chris

Watch the Movie

Reviewed: 02-19-25

I've read every Tom Clancy book, so I can handle technical. Sometimes, Clancy goes too far and it gets very dry, but the story compensates for any dry spells. This book did not. It felt more like it jumped from one technical explanation to another with no real excitement in the story to make up for it. It got to the point where I would actually say/yell out loud "I don't care!" or "Oh my God, I don't care!" and finally- towards the end of the book it got more colorful. I had hoped the end would make up for the SLOW start, but it didn't.

The movie is 100x better. Watch that. If you don't like the movie, don't bother with the book.

The narrator was fine.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Ok

Reviewed: 11-30-24

It was ok, definitely entertaining. Still, there's only so many times in the series that Jack can do something against John Clark's instructions before it just gets annoying. That came long ago. On top of that Jack, again, being out on his own (essentially) getting captured multiple times... it gets old.

Getting to follow the geography was more difficult than usual, which is ok, but the author made at least one very glaring error.

The ending was well done, and Scott Brick nailed it as usual.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Part 1

Reviewed: 11-08-24

Part 1, the train ride was interesting and much better written. After that section it almost felt like the author must submitted an outline. It was very "bullet-pointy" if that makes sense. It seems very disjointed at times, like he was just trying to finish it. I was impressed by some of the truths in the story. The bare bones are there for a great story, but to me it'll just be "ok at best." One time is enough.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Very Good

Reviewed: 10-21-23

I really like the story, and this is a story more than a history which is fine. Historical fiction is tough, but this is a good balance that gets you invested in the characters. Even Pacorus, the hero has several glaring faults, but that adds to the realism that people aren't perfect. In his case, he needs to shut up from time to time.

The only thing I'd change, is the narrator. In no way am I trying to be insulting to the narrator, who did a good job, but the first three books had a narrator who have each character a voice and manner, which I became very used to. So, with the books going forward, I hope they go back to him. I would listen to another book by this narrator though.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

What?

Reviewed: 09-26-23

I don't really get it... I really like the authors other works, but this one missed. A lot happens without anything actually happening. Parts are really good, but on the whole it's really not worth it. I don't really think if you're religious or atheist, that the book is worth the full read.

His take on how the crucifixion would've been/ could've been logically carried out to allow "resurrection" was very interesting.

None of the characters really have any growth and at the end none of what happened mattered. The book, to sum it up, had me finish it to feel like "Did I really listen to all of that for that ending? Well.... I got screwed..."

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

30 Year Book

Reviewed: 08-14-23

I'll first state that the author clearly put years of work into this book. I can't imagine the dedication level to write a book like this and he has every reason to be proud of his accomplishment. The narrator as well did a very good job with very difficult words to pronounce for non native German speakers.

That said: I don't think I'm going to read this again. The thing I've noticed about British historians, is that they tend to give a bare bones account of battles. It's very possible that, in the case of the 30 Years War, there aren't enough sources to really flesh out the accounts.

It was a hard book to finish. I would've been better off with a documentary or shorter book. next, I'm going to read his book on the Battle of Lutzen next. It's shorter and might be a bit more my speed.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

2 people found this helpful

Yes it was...

Reviewed: 05-26-23

This is not a history. This is a fumbling attempt by an author to deny that the war was about slavery, incapable of a coherent argument. Occasionally outright lying; his writing chiefly relies on omissions, half truths and selective interpretation of historical data to support what he wishes the truth was. Hypocrisy leads to a double standard which benefits his obviously preferred Confederacy. A historian should be as objective as possible. He doesn't even pretend to try.

If you want a real history on the war, do NOT read this book. There are plenty of good, honest books on the Civil War by genuine historians from all over this great country. This book is written solely for people who refuse to accept that slavery was overwhelmingly the core cause of the war and for people unfamiliar with the war, which he hopes to rope into this lie. This style is how grifters like Mao or Lenin spread their garbage.

The narrator did fine.

Below is a list of some of the many reasons this book is awful. For those interested in why my review is so negative.


- He states that the Government did not try Jefferson Davis for treason, because they knew he was not a traitor. But Jefferson Davis could not have had a fair trial anywhere in the US. There were no impartial juries to be had in 1865. He likely would've been tried in Virginia and the Government wouldn't roll the dice on losing a case to a jury of his former soldiers, who in convicting him,  would be calling themselves "traitors" as well. A military tribunal wouldn't have been any more fair.

- He implies that the mainstream historians say the war was only for the abolition of slavery. No serious historian would ever say that. Slavery was, however, undeniably the main cause for secession and therefor the war.

- He quotes Shelby Foote who said "No soldier on either side gave a damn about the slaves." I like Shelby Foote, but this is a false statement. Even if every single one of the millions of white Americans on each side didn't "give a damn", and there are letters from soldiers on both sides which prove many did, the 180,000 blacks who fought for the north certainly would've.

- He constantly points out how racist the north was. No serious historian has every asserted that the north was not. In fact, most of what he cited to support is easily found in many other books. The main difference is,  while the north and south were both racist, only in the SOUTH could you buy, sell, torture and rape blacks under the protection of the law.

- Just because a union soldier was racist,  didn't mean he was not anti slavery. And just because most southern soldiers didn't own slaves, doesn't mean that they weren't pro-slavery. It also doesn't mean that they weren't willing to fight to keep their place in the southern caste system.

- He obviously dislikes abolitionists, using such words as "hysterical", "fanatical" or "terrorists". Can we not agree that working towards the end of slavery might be a worthy goal?


- In the same category, he frequently calls John Brown a "terrorist". By definition, Brown was. That's not the problem. The problem is referring to him multiple times as a "terrorist" and not to the pro slavery/pro confederate Lawrence raiders as such. The Harpers Ferry raid (John Brown) killed 10 people and wounded 18 more. The Lawrence Raid (CSA) killed over 160 civilians. Even the mob that sacked an abolitionist home "terrorists".

- Whatever one's opinion of John Brown is,  can we not accept that the slaves fighting for their freedom is natural and acceptable? He doesn't seem to be able to.

- Without any evidence, he said slavery would've ended within 30 years anyway. Why? Cotton farm land doubled between 1860 and 1890. It doubled again began 1890 and 1930. And multiple former Confederates called it "beneficial" to both black and white. If that was the case, with farm land expanding, and it being so "beneficial" why would they have ended it? That's easy- they had no intention of doing so.

- He makes a big deal over slavery existing in the north,  which nobody disputes, as if it is surprising. The difference between north and south- the north freed their slaves willingly on their own and the south fought a war to keep theirs.

- He cited that in 1750, Connecticut had 3 times more slaves than Georgia and Massachusetts had 4 times more. This is true. What he left out was that Georgia's free white population was about 4,000. CT had 108,000 and MA had over 180,000. Georgia had 1,000 slaves. CT had 3,000 and MA 4,000 slaves. Therefore,  Georgia's slave population was 25% of the population. Connecticut's was 3% and Massachusetts' was 2.1%. By 1790, Georgia had 29,000 slaves and close to half a million in 1860, 44% of their population.

- He mentioned that at the beginning of the Atlantic slave trade, that most slaves were brought to northern ports rather than Charleston, Savanah or New Orleans. Obviously. Why? Because when slaves were brought to the American colonies in the 1600's and early 1700's these cities were not on par with Boston or Philadelphia. Charleston was founded  in 1670 so missed the first 50 years of slavery in the colonies. Savanah was founded in 1733, so missed the first 80 years and New Orleans was founded in 1718. But of course they're not going to bring slaves to the American colonies/ Untied States through there, since it didn't become American until we bought it in 1803. Therefore, it only had 5 years to bring slaves in from outside the country before the transatlantic slave trade was outlawed in the USA. Any REAL HISTORIAN would know that.


- As though afflicted with an inferiority complex, he goes out of his way to point out that the inventor of the Gatling Gun was a southerner, while entirely omitting that he invented it for the Union.


- He believes that going from The Articles of Confederation to the US Constitution was "secession". Had it only have been half the country, he might have had a point. As it stands, he doesn't have a point. The goal was never to split the country or to leave it, but to form a new blueprint for one united country- not a new one, but the same one.


- When discussing the Wilmot Proviso, he speaks of how the exclusion of slavery from the lands ceded by Mexico would've created "anti southern" or "non southern" states. South is a direction and since Arizona and New Mexico are obviously in the southern half of the country, this makes no sense unless you understand what he really means- "anti slave" or "non slave" . In short - FREE STATES.  And if slavery wasn't a cause for the war, why would it have mattered to the south if these territories had no slaves anyway? He also says slavery couldn't have functioned in these states- again "why worry about expanding it into them?"

- He often refers to the "uneducated immigrants" which made up large parts of the US Army. He ignores such men in the Confederate Army, with the exception of Pat Cleburne. Pat Cleburne was a very good and brave soldier. What is left out of this book is that Pat Cleburne pushed for the enlistment of blacks into the CS Army, and was passed over for higher command (which he should have attained) after the suggestion.

- When the north took a course to preserve peace,  they were "afraid" and the south was "trying to avoid war".

- He has an obvious axe to grind with Lincoln which focus lies on the suspension of Habeas Corpus. This is a fair point. It is not fair to ignore that the Confederates suspended it multiple times in the war and instituted Martial Law in locations too.

- Speaks of the Union Draft without acknowledging that the Confederates instituted one first.


- He says the war was about money, ignoring the fact that slaves were the single greatest form of wealth in the country, being worth between $3.5 Billion and $4 Billion. To put that in context,  it was almost double the worth of all the railroads. All the western lands bought from Mexico at the end of the war cost $15 Million (albeit essentially a forced concession) and in 1867, all of Alaska cost $7.2 Million. Slaves were worth more than all of that land by well over 1,500 times. Yes, money started the war- when the south thought they would lose their slaves, the seceded.

- The Morrill Tariff is brought up as the main cause. The Morrill bill was brought to the Senate floor for a vote on February 20, 1861 and passed 25 to 14. By this time 7 southern states had seceded. So the south left the USA over a tariff that wasn't even law yet. Also- do the math- 7 states had seceded, 2 Senators in each state. If we add 14 to the 14 who voted against it, that's 28. The Bill would've not passed and there would have been no reason for secession. And why, if the tariff was the reason,  did none of the western states leave the union?

- He mentions the hypocrisy of West Virginia's secession from Virginia, which is a fair point and can't be argued with. However he leaves out that WV and other pro-union parts of the south: West Virginia,  eastern Tennessee, western Maryland etc all had a very low slave population. The more slaves an area had, the more avid the secessionist feelings.

- He highlights that the south was a more agrarian society than the north. True, but the factories in the north were mainly in the big cities. Outside of them, the north was agrarian. In fact, the north had almost 10 million more acres of improved/developed farmland than the south. Though the south had double it in unimproved/undeveloped acres- something they would've needed their slaves to work on obviously.

- And most importantly: The Declarations for the Causes of Secession. He briefly mentions them only to shoo them off as essentially unimportant. In those documents,  "slave", "slaves" or "slavery" is mentioned 83 times. "Tariff" is mentioned not once. Not a single time. His insistence on the tariff being the casus belli is clearly debunked by the Confederates themselves. Let's take them at their word.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

3 people found this helpful

Read, don't listen.

Reviewed: 11-01-22

The author did a pretty good job and went into good detail about the campaigns in the South. There wasn't too much new, but most authors all use the same sources so it's unfair to expect a lot of "new", but the author still found some. There were a few inaccurate points, but not too many. This is a good book worth the read.

The narrator read very well in most respects. The glaring exception was pronunciation. It's hard not to wince through a lot of this book. The narrator would've been wise to look into that more, but aside from that did a very good job. The pronunciation isn't only his fault as the production staff should also have looked into that. They dropped the ball.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

A Slow Fuse

Reviewed: 01-07-22

Sum of All Fears is a good book, but not a great one. Tom Clancy is very, VERY detailed, which is fine. I enjoy his books. But this one is one that I think is a bit too much. The HUGE swaths dedicated to nuclear bomb making are so dry my eyes glass over when listening to it. That's mainly because I'm slow with physics. But the book is a very slow read that goes into a very good ending. The ending was very well written and was as
intense as you can imagine.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

A bad Bond movie

Reviewed: 12-13-21

Just got far too goofy. it's still got the writing style and detail that's good, but for a series that's based on a sense of realism, it's ridiculous. It was more like a bad Bond movie than a good Jack Ryan book. He got hit in the chest by a motor boat and partially crucified, captured by the bad guys and involved in a high speed chase with an AFV in which he jumped off of it on to the car he's chasing. All while he's on an un-sanctioned mission. Yes- another one. That is getting very, very old in the spy genre as a whole and is well overdue to be retired for this series.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!