• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Book Review: The Romanov Rescue

ChrisNuttall

Well-known member
The Romanov Rescue

by Tom Kratman, Justin Watson, Kacey Ezell

“I can [speak to your father that way, Anastasia],” Chekov said, quietly maintaining eye contact with Nicholas. “I can because he isn’t the emperor anymore, and he isn’t the emperor anymore because he refused to hear the things he didn’t want to hear.”

(Fair Warning: Spoilers.)

The First World War, and the collapse of the Russian Empire and the civil war that ended in a communist victory, is not a very common stamping ground for published alternate history, although there are quite a few essays and timelines wondering what might have happened if the war had been avoided or if the Tsar and/or the Russian Whites had come out on top. I suspect that owes much to a sense of historical inevitability surrounding both events – 1914s Europe was a tinderbox, waiting for someone to light a match, while 1917s Russia had reached and passed the breaking point quite some time ago. The Provisional Government that took over, in the first heady days after the Tsar abdicated, was unable to either satisfy its British and French allies nor tend to the legitimate demands of the Russian population, leaving a gap for Lenin and the Bolsheviks to take power themselves. The Bolsheviks took the calculated risk of conceding defeat in the war, making huge concessions to the Germans so Russia could step out of the fighting and concentrate on internal affairs. This might have seemed insane in London and Paris, and would have been if the Germans hadn’t lost the war, but it paid off. The Bolsheviks secured their power, executed the Tsar and his close family, won the civil war and unleashed a regime every bit as awful as their enemies claimed.

A second reason for the shortage of novels set in this period is a certain awareness that just about everyone involved was bad, from the imperialists of Imperial Germany to the weak and foolish Tsar, the opportunists who surrounded him, the various social classes who finally wanted to get theirs and, of course, the Bolsheviks themselves. It is hard not to look at the era and think there are few good guys, certainly in any position of power. Nazi apologists who argue Versailles was an unwarrantedly harsh treaty should take a good look at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which was even more harsh to the losing side. The only true innocents in the affair were the Tsar’s children, who were murdered with the adults of their family, and even they had their flaws. But they did not deserve their fate.

But what if they’d been rescued before they could be murdered?

the-romanov-rescue-9781982125707_lg.jpg

The Romanov Rescue starts with the premise of the Germans, under pressure from the near-powerless Kaiser (who was actually a relative of the Tsar, as was true of most European royalty of the time), mounting a bid to rescue the Tsar and his family from the Bolsheviks before their time runs out. Realising that an openly German rescue force would be unlikely to work (and it would be easy to brand the Tsar a German puppet), the Germans hunt through POW camps and recruit a force of Russian loyalists who can be relied upon, with a little help from the Germans, to liberate the Tsar and take him to safety.

The book effectively splits into three separate storylines before closing up again near the end of the story. The first section focused on the recruitment and training of the infantry, something that plays very well to Kratman’s strengths as an author. The second follows a team of infiltrators sneaking into Russia to locate where the Tsar is being held, allowing them to call the infantry force down on them. The third follows the Tsar and his family themselves, seen through the eyes of Grand Duchess Anastasia (who is popularly thought to have survived the slaughter in OTL). Kratman does a very good job of keeping the three separate and interesting; the first focused on solving technical challenges, the second explores 1917/8 Russia as the country slips into chaos, the third studies how the captives adapt themselves to their situation, and how some of their guards become sympathetic to them while others remain implacable foes.

The storylines then converge again, with the Tsar located … just in time. The Bolsheviks have finally decided to kill the Tsar and his family and have dispatched a force to carry it out. The rescue party lands – I don’t know how plausible it is for the Germans to send a troop-carrying airship so far into Russia, but it is pretty cool as well as AH-themed – attacks the Bolsheviks and tries to rescue the Tsar, with mixed results. The Tsar and his son, the haemophilic, are both killed in the attack, with the crown descending on the senior survivor – Grand Duchess Tatiana. At that point, the story ends … leaving plenty of room for a sequel.

The book works as well as it does, partly, because it doesn’t gloss over issues that need to be mentioned. The Germans are not rescuing the Tsar out of the goodness of their hearts and that’s fairly clear, even from the start. The Bolsheviks may be monsters who will get more monstrous as history rolls on, but the Russian aristocracy brought most of their troubles on themselves. This is pointed out fairly bluntly by one of the ‘friendlier’ guards, who argues that Russian mistreatment of the Jews explains why so many Jews joined the Bolsheviks:

“Come now,” Nicholas said, taking Chekov’s queen with his own. “You mustn’t think I hate all Jews, there are many who contribute to Russia, but clearly there are a larger proportion of malcontents amongst them than in the Christian, or Mohammedan populations. Surely, you’ve noticed the raw number of Jews among the Bolsheviks!”

“I think perhaps you’re confusing cause and effect, Citizen Romanov,” Chekov said as he removed Nicholas’s queen from the board with his own rook. “For generations Jews have been brutalized and murdered and you and your ancestors have done little but scapegoat them, eat away at their rights and reduce the sentences of the bastards who prey upon them, then you have the audacity to wonder why revolution might appeal to some of them.”


This problem is also noted by a communist subversive, a former Russian POW who finds himself attached to the rescue force and enduring sermons on religion (which Marx called the opiate of the masses):

“And as long as we’re on the subject, could there be any better proof that this Christ was a charlatan than that he forgave a tax collector? I don’t bloody think so …”

These are issues that will hopefully be explored in future books, as they plagued the Russia of OTL and will need to be solved by the new Tsarina (assuming she survives the inevitable civil war.) Indeed, it is difficult to see why anyone would support Nicolas making a bid to retake the throne and his death at the end of the novel makes sense, from a practical point of view. (King John was a monster, during the Magna Carta War, but his son Henry III was blameless and that worked in his favour.)

The book has too large a cast of characters for any of them to get much screentime, certainly as much as they deserve, but they play their roles fairly well. (Mostly – I was expecting the communist subversive mentioned above to do more, particularly when the Tsar is finally close to being rescued.) In some places, the characters are tissue-thin; in others, there is a surprising depth to them. Stockholm syndrome runs both ways. Prisoners can get very close to their captors and convince them, in some ways, that they deserve to live. The book also touches on the greater matters, from the reason Russia came to terms in 1917 to the decision to finally execute the Royal Family and crack down on the peasants. It makes sense from their point of view, although much seems monstrous or irrational from ours.

Quite how things will develop from the endpoint is hard to say. Tatiana might well be a better rally point than anything the whites had in OTL, but – as a daughter of the Tsar – she would certainly find it hard to appeal to Russians who were heartily sick of the aristocracy (with reason); indeed, she’d be expected to uphold the aristocracy, which would be an absolute gift to her enemies. It might be possible, of course, to push reform with so much of the aristocracy dead or in exile, but it would be tricky. And we know, even if she doesn’t, that Imperial Germany is not going to see 1919. Will she get help from the British and French, more enthusiastic than OTL? Or will she be sidelined as part of a family that brought much of its troubles on itself?

Kratman is known for having firm political opinions which colour his writing, for better or worse, but they are largely absent here. What little there is fits in well – the book points out, for example, that the Jews are often a boon to their host countries, but hated and resented despite it. (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion came out of Imperial Russia.) It also points out that the monarchy is bad, but so are the Bolsheviks and many of the more reasonable people would be minded to be reasonable if a reasonable alternative existed.

The book’s greatest weakness, however, is that it spends too much time on recruiting, training and preparing the rescue force. While this is interesting in and of itself, it comes across as padding in places and really should have been reduced (giving room for more action and adventure – for example, the Tsar is rescued, but the Bolsheviks give chase and have to be fought).

Overall, though, The Romanov Rescue works very well. It may never be seen as a classic of the AH scene, but it is both a good action-adventure and a poke into less-explored regions of alternate history. I give it eight out of ten.

Read a Free Sample, then purchase here.
 
The book’s greatest weakness, however, is that it spends too much time on recruiting, training and preparing the rescue force.

This is not a surprise in the slightest, given Kratman's Carrera books have the axe-grinding training curriculum written with more passion than any of the actual battles.
 
Kratman is known for having firm political opinions which colour his writing, for better or worse, but they are largely absent here. What little there is fits in well – the book points out, for example, that the Jews are often a boon to their host countries, but hated and resented despite it. (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion came out of Imperial Russia.) It also points out that the monarchy is bad, but so are the Bolsheviks and many of the more reasonable people would be minded to be reasonable if a reasonable alternative existed.


That's quite a way to say 'panders to the far right, exalts the Waffen-SS and plays to racist hysteria around Muslims.'

God knows I'm no fan of the Bolsheviks, and it's important not to paint their opponents with too broad a brush- some of the whites were SRs and Mensheviks, some were Kadets et cetera.

But the Romanov supporters in the Civil War were the most ultrareactionary racists and antisemites of the lot, and among other things they launched the greatest slaughter of Jews in Europe since the seventeenth century (so that little excerpt from Nicholas is particularly odious.) Many of them went on to become protofascists and Nazi collaborators. The Tsarist regime had also previously launched a genocide of Muslim Circassians, though I doubt that bothers Kratman much.

It feels like an abject failure of a review not to discuss that a novel centred around rescuing ultrareactionary racists, and which according to this piece suggests that that will lead to a better world, has been written by an author who has been controversial for decades for his open sympathy with ultrareactionary racists.

Though frankly, it's about what I'd expect from a sad puppy.
 
That's not a review, that's advertising, and it doesn't speak highly of you that after all this time you are still infatuated with a Nazi apologist.

Come now, Hendryk, is it Nazi apologism to write novels about the SS standing between humanity and an alien invasion, so impressing the masses they protect that even Israelis want to join?
 
Hmm.

I have a few areas of knowledge. Not many, but they do exist. If @Lord Roem says that the word Parliament is derived from the phrase: "Power Lie Management", because British Government is all about managing the lies of those in power, I tend to believe him, because he knows about that sort of thing. If @Alex Richards tells me that the singer Gilbert O'Sullivan was the grandson of both WS Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan, I would believe him because that's the sort of thing he knows about. If @AndyC explains that, from the mid 1980s, the RAF developed supersonic airships and that he has personally flown one, I'll believe him because frankly, I wouldn't put it past him.

Those are some of the many areas I don't know a great deal about.

The book effectively splits into three separate storylines before closing up again near the end of the story. The first section focused on the recruitment and training of the infantry, something that plays very well to Kratman’s strengths as an author.

Now, this is an area I do know something about. I spent two years training Royal Marines at Lympstone, and six months training US Marines in South Carolina. I also spent nigh on a year being trained myself, and two years recruiting Gurkhas for the British Army (literally the easiest job in the world).

I know about this sort of stuff.

Obviously, fiction will often take liberties with fact. No-one seriously suggests that Disney's Pocahontas is an accurate representation of the interactions between native Americans and early settlers. But when something is described as playing to an author's strength, I assume it will contain kernels of factual wisdom.

I respect the opinions of @Hendryk and @SenatorChickpea . I don't always agree with them, but they usually have very good reason for their opinions, so when they describe the author as being a "Nazi apologist", I paused before glancing at the Free Sample. But then, this was an area I know a bit about.

I'm not going to touch on whether or not it seems to be the work of a Nazi apologist or not. Better minds than mine can do that. I've read and enjoyed some of Heinlein's work, and he had a somewhat controversial outlook on many aspects of social interactions, so I felt confident that the political stance of the author was something best covered by others.

I'm going to simply comment on the work as a piece of writing (I make my living by writing, so I qualify as being knowledgeable) and as an example of recruiting and training infantry (in which I have personal experience to draw on). I speed read some of the Free Sample.

Oh.

Oh dear.

Oh dear God.

The bits of the story I read bear as much relation to training of infantry as the works of Sven Hassel bear to Romantic Fiction. Less. It's overwritten to an astonishing degree, such that my Editorial pen was twitching. It's "Rough Man Pulp Fiction" meets Wehraboo wet dreams.

I read Romantic Fiction. I'm used to situations where the world is so super-charged with static electricity that whenever the two main characters accidentally brush against each other, there are more sparks than on Guy Fawkes Night. I can accept that as being a part of the setting. This, for want of a better word, book broke my suspension of disbelief. It not merely broke it, but shattered it into its component atoms, incinerated those atoms, split those atoms into their component elements and scattered them across the galaxy.

I didn't bother to find out how much the book costs. However much it is, it's overpriced.

It's customary to quote something from the book one is reviewing. I'll give two such quotes, and then go and have a bath.

“Amerikanski M1911s,” Romeyko answered. “Big bruisers, eleven and a half millimeter. The tsar bought something like fifty thousand of them. Some thousands ended up captured by the Huns. I talked a supply sergeant in their army out of one hundred and twenty, with magazines, plus another two hundred and forty magazines, and holsters and ammunition pouches for the lot. And a lot of ammunition. It didn’t take a lot of effort; he was just as happy to be rid of them. They’ve got slots on the holsters we can fit our belts through.

It's like something out of that well-known source of skilled infantry, the Typical American Militia.

The idle thought made Funktelegraphie-Gast—basically, “Signaler” or “Signalman”—Wilhelm Mueller smile as he stood with the rest of the crew and watched their zeppelin, the L59, emerge from her hangar in all her gorgeous, lumbering majesty. Like the rest of the men around him, Wilhelm wasn’t new to the harrowing, thrilling world of zeppelin aviation, so he knew very well that while L59 might seem incredibly vast as one stood on the ground and watched her fill the sky overhead, quarters inside the military airship gondola would be cramped at best. He and his fellow crewmen were close, but they were about to get a lot closer over the next few days.

God, it's dreck. The most appalling dreck.

Normally, I try to find a good word to say about a book I review, even when the review is generally negative. I'm struggling here. It's got all the hallmarks of dreadfully researched nonsense. The stereotyping and adoration of the German military ...

Gah. I give up. I do not have a single good word to say about this farrago of nonsense. That was a few minutes of my life that I will not get back.

On the other hand, there is something satisfying about being able to let loose in a review such as this. If I had to give this book marks out of ten, I would give it a steaming pile of ordure, for that is what it is.
 
These are issues that will hopefully be explored in future books, as they plagued the Russia of OTL and will need to be solved by the new Tsarina (assuming she survives the inevitable civil war.)
On top of the egregious inaccuracies that have already been pointed out, I felt that this one also deserves a mention: "the new Tsarina"? Is Kratman so ignorant of the Russian revolution that he thinks a restoration of Tsardom is in any way possible after 1917? There's a reason the Tsar was forced to abdicate by his own generals, and that the Constituent Assembly election gave the monarchists less than 5% of the vote. But assuming that Kratman has even done more reading about the topic than a couple of Conservapedia articles, I imagine he was unable to process the fact that the most popular political movement in Russia at the time was the Socialist-Revolutionaries.
 
On top of the egregious inaccuracies that have already been pointed out

Kratman has had this tendency to overobsess on trees to the point where he completely misses the forest. It's exactly like his style to obsess over what kind of uniforms would be available at point A in time (just one example I saw in the free sample) while missing out on extremely basic issues like that.
 
On top of the egregious inaccuracies that have already been pointed out, I felt that this one also deserves a mention: "the new Tsarina"? Is Kratman so ignorant of the Russian revolution that he thinks a restoration of Tsardom is in any way possible after 1917? There's a reason the Tsar was forced to abdicate by his own generals, and that the Constituent Assembly election gave the monarchists less than 5% of the vote. But assuming that Kratman has even done more reading about the topic than a couple of Conservapedia articles, I imagine he was unable to process the fact that the most popular political movement in Russia at the time was the Socialist-Revolutionaries.
Kratman has had this tendency to overobsess on trees to the point where he completely misses the forest. It's exactly like his style to obsess over what kind of uniforms would be available at point A in time (just one example I saw in the free sample) while missing out on extremely basic issues like that.

And on top of all that, the Russian Imperial Succession did not work that way because the House of Romanov operated under semi-salic succession after 1797.

So after the Tsarevich Alexei, the next heir was Nikolai's brother, the Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, who historically turned down any attempts to make him Tsar without the explicit backing of the Constituent Assembly (because he was actually somewhat sensible and could see which way things were going).

Or alternatively if you took the strict viewpoint that his morganatic marriage excluded him from the succession, it would go to his cousin the Grand Duke Kiril Vladimirovich.

And of course all of this is assuming that there's an in-story reason why it's the second daughter who's ended up as Tsarina.
 
The trouble with Russian Civil War scenarios is that while it's not hard at all to work out how a White Victory- even by one of the nastier reactionary generals- might be better in the long term or even the medium term, in the short term it would clearly have been far bloodier than early Communist Russia was in our timeline.

And the kind of authors who get morally exercised about this- the ones Orwell famously mocked!- well, they're ideologically incapable of writing a story where the premise is that the Komuch hold Samara, and the best chance the Whites have of uniting under a civilian government that's friendly to the peasants but hasn't alienated the propertied classes either.

So, hilariously, you end up with people like Kratman writing with apparent seriousness that the Tsar just needed to know what was being done in his name!
 
Oh yes, of course. I endevour to be grammatically correct when trying to get fascists and their material of our forum.

I mean, one of his books is literally titled The Rods and The Axe.

That being said, I feel like I should critique his writing more in a nonpolitical way, given that's obvious and, however deserving, kind of an easy target. First off, he was a genuine lieutenant colonel, so he does know more of the absolute basics than the absolute worst thriller writers. (I know this sounds like faint praise, but some, think Ian Slater and yes, James Patterson, are really, really bad with even the most basic and easy to look up terminology).

In terms of literary fundamentals, he's bad. His writing is so dense and slow that his first Carrera book had to be broken into two volumes because it was too big to print, and I was able to skip an entire book of his without missing anything in the metaplot. Then there's his ability to take what should be a strength and turn it into a weakness. The books slobber over his Mary Sues who bumble around and barely win, because by Kratman's standards that is what a good army is.

Finally, the training part. Oh yes. What should be an asset becomes another liability. Apart from HARD MAN TRAINING taken to extremes, his gimmick is that his Mary Sues are.... discount shoppers. Take away his favorite pet weapons (the previously mentioned 1911s and, in Carrera, 6.5mm Grendel rifles no other proper military used), and they just go for whatever the seemingly cheapest deal is, like buying fighter jets and warships for sale IRL at scrap prices (while handwaving away that they should logically be of scrap quality).
 
I do think we're posed with a serious problem for an alternate history forum. How do we deal with that section of the community and genre- and it's a large section, and has been for a long time- who are on the extreme right? Yes, there are tankies, and god knows I despise them, but they simply don't command anything like the share of the market or fanbase as the slavering fans of the Confederacy, Rhodesia, the Nazis or generally military supremacy over weak liberal civilians.

This review is, as @Hendryk says, essentially an advertisement for an author who is at the very least fascist adjacent. I for one am not comfortable with the idea that this forum has posts that encourage readers to give their money to such an author.

Now, I'm speaking from a position of privilege. I am not a person who is directly threatened by the far right. But we have many posters on this forum who are members of groups who are under threat, and without being hysterical I think it is fair to say that that threat has increased in recent years.
I don't want to speak for them, but I do wonder if it is... hell, forget 'safe', I wonder if it meets the standards of basic human decency for this sort of public space to be directing people to put money in the pockets of a far right author.

That is not to say that this forum is always welcoming, and god knows I think there are plenty of posters who've felt that they've been treated with outright hostility, rudeness and unkindness; I know there are times I have been uncharitable, and I know that there are good posters who have cut back on the time they spend on this forum because they feel unwanted. It's particularly troubling when it comes to drawing lines around what's politically acceptable; there are posters who have felt unwelcome based on being right (or left) of the general consensus, or of the wrong generation or background et cetera.

There are many artists, too, whose personal views are repellent. The wizard lady gets discussed a lot, and the film thread is full of the works of pretty horrible people. I certainly wouldn't want to ban people from mentioning that they read The Chamber of Secrets to their kid, however, or that they rewatched Chinatown.

But with all those caveats: when it comes to works in the alternate history genre, by established authors, should different standards apply?

In other words, should we allow positive reviews of racist authors like this to sit on the forum?
 
I do think we're posed with a serious problem for an alternate history forum. How do we deal with that section of the community and genre- and it's a large section, and has been for a long time- who are on the extreme right? Yes, there are tankies, and god knows I despise them, but they simply don't command anything like the share of the market or fanbase as the slavering fans of the Confederacy, Rhodesia, the Nazis or generally military supremacy over weak liberal civilians.

This review is, as @Hendryk says, essentially an advertisement for an author who is at the very least fascist adjacent. I for one am not comfortable with the idea that this forum has posts that encourage readers to give their money to such an author.

Now, I'm speaking from a position of privilege. I am not a person who is directly threatened by the far right. But we have many posters on this forum who are members of groups who are under threat, and without being hysterical I think it is fair to say that that threat has increased in recent years.
I don't want to speak for them, but I do wonder if it is... hell, forget 'safe', I wonder if it meets the standards of basic human decency for this sort of public space to be directing people to put money in the pockets of a far right author.

That is not to say that this forum is always welcoming, and god knows I think there are plenty of posters who've felt that they've been treated with outright hostility, rudeness and unkindness; I know there are times I have been uncharitable, and I know that there are good posters who have cut back on the time they spend on this forum because they feel unwanted. It's particularly troubling when it comes to drawing lines around what's politically acceptable; there are posters who have felt unwelcome based on being right (or left) of the general consensus, or of the wrong generation or background et cetera.

There are many artists, too, whose personal views are repellent. The wizard lady gets discussed a lot, and the film thread is full of the works of pretty horrible people. I certainly wouldn't want to ban people from mentioning that they read The Chamber of Secrets to their kid, however, or that they rewatched Chinatown.

But with all those caveats: when it comes to works in the alternate history genre, by established authors, should different standards apply?

In other words, should we allow positive reviews of racist authors like this to sit on the forum?
I do think the difference between Harry Potter/Chinatown and The Romanov Rescue is how much the author's awful views are involved in the actual work. Harry Potter isn't about trans people (there's some dodgy stuff about Rita Skeeter, but it's a minor detail that only really stands out because of what Rowling said about trans people a decade after the books were written) and Chinatown isn't about how great it is to drug and rape teenage girls. By contrast The Romanov Rescue is a celebration of Nicholas the Bloody and his protofascist, pogromist supporters. Basically, you can separate the art from the artist, but you can't separate the art from the art, and I think that while we should allow positive reviews of works that are themselves fine but have bad authors we shouldn't allow positive reviews of bigoted works.
 
I mean, one of his books is literally titled The Rods and The Axe.

That being said, I feel like I should critique his writing more in a nonpolitical way, given that's obvious and, however deserving, kind of an easy target. First off, he was a genuine lieutenant colonel, so he does know more of the absolute basics than the absolute worst thriller writers. (I know this sounds like faint praise, but some, think Ian Slater and yes, James Patterson, are really, really bad with even the most basic and easy to look up terminology).

In terms of literary fundamentals, he's bad. His writing is so dense and slow that his first Carrera book had to be broken into two volumes because it was too big to print, and I was able to skip an entire book of his without missing anything in the metaplot. Then there's his ability to take what should be a strength and turn it into a weakness. The books slobber over his Mary Sues who bumble around and barely win, because by Kratman's standards that is what a good army is.

Finally, the training part. Oh yes. What should be an asset becomes another liability. Apart from HARD MAN TRAINING taken to extremes, his gimmick is that his Mary Sues are.... discount shoppers. Take away his favorite pet weapons (the previously mentioned 1911s and, in Carrera, 6.5mm Grendel rifles no other proper military used), and they just go for whatever the seemingly cheapest deal is, like buying fighter jets and warships for sale IRL at scrap prices (while handwaving away that they should logically be of scrap quality).
I do think we're posed with a serious problem for an alternate history forum. How do we deal with that section of the community and genre- and it's a large section, and has been for a long time- who are on the extreme right? Yes, there are tankies, and god knows I despise them, but they simply don't command anything like the share of the market or fanbase as the slavering fans of the Confederacy, Rhodesia, the Nazis or generally military supremacy over weak liberal civilians.

This review is, as @Hendryk says, essentially an advertisement for an author who is at the very least fascist adjacent. I for one am not comfortable with the idea that this forum has posts that encourage readers to give their money to such an author.

Now, I'm speaking from a position of privilege. I am not a person who is directly threatened by the far right. But we have many posters on this forum who are members of groups who are under threat, and without being hysterical I think it is fair to say that that threat has increased in recent years.
I don't want to speak for them, but I do wonder if it is... hell, forget 'safe', I wonder if it meets the standards of basic human decency for this sort of public space to be directing people to put money in the pockets of a far right author.

That is not to say that this forum is always welcoming, and god knows I think there are plenty of posters who've felt that they've been treated with outright hostility, rudeness and unkindness; I know there are times I have been uncharitable, and I know that there are good posters who have cut back on the time they spend on this forum because they feel unwanted. It's particularly troubling when it comes to drawing lines around what's politically acceptable; there are posters who have felt unwelcome based on being right (or left) of the general consensus, or of the wrong generation or background et cetera.

There are many artists, too, whose personal views are repellent. The wizard lady gets discussed a lot, and the film thread is full of the works of pretty horrible people. I certainly wouldn't want to ban people from mentioning that they read The Chamber of Secrets to their kid, however, or that they rewatched Chinatown.

But with all those caveats: when it comes to works in the alternate history genre, by established authors, should different standards apply?

In other words, should we allow positive reviews of racist authors like this to sit on the forum?
I do think the difference between Harry Potter/Chinatown and The Romanov Rescue is how much the author's awful views are involved in the actual work. Harry Potter isn't about trans people (there's some dodgy stuff about Rita Skeeter, but it's a minor detail that only really stands out because of what Rowling said about trans people a decade after the books were written) and Chinatown isn't about how great it is to drug and rape teenage girls. By contrast The Romanov Rescue is a celebration of Nicholas the Bloody and his protofascist, pogromist supporters. Basically, you can separate the art from the artist, but you can't separate the art from the art, and I think that while we should allow positive reviews of works that are themselves fine but have bad authors we shouldn't allow positive reviews of bigoted works.

As a general rule, when reviewing, I am firmly of the belief that one should take the work in isolation as much as reasonably possible and attempt to address the work on its own terms (i.e. if the book is a romance novel it will follow different conventions from military, fantasy, sci-fi or whatever.) This is both common courtesy – the average reader doesn’t really consider the author anything more than a name – and common sense. A review that bashes the author’s personal habits, actual politics, incorrect politics (i.e. a reviewer thinking a socialist is a communist) and anything else that has nothing to do with the book itself and writing such a review comes across as, at best, mean-spirited.

A decent reviewer is something akin to a judge. He puts forward calm and reasonable arguments, weighs up the issues and decides if, in his sole judgement, the good outweighs the bad. Reasonable people can and do disagree without throwing around loaded terms, personal insults, or anything else that undermines their argument.

I was also under the impression, when reviewing books, that it is good form to note things like free samples, places you can purchase, etc, etc. It is not an advert – or at least not intentionally so – and if people chose to take it that way, well … <shrug>.

On a more general note, at no point within the book do any of the characters praise Nicolas in anything other than the faintest of terms, and even then its more along the lines of ‘he’s taking his captivity well’ … which is damning by faint praise.

YMMV, of course.
 
A decent reviewer is something akin to a judge. He puts forward calm and reasonable arguments, weighs up the issues and decides if, in his sole judgement, the good outweighs the bad. Reasonable people can and do disagree without throwing around loaded terms, personal insults, or anything else that undermines their argument.

Which people, in this thread, have been using loaded terms or personal insults?

Kratman is fascist adjacent. You were a member of the Sad Puppies, a group that mobilised in response to the sci-fi/fantasy community becoming too welcome to people who weren't white, straight or male. That that group was less vile than the Angry Puppies (god these are stupid names) doesn't change that.

All this is relevant to a reader.

I don't necessarily judge a book by its author. I've ready plenty of stuff by horrible people. But if that author is a particularly vile person, I want to know so I can decide whether or not to support that person financially.
 
Last edited:
For anyone reading this thread who isn't familiar with Tom Kratman-

Let's be very clear that the people criticising him aren't throwing around terms like 'fascist' or 'Nazi' lightly. This isn't an internet argument where because the author's a Republican or a Tory, terminally online posters are saying that they're evil baby eaters.

Tom Kratman is literally a militarist whose works whitewash the SS, demonise Muslims, and generally buy into the cult of strength that characterises, what's the term, fascism.

These aren't loaded terms or insults. They are accurate descriptions.
 
Back
Top