"Politics is always the foe of true warriors," says the Walrus to the Carpenter.
This is Trent. He is a Smoke Jaguar. He fought at Tukayyid. The Smoke Jaguars lost Tukayyid. All the Smoke Jaguars blame Trent, largely because one of his bosses has it out for him, (who seems to escape the blame, despite being functionally in the same circumstances as he is). Trent spends the rest of the book being kicked around from Jaguar to Jaguar, until an opportunity arises to redeem himself through exquisite damnation.
Reading this book felt like watching someone climb a greased pole, where the quality starts low, slowly rises, then falls, only to start creeping up again. It is the best Pardoe book so far, but it reflects the same problems. The core idea of a loyalist in tension of his beliefs is very Battletech. The writing is fine. The mech combat is average, at least one good battle, but mostly it feels rushed.
But there is no tension. The dramatic conflict never feels all that dramatic. The stakes never feel reflective of how high the stakes are.
The book wants to draw a distinction between True Warriors, who represent the noble Clan ethos, and everyone else who fails to live up to that. It does a good job of establishing sympathy for its protagonist, who never can catch a break. It does a less good job of the romance plot, which effectively gets eaten by this philosophical take, resulting in a love story as skeevy as the love-is-torture from Mercenary's Star. The weird thing is how those two mesh up.
I often reflect on how close these books are to romance books, and here is no exception. The setup between the protagonist and the love interest has it all the tropes. But the resolution to it does not resolve any of those tropes so much as burn them away. I can write off the violence as kink (or could, if the text was less prudish). But the answer to the romantic plot is the same as the answer to the main plot, which is that the warrior ethos is superior. Honor is fuckability, which is strange because up to this point the Clan ethos has been the fuckability is fuckability.
Where this is annoying is where it is incoherent. The ethos that the protagonist exhibits feels largely self-serving. At points it feels a bit dril tweet, someone shouting "FIGHT ME" whenever your opponent refuses to accept your terms of battle, which Sun Tzu might have some things to say about. Others, it feels like it presents fighting as more important than politics, which Clausewitz might have some things to say about.
Where this gets bad in terms of storytelling is that it feels like the protagonist is always right and everyone else is always wrong. Whatever the protagonist decides as necessary to abide by the Warrior Ethos is the correct choice and the actions of the others are wrong...which all the previous (good) books about the Clans might have something to say about. The protagonists there are constantly using the Clan rules of warfare as an additional tool in their arsenal alongside the actual warring and fighting. In this book, that is the malignancy the protagonist is fighting against.
I mean, the initial quote is said in the book by Anastasius Focht. The whole point of Focht as a character is someone who lost so badly that it put him on the path to understanding how to beat the Clans on their own terms. I am forced to the headcannon that Foct is playing into the protagonist's beliefs, as I think that that Foct would not just have lost at Tukayyid, but never have fought Tukayyid in the first place.
I keep the author's politics to the fringes due to the lack of relevance, but here it feels eerie. This is the current Secretary of War's philosophy in fictional form. Expect the defeats that the U.S. then suffers from rejecting the Periclean ethos to be sold in the terms of this book: we lost because we were better fighters. They only knew how to win a war. If they did it right, which happens to be the literally idiotic way that we alone do things, we coulda won. In context it is sad. Out of context, it is okay, but not up to the standard of some of the other writers.
And yet, I am still relatively favorable on the book. The framework is there and better realized than in the author's other books. It ends strong, which is important for the overall sense of a good read. But again, I am left with the feeling of how much better it could have been if done with more care.