What do you think?
Rate this book
We Move Tonight: The Making of the Grenada Revolution
On March 13th 1979, West Indians were stunned as they awoke to the news of the first successful revolution in the English Speaking Caribbean. Four and a half years later the revolution succumbed to tragedy and US military invasion. This extraordinary book is the first to give the inside story of the thinking, the internal debates, concrete plans and actions of the Grenadian revolutionary leaders as they both responded to events unfolding in the 1970's and sought to shape them. The different and distinct personalities of the political and military leaders of the revolution come to life, as the author, from his personal knowledge as a young patriot himself, narrates the events of the period and the roles of the various leaders in them. Students of Grenadian and Caribbean history, politics and sociology will find this not only a fascinating and thoroughly enjoyable read, but an indispensable reference work. Anyone, moreover, who wishes to understand the seeds of both the remarkable achievements of the Grenada Revolution and of its implosion, will also need to study this book carefully. Written in a direct, simple, engaging and at times poetic style, the ordinary citizen of Grenada, the Caribbean region, and the West Indian Diaspora will find it impossible to put this book down once the first page is read.
220 pages, Paperback
First published January 13, 2014
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
April 6, 2026
Joseph Ewart Layne’s "We Move Tonight" is one of those books that, the more you read, the more you realize the author is not struggling to remember what happened, but struggling to say it plainly. There is useful material in here, no doubt. Firsthand accounts always carry value. Here, said value is constantly undermined by a persistent, almost stubborn unwillingness to confront October 1983 with the level of honesty it demands, which deliciously (sardonically speaking) casts an invalidating gaze over Layne's presented recollections and reflections. Ultimately, with this book, what you get is a carefully managed narrative, dressed up as reflection, but still anchored in the same ideological instincts that led to the collapse of the Grenadian revolutionary process in the first place.
What bothered me most was not simply bias. Bias is expected, especially from a man like Layne, whom other accounts/books credit with being the individual who gave the order to have Bishop and the others executed on October 19th. So it would have been the height of naivety, or at best expecting a kind of “Mandela-like” introspection, to have Layne write this book without any tenor of historical self-preservation/legacy-protecting bias. To that end, Layne writes like a man who wants to appear reflective, almost remorseful at times, yet cannot let go of the very framework that justified the actions of his side. You see it in the wording, in the emphasis, in what is said clearly and what is blurred out into abstraction. Decades might have passed, but the mindset, convictions, and “ideological groundings” that motivated his part in that “Greek tragedy,” as he called it—the events of October 19th—clear as the sky, never changed and were still present when he sat to write this book.
Take his description of Maurice Bishop. At one point, he refers to a challenge to Bishop’s “absolute leadership” of the party. That is not a neutral phrase. That is such a needlessly loaded characterization (especially to a reader keenly abreast with the rise and organizational workings of the NJM). Bishop was the leader and the face of the revolution, yes. But “absolute leadership”? That is just Layne, decades later, still trying to reframe Bishop as the problem that needed correcting. Impressively, and in defiance of both irony and historical “common sense,” this happens in the same book where Bernard Coard is repeatedly presented as the strategist, the intellectual engine, the man behind both the NJM party and government machinery. Yet somehow Bishop becomes this supposed “absolutist,” while the faction maneuvering for joint leadership is framed as principled. Not to mention, Layne spares no effort mentioning how integral Coard is to the daily vitality of the party. But apparently, somehow Bishop managed to be “an absolute leader”? That contradiction does not sit well, and Layne never really resolves it because he historically and morally cannot.
Then you get to that telling passage about October 19th. Here Layne writes that one side had the people with them and believed they were right because “the voice of the masses is the voice of God.” The other side, the Central Committee Majority, had “principle” and believed they were right because “principle is principle.” I leave you to guess which side was Bishop’s and which side the author belonged to. Layne tried to make this wording of the apparent “belligerents” sound balanced, but clearly it is not. Bishop’s side is subtly reduced to emotion, to crowd energy, to something almost irrational. His side, meanwhile, gets to stand on “principle.” That is not accidental. That is the old vanguard mindset—dare I say “Stalinist,” to borrow from Fidel Castro's actual categorization of the group—showing itself again. So inherent to Layne's methodology, people can rally, they can shout, they can believe, but legitimacy still sits with those who claim to understand the ideology better than everyone else. In other words, party always over people/masses, who are clearly just “sheep” needing to be herded by Layne and his faction.
And then comes the language that really irritated me. Things “catapulted out of hand.” He writes too quickly and comprehensively to start and conclude his entire engagement with what occurred on October 19th. That it was a “Greek tragedy.” That they, the NJM CC, were not “skilled in compromise.” This is where Layne is at his most evasive but also most vulnerable (unintended and unaware to him). Everything becomes atmosphere. Everything becomes tragic inevitability. Yet real decisions were made. Real orders were given. Real people died. You cannot wrap that in the language of tragedy and expect us, the readers, to just move on. Such incredulous nonsense (with all due respect).
Now, let’s talk about the part in the book that really sealed it for me. So per the mainstream actual history, those tragic executions of Bishop and co. happened on October 19th. The fateful US invasion did not happen until about a week later. That is nearly a full week where the same leadership and their soldiers had control of the island, control of the situation, and crucially, knowledge of what happened to Bishop and the others. No Americans involved yet. No confusion caused by invasion. Just them, Layne and his “principles over people” comrades of the NJM CC. During that time, what did we get? No transparency. No clear accounting. Just silence, control (shoot-on-sight order), and military presence. Then decades later, Layne writes on a page that the inability to recover Bishop’s remains is likely something whose answer lies in Washington, not with him or his colleagues. That is where I had to pause and question if, just like Coard in his book (The Grenada Revolution: What Really Happened), my intelligence had just been needlessly insulted. Because now we are not even dealing with ambiguity anymore. We are dealing with a narrative that does not line up with the timeline of actual history itself.
You cannot have full control for days, choose secrecy in that moment, and then later suggest that the real answer is somewhere else entirely. That does not hold. It is not convincing. And for a reader who has even a basic grasp of the sequence of historical events, it comes off as an attempt to shift the weight of the question away from where it actually belongs.
What also stood out to me was the difference in tone when Layne talks about the U.S. invasion versus when he talks about the October 19th killings. When he speaks on the invasion, he is quite emotional, clear, direct, almost forceful. To him, it was illegal. It was unnecessary. It caused trauma. All of that is laid out plainly. But when it comes to October 19th, everything becomes vague, softened, generalized, and a “Greek tragedy,” so detached he is emotionally from the human weight of the deaths and killings. That imbalance is not small. It tells you where his real clarity lies and where it does not. It’s literally incredible.
At the end of the day, Layne wants to be seen as someone who has reflected on a tragedy. But reflection without clarity is obviously insufficient. You cannot speak in broad terms about failure and compromise while avoiding the specific moment where everything broke. You cannot elevate “principle” while downplaying the will of the very people the revolution claimed to represent. Such a revolutionary he was, no less one who mirrored the esteemed Che Guevara. How priceless.
There is a useful book here if you are interested in the inner workings of the movement, most especially very keen details on the preparation and eventual execution of the March 13th overthrow of Gairy. If Layne had just decided to end the book right there and then, this would have been an easy five-star book, and one without unnecessary historical and emotional baggage. But as an account of October 1983, this is not a book that resolves anything. If anything, it reinforces why so many people like myself remain very skeptical of the narratives put forward by those who were closest to power at the time (Coard in his various self-serving books, Layne’s here, and also Calistus Bernard’s too).
Read it if you must, but certainly read it carefully. And more importantly, read it alongside other accounts (Godfrey Smith’s, Steve Clark’s). Because on its own, this is less a full reckoning and more a controlled version of one.
What bothered me most was not simply bias. Bias is expected, especially from a man like Layne, whom other accounts/books credit with being the individual who gave the order to have Bishop and the others executed on October 19th. So it would have been the height of naivety, or at best expecting a kind of “Mandela-like” introspection, to have Layne write this book without any tenor of historical self-preservation/legacy-protecting bias. To that end, Layne writes like a man who wants to appear reflective, almost remorseful at times, yet cannot let go of the very framework that justified the actions of his side. You see it in the wording, in the emphasis, in what is said clearly and what is blurred out into abstraction. Decades might have passed, but the mindset, convictions, and “ideological groundings” that motivated his part in that “Greek tragedy,” as he called it—the events of October 19th—clear as the sky, never changed and were still present when he sat to write this book.
Take his description of Maurice Bishop. At one point, he refers to a challenge to Bishop’s “absolute leadership” of the party. That is not a neutral phrase. That is such a needlessly loaded characterization (especially to a reader keenly abreast with the rise and organizational workings of the NJM). Bishop was the leader and the face of the revolution, yes. But “absolute leadership”? That is just Layne, decades later, still trying to reframe Bishop as the problem that needed correcting. Impressively, and in defiance of both irony and historical “common sense,” this happens in the same book where Bernard Coard is repeatedly presented as the strategist, the intellectual engine, the man behind both the NJM party and government machinery. Yet somehow Bishop becomes this supposed “absolutist,” while the faction maneuvering for joint leadership is framed as principled. Not to mention, Layne spares no effort mentioning how integral Coard is to the daily vitality of the party. But apparently, somehow Bishop managed to be “an absolute leader”? That contradiction does not sit well, and Layne never really resolves it because he historically and morally cannot.
Then you get to that telling passage about October 19th. Here Layne writes that one side had the people with them and believed they were right because “the voice of the masses is the voice of God.” The other side, the Central Committee Majority, had “principle” and believed they were right because “principle is principle.” I leave you to guess which side was Bishop’s and which side the author belonged to. Layne tried to make this wording of the apparent “belligerents” sound balanced, but clearly it is not. Bishop’s side is subtly reduced to emotion, to crowd energy, to something almost irrational. His side, meanwhile, gets to stand on “principle.” That is not accidental. That is the old vanguard mindset—dare I say “Stalinist,” to borrow from Fidel Castro's actual categorization of the group—showing itself again. So inherent to Layne's methodology, people can rally, they can shout, they can believe, but legitimacy still sits with those who claim to understand the ideology better than everyone else. In other words, party always over people/masses, who are clearly just “sheep” needing to be herded by Layne and his faction.
And then comes the language that really irritated me. Things “catapulted out of hand.” He writes too quickly and comprehensively to start and conclude his entire engagement with what occurred on October 19th. That it was a “Greek tragedy.” That they, the NJM CC, were not “skilled in compromise.” This is where Layne is at his most evasive but also most vulnerable (unintended and unaware to him). Everything becomes atmosphere. Everything becomes tragic inevitability. Yet real decisions were made. Real orders were given. Real people died. You cannot wrap that in the language of tragedy and expect us, the readers, to just move on. Such incredulous nonsense (with all due respect).
Now, let’s talk about the part in the book that really sealed it for me. So per the mainstream actual history, those tragic executions of Bishop and co. happened on October 19th. The fateful US invasion did not happen until about a week later. That is nearly a full week where the same leadership and their soldiers had control of the island, control of the situation, and crucially, knowledge of what happened to Bishop and the others. No Americans involved yet. No confusion caused by invasion. Just them, Layne and his “principles over people” comrades of the NJM CC. During that time, what did we get? No transparency. No clear accounting. Just silence, control (shoot-on-sight order), and military presence. Then decades later, Layne writes on a page that the inability to recover Bishop’s remains is likely something whose answer lies in Washington, not with him or his colleagues. That is where I had to pause and question if, just like Coard in his book (The Grenada Revolution: What Really Happened), my intelligence had just been needlessly insulted. Because now we are not even dealing with ambiguity anymore. We are dealing with a narrative that does not line up with the timeline of actual history itself.
You cannot have full control for days, choose secrecy in that moment, and then later suggest that the real answer is somewhere else entirely. That does not hold. It is not convincing. And for a reader who has even a basic grasp of the sequence of historical events, it comes off as an attempt to shift the weight of the question away from where it actually belongs.
What also stood out to me was the difference in tone when Layne talks about the U.S. invasion versus when he talks about the October 19th killings. When he speaks on the invasion, he is quite emotional, clear, direct, almost forceful. To him, it was illegal. It was unnecessary. It caused trauma. All of that is laid out plainly. But when it comes to October 19th, everything becomes vague, softened, generalized, and a “Greek tragedy,” so detached he is emotionally from the human weight of the deaths and killings. That imbalance is not small. It tells you where his real clarity lies and where it does not. It’s literally incredible.
At the end of the day, Layne wants to be seen as someone who has reflected on a tragedy. But reflection without clarity is obviously insufficient. You cannot speak in broad terms about failure and compromise while avoiding the specific moment where everything broke. You cannot elevate “principle” while downplaying the will of the very people the revolution claimed to represent. Such a revolutionary he was, no less one who mirrored the esteemed Che Guevara. How priceless.
There is a useful book here if you are interested in the inner workings of the movement, most especially very keen details on the preparation and eventual execution of the March 13th overthrow of Gairy. If Layne had just decided to end the book right there and then, this would have been an easy five-star book, and one without unnecessary historical and emotional baggage. But as an account of October 1983, this is not a book that resolves anything. If anything, it reinforces why so many people like myself remain very skeptical of the narratives put forward by those who were closest to power at the time (Coard in his various self-serving books, Layne’s here, and also Calistus Bernard’s too).
Read it if you must, but certainly read it carefully. And more importantly, read it alongside other accounts (Godfrey Smith’s, Steve Clark’s). Because on its own, this is less a full reckoning and more a controlled version of one.
February 12, 2019
A compelling first peraon account. What’s lacking is some detail of the rift that tore the new government apart, his role in that, and a more forthright assessment of outside influences like Cuba. He speaks of leaving Grenada for military training but never says exactly where. Still concerned about legal implications? We also learn little of the tensions in his own household where his father was a senior police officer.
Insights of his time in jail with other jailed coup leaders? Some big gaps but what he does cover is important.
Insights of his time in jail with other jailed coup leaders? Some big gaps but what he does cover is important.
April 29, 2020
Book club with Jessica- I became interested in learning about the revolution in Grenada after listening to an essay by Audre Lorde last spring. It was surprisingly hard to find a book that was in print and accessible to a non-scholar. This one combined a reasonable amount of historical context with a firsthand account. I was particularly moved by the Afterword, in which Layne reflects upon armed struggle and the revolution’s legacy.
May 10, 2015
While it has raised and left many unanswered questions in my mind, this is a thoroughly engaging and informative account of the Grenada Revolution of '79 and the socio-economic climate that would've given rise to said revolution.
I am satisfied that this is a largely honest and balanced account of what took place. Layne's reflection on all that happened and what he and the New Jewel Movement could've done differently is very instructive to those of us in the Caribbean who are disillusioned with largely failing governments.
I am satisfied that this is a largely honest and balanced account of what took place. Layne's reflection on all that happened and what he and the New Jewel Movement could've done differently is very instructive to those of us in the Caribbean who are disillusioned with largely failing governments.
September 29, 2014
This book should be a requirement for every student of Caribbean history. It is interesting and engaging; although in need of further editing. It is a great, first-hand account of the socio-economic landscape of Grenada just before and during the leadership of Eric Gairy right up to the revolution of 1979. As much as it answered some questions, it also raised my curiosity and leaves many questions unanswered. Overall, I highly recommend this book.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews