Arslan

M J Engh is not a well-known author, however two of her novels (Arslan and Rainbow Man) have drawn high praise from the likes of Samuel R. Delaney and Orson Scott Card. So, I finally decided to pick up Arslan. The story fails to deliver the high praise heaped upon it, but even so, despite its ridiculous premise, the characters are very well developed and there is a genuine feel of “what next?” which is refreshing considering the tripe available in most of the post-apocalyptic stories nowadays.First, this book is a tough read. It is told in first person narrative, but alternates between the viewpoint of a conservative, moralist, elementary school principal named Franklin and a sexually exploited and abused 13-year old boy named Hunt. Between these two narrators, the writing style alternates from the dry and direct phrases of Franklin to the excessive literary flourishes of an adolescent Hunt. Both of the characters are thoroughly believable and relatable but their very different “voices” make for a disjointed plot. Still, Engh does a fantastic job placing the reader, regardless of age and political persuasion, into the shattered world of two very different citizens of Kraftsville. This is the strength of the novel and the part I enjoyed most. Somewhere in between these narratives, you are supposed to fill in the gaps at how exactly the world ended.Second, the titular character is purposefully and excessively shocking. Though we never read his viewpoint, General Arslan is the focus of the story. My issue with how Arslan is described has nothing to do with his desire to gradually return humankind to a simpler way of life and thus save the planet from overpopulation, strife and desolation; it is the fact that he is a barbarian in the purest sense of the word. His antics, once his troops occupy the small midwestern town, range from draconian measures of military law to the deprivation of basic human rights, highlighted by the public rape of young teenagers. Reading the first 50 pages is akin to reading about the modern-day mini-version of the sacking of Kiev by the Mongols in 1240. Politics aside, Arslan is a wretched human being, and over the course of 300 pages, Engh “tries” to rehabilitate his image. The story starts as your typical 70s sexploitation theme but with a political premise and ends about two decades later in an attempt at social engineering.Lastly, as a sci-fi premise: Arslan is a poor concept. We are to believe that in an unprecedented global coup, General Arslan has managed to take over both the USSR (this book was published in 1970s) and the USA in a masterstroke of realpolitik. The details a how this happens are eventually revealed halfway through the book (through Hunt’s perspective) and are actually not as ridiculous as one may think. The idea that a warlord from the Central Asian steppes can overthrow the Soviet regime during a political crisis is not that far-fetched given what we know now of the instability of said regime during transitions of power. The balance of power for most of the Cold War was always up in the air and many times was dependent on the next technological advance, so the concept that Arslan takes over USSR and uses its “new and advanced” laser technology to effectively neutralize the politicians in charge of the USA, is as believable as an all-out nuclear war. Yet, Arslan is not a sophisticated statesman or diplomat, he is just ruthless and driven. It is believable that such a person can take over a territory the size of a county and run it like his personal fiefdom, it is nonsensical to expect him to revert the 20th century world economy so that it runs on subsistence agriculture. Arslan, who is inherently anti-technology, doesn’t even rely on a global power structure or even a complex communication grid. In fact, he slowly begins to dismantle his own infrastructure and armies maintaining all the while that his new creation of self-reliant, isolated communities will continues to somehow function. Sure, I can believe this for a series of small towns in rural Illinois, but not for a single massive metropolis. Widespread marshal law works in small communities, think feudal system, but cannot be sustained in a city, especially in the diverse communities of America...unless a high number of the city inhabitants were massacred...more reason to “like” Arslan. Thus, Arslan effectively ends the modern world, tries to sterilizes humanity, does incalculable psychological trauma to at least one teenage boy and yet by the end of the book is accepted as a member of the new society he so brutally created. Despite plenty of ideas, I’m not sure what the message of this story is. If I had to guess it would be that someone like Arslan is required to fix the broken world, and we have to find a way to live with them. Not much of saving-grace. However, the book did make me think, and I guess that is worth something…like a 3-star rating.

Like some other reviewers, I bought Arslan on the basis of Orson Scott Card's glowing praise. I found it disappointing. It has its good points, mainly several interesting characters. But the premise was just not believable. The three main characters, General Arslan, Franklin Bond, and Hunt Morgan, are all well developed and hold your interest. In General Arslan M.J. Engh creates a villain who is complex, both horrifying and fascinating. A well done job. However, the premise of the story, that a military dictator from an obscure country in central Asia could conquer the United States without a shot being fired just did not work for me. The technical details of how he did it were a little simplistic, but that was not the problem. The central problem in the believability of the book is the author's implicit assumption that everyone in the United States is the sort of passive, unresisting Quisling that the characters Bond and Morgan are. Okay, it's believable that some people would give up without a fight. But everyone? Including everyone in the U.S. armed forces? The book opens with Arslan driving into southern Illinois with a small group of Turkistani soldiers. Unfortunately, southern Illinois is less than 100 miles from Fort Campbell, KY, home of the 101st Airborne Division. Which is still intact. Why doesn't the 101st Airborne send out a squad of helicopter gunships? They could make mincemeat of General Arslan and his regiment in about ten minutes. The author assumes no one has the initiative to do this. Sorry, I couldn't buy that. Ms Engh is clearly also not an expert in guns. In a crucial early scene, she has Arslan give his handgun to Franklin Bond, challenging Bond to shoot him. Bond doesn't. In the scene, Bond checks to see if the gun is loaded, and later throws the gun and the bullets out the window of the car they are in. Unfortunately, all the technical details of how handguns work are wrong. Handguns are either revolvers or semi-automatic pistols. It's never clear which it is. Ms Engh should have done her research by buying a few gun magazines and learning how guns work. She didn't, unfortunately, and it detracts from the book. Also, Ms Engh describes the Turkistani soldiers as "professionals," compared to American soldiers, whom she says are not. These "professional" soldiers then proceed to invade an elementary school and rape several 13 year old students. That's professional conduct? What planet do you live on, Ms Engh? Sorry, I have to give this book a thumbs down.

Arlsan grips you from the start. Its that simple. It twists you and turns you and makes you want to conspire against General Arslan with the characters.Arslan is a as cruel as they come. Hes hearltless, shameless,a bisexual rapist, favoring children, and he is a flawless strategist deserving to be with the greatest of military minds.His sense of humor isnt good, but it makes you laugh nervously anyways.Engh wrote this as if he were standing there, watching it transpire neutrally. The detail and dialouge is outstanding. This is one for the ages.Higly Recommended.

This novel is...unique. The story of a Southwest Asian dictator who somehow contrives to conquer America and proceeds to put his stamp on a small American town through a of combination threats and sexual humiliation. It's a tough read sometimes, but well-written.

I cannot decide. The ending was very disappointing to me. The Hunt parts were very hard to understand. It had a promising beginning, but the ending didn't work for me.

Though it does describe a dystopia, this novel takes place in an alternative recent past than a dark future. It is also more a critique of abuse than a science fiction novel. The first protagonist (Bond) shifts the reader into sociologist mode, whereas the second protagonist (Hunt) moves the reader into psychoanalytic mode. Stockholm syndrome is never far from the readers mind, but that may be an oversimplification as the novel raises more questions than it answers. File it some where alongside 1984, Brave New World, Man in the High Castle, The Handmaid's Tale and Anthem.

I can tell easily why this book has polarised opinion, it is some what of an uneven read, with a compelling, horrific and nightmarish beginning, an uneven middle which has some problems with narrative pacing that I attribute to switches in narrator and the author's attempt, which is successful I guess, to really present two very different character's perspective and what I could only really describe as a disappointing, conclusion, especially considering the beginning.So far as considerations as to whether or not this book belongs in the sci fi masterworks series, well, I would say most definitely, for its flaws its definitely a masterwork, it is a dystopia, the first half reading like a political thriller, the final half much, much more strongly a post-apocalyptic novel with the realisation, or supposed realisation, of some of the dark designs begun and elaborated upon in the book's first half. This section of the book reminded me films like The Postman (a notable departure from the book it was adapted from) and The Book of Eli. I would say that on the strength of this it could be recommended to fans of science fiction but it is not "inner" science fiction, such as Philip K Dick's sci fi, or space opera or futurism or scientific romance etc.However, while the story is that of a backwater dictators son rising to complete world conquest, setting up HQ in small town USA, possessing a vision of dividing the world in materially impoverished districts (definite precursor to Hunger Games here) the better to ensure the disappearence of civilisation as his legacy, the book is a strongly personal narrative driven story. Its the central cast of about three or four characters, only two of which are directly narrators, who occupy centre stage throughout and I suppose whether or not you find the character building of each convincing enough will determine whether or not you find the ultimate conclusion plausible. For my part (no spoilers here) I disliked the finish but thought stranger things have been known to happen, there's no way it could be predicted from the beginning but I think the point being that a lot of time and events had taken place in the interim.What I do find startling is that this book dates from 1978, at least the older hardback edition I have is copyrighted from then, and I'm sure that some readers would find some of the content obscenely violent, then or now, but at least presently Arslan would have to compete with other examples from fiction such as Neegan in The Walking Dead or Ramsey The Bastard from Game of Thrones. Reader be warned because I think that Arslan proves himself the match of either in terms of torture, terror and violent manipulation.Finally, I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in books by Erich Fromm. It is nothing more than coincidence, I'm sure, but the fictional characters within this book illustrate brilliantly a lot of Fromm's points in non-fiction. Particularly Fromm's book The Fear of Freedom and its depiction of the sado-masochistic traits (that its insufficient to conquer/violate/control but also seduce/recruit/enchant) and his ideas about biophilious/necrophilious personality types, since Arslan desires death, in fact, nothing short of the extinction of the entire human race. Even Frank Bond, the school principle and man of principles, gradually but repeatedly relenting over time seems much more like a series of rationalisations than it does adapting in hard nosed fashion to realpolitik.An unnerving read.

Arslan (S.F. Masterworks) [Paperback]Disappointingly naïve, not credible, after the build up. I shall not be looking for other works by this authoress

I bought this book from a recommendation in Orson Scott Card’s book ‘How to write Science Fiction and Fantasy’, along with another called Wild Seed. Card called it a masterpiece, and I presumed he was recommending it as an example of great science fiction. The central premise, that of a dictator taking over the entire world, I found fascinating.My conclusion is that this book demonstrates the importance of reading those ‘How to’ books, for any aspiring author. It seems to me that this novel is an example of what can go wrong if you ignore advice on plot and characterisation.For a start, it was boring. I struggled to get to the end, and I only persisted in the hope that it would reach some dramatic conclusion. It wasn’t even an anticlimax, the story just withered away to a sorry end. There just didn’t seem to be any plot, a reason to keep reading to find out what happens. I read with more interest at the start, to find out how Arslan took over the world. But even that was a pretty pathetic explanation.The characters were interesting, but they often seemed to act out of character. The young lad musing on latin translations, for example. They often spoke to each other with cryptic comments, leaving me puzzled. Do these get explained later? Not that I could tell.The worst of all is the way the author parades their literary credentials at almost every opportunity. Perhaps someone who is well read in Literature will find this interesting. I felt like I was stuck listening to a bore.So I can only imagine that Orson Scott Card wants us to read this as an example of how it should not be done. It almost put me off reading the other book, which surprisingly turned out to be very good.

I bought this book on the basis of Orson Scott Card's recommendation.I regret doing so, and I'm writing this review in case anyone is sensible enough to check the reviews before buying.An utterly implausible premise. I find Harry Potter more credible. Ugly scenes. As a study of how good people do bad things, it was very sketchy and uninteresting.If you like reading about ugliness for its own sake, I imagine there are many more sordid books out there for you.