How does one goes around reviewing a book one disliked? I'm tempted not to write about it at all because there is not much to discuss. In my view, this is a low quality book. It is hard to start your review with positives (or anything really) when all you can think of are the negatives, but I'll give it a try and write what I did like about it. There were a lot of historical details in this book and as someone who enjoys history, I liked that. Whether the author has got all these historical details right or not, I can't be entirely sure, but at least they were interesting and if he did I might have learned something new. At any rate, I learned about King Billy as the Dutch ruler of England was known by some- I don't think I heard of him before. The irony of England being ruled by a Dutch man, the author pointed it out well. Moreover, there were a few passages in the book that were touching. One African character ( Hal's friend) wasn't portrayed in a bad light. His characterization was a bit stereotypical (the side kick servant) but bearable. Some of the descriptions of the sea life were well written. The book itself didn't offer much else. The opening of the novel was terrible and it didn't improve much with time. The characters were mostly portrayed in a shallow and a stereotypical way, particularly the female ones that were presented in the worst possible light. The author must have had a very sad life if this novel reflects his opinion of women. All things considered, this strikes me as one of the most racist modern novels I have read. If you have read this novel and liked it... tell me: WHY????HOW????
The novel opens at an English estate where Hall lives with his four sons. His eldest son William (nicknamed Black Billy by his brothers) is of mixed racial ancestry. Hal's oldest son William is his favourite child, from a brief marriage with an Ethiopian princess (who died tragically and seems to have been Hal's great love). I didn't like how this William character was portrayed. William is supposed to be an accomplished and intelligent young man but he is described as not only cruel and violent but also murderous. Not saying that psychopath can't be accomplished or intelligent (sadly they sometimes are), rather it was the racial implication that I found offensive. William abuses his younger brothers despite the fact they pose no treat to him (it is often stressed in the novel that in England the oldest son inherits everything). Like every other character of mixed race in this novel, Hal's oldest son has psychopathic characteristic because 'it is in his blood' apparently. Do I need to explain why I found this offensive? I didn't have the problem with the sibling rivalry but I often it offensive that it is hinted that William has murdering and sadistic tendencies because of his mixed ancestry. More than hinted of, actually. It is clearly written into the book with several passages referring to the 'dark African streak' in him that his father loves and knows can't be changed. No comment.
It is also said that the oldest boy William is Hal's favourite because 'he is a hard men himself'. Hm, there is a difference between being a 'hard man' and being a 'psychopath'. Hal practically saves one of his sons from being killed by William and seems to be alright with it. When Hal is offered a noble rank and fortunes for capturing a pirate that has been bothering His Majesty, Hal decides to take his other sons with him because he is sure that his eldest son would kill them if he didn't. As in really kill his siblings. His favourite son, may I add? Hal doesn't seem surprised by the fact that his oldest son inspires such fear in his younger siblings and when his younger sons beg to be taken along, Hal realizes there is truth in their fears. Hm, what part of this Hal doesn't find strange? I'm pretty sure it was never considered normal for an older brother to actively try to kill his younger brothers- not in colonial England either. At one point in the book, William says to his younger brother that he shall inherit everything, even the noble title- and he does it before his family even has a change of winning the title, before such a request and reward is even made to Hal so how William could have predicted the future like that. A little mistake on the part of the writer. There were a few other mistakes that wouldn't bothered me if the novel had been any good, but this way they did.
SPOILER ALERT! SPOILERS ABOUT THE PLOT ARE ABOUT TO FOLLOW.
Moving on. Besides William, Hal's got two twins, Guy and Tom as well as the youngest boy Dorian. In a way it could be said that this novel follows the adventures of Hal's sons, William, Tom, Guy and Dorian. Hal is there with them, but he is not the star anymore. His character is not consistent. One moment he seems decent, the other he is killing people without a just cause. Hal's sons are all different in character but like him, not one of them is convincing or appealing. They do somewhat develop through the books, though not much. Everything is so stereotypical in this novel, every character and description. It was a rather painful read. Anyhow, Hal sets onto his adventures. There is so much foreshadowing before every event that you don't have to guess what will happen next- you can be fairly certain. Zero surprises and a painfully evident plot are among the main characteristic of this novel.
Anyhow, they (Hal and his young sons) sail on in the pursuit of this pirate. Hal actually starts behaving like an honorable man who cares about his crew, this won't last long but at least it is something. We also learn something about his past. Tom and Guy develop a sibling rivalry of their own. Tom has fun with Guy's love interest Catherine and apparently this is enough for Guy (his twin) to decide to kill him at all costs. When they fight for their life, his father doesn't see it fit to make them stop because it is ultimately impossible to do so. So, he watches as his sons try to kill one another- as that is totally normal.
Sure, maybe when you stop a suicidal person from killing themselves, they end up doing it after- but still it is only HUMAN to try to make them stop? When you see two boys fighting to the death, you try to break them apart somehow- because watching one of your sons try to kill another is not something any (normal) parent could stand. Honestly, Hal's actions make no sense. I suppose that doesn't matter for all that you need for book to pass as a novel these days is to put together a third rate adventure story, thrown in a few big words to make one seem eloquent and you're all set.
Honestly, it started to feel like their voyage will never end. There are a few graphic description of intercourse between Catherine (if I remember her name right) and Tom that sound more like a rape. Apparently, this young girl says no to Tom while they are making out and stuff, but he forces himself on her because he is obviously stronger and than it is all great because ....? I honestly don't get how that could work. Later on in the novel, when Tom falls in love with Catherine's younger sister Sarah, she is ready to risk all to help them because Catherine LOVES Tom. How could she not? He raped her and put his finger down her skirt while she was singing opera in front of everyone. No girl could possibly resist that. Almost all the female characters in this novel behave as nymphomaniacs. Seriously, I don't know when I read a novel that portrayed women in a worse light.
Moving on. Catherine and Tom are forced apart when Guy spies on them and brings his father to watch. Hal, as usual, does nothing because that is what his parenting is about. Tom and Guy don't kill one another in that fight that followed on the ship because the novel needs someone to be after Tom's life, you know for drama and because William is so far away. Eventually Catherine and her family leave the ship and take Guy with them- he doesn't take to the sea and decides to become a clerk or something. We don't really get to know much about him because the author doesn't do characterization but it is obvious Guy will be back and trying to kill Tom because the plot needs it.
Meanwhile, Hal has a brilliant idea to lure the pirate ship to attack his ship. He stops at a particular port, feigning his boat needs repairs and then makes it known he is carrying a treasure. Hal prepares for the battle in secret. Very convenient all of it. He also paints his face brown and with the aid of his fluency in Arabic (mentioned about 10 000) times in the novel, he gets information he needs from random Arabs who don't suspect he might be English- because he has painted his face. Eye roll. One of many. Hal's boys wear turbans and can thus pass as Arabs slaves as well. You see they got a tan now so it is ok. Another eye roll. Was this novel really not written centuries ago? Hal then sets to set his trap and capture the Arab pirate everyone is talking about. A sea battle is on horizon and what you know, there is another 'adventure' on its way.
Sweet Dorian is bound for some tragedy followed by a miraculous escape- the author makes endless hints to imply that. Hal takes him to the most dangerous of missions because he cannot resist Dorian's cuteness. Ah, how convenient. Dorian is captures by Islamic pirates but just before they slit his throat, they notice he has red hair and it seems they are suddenly inclined to worship him because in their many centuries of owning and keeping white slaves they have never seen a person with red hair and fair skin? Not one among the many British sailors they killed just a few months ago? Dorian is then adopted by an Arab prince because- cuteness factor. At times, the author does tries to keep us in suspense over Dorian's fate for a white- but he fails miserably. He is obviously too cute for anything bad to happen to him.
What else? Oh, it doesn't get more interesting from there. Dorian falls in love and so does Tom. Stuff happens. I roll my eyes over and over again. I wonder countless times: Is this for real? Who reads these kind of books? Finally, the end. The book ends on a romantic note. Needless to say, I probably won't read the next novel to find out more. This book has left me so battled that I did what I usually don't do- googled the author's private life. Apparently he is estranged from his sons. Gee, I wonder why. If he is anything like the man he describes in his books, I can see how his parenting skills might not up for the challenge. Apparently Wilbur Smith motto is to write books for himself, not the readers. Why publish something you only write for yourself, though? Keep it for yourself.
..."Do not write for your publishers or for your imagined readers. Write only for yourself." This was something that I had learned for myself. Charles merely confirmed it for me. Now, when I sit down to write the first page of a novel, I never give a thought to who will eventually read it.
You know what, Wilbur Smith? I believe you. You go on writing books for yourself, just don't expect me to read them.