Not sure exactly what you are referring to with Katrina, but I do recall there was a lot of alarmism going on about martial law back in the 90s, too, after the events of Waco and Ruby Ridge and the rise of militias. I even heard talk of black helicopters buzzing people’s houses (mostly on Art Bell . I did want to make the point that I think it is easier to deprive a people of their freedoms gradually. I do understood the author’s intention of wanting Harper to have some memories of freedom, but she also didn’t want to make the character very old. It must have been a balancing act.

As for my glossing over, I tried to tread a fine line between criticism and spoilers, which probably resulted in an uneven review.

I’ve got an interview with Laura Bynum coming up pretty soon (we’re doing the email thing) and I suspect that some the issues you’ve raised are handled/answered in Laura’s responses.

I tend to give first-time novelists a little bit of a gimme; equal parts “don’t beat up the newbie” and the hope that encouragement will give them added incentive to produce even better things in the future. I saw quite a bit of good writing in this story and believe that Bynum will develop into quite a good novelist.

In regards to the major sticking point(s) raised here: we actually came much closer to losing most of our freedoms in this country during the previous administration than most have any clue: there was serious talk (and training for) instituting martial law and, as we saw with Katrina and New Orleans, one of the first things they do is round up the gun holders.

My opinion is that you are also glossing over the manner in which control was seized (the pandemic) and the “artful” way in which the new government got rid of potential trouble makers.

But to each his own. That’s what makes this reading and reviewing thing so much fun!

In the case of Russia, the tsarist government was slowly opening up to reforms. It would’ve happened faster if the revolutionaries hadn’t made a point of assassinating every progressive politician, including Alexander II. The revolutionaries weren’t really after reforms. They were after power, as they so often are.

The other thing I find a bit implausible (just from reading the premise) is the idea of a near-future America where a watered-down Christianity is the (only) government sanctioned religion. Our country is very sensitive about having religious plurality, and people seem pretty suspicious of religion sneaking into the government, so how does the author suppose all that would have gone completely backwards in a short amount of time?

I have to admit, despite the implausibility, this description does make me want to read it. If nothing else, to see a dystopia story that actually has a hopeful ending!

Rachel Heston Davis
Up and Writing