Dune (2021)

This year, I got to see yet another adaption of the 1965 classic science fiction novel by Frank Herbert, Dune. I've previously watched the extremely psychedelic 1984 version, and clips of the 2000 television miniseries. Having been in the works for years, and initially supposed to air in 2020 until derailed by Covid, it finally premiered in October of 2021. Does the film live up to the hype that has surrounded it? Find out!

Created by Denis Villeneuve, the master behind the excellent films Sicario, Arrival, and Bladerunner 2049, whose imagery seemed to inspire so much of real life 2020, this promised to, at the very least, be a feast for the eyes. From pre-production stills, to the trailers, we were not left wanting in all the visuals of eight thousand years in the future. It was, without a doubt, visually appealing. 

From the oceans and castles of Caladan, to the windswept and hostile sandy deserts of Arrakis, the worlds depicted by Villeneuve are breathtaking. Enormous visual spectacle is put together, whether its ships taking off from underwater, enormous worms moving in seas of spice laden sand, or massive ships sending fleets down to planets, we see just how big the universe is. It's so refreshing to see how the world changes. 

This is all accompanied by a phenomenal score by Hans Zimmer, which pulls you in just as well as the visuals. Impeccably paired with the stunning sights, we see that it is an amazing auditory experience as well with the music giving the beats from dread to hope to joy. I found it enthralling and I simply couldn't be distracted from what I was seeing. The mid point of the movie where the fighting rages was so well done that I lost myself in the spectacle for quite a while.

The casting especially is excellent, with House Atreides well rounded out by its ruling Duke Leto (Oscar Isaac) and Lady Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson) and their son and heir to the Dukedon, Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet). Their loyal retainers Gurney Halleck (Josh Brolin) their mentat, Thufir Hawat (Stephen McKinley Henderson), the Suk doctor Wellington Yueh (Chang Chen) and finally, swordmaster and mentor to Paul, Duncan Idaho (Jason Momoa). 

Opposing them are the forces of House Harkonnen, led by Baron Vladimir Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgård) his monstrous nephew Glossu Rabban (Dave Bautista) and their own mentat running many schemes Piter De Vries (David Dastmalchian) serving a secret plot to bring down the Atreides.

Between these two warring factions lay the Fremen, a group of desert dwelling warriors who have been trod on for years by Imperial tyranny. Among them is the respected leader Stilgar (Javier Bardem) and the woman of some of Paul's visions, the mysterious Chani (Zendaya). 

Put together its an amazing ensemble cast who will blow you away with their excellent work!

With the aesthetics, from the set design to the costuming, you'll be blown away. It has some amazing science fiction work which is brought low enough with the clever inclusion of swords, knives and personal shields that you get a real sense of a changed future. The armor worn by the various factions makes them immediately identifiable, the clothes and apparel feels natural, and the sets are all geniusly designed. I loved how distinct and permament it all felt. Beautifully rendered in practical effects and CGI.

The story, in its bare bones, is told very well for this nearly three hour adaptation, and there are some scenes shot almost shot for shot in how they are represented in the books. The scenes on Caladan in particular and the heroic rescue of the crawler crew from a sandworm attack most of all. It was phenomenally well done in that regard.

However, the film seems to expect more than a passing familiarity with the minutia of the Dune universe. Some of that is easily incorporated into the film, from mentats to the Bene Gesserit, but much of the why of the story is left to be assumed. One famous scenes from the books is the Harkonnen's explaining their pathological desire to destroy House Atreides, but in the film we're almost left assuming the why and that the Harkonnen's are villainous because of how they look. So, much of the reasoning behind this centuries old feud is left for the viewer to assume rather than know. Similarly, with the Emperor being absent from this, the politics are a bit muddled, unlike the 1984 film where they are almost detrimentally front and center.

Casual viewers might come away struggling to understand a few things, the importance of the previous Duke dying in the Bull Fighting Ring, the hopes of Arrakis being green one day, Harkonnen cruelty, and the relationships between these houses, but its something you can reasonably infer. The Bene Gesserit are also well done, but almost absent in place and purpose except for the opening. Overall however, it is quite 

One thing that did baffle me was the PG-13 rating for a film which could have easily been rated R. There's not that much violence granted, and some special effects cover it very well, mostly with the clever shield fighting. However, it did seem to rob some of the more impactful scenes of their meat which could have been helped along by maybe a little more graphic depictions of the violence inherent in the battles or desert life. It just seemed like a lot of the action was a little subdued for that.

Overall however, this was a film which was gorgeous. From the acting, to the music to the set design, it leapt off the screen and kept me focused like few movies have done in the last few years. I was immersed, and I think even casual viewers will be too! Definitely worth seeing!

First Thoughts on Amazon's The Wheel of Time

I am a huge fan of Robert Jordan (and eventually Brandon Sanderson's) amazing Wheel of Time series. It is a series which, consciously or unconsciously, much of modern fantasy owes some homage to. It has everything one might want, prophecy, madness, war, amazing magic, battle scenes, and a plot which can propel you through fourteen books and get you misty eyed at the end. Truthfully, I loved pretty much every minute I spend in the world Robert Jordan created, and I thank him for much of the work he did which inspired other authors. Now, however, Amazon has sought to bring his work to the small (very small) screen in their multi-million dollar adaptation of his series.

Does it do anything for readers or watchers? Let me offer my initial thoughts. I have, so far, only watched the first two episodes, which is what I will be basing my thoughts on. SPOILERS BELOW

The Trent War

On this day, one hundred and sixty years ago, the United States warship, the USS San Jacinto, fired a warning shot across the bow of the British Royal Mail Steamer, the RMS Trent. In doing so, the captain of the Jacinto, commanded by Charles Wilkes, was taking an action which would nearly plunge the United States into war. Such a war would surely have been one of the greatest calamities of the 19th century, plunging the whole English speaking world into a conflict which would surely wrap the whole world in flames.

The Trent Affair, has been called the Cuban Missile Crisis of the 19th century, and coming almost exactly one-hundred years before that Earth shaking crisis, that is an apt comparison. For some background, the United States and the British Empire in 1860, were not good friends. While the US had close economic ties to Britain, and many immigrants from the British Isles (and primarily Ireland) still came to the US, the economic and political elite in Britain were somewhat aloof of "Cousin Jonathan" as the US was then known. There had been war scares since the War of 1812, with border crisis like the 1838 Caroline Affair, The Aroostook War, the Oregon Boundary Dispute, and only in 1859 the abortive "Pig War" which nearly set the two nations to war over a pig in the Pacific. In each case, cooler heads prevailed and diplomacy proved the order of the day. 

In any case, in 1861 the slaves states in the Union seceded after the election of Abraham Lincoln to the White House. The new so-called Confederate States tried to form an explicitly slave holding republic, and in response the Union called for 75,000 volunteers to crush the rebellion. From there, four years of bloodletting followed. That same year, Britain declared neutrality in the conflict, granting belligerent rights to both sides. This outraged the Union as they felt it was a step towards recognizing the Confederacy as an independent nation, as it granted some recognition of Confederate warships, and the right to take on provisions. Though this was not, in fact, a step towards recognition, it did show a certain bias in British thinking at the time. They remembered how the Thirteen Colonies had been impossible to subdue, and many concluded that the Confederacy - with roughly as much territory as western Europe - in seceding was a fait accompli which would mean it was only a matter of time before the North was forced to recognize that the United States were united no more.

Of course, the Union would not do that without a fight, and so the Confederates sought proper recognition from the powers of Europe. This was exactly why the Jacinto stopped the Trent, in order to seize two Confederate diplomats bound for Britain and France. Truthfully, the account of this stop and seizure must be read to be believed, from belligerent passengers facing down armed US Marines, diplomats hopping through portholes, and a swell on the waves nearly knocking everyone together in a dangerous pile of bayonets and human limbs, it is a minor miracle that no one was hurt, let alone killed. And historically, even with British outrage, the Trent Affair was resolved diplomatically.

This of course begs the question, well what would have happened if someone had been killed and the crisis was not resolved diplomatically? The answer is war, a great and terrible war.

For simplicity, we can assume that someone is killed on board the Trent and Britain is outraged. Abraham Lincoln of course would not be fool enough to intentionally goad Britain into war, and most likely he would have either capitulated, or pushed for foreign mediation of the problem. Ironically, he would have run into what in the 21st Century we would term, a public relations problem. As mentioned, many in Britain assumed that the secession of the South was a done deal, and the North would have to cut its losses. The other thing many assumed was that in doing so, the United States would make good on those losses and turn around and invade Britain's North American possessions in Canada to do that. This was not helped that those making decisions in London did not know much about Lincoln and his cabinet, it had only one recognizable man, William Seward. The problem was that William Seward was known for often saying the US should invade and annex Canada, which naturally - to the British Prime Minister at the time, Lord Palmerston - meant that this was indeed the plan.

Historically, when the British responded to the Trent Affair, they sent an ultimatum with an expiration date of seven days. This was to ensure that the United States could not do what many in Britain feared it would do and simply make peace with the South, turn its armies north, and seize Canada. If Lincoln were, in this counterfactual scenario, to send a suggestion hoping for international arbitration, Britain would most likely see this as a stalling tactic and prepare for war.

Truthfully, that is exactly what took place historically. Britain, upon receiving news of the events on the Trent, ordered out 11,000 soldiers and all the arms and other engines of war they would need. At the same time, in the United Province of Canada, orders were given in late December to muster 38,000 militia, while in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, new volunteer companies were being formed. The British were evidently prepared to send 28,000 men immediately to North America. How many Canadians could have been mustered and armed is an open question, but in April of 1862, 14,000 men were available, and it is hard to doubt that in a war crisis, anything less could have been raised, and more surely could have. Should the British have fully committed to the war they could have mustered a great number of soldiers from the British Isles, troops stationed in the Mediterranean, and other places. The crisis did end historically in December, but had more men been sent, the size of the British forces prepared to fight the Americans would not be inconsequential.

The United States army in early 1862 numbered over 500,000 men. Nothing to sneeze at! However you can't move all those men to attack Canada, you need many facing off against the Confederacy, will have to dislodge others to defend the coasts, and some are also serving in the interior or in California! My own guess is the Union could shake loose roughly 12-14 divisions (3 Corps) to defend New England and invade Canada, call that roughly 150,000 men overall.

On the naval side, there is more of a mismatch. In 1862, the size of the Royal Navy showed over 465 screw vessels, 115 paddle vessels and 110 sailing ships, totaling 690 vessels in all. I provide here another tabulation here which shows only the major sailing ships and not the nearly 200 gunboats in service, which can be perused in the December 1861 Naval List. It should however, be a sobering number in comparison, with roughly 339 active ships worldwide.

The United States Navy, by contrast, had 264 ships. Of these however, roughly only 100 vessels were steamships, the remainder being sailing ships or other ships converted for the needs of the naval blockade. Not many are fast or modern steamers, or even proper warships. This puts them at a severe disadvantage.

Important to note however, that at the start of the war Britain has an advantage in ironclads. Whether it be older broadside batteries built for the Crimean War, or modern warships like the ironclad HMS Warrior or her smaller sister Defence, the British can send larger and superior ships to North American waters. The USS Monitor would not be launched until March, and she is restricted to New York, and her only company would be the USS Galena, who had very thin armor compared to any other ironclad of the period. Sister Monitors would most likely only be rolling out roughly 90 days after the Monitor's initial launch. This leaves very little to hold the line until roughly June/July 1862, and the British too will be building more ironclads of their own.

Not only will this war not be confined to the Atlantic, but on the Great Lakes both sides will be scrambling flotillas of gunboats. On Lake Erie, the US has an advantage by having the only functional warship, the USS Michigan, but on Lake Ontario, they will be scrambling to catch up as Britain can send gunboats or ironclads up the Saint Lawrence to help control that lake and defend Canada. The Richelieu River would also end up as a battleground as well, with flotillas needed to be constructed to defend or attack towards Montreal. In each case the Canadians have an initial advantage due to the proximity of British guns and sailors and access to the St. Lawrence once it opens in the spring.

We do of course need to discuss the third combatant, the Confederacy. They would have roughly 270,000 troops present for duty at the start of 1862, and without the need to defend their own coasts from attack, would be free to redeploy thousands to support their armies in Virginia and Tennessee. Though they don't have much of a navy, that doesn't really matter when you have the biggest navy on Earth stepping up for you does it?

This is, very roughly, the strength of the various sides going to war in 1862 should this war go hot.

How then, might this war be carried out?

At some point in early January/February 1862 the USN and Royal Navy will fight a series of skirmishes, ranging from ship to ship fights to more than likely one pitched battle in the North Atlantic and the Caribbean. We know roughly what the British hoped thanks to a brilliant article by Kenneth Bourne, commissioners appointed to the task in 1862, and the British commander of the North American and West Indies Squadron did leave ideas for what he hoped to accomplish written down. This would mean that in the first months of the war Britain would be putting most of her efforts into either destroying or driving to port as much of the USN as they could. This would maybe net a few modern ships, but I credit the US enough to think they would begin evacuating ships and men from likely points of attack by the RN once the British minister in Washington leaves, while leaving just enough old or less reliable ships (and men in forts) to hold what they have and enforce a legal blockade so that in the event war does not break out, they cannot be said to have let up on the blockade.

These first few months would lead to a depressing bit reading in the North as the newspapers reported on forts captured, ships sunk or captured, and likely thousands going to prison camps in British colonies or the Confederacy. Many ships though, would make it to port, and be able to harass the British as they tried to set up a blockade of over 1,200 miles of coastline. There is no serious doubt they could sustain this blockade, merely how long it may take to be effective. 

While Britannia rules the waves, much of the war on land would be stalled. The British would have advanced partially overland, seizing posts across the border in Maine to control the route their soldiers historically marched through. They may also launch an overland raid into New York to seize (or more likely raze) the incomplete Fort Montgomery at the head of Lake Champlain. This would undoubtedly cause outrage in the Union, and they would be chafing for the chance to strike back.

We can also make a pretty good guess on how this would go as none other than future General in Chief of the Union armies Henry Halleck had written about the most important way to attack Canada in the 1840s, an overland attack on Montreal. This serves two purposes, first it cuts off the western portion of Canada (modern Ontario) from support from Britain by sea, and secondly it delivers control of the Saint Lawrence River below Quebec to the invader. Most likely an army would (as had been done in 1775 and 1812-13) advance up the Richelieu River to attack the city and attempt to take it. 

Problematically, the British know this, and would most likely be prepared to meet the Union somewhere on the field of battle in between. Expect the first great clash between an American "Army of the Hudson" and the British "Army of Canada" somewhere along the banks of the Richelieu in May of 1862. 

Meanwhile the Union would be sending an army to invade Canada West. This would both tie down troops otherwise intended to defend Montreal, and also snag bits of British territory to use as bargaining chips at the peace table. If they could cross the Saint Lawrence and take Kingston, they would be able to concentrate on besieging Montreal and then potentially Quebec. 

The British for their part, wished to attack the city of Portland Maine in order to seize an all weather railroad terminus at the Atlantic. This would most likely lead to a British attack, and potentially siege, of the city, further tying down US troops who would otherwise be used elsewhere. 

What then is the Confederacy doing? Considering they could have gathered as many as thirteen divisions in northern Virginia (potentially 125,000 men) I think that Joseph Johnston would be under great pressure to attack Washington. Meanwhile, McClellan and the Army of the Potomac (most likely a similar size) is going to be waiting to either attack or be attacked. How that campaign would play out would be up in the air, but it would feature two of the largest armies ever assembled in North America going head to head. Considering the fair amount of blunders and problems in handling command and control in 1862 on both sides in the Peninsula Campaign and the Seven Days Battles, I don't expect anything definitive to be decided.

Out West, a similar situation holds true. Albert Sydney Johnston (historically of Shiloh fame) would most likely find himself facing a similar situation he faced in April of 1862 historically, but now he has access to everything he can get his hands on. I fully anticipate he may go forward and attack the still disparate Union armies and re-invade Kentucky. Will he prove more successful than Braxton Bragg? 

Beyond the Mississippi, I can see little really changing, though some quirks of fate may drive the Confederate fortunes better or worse. On the Pacific slope, other than a blockade of San Francisco, the British probably seize the San Juan Islands, bloodlessly ending the Pig War.

My own expectation is that by July of 1862, the British will have seized Portland, while blunting the early invasion of Canada East, keeping them out of Montreal. In Canada West, the Union will have captured Toronto and everything west of it. Meanwhile, on the Virginia front, two massive armies will grapple with one another like clumsy giants, pushing the battle lines north or south as the fortune of war goes, though to give credit I do think McClellan could push the Confederates out of Centreville and towards the Rappahannock. Out west, the Confederates, if they do better than at Shiloh historically, blunt any invasion and are marching back up the river towards Nashville, seeking to drive the Union out.

Where the war goes from here, who can say? Economically, the Union would be in a pickle as the blockade would hurt their economy, and most Union finances came from either money earned on the tariff, taxes and printing money. The Confederate economy relied on printing money and it sent them into an economic tailspin that ended up destroying the nascent nation as effectively as Union cannon and warships. The blockade would hurt, while perversely the Confederacy is open for business and can sell cotton on the world market to their hearts content, which most likely makes for a much better economic situation. Britain too would be hurt, but not nearly so badly as the United States. 

If Lincoln can politically manage to accept a 'white peace' with mild reparations before the end of 1862, he absolutely will. However, should he be unable to do so, I can unfortunately see the war dragging into 1863-64 to the Union's detriment. Every year another man, rifle and bullet is spent fighting Britain in Maine or Canada, is another year the Union is not fighting the Confederacy and not strangling their economy. Even should the Union make peace with Britain, is it likely they can turn around and continue the war into 1865, or potentially even 1866? This is perhaps the only scenario where the Confederacy could emerge as a functional and not economically wrecked nation, and if it did, that would have terrible consequences for world history as the Slave Power pushes on.

I do not regard this as a good outcome. North America would be divided between four nations (Canada, The US, CSA and whatever happens in Mexico) all of whom may have reason to distrust one another. Canadians would feel bound to the mother country more than ever, and the Confederacy, if it gained its independence by foreign assistance, would most likely seek out foreign allies. 

I've covered the bare bones here, but there's much more to talk about. I've explored the topic myself, and am currently writing a projected trilogy which would cover just such a war. The first book Wrapped in Flames, is currently closing in on the 50% finished mark. I'd love to hear other thoughts on the idea, and it is one which is extremely intriguing and still worth exploring.

9/11 Twenty Years On

In my grandparents time, Pearl Harbor was one of the most defining moments of a generation. I don't think for my (or even my parents) generation, any event was so Earth shaking as those moments when highjacked planes flew themselves into the former World Trade Center in New York. The images from that day will haunt me for the rest of my life I suspect. The world will be living with the aftershocks for a generation to come.

Make no mistake, twenty years later we are living in the shadow of the Twin Towers collapsing. The world as we know it changed immediately after that event, and it took on a momentum of its own.

Perhaps because it is the 20th anniversary of that terrible day, or perhaps because of the chaos we have seen playing out in Afghanistan recent, but because of it all, I am brought back to when I wasn't yet ten years old and I saw the world change. I remember the news conferences, the repeated footage, and the tumultuous decisions around the clock as the news tried to keep up with the response to the deadliest terrorist attack in human history which killed nearly 3,000 and wounded 25,000. I even remember the fear that crept into everyone in some form or another. 

Barely a month would pass before the Bush administration ordered military action in Afghanistan, and until recently, we were living with a "forever war" where US and allied forces were fighting an uphill battle against a tenacious enemy who had harbored the man who carried out 9/11. Little would the world realize that the war would go on for nearly two decades, and the most powerful military in the world would lose. Whether it was because there was no coherent mission, enriching weapons manufacturers, it was a war that went on well past the point of sanity and only succeeded, broadly, in carrying out its goal of impoverishing Al-Qaeda, and killing Osama bin Laden. In Pakistan. 

That of course, was not all. Seemingly losing track of the mission at hand the Bush administration then contrived to invade Iraq and topple the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein, a man who had nothing to do with 9/11. This would lead to another "forever war" which did toppled Saddam, but did very little for the stability of the Middle East as a whole. All the consequences of that decision are still playing out to this day.

I have been reading all about that history recently. The bungling, the fear, the botched reactions, and it is sobering. I can only encourage people who lived through it, and those born afterwards, to go out and read the more accessible history detailing the choices made going to war, and after the wars had ostensibly "ended" according to the politicians. It's a mess that, twenty years on, is still difficult to understand. 

History aside, I am choosing to spend this 9/11 living for tomorrow. We must remember the dead from that day, but we cannot forget the innumerable graves dug across the Middle East by decades of war and pointless struggle. We should open our arms to those fleeing the consequences of the actions of the West in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we should do better on the world stage in the coming decades. 

So today, on the 20th anniversary of 9/11, I ask everyone to take a moment of silence, not just for those lost in New York, but for every life lost in the last two decades. Remember these tragedies, and remember that we can do better in the world. There are so many people who have grown up not knowing the collapse of the Two Towers and its traumatic images, and they don't need to live in the shadow of the mistakes of the past. We can build a better world for tomorrow, and we should set our energies to doing so.

Harbor of Spies

 As is usual in July, I found myself immersed in a good historical novel. Once again I found myself in the 1860s as the Civil War is raging. However, like a previous review, this time I was not in the frigid north of Canada, but in the sunny climate of Havana on the island of Cuba. It is here that one young sailor finds himself caught in a series of frustrating twists, with the Spanish government on one side, Confederate spies on another, and a not too sympathetic Union Navy in front of him, this poor lad finds himself caught in a Harbor of Spies. 

I was first drawn to this book by a comment on a message board talking about Spain in the Civil War. What many do not realize is that Spain, while neutral in the Civil War, made a fortune off running the Union blockade. Cuba, and Havana especially, sympathized with the Confederacy. The island ran on slavery much the same as the Antebellum South, with plantations making coffee, sugar, and other cash crops which sustained the wealth of Imperial Cuba. Unsurprisingly then, the planters of the island sided with the slaveowners of the Confederacy.

This made Havana a very strategic port. It was close to the Gulf coast, and fast steamers or stealthy sailing ships could threat their way through the Union blockade and deliver much needed arms and ammunition to the Confederacy, while bringing back valuable cotton in return. It was a lucrative business, and many men in the island made their fortunes in this trade, doing much to keep the war going for the Confederate cause.

Enter into this story, Everett Townsend, a young Maryland born sailor who was drummed out of the Naval Academy shortly after the outbreak of the war. He has fled to a small sailing schooner travelling to Cuba with a load of Maine lumber, trying to find his way after disappointing his father. A tragic accident has left him in command of the little ship, and then a surprising encounter will introduce him to the world of espionage, deceit and blockade running that all runs from Havana. When he saves an escaped prisoner from the infamous El Morro prison, his life takes a very sudden turn.

Like my last civil war read, this story is intriguing largely because it explores the foreign reactions to the American Civil War. There's some mention of the big players, Lincoln, Seward, Davis and Lee, but it is very much in the background. The focus is all on the Spanish government in Havana, the Confederate agents there, and the Union agents trying to stop them. 

I quite enjoyed this story because it takes place in a country I've visited and come to love (Cuba) and it does regal the reader with historic details of the island under Spanish rule. From the fabulous culture to the horrors of slavery, the author paints a vivid picture of the island in the 1860s. The city of Havana especially is given a lot of love to show off both the slums of poor workers, sailors, and slaves, but also the opulent wealth of the Spanish Empire and the islands slaver aristocracy. The society comes alive and we see a very fascinating, and disturbing one.

It is though, a story with many nautical themes, and as such it does not disappoint! The running of the blockade is explored in fascinating detail. I admit I was quite surprised at the depth of knowledge and research the author put into getting the small pictures of blockade running right. The nautical runs into Southern ports and out again to Cuba was breathtaking and had me on the edge of my seat as I tried to not sweat bullets like the sailors on the little blockade runner here. It gave me an appreciation for the historical bravery of men who ran the Union blockade of the South whether for ideological reasons or profit!

Secondary to this though, is the exploration of the many espionage acts taking place against the backdrop of the Civil War. This book goes to great lengths to explore the ways spying and counter-intelligence worked in the 1860s. Conflicting loyalties, ideology, and greed certainly all play their parts! Whether it is street level informants, foreign agents, or blockade runners, we get a look at how the cat and mouse game of shell sales and ship registry worked to make the lucrative machine of blockade running function. I was very impressed by the detail and story telling elements worked into these depictions, and it was quite fun to see it all come together in various runs! The way shifting loyalties play a part is key to the story and I won't spoil anything!

It is a very interesting story, espionage aside, about mysterious heritage, conflicted loyalties, and the city of Havana and the society it promotes. I did find some of the mysteries to be well played up, with an overall satisfying conclusion, but thought the book could have been even fifty pages longer to bring those issues which Townsend struggles with to a more satisfying and intimate conclusion. Though the story did leave some dangling plot lines which, probably, should have been addressed, it does an excellent job in bringing Townsend's character arcs satisfyingly forward.

Harbor of Spies is an excellent piece of historical fiction, and well worth reading for its action, intrigue and amazing depiction of such a pivotal piece of the Civil War that often gets overlooked in the battles and politics most history buffs focus on. I'm thrilled I picked this one up!

Red Mars

In 1992 Kim Stanley Robinson published the first book in his phenomenal trilogy about the colonization of Mars. Taking a look at the information we had on Mars at the time, how it might effect people living there, and telling a very deep story about community, Robinson paints a fascinating picture of life on the Red Planet, and how humans end up changing the environment of Red Mars.

From goodreads

Come the year 2020, the first humans set foot on Mars. John Boone is the first man out of the lander, and in one small step becomes the most famous man in the Solar system since Yuri Gagarin orbited Earth or Neil Armstrong. Returning to Earth, he puts his heart and soul into creating a mission to settle Mars. Wrapped up in the heady wines of fame, discovery, and international popularity, Russia and the United States begin constructing everything they need to settle the Red Planet.

With a reasonably vigorous testing system, a faux Martian settlement in Antarctica, and lots and lots of psychoanalysis, the United States, Russia, and various others from numerous nations representing one hundred in number, set off to colonize Mars on the ship Ares in 2026. Led by John Boone, his American counterpart Frank Chalmers, the excitable Russian Arkady Bogdanov, and the other Russian leader Maya Toitovna, the First Hundred head to Mars.

From there we have an exciting series of landings, struggles against nature, and exploration. From the landing of the First Hundred on Mars, the exploration of the Martial North Pole, and the struggles of building in low gravity, the initial backdrop for the colonization of Mars is vividly realized. There's many poignant and breathtaking explorations of Martian vistas, the world around them, and the different skies people see.

Much like all of Robinsons work, the story is also very ideological. There are those who want to terraform Mars as fast as possible, known as Greens, while there are those who want to be slow and methodical, keeping Mars pristine, known as Reds. Then others want to simply learn how to live in coexistence with this environment, for as long as possible. This ideological debate informs much of the early story, and it seems there are those willing to go to any lengths to see their views come out on top.

There is also no agreement on how Mars should be governed, or even developed. Initially the UN supports the slow approach, but pressure from a world that is overpopulated, resource hungry transnational corporations, and other factors, push them along the quick path. Then comes the question of who exactly governs Mars. Who sets the laws, who polices people, and who profits from all the work being done? That is an extremely messy question with no easy answer.

I found that, from the trip on Ares on, the story hooked me. Personally, I enjoyed the more confined element of the ship over from a story telling view, but it worked very well introducing us to all the various characters. It established personalities, ideologies, and competing interests very effectively for the eventual struggles which would culminate in the final acts of the novel. None of the characters ever felt like a cardboard cutout, and many had interesting depths. Some were better than others, but they generally didn't interact enough outside the First Hundred to really flesh the world beyond them out, so one might say the story is told almost exclusively from their view of it.

Some elements were told simply for plot. The idea of a stowaway on something as sensitive as a colonization mission to Mars is a bit extreme. Then a few of the ideological and cultural patterns did stretch belief (no idea who the Big Man of Mars is supposed to be represented by) but nothing really pulled me out of the story or ruined it. Reading this story with all we know now in the 2020s - and without a First Man on Mars - is interesting, as we see what people thought of Mars in the 90s. It's definitely going to be interesting how many speculations from the novel end up being correct from looking at the Martian environment.

Red Mars is an amazing piece of the classic science fiction canon, and a strong opening in this trilogy. Definitely worth checking out!

Parable of the Talents

Lauren Olamina has, after losing everything, finally found family and community again. She's built a community on the land of her husband's family, a place where her religion of Earthseed can grow. From there perhaps it can spread to the greater world, and then to the stars. First though, she'll have to keep it against the rise of a much more terrifying temporal power seeking to make America great again. Will she multiply her talents, or find them buried in the earth? This is Parable of the Talents.

From goodreads

The story picks up five years after the conclusion of Parable of the Sower in 2032, she and her small group in the community of Acorn have grown and prospered. Lauren hopes to use the community as a base of operations to spread her new religion of Earthseed. However, America is still in decline, coasts are collapsing, violence and banditry is endemic, and the economy is in freefall. However, one man, a Senator and preacher named Andrew Steel Jarret, is promising a vision of Christian America which will "Make America Great Again" and restore the nation to the glory it once had.

Against this backdrop, Lauren must try and spread her religion, raise a family, and keep her people safe. 

The story, again deliver in epistle style, is buttressed by another viewpoint this time. Lauren's daughter Larkin (or Asha Vere) writes about her mother and the spread of her religion, how that affected her development, and the way it impacted history. It adds a very critical, and not necessarily sympathetic, lens to the story. I greatly enjoyed how this was seamlessly interwoven into the material and it actually created far more suspense than you might expect. It also adds a great element of tragedy.

Unsurprisingly, the book is one of immense suffering and loss. It follows the country through the years of President Jarret and his "Christian America" which merges the worst parts of theocracy and authoritarianism. Indeed, it actually impacts Larkin's development in a way many who had read of Franco's Spain would find very familiar. This does allow though, for the exploration of many aspects of authoritarianism, ideology, ministry and proselytism. 

The Christian America brand is selling a vision of America of old and - stop me if this sounds familiar - a time when things were better, American values were emphasized and America was a Christian nation. They preach from the pulpit and the political campaign, and they deliver charity, homeless shelters and project an image of American strength. That they also deliver witch burnings, vigilante justice, and fanaticism metted out by "Crusaders" is part and parcel.

In contrast, Lauren must try and spread her new religion covertly. To avoid drawing the ire of the more powerful (and quasi state-religion) of Christian America, she has to work with those she trusts. Eventually she has to get on the road and preach, in sequences that will be familiar to missionaries and pollsters from time immemorial. It makes for more harrowing tales, but does give a very good insight into how religions or movements can start. It was something I found fascinating, and these internal problems make up many of the asides in the book.

You'll be gratified (horrified?) to see there's action as well. It's one where we find, and lose, family and even see that family can be broken up pretty spectacularly. Religion can unite, and it can divide. To quote an old professor of mine "Religion is wonderful, until it's not," which you can broadly say is what many of the characters in this book discover! It does though, share how Earthseed develops, and that is well worth exploring for contrast.

I will admit that there were some scary parallels to contemporary politics, but considering this book was written in the 90s, well after the Reagan Administration and the Satanic Panic and Moral Majority era, it's pushing it to call the novel "prescient" in that sense, as the edition I picked up did. It does have a number of worryingly close parallels with the rise of climate change, authoritarian political activism, and others, but it isn't about those issues per-say, but about how Lauren and her family, and religion, live through those times. That may be an important message going forward.

The final act of the book though, for all the implications of Earthseed and its growth, did feel a bit rushed. There could have been a little more with a time skip to help, some more exploration of Lauren's relationship with her daughter, and more about the future, but all in all I did enjoy it. Not perhaps as much as the first installment in the series, but I greatly enjoyed how it did its best to wrap the series up. Well worth exploring. As before though, I leave you with the true Parable of the Talents:

“For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here, I have made five talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here, I have made two talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’ But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 25:14-30 (ESV)