What do you think?
Rate this book
L: A Novel History
A charismatic sociopath orchestrates a reign of tyranny in England during the 1980s. L: A Novel History, documents how distinguished political theorist, Louis Zander, or "L", uses art, artifice and ideology to enchant and captivate millions of English citizens. He then ups the stakes and slowly, with heart-pounding inevitability, turns his followers from democracy-loving citizens into willing participants in his collectivist dictatorship. This skillfully composed and well-researched novel could be a fictionalization of the Cloward-Piven strategy or Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Ms. Becker has written a page turner that unveils the step-by-step process by which one evil man seduces, perverts and then destroys an entire nation. "L" could be Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or even the next Prime Minister or President. Read this book at your peril. In this age of charismatic leaders, the vulnerability of our society is all too real.
Ms. Becker was inspired to write this novel while researching her best selling, non-fiction work, Hitler's Children: The Story of the Baader-Meinhof Gang.
Ms. Becker was inspired to write this novel while researching her best selling, non-fiction work, Hitler's Children: The Story of the Baader-Meinhof Gang.
Hardcover
First published January 1, 1995
12 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 - 6 of 6 reviews
May 25, 2013
Book Info: Genre: Alternate History
Reading Level: Adult
Recommended for: I think everyone should read this. While I think those who favor socialism and communism will probably find the blatantly anti-communist overstory to be upsetting, I still think they should read it, and try to keep an open mind. There is more to this story that is on the surface.
Trigger Warnings: rape of women and children, violence, attempted murder, murder, torture, cannibalism, looting
Animal Abuse: multiple animals killed in “art” presentations, killing and eating of a small boy's dog
My Thoughts: Wow, this has to be one of the strangest things I've ever read. It's fiction, written like a history book, purportedly written in 2023 about events that took place from the 1960s into the early 1990s about a man who thirsted for power and destruction. If read with only a surface understanding, it appears to be vehemently anti-socialist and pro-capitalist, but a deeper understanding is needed to really understand that is being explored in this book. It is not about Left vs. Right, but about one man's desire to see the world burn around him, and how he used Leftist ideology and the desire of people to a) do right and b) be taken care of so as to be absolved of responsibilities to twist an entire country into his fist. This quote more-or-less encapsulates the idea behind the story.
The thing is, so many of the people that followed him didn't even understand that socialism and communism were really about. One anecdote really brought that home to me. The characters are visiting a commune in which 12 people are living. One woman complains she cannot even leave milk for her baby in the refrigerator because someone else will just take it. Several of the people who live there proudly proclaim themselves to be Workers, but refuse to actually work. “It's not that there aren't jobs to be had, but they 'refuse to prop up the system by becoming wage-slaves'.” Instead, they seem to feel they should be supported by the commune without actually providing anything in return. This is completely antithetical to what a commune is actually about. These people would have a rude awakening if they were in a truly communist group, wherein if one wants to eat, one needs to work. The idea is not to have everything handed to you, but that everyone shares in everything. The ideals behind communism are good; it's just that people are greedy on an individual basis and think they should be exempt from actually following those ideals themselves, and communism will not work unless every single person believes in those ideals and lives them. That why it won't work, especially in our modern society where everyone wants the benefits but doesn't want to actually have to do anything to receive them. It comes down so much to the lack of personal responsibility that is becoming a curse upon our society, where everything is always the “fault” of someone else, and no fault is ever accepted. But I'm rambling way off topic.
To me, the fact that so many thoughts and ideas are rolling around in my head after reading this is a very good sign. I might not have agreed with everything, and there were sections of this book that absolutely infuriated me, but it made me think, and to me, that is a sign of a very successful book. I'm telling you, so many people in this book come through as completely bughouse nuts. For example, anyone who disagreed with the Party line was called a fascist. They were militantly against racism, but hated Jews. They declared that Zionists were fascists, and therefore Jews were Nazis.... How messed up is that? An example of some of the double-speak so prevalent:
I wanted to say that no one would actually think this way, that no one would fall for the sorts of double-speak, manipulations, lies and propaganda that the people in this book fell for, but then I looked around, thought about some of the things I've seen on the news, read in magazines and newspapers, and heard people discussing in various places, and realized this is all-too-plausible. Frighteningly so. And it makes me despair for the world. People who know me well know I'm not an extremist one way or another politically—socially I tend to be Left and legally more Right—but I know one thing I can state unequivocally... When it comes to government, less is more. And modern government is growing too big. Legislating the sorts of personal decisions that should not be legislated is, as one character puts it in this book, doing nothing but creating wind. You can't force people to like one another with laws, and trying to will just make the problem worse. I've noted a distressing tendency lately for people to want the government to “do something” about issues in which the government should have absolutely no say, and the fact that enough people howl for it gives the government way too much power and control over our everyday life. I hope many people will read this, realize that things are going too far, and start to back off on insisting that the government “take care of us” and start taking care of themselves. Personal responsibilities need to go back to being personal. And again I'm rambling... sorry!
The formatting left a lot to be desired. There were frequently sentences and fragments of sentences that were randomly swapped around and it made entire paragraphs sometimes very difficult to parse; since the book was already sometimes rather difficult to read, it made some sections practically unreadable. This is really the only issue I had with this book, and it likely a result of the fact that it is a galley. I hope that there will not be issues of this sort in the final edition. I should also point out that the edition I had was missing most of the appendices, and all of the illustrations and footnotes, so there is more to this book than I was able to access in this galley.
The descriptions of the Direct Art movement in Vienna in the late 1960s and early 1970s sickened me, and I have never been so ashamed of being Austrian when I think about the sort of people who would actively support this sort of sick thing—the torture and murder of animals, the rape of young boys, the violence against their own audience—and demand it be allowed to continue in the name of “art”. Not only that, but that most of these “artists” were supported with public grants—money from taxpayers.
Rather than making this already too long review any longer, I'll stop rambling now and say that I think most people should take the time to read this book and really think about it. Those who favor communism or socialism might find this book distasteful on the surface, as it paints Left ideologies in a very negative light. However, I think the meaning is deeper than that; I think this book is more about how one man's feeling of alienation and desire for power led to him utilizing the well-meaning ideologies of a certain segment of the population for his own purposes. Read it with an open mind, and really think about it.
Disclosure: I received an e-galley from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. All opinions are my own.
Synopsis: A charismatic sociopath orchestrates a reign of tyranny in England during the 1980s. L: A Novel History documents how distinguished political theorist, Louis Zander, or "L", uses art, artifice and ideology to ennkchant and captivate millions of English citizens. He then ups the stakes and slowly, with heart-pounding inevitability, turns his followers from democracy-loving citizens into willing participants in his collectivist dictatorship. This skillfully composed and well-researched novel could be a fictionalization of the Cloward-Piven strategy or Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Ms. Becker has written a page turner that unveils the step-by-step process by which one evil man seduces, perverts and then destroys an entire nation. "L" could be Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or even the next Prime Minister or President. Read this book at your peril. In this age of charismatic leaders, the vulnerability of our society is all too real.
Ms. Becker was inspired to write this novel while researching her best selling, non-fiction work, Hitler's Children: The Story of the Baader-Meinhof Gang.
Reading Level: Adult
Recommended for: I think everyone should read this. While I think those who favor socialism and communism will probably find the blatantly anti-communist overstory to be upsetting, I still think they should read it, and try to keep an open mind. There is more to this story that is on the surface.
Trigger Warnings: rape of women and children, violence, attempted murder, murder, torture, cannibalism, looting
Animal Abuse: multiple animals killed in “art” presentations, killing and eating of a small boy's dog
My Thoughts: Wow, this has to be one of the strangest things I've ever read. It's fiction, written like a history book, purportedly written in 2023 about events that took place from the 1960s into the early 1990s about a man who thirsted for power and destruction. If read with only a surface understanding, it appears to be vehemently anti-socialist and pro-capitalist, but a deeper understanding is needed to really understand that is being explored in this book. It is not about Left vs. Right, but about one man's desire to see the world burn around him, and how he used Leftist ideology and the desire of people to a) do right and b) be taken care of so as to be absolved of responsibilities to twist an entire country into his fist. This quote more-or-less encapsulates the idea behind the story.
“When his [L's] messengers moved among the bored and aimless young, telling them that they had deep cause for resentment; that they were discriminated against and oppressed; that they had the right to all manner of good things that the state had long promised and had not yet given them enough of to make them happy—no one knowing better than he that the expectations the welfare state had aroused could never be met—he was preparing the way for disaster: and that was what he expected and passionately desired.”
The thing is, so many of the people that followed him didn't even understand that socialism and communism were really about. One anecdote really brought that home to me. The characters are visiting a commune in which 12 people are living. One woman complains she cannot even leave milk for her baby in the refrigerator because someone else will just take it. Several of the people who live there proudly proclaim themselves to be Workers, but refuse to actually work. “It's not that there aren't jobs to be had, but they 'refuse to prop up the system by becoming wage-slaves'.” Instead, they seem to feel they should be supported by the commune without actually providing anything in return. This is completely antithetical to what a commune is actually about. These people would have a rude awakening if they were in a truly communist group, wherein if one wants to eat, one needs to work. The idea is not to have everything handed to you, but that everyone shares in everything. The ideals behind communism are good; it's just that people are greedy on an individual basis and think they should be exempt from actually following those ideals themselves, and communism will not work unless every single person believes in those ideals and lives them. That why it won't work, especially in our modern society where everyone wants the benefits but doesn't want to actually have to do anything to receive them. It comes down so much to the lack of personal responsibility that is becoming a curse upon our society, where everything is always the “fault” of someone else, and no fault is ever accepted. But I'm rambling way off topic.
To me, the fact that so many thoughts and ideas are rolling around in my head after reading this is a very good sign. I might not have agreed with everything, and there were sections of this book that absolutely infuriated me, but it made me think, and to me, that is a sign of a very successful book. I'm telling you, so many people in this book come through as completely bughouse nuts. For example, anyone who disagreed with the Party line was called a fascist. They were militantly against racism, but hated Jews. They declared that Zionists were fascists, and therefore Jews were Nazis.... How messed up is that? An example of some of the double-speak so prevalent:
“He understood the good to be what was natural, because nature was innocent; and innocence was wild, and wild innocent nature was cruel; so cruelty was good.”
“But he held that only the man who understood profoundly and completely that murder was absolutely wrong could commit the murder that would be supremely good; the entirely—and tragically—moral murder. Such a one is the terrorist. He is a heroic martyr because he murders for the Communist Party, he does so with awesome courage, knowing full well that he himself must thereby suffer. There is no greater love than to lay down the life of a fellow man.”
“It is of no importance whether they are true or not. What matters is that they are socially and morally unacceptable.”
I wanted to say that no one would actually think this way, that no one would fall for the sorts of double-speak, manipulations, lies and propaganda that the people in this book fell for, but then I looked around, thought about some of the things I've seen on the news, read in magazines and newspapers, and heard people discussing in various places, and realized this is all-too-plausible. Frighteningly so. And it makes me despair for the world. People who know me well know I'm not an extremist one way or another politically—socially I tend to be Left and legally more Right—but I know one thing I can state unequivocally... When it comes to government, less is more. And modern government is growing too big. Legislating the sorts of personal decisions that should not be legislated is, as one character puts it in this book, doing nothing but creating wind. You can't force people to like one another with laws, and trying to will just make the problem worse. I've noted a distressing tendency lately for people to want the government to “do something” about issues in which the government should have absolutely no say, and the fact that enough people howl for it gives the government way too much power and control over our everyday life. I hope many people will read this, realize that things are going too far, and start to back off on insisting that the government “take care of us” and start taking care of themselves. Personal responsibilities need to go back to being personal. And again I'm rambling... sorry!
The formatting left a lot to be desired. There were frequently sentences and fragments of sentences that were randomly swapped around and it made entire paragraphs sometimes very difficult to parse; since the book was already sometimes rather difficult to read, it made some sections practically unreadable. This is really the only issue I had with this book, and it likely a result of the fact that it is a galley. I hope that there will not be issues of this sort in the final edition. I should also point out that the edition I had was missing most of the appendices, and all of the illustrations and footnotes, so there is more to this book than I was able to access in this galley.
The descriptions of the Direct Art movement in Vienna in the late 1960s and early 1970s sickened me, and I have never been so ashamed of being Austrian when I think about the sort of people who would actively support this sort of sick thing—the torture and murder of animals, the rape of young boys, the violence against their own audience—and demand it be allowed to continue in the name of “art”. Not only that, but that most of these “artists” were supported with public grants—money from taxpayers.
Rather than making this already too long review any longer, I'll stop rambling now and say that I think most people should take the time to read this book and really think about it. Those who favor communism or socialism might find this book distasteful on the surface, as it paints Left ideologies in a very negative light. However, I think the meaning is deeper than that; I think this book is more about how one man's feeling of alienation and desire for power led to him utilizing the well-meaning ideologies of a certain segment of the population for his own purposes. Read it with an open mind, and really think about it.
Disclosure: I received an e-galley from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. All opinions are my own.
Synopsis: A charismatic sociopath orchestrates a reign of tyranny in England during the 1980s. L: A Novel History documents how distinguished political theorist, Louis Zander, or "L", uses art, artifice and ideology to ennkchant and captivate millions of English citizens. He then ups the stakes and slowly, with heart-pounding inevitability, turns his followers from democracy-loving citizens into willing participants in his collectivist dictatorship. This skillfully composed and well-researched novel could be a fictionalization of the Cloward-Piven strategy or Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Ms. Becker has written a page turner that unveils the step-by-step process by which one evil man seduces, perverts and then destroys an entire nation. "L" could be Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or even the next Prime Minister or President. Read this book at your peril. In this age of charismatic leaders, the vulnerability of our society is all too real.
Ms. Becker was inspired to write this novel while researching her best selling, non-fiction work, Hitler's Children: The Story of the Baader-Meinhof Gang.
September 3, 2012
This book is historical fiction dressed up as a real history. It is about a person known as simply L. His real name is Louis Zander. He was born in South Africa – of Jewish heritage. A fact he kept hidden as his plans unfolded throughout his history in England where he spent most of his time. He was the son of rich parents who looked after this sensitive and brilliant child who later turned into a monster. This is the most absolutely frightening book I've ever read, even though it is written as a history of a political figure. The power that he had and the ways he abused that power effected an entire country so much so it turned England on it's head to become a Dictatorship. That one man could do that in such a short span of time is not only a cautionary tale, it is a horror story that should be taught to our children along with Grimm's fairy tales which teach them lessons about talking to strangers and being nice to people in situations which warrant it, because you never know what will happen in the future. This book was written from the perspective of an author quoting from a history that was written in the year 2023, looking back on the destruction caused by L and his cohorts, but really by L himself. With the socialist tendencies of Obama, this is a lesson that we all should learn and learn quickly. It could be part of our future, and that will not end well at all. To quote the marketing text; This “...could be a fictionalization of the Cloward-Piven strategy or Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. [sic] It “...unveils the step-by-step process by which one evil man seduces, perverts and then destroys an entire nation. “L” could be Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or even the next Prime Minister or President.”
THE PLOT: This is the history of L through childhood, up through the time he died and shortly after. It describes him as a child and the relationships he had or didn't have, and how he was as he grew up. Once grown, he had a fondness for a type of art that included violence, self-mutilation, sadomasochism, scatology and other things in that vein. He became a philosopher and he had a philosophy about this type of art that he wrote books about. He got many degrees from famed institutions with his brilliance. After his writing, he decided that actions speaks louder than words, so he decided that politics would be the testing ground for his philosophies. He was so brilliant that he started slowly, and built the foundations as if building a town. Playing off the liberalism and the guilt that goes with it for those less fortunate than the middle and upper classes – the poor, the homeless, women, the racially unequal, immigrants, and everything and everyone else that is someone else's cause, and someone else's hot button, he played people like the fiddles they were. He used them to get what he wanted. What he wanted was Revolution! Now the story really gets rolling: There are sanctioned race riots, police deaths, housing proscriptions, denture recalls, property confiscations, police brutality, prison-like hospitals, private armies, brutal murders, hunting and killing the 'wrong kind” of people, starving, black market thriving, skinheads on the loose, guns turned in, businesses abandoned, people fleeing, cannibalism, people feeling like they somehow deserved it. There is so much more to this. I give the plot a 9/10
THE CHARACTERIZATION: There are very few people characterized in this book. L is obviously the most characterized, and yet he is an enigma wrapped in a conundrum, covered in a puzzle, with a few pieces missing. His brilliance is clear. He did the right things at the right time to grab the ultimate power over England, yet it didn't seem to be what he really wanted. It didn't make him happy. I don't know if anything could make him happy – except to die. Death to him was the ultimate thing to do. Whether it was with a lover, in an art piece, or execution as a traitor, it didn't seem to matter. It let him transcend this Earthly existence and get to another plane where he seemed to believe he had a chance at happiness – at least that is what it seemed like. He had tried suicide before, but his partner didn't agree, so he abandoned it. He decided that he had a lot to do, before his death, which is when he turned words into actions. Very strange, but very brilliant. What is interesting is that with all his appreciation of this sadomasochism – he never tried it. Never participated. Same thing with politics, never participated – just watched. Like watching gold fish in a bowl. The ultimate scientist, always watching, but never touching. Jotting down notes about what was going on, but never getting in there and playing around with his concepts. He was above it all. He was God to the ants. For characterization I give this an 7/10, there were so many other people that were wooden, many who should have been much better characterized, Foxe for example. Some had thoughts and feelings, but most just had actions and histories. This is not enough. I stand with my 7/10.
THE DIALOGUE: The dialogue in this book was quite good, There was none of the usual colloquialisms that normally are found in books written about England in the '80s – because all of the people that L was dealing with were upper class. L himself was upper class too. This made the dialogue quite easy to follow. He was God watching his creations play out his philosophies. The only time the dialogue ranged into lower class dialogue was the skinheads who had their own terms for things after the revolution. These were explained by the historian writing the book beforehand, so there was no confusion. The dialogue was credible and because it was ostensibly written by a historian, and quoted from numerous sources. Each source of dialogue was unique and added to the overall credibility of the story. There were letters and papers cited which helped put into words what L was really doing. When things were being read, things such as memoirs, this put them into the dialogue category, which helped the story tremendously. It made the history more credible as well. I give the dialogue a 10/10
THE GORE SCORE: The gore score on this one is quite difficult. Thousands of people died. Their deaths were clinically described by the historian. That leaves us with our imaginations which are perfectly active and fertile. While there were some beatings described, some cannibalism, some bodies left in body bags on statues left in centrally public places, the overall violence to children, young adults, women, elderly persons and everyone else is simply ghastly. There is torture involved also. While the historian is clinical about it, some of the witness accounts are pretty hard to take. Even the clinical accounts of the things done to children made my hair stand on end. When your imagination takes over as the clinical account reels past, you are in trouble. Remember thousands of people died in differing ways – this leaves a lot of ways for those people to die, including all that art that still continued in those prison-like hospitals that were supposed rehabilitate people, groups of skinheads hunting down the “wrong kind” of people and doing things to them you don't want to know about. Because of all these things, I give the gore score an 9/10. Most of it happens in your head, but it is placed there by hints in the book – so though there are no limbs flying, no guts spilling, no blood gushing, I stick with my score of 9/10.
THE IMAGERY: The imagery in this book is hard to take but is quite essential to the overall message of the book. Here you have this bipolar lifestyle of L and his friends living the good life on one hand. On the other hand you have the populace of England starving, wearing rags, dirty, hunted down, living in abandoned buildings in the country and dealing with the black market for food. What could be more bipolar than that? The raping and pillaging, the cannibalism, the police/private army sitting aside watching it all happen, London and all major cities completely destroyed by sanctioned race riots in which L's people helped. Buildings burned, rats overrunning the place, almost totally abandoned, limp flags for L fluttering in the breeze. His statues are everywhere with no one to see them but the rats. Everything is grey. London is a wasteland. Every city is a wasteland. The destruction is unparalleled. For imagery I give it a 9/10, though bleak, the images resonate in your brain as so depressing and grey. Grey is the overall color of the book, once L takes over, except for the fire of the cannibals, which dances merrily. It is the only color, other than blood which highlights L's reign of terror. 9/10.
THE PACING: The pacing in the book waxed and waned depending on where in the life of L it actually was. Whether in childhood, adolescence, adulthood, philosophy, or action. Some parts were slow, some were quite gripping and swift. It depended on his planning, what phase he was in, how the public was reacting, and what supporting evidence the historian and collected that brought the whole thing to life. Some parts were really quite deadening, some were rather boring, most were quite interesting, and always scary. For pacing, I have to give it a 5/10. I have read real histories that bring dead characters to life that do an amazing job with dead facts and dead people, with an option to make up everything, you'd think you could do a better job of making this novel sing with both characterization and pacing. I'll reiterate, 5/10 for pacing.
THE ENDING: The ending was interesting and somewhat satisfying. The damage had been done. There was no plan for revitalization. Just a bunch of new characters running the country and back to business as usual. In some ways it is was anticlimactic. I was hoping that everyone had learned a lesson and something good would have come out of all the suffering imposed by L. Something wonderful, something transcendent. I guess I was overoptimistic. People and people after all and Governments are Governments. People will someday learn that our Forefathers had it right when they said that Government should be For the People, By the People in the Pursuit for Life, Liberty and Happiness. We have gotten so far away from that these days maybe we should think about something different. For and ending I give it a 7/10.
THE UPSHOT: The upshot of the book is that everyone sitting in a democracy should read this. It is not only a cautionary tale, but a horror story about how one man in power can change a country in 14 months from a democracy to Hell on Earth. The suffering was so bad and so many died, fled the country or were eaten, that England would never have been the same had this actually happened. If you think a Zombie threat is bad, trying reading this instead – this will give you nightmares you never dreamed possible. This is worse than the Zombie Apocalypse times three. The brainchild of one man, waiting to die for reasons only he can dream of, while everyone else suffers for his whims. It's not only a sin, this man is worse than Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot and Genghis Khan, and all those of their kind combined. One man! Read it. You must know what you face because it could happen in the future, so you can watch for the signs and do the right things, so it won't happen in our lifetimes, or the lifetimes of our children if we teach them what to look for and what to listen for as well. Think of it as preparedness training. This review gets a 47 / 60 which gives it four stars if we use the MLB rating system below: If it were only content that I was describing or the idea that the author was going for, this would be a five star book. The only problem is the packaging is a little tarnished. I still suggest you go out and buy it and read it. It is an absolute must that everyone in a democracy should all know about what could happen. Read this book today and find out!
Points Rating
50 - 60 5 stars
40 – 49 4 stars
30 – 39 3 stars
20 – 29 2 stars
10 – 19 1 stars
0 – 9 no stars
THE PLOT: This is the history of L through childhood, up through the time he died and shortly after. It describes him as a child and the relationships he had or didn't have, and how he was as he grew up. Once grown, he had a fondness for a type of art that included violence, self-mutilation, sadomasochism, scatology and other things in that vein. He became a philosopher and he had a philosophy about this type of art that he wrote books about. He got many degrees from famed institutions with his brilliance. After his writing, he decided that actions speaks louder than words, so he decided that politics would be the testing ground for his philosophies. He was so brilliant that he started slowly, and built the foundations as if building a town. Playing off the liberalism and the guilt that goes with it for those less fortunate than the middle and upper classes – the poor, the homeless, women, the racially unequal, immigrants, and everything and everyone else that is someone else's cause, and someone else's hot button, he played people like the fiddles they were. He used them to get what he wanted. What he wanted was Revolution! Now the story really gets rolling: There are sanctioned race riots, police deaths, housing proscriptions, denture recalls, property confiscations, police brutality, prison-like hospitals, private armies, brutal murders, hunting and killing the 'wrong kind” of people, starving, black market thriving, skinheads on the loose, guns turned in, businesses abandoned, people fleeing, cannibalism, people feeling like they somehow deserved it. There is so much more to this. I give the plot a 9/10
THE CHARACTERIZATION: There are very few people characterized in this book. L is obviously the most characterized, and yet he is an enigma wrapped in a conundrum, covered in a puzzle, with a few pieces missing. His brilliance is clear. He did the right things at the right time to grab the ultimate power over England, yet it didn't seem to be what he really wanted. It didn't make him happy. I don't know if anything could make him happy – except to die. Death to him was the ultimate thing to do. Whether it was with a lover, in an art piece, or execution as a traitor, it didn't seem to matter. It let him transcend this Earthly existence and get to another plane where he seemed to believe he had a chance at happiness – at least that is what it seemed like. He had tried suicide before, but his partner didn't agree, so he abandoned it. He decided that he had a lot to do, before his death, which is when he turned words into actions. Very strange, but very brilliant. What is interesting is that with all his appreciation of this sadomasochism – he never tried it. Never participated. Same thing with politics, never participated – just watched. Like watching gold fish in a bowl. The ultimate scientist, always watching, but never touching. Jotting down notes about what was going on, but never getting in there and playing around with his concepts. He was above it all. He was God to the ants. For characterization I give this an 7/10, there were so many other people that were wooden, many who should have been much better characterized, Foxe for example. Some had thoughts and feelings, but most just had actions and histories. This is not enough. I stand with my 7/10.
THE DIALOGUE: The dialogue in this book was quite good, There was none of the usual colloquialisms that normally are found in books written about England in the '80s – because all of the people that L was dealing with were upper class. L himself was upper class too. This made the dialogue quite easy to follow. He was God watching his creations play out his philosophies. The only time the dialogue ranged into lower class dialogue was the skinheads who had their own terms for things after the revolution. These were explained by the historian writing the book beforehand, so there was no confusion. The dialogue was credible and because it was ostensibly written by a historian, and quoted from numerous sources. Each source of dialogue was unique and added to the overall credibility of the story. There were letters and papers cited which helped put into words what L was really doing. When things were being read, things such as memoirs, this put them into the dialogue category, which helped the story tremendously. It made the history more credible as well. I give the dialogue a 10/10
THE GORE SCORE: The gore score on this one is quite difficult. Thousands of people died. Their deaths were clinically described by the historian. That leaves us with our imaginations which are perfectly active and fertile. While there were some beatings described, some cannibalism, some bodies left in body bags on statues left in centrally public places, the overall violence to children, young adults, women, elderly persons and everyone else is simply ghastly. There is torture involved also. While the historian is clinical about it, some of the witness accounts are pretty hard to take. Even the clinical accounts of the things done to children made my hair stand on end. When your imagination takes over as the clinical account reels past, you are in trouble. Remember thousands of people died in differing ways – this leaves a lot of ways for those people to die, including all that art that still continued in those prison-like hospitals that were supposed rehabilitate people, groups of skinheads hunting down the “wrong kind” of people and doing things to them you don't want to know about. Because of all these things, I give the gore score an 9/10. Most of it happens in your head, but it is placed there by hints in the book – so though there are no limbs flying, no guts spilling, no blood gushing, I stick with my score of 9/10.
THE IMAGERY: The imagery in this book is hard to take but is quite essential to the overall message of the book. Here you have this bipolar lifestyle of L and his friends living the good life on one hand. On the other hand you have the populace of England starving, wearing rags, dirty, hunted down, living in abandoned buildings in the country and dealing with the black market for food. What could be more bipolar than that? The raping and pillaging, the cannibalism, the police/private army sitting aside watching it all happen, London and all major cities completely destroyed by sanctioned race riots in which L's people helped. Buildings burned, rats overrunning the place, almost totally abandoned, limp flags for L fluttering in the breeze. His statues are everywhere with no one to see them but the rats. Everything is grey. London is a wasteland. Every city is a wasteland. The destruction is unparalleled. For imagery I give it a 9/10, though bleak, the images resonate in your brain as so depressing and grey. Grey is the overall color of the book, once L takes over, except for the fire of the cannibals, which dances merrily. It is the only color, other than blood which highlights L's reign of terror. 9/10.
THE PACING: The pacing in the book waxed and waned depending on where in the life of L it actually was. Whether in childhood, adolescence, adulthood, philosophy, or action. Some parts were slow, some were quite gripping and swift. It depended on his planning, what phase he was in, how the public was reacting, and what supporting evidence the historian and collected that brought the whole thing to life. Some parts were really quite deadening, some were rather boring, most were quite interesting, and always scary. For pacing, I have to give it a 5/10. I have read real histories that bring dead characters to life that do an amazing job with dead facts and dead people, with an option to make up everything, you'd think you could do a better job of making this novel sing with both characterization and pacing. I'll reiterate, 5/10 for pacing.
THE ENDING: The ending was interesting and somewhat satisfying. The damage had been done. There was no plan for revitalization. Just a bunch of new characters running the country and back to business as usual. In some ways it is was anticlimactic. I was hoping that everyone had learned a lesson and something good would have come out of all the suffering imposed by L. Something wonderful, something transcendent. I guess I was overoptimistic. People and people after all and Governments are Governments. People will someday learn that our Forefathers had it right when they said that Government should be For the People, By the People in the Pursuit for Life, Liberty and Happiness. We have gotten so far away from that these days maybe we should think about something different. For and ending I give it a 7/10.
THE UPSHOT: The upshot of the book is that everyone sitting in a democracy should read this. It is not only a cautionary tale, but a horror story about how one man in power can change a country in 14 months from a democracy to Hell on Earth. The suffering was so bad and so many died, fled the country or were eaten, that England would never have been the same had this actually happened. If you think a Zombie threat is bad, trying reading this instead – this will give you nightmares you never dreamed possible. This is worse than the Zombie Apocalypse times three. The brainchild of one man, waiting to die for reasons only he can dream of, while everyone else suffers for his whims. It's not only a sin, this man is worse than Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot and Genghis Khan, and all those of their kind combined. One man! Read it. You must know what you face because it could happen in the future, so you can watch for the signs and do the right things, so it won't happen in our lifetimes, or the lifetimes of our children if we teach them what to look for and what to listen for as well. Think of it as preparedness training. This review gets a 47 / 60 which gives it four stars if we use the MLB rating system below: If it were only content that I was describing or the idea that the author was going for, this would be a five star book. The only problem is the packaging is a little tarnished. I still suggest you go out and buy it and read it. It is an absolute must that everyone in a democracy should all know about what could happen. Read this book today and find out!
Points Rating
50 - 60 5 stars
40 – 49 4 stars
30 – 39 3 stars
20 – 29 2 stars
10 – 19 1 stars
0 – 9 no stars
September 12, 2012
While reading this book, I had to keep in mind that it was fiction. You see, L: A Novel History is written in the exact same style as a biography - complete with appendixes.
L purports to show the dangers of a charismatic individual on a nation. Much like, Hitler, Stalin etc (the book also gives these men as examples). In a re-imagining of history, Britain, in a bid for, I don't know, to be contrary I suppose, managed to achieve a despotic government.
And at the center of it is L. A charismatic and unknowable character. Since this is written in the style of a biography, it's impossible to have an emotional connection with L. The distancing effect means that to me, this is nothing more than a creative imagining of what history could have been.
But what the book excels at is to show how the public can be so easily manipulated. The events in the book are very very believable, and it's easy to see how sleight of hand can be used to create distrust and violence among people.
The biggest thing about this book is it's narrative form. The fact that it reads like a biography is it's greatest strength and weakness.
It's the book's greatest strength because it's so interesting. Plus, it prevents us from sympathising with L too much. In addition, it allows the author to talk events not necessarily known by L or his cronies (As seen when the state of society is talked about). A lot of events and people which might be left out in a conventional narrative form could be included here. And since one of the aims of the book is to show how a charismatic leader could rise to power, using the form of a biography was a very smart move.
But, because it's a biography, the language tends to be rather formal, much like reporting. What this meant is that I tended to get bored with it. I suspect that some places where I felt bored was because I was tired of the style of writing. The events were definitely interesting, but the factual reporting style got a bit tiring after a while.
Still, it's an interesting book, and I think a lot of people will enjoy it. But if you cannot stand non-fiction books, I don't recommend it.
Disclaimer: I got a free copy of this book from NetGalley in exchange for a free and honest review
First posted at Inside the mind of the Bibliophile
L purports to show the dangers of a charismatic individual on a nation. Much like, Hitler, Stalin etc (the book also gives these men as examples). In a re-imagining of history, Britain, in a bid for, I don't know, to be contrary I suppose, managed to achieve a despotic government.
And at the center of it is L. A charismatic and unknowable character. Since this is written in the style of a biography, it's impossible to have an emotional connection with L. The distancing effect means that to me, this is nothing more than a creative imagining of what history could have been.
But what the book excels at is to show how the public can be so easily manipulated. The events in the book are very very believable, and it's easy to see how sleight of hand can be used to create distrust and violence among people.
The biggest thing about this book is it's narrative form. The fact that it reads like a biography is it's greatest strength and weakness.
It's the book's greatest strength because it's so interesting. Plus, it prevents us from sympathising with L too much. In addition, it allows the author to talk events not necessarily known by L or his cronies (As seen when the state of society is talked about). A lot of events and people which might be left out in a conventional narrative form could be included here. And since one of the aims of the book is to show how a charismatic leader could rise to power, using the form of a biography was a very smart move.
But, because it's a biography, the language tends to be rather formal, much like reporting. What this meant is that I tended to get bored with it. I suspect that some places where I felt bored was because I was tired of the style of writing. The events were definitely interesting, but the factual reporting style got a bit tiring after a while.
Still, it's an interesting book, and I think a lot of people will enjoy it. But if you cannot stand non-fiction books, I don't recommend it.
Disclaimer: I got a free copy of this book from NetGalley in exchange for a free and honest review
First posted at Inside the mind of the Bibliophile
September 3, 2012
I received an advance review copy e-book loan - this novel will be published in September. This is the first U.S. e-book edition, expanded with preface.
Don't read the preface! If an author discloses Views about the work in an afterword, a reader who enjoyed the work can take or leave the author's opinions. When the author lets fly in a preface, readers may take or leave the novel - it may spoil the experience before a reader has a chance to try it.
The Contents notes that Permissions, List of Illustrations, Appendix II-V, Notes, Notes on Sources, Bibliography, and Index are sections omitted from this edition.
The introduction has many anonymous note references. It would be more convenient if note references were numbered (as they are in the preface) so that it is easy to look them up. In e-book editions it would be convenient if each reference linked to its note (they do not in the ARC).
It may appear arrogant for an author to let their own fictional characters praise the author.
I found the constant neo-liberal slant boorish. Perhaps my expectations for a new 1984 were too high, but I think readers expect more than merely a true believer preaching to the converted. A cursory search through the chapters did not reveal the DIARIES or the MEMOIRS of L. Without fully examining the primary sources, readers are unable to judge for themselves the validity of claims made about L - the novel's thesis.
Don't read the preface! If an author discloses Views about the work in an afterword, a reader who enjoyed the work can take or leave the author's opinions. When the author lets fly in a preface, readers may take or leave the novel - it may spoil the experience before a reader has a chance to try it.
The Contents notes that Permissions, List of Illustrations, Appendix II-V, Notes, Notes on Sources, Bibliography, and Index are sections omitted from this edition.
The introduction has many anonymous note references. It would be more convenient if note references were numbered (as they are in the preface) so that it is easy to look them up. In e-book editions it would be convenient if each reference linked to its note (they do not in the ARC).
It may appear arrogant for an author to let their own fictional characters praise the author.
I found the constant neo-liberal slant boorish. Perhaps my expectations for a new 1984 were too high, but I think readers expect more than merely a true believer preaching to the converted. A cursory search through the chapters did not reveal the DIARIES or the MEMOIRS of L. Without fully examining the primary sources, readers are unable to judge for themselves the validity of claims made about L - the novel's thesis.
October 4, 2012
Review copy provided by the publisher.
Becker claims that this is a visualized history of what might have happened in England if Margaret Thatcher hadn't been returned to office. "...a mirage of security under a paternalistic state led by a charismatic would-be dictator." To be honest, I have no idea why Becker would put such effort into such a hideous story.
The only reason I racked the rating up to a "2" is because Becker has written it well and put great effort into "supporting documentation".
My Take
I only managed one hundred pages in this book and skimmed bits of the rest. On the one hand, Becker has brilliantly written an impression of a biography creating the typical supporting materials most historians and biographers would use to create such a book and building an authenticity into it with references to the supposed external resources, quotations from others, bits of history and news sources, and using footnotes as that last dash of credibility.
The topic of her "biography" however is just so disgusting. All I've read so far is the background on her primary character and it's that buildup that I just can't tolerate any longer. It makes me ashamed of being part of that generation. It almost makes me ashamed to be an artist. It certainly strains at my adherence to the First Amendment!
I really can't say if the rest of this novel has any worth, but if you enjoy animal mutilation and sacrifice, Marxism, rich "kids" who whine about their privileges, communistic oppression, and Robert Mapplethorpe-type toilet art, this story is for you.
L is a psychopathic jerk and I wish he'd been smothered at birth along with this novel.
The Cover
The cover is a pencil sketch of L in profile.
The title certainly is a clue that this is a total fiction---L: A Novel History---although sadly, the type of behavior within it is universal non-fiction.
Becker claims that this is a visualized history of what might have happened in England if Margaret Thatcher hadn't been returned to office. "...a mirage of security under a paternalistic state led by a charismatic would-be dictator." To be honest, I have no idea why Becker would put such effort into such a hideous story.
The only reason I racked the rating up to a "2" is because Becker has written it well and put great effort into "supporting documentation".
My Take
I only managed one hundred pages in this book and skimmed bits of the rest. On the one hand, Becker has brilliantly written an impression of a biography creating the typical supporting materials most historians and biographers would use to create such a book and building an authenticity into it with references to the supposed external resources, quotations from others, bits of history and news sources, and using footnotes as that last dash of credibility.
The topic of her "biography" however is just so disgusting. All I've read so far is the background on her primary character and it's that buildup that I just can't tolerate any longer. It makes me ashamed of being part of that generation. It almost makes me ashamed to be an artist. It certainly strains at my adherence to the First Amendment!
I really can't say if the rest of this novel has any worth, but if you enjoy animal mutilation and sacrifice, Marxism, rich "kids" who whine about their privileges, communistic oppression, and Robert Mapplethorpe-type toilet art, this story is for you.
L is a psychopathic jerk and I wish he'd been smothered at birth along with this novel.
The Cover
The cover is a pencil sketch of L in profile.
The title certainly is a clue that this is a total fiction---L: A Novel History---although sadly, the type of behavior within it is universal non-fiction.
probably-not
October 5, 2012started on netgalley
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews