides. In any war, the people who are actually doing the fighting probably believe in the cause they are fighting for, due in no small part to what they've been told by those in command.

(view spoiler)[Emily, at first, believes that the side she is fighting for is clearly in the right. The Denlanders killed their king and then attacked Lascanne, but then everything is flipped and she realises the opposite is true, and people have been dying for a lie.

There are obvious (Though evidently untrue) similarities between Dr Lem and Aribert Heim. The other WWII parallel is the mention of death camps, and genocide. It does go to show what the Denlanders are willing to do in order to prevent further war. They do not want to kill people (They probably don't even want to kill Scavian if they can help it) for pleasure, or from a misguided sense of superiority, but they would do it out of practicality. Dr Lem is against the idea of these camps, and he is even fearful of the consequences, worried that his nation would 'Do something it would not be able to turn back from'. I found that frighteningly poignant.

(hide spoiler)]