i have to admit, i was very critical about reading this book because i hate science fiction... but this book is amazing... and then to top if all off, you dont have a writing related degree, yet it is so well written... kudos...
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Thanks so much, K-Stigs. Nothing beats getting reviews like that! I hope the first part wasn't too slow for you; a number of people have mentioned that they liked it more after the first 100 pages or so. I enjoy a slow beginning that builds, but maybe next time I'll step on the gas peddle a bit.
I think your interpretation of the destruction of Floralel is correct, or at least what I intended. The signal is meant to go off independently of any human switching it on (although a person can also flip the switch). This is a severe measure to prevent prisoners from getting their hands on technology. If there were any Gaians left in the city, Alistair was not aware of them.
Thanks for reading, and thanks for buying a hard copy! Maybe I'll see you at a convention someday and I can sign it.
Take care!
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo:i have to admit, i was very critical about reading this book because i hate science fiction... but this book is amazing
Music to my ears... or eyes as the case may be.
I have heard from a number of people who don't like sci-fi that this is sci-fi for sci-fi haters. Then again, I also heard from a couple sci-fi fans that they wished it were more sci-fi, so I guess you win some and you lose some.
Anyway, I really appreciate the read and the compliment! Muchas gracias!
Am going to purchase this tonight and DL on my kindle. Soon as I finish Towers of Midnight WOT your book will be my next fiction.
I've been wanting to read this for a while, but I've had school and work, about to go on break. Time to get to it!
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
filc: Am going to purchase this tonight and DL on my kindle. Soon as I finish Towers of Midnight WOT your book will be my next fiction.
Great to hear, buddy! I hope you enjoy. And thanks!
Libertyandlife: I've been wanting to read this for a while, but I've had school and work, about to go on break. Time to get to it!
I completely support your decision! Thank you!
It's free on my website and you can either get a Kindle download or a hard copy (paperback) from Amazon.
I hope you enjoy!
"Mr. Alexander has generously agreed to donate 35% of the proceeds of Wĭthûr Wē to the Federal Government, and is prepared to donate 39.6% if President Obama requires it."
lmao
Libertyandlife: "Mr. Alexander has generously agreed to donate 35% of the proceeds of Wĭthûr Wē to the Federal Government, and is prepared to donate 39.6% if President Obama requires it." lmao
;-)
A very readable book. Thanks.
[Beware of spoilers:]
I read it in three days, but it can be read in just two. I think you ought to congratulate yourself as I think this is what makes or breaks a wrritter. (Eg, Lois Bujold publishes books which are objectively speaking crap - once you put them down - are successful for no other reason than they are hard to put down before they are finished.) Reading this book I was anxious to know what happens next, and it was unpredictable enough that I worried about the outcome.
I thought the first part was the most powerful in the sense it is the most likely to sway a general reader, because what it is about is closer and thus more understandable to him. But also because the text is very good in presenting the dehumanizing nature of opressive government. The scene where the government-gangsters announce the restaurant will be taken from Nigel even though he had supported Aloysious should have anyone clenching their fists and cursing the SOBs. Otherwise the breakneck pacing and the constant action was intense enough to have me thinking Deathstalker series, but maybe that is just me.
In the second part I caught myself thinking the extent of the division of labour on Odin's Island was too optimistic, as I think a practicaly males only society would be likelier to divide into "wolf packs" and live a hand to mouth existance than open farms and mines and contract with PDA's, but then I don't know why my guess should be any better than yours. The important thing is you make it so your version does not require a great deal of suspension of disbelief. Also the circumstances on the prison planet is fascinating enough that it should have the attention even of someone who is oblivious or hostile to its politics. It had a more than a few of the Canticle for Leibowitz style oddities, but - and here is the difference - in a text trying to explain rather than to confuse. The passage with the Agnus guy being interrogated by the jailors with which the second part ends is absolutely brilliant. I like this motiff of a quiet long term bitter-sweet triumph that no defense exists against and I would not have minded at all if the work ended right here. (In order to place a greater weight on it.) The Space Odysseyan third part was less unpredictable and also seemed slower almost like an epilogue rather a part of the regular body of the book. It is true that as a reader I wanted to get back to find out what had happened on Aldra from which I had been so abruptly torn away from, but then when nothing unexpected occured I started feeling the other way around as if had not Alistair been too quick to abandon his experiment on the prison planet. But as this was the same conclusion that Alistair reached I can not be too critical, also by this time it was late so I it is entirely possible the problem was on my side. A fine book overall.
Maybe you can tell us some of the stuff you have read? Like your literary influences, or if you are/were a science fiction reader yourself?
Thanks, Marko! This was a fun post to read and think about.
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS!
Marko:Reading this book I was anxious to know what happens next, and it was unpredictable enough that I worried about the outcome.
Great to hear!
Marko:I thought the first part was the most powerful in the sense it is the most likely to sway a general reader, because what it is about is closer and thus more understandable to him.
I agree. I had more than one reader tell me he forgot he was reading a sci-fi novel during the first part.
Marko:But also because the text is very good in presenting the dehumanizing nature of opressive government.
Thank you. That's the theme of part I. Part II: an alternative.
Marko:In the second part I caught myself thinking the extent of the division of labour on Odin's Island was too optimistic, as I think a practicaly males only society would be likelier to divide into "wolf packs" and live a hand to mouth existance than open farms and mines and contract with PDA's, but then I don't know why my guess should be any better than yours.
Well, that's an interesting point and it's hard to say for sure. Of course, that is what they were doing before Alistair came, but this was presented as being more due to exogenous pressures like overpopulation and such. Even after Alistair came, I think there was a small section where it was noted that many men had taken to living in small villages consisting essentially of groups of barracks. Many of them were business partners in farming and herding (did this make the final cut? Sometimes I have trouble remembering).
Here it is on page 567: "Alistair guessed forty people lived in the present one. Other than the various lodges in which groups of five or six men would cohabitate..." It seems to me I might have said one or two sentences more on the issue in the first draft, but there is a bit of a pack mentality on the planet, though perhaps not as much as you are suggesting. Who knows what would actuall happen?
Marko:The important thing is you make it so your version does not require a great deal of suspension of disbelief.
Good to hear!
Marko:It had a more than a few of the Canticle for Leibowitz style oddities, but - and here is the difference - in a text trying to explain rather than to confuse.
Can you believe I haven't read CfL? On my list...
Marko:The passage with the Agnus guy being interrogated by the jailors with which the second part ends is absolutely brilliant.
Thank you! I think you're the first person to mention it and it's one of my favorite parts.
I don't think that there will ever be anything eternal about humanity (perhaps not even humanity itself). An anarchic society can grow soft, complacent, decadent, corrupt... some libertarians argue that once tasted, a truly free society will never be abandoned. I'm not so sure, but as Rothbard said, that's no reason not to push for it. Even if it lasts but a year, a year of anarchy is a nice holiday from oppression! And I certainly think an anarchic order could last far longer than that (hell, the Irish proved that!).
Ultimately, things come crashing down on Sriliium, but I would argue that this happened despite anarchy, not because of it, and I wanted to leave my opinion on that topic in the pages of the book. The destruction of the society was not the author's way of saying that anarchy sounds great but is ultimately impracticable. The destruction of the society was... well, Angus says it all on pages 625 and 626.
Marko:I like this motiff of a quiet long term bitter-sweet triumph that no defense exists against and I would not have minded at all if the work ended right here. (In order to place a greater weight on it.)
The book was originally conceived as a standalone. I am committed to writing a sequel now (though the sequel will not be my next book). Had I envisioned a sequel from the beginning, that may have been the end right there.
Marko:The Space Odysseyan third part was less unpredictable and also seemed slower almost like an epilogue rather a part of the regular body of the book.
You nailed it, although I hope it wasn't too predictable. I tried to keep people guessing about the vessel.
I felt like every theme, both libertarian and sci-fi, that I had been developing is finally tied together and completed in part III. The ultimate statement is that coercive relationships are cancerous for any thinking species, human or otherwise. I also felt that seeing Oliver Keegan would be important (Alistair and Oliver are sort of like Mises.org and Cato).
Marko:Maybe you can tell us some of the stuff you have read? Like your literary influences, or if you are/were a science fiction reader yourself?
I had a discussion with a friend of mine as I was finishing Withur We in which we talked about the fact that I was writing a sci-fi novel but had only read maybe six to ten sci-fi novels in my life. I have since starting reading sci-fi in earnest.
Growing up, I read almost exclusively fantasy novels of the Tolkien variety. I probably read a couple hundred of those. When I got a bit older, I started reading some of the classics of literature. Soon after that, I got interested in cinema and libertarianism so I started watching a lot of my fiction and the reading I did was non-fiction for a few years. When I did read the occasional work of fiction, it was typically a classic: Twain, Conrad, Hugo and the like. I did manage to read Ayn Rand's works during this time. For most of the time I spent writing Withur We - five years - I was probably most under the influence of Joseph Conrad.
I am now on a sci-fi kick, a genre I grew to love from cinema more than literature. Vonnegut and Heinlein are the best I have read so far (although Heinlein's best known works are my least favorite). Slaughterhouse Five, Cat's Cradle, Sirens of Titan, Puppetmasters, Starship Troopers and Forever War are some I have read in the last year or so and very much enjoyed them. Ringworld and Ender's Game are, in my opinion, drastically overrated, especially Ender's Game (even though I like the ethic of EG). Neoromancer was decent on some counts, lacking on others. A Fire Upon the Deep and A Deepness in the Sky have good parts and bad parts, but the good parts are quite entertaining. Deepness in the Sky is superior to Fire, in my opinion.
Anyway, thanks so much for your post. I had a good time reading and responding to it!
Another note of congratulations on a superb work of fiction, sir. If Withur We was your debut novel -- wow.
I'll be getting the paperback copy from Amazon soon. My philosophy when it comes to literature is that if something is worth reading, it's worth reading again, and I will be reading Withur We more than once. Always better to have hard copy of the good stuff. Besides, I want to put a copy of this book into my son's hands when he gets older, as a sort of gentle way of introducing him to Austrian principles.
Expectations are high now for your next novel. No pressure, though. lol
I do have a question: You mention cinema. When you were writing (and revising), and you would watch the events in Withur We unfold in your mind, did you envision any real-life actors playing the various roles? Did that shape the dialogue or character development?
Joe Oliveri: Another note of congratulations on a superb work of fiction, sir. If Withur We was your debut novel -- wow.
Thank you so much! Withur We is my first published novel. In grade school and junior high I wrote, I think, four first drafts of novels, although only one was completely finished. The others got to the 80% mark or so before I realized I hated them and threw them out. They were swords and sorcerers of the sort I devoured at the time. I do not regret throwing them out. About ten years ago I came across a surviving copy and read through a few pages before I vomited. That too has been destroyed, and the human race is better off for it.
While studying in Spain, in college, I kept a notebook in which I began to write another novel. I didn't get very far, and the seventy or so pages I scrawled were destroyed a few years ago when my basement flooded. Again, not a great loss, but it was much better than what had come before. One of the ideas I was going to use in it will be used in my next novel.
After coming back from Spain, I went to the New York Film Academy and envisioned a future in cinema. There were a few hurdles that, let's say, I was unwilling to jump over and a movie career - though not entirely discarded - was put on indefinite hold. In my desperation to do something artistic, I rediscovered my love of literature, combined it with my discovered love of liberty, and plunged into - perhaps a touch too quickly - the novel you have just read.
Though it postponed my writing career a few years, I do not regret my foray into cinema. Studying that discipline has done nothing but help me as a novelist. Incidentally, I think Ayn Rand, who worked a bit in Hollywood, would have made an excellent director. Her relative weakness in character - at least as I see it - might have been shored up by a couple good actors. Her sense of location was nothing short of superb. There are a thousand scenes in Atlas Shrugged that are so much more than just political and philosophical ramblings due to her excellent choice of location and her exquisite description of it.
Joe Oliveri:My philosophy when it comes to literature is that if something is worth reading, it's worth reading again, and I will be reading Withur We more than once. Always better to have hard copy of the good stuff.
You bring a tear to my eye!
Joe Oliveri:Besides, I want to put a copy of this book into my son's hands when he gets older, as a sort of gentle way of introducing him to Austrian principles.
I don't think I've ever received a greater compliment. Muchisimas gracias!
Joe Oliveri: Expectations are high now for your next novel. No pressure, though. lol
I'm already nervous.
Joe Oliveri:I do have a question: You mention cinema. When you were writing (and revising), and you would watch the events in Withur We unfold in your mind, did you envision any real-life actors playing the various roles? Did that shape the dialogue or character development?
I did not. Ever since I began to study cinema, I have been more about the directors than the actors. The screenwriters are, of course, of monumental importance, and the more I got into movies the more I realized how important the editor was. Actors are also important, but the big three, for me, are writer, director and editor. I would rank actors somewhere around set designer/costumer and cinematographer.
What cinema did for Withur We was make me a better writer of dialogue (however good or bad you think I am, I am better than I used to be by a wide margin) and make me think about interesting locations and atmosphere. There are also some directorial touches that I believe make a scene just a bit more interesting. For instance, in the last post I talked a bit with Marko about the scene at the end of Part II. In that scene, the woman from The Incarcerator is wearing high heels and she keeps sinking into the mud on the ground, once stepping out of her shoe. This is the type of thing a director might add, something that is not in the script but which fleshes out the scene (for more on this, there is a good Francis Ford Coppola interview in one of the versions of Godfather II).
A little thing like that, I believe, adds spice to the meat of a scene in a lot of different ways. It provides for the reader a way to view the scene without resorting to constant descriptions. It is a character's actions that paint the picture. It also provides a little relief from the back-and-forth of dialogue. It humanizes the scene a little. This sort of thing I learned from directing.
Thanks for the comment, Joe! I enjoy this sort of thing very much. I hope your son enjoys it in a few years, i.e., when he is old enough to read about what Giselle does to Alistair! ;-)
Take care and Happy New Year!
Matthew Alexander is a graduate of the Ohio State University. As of May 2010, he lives in central Ohio with his wife, two children and one fetus. Mr. Alexander has generously agreed to donate 35% of the proceeds of Wĭthûr Wē to the Federal Government, and is prepared to donate 39.6% if President Obama requires it.
Ha! Most excellent!
Prateek Sanjay: Ha! Most excellent!
In responding to Marko, I mentioned Ender's Game and that I didn't like the book,but agreed with the ethic. I have just finished reading a few criticisms of EG, and seeing that some readers take a very different view of what EG is about, I thought I better clarify my stance.
For me, Ender's Game was about a lying, brutal military turning a young boy into a brutal killer. It seemed to me more of a stance against the military than a justification for military brutality. Whatever it was that Orson Scott Card intended, that's what I came away with and what I was talking about when I said I agreed with the ethic of EG.
Also, it seems that many people object to Orson Scott Card's examination of mens rea. They don't like that OSC seems to be obsolving Ender of criminal responsibility because Ender did not know what he was doing. I can't see how such a thing could be objectionable in the slightest. If I destroy a civilization but think I am playing a video game, the guilty ones are the ones who set me to playing the video game, knowing what would happen. This seems to me to be indisputable.
At any rate, for me, this is what EG is about, and I am largely in agreement with it. I just don't think the book is very good.
For those interested, these are the reviews that prompted me to post this: Here, here, and here.
" I'd also send info to Geoffery Allan Plauche, he used frequent these forums and is now a lecturer; he also set up a forum dedicated to libertarian sci-fi."
The phpBB forum is dead unfortunately. It never reached critical mass. But a few months back I started a new project that doesn't require as many active members and both Matthew and Jeremiah are already on board: Prometheus Unbound: A Libertarian Review of Fiction and Literature.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
I just started part two.
The question in libertarian fiction stopped being 'who is John Galt', and started - or ought to start - to be 'Where is (our) Alistair Ashley?'
Only a few minor details that I think where a bit wrong to implement (but are not groundbreaking and unrelated to the story) it's probably the best work I've read in a long, very long, time.
Absolutely amazing.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
Thank you so much for your kind words. One review like that makes five years of work worth it!
I'd be very interested to hear the details you had a problem with, and don't worry about hurting my feelings.
I hope you enjoy part II. That's when it gets really libertarian!
SPOILER ALERT
I haven't finished the book yet. They just discovered that the prisoner's planet has it's own economy and are about to attack. So maybe some of my comments change when I finished the entire book.
Well; I felt a bit odd reading Alasdair lecturing about economics/freedom ideas; using words as 'subjective value', 'Ludwig von Mises' and so and and so forth. Maybe it was explained - but than I skipped it - but I think it should be more clear that he was thought in 'the classics of ideas'. It felt a bit that he had access to on the one hand unique and important ideas, where everyone else was completely ignorant of and on the other hand that it was no effort what so ever to have these ideas and insights. It felt a bit unnatural. I'm not sure how to describe it. It was like I was thrown back to myself in the contemporary world, whilst reading a story far, far away in the future. Does this make sense to you?
I especially liked in the first part the intellectual struggle between the revolutionaries; making clear that 'wanting change' is not the same as 'wanting freedom'. The debates between Mike, Alasdair, Johnny and Oliver where very interesting and felt real. Like: yes, a revolution is not enough. I liked how things developed in the first part; very recognizable and real.
(As someone who is familiar with the Misesian-Hayekian-Rothbardian-De Jasayian analysis of the world; it also felt familiar, which wasn't bad.)
The second part was a bit of a mixed feeling; because it all felt so easy and fast. As if a widespread anarchist society with just thieves, murderers and so on was going to be that easy. On a more philosophical note; I think you overplayed the role of the four 'big' anarchist protection agencies. (But that's just my mere prediction. I think that you displayed it very accurately that if a few 'big' companies would run the protection business, the temptation of state building is, in fact, there.)
But the philosophical discussions - especially the ones regarding the Nozickean argument of the origin of the state - where very, very good. And the fact that they were ingrained in a story - and thus not _merely_ philosophical arguments really made sure the ideas I hold dear come to live in as a real sense as they are bound to come.
I'm not sure though if a non-libertarian would feel as excited as me. And maybe a non-libertarian wouldn't get the revelance of all the philosophical debates; allthough you do an excellent, excellent job in presenting them. I'm pretty confident I'll be copy/pasting some of those discussions as arguments in the future if I don't feel like making the same argument myself - e.g. the part on the illegalization of prostitution.
I read through a few reviews on amazon - note that you have very good reviews on amazon; deservingly so - and I tend to agree with this point: "There's probably enough here to make two or three novels taking these characters through the same story with more time spent on some of the other characters and their stories." The problem I'm having with the book is not that it's too long, but that it is too short! But then again; that's probably fan boyism that wants it to go on forever.
Also; it's probably been said before. But the book is a real pageturner. Maybe not all the time, but certainly a lot of the time. It's like Dan Brown meets Rothbard meets George Orwell; 3 writers who are good at what they do.
I'm probably not saying there is no room for improvement. But there certainly is a lot of talent.
One technical point I want to make, though. One important thing and a mistake a lot of writers often make is that all the 'side persons' are copy/pastes with no real personality. I think you have thoroughly succeeded in given most if not all of the characters in the book their own life, personality and imput. They are not idling standing by when the story happens with the 'good' and the 'bad' guys; they are complex figures who change, based on feelings of power, morals, sentiments and so much more. They were humans, not characters. The only problem - maybe - was that Alisdair might feel a bit too principled. I'm not sure. But than again; does it have to be? It's not impossible that someone who has been through a lot truly is principled to the core.
Another point - which I think is neither positive nor negative - is the fact that, unlike 1984 and Brave New World, your book is not only anti-totalitarian government (that, by the way, even is democratic; which I liked) but offers an idea, an alternative. And as we all know; 'an idea, mr Creedy, is bulletproof'. That might make some non-libertarians not regard the book as highly as I do, but within the libertarian world; I know of no reason why any libertarian shouldn't read this book. Preaching to the choir is often considered as a negative; but I know of no successful organization or movement that didn't participate in widespread 'preaching to the choir'. This is a an exciting new way of doing so - it doesn't always have to be Human Action. Maybe it won't become a classic as Atlas Shrugged; but, as I said before, I never asked 'who is Joh Galt', but I do wonder: where is Alisdair Ashley?
On a personal note; sometimes I wonder why I care. Why not just retreat into academia or whatever and _just_ try to make my own life worthwhile. This book convinced me that there is actually something worth in trying to improve the world, even though people will piss on your ideas. That doing good, because you are doing good, is doing well. And that's something I needed. If for no other reason; that's why I'm liking this book.
Hi, I would love the epub format of this so I can convert it to mobi to read on my kindle. my e-mail is mises.ghost@gmail.com. For those of you with a Kindle there is a free program called Calibre which can convert between different e-book formats, however pdf to e-book format seems problematic.
On another note, I think science fiction is probably the best way to advance libertarian ideas. This is a great thing because every political movement needs to create a set of familiar ideas and tropes that can permeate culture. Marxism has done this so well that it's going to be very hard to root it out. THis is also quite true of Freud's ideas. I, myself, have thought of writing a libertarian inspired science fiction story/novel but have not yet begun. Thanks again
SPOILERS
AdrianHealey:Well; I felt a bit odd reading Alasdair lecturing about economics/freedom ideas; using words as 'subjective value', 'Ludwig von Mises' and so and and so forth. Maybe it was explained - but than I skipped it - but I think it should be more clear that he was thought in 'the classics of ideas'. It felt a bit that he had access to on the one hand unique and important ideas, where everyone else was completely ignorant of and on the other hand that it was no effort what so ever to have these ideas and insights. It felt a bit unnatural. I'm not sure how to describe it. It was like I was thrown back to myself in the contemporary world, whilst reading a story far, far away in the future. Does this make sense to you?
It makes perfect sense. I hadn't considered that perspective until now. The first draft of the book was nearly 400,000 words long. I needed to get it down to at least 350,000 (I think the final word count wound up being just over 318,000). Also, a friend of mine read it and commented that the beginning was a bit slow for him. Some have still mentioned this, but it is better now than what it was. At any rate, there was a scene in the first few chapters where Alistair and Oliver go to dig up an inheritance that Alistair's grandfather left him when he died. In other parts of the book, you'll recall that his grandfather was spoken of as being his teacher and guide growing up. Well, when they dig up the inheritance they find a bunch of banned books, two of which were Human Action and Man, Economy and State. So this would explain his vocabulary. I guess I never considered that in cutting this I might be leaving questions in people's minds. The reason I cut it is because it does not advance the plot; it deals purely with Alistair's background and in a book over 300,000 words long, I was really cautious about idling in neutral to deal with this sort of thing.
AdrianHealey:The second part was a bit of a mixed feeling; because it all felt so easy and fast. As if a widespread anarchist society with just thieves, murderers and so on was going to be that easy.
I tried to set things up so that it would be somewhat easy, like a window of opportunity where this could happen. I had a 750 page limit and did not want to spend too much time dealing with all the little details of what would indeed be a very complicated revolution. This is why I put them on an island, got weapons into their hands and so on. I hope it didn't feel too forced.
AdrianHealey:On a more philosophical note; I think you overplayed the role of the four 'big' anarchist protection agencies.
I would expect a lot of small companies in an anarchist society. The reason first three then four big ones emerged in mine was because of their technological advantage early on. Over time, one would expect this to smooth out, but early on they were literally the only ones with guns. I do mention some smaller companies and neighborhood style enforcement agencies elsewhere, and given a longer timeline I would expect a greater number of agencies.
But... who knows?
AdrianHealey:But the philosophical discussions - especially the ones regarding the Nozickean argument of the origin of the state - where very, very good. And the fact that they were ingrained in a story - and thus not _merely_ philosophical arguments really made sure the ideas I hold dear come to live in as a real sense as they are bound to come.
That was a big challenge and the most important part: a novel still needs to be primarily a story.
AdrianHealey:I'm not sure though if a non-libertarian would feel as excited as me.
Probably wouldn't have the same feeling I had when I first read Atlas Shrugged: "Yes! Someone is actually saying this!" I have had some very positive reviews from people I have no reason to believe are libertarian. One man, a professional critic named Lee Gooden, wrote on his blog that Withur We was one of his favorite books of 2010, and this on New Year's Eve several months after he had read it. I don't whether Withur We is going to take off or not, but there have been some non-libertarians who have liked it quite a lot.
AdrianHealey:"There's probably enough here to make two or three novels taking these characters through the same story with more time spent on some of the other characters and their stories." The problem I'm having with the book is not that it's too long, but that it is too short! But then again; that's probably fan boyism that wants it to go on forever.
I can't think of a better problem to have! There will be a sequel someday.
AdrianHealey: Also; it's probably been said before. But the book is a real pageturner. Maybe not all the time, but certainly a lot of the time. It's like Dan Brown meets Rothbard meets George Orwell; 3 writers who are good at what they do. I'm probably not saying there is no room for improvement. But there certainly is a lot of talent.
Muchisimas gracias!
AdrianHealey:One technical point I want to make, though. One important thing and a mistake a lot of writers often make is that all the 'side persons' are copy/pastes with no real personality. I think you have thoroughly succeeded in given most if not all of the characters in the book their own life, personality and imput. They are not idling standing by when the story happens with the 'good' and the 'bad' guys; they are complex figures who change, based on feelings of power, morals, sentiments and so much more. They were humans, not characters.
Thank you! This is a very important point, for me. I feel like women tend to go more for character, while men tend to go more for plot. I feel the best stories excel in both, and sci-fi, being the most male of the genres, does often have good plots with somewhat threadbare and/or interchangeable characters (Ringworld comes to mind). Of course, Philip Dick can be cited as a counterpoint, but I think this is the tendency. I often wouldn't go on writing a chapter until I had a good angle on a bit part that appeared in it, just something I could use to flesh him out a touch and make him, even if he was one dimensional, more than a mouthpiece for a few lines, more than just scenery.
AdrianHealey:I know of no reason why any libertarian shouldn't read this book. Preaching to the choir is often considered as a negative; but I know of no successful organization or movement that didn't participate in widespread 'preaching to the choir'. This is a an exciting new way of doing so - it doesn't always have to be Human Action. Maybe it won't become a classic as Atlas Shrugged; but, as I said before, I never asked 'who is Joh Galt', but I do wonder: where is Alisdair Ashley?
It's hard to imagine kinder praise than this. Thank you!
AdrianHealey:On a personal note; sometimes I wonder why I care. Why not just retreat into academia or whatever and _just_ try to make my own life worthwhile. This book convinced me that there is actually something worth in trying to improve the world, even though people will piss on your ideas. That doing good, because you are doing good, is doing well. And that's something I needed. If for no other reason; that's why I'm liking this book.
And with that, the whole book becomes worthwhile. That's the point of the interplay between Alistair and Santiago... and there's more of that idea to come in part III.
Thanks again, Adrian. It's so nice to read something like this!
Phaedros:Hi, I would love the epub format of this so I can convert it to mobi to read on my kindle.
I sent you the mobi format. Let me know if there's a problem. Enjoy!
I'm enjoying this quite a bit already. I like the idea of batteries, that's basically what they are right, as a kind of currency. A universal battery would make for a great currency, especially if it's quite small. However, it probably wouldn't be divisible, but that's just one downside.
Glad you're enjoying it!
It's not the batteries so much as their stored energy that serves as the currency. Credits being entirely unbacked - not even printed - and energy provision being desultory, it seemed to me that payments by way of energy transfers would be a real possibility. That would also have the advantage of being divisible.
Oh ok gotcha. It is a very cool idea. I liked how you juxtaposed the government instituting a price ceiling on food on some days against the government's culpability in reducing the supply of food and restaurants.
I've been meaning to read this for awhile now and hadn't gotten around to it. I have more time on my hands now so I went ahead and purchased a hard copy and am looking forward to reading it when it arrives. I'll let you know how I like it. Cheers!
Phaedros:I liked how you juxtaposed the government instituting a price ceiling on food on some days against the government's culpability in reducing the supply of food and restaurants.
The first draft went into so much more detail, but I was worried that it was becoming less of a story and more of an econ textbook, so I whittled it down. Probably a good idea, although the cut parts would likely go over well with this crowd.
I was just talking to my wife about her cousin Curtis, then I sit down and see this. Anyway...
Thanks for purchasing the copy! I hope you enjoy. I'm always interested in comments and criticisms.
gocrew: Phaedros:I liked how you juxtaposed the government instituting a price ceiling on food on some days against the government's culpability in reducing the supply of food and restaurants. The first draft went into so much more detail, but I was worried that it was becoming less of a story and more of an econ textbook, so I whittled it down. Probably a good idea, although the cut parts would likely go over well with this crowd.
I haven't read the novel yet, but it was probably a good idea to cut. Cory Doctorow's novels suffer from the textbook syndrome, Though he generally explains things very clearly, he spends too much time explaining things. He definitely sacrifices art for his educational aim.
I just got to the part where Allistar, while on the island, is bringing in spontaneous order by establishing a local capitalistic order. I just finished the first trial where the one big guy takes advantage of the small guy. Not to spoil anything I'll just say that it was excitingly entertaining!
I especially like the character Taribo. "Polite Police!" Only one letter difference haha...
It's such a delight!
Geoffrey Allan Plauché:He definitely sacrifices art for his educational aim.
I think you're right. A story has to entertain. If it does, it might induce people to seek education elsewhere on topics it covers.
filc: I especially like the character Taribo. "Polite Police!" Only one letter difference haha... It's such a delight!
Glad you liked it, buddy! Thanks for reading!
Just finished this last night.
I give it 5/10. I'd like to have given it a higher rating, but took points off for tortured English (especially the constant misuse of "couple" as if it were an adjective) -- hiring an editor would have got it 7/10 -- and the story sort of fizzled out at the end.
Sorry you didn't care for it. Thanks for reading.
Didn't say I didn't care for it. Your writing style got in a the way a bit: overuse of adjectives, odd sentence structure occasionally, quite a few homonym confusions (the two I remember are you used "break" when you meant "brake", and "flow" for an ice floe), and the constant (probably at least one per page) nonstandard use of "couple" nearly had me tearing my hair out. Those are things that would have been fixed before publication if you had a publisher. There were a few details that didn't seem to make sense (one character had her arms chopped off before arrival on Srillium because they didn't allow 'enhancements', but Alistair and a few other characters had at least enhanced eyes, and got to keep them; he had to smuggle seeds to the planet (and nobody looked for that?), but the first person he ran into had pots and pans; some characters later were smoking and drinking wine, but there doesn't seem to have been any way they could make those, etc.). Overall, it wasn't a bad story, but you kind of wimped out on the ending -- Alistair left Srillium just as it was reaching a climax, and after that you were pretty much telling an unrelated story.
Paul:Your writing style got in a the way a bit:
I've had people say the opposite. In my own defense, I'll just say that there are different styles and you seem to be more of a traditional minimalist. In my experience these people can be quite dogmatic about prose style.
Paul:overuse of adjectives
I certainly use more than Kurt Vonnegut, for example, but then I'm not trying to do with my prose what Vonnegut did.
Paul:odd sentence structure occasionally
I don't see why this should be a problem. I'm not trying to write at the level of See Spot Run. Part of what I like about language is what you can do with it, rather than always trying to slim down and simplify.
Paul:and the constant (probably at least one per page) nonstandard use of "couple" nearly had me tearing my hair out.
There are 176 uses of couple in 692 pages of the book. Many of these are uses as a noun. Furthermore, you can find plenty of discussion on the web about whether couple as an adjective is nonstandard, which would indicate it is far from a settled issue. In my own experience couple as adjective seems perfectly standard (some sites I looked at noted this was more of an American tendency).
Paul:There were a few details that didn't seem to make sense (one character had her arms chopped off before arrival on Srillium because they didn't allow 'enhancements', but Alistair and a few other characters had at least enhanced eyes, and got to keep them
The arms were enhanced with mechanical implants, parts of which could conceivably be used to make things they don't want the prisoners having. Not the case with the eyes.
Paul:he had to smuggle seeds to the planet (and nobody looked for that?
No one needed to look for it; cotton doesn't present a problem for The Incarcerator. It's capitalization and advanced technology that they keep to a minimum. Alistair took the seeds in his colon for lack of any other way of taking them.
Paul:but the first person he ran into had pots and pans
What logical problem does this present?
Paul:some characters later were smoking and drinking wine, but there doesn't seem to have been any way they could make those
Not true. This was discussed in the book. Srillium is not entirely devoid of consumer goods. Buildings are not permitted, with the half-exception of the cave cities which themselves are only permitted in return for services rendered to the Gaians.
Paul:Overall, it wasn't a bad story, but you kind of wimped out on the ending
Wimped out? Are you saying there was a tough decision I should have made and did not? I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Paul:Alistair left Srillium just as it was reaching a climax, and after that you were pretty much telling an unrelated story.
I would gently suggest that you may have missed some things along the way. Part III is the culmination of what the entire book was about and had been building to from Chapter 1.
Don't be so defensive; I said I liked it overall :)
I've never read Vonnegut, but "overuse of adjectives" is probably the single most common fault book editors find in new authors. I'm not talking about 'simplification'; sometimes you use word order that's more appropriate to poetry, which is sometimes OK in prose trying to set a particular mood, but just seems strange in this case; other times you insert a clause in the middle of a sentence in a way that makes it hard to understand. Re: use of "couple" as an adjective: it may be common in some forms of American English, but it's still regarded and non-standard (one site calls it "slovenly"); i.e., it's OK to use it in speech from (some) AmE-speaking characters, but not in non-speech text. (And it's not even "non-standard" in not-American English; it's just Wrong. And I'm not American. It's extremely grating; I can't dispute your numbers, but it certainly felt like every page.)
Paul:but the first person he ran into had pots and pans What logical problem does this present?
How did he get them there? Presumably not in his colon?
Paul:some characters later were smoking and drinking wine, but there doesn't seem to have been any way they could make those Not true. This was discussed in the book. Srillium is not entirely devoid of consumer goods. Buildings are not permitted, with the half-exception of the cave cities which themselves are only permitted in return for services rendered to the Gaians.
But they had to eat new arrivals because they couldn't grow enough food, they arrived naked, with only what they could carry in their colons, and they're constantly being attacked by other tribes ... how do they maintain tobacco and grape plantations?
Paul:Overall, it wasn't a bad story, but you kind of wimped out on the ending Wimped out? Are you saying there was a tough decision I should have made and did not? I'm not sure what you're getting at.
*shrug* Almost always, when reading science fiction, I'm left with a feeling of "there's potentially a great story in there, but the author didn't tell it."
Paul:Don't be so defensive; I said I liked it overall :)
How defensive should I be? ;-)
Paul:sometimes you use word order that's more appropriate to poetry, which is sometimes OK in prose
But not in my book?
Paul:other times you insert a clause in the middle of a sentence in a way that makes it hard to understand.
That is definitely something I would want to change. Do you remember any examples?
Paul:Re: use of "couple" as an adjective: it may be common in some forms of American English
Believe me, it's entirely common. And since I'm American writing in American English...
Paul:but it's still regarded and non-standard
Not by Americans.
Paul:one site calls it "slovenly"
And another calls it "not non-standard". Like I said, the issue doesn't seem settled.
I'm going to guess that the slovenly quote comes from a British writer, or an American with pretensions. I have run many times into attitudes from the British that indicate that they (you?) view English as their language but are generous enough to lease it to the rest of us for free. Then they take umbrage if we change the wallpaper without permission. This simply is not how language works.
Paul:it's OK to use it in speech from (some) AmE-speaking characters, but not in non-speech text. (And it's not even "non-standard" in not-American English; it's just Wrong. And I'm not American.
Is this some international law I don't know about?
Listen, I have no right to tell you what your tastes ought to be; they are entirely subjective. If there is something you don't like, it is neither right nor wrong, but as the author of the book, my goal is to get you to like it as much as possible. There are certain roadblocks that I think can be removed and I am trying to remove them. I don't understand why the word couple as an adjective should so drive you to distraction that its very presence in the book loomed far larger in your imagination than in reality. Nevertheless, it cannot be called wrong, because language is arbitrary, subjective and always evolving. There is an entire society of people for whom the word couple has expanded in use and meaning; this process happens constantly in language and the market has chosen this meaning for couple. When an author from that culture writes in the way that culture uses the language, I don't see why it should be unacceptable.
For instance, in England it is common to say, "It's a good job" where in American we say "It's a good thing". Frankly, I don't see that the British way makes much sense, but I don't let it grate on me. It means what it means and if someone uses it, I can't demonstrate that it is wrong, and I certainly don't want any hang up I have to inhibit my enjoyment of what might be a good story.
There are some changes in language that I resist with good reason. For instance, I cannot abide the use of "literally" to mean the opposite of its traditional meaning. If a word means A and -A at the same time, then it is in danger of not meaning anything at all. Something like that is lazy thinking; couple expanding to become an adjective as well is not.
Paul: Paul:but the first person he ran into had pots and pans What logical problem does this present? How did he get them there? Presumably not in his colon?
They were made on the planet. Srillium is not devoid of all goods and services.
Paul: Paul:some characters later were smoking and drinking wine, but there doesn't seem to have been any way they could make those Not true. This was discussed in the book. Srillium is not entirely devoid of consumer goods. Buildings are not permitted, with the half-exception of the cave cities which themselves are only permitted in return for services rendered to the Gaians. But they had to eat new arrivals because they couldn't grow enough food, they arrived naked, with only what they could carry in their colons, and they're constantly being attacked by other tribes ... how do they maintain tobacco and grape plantations?
But amidst squalor there are always those who have much. Witness the Soviet Union and Cuba. There are no large plantations on Srillium, but wine is a luxury good that can be had there. The wine you are referring to, I believe, was being smoked by rich industrialists, such as they were on srillium.
Paul: Paul:Overall, it wasn't a bad story, but you kind of wimped out on the ending Wimped out? Are you saying there was a tough decision I should have made and did not? I'm not sure what you're getting at. *shrug* Almost always, when reading science fiction, I'm left with a feeling of "there's potentially a great story in there, but the author didn't tell it."
I thought the ending encapsulated everything the book was about. It was conceived from the very beginning, in fact.
How do you think the story should have been told?
Anyway, don't take my post to be defensive. Originally, I just thanked you for reading the book. When you responded with more detail, I did likewise. I have no doubts that Withur We could use an editor; I found plenty of mistakes myself and there are obviously more in there. I do think that calling the English tortured is an exageration, and I don't think the logical problems you see are necessarily problems. As I said before, I only point this out in the hopes that you will raise that 5/10 to a 6/10!
I thought it was someone in Issicroy, but I searched the PDF: it was actually the Singulatarians who had the wine. Issicroi had the cigars.
If I knew that, I'd write my own book :)
(At a minimum, I think the whole "overlay" thing should have been left out, and the Singulatarians shouldn't have been able to build an FTL drive, so Alistair should have stayed on Srillium. Failing that, if the ending was supposed to imply that they're doomed, they could have left the alien museum ship knowing that Aldra's sun was going to explode any minute, and there was no time to get away, just go back to Aldra to wait it out...)
By the way: why is it called "Wĭthûr Wē" (why the title, and why the diacritics?)