What do you think?
Rate this book
The Water Thief
CHARLES THATCHER is a private citizen, which is to say that he’s the private property of the Ackerman Brothers Securities Corporation. He’s got problems: the cost of air is going up, his wife wants to sell herself to another corporation, and his colleagues are always trying to get him tossed into the lye vats.
But when he discovers a woman stealing rainwater, he sees his chance to move up in the world, maybe even become an executive. He reports her, painting a picture, not just of a thief, but of a seditionist and revolutionary, someone who believes in that long-dead institution called “government.”
When she suddenly vanishes, he fears the worst and begins trying to track her down. What he finds is a nightmare far worse than he’d imagined—that his report on her may actually have been right.
Now engaged with a small rebel group, Charles learns about life outside his corporation. But in a world where everything is for sale and lies are more profitable than the truth, he begins to wonder if even these revolutionaries have something to hide.
But when he discovers a woman stealing rainwater, he sees his chance to move up in the world, maybe even become an executive. He reports her, painting a picture, not just of a thief, but of a seditionist and revolutionary, someone who believes in that long-dead institution called “government.”
When she suddenly vanishes, he fears the worst and begins trying to track her down. What he finds is a nightmare far worse than he’d imagined—that his report on her may actually have been right.
Now engaged with a small rebel group, Charles learns about life outside his corporation. But in a world where everything is for sale and lies are more profitable than the truth, he begins to wonder if even these revolutionaries have something to hide.
209 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 20, 2012
64 people are currently reading
1323 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 96 reviews
June 1, 2012
OK, remember when the nasty waiter in Dirty Dancing hands Baby the copy of "Atlas Shrugged" and says, "Give it back to me, I have notes in the margins?"
THIS is the book Baby should have handed back to him. This book details everything that is wrong with Ayn Rand's view of the world and what really happens if you let the "free market" take over. It is a case for regulation not as a limit to the market but as a critical protection for the human beings the market is supposed to serve. This book is readable and entertaining and keeps you guessing to the end. Keep a few on hand for when your teenager discovers Ayn Rand and you want to set him straight. Seriously, this belongs in every thinking person's library. We should send crates of it to the Tea Party.
THIS is the book Baby should have handed back to him. This book details everything that is wrong with Ayn Rand's view of the world and what really happens if you let the "free market" take over. It is a case for regulation not as a limit to the market but as a critical protection for the human beings the market is supposed to serve. This book is readable and entertaining and keeps you guessing to the end. Keep a few on hand for when your teenager discovers Ayn Rand and you want to set him straight. Seriously, this belongs in every thinking person's library. We should send crates of it to the Tea Party.
January 3, 2013
3,5 stars.
I hesitate how to rate this book. The premise certainly gets five stars. There are many dystopian books, but most of them deal either with a tyrannical government or with a post-apocalyptic future where society has collapsed. Society has not really collapsed in "The Water Thief". There is social order, order where unbridled capitalism and corporations rule.
The problem with the novel is its execution. Not that the writing is bad, or that there is no plot. But sometimes I had the impression that I wasn't reading fiction, but non-fiction, and more specifically, moderated debates on an internet forum. The characters often would engage in long monologues, they would have their good points, but it gets preachy at times and, by the end of the book, the arguments become somewhat repetitive.
In my opinion Soutter should have advanced his points in a more subtle way that is appropriate for a fictionalized novel. I did enjoy it, however, and I think that it is a welcome addition to the dystopian genre.
I hesitate how to rate this book. The premise certainly gets five stars. There are many dystopian books, but most of them deal either with a tyrannical government or with a post-apocalyptic future where society has collapsed. Society has not really collapsed in "The Water Thief". There is social order, order where unbridled capitalism and corporations rule.
The problem with the novel is its execution. Not that the writing is bad, or that there is no plot. But sometimes I had the impression that I wasn't reading fiction, but non-fiction, and more specifically, moderated debates on an internet forum. The characters often would engage in long monologues, they would have their good points, but it gets preachy at times and, by the end of the book, the arguments become somewhat repetitive.
In my opinion Soutter should have advanced his points in a more subtle way that is appropriate for a fictionalized novel. I did enjoy it, however, and I think that it is a welcome addition to the dystopian genre.
June 16, 2012
As one harbinger dies, another rises to take his place
It seems fitting that Ray Bradbury, author of Fahrenheit 451 and the mid-twentieth-century prophet of today’s world, should have died this week. For those of us who ever doubted the veracity of his predictions, let us take a good look around, at a society that has grown increasingly alienated by endless reality shows on flat-screen TV’s, a constant feed of iPod music through our ear buds, and subsequent self-medication through junk food and recreation drugs. Whether you like today’s world or not, Bradbury saw it coming sixty years ago.
This is all by way of a preface to the rise of a new harbinger of what awaits us in the not-too-distant future. Nicholas Lamar Soutter’s book The Water Thief depicts a world where Gordon Gekko’s dream has come true: a neo-feudal world where deregulation has empowered big business, where small government has devolved into no government, and serf-citizens are held in bondage for life to the corporations. It is a world where nothing comes for free, not education nor the exchange of ideas, not waternor air. A dystopian novel this certainly is, but you couldn’t call it science fiction, simply because its premise is already rooted in the here and now, and the signs of what we can expect in years to come are already clearly marked.
The protagonist Charles Thatcher is immediately likeable because he represents so many of us. He’s a small cog spinning in a large, complex wheel. He’s decent. He’s disillusioned. We can relate to his confusion, his sense that there is something terribly wrong, if only he could figure out what it is. That is the insidious nature of The System: it creeps up on an unsuspecting society that is preoccupied with earning a living, paying off its student debt and trying to save for retirement before the age of eighty-five. Before we know where we are, we find ourselves in thrall to overlords of corruption and greed. For the sop of an increasingly elusive American Dream we are now working longer hours for less pay, poorer benefits, and an uncertain retirement. We are traveling greater distances to a workplace with no job security, and what one parent was able to provide financially back in the seventies now requires the efforts of two. Our credit card debt is mountainous; our mortgages are under water. And we call this progress? Who’s actually winning here? (Hint: a very, very small percentage of people who are still trying to convince us of the benefits of the trickle-down effect.)
This is the world we live in today. The Water Thief takes that world to its logical conclusion in a setting of Orwellian ruthlessness and paranoia. In a smart, thought-provoking, and compelling story Soutter sets forth his vision through the characters of Charlie and Kate as they recognize the humanity in one another amid the scavangers, and through Linus whose perspective from the top of the food chain makes the philosophy of objectivism appear almost sentimental by comparison. The poster child of Ayn Rand turned rogue.
Writers don’t just write, they hold up a looking-glass through which we see ourselves and who we may become. Often their predictions are chillingly accurate. George Orwell showed us a reflection of ourselves; so, too, did Ray Bradbury. In his passing he leaves the mirror in the capable hands of Nicholas Lamar Soutter, if only the world can turn away from its headlong descent into madness and takes a good, hard look at itself.
It seems fitting that Ray Bradbury, author of Fahrenheit 451 and the mid-twentieth-century prophet of today’s world, should have died this week. For those of us who ever doubted the veracity of his predictions, let us take a good look around, at a society that has grown increasingly alienated by endless reality shows on flat-screen TV’s, a constant feed of iPod music through our ear buds, and subsequent self-medication through junk food and recreation drugs. Whether you like today’s world or not, Bradbury saw it coming sixty years ago.
This is all by way of a preface to the rise of a new harbinger of what awaits us in the not-too-distant future. Nicholas Lamar Soutter’s book The Water Thief depicts a world where Gordon Gekko’s dream has come true: a neo-feudal world where deregulation has empowered big business, where small government has devolved into no government, and serf-citizens are held in bondage for life to the corporations. It is a world where nothing comes for free, not education nor the exchange of ideas, not waternor air. A dystopian novel this certainly is, but you couldn’t call it science fiction, simply because its premise is already rooted in the here and now, and the signs of what we can expect in years to come are already clearly marked.
The protagonist Charles Thatcher is immediately likeable because he represents so many of us. He’s a small cog spinning in a large, complex wheel. He’s decent. He’s disillusioned. We can relate to his confusion, his sense that there is something terribly wrong, if only he could figure out what it is. That is the insidious nature of The System: it creeps up on an unsuspecting society that is preoccupied with earning a living, paying off its student debt and trying to save for retirement before the age of eighty-five. Before we know where we are, we find ourselves in thrall to overlords of corruption and greed. For the sop of an increasingly elusive American Dream we are now working longer hours for less pay, poorer benefits, and an uncertain retirement. We are traveling greater distances to a workplace with no job security, and what one parent was able to provide financially back in the seventies now requires the efforts of two. Our credit card debt is mountainous; our mortgages are under water. And we call this progress? Who’s actually winning here? (Hint: a very, very small percentage of people who are still trying to convince us of the benefits of the trickle-down effect.)
This is the world we live in today. The Water Thief takes that world to its logical conclusion in a setting of Orwellian ruthlessness and paranoia. In a smart, thought-provoking, and compelling story Soutter sets forth his vision through the characters of Charlie and Kate as they recognize the humanity in one another amid the scavangers, and through Linus whose perspective from the top of the food chain makes the philosophy of objectivism appear almost sentimental by comparison. The poster child of Ayn Rand turned rogue.
Writers don’t just write, they hold up a looking-glass through which we see ourselves and who we may become. Often their predictions are chillingly accurate. George Orwell showed us a reflection of ourselves; so, too, did Ray Bradbury. In his passing he leaves the mirror in the capable hands of Nicholas Lamar Soutter, if only the world can turn away from its headlong descent into madness and takes a good, hard look at itself.
June 6, 2012
This is not a fun easy beach read but if I had my way, it would be on every high school required reading list. A futuristic, dystopian society, where all is valued according to its value, real or perceived to the corporation, The Water Thief carries within it the warning of the seeds that we Americans are sowing for our future generations. This is fiction that could easily become reality if we, the individuals, do not make the effort to change the seeds being sown. In its own way, it carries the same type of terrible truth that George Orwell foresaw in the classic 1984. Read this book and then think about it - deeply, frequently and with your mind and eyes wide open. Consider the economic crisis of the past several years where we have had to bail out corporations who had made many, many terrifying deals, only on paper that left people without homes, transportation or employment. The corporate executives were all fine and lost very little, but the poor, undereducated, stupid people got the devastating losses they deserved. Read this book and weep or read this book and change.
August 14, 2012
More 2084 than 1984, Nicholas Lamar Soutter’s The Water Thief is set in a near-future dystopia where corporations have taken over from government, perception is more important than truth, and usurping a legitimate businesses right to regulate water might result in a death sentence—all for the common good of course. Socialism and big government are equally scorned as failed enterprises of the past. Human sympathy is the folly of the weak. And “futures” are sold, freedoms willingly traded off in the name of deregulation.
Charles Thatcher is a regular man keeping his head down and his nose to the grindstone as he slaves towards his next promotion. At the back of his mind he’s sure there must be more to life. Then a chance accident sets him investigating where that “more” might be found. Likeably inept, honest, intelligent, and curious, Charles soon finds himself in over his head, falling in love and falling out of favor.
The author uses dialog very effectively to build his future world, and introduces much food for thought about the present in the process. “Manage perception, and you create reality” is an interesting idea as an American election approaches. Arguments about capitalism and socialism, the failure of religion, the desire of the poor to cut levies on the rich in the vain hope they might one day be the rich… “We knew the sounds, the grammar and vocabulary, but the words all had different meanings.”
The plot is dark and Orwellian, with society split and ruled by lies, mankind turned into willing fodder for the corporate machine. Orwellian too is the feeling of stark plausibility and helpless dismay. The Water Thief is a scarily plausible dystopian tale filled with warnings for the present and thought-provoking analysis of political and corporate greed.
Disclosure: I met the author on Gather and was pleased to be asked to read and review this novel.
Charles Thatcher is a regular man keeping his head down and his nose to the grindstone as he slaves towards his next promotion. At the back of his mind he’s sure there must be more to life. Then a chance accident sets him investigating where that “more” might be found. Likeably inept, honest, intelligent, and curious, Charles soon finds himself in over his head, falling in love and falling out of favor.
The author uses dialog very effectively to build his future world, and introduces much food for thought about the present in the process. “Manage perception, and you create reality” is an interesting idea as an American election approaches. Arguments about capitalism and socialism, the failure of religion, the desire of the poor to cut levies on the rich in the vain hope they might one day be the rich… “We knew the sounds, the grammar and vocabulary, but the words all had different meanings.”
The plot is dark and Orwellian, with society split and ruled by lies, mankind turned into willing fodder for the corporate machine. Orwellian too is the feeling of stark plausibility and helpless dismay. The Water Thief is a scarily plausible dystopian tale filled with warnings for the present and thought-provoking analysis of political and corporate greed.
Disclosure: I met the author on Gather and was pleased to be asked to read and review this novel.
Read
March 19, 2013I was very excited to receive this as a Goodreads giveaway. :)
The premise is excellent but the execution lacking. I have the same complaint with Soutter's characters that I did with Ayn Rand's: they are one-dimensional devices created to express the author's philosophy. The main character is written as a clueless idiot so that he will ask questions in order to give the other characters a reason to launch into a monologue of their ideals. The story is an excuse to hold a debate on capitalism, and I had expected so much more; I had expected multi-layered characters and a depth and complexity to the plot. What I got was a plot that was told to me instead of shown and characters that preached at me instead of having conversations with each other.
I like the author's ideas, the way he frames his arguments, and how well he organizes his thoughts and constructs his sentences, but the redundancy and obvious references to other dystopian literature was incredibly irritating, insulting to the readers' intelligence, and ridiculous after awhile. Atlas station? Really?! We KNOW the book is referring to Atlas Shrugged, we don't need it screamed at us. And mentioning Thomas Hobbes by name? Seriously?! I was reading along thinking, I hope he doesn't think he needs to spell it out for us, and I got to that and slammed the book down and said, "Oh no, he didn't! UGH!" It's as insulting as giving a Trekkie a lecture on warp drive theory; anyone into Star Trek already knows it inside out and anyone who isn't won't know any of the technical language needed to understand the lecture anyway.
I really wanted to like this novel for the author's ideas and the setting, but it was more like a nonfiction debate or forum than a dystopian novel. It would have been an excellent philosophical essay. I hope to read more from Nick Soutter in the future.
The premise is excellent but the execution lacking. I have the same complaint with Soutter's characters that I did with Ayn Rand's: they are one-dimensional devices created to express the author's philosophy. The main character is written as a clueless idiot so that he will ask questions in order to give the other characters a reason to launch into a monologue of their ideals. The story is an excuse to hold a debate on capitalism, and I had expected so much more; I had expected multi-layered characters and a depth and complexity to the plot. What I got was a plot that was told to me instead of shown and characters that preached at me instead of having conversations with each other.
I like the author's ideas, the way he frames his arguments, and how well he organizes his thoughts and constructs his sentences, but the redundancy and obvious references to other dystopian literature was incredibly irritating, insulting to the readers' intelligence, and ridiculous after awhile. Atlas station? Really?! We KNOW the book is referring to Atlas Shrugged, we don't need it screamed at us. And mentioning Thomas Hobbes by name? Seriously?! I was reading along thinking, I hope he doesn't think he needs to spell it out for us, and I got to that and slammed the book down and said, "Oh no, he didn't! UGH!" It's as insulting as giving a Trekkie a lecture on warp drive theory; anyone into Star Trek already knows it inside out and anyone who isn't won't know any of the technical language needed to understand the lecture anyway.
I really wanted to like this novel for the author's ideas and the setting, but it was more like a nonfiction debate or forum than a dystopian novel. It would have been an excellent philosophical essay. I hope to read more from Nick Soutter in the future.
June 23, 2012
Ever since H.G.Wells wrote When the Sleeper Wakes, dystopian societies have been a favorite subject amongst authors and readers alike. Twentieth century's writers painted vivid pictures of multitide of such societies and they let our imagination run wild.
After Battle Royale of Koushun Takami in 1999, the standard of dystopian literature took a deep plunge. With the release of the The Hunger Games trilogy, the quality of such works reached an all time low. The success of such books also make us wonder whether we are going through 'The Twilight' of dystopian fiction.
The Water Thief by Nicholas Lamar Soutter is a fresh relief. The plot is simple, and it takes us through the monotonous life of Charles Thatcher, an employee of a corporate giant, which controls almost every business. Every aspect of life is measured in 'caps' (or money), which warns us of a near future when clean water and air will be charged. Charles meets a woman, and she helps him to see through the corruption and greed, and makes him think of a free life. The culmination of the events is quite unexpected, and also difficult to guess. I would say that it was quite a cliffhanger.
But the distintive aspect of this book is the themes of business, corruption, greed, freedom and human life, which is explained quite in detail by the author. It can get quite complicated at sometimes, and I had to turn back the pages and read again. But this aspect of the book is what makes it stand out amongst such similar works.
Like I said before, the ending is quite unexpected. After watching Inception, I left the theatre with a heavy heart, trying to guess whether it was all a dream or reality. Similarly, when I reached the last page in my Kindle, I swiped it many times trying to find whether I had missed any pages. It's quite an ending, and I had a go for a short drive around the city to calm my mind.
To sum up, this is one of the best dystopian novel I have ever read. If you are fan of Battle Royale, The Running Man, I am Legend (movie), 28 Days Later (movie), this is a must read. If you are one of the 'those' fans of The Hunger Games, then read this book to understand what is really meant by a dystopian work of fiction. If Hunger Games is Twilight, then The Water Thief is Dracula.
After Battle Royale of Koushun Takami in 1999, the standard of dystopian literature took a deep plunge. With the release of the The Hunger Games trilogy, the quality of such works reached an all time low. The success of such books also make us wonder whether we are going through 'The Twilight' of dystopian fiction.
The Water Thief by Nicholas Lamar Soutter is a fresh relief. The plot is simple, and it takes us through the monotonous life of Charles Thatcher, an employee of a corporate giant, which controls almost every business. Every aspect of life is measured in 'caps' (or money), which warns us of a near future when clean water and air will be charged. Charles meets a woman, and she helps him to see through the corruption and greed, and makes him think of a free life. The culmination of the events is quite unexpected, and also difficult to guess. I would say that it was quite a cliffhanger.
But the distintive aspect of this book is the themes of business, corruption, greed, freedom and human life, which is explained quite in detail by the author. It can get quite complicated at sometimes, and I had to turn back the pages and read again. But this aspect of the book is what makes it stand out amongst such similar works.
Like I said before, the ending is quite unexpected. After watching Inception, I left the theatre with a heavy heart, trying to guess whether it was all a dream or reality. Similarly, when I reached the last page in my Kindle, I swiped it many times trying to find whether I had missed any pages. It's quite an ending, and I had a go for a short drive around the city to calm my mind.
To sum up, this is one of the best dystopian novel I have ever read. If you are fan of Battle Royale, The Running Man, I am Legend (movie), 28 Days Later (movie), this is a must read. If you are one of the 'those' fans of The Hunger Games, then read this book to understand what is really meant by a dystopian work of fiction. If Hunger Games is Twilight, then The Water Thief is Dracula.
June 11, 2012
This is my first Goodreads Giveaways book I received, and if all that follow entertain me as much, I will be quite happy.
For the story itself, I have to admit that when I began it, I thought "oh dear, this guy is a great storyteller but this seems to have a biased agenda of anti-capitalism". While I enjoy the dystopian genre, I sometimes get a headache when people are too much against one certain thing, as though they had given no other issues a probing look as well. Upon reading some of the comments here, I didn't feel any better about the book's prospects. However, I must say, I thoroughly enjoyed this book, and although its slant is anti-corporatist, for good reason, I was greatly pleased to see the author's intellect resounding throughout the storyline in the arguments presented by the more knowledgable characters, as all -isms are held up to the light of reason. Not to mention the fact that, as I stated above, the author is a great storyteller. I never lost interest in where the book was going and the characters and settings are very believable. Through the voices of the characters the author posits many philosophies that would serve well as reminders for us all, lest we give ourselves over to a similar future, as far as "the greater good" goes. For those not familiar with Ayn Rand, some of the references may not be as apparent, and I suppose it's all a matter of perspective (no management pun intended), as I am quite the fan of Rand's works and I saw a fellow commentator on here, who obviously felt the book was at odds with Rand's teachings, whereas I felt it complimented them. What I'm saying is, whatever side or straddle of the fence you may be on, regarding those topics, you will enjoy this book. Grab a copy and encourage him to write another. He says he can't write, but the man's got talent.
If this comment is disjointed in any areas, forgive me, I've just started drinking my coffee.
For the story itself, I have to admit that when I began it, I thought "oh dear, this guy is a great storyteller but this seems to have a biased agenda of anti-capitalism". While I enjoy the dystopian genre, I sometimes get a headache when people are too much against one certain thing, as though they had given no other issues a probing look as well. Upon reading some of the comments here, I didn't feel any better about the book's prospects. However, I must say, I thoroughly enjoyed this book, and although its slant is anti-corporatist, for good reason, I was greatly pleased to see the author's intellect resounding throughout the storyline in the arguments presented by the more knowledgable characters, as all -isms are held up to the light of reason. Not to mention the fact that, as I stated above, the author is a great storyteller. I never lost interest in where the book was going and the characters and settings are very believable. Through the voices of the characters the author posits many philosophies that would serve well as reminders for us all, lest we give ourselves over to a similar future, as far as "the greater good" goes. For those not familiar with Ayn Rand, some of the references may not be as apparent, and I suppose it's all a matter of perspective (no management pun intended), as I am quite the fan of Rand's works and I saw a fellow commentator on here, who obviously felt the book was at odds with Rand's teachings, whereas I felt it complimented them. What I'm saying is, whatever side or straddle of the fence you may be on, regarding those topics, you will enjoy this book. Grab a copy and encourage him to write another. He says he can't write, but the man's got talent.
If this comment is disjointed in any areas, forgive me, I've just started drinking my coffee.
May 23, 2012
One of the most extraordinary novels I've read. It's not really science fiction. It's too close for that. The hero Charlie Thatcher, is Everyman in a cubicle. In a future where the libertarian ideal of "the invisible hand" has run amok, where air and water are not free, but must be earned from the corporation, where Greed is not merely good, but God, Charlie finds himself through a girl (natch), and comes to deal with the casual paranoia and cruelty of his society. In a world where every social encounter is an ambush, and everything has it's price, what is the value of compassion?
I had expected, quite frankly, something far less profound. I'm politically active myself, and was interested in the premise of the 1% getting it's way in the next election. I especially liked the scene where Charlie's wife gives him a porn magazine as a gift, so he can satisfy himself. "It only cost 5 caps." What would it cost him to actually score a home run?
Soutter has blended the immediacy of business (which Steinbeck referred to as just another way to lie) with the darkness 1984. The difference lies in the details. There's the sleazy Benjamin, always sneaking around to steal an advantage. The mysterious Linus, with whom Charlie has weekly pep talks about the merits of corporate worship, serves as the spokesman for selfishness. Soutter is too smart to have them meet in in an office. He places them on mutual ground, in an upscale coffee shop. When disaster strikes, these two characters are only concerned about saving their corporate assets.
A great read. Can't wait for the next Soutter. Maybe something in a noir?
I had expected, quite frankly, something far less profound. I'm politically active myself, and was interested in the premise of the 1% getting it's way in the next election. I especially liked the scene where Charlie's wife gives him a porn magazine as a gift, so he can satisfy himself. "It only cost 5 caps." What would it cost him to actually score a home run?
Soutter has blended the immediacy of business (which Steinbeck referred to as just another way to lie) with the darkness 1984. The difference lies in the details. There's the sleazy Benjamin, always sneaking around to steal an advantage. The mysterious Linus, with whom Charlie has weekly pep talks about the merits of corporate worship, serves as the spokesman for selfishness. Soutter is too smart to have them meet in in an office. He places them on mutual ground, in an upscale coffee shop. When disaster strikes, these two characters are only concerned about saving their corporate assets.
A great read. Can't wait for the next Soutter. Maybe something in a noir?
July 26, 2013
Reasonably well written, the spelling is good and the punctuation is meticulously correct. The book has a plot based on an interesting contrivance: government is dead and gone, corporatism has won the day, and every human interaction has a financial accounting context. I found the narrative tedious and boring, there's no relief from the deadly, asocial mutual victimization. There's no story arc, no narrative thread, wooden characters and contrived conflict. The author intends this to be a counterpoint to Atlas Shrugged, and certainly there is room for a good dystopian novel that deconstructs the errors and ethics of libertarians and "objectivists." This book isn't that novel.
As for the author:
He ain't no Huxley, he ain't no Orwell, he may be just fooling around...
As for the author:
He ain't no Huxley, he ain't no Orwell, he may be just fooling around...
January 18, 2015
Silly me, I thought this was actually going to be a book about "water issues"... it a book about corporations. It is a world where corporations have taken over and rule the world.. Every aspect of a person;s life "costs" something. Greed, competition and lying abound. There is a price for everything.
The story is about Charles Thatcher, a mid-value worker in a world run by corporations. Even parents sell their childrens "futures" to the corporations.
Charles Thatcher begins to question the system when he submits a report - full of lies of course - about a woman names Sarah Aisling. She is being accused of stealing rainwater that she had been collecting in buckets- and the rainwater belongs to the corporations of course. This sentence kind of tells you the way people think: "She couldn't afford an attorney, so obviously she didn't deserve one."
No one trusts anyone because secrets told to the corporations can earn money - and include a person's value to the corporation resulting in a position increase.If you like dystopian type books - and dislike being ruled by corporations - you'll enjoy this book.
The story is about Charles Thatcher, a mid-value worker in a world run by corporations. Even parents sell their childrens "futures" to the corporations.
Charles Thatcher begins to question the system when he submits a report - full of lies of course - about a woman names Sarah Aisling. She is being accused of stealing rainwater that she had been collecting in buckets- and the rainwater belongs to the corporations of course. This sentence kind of tells you the way people think: "She couldn't afford an attorney, so obviously she didn't deserve one."
No one trusts anyone because secrets told to the corporations can earn money - and include a person's value to the corporation resulting in a position increase.If you like dystopian type books - and dislike being ruled by corporations - you'll enjoy this book.
August 15, 2015
With all the economic troubles the U.S. and the world has faced these past several years, I was fired up to read a book that dealt with economic issues. The novel hooked me at the beginning. I wanted to see what this world was like. I soon began to realize that this "future dystopian" society is not too different from our current economic and political state. The majority of Americans are strangled by debt, working very hard to pay for nearly everything they do, and too desensitized from politics.
I really connected with Charles and his beliefs about the world "we" live in. There needs to be more to this life than just working and making money/paying off debt. Charles continually believed that there is a better way to do things. Charles was searching for that improvement and found it in Kate (too bad it was all a lie). A lot of the discourse Charles had with Linus and the CEO reminded me of my friend who came from humble beginnings and has become very successful. Our conversations are very similar and I always seem to end up losing the debate. Like Charles, I still believe what I believe.
That being said, I think the story could have been told better. I feel there was no real conflict in the story. The romance between Charles and Kate seemed forced. I didn't see the reason for the corporation to keep stringing Charles along. This novel read more like an economics essay. That being said, I believe the author is telling his readers that we need to act as a collective whole to make this a better place. We can't be the "ducks" that just quack about the problems in our country. We need to be the agents of change to make this country fair and equal for all.
I really connected with Charles and his beliefs about the world "we" live in. There needs to be more to this life than just working and making money/paying off debt. Charles continually believed that there is a better way to do things. Charles was searching for that improvement and found it in Kate (too bad it was all a lie). A lot of the discourse Charles had with Linus and the CEO reminded me of my friend who came from humble beginnings and has become very successful. Our conversations are very similar and I always seem to end up losing the debate. Like Charles, I still believe what I believe.
That being said, I think the story could have been told better. I feel there was no real conflict in the story. The romance between Charles and Kate seemed forced. I didn't see the reason for the corporation to keep stringing Charles along. This novel read more like an economics essay. That being said, I believe the author is telling his readers that we need to act as a collective whole to make this a better place. We can't be the "ducks" that just quack about the problems in our country. We need to be the agents of change to make this country fair and equal for all.
February 3, 2021
If I knew before reading this book that it was a polemic against neoliberalism for people who have never given much thought to the topic, I wouldn’t have bothered. If that’s your thing, go for it.
But as a work of fiction it’s almost indigestible. The characters are tissue thin, the plot is mostly irrelevant, and the dialog is one big, unrealistic exposition after another. The author had a sledgehammer and damned if he wasn’t going to use it every chance he got.
It’s too bad, because I am in complete agreement with the political and philosophical arguments the author makes. But they’re handled so clumsily, and so didactically, that it makes me want to run into the arms of Jeff Bezos out of spite.
If you thought this book looked interesting go read Kim Stanley Robinson, Cory Doctorow or William Gibson instead. (Or for that matter any of a hundred lesser known science fiction writers who can tell a story and talk about issues of corporatism at the same time.)
But as a work of fiction it’s almost indigestible. The characters are tissue thin, the plot is mostly irrelevant, and the dialog is one big, unrealistic exposition after another. The author had a sledgehammer and damned if he wasn’t going to use it every chance he got.
It’s too bad, because I am in complete agreement with the political and philosophical arguments the author makes. But they’re handled so clumsily, and so didactically, that it makes me want to run into the arms of Jeff Bezos out of spite.
If you thought this book looked interesting go read Kim Stanley Robinson, Cory Doctorow or William Gibson instead. (Or for that matter any of a hundred lesser known science fiction writers who can tell a story and talk about issues of corporatism at the same time.)
July 12, 2012
3.5 stars
This book was a Goodreads giveaway I received in the mail.
The plot of this book surveys the influence of corporations and the power they wield over individuals. The protagonist, Charles Thatcher, questions the shape of his environs and grapples with understanding why things are the way they are, how they came to be and how to cope/change the current course of his environs.
I found the world Charles found himself in to be one that is psychologically chilling. The premise of a world constructed and ruled by a controlling corporation that continually creates illusions for all classes of people didn't seem too far fetched.
I struggled with the ending... I can only hope there is more to this story from Mr. Soutter.
This book was a Goodreads giveaway I received in the mail.
The plot of this book surveys the influence of corporations and the power they wield over individuals. The protagonist, Charles Thatcher, questions the shape of his environs and grapples with understanding why things are the way they are, how they came to be and how to cope/change the current course of his environs.
I found the world Charles found himself in to be one that is psychologically chilling. The premise of a world constructed and ruled by a controlling corporation that continually creates illusions for all classes of people didn't seem too far fetched.
I struggled with the ending... I can only hope there is more to this story from Mr. Soutter.
August 8, 2012
I am so excited to have won my first book! I can't wait to read it and post my review!
May 17, 2015
I have been looking high and low for the book that would point out all the horrible consequences of Ayn Rand's ridiculously simplistic, destructive pseudo-"philosophy" of objectivism. I hate everything that woman ever wrote with a passion. Not only that, she's a very mediocre novelist. But Ayn Rand created the Cradle of Multinational Corporate Selfishness, and all the neocons and tea party types still think she's just the bees knees, even after the real estate debacle and the bankster's felonious frauds, so SOMEBODY had to write a retort.
And here it is. Thank God.
People are comparing this to 1984, when much more obvious comparisons would be to Ayn's works. Obviously, this is the mirror world that Soutter is going for. He is copying her style, her soliloquies, her everything, but the conclusions he reaches are the conclusions of everyday people, not the fabulously wealthy sociopaths at the top of the pile of human suffering.
The Water Thief is dystopian to the hilt, and it may seem, at first glance to be so extreme as to be unrealistic. But, actually, when you consider that the CEO of Nestle is actively lobbying make water a bought and sold commodity, that the people of Cochabamba, Bolivia had their water privatized and protested mightily over it to get their rights back, you realize that these "extremes" are actually among us today. Yes, in Bolivia, it was illegal for a time to collect rainwater, because it was the "property" of whoever the company was that was collecting it to sell.
The skewed values that seem so outlandish in the book are also not in the future, but current values. For Instance, Tea Party darling Rep. Trent Franks of Colorado recently stated that the Bible never said we needed to help the poor. And, of course, Perception Management is a part of our daily lives. Monsanto's favorite Democrat, Hillary Clinton, for instance, talks about "drought resistant" plants, instead of GMOs. Of course, Foxnews makes black white and white black on a regular basis. Every day, all day. Flip on your computer and, often, whoever controls your homepage (ATT or Yahoo or whomever) will be slanting the news to make anyone who is critical of our corporate overlords look bad--or not reporting on any protests or dissent at all. I live in an area of the United States where an agribusiness is making people sick from pesticide sprays on pumpkin fields, poisoning the Connecticut River and killing the bees by the thousands. And the CEO just says, "Why are you picking on me? I'm a poor, beleaguered businessman, and this just happens to be the cost of business. Stop hurting me!" His attitude is, "Poor, put-upon me. How dare these little, dispensable maggots of society interfere with my stock portfolio by demanding that I not poison them?" He's right out of the Ayn Rand Playbook. And he is a living, breathing (for lack of an appropriate noun) "person" in America today. One of many.
In the book, human beings become tradable commodities. In the developed world, we bristle at the thought. But then my mind goes to the folks in developing nations who are locked into their factories in the morning to work 16 hour days and only are released when their shift is over. The very brave workers who, on rare occasions, scratch out a note about their suffering, and include it in whatever plastic gew gaw they are forced to manufacture for wealthier markets. The people who make our cell phones and then commit suicide because of the despair and indignity of their situation. And then, of course, there is the obvious elephant in the room--the sex trade. That's a real and present evil, with human "commodities" in the tens of millions.
The author talks about crumbling bridges, sooted trees, filthy, sulfur-filled air. We've got crumbling bridges here in the USA. We've managed to move our sooted trees and sulfur-filled air to China and other nations with weak governments so the people there can spend 3/4 of their time in airless, dangerous buildings and die early, miserable, emphysema-and cancer-induced deaths.
Our history is being rewritten, too. Our educational opportunities to be anything other than business majors is being stripped from us. Our ability to think critically is being denigrated by conservative ideology. Our dependence on multinational corporations is increased by the minute. And the result of this is inhumane--robbing us of the best of meaning, companionship and community. All in the name of making money for some tiny fraction of a percent of greedy sociopathic scumbags.
He also points out brilliantly how, in the name of "corporate efficiency," any sense of serving the populace has just become tremendously inefficient. The corporations, which in their infancy were created to serve citizens, now have us almost completely in their thrall. Anybody who has ever spent any time on hold waiting to talk to a person about a consumer complaint will immediately know that capitalism only serves to create whatever systems that will drive all capital into the offshore accounts of the Koch brothers and the Waltons, etc. most efficiently.
We haven't quite got to enjoying watching hangings on television. Yet. We, at least most of us, still retain some residual horror at televised beheadings. But we sure relish the sight of people suffering and stabbing each other in the back. That's pretty normal television and video game fare, isn't it? Think "Survivor", where those with the basest instincts win out every time. That's pretty much unbridled capitalism for ya. And of course, Foxnews--the "get off my lawn" channel--schools viewers away from kindness and compassion on a regular basis. Foxnews LOVES to eat away at compassionate responses to suffering. Foxnews LOVES to blame the poor. Foxnews LOVES to go for the throat of the suffering and watch them bleed out. If we ever did go for hangings on TV, I'm sure they'd be the first to broadcast them. Bill O'Reilly LOVES to write about killing, after all. It's his favorite subject.
The writing of this book is not on a par with "War and Peace." So, I didn't give it that fifth star. But in writing style it does mimic that horrible disaster of a book, "Atlas Shrugged." I actually believe that's what the author was going for. This book isn't so far off in the distance, or so extreme as it may seem. A lot of what he talks about is happening right now, at the fringes of our awareness. He brings us a clarion call. We are fast losing our rights to the corporate megalith. Having caved in on democracy, we are left with Corporations as our new overlords. If we don't regulate them, they will regulate our lives, more and more and more.
They are already doing this--determining what local democracies can and can't do for the wellbeing of local citizens, using the yardstick of whether democratically made decisions will interfere with corporate profits. For instance, one small West African country was threatened with a lawsuit for considering whether to put visual warnings--pictures of cancer--on cigarette packages. That, my friends, would interfere with Philip Morris's bottom line, and apparently there was some sort of Sacrosanct International Trade Agreement that protects the Holy and Almighty Bottom Line from the consequences of allowing informed choice among the illiterate citizens of developing nations. It would save this small country thousands of lives, and millions of dollars in healthcare costs, but, you know, Philip Morris International billionaire CEO Andre Calantzapuolos probably needs another Lear Jet or something. I guess, to PMI, that's worth a few million brown-skinned people from poor nations dying like flies. I'm sure if that CEO ever read a review like this on some grand website, his lawyers would be on it (just like in Soutter's book), and so would the PMI perception management people (just like in Soutter's book).
We haven't started rendering human beings for soap. Yet. But the metaphor of "getting rid of the dirt" on corporations, and whitewashing the ugly facts was not lost on me as I red Soutter's work. The whitewashing is very, very real.
I could go on and on with examples in the book where Soutter seems extreme, but then, on second thought, I realized that a lot of his extremes are already common in our day.
I bring all of this up because what the author of this novel is saying is not just some outlandish dystopian fantasy future. Parts of what he's describing are already here. Already now. And we need to wake up.
And here it is. Thank God.
People are comparing this to 1984, when much more obvious comparisons would be to Ayn's works. Obviously, this is the mirror world that Soutter is going for. He is copying her style, her soliloquies, her everything, but the conclusions he reaches are the conclusions of everyday people, not the fabulously wealthy sociopaths at the top of the pile of human suffering.
The Water Thief is dystopian to the hilt, and it may seem, at first glance to be so extreme as to be unrealistic. But, actually, when you consider that the CEO of Nestle is actively lobbying make water a bought and sold commodity, that the people of Cochabamba, Bolivia had their water privatized and protested mightily over it to get their rights back, you realize that these "extremes" are actually among us today. Yes, in Bolivia, it was illegal for a time to collect rainwater, because it was the "property" of whoever the company was that was collecting it to sell.
The skewed values that seem so outlandish in the book are also not in the future, but current values. For Instance, Tea Party darling Rep. Trent Franks of Colorado recently stated that the Bible never said we needed to help the poor. And, of course, Perception Management is a part of our daily lives. Monsanto's favorite Democrat, Hillary Clinton, for instance, talks about "drought resistant" plants, instead of GMOs. Of course, Foxnews makes black white and white black on a regular basis. Every day, all day. Flip on your computer and, often, whoever controls your homepage (ATT or Yahoo or whomever) will be slanting the news to make anyone who is critical of our corporate overlords look bad--or not reporting on any protests or dissent at all. I live in an area of the United States where an agribusiness is making people sick from pesticide sprays on pumpkin fields, poisoning the Connecticut River and killing the bees by the thousands. And the CEO just says, "Why are you picking on me? I'm a poor, beleaguered businessman, and this just happens to be the cost of business. Stop hurting me!" His attitude is, "Poor, put-upon me. How dare these little, dispensable maggots of society interfere with my stock portfolio by demanding that I not poison them?" He's right out of the Ayn Rand Playbook. And he is a living, breathing (for lack of an appropriate noun) "person" in America today. One of many.
In the book, human beings become tradable commodities. In the developed world, we bristle at the thought. But then my mind goes to the folks in developing nations who are locked into their factories in the morning to work 16 hour days and only are released when their shift is over. The very brave workers who, on rare occasions, scratch out a note about their suffering, and include it in whatever plastic gew gaw they are forced to manufacture for wealthier markets. The people who make our cell phones and then commit suicide because of the despair and indignity of their situation. And then, of course, there is the obvious elephant in the room--the sex trade. That's a real and present evil, with human "commodities" in the tens of millions.
The author talks about crumbling bridges, sooted trees, filthy, sulfur-filled air. We've got crumbling bridges here in the USA. We've managed to move our sooted trees and sulfur-filled air to China and other nations with weak governments so the people there can spend 3/4 of their time in airless, dangerous buildings and die early, miserable, emphysema-and cancer-induced deaths.
Our history is being rewritten, too. Our educational opportunities to be anything other than business majors is being stripped from us. Our ability to think critically is being denigrated by conservative ideology. Our dependence on multinational corporations is increased by the minute. And the result of this is inhumane--robbing us of the best of meaning, companionship and community. All in the name of making money for some tiny fraction of a percent of greedy sociopathic scumbags.
He also points out brilliantly how, in the name of "corporate efficiency," any sense of serving the populace has just become tremendously inefficient. The corporations, which in their infancy were created to serve citizens, now have us almost completely in their thrall. Anybody who has ever spent any time on hold waiting to talk to a person about a consumer complaint will immediately know that capitalism only serves to create whatever systems that will drive all capital into the offshore accounts of the Koch brothers and the Waltons, etc. most efficiently.
We haven't quite got to enjoying watching hangings on television. Yet. We, at least most of us, still retain some residual horror at televised beheadings. But we sure relish the sight of people suffering and stabbing each other in the back. That's pretty normal television and video game fare, isn't it? Think "Survivor", where those with the basest instincts win out every time. That's pretty much unbridled capitalism for ya. And of course, Foxnews--the "get off my lawn" channel--schools viewers away from kindness and compassion on a regular basis. Foxnews LOVES to eat away at compassionate responses to suffering. Foxnews LOVES to blame the poor. Foxnews LOVES to go for the throat of the suffering and watch them bleed out. If we ever did go for hangings on TV, I'm sure they'd be the first to broadcast them. Bill O'Reilly LOVES to write about killing, after all. It's his favorite subject.
The writing of this book is not on a par with "War and Peace." So, I didn't give it that fifth star. But in writing style it does mimic that horrible disaster of a book, "Atlas Shrugged." I actually believe that's what the author was going for. This book isn't so far off in the distance, or so extreme as it may seem. A lot of what he talks about is happening right now, at the fringes of our awareness. He brings us a clarion call. We are fast losing our rights to the corporate megalith. Having caved in on democracy, we are left with Corporations as our new overlords. If we don't regulate them, they will regulate our lives, more and more and more.
They are already doing this--determining what local democracies can and can't do for the wellbeing of local citizens, using the yardstick of whether democratically made decisions will interfere with corporate profits. For instance, one small West African country was threatened with a lawsuit for considering whether to put visual warnings--pictures of cancer--on cigarette packages. That, my friends, would interfere with Philip Morris's bottom line, and apparently there was some sort of Sacrosanct International Trade Agreement that protects the Holy and Almighty Bottom Line from the consequences of allowing informed choice among the illiterate citizens of developing nations. It would save this small country thousands of lives, and millions of dollars in healthcare costs, but, you know, Philip Morris International billionaire CEO Andre Calantzapuolos probably needs another Lear Jet or something. I guess, to PMI, that's worth a few million brown-skinned people from poor nations dying like flies. I'm sure if that CEO ever read a review like this on some grand website, his lawyers would be on it (just like in Soutter's book), and so would the PMI perception management people (just like in Soutter's book).
We haven't started rendering human beings for soap. Yet. But the metaphor of "getting rid of the dirt" on corporations, and whitewashing the ugly facts was not lost on me as I red Soutter's work. The whitewashing is very, very real.
I could go on and on with examples in the book where Soutter seems extreme, but then, on second thought, I realized that a lot of his extremes are already common in our day.
I bring all of this up because what the author of this novel is saying is not just some outlandish dystopian fantasy future. Parts of what he's describing are already here. Already now. And we need to wake up.
August 11, 2012
This book really reminded me of a movie I recently watched with Justin Timberlake called 'In Time' (2011). This movie is set in a futuristic age where people live to the age of 25, then a clock on their wrist activates and counts down a year. Time is actually the currency of this world, and you work to get more time, you use time to buy the things you need, etc. It was actually really really good so I recommend you check it out.
The reason why I am bringing this up is that in this movie, there is a 'system'. The 'system' is what makes the world revolve. This 'system' is what dictates the ways of life, how it categorizes people, how it controls people. And in 'The Water Thief', such a 'system' exists.
People are brainwashed to believe certain things. They are pawns in a game that only the ones holding the power can win. In some cases, the ruthless will rise to hold some of that power. It is a cut throat, dog-eat-dog world. But there are a select group of people that know the truth, and want to rebel or beat the system. They gather in dark corners, 'off the grid', and plan on how it can be done, and prepare for it. They infiltrate the enemy to gather as much information as possible, lying patiently in wait for that moment... that moment when the plan is activated and they can be free of the 'system' and open the eyes of the world. Are they completely over their heads? Is it hopeless? Is it a suicide mission? Can it really be done?
Ahhhhh won't be telling you here. You will have to find out for yourself and pick up this novel.
I was not wowed by 'The Water Thief'. There was enough action to keep my interest. But my biggest problem with this novel was how preachy it felt. There was a lot of discussion, especially in the last third of this novel, about the evils of their society (or the system) that felt very repetitive. It was somewhat beneficial to understand the system that governed this society... but it went on and on for a while. I am an action girl. Long speeches make me yawn and go for a nap!
Without a doubt, this was a well written, and thought provoking dystopian novel, which for the most part, I did enjoy. The action scenes were fluent, believable and definitely elevated my heart rate. It was a world that struck a fearful chord... it was not a pleasant place.
The character development was excellent! I was very emotionally invested in some characters, while really disliking others... which by the way, is a big factor in why I am so conflicted with the ending. That is all that I can say about the ending without having to enter big spoilers... just... was conflicted.
It is definitely worth a look and I would recommend it to readers that are into dystopian novels.
June 16, 2017
6/28/12: The author contacted me directly, asking me to read & review his self-published novel. I agreed, but have only been able to get to it in installments. Now, however, I should be able to finish it. I must say, it's pretty good. Review pending.
7/5/12: Right after I wrote the in-progress entry, above, I ran into a long segment consisting of two characters talking about life under a republic, almost a Socratic dialog, and I thought "uh oh." My premonition was correct, for this long conversation was the first of many. No, the story wasn't entirely didactic -- there were brief interludes of action -- but the bulk of it was essay-like, and reminded me of John Galt's long speech in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.
The ideas behind the story are good ones, and you'll be reminded of Margaret Atwood's Oryx & Crake and The Year of the Flood, and to a degree Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash: Soutter's world is one where government has been replaced by corporate fiefdoms, complete with their own security forces, a world where those who are not safely employed (and oppressed) by the corporations are on their own, locked outside the corporate walls, eking out livings in the wastelands. But Soutter chooses not to tell the story by showing, but rather by telling, and that is this book's weakness. If his ideas engage you -- as they did me -- you'll plow on. But you'll wish you were reading Atwood or Stephenson instead.
7/5/12: Right after I wrote the in-progress entry, above, I ran into a long segment consisting of two characters talking about life under a republic, almost a Socratic dialog, and I thought "uh oh." My premonition was correct, for this long conversation was the first of many. No, the story wasn't entirely didactic -- there were brief interludes of action -- but the bulk of it was essay-like, and reminded me of John Galt's long speech in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.
The ideas behind the story are good ones, and you'll be reminded of Margaret Atwood's Oryx & Crake and The Year of the Flood, and to a degree Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash: Soutter's world is one where government has been replaced by corporate fiefdoms, complete with their own security forces, a world where those who are not safely employed (and oppressed) by the corporations are on their own, locked outside the corporate walls, eking out livings in the wastelands. But Soutter chooses not to tell the story by showing, but rather by telling, and that is this book's weakness. If his ideas engage you -- as they did me -- you'll plow on. But you'll wish you were reading Atwood or Stephenson instead.
July 29, 2012
I really wanted to love this book. I first got into dystopian novels in high school in the '60s with George Orwell's 1984, and Animal Farm. I even wrote a term paper on the works of Orwell, after I also read some of his earlier work including Keep the Aspidistra Flying and Coming Up for Air. I was the first person to check both of those out from the public library.
I love the concept of fighting against a society where capitalism rules. Everything is for sale. Parents sell futures on their children as soon as they are born, and even rainwater isn't free. I had hopes that the protagonist, Charles Thatcher, would win out against a world maybe Ayn Rand would love. But like Orwell's Winston Smith, he is brought down by a relationship with a woman.
I did enjoy reading how today's technology is used by the corporation to track Charlie's every move by GPS, and his electronic purchasing, via Ackerman, the corporate version of Big Brother. That part held my attention. I started to zone out on the philosophical meanderings. Heck, I even started counting how many times Charlie said, "Heck." I probably wouldn't have noticed if he had said, "Damn" fourteen times, or if Andy Griffith hadn't died while I was reading it. (Gawleee, Sheriff Taylor)
I didn't like the ending. I was spoiled by Katniss Everdeen.
I love the concept of fighting against a society where capitalism rules. Everything is for sale. Parents sell futures on their children as soon as they are born, and even rainwater isn't free. I had hopes that the protagonist, Charles Thatcher, would win out against a world maybe Ayn Rand would love. But like Orwell's Winston Smith, he is brought down by a relationship with a woman.
I did enjoy reading how today's technology is used by the corporation to track Charlie's every move by GPS, and his electronic purchasing, via Ackerman, the corporate version of Big Brother. That part held my attention. I started to zone out on the philosophical meanderings. Heck, I even started counting how many times Charlie said, "Heck." I probably wouldn't have noticed if he had said, "Damn" fourteen times, or if Andy Griffith hadn't died while I was reading it. (Gawleee, Sheriff Taylor)
I didn't like the ending. I was spoiled by Katniss Everdeen.
January 5, 2015
Would have given it two but the formatting was fucking awful (it has the word "page" written before each page number). Excellent concept. The plot, when it existed, was good. But there was a lot of polemic masquerading as dialogue (as in most of the book), a lot of clever one liners that didn't really do anything for the plot. Wants to be noir. Only succeeds in being slightly annoying.
Politically, the book was written by the most annoying anarcho-liberal you ever met at Occupy. You know the one, who talked about overthrowing the corporations so we could get back to the freedom, liberty, and justice of republican government, where the state 'allows a tug of war but doesn't let anyone win' (actual quote from the book). Disparages Marx, upholds Hobbes, inadvertently quotes Lenin. If you've ever wanted to get in these people's heads, this book is your chance: it's convoluted, self-published, and yes, the male protagonist DOES fall in love with a fiery rebel who just can't contain her emotions.
Politically, the book was written by the most annoying anarcho-liberal you ever met at Occupy. You know the one, who talked about overthrowing the corporations so we could get back to the freedom, liberty, and justice of republican government, where the state 'allows a tug of war but doesn't let anyone win' (actual quote from the book). Disparages Marx, upholds Hobbes, inadvertently quotes Lenin. If you've ever wanted to get in these people's heads, this book is your chance: it's convoluted, self-published, and yes, the male protagonist DOES fall in love with a fiery rebel who just can't contain her emotions.
February 22, 2016
A response to Ayn Rand, this is a libertarian dystopia in which corporations rule. It's a rather extreme vision where people are believed (and encouraged) to act solely on their economic self-interest. People sell their futures or even their children's futures to corporations so most are to varying degrees debt slaves. When a person's futures lose too much value s/he can be sold for organs or sent to the rendering vats for soap. I enjoyed this dark vision and a plot in which the protagonist, in middle-management, loses his "faith" in the social structure and begins on a dangerous path. After awhile the many dialogues between characters arguing for and against libertarianism, and the possibility of compassion and cooperation alongside competition, and so on, became a bit tedious. The real disappointment was the author's decision to abandon the plot.
June 25, 2012
Yep, 5 stars because this book will stay with you for a long time. A world where capitalism is king, and selfishness is taken to a new level. Fair warning, there is not much that is warm and fuzzy about this book, it is most definitely a serious read.
March 31, 2015
Loved this book. Plan on rereading it again soon.
May 25, 2012
The author of this work posted an add somewhere on Goodreads asking for people to review his work. I enjoy dystopian works, so I put down Brave New World for a day to knock this one out.
I tend to stay away from reviewing fiction most of the time. Something in me does not want to be overly critical of a world that does not actually exist. Therefore, I will only touch briefly on the design of Mr. Soutter's world of corruption. Instead, I will cover the implications of the work and the entertainment/educational values with more detail.
As for the world that Soutter depicts, I found it interesting yet filled with a few problems. It appears that the time period is placed in the future, but at times, the technology seems to be too confined to that of the present. I assume a world in which corporations have ruled the world for generations would have developed a little more technologically than the work portrayed. I also found it interesting that Soutter did not go the route of many other dystopians in having the government place a high emphasis on personal surveillance or at least have the characters overly worried about it. Nonetheless, I found the plausibility of the world portrayed quite interesting. A world in which corporations act as independent city states with absolute greed as the moral and legal framework of society is a new one for me. I liked the setup of the book quite a bit.
Although the heartless society of the work was very interesting, I found the implications of the book a little disturbing. The author is no friend to capitalism. All one has to do is read the two quotes at the beginning of the work to get a clear picture of that. The author portrays a world in which seemingly everything is for private sale or ownership, including the individual. This world of seemingly endless corporate bureaucracy is consumed with greed, corruption, and lies. Morality and compassion have been demonized as communistic and downright ignorant. Execution for not providing enough profit or potential future benefit to the company is commonplace in this world, and there seems to be little resistance to any of the morally deficient actions of those in power. The haves have plenty and the have-nots have nothing by their own fault. Capitalism is shown to be a horrendous, anti-governmental philosophy which celebrates inequality.
The difficulty I find with Soutter's novel begins on a semantic level. His definition of capitalism in the text is not shown to be distinct from a less extreme, more realistic form of capitalism. The depiction of capitalism given by Soutter can not be equated with the concept expressed in political and economic conservatism or with the overall concept itself. Those advocating capitalism do not call for the abolition of government nor for the private ownership of public property such as air. I am not sure of the motives of the author in the text, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt and respond to several potential intentions he may have had in writing the text. If the author intended to show the terrors of the whole idea of capitalism through presenting this logically potential application of the ideology, then the writer failed to do so because he only showed the horrors of a specific anarchistic form which is not expressed in reality. In this instance, the author would be guilty of bullying a straw man of capitalism instead of the concept itself. It is a non-sequitur to attempt to claim an ideology is wrong or evil in itself by means a potential negative outworking of that system in a hypothetical reality (whereas a negative ends that could be proved necessary would be more of a valid argument against the system's worth). On the other hand, if the author's intentions were to demonstrate the horrors of this specific potential ends of extreme capitalism, then his work was very effective in achieving his goals. If the author was attempting to show the need for government to be present in a capitalistic and free-market economy, I fully agree. I want to assume that this was his motive, but after reading the quotations preceding his work again, I am still led back to the potential that he meant to undermine the whole ideology by his satire. I intend to ask the author about this specific intention for clarification since I do not want to wrongfully assume his position and motives.
Also, I was surprised that the author did not follow the government problem to a more logical ends. He demonstrated that government had been abolished and all that remained of any structure belonged to super-corporations who owned and monopolized everything. This left one to wonder at what point does a corporation that is against government but acts as a government actually become that which it despises? I would argue that the corporations in place in the text were actually pseudo-governments, and that the problem in the book was not capitalism, but bad government. With so much dialogue about government and the lack thereof in the text, I was always waiting for someone to say, "Hey...aren't the corporations acting like a bad government?" But instead, capitalism was shown to be evil and blamed for the problems within story. One might ask how this affects anything worth mentioning since it could just be a different opinion of what should be in the work. I think this has strong implications on the understanding of the reader since the author presents the absence of the government as the problem, presence of a government as the solution, and the corporation as nothing more than a greedy bully. If the corporations are actually acting as governments, then the presence of one disguised and deceptive government is the problem, a change of government is the solution! After seeing the true culprit of the book's atrocities, I think one could replace capitalism with any other political ideology taken in a mangles and extreme light and find a horrific set of circumstances as the result.
There are several things I want to commend Mr. Soutter on as well. I personally like the way in which he used the various economic and political philosophies in dialogue. I think that the implementation of ideas into written dialogues (such as Socratic dialogues) is a wonderful way to present ideas due to the entertaining nature of that method. As mentioned above, it is questionable whether capitalism was presented in a fair and accurate way to what it actually is in the text (depending on the author's intentions), but nonetheless, we can see wonderful philosophical dialogue about economics and politics from the characters in the work.
Also, I think that the author wrote an entertaining novel! It was fun to read, and I found myself unable to stop reading it at several points in the book. I spotted a few small typos in the e-book copy which were easily identifiable as most likely spell-check issues, but nothing seemed grammatically problematic or anything of that nature. It was definitely worth reading through.
Giving the work a rating is hard. I wish that I could rate on a 10 star scale instead of a 5 star one. Out of 10, I would give the work a seven, but to be fair to the author on a 5 star scale, I will give it a 4 because it definitely deserves higher than a 3. Then again, if you take the Goodreads meanings of the star count (3 being "liked it") I would say that a "liked it" was sufficient. However, I feel that the Goodreads system is ridiculous, so it gets a 4 out of 5 from me.
Thanks to the author for the free e-book copy to review.
I tend to stay away from reviewing fiction most of the time. Something in me does not want to be overly critical of a world that does not actually exist. Therefore, I will only touch briefly on the design of Mr. Soutter's world of corruption. Instead, I will cover the implications of the work and the entertainment/educational values with more detail.
As for the world that Soutter depicts, I found it interesting yet filled with a few problems. It appears that the time period is placed in the future, but at times, the technology seems to be too confined to that of the present. I assume a world in which corporations have ruled the world for generations would have developed a little more technologically than the work portrayed. I also found it interesting that Soutter did not go the route of many other dystopians in having the government place a high emphasis on personal surveillance or at least have the characters overly worried about it. Nonetheless, I found the plausibility of the world portrayed quite interesting. A world in which corporations act as independent city states with absolute greed as the moral and legal framework of society is a new one for me. I liked the setup of the book quite a bit.
Although the heartless society of the work was very interesting, I found the implications of the book a little disturbing. The author is no friend to capitalism. All one has to do is read the two quotes at the beginning of the work to get a clear picture of that. The author portrays a world in which seemingly everything is for private sale or ownership, including the individual. This world of seemingly endless corporate bureaucracy is consumed with greed, corruption, and lies. Morality and compassion have been demonized as communistic and downright ignorant. Execution for not providing enough profit or potential future benefit to the company is commonplace in this world, and there seems to be little resistance to any of the morally deficient actions of those in power. The haves have plenty and the have-nots have nothing by their own fault. Capitalism is shown to be a horrendous, anti-governmental philosophy which celebrates inequality.
The difficulty I find with Soutter's novel begins on a semantic level. His definition of capitalism in the text is not shown to be distinct from a less extreme, more realistic form of capitalism. The depiction of capitalism given by Soutter can not be equated with the concept expressed in political and economic conservatism or with the overall concept itself. Those advocating capitalism do not call for the abolition of government nor for the private ownership of public property such as air. I am not sure of the motives of the author in the text, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt and respond to several potential intentions he may have had in writing the text. If the author intended to show the terrors of the whole idea of capitalism through presenting this logically potential application of the ideology, then the writer failed to do so because he only showed the horrors of a specific anarchistic form which is not expressed in reality. In this instance, the author would be guilty of bullying a straw man of capitalism instead of the concept itself. It is a non-sequitur to attempt to claim an ideology is wrong or evil in itself by means a potential negative outworking of that system in a hypothetical reality (whereas a negative ends that could be proved necessary would be more of a valid argument against the system's worth). On the other hand, if the author's intentions were to demonstrate the horrors of this specific potential ends of extreme capitalism, then his work was very effective in achieving his goals. If the author was attempting to show the need for government to be present in a capitalistic and free-market economy, I fully agree. I want to assume that this was his motive, but after reading the quotations preceding his work again, I am still led back to the potential that he meant to undermine the whole ideology by his satire. I intend to ask the author about this specific intention for clarification since I do not want to wrongfully assume his position and motives.
Also, I was surprised that the author did not follow the government problem to a more logical ends. He demonstrated that government had been abolished and all that remained of any structure belonged to super-corporations who owned and monopolized everything. This left one to wonder at what point does a corporation that is against government but acts as a government actually become that which it despises? I would argue that the corporations in place in the text were actually pseudo-governments, and that the problem in the book was not capitalism, but bad government. With so much dialogue about government and the lack thereof in the text, I was always waiting for someone to say, "Hey...aren't the corporations acting like a bad government?" But instead, capitalism was shown to be evil and blamed for the problems within story. One might ask how this affects anything worth mentioning since it could just be a different opinion of what should be in the work. I think this has strong implications on the understanding of the reader since the author presents the absence of the government as the problem, presence of a government as the solution, and the corporation as nothing more than a greedy bully. If the corporations are actually acting as governments, then the presence of one disguised and deceptive government is the problem, a change of government is the solution! After seeing the true culprit of the book's atrocities, I think one could replace capitalism with any other political ideology taken in a mangles and extreme light and find a horrific set of circumstances as the result.
There are several things I want to commend Mr. Soutter on as well. I personally like the way in which he used the various economic and political philosophies in dialogue. I think that the implementation of ideas into written dialogues (such as Socratic dialogues) is a wonderful way to present ideas due to the entertaining nature of that method. As mentioned above, it is questionable whether capitalism was presented in a fair and accurate way to what it actually is in the text (depending on the author's intentions), but nonetheless, we can see wonderful philosophical dialogue about economics and politics from the characters in the work.
Also, I think that the author wrote an entertaining novel! It was fun to read, and I found myself unable to stop reading it at several points in the book. I spotted a few small typos in the e-book copy which were easily identifiable as most likely spell-check issues, but nothing seemed grammatically problematic or anything of that nature. It was definitely worth reading through.
Giving the work a rating is hard. I wish that I could rate on a 10 star scale instead of a 5 star one. Out of 10, I would give the work a seven, but to be fair to the author on a 5 star scale, I will give it a 4 because it definitely deserves higher than a 3. Then again, if you take the Goodreads meanings of the star count (3 being "liked it") I would say that a "liked it" was sufficient. However, I feel that the Goodreads system is ridiculous, so it gets a 4 out of 5 from me.
Thanks to the author for the free e-book copy to review.
October 12, 2020
The setting for this book is a near future Randian/hyper-libertarian corporate run dystopia. The protagonist is a disenchanted mid-level worker. Going about his life illustrates the dystopic nature of the world he lives in. In discussions with a person in a poor area of the dystopia, he learns of a theoretical alternative political system, a republic that works in the public interest and suppresses corporate excesses. In discussions with a corporate mentor and with an executive, the hyper-libertarian philosophy is defended and explained.
There isn’t much to the plot, and as such I would not call this great sci-fi. But from a pedagogical standpoint, this book could be a very useful source for discussion as part of a political philosophy class. The book does a very good job of explaining the Ayn Randian objectivist hyper-libertarian worldview, and what might be seen as a sort of Elizabeth Warren capitalist counter worldview. The objectivist society is extreme to the point of being implausible. It does not strike me as a potentially stable society at all. However, from a pedagogical standpoint, the nature of life in the dystopia does an excellent job of driving home both the rationale for such a society and the bleak logical conclusion such a rationale entails. Once again, not great as sci-fi literature, but if you are interested in libertarianism/objectivism and some of its counterpoints this is well worth the read, and provides much food for thought.
There isn’t much to the plot, and as such I would not call this great sci-fi. But from a pedagogical standpoint, this book could be a very useful source for discussion as part of a political philosophy class. The book does a very good job of explaining the Ayn Randian objectivist hyper-libertarian worldview, and what might be seen as a sort of Elizabeth Warren capitalist counter worldview. The objectivist society is extreme to the point of being implausible. It does not strike me as a potentially stable society at all. However, from a pedagogical standpoint, the nature of life in the dystopia does an excellent job of driving home both the rationale for such a society and the bleak logical conclusion such a rationale entails. Once again, not great as sci-fi literature, but if you are interested in libertarianism/objectivism and some of its counterpoints this is well worth the read, and provides much food for thought.
October 31, 2021
“No system is perfect. If finding fault with a system is all it takes to throw it out, you’re in for a world of disappointment. I don’t need perfect, but I can ask for better. A lot of the time competition is best. I like fast cars, tasty cornflakes and soft toilet paper. Capitalism makes those things possible. But we all have needs common to the human condition. We need air, medical services, and insurance— not against our own failings, but acts of god that can strike anyone. We need police, and some form of guaranteed legal recourse against people who violate contracts or hurt people. We need education and a skilled workforce."
A dystopia written in response to Ayn Rand's Objectivism taking over the world after the demise of Governments, where everyone is bound to a corporation. Well written, with a good balance between monologues on the nature of humans, capitalism and government, contrasted with some decent action oriented sections. Some of the romance feels a little forced. It's no 1984 but definitely in that mould.
A dystopia written in response to Ayn Rand's Objectivism taking over the world after the demise of Governments, where everyone is bound to a corporation. Well written, with a good balance between monologues on the nature of humans, capitalism and government, contrasted with some decent action oriented sections. Some of the romance feels a little forced. It's no 1984 but definitely in that mould.
February 2, 2020
Charles Thatcher is employed by Ackerman Brothers Security. This is the nation’s “Big Brother” of the future. A future where human life is very expendable if you do not follow the rules. You are hung in town square and your remains used to produce soap and other need for those left behind. It is his job to seek out and find the resistance and make sure they are tended to as per the law.
He runs across a woman who steals rainwater, a natural resource that is highly regulated and rationed. He takes her case under his wings and has a change of heart.
Hmmm…Fahrenheit 451 had the same storyline.
The book follows him as he loses his wife, tries to trust people who are looking to turn in his for the “commission” and he did to others, and finds a love that may be his destiny or his demise.
This book was a sad but true testimonial to how the world could be some day. It touched on love and loyalty, which even in today’s times can be driven by money and power.
He runs across a woman who steals rainwater, a natural resource that is highly regulated and rationed. He takes her case under his wings and has a change of heart.
Hmmm…Fahrenheit 451 had the same storyline.
The book follows him as he loses his wife, tries to trust people who are looking to turn in his for the “commission” and he did to others, and finds a love that may be his destiny or his demise.
This book was a sad but true testimonial to how the world could be some day. It touched on love and loyalty, which even in today’s times can be driven by money and power.
May 12, 2017
Although I am on board with the anti-Randian message in this book, I found it horribly disappointing. First, because it is a poorly told story. Soutter rushes through the exciting parts in a page or two, while lecturing dryly for pages on top of pages until I forget there even is a story. Next, the dystopia he creates is too hyperbolic. The over-the-top insanity of the world he creates diminishes his message by making it seem so unlikely that capitalism could ever be taken to this extreme. And finally, Soutter's complaints about capitalism seem mainly centered around the idea that it will destroy itself, so that's why it's bad, ignoring the positive aspects of democratic socialism in favor of regulated capitalism. And then, there is that ending. I despise the way it ended.
December 4, 2021
I enjoyed this book. It’s the imagining of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism philosophy on steroids. I think the author did a good job of making the point that corporations unregulated will turn out to be greedy and corrupt. In this world there is no government and only corporations. He does a good job of developing the main character and in the process making points about why Objectivism just doesn’t work. My one complaint is that there was a big buildup at the end of the book and then it ended flat. I will definitely give Nicholas Lamar Soutter another try.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 22, 2017
Excellent, excellent book! The extent to which the corporations can control your life is no work of fiction in Soutter's novel "The Water Thief". A lonely, naive man who hungers for more than just oppression by his "corporate owner" seeks out an alternative way of governing a society at great risk to his own status and life. This dystopian story will leave you questioning if the author isn't really a prophetic fortune-teller peering into his crystal ball and giving us a glimpse of what's to come. Entertaining, thought-provoking, and, ultimately, inspirational, "The Water Thief" will not disappoint.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 96 reviews