This book is the first in The Siege Trilogy by author K. J. Parker (pseudonym for Tom Holt). It follows the main character Orhan, by trade an Engineer who was a former slave that rose up the ranks to be within the military of the Robur Empire. It is a historical fiction based on the Ancient world shown by the style of the high walls of the cities and different aspects of the society.
There are some interesting discussions and critiques that argue against this book and I will explore these later, but first I wish to explore why I enjoyed this book by K. J. Parker.
The book follows the engineer Orhan, his backstory is that he is from a now small group of people and is now part of the Robur Empire. Once a slave, he worked and was seen to have many talents (picked up multiple languages while also being a keen reader of history) which has allowed him to rise up to Colonel in the Engineers. This personal development has meant he sees the Empire, and those that live in it, in a different way. I really enjoyed learning about the world that Parker has created. The ways that there is a clear split in those who are ‘milkface’ like Orhan and the ruling elite, ‘Blueskins’. This is also one of the critiques I will explore later though.
The forced situation on the characters showed a range of developments in understanding how to keep the city together, the different groups in the city (Greens and Blues or example) along with the inherent racial segregation also present in the city.
What I really enjoyed in this book, was the focus on detail through the review of an engineer when looking at the way to run a city. From the point of view of a colonel who has needed to find solutions and ways around problems for a long time and not simply follow the doctrine of the Empire. I felt this gave it a real world connection to the many differences between how people think things should be run vs the ways this actually get done in the field. Especially when looking at a large empire. Even to explore the way that he has found ways around an ineffective economic system to support his own men.
For me, the story kept me considering where it was going to go next. As the narrator of the story is the main character, there are moments where he shares his own brilliance and describes why he is brilliant in coming up with plans. Along with also explaining that there were times, he was just lucky or made mistakes. I did enjoy this aspect of the story telling.
There was no specific scene that I found was the was the ‘best’, but this is because the tone that Parker used throughout kept the overall method of the narration with detail in line with the rest. (I did enjoy the detail though that Parker used to describe how event unfolded with a clear focus on consequences in real terms – bouncing balls as one example without giving away spoilers) What I also mean by this, is when scenes were being explored I really enjoyed the tone and use of sarcasm and the way that the story developed with the twists used in each. This is also shown in the many places I found myself laughing along with it.
So. Like any book review, this now brings me to the parts that I did not like and it will be here that I wish to explore the criticisms of the book. When you look at the reviews made by different people, although this is from my quick review of comments it does appear to be a minority of those who have read it. But this does not make their points any less, or any more, valid.
The use of ‘milkface’ and ‘blueskin’ to create a divide an highlight the segregation within the society that Parker has created has been criticised in some ways. Reading it as a reader of the book, I did enjoy the ways that this was shown. With the way that a person who was not with the ruling class of society, to even have signs that stated only Robur were allowed in places, showed the segregation and the ludicrousness of having a ‘milkface’ be the one who is organising the protection of the city, yet can’t use a water point that he has helped keep safe. For some, this use of segregation has be criticised due to the way that Parker has, as one review on Goodreads put it ‘by making white people the victims’ (Do look at the review, it is very well detailed and an interesting read to highlight many points in the book. I agreed with a lot of what was said and it is an interesting point about how fiction and the world of today interacts. Sadly, some have chosen to target their review in the comments section. Not a good example of open discussion about a book.). Having a book with segregation is not something an author should shy away from if they are using it in their world they have created. But it is a thought process that will make some readers consider the use of it.
Another criticism is the use of sexism in the society Parker has created, again these criticisms are using a 21st century view on equality, but through the eyes of historical fiction, women were seen differently and to hide this fact would be to rewrite History. As a former History Teacher, I am never a fan of trying to make History different to what it was.
One point that is an interesting one, there is one moment where homosexuality is mentioned. This is shown to reflect the Robur (ruling group) to look down at the ‘barbarians’. The point to me was another way to highlight the narrow thinking of many of the ‘blueskins’ and elitism in the ruling class. However, sarcasm in voice, and sarcasm in writing are different things. The tone has been mentioned by some as a was this needed view. I guess it depends on the mindset of the reader. For me that is how I read it and the general view of those who ruled the Empire made the question of what Orhan was to do with trying to save the inhabitants from those outside even more of a conundrum. Something I thought added to the intrigue of the story.
Overall, I really enjoyed the book. All stories can bring questions to your mind, and in some ways the way Parker made me think about them through the eyes of the narrator, (Should women be used to fight in the defence of their city when certain doom could come if they don’t?) was a good idea to think about the roles people have in this situations. I understand the critiques people have made of the book and like all reviews of anything you read, they were worth discussing. Personally, I enjoyed the book, the points that some have made are definitely a consideration when reading, but it is historical fiction based on the ancient world, things were different then.
The humour and pace worked well together and I did like the way the book ended. I will be looking to read book 2 of this trilogy and have high expectations based on the first one.
S J Lister. Author 