Scan barcode
slichto3's review against another edition
1.0
I really didn't like this book, but I think it presented some interesting ideas. I just wish that those ideas were packaged into a better form. Empire reads like a shoot 'em up video game, which leads to a lot of mundane action scenes and not enough character development and discussion of real ideas and perspectives.
The story is about a modern civil war that occurs in America. The war is sort of between the political left and the political right, but there's this whole plot about there being a conspiracy deeper than that. The main characters are two military guys who are trying to stop the civil war before it spreads.
There's a ton of potential in this book. There is a really strong political polarization in America that's led to not just disagreements but outright demonization. That schism is concerning - at least, to me. The afterword of this book was probably my favorite part because the author, Orson Scott Card, actually discussed that. The rest of the book presents the danger of polarization, but then gets completely wrapped up in a really silly action story.
The action itself is boring and, at times, even laughable. There's a scene at the very beginning where the main character literally tears off his clothes and shouts "noo!!!!" when someone dies during a military operation. It's just cliched and over-the-top and is not at all out of place with the rest of the novel.
Further, despite a lot of crazy and potentially emotionally jarring incidents, the prose and the emotional reactions of the characters is stunningly flat. A minor spoiler: But there is so little reaction to this huge event that I wasn't sure for quite a while whether it was a simulation or something.
Because of the flatness and cliches, reading Empire was a real slog. I wish that Card had been able to spend more time and effort on it, because I think a story like Empire could have a lot of potential as an eye-opening discussion of the dangers of our political polarization. But, as it is, Empire sucks. Don't waste your time on it. At most, read the afterword, then chuck it.
The story is about a modern civil war that occurs in America. The war is sort of between the political left and the political right, but there's this whole plot about there being a conspiracy deeper than that. The main characters are two military guys who are trying to stop the civil war before it spreads.
There's a ton of potential in this book. There is a really strong political polarization in America that's led to not just disagreements but outright demonization. That schism is concerning - at least, to me. The afterword of this book was probably my favorite part because the author, Orson Scott Card, actually discussed that. The rest of the book presents the danger of polarization, but then gets completely wrapped up in a really silly action story.
The action itself is boring and, at times, even laughable. There's a scene at the very beginning where the main character literally tears off his clothes and shouts "noo!!!!" when someone dies during a military operation. It's just cliched and over-the-top and is not at all out of place with the rest of the novel.
Further, despite a lot of crazy and potentially emotionally jarring incidents, the prose and the emotional reactions of the characters is stunningly flat. A minor spoiler:
Spoiler
the president is assassinated early in the book.Because of the flatness and cliches, reading Empire was a real slog. I wish that Card had been able to spend more time and effort on it, because I think a story like Empire could have a lot of potential as an eye-opening discussion of the dangers of our political polarization. But, as it is, Empire sucks. Don't waste your time on it. At most, read the afterword, then chuck it.
bennought's review against another edition
3.0
Definitely not one of Card's best books. The writing was iffy, never really reaching the levels it was at even towards the end of the Bean series. The plot and concept were interesting, and the overall point that he was trying to make was definitely a good one: the political rhetoric in this country has reached a point of polarized extremism unknown since the years leading up to the Civil War, and that divisiveness, demonization, and dismissal of the other side's point of view could potentially is both damaging and could lead to conflict. While I disagree with much of his religio-political views (i.e. banning same-sex marriage, linking homosexuality with pedophilia), I do agree and support his fervent calls for Americans to stop the hateful rhetoric and be wary of falling prey to the extremes.
katerinatroyanovich's review against another edition
adventurous
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
2.0
elzabetg's review against another edition
4.0
I'm listening to this on CD. I tried to read this a few months back ((last year, I think)) when it first came out, but just couldn't get into it even though I found the premise completely believable and interesting. Having it read to me is entirely different, though, and I'm really enjoying it. It's so...possible. Or maybe plausible is the word I need to use. Sad to say. At least OSC always tells a good story.
kymme's review against another edition
4.0
An insanely quick read, this book is pretty good at laying out a scary possible consequence of our nation's current political divisions. Interesting and somewhat provocative, especially for a "thriller."
diz_tn's review against another edition
1.0
I am left dumbfounded by this book. I don't really even know how to write this review.
Let me start by saying that as a kid I loved Card's books. They were some of my favorites. Now I'm wondering if they really were good books or if my judgment was a little off back then. (Time to revisit some of those old books.)
Card sounds like a novice writer in this book. Most of the book is written (badly) from an omniscient narrator perspective. In spite of being a book about deception, treason, and war, it felt like there was no action. It felt like I was reading a history book - this person did this, then this other person did this, and this 3rd person did this. No real depth to it at all. In some places it sounded like there were 2 different writers. For instance, the prologue was one of those scenes that lacked any action at all in spite of the fact that it was during a war/fighting/shooting scene, yet the first chapter flipped that and sounded almost normal (almost decent writing) when we have a group of people conversing.
Not a single character was well-developed. We get very few hints as to people's backgrounds, motivations, loves, or hates. The plot pitted two opposing philosophical sides against each other in a civil war. Yet the ideology of neither side was clear, and it was extremely difficult to distinguish the sides (beyond the stereotypes he threw at us) because of the lack of character development. What I mean is that there was no person(s) that embodied either side. There were no real leaders. Any "main characters" were supposed to be moderates that didn't fully support either side (more on that below). So because I didn't get a glimpse into why a person would do one thing or another, I didn't understand how the sides got polarized as Card described them. I never did understand which side it was that assassinated the president or did any of the other acts of war.
This book is political satire in the form of a hellfire and brimstone sermon. In my opinion, satire needs to be subtly disguised so as not to sound preachy in order to be good writing. In Empire, the political commentary was screaming at you instead of whispering. Not only is the US divided according to the same issues and across the same geographic regions as in the mid 2000s, but Card uses well-known celebrities (with political agendas) in the book! In the afterward, Card implies that he tried to make both sides equally absurd. If that's what he was trying to do then he failed miserably. Card either showed us what his true political views are, or he did an excellent job of playing devil's advocate (and since the writing is so bad in general, I don't think it's the later). For instance, he actually uses Fox News' slogan of "fair and balanced" and presents it as such. He puts Bill O'Reilly in as a character and says that he really does give people a fair interview (i.e. doesn't yell at them). There is only 1 democrat/liberal character in the entire book that is presented as a reasonable person (dude's wife - can't even remember either of their names, that's how much I remember the characters) while numerous republicans/conservatives are supposedly reasonable. And finally, if you have to explain yourself in an afterward as to your intentions and what the book is supposed to mean, then you damn sure enough didn't do a good enough job writing the book!
Finally, Card literally equated children of working mothers to ORPHANED KIDS. That's right, he said that if that woman character (the one I can't remember her name) worked, then her kids would be like orphaned kids. That may not bother most of you, but it pissed me the hell off. As a woman working in scientific research and trying to battle stereotypes my entire life, I was quite offended by this attitude from a science fiction writer that I used to respect.
Let me start by saying that as a kid I loved Card's books. They were some of my favorites. Now I'm wondering if they really were good books or if my judgment was a little off back then. (Time to revisit some of those old books.)
Card sounds like a novice writer in this book. Most of the book is written (badly) from an omniscient narrator perspective. In spite of being a book about deception, treason, and war, it felt like there was no action. It felt like I was reading a history book - this person did this, then this other person did this, and this 3rd person did this. No real depth to it at all. In some places it sounded like there were 2 different writers. For instance, the prologue was one of those scenes that lacked any action at all in spite of the fact that it was during a war/fighting/shooting scene, yet the first chapter flipped that and sounded almost normal (almost decent writing) when we have a group of people conversing.
Not a single character was well-developed. We get very few hints as to people's backgrounds, motivations, loves, or hates. The plot pitted two opposing philosophical sides against each other in a civil war. Yet the ideology of neither side was clear, and it was extremely difficult to distinguish the sides (beyond the stereotypes he threw at us) because of the lack of character development. What I mean is that there was no person(s) that embodied either side. There were no real leaders. Any "main characters" were supposed to be moderates that didn't fully support either side (more on that below). So because I didn't get a glimpse into why a person would do one thing or another, I didn't understand how the sides got polarized as Card described them. I never did understand which side it was that assassinated the president or did any of the other acts of war.
This book is political satire in the form of a hellfire and brimstone sermon. In my opinion, satire needs to be subtly disguised so as not to sound preachy in order to be good writing. In Empire, the political commentary was screaming at you instead of whispering. Not only is the US divided according to the same issues and across the same geographic regions as in the mid 2000s, but Card uses well-known celebrities (with political agendas) in the book! In the afterward, Card implies that he tried to make both sides equally absurd. If that's what he was trying to do then he failed miserably. Card either showed us what his true political views are, or he did an excellent job of playing devil's advocate (and since the writing is so bad in general, I don't think it's the later). For instance, he actually uses Fox News' slogan of "fair and balanced" and presents it as such. He puts Bill O'Reilly in as a character and says that he really does give people a fair interview (i.e. doesn't yell at them). There is only 1 democrat/liberal character in the entire book that is presented as a reasonable person (dude's wife - can't even remember either of their names, that's how much I remember the characters) while numerous republicans/conservatives are supposedly reasonable. And finally, if you have to explain yourself in an afterward as to your intentions and what the book is supposed to mean, then you damn sure enough didn't do a good enough job writing the book!
Finally, Card literally equated children of working mothers to ORPHANED KIDS. That's right, he said that if that woman character (the one I can't remember her name) worked, then her kids would be like orphaned kids. That may not bother most of you, but it pissed me the hell off. As a woman working in scientific research and trying to battle stereotypes my entire life, I was quite offended by this attitude from a science fiction writer that I used to respect.