Things Fall Apart

Books read this week: A Clash of Kings 8/10 (George R R Martin), Wintersmith 7/10 (Terry Pratchett), Naval Battles of the First World War 7/10 (Geoffrey Bennett)

The second volume of George RR Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series can be summarised in three word: it gets worse. Pretty much ever character we care about ends the book worse off than they began, and it is all quite depressing - although also fairly predictable. I think I have something of a leg up on a lot of readers in that I am very fond of medieval history, and of the Wars of the Roses in particular, and there are a lot of similarities, both in general theme and in the actual events (although some marked differences as well; Henry Tudor did not, in fact, have dragons at his disposal). The principle problem confronted by the series so far is that of legitimacy; basically, once people stop believing that the king is who the king is and that is the way things have to be, either because the current king is very very crap (Richard II, Edward II, etc.) or because there are multiple bods claiming to be the One True King (!!!!!!) (Stephen/Matilda, Lancaster/York, James II/William III) it becomes very easy to make the mental leap that goes: I support X because X would be a better king than Y..... but I would be a better king than X or Y, so why aren't I king? And in the absence of a non-violent method of conflict resolution, we get A Clash of Kings; this is, of course, the problem that the concept of primogeniture is supposed to resolve. It was never that people thought the oldest male child would be the best king; it was just a way to avoid destructive (and lethal) arguments; witness the early Ottoman empire, where the lack of a firm policy on succession meant that there was a gigantic civil war every time the sultan died; or the later Ottoman empire, where the same lack of policy led to ever possible claimant to the throne being kept in a small box in the palace (which wasn't exactly beneficial to the mental health or overall wellbeing of the next sultan, but that's another story).

The book also does a very good job of showcasing just how destructive war, and particularly civil war in the middle ages was; there's no cleaned up, heroic combat here; lots of horse shit, rape and pillage. It's basically like the English medieval civil wars, if the peasant hadn't had longbows to discourage the nobility from being excessively unpleasant. (And also vikings, who are somewhat less convincing; if the vikings are close enough to the mainland that Ed Stark was able to cross the water and burn their towns, they're too close to their victims to be effective raiders).

I did enjoy a Clash of Kings, and I was pleased to see that my prediction that Tyrion Lannister would prove far more effective at dealing with the viper's nest that is politics at the royal court than Eddard Stark ever did was correct. I'm still expecting a Stark/Targaryan alliance at some point (following the Warwick/Lancaster pact of the later years of the Wars of the Roses). I would expect the blood letting to end with everyone with even a ghost of a claim to the throne dead, with one single exception (as British history has proved, this is pretty much the only way to end disputes of that kind); either a Robb/Danerys marriage or Jon Snow (as I'm fairly sure it's him Danerys saw in her vision, with his father saying "His will be a song of ice and fire", which is a pretty good indication that he's going to end up more important than he looks right now).

That said, I am fairly disappointed that the only viewpoint characters we get are nobles; even when we see the common people, it's through the eyes of a noble pretending to be one of the "smallfolk". It would be nice to have the perspective of someone outside the nobility. I'd also like it if there was more focus on the politics; I thoroughly enjoyed the political maneuvering that made up so much of Game of Thrones, and I would have liked more plotting and less fighting in this book.

I found Sansa Stark much less irritating in this book; in the first, her constant assumption that life was like a chivalric romance was both stupid and tiresome. In this volume I found her much more interesting, and becoming much smarter, partly because her trials make her much more sympathetic, and partly because she is starting to ask the right question: as she keeps observing, no "true knight" would do the horrible things she sees. The next question is why are there no "true knights"; and why are the knights not acting the way they should. I think this will probable be important in later books (and I'm certainly hoping that after all the hideous things that have happened to the characters, they are going to exact some payback soon). Ultimately it is a zero sum game; much like the Geneva Convention, really. Nations adopt the Geneva Conventions, and other agreements like it not out of the goodness of their own hearts, but as a silent quid pro quo; basically, you don't commit war crimes against us, and we don't commit war crimes against you. It is (as chemists would say) and equilibrium. However, that equilibrium can easily be disturbed, and end up at a new, more unpleasant equilibrium; you commit war crimes against us, and we'll commit them right back (case in point: the Wehrmacht in the Soviet Union). Anyway, I am looking forward to getting my teeth into the next volume.

My other two books this week were Wintersmith, the third in Pratchett's Tiffany Aching Discworld sub-series and Naval Battles of the First World War (which is exactly what it says on the tin). I did not enjoy Wintersmith as much as I did the Wee Free Men, but even a sub-par Pratchett is miles ahead of most other books, and it was very good. The book on naval history was an interesting insight into the way in which combat technology ran ahead on communications technology during the first quarter of the twentieth century; with wireless in its infancy, Admirals could fire at ships twenty miles away - if they could find them. Which was the difficult bit. It is also interesting to contrast the strict parsimony with which the British admirals protected both their ships and their men with the total profligacy towards human life shown by the generals. This can, I think, be put down to two major factors; i) Ships are expensive, and rare, and very difficult to replace, and have to be laid down four years before they are needed. Soldiers, of course, need to be laid down at least eighteen years before they are needed, but unfortunately generals don't tend to think like that and ii) unlike the generals of the First World War, the admirals were on the ships they sent into combat, and so had a deep personal interest in making sure they got home safe. This is not to say the book doesn't contain some stunning examples of incompetence and stupidity; most notably the defect in turret design which led to Admiral Beatty's famous comment to his flag captain; "There's something wrong with our bloody ships today, Chatfield." (as the third battlecruiser exploded with the loss of all hands). It is a generally good, solid account of the naval war between 1914 and 1918. As I said at the beginning; exactly what it says on the tin.