Guns of the Dawn by Adrian Tchaikovsky

[[deleted user]]

Carro wrote: "The Romans managed to fortify a camp every night while on the march. Not massively fortify, but at least a ditch and palisade. ..."

Circle the wagons.

[[deleted user]]

Silvana wrote: "It seemed that the propaganda worked for Emily and that she viewed them as evil/uncivilized/unworthy/beneath her people...."

Standard military indoctrination. You don't want your troops thinking of the enemy as jolly good fellows who have families & jobs back home. You want them to see the enemy as evil incarnate who must be killed on sight. For the same reason, they are given derogatory nicknames to dehumanize them and make them easier to kill. Nuance is not a survival trait in a firefight.

[Andrea]

I could understand not staying after the Big Push (actually I'm not entirely remembering that end of that sequence and the fact they succeeded then pulled back) but remember that if you then set up shop on the far side of the swamp your supply chain is then under a great burden to get to you. I mean how to carry all the equipment, tents, food, etc that you would need if you can't use any wagons or horses through the muck? I think it would be quite hard to defend that, hence why I thought it was silly Lasanne didn't just hunker down on their side and let the Denlanders have the swamp already but prevent them from going further. And that's where I suggested that logic went out the window when there are ulterior politic motives in play.

(view spoiler)[When the Denlanders had their own "Big Push" near the end and came out the other side, that was only when they were nearly or had already defeated Couchant, so they knew they wouldn't have to stay there very long, so the supply problem was a non-issue, just needed to hold the Lascanne troops in place till their own army could loop around from the back (hide spoiler)]

[Donald]

G33z3r wrote: "Since I've now gotten through more of the book, they do explain at the end that the Lascanne camp in the Levant is a "choke point" that prevents the Denlanders from spreading out into Lascanne. Tchaikovsky doesn't explain how it's a chokepoint, though presumably something to do with the terrain?"

There's a couple of implications/passing mentions:
1) there's mention of cliffs of the Couchant on one side.
2) there's mention of hearing sea battles on the other.

The combination of the two left me with the mental image of the swamp as a river delta-type area with cliffs on one side and the sea on the other, tactically significant as the high plains battlefield of the Couchant could be flanked.

Later in the book though there's no real mention as to why the camp specifically was a better chokepoint.

[Donald]

Overall I was pretty disappointed. I've tried reading Pride & Prejudice in the past and never succeeded, and a decent chunk of this doubled down on that. Painful.

The warfare side of things was more interesting but it left me skeptical that a 25 year old lady of leisure would be making all these military achievements.

I only gave it three stars as a result, and I'm pretty generous with my star ratings generally.

[Matt]

G33z3r wrote: "Standard military indoctrination. You don't want your troops thinking of the enemy as jolly good fellows who have families & jobs back home.."

Its always interesting when a character meets their sworn enemy, only to find out they are actually not much different than them. It can be a bit corny, but I think this book handles the transition of realisation quite well.

[Carro]

Donald wrote: "Overall I was pretty disappointed. I've tried reading Pride & Prejudice in the past and never succeeded, and a decent chunk of this doubled down on that. Painful.


I've read Pride and Prejudice quite a few times, watched all the adaptations - and I gave up on "Guns" before the ball. :) A difference in tone between the two made the latter not to my taste.

[Matt]

Andrea wrote: "I could understand not staying after the Big Push (actually I'm not entirely remembering that end of that sequence and the fact they succeeded then pulled back) but remember that if you then set up..."

All this interesting speculation got me thinking. I can't imagine a worse point of attack than a swamp, especially, as you've pointed out, from a supply point of view. My thought is, if either one side or the other was really intent on using the Levant to attack their respective enemy's lands, wouldn't they attempt to build some sort of road, or wooden causeway, in order for them to carry their supplies across? Maybe even cannon as well. This is a fairly high technology civilisation after all, and they've been there for long enough.
Of course, it could well be that neither side is confident enough to do such a thing. I mean, you don't want to go building an easy route across such a good natural barrier for your enemy to use. But it that's the case, and if they were being purely defensive, it adds fuel to the question of why more physical defenses were not built.

[Carro]

@ Matt - wish there were likes. That is a sensible comment. :)

[Andrea]

I was thinking about the comment someone made about not finding Emily's role in the battle realistic, and at first I agreed, but on second thought, I disagree for several reasons.

1 - We know Emily is a pragmatic person who can logically think through problems and take charge. She's already had some experience being pushed into a male role by having to run the estate after her father's death. She's educated, can do the accounts, etc. She's not like her sister who's only focus in life is dresses, balls, and finding the right husband.

2 - She doesn't have a military background. All the mess ups from the existing commanders is because they were unable to think outside the box and always fell back on doing things by the book, which didn't work in the swamp, nor with the forward thinking Denlanders who do think out of the box, because they themselves were not military men either.

3 - She was an officer. Basically she could walk in a straight line and point a gun in the right direction, plus she was a noblewoman so she got the job from the start. Now this doesn't give her a genetic disposition to being an expert strategist, however, it does mean people have to listen to her. How many infantrymen may have had stellar ideas on new tactics but had no power to implement them? What Captain would listen to a lowly grunt soldier who from his POV is merely canon fodder? So Emily could do some of the things she did, simply because she had the power to do them.

4 - She was surrounded by a group of trusted friends with different backgrounds. She listened to them, and they listened to her, which was clearly not the case when the actual command got together to plan things, in fact the other officers clearly didn't like working with each other at all, there was even the one that kept failing to hold up his side of the plan.

5 - And this sounds silly but think about it. Why would we want to read a story where Emily, our protagonist, does nothing out of the ordinary? You have historical books on Napolean, but not some "Jean-Pierre" in the infantry who just did what he was told. Assume the events in this story were true and this is the historical record of it. Of course we focus on Emily because she achieved the interesting things, we don't focus on the mouse of a girl who was her second (again, can't recall her name...see?) because in general she didn't do anything. If that mouse of a girl was the narrator, we'd probably find her telling Emily's story anyway.


And finally, why is no one complaining that its unrealistic that Emily's brother in law, a simple printer, became the top commander of the Levant front? Is it because he's a guy? He's had no more military experience than Emily.


So while I roll my eyes at the "special flower" syndrome in much YA literature, where girl wakes up one day and it told she's the saviour and will one day save the world (and then usually spends the rest of the book whining about how she's not good enough), this is different. Emily is told no such thing, she just did what she felt had to be done, and frankly, in the end, she lost the war and so technically she wasn't all that amazing after all ;) She just had the good sense to surrender.

[Brendan]

I didn't find it believable that a noblewoman of Emily's background would have no prejudices against the common folk. She was enlightened and had the "correct" "modern" opinions to an unreasonable extent. It made her likable, but didn't feel real.

[Andrea]

Brendan wrote: "I didn't find it believable that a noblewoman of Emily's background would have no prejudices against the common folk. She was enlightened and had the "correct" "modern" opinions to an unreasonable ..."

I can see that, though keep in mind she wasn't exactly royalty, she was in awe of the king/warlocks as a farmer would be of her. She wasn't exactly high in the noble ranks, she was probably as close to being a commoner as was possible, with merchants/bureaucrats like Northway having more power than her. Also she had to accept a commoner as family, her brother-in-law, and through that may have gotten some appreciation of those of common blood? I think her sister might complain if Emily treated her husband like scum.

In fact by the end, after dealing with the noble commanders, the king, and her own father, versus Northway, her brother-in-law, and most of the rank soldiers, I'm sure by the end her opinions would have changed regardless how she started out.

[Hillary]

Regarding the end & Emily's choices:

(view spoiler)[Silvana wrote: Matt wrote: "It wasn't a difficult moral choice for her, so it was no surprise at all when she shot the king."

I agree. It was not surprising at all. ...

Well, it might have surprised me if I hadn't seen how few pages were left in the book! But I definitely agree that both making the resistance both full of criminals and enabling her to save Scavian by killing the King lessened the significance of Emily's choice. Would she have made the choice that benefitted the commonweal if it had guaranteed Scavian's death?

Also, the device of the letter chapter openings rather weighted the romantic odds in Northway's favor -- would a writer pick an organizational device that featured the also-ran love interest so prominently? (hide spoiler)]

[Donald]

Andrea wrote: "And finally, why is no one complaining that its unrealistic that Emily's brother in law, a simple printer, became the top commander of the Levant front? Is it because he's a guy? He's had no more military experience than Emily."

Because he's not the main POV character? Although he also had at least two years (IIRC? I can't remember the timeline off the top of my head) experience at the front by the time we got to the events in the book, had bought a commission, and basically everyone else above him got killed. He also lost a leg in the process.

Emily OTOH basically keeps falling upwards as soon as she walks into the area. I don't really have an issue with the promotion system as it seems largely plausible (falls into Ensign because of her name, and then everyone gets killed + her brother-in-law is a senior officer).

However once in the field she is basically invulnerable - the people immediately next to her die/get shot eight (?) times while she's really not touched. She "accidentally" successfully surprises/ambushes squads three (?) times. She gets captured once and the only thing that results from it is a very useful insight into the opposition psyche. About her only negative is that she gets lost quite a bit.

I know it's basically plot armour and a lot can be written off as "well you wouldn't read a book where the main character just randomly died in the second battle" but I think it was all the near misses and the focus on them that raised my eyebrows compared to a normal fantasy novel where the protagonist just waltzes through these battles unscathed.

[[deleted user]]

Hillary wrote: "Well, it might have surprised me if I hadn't seen how few pages were left in the book! ..."

Yes! I have to agree when the read counter hit 98% and I'd been told it was a stand-alone novel, I figured there was only one way to end things that quickly.

[[deleted user]]

Donald wrote: ""well you wouldn't read a book where the main character just randomly died in the second battle"..."

Thinking of a Seanan McGuire novel now...

[[deleted user]]

Hillary wrote: "(view spoiler)[But I definitely agree that both making the resistance both full of criminals and enabling her to save Scavian by killing the King lessened the significance of Emily's choice. Would she have made the choice that benefitted the commonweal if it had guaranteed Scavian's death?... (hide spoiler)]..."

(view spoiler)[However, Emily/narrator reveals that she didn't realize killing the King would de-power Scanlian.

‘The King is dead.’ Northway mimed waving a tiny flag. ‘Long live those Warlocks who no longer bear his mark upon them. That was why you shot the royal person surely? To save your man there?’

The mark . . . But of course, just as the Denlander magicians had been stripped of their powers when their king died, so too would Scavian and his fellows be waking up now, no more than normal men, no more or less a danger to Denland rule than any other man.

It is interesting to wonder how much harder the decision would be if the revolt had men of better character, though. (hide spoiler)]

[Andrea]

Donald wrote: "However once in the field she is basically invulnerable "

As you pointed out her brother-in-law was there for 2 years + longer than her, and was unscathed until he lost his leg at the very end. Give her two years and maybe you'd get satisfaction of her being shot too?

Everyone alive at the end somehow magically survived not being killed. Given the type of warfare it's pretty much 90% luck no matter how good a solider you were (line everyone up and then fire somewhere in the vicinity of the mass of people). I agree the getting captured part was unique to Emily (I guess other prisoners weren't on such good terms with Mallen that he'd go rescue them? So yes, plot device there), but I think that if one could take the time to write the story of every other soldier that survived it'd be full of near misses, otherwise Emily would be the only one left standing. In all those encounters she escapes, she's never alone, others with her also get back to base even if not everyone with her does.

[Matt]

Carro wrote: "@ Matt - wish there were likes. That is a sensible comment. :)"

Thank you.

[Matt]

G33z3r wrote: "It is interesting to wonder how much harder the decision would be if the revolt had men of better character, though."

I was thinking pretty much the same thing, though there aren't many people of 'better character' left who would support the king. Not people whose opinions could sway Emily, at least. She would listen to Brocky or Tubal, but neither of them are nobility, nor are they ardent royalists. The only other person I can think of is Scavian. He would certainly have supported the king, and his presence would have made Emily's decision a lot harder, especially if she believed that killing Northway would condemn him to certain death.
Still, it might have stretched the bounds of plausibility to have had him there.

[Matt]

Donald wrote: "However once in the field she is basically invulnerable - the people immediately next to her die/get shot eight (?) times while she's really not touched. She "accidentally" successfully surprises/ambushes squads three (?) times. She gets captured once and the only thing that results from it is a very useful insight into the opposition psyche. About her only negative is that she gets lost quite a bit.."

I think the standard division of attributes for any hero is -

20% Talent
15% Knowledge
65% Blind Luck

;)

[Silvana]

.....That and also knew/close to the right people. Emily was lucky she was so well connected and had that drinking club going on with probably the most capable people in the company.

This is a small nitpick from me, but does anyone get annoyed (view spoiler)[of the attempted rapes? Once is maybe understandable but two? (hide spoiler)]

[Andrea]

Silvana wrote: "This is a small nitpick from me, but does anyone get annoyed "

(view spoiler)[First one made perfect sense, the standard jerk who can take advantage of woman, with the bonus of her being a noblewoman (and superior?)

The second one, with a warlock desperate to produce children with the only woman there who remotely met his bloodline criteria was just an excuse to start a glorious wizard duel with Scavian. The situation had almost resolved itself even, but Scavian just had to fight. I believe warlock duels were mentioned earlier on in the book so maybe Tchaikovsky felt the need to provide one :) (hide spoiler)]

[Brendan]

Ha, that scene right before the wizard duel was so from out of nowhere and dumb.

[Carro]

Matt wrote: I think the standard division of attributes for any hero is -

20% Talent
15% Knowledge
65% Blind Luck"

One of the reasons I like Captain's Fury by Jim Butcher so much, is the much higher level of talent (and cunning) that the hero shows. It must have taken an awful lot of work to set up the complex problems and solutions. There is definitely luck, but there is also quite a bit of "chance favours the prepared mind".

[[deleted user]]

Among the missing world building elements that left me unsatisfied in this novel is the whole deal of Royal Blood providing the basis for creating Warlocks. How exactly does this inheritance work? Let's presume that it somehow tied to the Y chromosome, so Queens need not apply (is that why the King doesn't make Witches as well as Warlocks? Because it doesn't work on women?)

King Luthrian doesn't appear to have had any heirs (which is a great failure of duty on his part; wars of succession are an ugly thing.) If King Dietrich had any heirs, I guess they were assassinated as well? But ordinarily, how would this Royal Blood thing work? Would a prince be able to create his own Warlocks? If there's more than one prince, do they both have the power? Is it some sort of magical thing that just kind of passes to the right heir because the magic knows? Otherwise, would there be a bunch of brothers, uncles, nephews, etc. running around the kingdom with the same Royal Blood as the King?

Incidentally, (view spoiler)[ I guess when Emily killed King Luthrian, she erased the last bit of magic from the world? (hide spoiler)]

[Andrea]

And I was thinking that not every King, nor Queen for that matter, is always entirely faithful to their spouses, would the King's bastards have the power too? Would the Queen's, who she might try to pass off as the King's offspring, not have the power?

I wonder how many kingdoms there were? After all Lascanne and Denland went to war together against a third party, does the magic king thing work everywhere?

[Donald]

I had been assuming there was some "magic" that meant only the crowned monarch was the person able to give the Warlock touch, largely because of the reasons you guys described. But as far as I recall it wasn't addressed anywhere.

[Silvana]

I think it is just a part of worldbuilding that the author did not feel important to elaborate in a stand-alone novel.