This is a gripping read with great characters and an important message.

I enjoyed many of Card's other book (Ender's Game, Speaker of the Dead, etc). In my opinion, his writing has an infused magically quality of it. Unfortunately in Empire, it completely lacks that and feels more like a work of an amateur than of a professional writer.

One of the biggest qualms I had was the constant info dumps done by the characters. What could have been a great action-adventure booked with information paced throughout evenly, there's only a few scenes of actions and then many chapters of characters just talking. Nothing wrong with talking, but with the characters being flat and uninteresting results in me not caring about what they say. Ideas and themes could have been disseminated much better.

Not to spoil too much, but the book labels itself as the next American Civil War that doesn't actually has much of a... well... war. There is only a few true skirmishes throughout the book with no true war being conducted.

However, one of the redeeming qualities is the action scenes (of the few it has).

I wouldn't really recommend this book unless you are a Card Fanatic. There are much better books out there on this same subject.

What a great book of how USA would split and go to a second civil war.
You know as I do, if you have any interest or see anytype of medianews etc that USA is divided and most of the other europeans countries. The Left and Right are being radicalized to such a degree that a mere conversation between people doesn't exist. I remember as a person who leans right, talking and having friends that had other political affiliation. My own wife is left leaning, my best friend as well. But I don't think either (including me) are radicalized. We have our qualms, goals and ideals that diverge but we never stop speaking about them.
The problem is that immediately if we tell something that says you are "left" or "right" leaning you are automatically associated with blue haired far left communist or the worst racist , even worse than hitler. To all of those people - Fvck You.

This book was written in 2006 , we are now in 2024 and this gap between parties were never greater. So in a way Orson really nail it. The author , is all over the space with some ideals being left others being right leaning (just google it...). Yes he doesn't support gays like the vast majority of people that follows Islamic faith. I don't see them public shunned everywhere . It's this duality that it's absurd. In other stuff he votes and he is quite democratic leaning voting several times on it.

So having said that, I think this book is written not for the far left nor for the far right but for the vast majority or silent majority that exists everywhere. these are the people that win elections. To be fair, who can say with absolute that they agree everything Kamala or Trump said? If you say you, you are a liar.

This book follows a coup after a military man delivered a report to counter terrorist actions to the white house. Afterwards he see the repercussions in the common manwoman and on the vast political parties. What I found out interesting is that this is not against LEFT or RIGHT but against extremists in both sides. IT has some actions scenes and some scenes, at least one that made me GAP and reread that phrases because this author really throw a curve ball.

In the end, there is a hint of a follow book which there is although you can read this and feel happy in the end. Orson Scott Card gets another 5 out 5 book.

It's a horrible thing to start out a review on but to be honest I got this book out by accident. I wasn't paying attention and thought I grabbed part of the Ender Shadow series. That being said because I'm trying to broaden my pull a bit I didn't sweat it and jumped in curious to see what the man who made the Ender Saga could do in more modern setting.

Now to be fair this style book isn't my usual go to. I don't have the interest in stories of politics and such so admittedly it had an uphill battle. However I did get drawn in. I choose to look at the story as a kind of "what if" experiment. The setting of modern times with a bit of fantasy makes you think about what you would do if this was going on around you. Admittedly it's a bit boring / hard at times to follow as the writing style to me feels a bit bland. But it still made me think about what might be. In that case it did in the end become enjoyable for me even if some parts seemed to leap to more fantasy elements rather then stay based in reality. Just because you don't expect something doesn't mean it can't happen and to me makes the point of a story like this to keep thinking about what could happen that you don't expect is more important then trying to only constantly counter what you know.

As it happens, I read part two in this saga last year and am only now getting round to the beginning. Luckily, each can stand alone. I didn't even realize they were connected until I recognized Coleman and the Special Ops guys in the "jeesh." Hidden Empire makes passing references to a recently concluded Left-Right civil war. Empire is where the philosophical underpinnings of that conflict are explained and, of course, acted on.

There are flaws in the story. For starters, it obviously strains credibility that underwater terrorists would be sneaking up the channel just at the moment Malich and Coleman happen to standing at Hains Point gazing down at the water—or that Coleman would recognize subtle indications that something was moving below the surface, and immediately grasp the implications. The fact that this string of coincidences also strains credibility for other characters is an indication that the author too knows it's a problem. (In literary analysis there's even a word for this situation.)

But perceived coincidences are a feature of the story. Characters notice them and worry whether they are clues of an improbably elaborate conspiracy, or signs of their own over-active imaginations.

Also, as I've noted with other OSC titles, his dialog often feels like it's there only to clear up points he wants to make to the reader. (Some readers call that preaching. I think OSC is just sacrificing realistic dialog in order to give each side in the discussions a thorough airing.) While clumsy, this is characteristic of OSC and I've learned to live with it. I continue reading his books because the concepts never disappoint. (Well, judging from other people's comments, I guess they disappoint left-wingers. But all of us can probably agree that the scenario described here has become more plausible over time. Malich comments that there is a population of people who would not view assassination of a sitting president as a bad thing. Even in the year this book was published, a movie was released to exploit that interest. Much more recently, the Secret Service was forced to open an inquiry when Madonna spoke ("rhetorically") to a cheering crowd about blowing up the White House. I just Googled "assassinate Trump" and got 111,000 hits for people threatening to or at least publicly saying they want to do just that.) A fictional treatment of our balkanized polity—one that does not name actual politicians—is entirely appropriate. Consideration of what hatred and self-righteousness can lead to might empower enough of us to keep it in check.

Anyway, here's an example of dialog that serves to clarify matters for the reader (I seriously doubt Coleman and Malich needed to have this conversation for themselves):

Coleman: "They were killing cops. They were killing uniforms. They may think they're saving the Constitution but they're saving nothing."

Malich: "It's all about imposing their will on unwilling people. But don't you understand? When you have The Truth, everyone who opposes you is either ignorant or evil. You rule over the ignorant and you kill or lock up the evil. Then you can rule the world according to your perfect Truth."

Lately I've been thinking of the way cataclysmic events like wars and revolutions recur periodically (in the same way epidemics sweep through a population and then fade away). I've been listening to Empire on audio by day while reading a very different novel at night—Black Dogs, by Ian McEwan. The feral dogs in that book are compared to the frenzy of war that gripped Europe in the last century. They appear, they bring harm, and finally they run away, potentially to show up again another time. At the risk of repeating myself, I do think OSC has something worthwhile to say on this subject. Given that a polarized society is a fact of life today, there's no point in getting indignant that someone has written about it.

In terms of literary merit, and certainly in comparison with Ian McEwan's prose, this is a three-star book. On the other hand, I admire the author's afterword, in which he takes pains to say extremists on both sides are at fault. And in view of all the one-star reviews by deniers who insist OSC is off-base, I'm going with five stars. Guys, your objections seem to have been overtaken by events. One of the rebels in this book may have been the first to use the "Not my president" meme that more recently became so popular. No doubt he would approve of a video clip I just saw in which Yvette Felarca, spokesperson for a violent protest at Berkeley, says "The Left has been far too timid for far too long." Okay, rant over. If OSC writes a third installment I'll read it too.

Remarkable garbage.

Orson Scott Card is one of the best science Fiction Writers ever to have touched a keyboard. One of his most important contributions to sci-fi was his ability to see nuance and complexity in characters. He seemed to effortlessly pick his way through religious, cultural and socio-economic backgrounds to present a character's point of view and make their actions believable. He then created fine networks of life-influences to make deep and interesting character interactions. There was a sense of empathy for all people in all places.

Well if you were hoping for more of that in Empire you will be as disappointed as I was.

This is a dreary, flat, totally black & white world where his surreal brand of extreme right-wing politics is made to stand in for common sense reality. A stagnant plot shoe-horned into his ideology Card seeks to bludgeon his reader with contrived two-dimensional motivations of uninteresting characters and implausible scenarios. Gone is any nuance or layering replaced by rabid polemic and specious political argument.

I would say this was the worst thing Card ever wrote except that he made a sequel which is even worse.

I will keep my review “fairly” brief, after scanning a number of the positive and negative reviews. I have no problem with the main characters having a conservative point of view. I do have a problem with the execution of the writing. As I pursue my own masters in creative writing, I am stunned by how Card violates some of his own advice from his two good books on writing (Character and Viewpoint; How to write science fiction). Whether you call this science fiction, or an espionage/thriller, it still has to be believable within the confines of the world he is building. It doesn’t.

Card choses to build a world that is essentially “right now” and post 9-11. He populates it with people that actually exist (O’Reilly on FOX). If you do that, in broad brush strokes you are setting expectations that this is the world we live in right now and people would react as you have seen them recently react. They don’t.

Card does a number of things that make this hard to swallow: 1) Major attack in and on New York City, where the entire nation still empathizes with the police and fire department (left or right politically) and has the revolutionary forces kill all uniformed people and the city then rolls over and embraces that group? This world? Today? Really? Embrace the killers of anyone in uniform? Then he basically ignores the entire situation for several months (elapsed novel time) and focuses strictly on the remaining protagonists? Card, what happened to “world building” as you discuss in your craft books? Yes, you wanted to keep it fast paced, but that much time elapses and we get close to zero feel for what is happening in the nation. A few blurbs about city council votes does not cut it!

The premise at its core could have worked. I have had two similar ideas boiling in my head for years…but if I ever approach the idea, I will look to this book as a list of things to avoid, not to emulate.
My concern (for Card’s future) is that this book seems to have not been fully edited by a good set of critical editors. As authors become popular, this seems to occur frequently. Good and great authors still need to be told when something doesn’t work and they need to not let their past success go to their head. I recently read a collection of Card’s short stories, which included some LDS oriented stories. Despite the obvious political and religious leanings, those stories were quite good and the short essays that went with each story were insightful. But, most of those were written long ago.
Finally, as mentioned by a few, this also feels “video game-ish.” I will probably not spend the time on the sequel to this, “Hidden Empire,” as I suspect it will be in the same world and follow the same style. I don’t begrudge Card the opportunity to get preachy, I just would like him to do a better job at it. Sometimes, when an author is too passionate about something s/he loses objectivity and the ability to self-edit. I think this may be the case for this book (and its sequel).

Orson Scott Card proves to me he can write amazing things outside of the Ender series. This novel deals with conspiracy, presidential assassination (not refered to as George W. Bush, but definitely implied), the beginnings of an american civil war, and the man who must find the truth in order to clear his name and restore the United States to balance.

The balance of what? That's the real issue, the meat of the story, the moral. The author speaks, after the conclusion of the novel, about how in the United States today, we are divided between the right wing and the left wing. He refers several times to the Blue State / Red State demographic and misleading it is. A slightly more precise phrase would be Urban / Rural. Even in the staunchest of red states, there are urban populations that identify primarily with the democratic population, and vice versa. A civil war based on these differences of beliefs would rip the United States apart becausee there are no geographical boundaries to separate one belief system from another. "Belief system? This is just politics" Not anymore. Each wing has its extremists, and even farther in toward the middle, many of our average citizens have passionate anger and resentment towards people of the other wing. Pro-life look upon pro-choice with righteous indignation, Pro-Gay marriage look with disdain upon the Anti, without regard to the people themselves who carry those beliefs. Beyond even those extremes, a man who identifies primarily with right wing conservatism can be treated with the same contempt as a left wing extremists for only one diverging opinion, such as opposition to the current war or how it's being handled.

"But it would be a long step to civil war just for a little political intolerance." All it takes is for one side to reach the conclusion that the other side is going to take away their way of life, or their belief system, or values. Then that side could choose to take preventative action, in self-defense, and take up arms. The other side would have no choice but to also take up arms in self-defense. It happened with Yugoslavia and Rwanda, though there were no clear geographical divisions there either. It's extreme, and not inevitable, but the tension between these political belief systems surely destabilizes our government and our society. Tolerance and understanding of these differences builds strength and places checks and balances on the seats of power. Intolerance and political profiling tear us down.

The book deals with these issues magnificently. There is no force feeding of ideals or dogma. The message is there, carried just under the current of the intriguing plot and characters of Orson Scott Card, at times surfacing when one character becomes impassioned or offended, and then riding the waves of conflict and twists of plot. I am not an avid reader of political or conspiracy fiction, nor are they among my favorite movies, but Card has a gift that transcends genre or preference, and plays to the human soul.

There's a lot to take in about this book. The comments on it from some reviewers definitely haven't aged as well as the themes of the book so I will be avoiding that as much as possible in my review. However! I will say not much has changed since 2006 thats for sure lol. If you read his afterward at the end then you know what I am talking about.

Warning: ahead be spoilers!

My biggest issue I had with this story was just how perfect everyone was. The all American hero who even in death could only be looked upon with admiration and "if only he had lived" from anyone who had even set an eye upon him. The perfect American wife who sacrificed everything and even turned down the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES repeated offers for a job to only take the offer after her husband is killed, BUT only to find his killer. Perfect children who behaved just like what parent's wished they would. An aged and all knowing elder who says the right thing at the right time and was always so helpful. SF Operators who did their job flawlessly, bantered incessantly and accepted the new guy right of the bat even though trust is earned slowly in the real world. The genius professor who climbed the political ranks so fast it might as well been a golden elevator. Its the biggest cast of Mary Sues and Gary Stus I've ever seen! It was eye rollingly bad sometimes.

Another issue is pacing. It was too fast. It went from conversation to fight to over so fast sometimes I had to go back reread to make sure my eyes didn't just skip ahead without me knowing. Events that should have had more weight and time dedicated to them were skipped just to get to the next back and forth between characters that added nothing. You're main guy gets axed while the whole world is looking for him and no reaction is given except a throw away blurb later on. No aha we got em from the people who thought he was guilty. No time of processing from those who believed him innocent. No time given. Just poof, gone, on with the plot. There are many examples of this.

Last issue. Instant technology advancement. The enemy instantly has new and exciting weaponry well above the current technological standards. There's no hint that there's a wider decimation of tech, just everyday technology then boom they have mechs! (Insert Jackie Chan confused meme here.) Oh its because the tech was devised by a Bill Gates knockoff (Seriously, private island and everything) in private and in secret and everyone is cool with it. The guy is basically a Bond villain. Taken down just as easily too.

Now, if you noticed, I give it a 3 instead of a 1.

Thats because there are moments that, if this would have had proper editing and pacing, would have been really enjoyable to read. If there would have been time given to explore the concept Card himself put down it would have been a really intriguing read. Even if this was designed for a video game then all the more reason to explore this world he built. Some people did act like flawed individuals who had to tread a razor thin line. There was betrayal that actually caught me off guard leaving me wanting to know more. There were some stakes involved the pushed characters to act. And mostly, I wanted to see where he was going with all this. I wanted to finish it even if I thought there was more that could have been said.

This was a quick read. I finished it in basically two days and that was with stopping and living my life. This book suffers from a lack of not enough instead of too much. A hundred more pages of exploration and character development would not have hurt this book but helped it.

We will see how things go in the sequel. Should be here next week.

Stay tuned.

This was an interesting look at how a new civil war in the US might occur. I think that this is one of those books that you should read twice to really get the full measure of the story. I listened to it on audio, and a lot of the time that I was listening to it, I was listening but not focusing intently, so I may have missed a lot of the nuances of the story. However, that being said, I do think that it was very smart and well written, and plausible.

Many people might take offense to the militant party which staged the coup to set off the events that start the civil war being liberals, or "Progressives" as they are referred to in the book. We, or at least I, generally think of the right wing republicans as the militant type, and as the stiffly traditional type that would be more apt to take up arms to defend that traditionalism. And in fact, I was surprised by it, because I lean toward the liberal side myself (although I consider myself a moderate - but I am for many liberal ideals), but again... it was plausible. Get any extremist faction together, and no matter what their ideologies are, they will do what they think that they have to do to defend them.

I actually got more out of this book from the author's afterword than I did from the story. Not to say that the story wasn't good. It was. The story was interesting, and futuristic and the kind of story that I'm fascinated by, but the afterword was more... informative, I guess. That's not what I'm trying to say, but I felt that the author's words there aligned more with my own thinking than the story that he represented in the pages did. In the afterword, he talks about the hateful rhetoric and divisiveness between parties, and how it only takes one party thinking that they need to actively defend, with arms, their ideals from the attack of the other party, and there you go - we're in a civil war.

It's a scary thought, and it's incredibly likely. One thing that really bothered me in the story though is the representation of Fox News. In the story, as the "good guys" (I quote that because both sides believe that they are the good guys, but we're being shown the defenders as good guys rather than the attackers) are Republicans, the use of Fox News as their outlet was quite frequent, and they WERE presented as "Fair and Balanced", which to me is an outright falsity. Fox News is one of the most vitriol-filled and antagonistic and attack-oriented "news" right-wing organizations out there. They no longer even really have "news" segments, it's all opinions and interviews and talk about the news, which is quite different. I have a hard time reconciling an organization that is argumentative, downright rude and would tell a guest to "shut up" when they don't agree with them with a trustworthy and reliable news organization.
To me, Fox News does more for divisiveness in this country than any other factor, probably ALL other factors combined, actually. I don't say this as a liberal, I say this as someone who thinks that all opinions are valid and thinks that everyone should have a chance to express their opinion respectfully, EVEN IF IT IS UNPOPULAR - not be cut-off, harassed by the show host and then demonized later.

Aside from this ONE thing (and sorry for the rant- but I had to put it out there), I think that this story does a pretty good job of representing the opinions of both sides as valid and realistic. I may not agree with them, but to the opinion holder, they are right.

I think that we have to be willing to step back and see things from another person's point of view. If we are not willing to do that, then we probably WILL have another civil war in America - quite possibly in my lifetime. =

I am giving this 3 simply because when compared to his other works this book seems a little too easy. Meaning, the events just seem to happen a little too easily. The characters are likable but you would miss any if they die.
Now a message to other readers and others who have commented about this book. The book is rather political. It seems to lean a little more to the right and the extreme left are the antagonists. But so what. So books out there have the right as the bad guy and no one says a word. (I am a moderate if you want to throw a label on me.) That said Card does fairly well at exposing the darker side on the extreme right... and left and makes several points of reference regarding moderates. So for all of you who “read glad the book” because you could not stand the right agenda and are adamant that Card is a gay bashing homophobe and all the other nasty things that I have read...try reading/listening to the Afterward. I hope you finish it feeling like the hypocrite you are...

Unabridged audio.

This was an interesting idea, and I was fascinated with it. Unfortunately it seems to have sort of....failed in the developing. I would like to see this sort of idea developed a little better and laid out in a more coherent manner. It's pretty clear where he was going here and the idea tugs at the mind. Unfortunately it (in my opinion) swings far out to one side and seems to get completely lost. The ending is to say the least...extremely, unlikely in most any scenario.

I think it quite possible that the authors own world view and his wish to "share it(?)" may have gotten in the way of his story-telling. Where some people set out to write a novel and it springs from a given world view that may add to the story telling, here the world view that was being expressed seemed (to me) to take p residence over the story itself. I'd like to see the general idea developed differently, maybe the author will revisit it later.