Single Acts of Tyranny

From the outset, let me declare an interest - Stuart Fairney sent me a free copy of his book in return for a review. It hasn't affected my objectivity and, I suspect Fairney would be a bit disappointed if I didn't give my honest opinion on his work. Which means that this review will be pretty honest...

Single Acts of Tyranny is a brief, easy read, and in a sense reminded me of the work of Agatha Christie - not that Fairney is writing a mystery story anymore that Christie was a Libertarian writer. Rather, the point is that both authors make their work accessible and seem to understand that if you want to reach a large audience, then you have to write in a way that will appeal to that large audience. I doubt many literary critics will be raving about Fairney's book any more than they do about the work of Christie, but equally I can see people reading Single Acts of Tyranny as a way of relaxing while on holiday in a way that you couldn't do with, say, Atlas Shrugged.

The plot in itself is fast-moving and leaves the reader with little time to stop and evaluate it. Whereas this would normally hide a multitude of authorial sins, here it seems to be more that the author has a lot to say and is affording himself little space in which to say it. But that's fine - this is part political thriller, part love story, part political tract. Say what you've got to say, and then leave it. The point seems to be to get the reader to think about politics, and here I'd imagine the book will be a resounding success - for anyone not immersed in Libertarian theory, there is the potential here to be reading a really rather revolutionary and radical book that still conforms with intuitive common sense.

So we have here a light, yet politically astute, read that is deceptively simple. What could be improved?

Firstly, proof-reading. I know that the author of this blog criticising another writer for errors in their writing is the pot calling the kettle black, and the errors aren't too distracting, but for more pedantic readers it might become a problem. Secondly, the counter-factual background to the story didn't quite convince me. While I no issue whatsoever with the idea that the North might have won the Civil War, I seriously doubt that the South would have given up slavery and segregation that easily. Yeah, I understand the idea that slavery/racial segregation are economically counter-productive and it is irrational to pursue those objectives, but I also believe that when it comes to racial politics rationality often has a small (at best) part to play - as the example of Apartheid South Africa so brutally shows. Of course, I could be wrong, but that is part of the joy of the counter-factual - it provokes debate.

Finally - and this is perhaps the biggest problem - is the characterisations in the book. The leading protagonists and antagonists are not so much as they are ciphers - people designed to fulfil particular roles to advance the plot. In a brief book attempting to communicate a clear message about politics, characterisation does not have to be king, of course. But I just felt that at times it would have been more satisfying if the protagonist had been a little less perfect and the antagonist just a little bit less of a shit.

But these are relatively minor problems and do little to damage overall what is a very good book. So I would definitely recommend it - in particular to anyone who wants to learn a little bit more about a Libertarian political outlook.