What do you think?
Rate this book
Freedom & Necessity
It is 1849. Across Europe, the high tide of revolution has crested, leaving recrimination and betrayal in its wake. From the high councils of Prussia to the corridors of Parliament, the powers-that-be breathe sighs of relief. But the powers-that-be are hardly unified among themselves. Far from it...
On the south coast of England, London man-about-town James Cobham comes to himself in a country inn, with no idea how he got there. Corresponding with his cousin, he discovers himself to have been presumed drowned in a boating accident. Together they decide that he should stay put for the moment, while they investigate what may have transpired. For James Cobham is a wanted man--wanted by conspiring factions of the government and the Chartists alike, and also the target of a magical conspiracy inside his own family.
And so the adventure begins...leading the reader through every corner of mid-nineteenth-century Britain, from the parlors of the elite to the dens of the underclass. Not since Wilkie Collins or Conan Doyle has there been such a profusion of guns, swordfights, family intrigues, women disguised as men, occult societies, philosophical discussions, and, of course, passionate romance.
Nor could any writing team but Steven Brust and Emma Bull make it quite so much fun...
On the south coast of England, London man-about-town James Cobham comes to himself in a country inn, with no idea how he got there. Corresponding with his cousin, he discovers himself to have been presumed drowned in a boating accident. Together they decide that he should stay put for the moment, while they investigate what may have transpired. For James Cobham is a wanted man--wanted by conspiring factions of the government and the Chartists alike, and also the target of a magical conspiracy inside his own family.
And so the adventure begins...leading the reader through every corner of mid-nineteenth-century Britain, from the parlors of the elite to the dens of the underclass. Not since Wilkie Collins or Conan Doyle has there been such a profusion of guns, swordfights, family intrigues, women disguised as men, occult societies, philosophical discussions, and, of course, passionate romance.
Nor could any writing team but Steven Brust and Emma Bull make it quite so much fun...
590 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1997
55 people are currently reading
2348 people want to read
About the author
Steven Brust
99 books2,296 followersSteven Karl Zoltán Brust (born November 23, 1955) is an American fantasy and science fiction author of Hungarian descent. He was a member of the writers' group The Scribblies, which included Emma Bull, Pamela Dean, Will Shetterly, Nate Bucklin, Kara Dalkey, and Patricia Wrede, and also belongs to the Pre-Joycean Fellowship.
http://us.macmillan.com/author/steven...
(Photo by David Dyer-Bennet)
http://us.macmillan.com/author/steven...
(Photo by David Dyer-Bennet)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 160 reviews
January 2, 2013
Summerside, Prince Edward Island
29th August 2010
Dear Steven and Emma,
Thank you for the dazzling joy of Freedom & Necessity. This book went toe to toe with Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian and won the battle for my attention (and that's saying something). I don't know how you did it, but I am so glad you did. THIS was one of the best reading experiences of my life. Where do I begin?
I want to begin with the form you chose. But I am going to hold off on that and talk about Hegel, Engels and Marx. Hegel, your unifying thread, was used in a way that I am sure he would approve of; he was the natural connection between your boys. Richard and James sparring over the Science of Logic while their lives are at their most uncertain was pure genius. Then you gave us Engels, but not Engels as an abstract ideologue whose impossible ideals inform the characters' actions but as a fully developed character whose realism is a fulcrum about which the novel's action necessarily turns. Then you add Karl Marx in a family man cameo that brings the great historical thinker down to the Earth of his family life. Again...genius.
But you weren't content with your brilliant invocation of historical figures. No. You wanted us to believe in your four main characters. No. More than that. You wanted us to love and pull for and fear for and cheer for your lead cast. And you succeeded. James Cobham, Susan Voight, Kitty Holbourn and Richard Cobham are the most completely realized characters I've read since Isaac Dan der Grimnebulin in Perdido Street Station (and speaking of Perdido, thanks to China Miéville for pointing me towards your marvelous book). They go beyond the page. They live and breathe. Their relationships feel true because they are true. They are petty and self-indulgent and unrelenting and selfish and cruel and spiteful and occasionally silly. But they're also heroic and outward looking and tractable and selfless and kind and mostly serious. They are people I want to know, and they're people I do know thanks to you two.
And now it is time to talk about your form, because the epistolary nature of Freedom & Necessity -- and your masterful execution -- makes all of this possible -- this and so much more. James, Susan, Kitty and Richard are given to us on their own terms because everything is shared with us through their journals and letters (and by the end I felt like one of their children reading the family's history, which I am sure you intended). We only know them through what they want to tell us and through what they need to say about and to one another, and there is no truer record of a life or lives than one's own correspondence coupled with the thoughts and epistles of others.
But even that wasn't enough for you. You had to create one of the most compelling adventure-intrigue-mystery-historical fictions ever written, and again the ultimate genius was in your choice of the epistolary form. I have never read an ending like that, Steven and Emma. You build and build and build towards the denouement, then you skip ahead a couple of days because that's when the players would be ready to write their thoughts, so we get fragments from Richard, nothing from Kitty and James, and the perfect recall of Susan (albeit from her limited perspective). You withhold and withhold and then deliver in dribs and drabs the final actions of your tale in a way that blows my mind. Druidic conspiracies mix with greedy grabs for property mix with labour disputes and revolution, and all of it is delivered from the perspective of our four correspondents. UTTERLY...FUCKING...BRILLIANT!
So thank you for your genius. I am going to read your solo books A.S.A.P, and I beg you, please, to come together and write another novel because Freedom & Necessity is damn near perfect. I want more.
Yours in humility,
Brad Simkulet
p.s. thanks, Jacob, for giving me the final push to pluck this off my shelf and read it. I am forever indebted.
29th August 2010
Dear Steven and Emma,
Thank you for the dazzling joy of Freedom & Necessity. This book went toe to toe with Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian and won the battle for my attention (and that's saying something). I don't know how you did it, but I am so glad you did. THIS was one of the best reading experiences of my life. Where do I begin?
I want to begin with the form you chose. But I am going to hold off on that and talk about Hegel, Engels and Marx. Hegel, your unifying thread, was used in a way that I am sure he would approve of; he was the natural connection between your boys. Richard and James sparring over the Science of Logic while their lives are at their most uncertain was pure genius. Then you gave us Engels, but not Engels as an abstract ideologue whose impossible ideals inform the characters' actions but as a fully developed character whose realism is a fulcrum about which the novel's action necessarily turns. Then you add Karl Marx in a family man cameo that brings the great historical thinker down to the Earth of his family life. Again...genius.
But you weren't content with your brilliant invocation of historical figures. No. You wanted us to believe in your four main characters. No. More than that. You wanted us to love and pull for and fear for and cheer for your lead cast. And you succeeded. James Cobham, Susan Voight, Kitty Holbourn and Richard Cobham are the most completely realized characters I've read since Isaac Dan der Grimnebulin in Perdido Street Station (and speaking of Perdido, thanks to China Miéville for pointing me towards your marvelous book). They go beyond the page. They live and breathe. Their relationships feel true because they are true. They are petty and self-indulgent and unrelenting and selfish and cruel and spiteful and occasionally silly. But they're also heroic and outward looking and tractable and selfless and kind and mostly serious. They are people I want to know, and they're people I do know thanks to you two.
And now it is time to talk about your form, because the epistolary nature of Freedom & Necessity -- and your masterful execution -- makes all of this possible -- this and so much more. James, Susan, Kitty and Richard are given to us on their own terms because everything is shared with us through their journals and letters (and by the end I felt like one of their children reading the family's history, which I am sure you intended). We only know them through what they want to tell us and through what they need to say about and to one another, and there is no truer record of a life or lives than one's own correspondence coupled with the thoughts and epistles of others.
But even that wasn't enough for you. You had to create one of the most compelling adventure-intrigue-mystery-historical fictions ever written, and again the ultimate genius was in your choice of the epistolary form. I have never read an ending like that, Steven and Emma. You build and build and build towards the denouement, then you skip ahead a couple of days because that's when the players would be ready to write their thoughts, so we get fragments from Richard, nothing from Kitty and James, and the perfect recall of Susan (albeit from her limited perspective). You withhold and withhold and then deliver in dribs and drabs the final actions of your tale in a way that blows my mind. Druidic conspiracies mix with greedy grabs for property mix with labour disputes and revolution, and all of it is delivered from the perspective of our four correspondents. UTTERLY...FUCKING...BRILLIANT!
So thank you for your genius. I am going to read your solo books A.S.A.P, and I beg you, please, to come together and write another novel because Freedom & Necessity is damn near perfect. I want more.
Yours in humility,
Brad Simkulet
p.s. thanks, Jacob, for giving me the final push to pluck this off my shelf and read it. I am forever indebted.
June 6, 2008
Adventure. Daring-do. Intrigue. Romance. Suspense. Hegel. What's not to love?
It doesn't seem possible to say anything about the storyline without immediate spoilers, but I loved this book. It is wonderfully written, has excellent character development, and demands the reader's attention. I only didn't give it 5 stars because of some dissatisfaction with the ending. I highly recommend it, but be warned that the authors expect you to pay attention to details, hints, and a rather complicated plot. They will not make things obvious or recapitulate important developments, so pick a time when your mind is ready to be engaged. However, the longer digressions on philosophy and socialism can be skimmed if you aren't so interested (but don't skip them completely like I did the first time through, or you'll miss hints about what's going on).
It doesn't seem possible to say anything about the storyline without immediate spoilers, but I loved this book. It is wonderfully written, has excellent character development, and demands the reader's attention. I only didn't give it 5 stars because of some dissatisfaction with the ending. I highly recommend it, but be warned that the authors expect you to pay attention to details, hints, and a rather complicated plot. They will not make things obvious or recapitulate important developments, so pick a time when your mind is ready to be engaged. However, the longer digressions on philosophy and socialism can be skimmed if you aren't so interested (but don't skip them completely like I did the first time through, or you'll miss hints about what's going on).
July 1, 2007
This is a book to read for the sheer joy of the language and imaginations of the authors who have recreated a magical England with panache to rival Susanna Clarke’s Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. Set in the mid-nineteenth century, the story begins (and is told through letters and journal entries) with James Cobham, presumed dead and just recovering from amnesia. What follows is an intricately plotted, ingeniously paced novel of intrigue, passion, betrayal, and philosophy. Superb from start to finish, Freedom & Necessity is perfect for anyone craving high adventure and witty dialogue. First read January 1997, and read 4 times since.
January 19, 2024
An unusual read: a swashbuckling historical novel full of spies and mysteries, told entirely in epistolary format in language that at least approximates that of its 1840s English setting. Accomplished, but insufficiently rewarding for me to justify its significant heft, and at times straining awkwardly against the strictures of its epistolary format.
Freedom and Necessity is told primarily through the letters between four cousins. James, an underground agitator for working-class rights and democratization, finds himself targeted by mysterious enemies. Susan, a proper, educated young woman with too little use for her time and talents, sets out to unravel the mysteries of his life and purported death. They also draw in their respective best friends, Richard and Kitty, who fulfill largely supporting roles.
This novel seems to be a cult classic (relatively few people have read it, but an unusually large proportion of reviewers report having read it more than once), and I can see why. It’s clearly written for an intelligent audience that’s paying close attention, ideally with some knowledge of mid-19th century European politics, philosophy, and culture. It has a complicated plot, a lot of players, lots of little historical references that are not explained, and the use of voice is excellent. The authors incorporate real newspaper snippets from the time (many of which turn out to be plot-relevant). And you can tell they’ve done a lot of reading from the era beyond that, as the language truly does sound authentic, with the characters’ voices generally distinguishable from each other as well. The setting is detailed and believable. There’s a worthy cause and a lot of derring-do. There’s also some romance, which is well-done without overwhelming the rest of the book: Richard and Kitty are already together at the beginning, and James and Susan are halfway there, and having some history allows the relationships to develop at a pace that feels meaningful rather than rushed. The primary exchange of letters being between the same-sex pairs also allows those relationships to get some decent development.
All that said, I didn’t love it. It’s a very long, slow-moving book: the hardcover page count of 443 is misleading; the Kindle version apparently clocks in at 700 and that’s more accurate to the time investment. I eventually did develop some emotional investment, but not enough to carry me through something quite this long. The leads are likeable but perhaps a little over-idealized, their adventures likewise fun but over-the-top, their romances endearing but again, a little much at times. I have to conclude that James’s Bond-like talents and Susan’s rapid acquisition of the same are the true fantasy of this novel (despite all these people shelving it as fantasy, I see no supernatural elements beyond a few characters holding mystical beliefs, in the fashion of their times. Or perhaps I just missed it under the weight of these mammoth letters). That, and the breezy unconcern with which these startlingly liberated Victorians hook up without consequence: Richard and Kitty live together unmarried in his family home? With his mother? And on the politics, the book remains in the theoretical: Richard’s complaint that James has never really brought home his cause and why it matters on a human level applies equally well to the book itself.
Also, as to the authors seemingly struggling against their own writing choices: on the one hand it’s an epistolary novel, on the other they really want traditional scenes, complete with long dialogues that include scene-setting, dialogue beats, details of emotional reactions, etc. Their solution is to give Susan an eidetic memory so she can write Kitty these absolute marathon letters (30 pages of small print in some cases), including all that stuff. Which I don’t believe: even if Susan could remember all these tiny details to write down, would she? She’s on the run, this would take hours and wear out her hand and honestly, most of it is minutiae that she could just summarize without losing any important content, and some of it a bit intimate to write. At the point she feels moved to send Kitty a 14-page scene of James discussing ethics with Friedrich Engels, even Kitty seems confused. I wound up groaning whenever I got to a Susan letter, and the middle portion of the book in particular consists primarily of these because the men are at odds and Kitty has little of importance to say.
In the end I did finish the book, despite never really loving it, and it was fun at times, but I’m not sure I enjoyed it quite enough to merit the significant time commitment. That said, it’s by no means a bad book; if this specific thing speaks to you, you’ll likely find it incredible. For me, 3.5 stars rounded down.
Freedom and Necessity is told primarily through the letters between four cousins. James, an underground agitator for working-class rights and democratization, finds himself targeted by mysterious enemies. Susan, a proper, educated young woman with too little use for her time and talents, sets out to unravel the mysteries of his life and purported death. They also draw in their respective best friends, Richard and Kitty, who fulfill largely supporting roles.
This novel seems to be a cult classic (relatively few people have read it, but an unusually large proportion of reviewers report having read it more than once), and I can see why. It’s clearly written for an intelligent audience that’s paying close attention, ideally with some knowledge of mid-19th century European politics, philosophy, and culture. It has a complicated plot, a lot of players, lots of little historical references that are not explained, and the use of voice is excellent. The authors incorporate real newspaper snippets from the time (many of which turn out to be plot-relevant). And you can tell they’ve done a lot of reading from the era beyond that, as the language truly does sound authentic, with the characters’ voices generally distinguishable from each other as well. The setting is detailed and believable. There’s a worthy cause and a lot of derring-do. There’s also some romance, which is well-done without overwhelming the rest of the book: Richard and Kitty are already together at the beginning, and James and Susan are halfway there, and having some history allows the relationships to develop at a pace that feels meaningful rather than rushed. The primary exchange of letters being between the same-sex pairs also allows those relationships to get some decent development.
All that said, I didn’t love it. It’s a very long, slow-moving book: the hardcover page count of 443 is misleading; the Kindle version apparently clocks in at 700 and that’s more accurate to the time investment. I eventually did develop some emotional investment, but not enough to carry me through something quite this long. The leads are likeable but perhaps a little over-idealized, their adventures likewise fun but over-the-top, their romances endearing but again, a little much at times. I have to conclude that James’s Bond-like talents and Susan’s rapid acquisition of the same are the true fantasy of this novel (despite all these people shelving it as fantasy, I see no supernatural elements beyond a few characters holding mystical beliefs, in the fashion of their times. Or perhaps I just missed it under the weight of these mammoth letters). That, and the breezy unconcern with which these startlingly liberated Victorians hook up without consequence: Richard and Kitty live together unmarried in his family home? With his mother? And on the politics, the book remains in the theoretical: Richard’s complaint that James has never really brought home his cause and why it matters on a human level applies equally well to the book itself.
Also, as to the authors seemingly struggling against their own writing choices: on the one hand it’s an epistolary novel, on the other they really want traditional scenes, complete with long dialogues that include scene-setting, dialogue beats, details of emotional reactions, etc. Their solution is to give Susan an eidetic memory so she can write Kitty these absolute marathon letters (30 pages of small print in some cases), including all that stuff. Which I don’t believe: even if Susan could remember all these tiny details to write down, would she? She’s on the run, this would take hours and wear out her hand and honestly, most of it is minutiae that she could just summarize without losing any important content, and some of it a bit intimate to write. At the point she feels moved to send Kitty a 14-page scene of James discussing ethics with Friedrich Engels, even Kitty seems confused. I wound up groaning whenever I got to a Susan letter, and the middle portion of the book in particular consists primarily of these because the men are at odds and Kitty has little of importance to say.
In the end I did finish the book, despite never really loving it, and it was fun at times, but I’m not sure I enjoyed it quite enough to merit the significant time commitment. That said, it’s by no means a bad book; if this specific thing speaks to you, you’ll likely find it incredible. For me, 3.5 stars rounded down.
November 26, 2024
Now THAT'S how you write an interesting novel - lots of derring-do, a plot to really chew on, an independent and clever female heroine, a complex hero, and in general lots to keep the brain going.
This is a novel in letters, and yes you really do need the family tree. Cousin James is dead and mourned by his family, especially his step-sister Kitty, her love Richard, and his cousin Susan. But wait, is he dead? And if not, what happened?
Then there is lots of haring about all over England, with a fair amount about the Chartist and labor movements, and with Engels making a not-insignificant cameo. Hegel's dialectic is bruited about. There is also quite a lot about love of different kinds - family love, female friendship, male friendship, and romantic love. (The romantic love story is especially great.)
I inhaled this book when I first read it several years ago, and took it more leisurely this time. I actually think it suits a breakneck pace better. In any case, I think I would like to own this book. I wish Emma Bull had written more, and I may finally be ready to try Stephen Brust.
This isn't a perfect book, but it is a 4.5 rounded up for me.
This is a novel in letters, and yes you really do need the family tree. Cousin James is dead and mourned by his family, especially his step-sister Kitty, her love Richard, and his cousin Susan. But wait, is he dead? And if not, what happened?
Then there is lots of haring about all over England, with a fair amount about the Chartist and labor movements, and with Engels making a not-insignificant cameo. Hegel's dialectic is bruited about. There is also quite a lot about love of different kinds - family love, female friendship, male friendship, and romantic love. (The romantic love story is especially great.)
I inhaled this book when I first read it several years ago, and took it more leisurely this time. I actually think it suits a breakneck pace better. In any case, I think I would like to own this book. I wish Emma Bull had written more, and I may finally be ready to try Stephen Brust.
This isn't a perfect book, but it is a 4.5 rounded up for me.
August 16, 2010
It got me immediately when the characters started discussing Hegel - and then it was getting better and better: main characters I love, revolutionary underground, mystery and intrigue, Engels (actually as a character in the action), more Hegel with Kant and Hume, and the lovely XIX-century epistolary style.
The genre is impossible to define - it is not fantasy, not really a historical fiction or a philosophy textbook... But then, probably all really good book defy the strict genre definitions.
Reading about Engels - as the regular character - seems kind of strange. They (I rarely can think of him in singular, without Marx attached as a Siamese brain-twin, even though I read each of them separately) feel like an older relative - that you know were young and did what all humans do, but never think about it. they are way too memorial. And this is one of reasons I enjoy seeing Engels there so much.
The main characters (Susan, Kitty, James and Richard) are delightful, and I savor every moment with them, too. They are far from perfect - they have their quirks and vices and secrets, and they can be difficult, but they are never annoying and flat.
The genre is impossible to define - it is not fantasy, not really a historical fiction or a philosophy textbook... But then, probably all really good book defy the strict genre definitions.
Reading about Engels - as the regular character - seems kind of strange. They (I rarely can think of him in singular, without Marx attached as a Siamese brain-twin, even though I read each of them separately) feel like an older relative - that you know were young and did what all humans do, but never think about it. they are way too memorial. And this is one of reasons I enjoy seeing Engels there so much.
The main characters (Susan, Kitty, James and Richard) are delightful, and I savor every moment with them, too. They are far from perfect - they have their quirks and vices and secrets, and they can be difficult, but they are never annoying and flat.
April 26, 2024
Very dense and bloated historical fiction. I can't get through it. There were some really good flashes of character relationship building, but it wasn't enough to get me through the hundreds of pages of irrelevant filler. DNF @ 72%. I so wish I could have loved this book.
December 8, 2015
Freedom and Necessity is one of those novels with such a fun mash-up premise —historical Chartist movement/English socialism meets Victorian spiritualism and ancient aristocratic blood cults— that if nothing else I congratulate Stephen Brust and Emma Bull for their audacity. That the end result is actually readable is something worth applause.
Set in 1849, Freedom and Necessity begins with the mysterious reappearance of the English-aristo James Cobham after his presumed drowning. How and why someone would go to the trouble of faking his death turns out to part of a vast conspiracy involving pagan folklore and Enlightenment philosophers, James's Chartist sympathies and secrets from within his own family's past.
Constructing the story around the diaries and letters between James, his cousins Richard and Susan, and Richard's lady-love Kitty, Brust and Bull actually use the epistolary structure to their advantage. They allow the characters to write as actual people do: with elisions and repetitions, the allusions and digressions that are essential to their characterization. Furthermore, the distinct sensibilities of the narrators make the genre-bending mix of the novel work as it does — allowing Brust and Bull to move seamlessly between, say, debates over the Hegelian nature of knowledge and descriptions of opium-fueled explorations of the veil between this world and Faerie. As you do.
I do think the novel falters in the later half, particularly as the book weighs heavily towards the rational and political (represented by James and Susan), and away from the Romantic and the magical (represented by spiritualist Kitty and Richard) — the result of which is an ending that feels a little orphaned from its lead-up. That being said, outside from the lull in the middle with Engels (yes, that Engels) , Freedom and Necessity is a rollicking adventure that in some ways feels like a glorious Victorian potboiler: spies! family scandals! cross-dressing at Oxford!
*Neither romance really adds significantly to the already complicated narrative, and Engels seems frequently a mere vehicle for the authors' political opinions. The epistolary structure also gives the impression that the attachment runs much deeper between the two same-sex pairings than the opposite-sex ones, though your mileage may vary.
I particularly appreciate that Brust and Bull don't use the time period as an excuse to sideline the female characters. Susan in particular becomes something of the breakout character. Resourceful and intelligent, it's no surprise she ends up being something of the preferred narrator; and the warm rapport she has with the more intuitive-minded Kitty becomes something of a highlight. What I'm saying is that I want fic of Susan/Kitty out being ass-kicking supernatural detectives, whilst Richard and James are at home discussing philosophy, okay? They can consult with Lady Pole and Mrs. Strange (who've in the interim become the greatest living English magicians), forming something of a magic ladies supergroup. Engels and Fairy-King Stephen can be their play the cello and the flute, respectively, to fill out the sound. Rating: 4 stars
Set in 1849, Freedom and Necessity begins with the mysterious reappearance of the English-aristo James Cobham after his presumed drowning. How and why someone would go to the trouble of faking his death turns out to part of a vast conspiracy involving pagan folklore and Enlightenment philosophers, James's Chartist sympathies and secrets from within his own family's past.
Constructing the story around the diaries and letters between James, his cousins Richard and Susan, and Richard's lady-love Kitty, Brust and Bull actually use the epistolary structure to their advantage. They allow the characters to write as actual people do: with elisions and repetitions, the allusions and digressions that are essential to their characterization. Furthermore, the distinct sensibilities of the narrators make the genre-bending mix of the novel work as it does — allowing Brust and Bull to move seamlessly between, say, debates over the Hegelian nature of knowledge and descriptions of opium-fueled explorations of the veil between this world and Faerie. As you do.
I do think the novel falters in the later half, particularly as the book weighs heavily towards the rational and political (represented by James and Susan), and away from the Romantic and the magical (represented by spiritualist Kitty and Richard) — the result of which is an ending that feels a little orphaned from its lead-up. That being said, outside from the lull in the middle with Engels (yes, that Engels) , Freedom and Necessity is a rollicking adventure that in some ways feels like a glorious Victorian potboiler: spies! family scandals! cross-dressing at Oxford!
*Neither romance really adds significantly to the already complicated narrative, and Engels seems frequently a mere vehicle for the authors' political opinions. The epistolary structure also gives the impression that the attachment runs much deeper between the two same-sex pairings than the opposite-sex ones, though your mileage may vary.
I particularly appreciate that Brust and Bull don't use the time period as an excuse to sideline the female characters. Susan in particular becomes something of the breakout character. Resourceful and intelligent, it's no surprise she ends up being something of the preferred narrator; and the warm rapport she has with the more intuitive-minded Kitty becomes something of a highlight. What I'm saying is that I want fic of Susan/Kitty out being ass-kicking supernatural detectives, whilst Richard and James are at home discussing philosophy, okay? They can consult with Lady Pole and Mrs. Strange (who've in the interim become the greatest living English magicians), forming something of a magic ladies supergroup. Engels and Fairy-King Stephen can be their play the cello and the flute, respectively, to fill out the sound. Rating: 4 stars
April 25, 2022
I'm having the hardest time writing this review, but I just need to suck it up and word vomit out something, because I read this back in March.
The problem is, I have no idea how to describe this strange, strange book. And also, not sure how I feel about it? Like, I enjoyed it? I gave it four stars (well, 3.5)? But I also still find it confounding.
By the way, Steven Brust and Emma Bull teaming up to write this somehow led me to thinking FOR YEARS that they were married. But they are not. My brain?? Only married people can write books together? Stop, brain.
Basically, my entire feeling about this book can be summed up in one of my GR status updates: "I am enjoying this so far, but also have no idea what's actually going on." That feeling held the whole way through the book.
This is historical fantasy, first of all, and alternate history in almost equal measure. It's set in England in the 1840s, in a time of political upheaval when the proletariat was busy uprising and stuff, and like, wanting democracy and free speech and fun stuff like that was considered radical. The Wikipedia article on Chartism is the only reason I understood even half of what was going on plot-wise.
Luckily, the prose was so engaging, and the characters so fun that it sort of didn't matter I didn't really know what was going on. There's lots of hijinks here including amnesia, ladies dressing up as men, investigations, kidnappings, revolutionaries doing things, a little bit of romance, and other stuff I'm forgetting. The whole book is told in letters between mostly four main characters, with some others added in every now and then (at one point Marx and Engels, actual characters in this book, get "chapters"). It was good! (I'm fairly sure.) But it's also not a book you can read fast. I kept having to put it down every few "chapters" and pick something else up. Such a weird book.
I have to say, the cover of this book isn't doing it any favors. Makes it seem dry and historical (even if revolutionary), and in no way advertises how kooky and funny it can be.
[3.5 stars, rounded up]
The problem is, I have no idea how to describe this strange, strange book. And also, not sure how I feel about it? Like, I enjoyed it? I gave it four stars (well, 3.5)? But I also still find it confounding.
By the way, Steven Brust and Emma Bull teaming up to write this somehow led me to thinking FOR YEARS that they were married. But they are not. My brain?? Only married people can write books together? Stop, brain.
Basically, my entire feeling about this book can be summed up in one of my GR status updates: "I am enjoying this so far, but also have no idea what's actually going on." That feeling held the whole way through the book.
This is historical fantasy, first of all, and alternate history in almost equal measure. It's set in England in the 1840s, in a time of political upheaval when the proletariat was busy uprising and stuff, and like, wanting democracy and free speech and fun stuff like that was considered radical. The Wikipedia article on Chartism is the only reason I understood even half of what was going on plot-wise.
Luckily, the prose was so engaging, and the characters so fun that it sort of didn't matter I didn't really know what was going on. There's lots of hijinks here including amnesia, ladies dressing up as men, investigations, kidnappings, revolutionaries doing things, a little bit of romance, and other stuff I'm forgetting. The whole book is told in letters between mostly four main characters, with some others added in every now and then (at one point Marx and Engels, actual characters in this book, get "chapters"). It was good! (I'm fairly sure.) But it's also not a book you can read fast. I kept having to put it down every few "chapters" and pick something else up. Such a weird book.
I have to say, the cover of this book isn't doing it any favors. Makes it seem dry and historical (even if revolutionary), and in no way advertises how kooky and funny it can be.
[3.5 stars, rounded up]
July 1, 2012
This was a clever book, and had much to recommend it. It was well written and historically interesting, largely about the aftermath to the failed revolutions of 1848. The characters were good, and there was some very interesting reflection in it. Not the Hegelian stuff, which was kind of boring, but there was, for example, a letter quite near the end by James, talking about the nature of love, which I found affecting. I thought, however, the novel was far too long (it certainly lost a star just for that). Also, I found the authors' use of the epistolary format to be often confusing. I suppose it is part of the skill of constructing a narrative from letters to keep the narrative moving smoothly. I did not always find that in this book; I was often very confused, not just because the plot is complicated, which is fine, but because I did not feel the authors were guiding me through it adequately.
February 13, 2024
SWOON.
Longer review coming.
It's 1849, and the convulsions that threw Europe into confusion in 1848 - attempted revolutions all over the place - have mostly simmered down. The Chartist movement in England (wanting outrageous things like manhood suffrage, paying politicians - so you don't have to be rich to stand for election - and a secret ballot) has also mostly been contained. James Cobham wakes up at a rural pub with, he writes to his cousin, no memory of the last two months, during which time he has been presumed dead by drowning.
The entire novel is constructed via letters and a few diary entries. This does mean an occasionally improbable concession towards memories being excellent, but also raises the intriguing possibility of unreliable narrators all the way through. Also, the friend pointed out that reading it on the days the letters are written is both a fascinating and excruciating experience - the latter because the urge to keep reading is just. so. strong.
There are four main letter-writers. James; his cousin Richard; James' step-sister and Richard's paramour, Kitty; and Susan, also a cousin. The family is aristocratic in that way that doesn't entirely make sense for a modern Australian - they're not dukes, but they are wealthy and landed. James has been the family's black sheep for a long time and clearly has a dubious past; Richard is something of a dilettante and scandalous for living with Kitty; Kitty seems flighty and wilful, at least at first; and Susan is sensible, determined, and intimidatingly modern.
Susan is my favourite. Susan is on visiting terms with Friedrich Engels.
The plot wheels between political machinations, dastardly plots of a political and a personal nature, family in-fighting, pseudo-druidical secret societies, fairly in-depth philosophical arguments, and falling in love. The fact that it is written as letters between different people means there are four distinct voices, with their own personal ambitions, hang-ups, and secrets; people don't have all the same knowledge at the same time; and sometimes letters don't get to their intended recipient at the hoped-for time, leading to... well. You can imagine.
I love the romance aspect; I love the historical aspect; I love the thriller aspect. There are serious arguments about Hegel that leave me bewildered. This book is delightfully well-rounded, and I am so very thankful to Kate for giving it to me so I can read it again and again, and loan it to Very Special People.
Longer review coming.
It's 1849, and the convulsions that threw Europe into confusion in 1848 - attempted revolutions all over the place - have mostly simmered down. The Chartist movement in England (wanting outrageous things like manhood suffrage, paying politicians - so you don't have to be rich to stand for election - and a secret ballot) has also mostly been contained. James Cobham wakes up at a rural pub with, he writes to his cousin, no memory of the last two months, during which time he has been presumed dead by drowning.
The entire novel is constructed via letters and a few diary entries. This does mean an occasionally improbable concession towards memories being excellent, but also raises the intriguing possibility of unreliable narrators all the way through. Also, the friend pointed out that reading it on the days the letters are written is both a fascinating and excruciating experience - the latter because the urge to keep reading is just. so. strong.
There are four main letter-writers. James; his cousin Richard; James' step-sister and Richard's paramour, Kitty; and Susan, also a cousin. The family is aristocratic in that way that doesn't entirely make sense for a modern Australian - they're not dukes, but they are wealthy and landed. James has been the family's black sheep for a long time and clearly has a dubious past; Richard is something of a dilettante and scandalous for living with Kitty; Kitty seems flighty and wilful, at least at first; and Susan is sensible, determined, and intimidatingly modern.
Susan is my favourite. Susan is on visiting terms with Friedrich Engels.
The plot wheels between political machinations, dastardly plots of a political and a personal nature, family in-fighting, pseudo-druidical secret societies, fairly in-depth philosophical arguments, and falling in love. The fact that it is written as letters between different people means there are four distinct voices, with their own personal ambitions, hang-ups, and secrets; people don't have all the same knowledge at the same time; and sometimes letters don't get to their intended recipient at the hoped-for time, leading to... well. You can imagine.
I love the romance aspect; I love the historical aspect; I love the thriller aspect. There are serious arguments about Hegel that leave me bewildered. This book is delightfully well-rounded, and I am so very thankful to Kate for giving it to me so I can read it again and again, and loan it to Very Special People.
August 19, 2014
A very enjoyable historical novel set in England in 1849. It’s billed as fantasy, but there are only a few scenes with vaguely mystical elements that could easily be otherwise explained, so the book felt like straight historical fiction.
I can hardly describe the plot without giving away spoilers, but it begins with a man who surfaces a couple of months after his family thought he was dead. There’s a mystery behind his disappearance, and behind much of what he’s been doing the last ten years.
This is an epistolary novel, consisting entirely of letters, journal entries and the occasional article taken from the Times. Most of the letters are exchanged between four cousins as they keep each other up-to-date on their separate adventures. The letters cross each other, and the cousins tend to write more candidly in their journals than in their letters, so it requires concentration to keep up with which characters have which pieces of information.
This format adds a sense of realism to the book, even though conversations and action scenes are recounted with more detail than is realistic - more like the way a novelist would craft a scene, than what someone would write in a letter. I suppose it’s necessary to make the book readable, though, and one of the characters is given an eidetic memory to try to explain it.
The book is long (my hardcover is 450 pages with a small typeface) and the prose is dense and Victorian and lovely. The plot builds slowly, but eventually becomes quite exciting. There is revolution and philosophy - Friedrich Engels is a secondary character, and the German philosopher Hegel is much discussed. There are sinister conspiracies and a wicked occult society. There is plenty of murder and mayhem, and also endearing friendship and tender romance.
I can hardly describe the plot without giving away spoilers, but it begins with a man who surfaces a couple of months after his family thought he was dead. There’s a mystery behind his disappearance, and behind much of what he’s been doing the last ten years.
This is an epistolary novel, consisting entirely of letters, journal entries and the occasional article taken from the Times. Most of the letters are exchanged between four cousins as they keep each other up-to-date on their separate adventures. The letters cross each other, and the cousins tend to write more candidly in their journals than in their letters, so it requires concentration to keep up with which characters have which pieces of information.
This format adds a sense of realism to the book, even though conversations and action scenes are recounted with more detail than is realistic - more like the way a novelist would craft a scene, than what someone would write in a letter. I suppose it’s necessary to make the book readable, though, and one of the characters is given an eidetic memory to try to explain it.
The book is long (my hardcover is 450 pages with a small typeface) and the prose is dense and Victorian and lovely. The plot builds slowly, but eventually becomes quite exciting. There is revolution and philosophy - Friedrich Engels is a secondary character, and the German philosopher Hegel is much discussed. There are sinister conspiracies and a wicked occult society. There is plenty of murder and mayhem, and also endearing friendship and tender romance.
November 10, 2017
It’s more difficult than usual to evaluate this book, because I was so manifestly not in the right frame of mind for it. Even though War's Unwomanly Face was deeply upsetting, it was the right thing to read when the main emotion I'm feeling is grief. ‘Freedom and Necessity’ isn’t really compatible with grief, at least not as I experience it. It’s an epistolary mystery set in 1849 amid Chartist agitation. The four main characters, two women and two men, get up to exciting and dangerous adventures as they unravel a conspiracy. Although I could appreciate the plot and characterisation on an intellectual level, and they’re very good, on an emotional level the novel couldn’t touch me. All the romance left me entirely cold. I reiterate, this was due to my mood rather than any deficiency in the book as such. It was a case of wrong place, wrong time. If I hadn’t been away from home, I would have put it aside for something else. It’s rather a waste, really. I think the intensity of the epistolary format requires particularly close engagement with characters, which I wasn’t able to manage here. Nonetheless, I found the plot tense and involving. The cameos from Marx and Engels were very pleasing, although the debates on Hegel sometimes became a bit much. Don’t expect Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell levels of magic, as there are merely hints of supernatural. Instead, this is a novel of interpersonal affairs and political machinations.
December 15, 2015
This is an epistolary novel, told in letters and journal entries. One of the main characters, James Cobham, is a political reformer active in the Chartist movement, wanted by the government for treason. Someone tries to drown him, but he turns up later with no memory of how he survived. Eventually his memory returns, but he still has quite a few enemies -- in the government, some elements of the Chartist movement, and in an occult society connected with his own family. The other major characters are James's brother Richard and his second cousin Susan.
I thought this was going to be a fantasy book since the two authors, Steven Brust and Emma Bull, are both known as fantasy writers, and since it was published by Tor, the SFF division of Macmillan. But there’s nothing in the book that is obviously fantasy; it’s really a historical adventure with lots of political intrigue. There’s a romance too, eventually - it’s not really a major part of the book for the first half though. At first I thought I wouldn’t be interested in that, I was reading for other aspects of the book. Famous last words. :-)
Most of the book is not really dark. There are only few disturbing scenes, but those parts are pretty important to the book as a whole, since the tension between political idealism and cynicism is a really important aspect of the book. One of my favorite scenes is a conversation James has with Friedrich Engels about that. I didn’t cry but I was close to it a couple of times. Most of the book was not particularly fast paced, but it was always interesting. After I was finished I reread some of my favorite parts.
I thought this was going to be a fantasy book since the two authors, Steven Brust and Emma Bull, are both known as fantasy writers, and since it was published by Tor, the SFF division of Macmillan. But there’s nothing in the book that is obviously fantasy; it’s really a historical adventure with lots of political intrigue. There’s a romance too, eventually - it’s not really a major part of the book for the first half though. At first I thought I wouldn’t be interested in that, I was reading for other aspects of the book. Famous last words. :-)
Most of the book is not really dark. There are only few disturbing scenes, but those parts are pretty important to the book as a whole, since the tension between political idealism and cynicism is a really important aspect of the book. One of my favorite scenes is a conversation James has with Friedrich Engels about that. I didn’t cry but I was close to it a couple of times. Most of the book was not particularly fast paced, but it was always interesting. After I was finished I reread some of my favorite parts.
January 12, 2011
It's 1849, the place is England, and James Cobham is dead. He was seen to drown, although his body was never recovered. Except that two months later, his cousin Richard receives a letter from James, who's working as an hostler at an inn and doesn't remember the past two months. The story unfolds in the letters and journal entries of Richard, James, Kitty, Susan, and assorted other connections, further enlivened by the fact that nobody is telling anybody everything. As the four principles gradually pick apart the threads of the several competing conspiracies with various political, personal, and financial motivations, life becomes ever more exciting, more exciting than any of them wanted it to be.
It should be noted, I think, that no one finding this book cold in the general fiction section of a more mainstream bookstore, or in the library without a little sticker indicating "fantasy", would ever identify this as anything other than a straight historical novel. Nothing unambiguously fantastical ever happens in it; even the ambiguous things are not especially prominent. This is a very good, complex, literate historical novel, getting an sf readership because of its authors and its marketing. Highly recommended.
It should be noted, I think, that no one finding this book cold in the general fiction section of a more mainstream bookstore, or in the library without a little sticker indicating "fantasy", would ever identify this as anything other than a straight historical novel. Nothing unambiguously fantastical ever happens in it; even the ambiguous things are not especially prominent. This is a very good, complex, literate historical novel, getting an sf readership because of its authors and its marketing. Highly recommended.
October 21, 2009
Four-and-one-half stars for "Freedom & Necessity." This was a fabulous book; and I have no qualms recommending this at all. I really have to give it up to Emma Bull and Stephen Brust on this one. The epistolary style; comprised of correspondence, journal entries, and newspaper articles; works perfectly with the plot.
This is an exciting historical mystery set in 1849 in Victorian England. It is loaded with political intrigue, budding romances, murder and mayhem, and a healthy dose of Hegelian philosophy. In and amongst the very engaging fictional characters, Emma Bull and Stephen Brust have realistically inserted some well-known historical figures. The novel does an excellent job of educating the reader on the Chartist's movement that caused significant angst among members of Her Majesty's government, as well as in other European monarchies. One can tell that Bull and Brust did their homework in developing the plot; it just feels right and seems completely plausible. Finally, Susan Voight is one of the most likable, brilliant, and witty heroines I've encountered in a novel in a long, long time. She is a giant in this novel! I will definitely read this book again!
This is an exciting historical mystery set in 1849 in Victorian England. It is loaded with political intrigue, budding romances, murder and mayhem, and a healthy dose of Hegelian philosophy. In and amongst the very engaging fictional characters, Emma Bull and Stephen Brust have realistically inserted some well-known historical figures. The novel does an excellent job of educating the reader on the Chartist's movement that caused significant angst among members of Her Majesty's government, as well as in other European monarchies. One can tell that Bull and Brust did their homework in developing the plot; it just feels right and seems completely plausible. Finally, Susan Voight is one of the most likable, brilliant, and witty heroines I've encountered in a novel in a long, long time. She is a giant in this novel! I will definitely read this book again!
December 2, 2018
This ought to be the best book in the world: exciting plot, great characters, philosophical underpinnings, believable romance, wonderfully written... But oh. my. god. Do those characters never stop talking? They just go on and on. Even real 19th century epistolary novels are not quite as verbose. I mean, it rewards the effort, which is why I've given it 4 stars, and why this is at least the third time I've read it and I'll keep my copy and probably re-read it someday. But I think it is a tad self-indulgent.
December 29, 2020
Failed the fifty-page test.
Interesting premise: a guy finds himself alive when everyone saw him die two months ago. He has no idea where he's been or what's happening. Told through letters and journal entries.
Preachy. Burst and Bull have an agenda, which they wait just a while before springing on the hapless reader. Unfortunately, I wasn't hooked on the story or characters enough to wade through all the philosophic twaddle.
Maybe it got better. Didn't care to waste another fifty pages--let alone several hundred--to find out.
Interesting premise: a guy finds himself alive when everyone saw him die two months ago. He has no idea where he's been or what's happening. Told through letters and journal entries.
Preachy. Burst and Bull have an agenda, which they wait just a while before springing on the hapless reader. Unfortunately, I wasn't hooked on the story or characters enough to wade through all the philosophic twaddle.
Maybe it got better. Didn't care to waste another fifty pages--let alone several hundred--to find out.
December 28, 2010
Composed of striking language and equally striking ideas, this book had me hooked by about page two. I loved the time-travel. I loved the adventure. I loved the philosophical debating, and wished I was well-versed in modern philosophy to understand more of it. I loved the romance, especially (OOPS, SPOILER) the contrast between Kitty & Richard's and Susan & James's. I loved the socialism. Heck, I loved the full-blown Communism. I loved the accumulating criticism of the occult, the Church, and the government that leave thinking people with nothing to depend on besides themselves.
For me, though, the most memorable part of the intrigue is the heroes who battle through it. James, Susan, Kitty and Richard – I hope that I'll someday know more real people I appreciate and admire this much. They remind me of the best people I already know. Brave, impetuous, insightful, stubborn, witty, vulnerable, strong all in their own ways, relentlessly real through 'their own' voices, so wonderfully articulated by their creators. Steven Brust and Emma Bull have transformed the way I think about characterization. As it would appear from my rating, I see this transformed view as a positive thing. Right? Well, it's maybe bad, in that I'm not sure if it's heightened my discernment or narrowed my mind. I have a new, incontrovertible yardstick by which to measure each literary protagonists I meet and it's going to make me a hell of a lot pickier. But I also enjoy the challenge of unravelling why they're such great characters.
It's partially the merit of the format. Letters and journal entries portray not only how the characters know themselves, but how they know each other; we see how they themselves, and their relationships, transform. We understand them differently, with the strangely distanced intimacy that comes of peering into somebody's personal life. Which is enormously stimulating. Traditional prosaic chapters in third-person or even first-person can't achieve that to the same degree. (The only thing that bothers me is wonder WHEN Susan, in particular, had time to write thirty-odd page letters, sometimes more than once in a day. And was the postal service really as efficient as it appears? That's my thinking, dull & practical. But since unlimited writing time seems to be an oddity with epistolary novels in general, I won't hold it against this one.)
The main four aren't the only ones to almost dumbfound me with admiration. Engels and Mary are fantastic; in a perfect world Brust and Bull would have written a companion novel about those two .... I had thought that Thomas Cavanaugh might end up sacrificing himself to rescue Richard midway through, but luckily I was wrong, as he played an even more satisfying role later on. My heart bled for Henry, because I recognize him – I think we all do – his exuberance and his naïve belief in immortality. I treasured even the briefest sketches, like the one of Marx: "... a good-natured lion that can take your breath away even in casual conversation."
So it was not only the exceptionally intriguing plot, but deep investment in the characters that sucked me through the story. I couldn't help feeling as edgy as Kitty must have, hearing of the action but helpless to affect anything. I was convinced, near the end, that her 'visions' were going to prove wholly irrelevant, and James was fated to die. James's death seemed unbearable, and yet "right" to me, believing the prediction was a simple matter of amassing clues.That he might live seemed too good to contemplate, until it actually happened. If you expected what I did, both the lead-up to the Trotters' Club confrontation and the against-the-odds triumph of the underdogs will awe you.
How silly was I? "Fate" doesn't exist in the written world unless the author declares herself God, and I should have seen from the beginning that Brust and Bull did no such thing. Their characters rule themselves, and THAT is why the characters enthral me. They are 'fated' only by the freedoms and necessities that they have chosen, and those which they choose throughout the novel. I'm not saying James "chooses" to live when he's bleeding from an arrow wound (though he does, and that has to be significant). I am, however, saying that nothing is inevitable in a world where human beings take responsibility for their lives.
We delude ourselves by scorning the failure of realism when James lives. "Literary correctness" does not have the power to claim him. Nor are any of us thrown without our permission into a quasi-Gothic universe, or one ruled by Fate, or by the conventions of literature. Such a universe, I would argue, is the one pressed on us by mysticism, politics and institutionalized religion. At the centre is James's fight against the demons of disempowering "Fate." His death would be his defeat, and the defeat of the novel's purpose.
At this point, I have two thank-yous to say. First is to Brad Simkulet, who lent this to me. He is only getting it back because I love and respect him, and because I know our conversations revolving around the book will be even more interesting after we've re-read it. I will buy a copy as soon as humanly possible.
A sheepish acknowledgment: this review is written, or at least guided in large part by my emotional response to Freedom and Necessity. I have tried to be logical, but it deserves more than "pure" logic, if there is such a thing. This book soared past my logical faculties and perched, preening, beautiful, in dim corners that don't lend themselves so easily to my critical flashlight. I count that as proof of its brilliance. I will be re-reading this – more than once, I'm certain – and I will edit/add to this review whenever I do so. Somehow the thought is strengthening, a definite literary challenge and joy that I look forward to. Thank you, thank you, thank you to the authors, for giving us this magnificent story.
For me, though, the most memorable part of the intrigue is the heroes who battle through it. James, Susan, Kitty and Richard – I hope that I'll someday know more real people I appreciate and admire this much. They remind me of the best people I already know. Brave, impetuous, insightful, stubborn, witty, vulnerable, strong all in their own ways, relentlessly real through 'their own' voices, so wonderfully articulated by their creators. Steven Brust and Emma Bull have transformed the way I think about characterization. As it would appear from my rating, I see this transformed view as a positive thing. Right? Well, it's maybe bad, in that I'm not sure if it's heightened my discernment or narrowed my mind. I have a new, incontrovertible yardstick by which to measure each literary protagonists I meet and it's going to make me a hell of a lot pickier. But I also enjoy the challenge of unravelling why they're such great characters.
It's partially the merit of the format. Letters and journal entries portray not only how the characters know themselves, but how they know each other; we see how they themselves, and their relationships, transform. We understand them differently, with the strangely distanced intimacy that comes of peering into somebody's personal life. Which is enormously stimulating. Traditional prosaic chapters in third-person or even first-person can't achieve that to the same degree. (The only thing that bothers me is wonder WHEN Susan, in particular, had time to write thirty-odd page letters, sometimes more than once in a day. And was the postal service really as efficient as it appears? That's my thinking, dull & practical. But since unlimited writing time seems to be an oddity with epistolary novels in general, I won't hold it against this one.)
The main four aren't the only ones to almost dumbfound me with admiration. Engels and Mary are fantastic; in a perfect world Brust and Bull would have written a companion novel about those two .... I had thought that Thomas Cavanaugh might end up sacrificing himself to rescue Richard midway through, but luckily I was wrong, as he played an even more satisfying role later on. My heart bled for Henry, because I recognize him – I think we all do – his exuberance and his naïve belief in immortality. I treasured even the briefest sketches, like the one of Marx: "... a good-natured lion that can take your breath away even in casual conversation."
So it was not only the exceptionally intriguing plot, but deep investment in the characters that sucked me through the story. I couldn't help feeling as edgy as Kitty must have, hearing of the action but helpless to affect anything. I was convinced, near the end, that her 'visions' were going to prove wholly irrelevant, and James was fated to die. James's death seemed unbearable, and yet "right" to me, believing the prediction was a simple matter of amassing clues.That he might live seemed too good to contemplate, until it actually happened. If you expected what I did, both the lead-up to the Trotters' Club confrontation and the against-the-odds triumph of the underdogs will awe you.
How silly was I? "Fate" doesn't exist in the written world unless the author declares herself God, and I should have seen from the beginning that Brust and Bull did no such thing. Their characters rule themselves, and THAT is why the characters enthral me. They are 'fated' only by the freedoms and necessities that they have chosen, and those which they choose throughout the novel. I'm not saying James "chooses" to live when he's bleeding from an arrow wound (though he does, and that has to be significant). I am, however, saying that nothing is inevitable in a world where human beings take responsibility for their lives.
We delude ourselves by scorning the failure of realism when James lives. "Literary correctness" does not have the power to claim him. Nor are any of us thrown without our permission into a quasi-Gothic universe, or one ruled by Fate, or by the conventions of literature. Such a universe, I would argue, is the one pressed on us by mysticism, politics and institutionalized religion. At the centre is James's fight against the demons of disempowering "Fate." His death would be his defeat, and the defeat of the novel's purpose.
At this point, I have two thank-yous to say. First is to Brad Simkulet, who lent this to me. He is only getting it back because I love and respect him, and because I know our conversations revolving around the book will be even more interesting after we've re-read it. I will buy a copy as soon as humanly possible.
A sheepish acknowledgment: this review is written, or at least guided in large part by my emotional response to Freedom and Necessity. I have tried to be logical, but it deserves more than "pure" logic, if there is such a thing. This book soared past my logical faculties and perched, preening, beautiful, in dim corners that don't lend themselves so easily to my critical flashlight. I count that as proof of its brilliance. I will be re-reading this – more than once, I'm certain – and I will edit/add to this review whenever I do so. Somehow the thought is strengthening, a definite literary challenge and joy that I look forward to. Thank you, thank you, thank you to the authors, for giving us this magnificent story.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 28, 2018
This book is brainy and adventurous and mysterious and magical and convoluted and clever and rational and principled, and all the best sort of things that good books should be. Like Susan Voight. ❤️ Susan indeed.
December 28, 2023
Epistolary! Wonderful!
Still don’t get Hegel tho. Brain too smooth for that.
Second thought:
Though; did it even need the magic? I can’t tell if I liked that it was so peripheral to everything or if there should have been more. Not even really sure it existed after all.
Still don’t get Hegel tho. Brain too smooth for that.
Second thought:
Though; did it even need the magic? I can’t tell if I liked that it was so peripheral to everything or if there should have been more. Not even really sure it existed after all.
Read
September 24, 2008Freedom & Necessity (1997) - Steven Brust, Emma Bull.
This is a tremendously good and fun book. If you love the literature of the 19th century, Jane Austen etc, you will find this book great fun. Brust and Bull wrote this collaboratively, i believe it was done with each taking alternate parts which works well in a book composed of letters and newspaper clippings and journal entries. I can imagine in the process of writing, a sort of creative competition developing between Steven and Emma. They both capture the voice and language of the time, and then bring in more modern plot elements and situations. For instance a strong young woman who by necessity becomes an amateur sleuth. This book also presents, and very palatably i may add, ideas and thoughts about the philosophies of the stories time -- Marx and Engels and Hegel. Also note this book is NOT fantasy like other works by both authors.
Here's a quote that shows how funny this book can be some times. This is from the first page, so no spoilers here:
"9th October, 1849
My Dear Cousin,
I wonder how you will greet these words; indeed, I wonder how you will receive into your hand the paper that bears them, as I think you cannot be in expectation of correspondence from me. You have always been a hardy soul -- body and mind -- and so I don't imagine you the central figure in some Gothick tale, clutching at these pages and you disordered locks and changing colour six times in a minute.
I am sorry; I am too frivolous; I shall begin again, taking care to keep better governance of my near-ungovernable fancy. But truly, what ought to anchor my senses to but nonsense, in such a situation so out of common, so utterly outside of natural, as the one I've got myself pitched into?
In short, I have been given to understand that I am believed to be dead by all my family and acquaintance -- that I was seen to die, in fact, or at least, was seen to sink beneath the water a last time, and my corpse never recovered, though long and passionately sought for. "
Emma Bull is probably known to you Minneapolis readers as the author of War for the Oaks. My sister, who turned me on to this book originally, was just in town visiting from Seattle. I took her on a literary tour of the city, showing here the fountain where the Phouka first makes it's appearance [the fountain is not too far from the strip club where Diablo Cody lap danced, as described in Candy Girl ], and then showing her the oaks where the battle later in the book occurred. This is definite a fun read if you haven't already.
This is a tremendously good and fun book. If you love the literature of the 19th century, Jane Austen etc, you will find this book great fun. Brust and Bull wrote this collaboratively, i believe it was done with each taking alternate parts which works well in a book composed of letters and newspaper clippings and journal entries. I can imagine in the process of writing, a sort of creative competition developing between Steven and Emma. They both capture the voice and language of the time, and then bring in more modern plot elements and situations. For instance a strong young woman who by necessity becomes an amateur sleuth. This book also presents, and very palatably i may add, ideas and thoughts about the philosophies of the stories time -- Marx and Engels and Hegel. Also note this book is NOT fantasy like other works by both authors.
Here's a quote that shows how funny this book can be some times. This is from the first page, so no spoilers here:
"9th October, 1849
My Dear Cousin,
I wonder how you will greet these words; indeed, I wonder how you will receive into your hand the paper that bears them, as I think you cannot be in expectation of correspondence from me. You have always been a hardy soul -- body and mind -- and so I don't imagine you the central figure in some Gothick tale, clutching at these pages and you disordered locks and changing colour six times in a minute.
I am sorry; I am too frivolous; I shall begin again, taking care to keep better governance of my near-ungovernable fancy. But truly, what ought to anchor my senses to but nonsense, in such a situation so out of common, so utterly outside of natural, as the one I've got myself pitched into?
In short, I have been given to understand that I am believed to be dead by all my family and acquaintance -- that I was seen to die, in fact, or at least, was seen to sink beneath the water a last time, and my corpse never recovered, though long and passionately sought for. "
Emma Bull is probably known to you Minneapolis readers as the author of War for the Oaks. My sister, who turned me on to this book originally, was just in town visiting from Seattle. I took her on a literary tour of the city, showing here the fountain where the Phouka first makes it's appearance [the fountain is not too far from the strip club where Diablo Cody lap danced, as described in Candy Girl ], and then showing her the oaks where the battle later in the book occurred. This is definite a fun read if you haven't already.
December 22, 2009
I've lost track of how many times I've read this book, it must be at least five or six though; and I've just finished it again last weekend. The writing is superb, very descriptive, dense and it draws you in to the book so that you live the story along with the characters.
Told through a mixture of letters and diary entries - the four main characters are all cousins, Richard and James Cobham, Kitty Holbourn - James's step sister and Susan Voight a maternal cousin of Richard and James. The story opens with a letter from James to his cousin Richard, James has at this point been believed dead by his relatvies, indeed it was on a family outing that he was seen to fall over the side of a boat on the river and not emerge again - James's letter begins the tale of what happened at the river, why it happened and the consequences of actions James had taken up to that time on his life and that of the other three.
James Cobham an indolent aristocratic man about town, or Jimmy Cobham the Chartist agitator, or indeed Jack Cobb the hostler at The Grey Hound inn; all these and more are James. As his family becomes pulled into his past, as Susan travels the country trying to decipher what happened to him and why there are people who prefer that he is not asked after, as Kitty experiments with opium filled dreams, and as Richard discovers that James isn't really who he thought he was, or at least not completely who he thought he was.
And then throw into the mix the Trotter's Club a 19th century occult group consisting of mainly aristocratic members carrying out quasi religous ceremonies and who were responsible for the murder of James younger half brother when he was six months old - and they want James as well.
Early on in the book, Richard advises James to have with him at all times iron that cuts, polished silver a sprig of mistletoe and a loaded pistol.
The canvas of the book is England of the mid-19th century, both James and Susan travel over a fair amount of it, Richard and Kitty less so, but in the course of their travels, the story of James's involvement with the Chartists is told, and how it threatens to destroy all of them.
Told through a mixture of letters and diary entries - the four main characters are all cousins, Richard and James Cobham, Kitty Holbourn - James's step sister and Susan Voight a maternal cousin of Richard and James. The story opens with a letter from James to his cousin Richard, James has at this point been believed dead by his relatvies, indeed it was on a family outing that he was seen to fall over the side of a boat on the river and not emerge again - James's letter begins the tale of what happened at the river, why it happened and the consequences of actions James had taken up to that time on his life and that of the other three.
James Cobham an indolent aristocratic man about town, or Jimmy Cobham the Chartist agitator, or indeed Jack Cobb the hostler at The Grey Hound inn; all these and more are James. As his family becomes pulled into his past, as Susan travels the country trying to decipher what happened to him and why there are people who prefer that he is not asked after, as Kitty experiments with opium filled dreams, and as Richard discovers that James isn't really who he thought he was, or at least not completely who he thought he was.
And then throw into the mix the Trotter's Club a 19th century occult group consisting of mainly aristocratic members carrying out quasi religous ceremonies and who were responsible for the murder of James younger half brother when he was six months old - and they want James as well.
Early on in the book, Richard advises James to have with him at all times iron that cuts, polished silver a sprig of mistletoe and a loaded pistol.
The canvas of the book is England of the mid-19th century, both James and Susan travel over a fair amount of it, Richard and Kitty less so, but in the course of their travels, the story of James's involvement with the Chartists is told, and how it threatens to destroy all of them.
October 31, 2012
I love this book. Many years ago a kind American friend gave me her copy because I couldn't get hold of it here and she could get another one when she got home. I have appreciated her sacrifice ever since.
Having said that, it's probably not for everyone. It's a historical novel (set in 1849). It's an epistolary novel, structured much as "Dracula" is with letters, journal entries, and occasional newspaper articles. It involves a fair amount of philosophy and quite a lot of mid-19th-century political thinking.
So. James Cobham is a member of the British upper classes and a Chartist agitator. Shortly before the book opens, he apparently drowned at a picnic; the book opens with his letter to his cousin Richard revealing himself to be still alive. But who staged his drowning, and why? He can't remember any of the intervening two months. He and Richard exchange letters discussing possible scenarios and culprits, and philosophy (they are both much enamoured of Hegel). Meanwhile, Richard's lover, Kitty, is corresponding with James' cousin, Susan, who is busily digging into James' history and finding out about his disreputable past. In due course, James and Susan collide, and...then things get interesting.
I do have a tendency to skim a bit in the first section of the book; all that philosophy is a little tedious. But Susan's activities, though wholly unsuitable to a respectable Victorian lady, are vastly entertaining, and once she and James hook up (in a working-together sense, not a romantic one) things really get lively. I love the distraction scene in Newport, for instance. And the bits with Engels in Manchester (yes, that Engels). And the arrival of Aunt Louisa. And the unravelling of the hugely complicated plot, or rather plots, because there are many plots against poor James.
And basically, it is a romantic in all senses of the word novel, and it is wonderful. I would give it five stars were it not for all that Hegel early on.
Having said that, it's probably not for everyone. It's a historical novel (set in 1849). It's an epistolary novel, structured much as "Dracula" is with letters, journal entries, and occasional newspaper articles. It involves a fair amount of philosophy and quite a lot of mid-19th-century political thinking.
So. James Cobham is a member of the British upper classes and a Chartist agitator. Shortly before the book opens, he apparently drowned at a picnic; the book opens with his letter to his cousin Richard revealing himself to be still alive. But who staged his drowning, and why? He can't remember any of the intervening two months. He and Richard exchange letters discussing possible scenarios and culprits, and philosophy (they are both much enamoured of Hegel). Meanwhile, Richard's lover, Kitty, is corresponding with James' cousin, Susan, who is busily digging into James' history and finding out about his disreputable past. In due course, James and Susan collide, and...then things get interesting.
I do have a tendency to skim a bit in the first section of the book; all that philosophy is a little tedious. But Susan's activities, though wholly unsuitable to a respectable Victorian lady, are vastly entertaining, and once she and James hook up (in a working-together sense, not a romantic one) things really get lively. I love the distraction scene in Newport, for instance. And the bits with Engels in Manchester (yes, that Engels). And the arrival of Aunt Louisa. And the unravelling of the hugely complicated plot, or rather plots, because there are many plots against poor James.
And basically, it is a romantic in all senses of the word novel, and it is wonderful. I would give it five stars were it not for all that Hegel early on.
February 7, 2021
“Resembling the works of Tolstoy and Dickens”
I should have known to be wary when I saw that in one of the critical acclaims included in the amazon description of the book. I have not read much of Dickens or any of Tolstoy, but I’m aware that the latter is responsible for some of the thickest doorstoppers in literature and the former wrote like he was paid by the word (I did a quick google and it turns out he was actually paid by installment, not that it made much difference).
When I think of Dickens, I think of long and convoluted passages and excessive commentary on random topics. A modern day author would write the sentence, “She went to the bathroom,” and Charles Dickens would write: “She approached the humble boudoir that afforded a semblance of privacy while one took care of one’s most intimate bodily functions; the room that was the hallmark of civilization — no other creature that walked the earth felt the need to hide their necessities, and this was one of the core distinctions that set humans apart from animals. Civilization could be boiled down to the compulsory desire for privacy and the feelings of shame and embarrassment that arose when it was denied.” A contrived example, certainly -- I'm no Dickens and I don't doubt the man was an order of magnitude smarter than me -- but nonetheless the impression that he left me with, making connections and gathering deep insights from seemingly mundane things that were not necessarily of the most interest to the reader (might be a me-problem, clearly it works for a lot of people). It's been an age since I read Dickens though, so perhaps I should give him another chance.
Back to Freedom and Necessity. I wish I'd been warned that this book was written in epistolary format, because (perhaps according to the style of the place and time, England in the 1840s) the characters do take a leaf from Dickens and write like they're trying to outdo each other in length and philosophical asides. I found it initially very frustrating to read and the story didn't really get going until around 20%, so I ended up taking a break from it and reading/rereading about ten other books in the interim.
Once I'd worked through my annoyance and returned to the book, I did really enjoy it. Freedom centers around James Cobham, a dashing gentleman who shows up at an inn two months after having seemingly drowned and been declared dead, unable to remember what happened. The investigation into what happened to him unfolds into a complex plot with far-reaching political consequences and is told through letters between James, his cousin Richard, Richard’s lover Kitty who also happens to be James’s stepsister, and Kitty’s best friend and James and Richard’s cousin, Susan. A very interrelated bunch, which would’ve been fine except for the fact that Susan and James were love interests. You do find out at around 30% that they are second cousins, but still, cousins nonetheless.
Now if this had been written when it was set in 1849, I would understand. But it was written in 1997, a time when getting with your cousin, second or otherwise, was almost certainly frowned upon, and I have to wonder why the authors couldn’t have just NOT MADE THEM COUSINS. Surely friends were things one could find outside of one's family during the time period?
Cousincest aside, the characters were interesting and well thought out. James and Richard's relationship arc was very satisfying, and I particularly looked forward to Susan's entries because she was by far the most reliably straightforward, thorough, and direct of the bunch (the rest of them always took their sweet time getting to the point.) The book was peppered with some really clever insights that showcased the complexity of the characters. Here are just a few of my favorites:
...and many more, thanks to the book's length.
Fair warning, this book was also very heavy on philosophical discussion and featured real-life philosopher Friedrich Engels as a character (and Marx to lesser extent). I didn't know anything about the Chartist movement or the politics of the time so had to do some mid-read googling for context, but the book almost acted as a primer on the philosophies of Engels and Hegel and was certainly more enjoyable than reading their actual philosophy texts (at least for me), so I appreciated the introduction and view of philosophy through the lens of the story. Like baking vegetables into a cake.
Overall, despite its length and format and occasional lack of focus, I would recommend it. It was a fun, insightful adventure story and will particularly appeal to philosophy lovers.
I should have known to be wary when I saw that in one of the critical acclaims included in the amazon description of the book. I have not read much of Dickens or any of Tolstoy, but I’m aware that the latter is responsible for some of the thickest doorstoppers in literature and the former wrote like he was paid by the word (I did a quick google and it turns out he was actually paid by installment, not that it made much difference).
When I think of Dickens, I think of long and convoluted passages and excessive commentary on random topics. A modern day author would write the sentence, “She went to the bathroom,” and Charles Dickens would write: “She approached the humble boudoir that afforded a semblance of privacy while one took care of one’s most intimate bodily functions; the room that was the hallmark of civilization — no other creature that walked the earth felt the need to hide their necessities, and this was one of the core distinctions that set humans apart from animals. Civilization could be boiled down to the compulsory desire for privacy and the feelings of shame and embarrassment that arose when it was denied.” A contrived example, certainly -- I'm no Dickens and I don't doubt the man was an order of magnitude smarter than me -- but nonetheless the impression that he left me with, making connections and gathering deep insights from seemingly mundane things that were not necessarily of the most interest to the reader (might be a me-problem, clearly it works for a lot of people). It's been an age since I read Dickens though, so perhaps I should give him another chance.
Back to Freedom and Necessity. I wish I'd been warned that this book was written in epistolary format, because (perhaps according to the style of the place and time, England in the 1840s) the characters do take a leaf from Dickens and write like they're trying to outdo each other in length and philosophical asides. I found it initially very frustrating to read and the story didn't really get going until around 20%, so I ended up taking a break from it and reading/rereading about ten other books in the interim.
Once I'd worked through my annoyance and returned to the book, I did really enjoy it. Freedom centers around James Cobham, a dashing gentleman who shows up at an inn two months after having seemingly drowned and been declared dead, unable to remember what happened. The investigation into what happened to him unfolds into a complex plot with far-reaching political consequences and is told through letters between James, his cousin Richard, Richard’s lover Kitty who also happens to be James’s stepsister, and Kitty’s best friend and James and Richard’s cousin, Susan. A very interrelated bunch, which would’ve been fine except for the fact that Susan and James were love interests. You do find out at around 30% that they are second cousins, but still, cousins nonetheless.
Now if this had been written when it was set in 1849, I would understand. But it was written in 1997, a time when getting with your cousin, second or otherwise, was almost certainly frowned upon, and I have to wonder why the authors couldn’t have just NOT MADE THEM COUSINS. Surely friends were things one could find outside of one's family during the time period?
Cousincest aside, the characters were interesting and well thought out. James and Richard's relationship arc was very satisfying, and I particularly looked forward to Susan's entries because she was by far the most reliably straightforward, thorough, and direct of the bunch (the rest of them always took their sweet time getting to the point.) The book was peppered with some really clever insights that showcased the complexity of the characters. Here are just a few of my favorites:
All lives are abbreviated; nature puts a period at the end.
"Which scoundrels did you have in mind?" "In the absence of any others, my dear, I'll do."
There were several times when martyrdom was available to me for no more than the price of standing still.
He will define himself as whatever will best survive the moment, perfectly flexible, entirely unstable; he will be rigorously amoral out of fear that anything else will make him too firm, too tangible, to slip through the net. He is becoming something he hates because he believes that nothing else can preserve the things he loves. I would rather see him dead.
I'm doing this mostly because it's opened wide a door to a room inside me that before I could only guess at by the light along the sill and through the keyhole. It's a room in which all those things in me that, living the normal life of a well-bred woman, I could never use—strength and speed and hardiness; command over my mind and body; respect for the language of my senses; a certain ferocity of the spirit—are not only useful but essential.
Some, I know, preach that the ends justify the means. Others say they do not. I say the question is nonsense, because we do not use different means to the same end. Oh, yes, I know all about how a hundred roads lead to the same destination, but that is because we start from different places.
Good or bad, give me credit for what I have done. I would rather go honestly to Hell, admitting that I leaped knowingly into error and folly, than enter into the sweetest Heaven men can dream of by whining that I had been pushed.
...and many more, thanks to the book's length.
Fair warning, this book was also very heavy on philosophical discussion and featured real-life philosopher Friedrich Engels as a character (and Marx to lesser extent). I didn't know anything about the Chartist movement or the politics of the time so had to do some mid-read googling for context, but the book almost acted as a primer on the philosophies of Engels and Hegel and was certainly more enjoyable than reading their actual philosophy texts (at least for me), so I appreciated the introduction and view of philosophy through the lens of the story. Like baking vegetables into a cake.
Overall, despite its length and format and occasional lack of focus, I would recommend it. It was a fun, insightful adventure story and will particularly appeal to philosophy lovers.
September 28, 2008
This marvelous epistolary novel by two well-known science-fiction and fantasy authors bears little resemblance to anything from either working alone, or indeed to anything from this century, or the last. The rapid-fire exchanges of letters that begin the novel use language that is superbly fluid, eminently readable, yet at the same time vividly reminiscent of the period the authors are reconstructing. I found myself captivated from the first few pages by the plight of James Cobham and his confidants as they become deeper and deeper embroiled in a web of conspiracies that eventually includes satanists, inheritances, the government of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and families desperate to hide any appearance of impropriety.
The plot is very dense, with many tangled threads, and as in real life the protagonists often take for granted things that an outsider would find baffling; I found myself flipping back through several pages of previous missives to figure out what the hint just dropped might mean. But Brust and Bull do not cheat - they do not leave out or leave unexplained elements that the reader needs to know. They are merely clever about hiding them sometimes.
The plot is very dense, with many tangled threads, and as in real life the protagonists often take for granted things that an outsider would find baffling; I found myself flipping back through several pages of previous missives to figure out what the hint just dropped might mean. But Brust and Bull do not cheat - they do not leave out or leave unexplained elements that the reader needs to know. They are merely clever about hiding them sometimes.
June 22, 2021
First epistolary in a while. Definitely started slow and never really picked up. Took me forever to read , which isn't to say it wasn't a good book. I originally was interested by the subject matter and the period of history in Europe that I'm not attuned to. Okay, Engels, Marx, Chartist movement all of which I knew very little about. The characters were fine, Story was solid. Interaction with real historical figures, check. Just slow. Really, really slow. The real stars in this book were the UK postal staff who got these letters delivered to people who were in hiding. Not only that, in most cases it was next day delivery. US postal service should take note.
September 25, 2007
Positively one of my favorite books. I picked it up at a used bookstore, and had a moment where I asked a book where it had been all my life. It wasn't life altering in the way people describe Siddhartha or books on high-fructose corn syrup, but oooh, the intrigue! Corn laws, German philosophers, opium! Attempted murder, achieved murder, and pumpkins!
If you like Victorian literature and epistolary novels, this is a book for you. The beginning is pretty slow, but totally worth it to make it to the middle and end.
If you like Victorian literature and epistolary novels, this is a book for you. The beginning is pretty slow, but totally worth it to make it to the middle and end.
August 26, 2016
This was a struggle to read, I was lost and confused many times. This is written as a series of letters and journal entries in chronological order. One of the letter writers was both prolific and very long winded, with an average letter length of 20 pages. She would fire off two or three very long letters, followed by a journal entry that could be 30 pages long and then we would have the reply to the first of the three letters from up to 90 pages back - how am I supposed to remember what questions were asked or situations alluded to 90 pages ago?
August 18, 2022
Je n'ai lu qu'une petite moitié de ce roman épistolaire se déroulant au milieu du XIXe siècle, mais je pense en avoir lu assez pour me faire un avis : c'est un récit bien écrit mais qui à mes yeux manque d'une certaine énergie pour me faire vibrer. Il y a sans doute du potentiel, mais les personnages m'ont plutôt laissé indifférent, au point de ne pas m'intéresser plus que cela à leur sort. Pourtant, je ne peux pas dire que c'est un mauvais roman, je pense juste qu'il n'est pas fait pour moi, ou en tout cas que ce n'était pas le bon moment pour moi de le lire.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 160 reviews