Legends EU and The Force Awakens

Last week I wrote about my emotional response to The Force Awakens and commented on its quality. This week, I get to nerd out over the film in relation to the Legends EU. So what does that mean? When Disney bought the franchise they declared almost all of the EU, Expanded Universe, all the books and videogames and comics, got relegated to the Legends imprint so Disney could have a completely clean slate. This wasn’t surprising, as the EU had its fair amount of duds in it and had become so convoluted that a book was written to establish who in fact had gotten the plans to the first Death Star to the Rebel Alliance. A common expectation was that the new movies would be like the MCU, distilling the good ideas into a new form. Did that happen? Kinda sorta. Let’s jump into it.




First, a quick note on background. I stopped reading the EU after the Dark Nest Trilogy but have some idea about both the Legacy era and the Second Galactic Civil War. As such, this shouldn’t be taken as any sort of exhaustive or definitive look. If you’re interested in going down the rabbithole in anyway, you can follow along here.

The world of TFA resembles little of the world of the EU at the same point in time. By 30 ABY(After Battle of Yavin) The EU had just survived an invasion by an extragalactic species of aliens who use biotech and are invisible in the Force. The New Republic and the Imperial Remnant are at peace and Chewie is the only main character from the films that’s dead. Further to the point the timelines don’t even match up a few years after RotJ(Courtship of Princess Leia is the last book that isn’t explicitly discounted) So suffice to say there’s a world of difference, but what got carried over?

Kylo Ren seems like a good starting point as he’s a sort of composite character. On one hand, he resembles Jacen Solo, one of Solo kids who turned to the dark side. On the other hand, he resembles Kyp Durron, one of Luke’s first students who fell to the Dark Side and was redeemed. There isn’t much to say about the Jacen part, while Kylo feels like Jacen, he doesn’t really have much else beyond surface similarities. So that leaves Kyp Durron, and the Jedi Academy Trilogy, and Kevin J. Anderson, three things that aren’t particularly liked.

Kyp Durron was one of Luke’s first students, and like Ren, he fell to the Dark Side. Unlike Ren, he did so because of a holocron containing a Sith Lord, blew up a solar system, was redeemed by Han. The key difference being that Kyp was a bit of an asshole, and never actually paid for his crimes, leaving a bad taste in the mouth of many fans. Kylo on the other hand, is a far more interesting and understandable character.

That part about blowing up a solar system? Yeah, the Empire was really big on superweapons such as the Sun Crusher. It was almost comical. Starkiller Base didn’t read to me as a retread of the original Death Star, it was just something one should expect from the Empire, cause the Empire loves superweapons.

Yes, I know it’s called the First Order, which actually brings us to my next point. In Legends, the Empire never really stopped being the Empire. While it was a part of the Galactic Federation of Free Alliances, it spent more time as either the Imperial Remnant or the new Empire. Instead it devolved into warlords and eventually settled into some sort of authoritarian regime as the Imperial Remnant. Also the Empire by and large doesn’t have anything to do with the Jedi or the Force as impacting their heads of state (save Joorus C’Boath) bringing us to the next point.

The Sith are still around in Legends…somehow. I never really understood how that worked but whatever. Going off of Maz’s comment in the basement of the cantina, the Sith ended at Endor, whatever Snoke and Ren are, is something else.

Going back to our protagonists. Fin doesn’t really map to anyone. One of the problems that the EU had, and this became more pronounced as the years went on, was that they stayed focused on Luke, Leia and Han. Their attempts at cultivating a new generation weren’t the best or most sustained. This was one of the reasons there was the timeskip to the Legacy era in the comics, a surefire way to say everyone died of old age. This is as good a time as any to discuss the differences of the prime three. Luke was by and large a successful Jedi Master, Leia and Han stayed married and remained important figures in the New Republic. Rey, on the other hand, carries over the tradition from Legends of strong women, and Rey has a fair amount in common with Jaina. They’re both Jedis, pilots, have a positive relationship with Han, and are strong yet human.

The Force Awakens also relates to a somewhat unexpected source, Knights of the Old Republic. These are just surface level similarities, but it’s still an interesting thing. Kylo’s mask is very close to Darth Revan’s. The game’s plot revolves around collecting maps. The sense of mystery we have with Rey’s backstory as we did with the main character of KOTOR.

And that is everything that I can think of, which again doesn’t mean it’s everything that was included or referenced. It’s also not an exhaustive comparative analysis. It does illustrate that the film has some strong ties, but by and large it’s doing its own thing. A move that I’m generally happy with, I’d rather get new stories with influences from the old ones rather than streamlined versions of the old ones. Next week, I don’t know what I’ll be writing about, but it won’t be about The Force Awakens. Till then



Review: Ready Player One

Ready Player One by Ernest Clines is not a good book. It is not a particularly fun or interesting book either. It is a rather bad book. Whatever novelty or creativity the book has is overshadowed by dull, grating and in some cases offensive, execution. The book would be forgettable except that is a different spin on some ideas and its widespread praise. Those two things mean that it’s worthwhile to discuss it at the very least.

Trigger Warning: Violence, transphobia, homophobia, suicide

Beware of spoilers ye who enter



            In the interest of fairness, the best thing that this book does is painting a plausible version of the future. The world of 2045 sucks and it sucks in ways that are very plausible; in a lot of ways it’s the new version of what cyberpunk should look like. This degree of proficient world-building does not hold true for much else. It is impossible to discuss the shortcomings of his world building in other spaces without talking about one of the key parts of the premise though.

A major part of the setting is that the 80s have come back in vogue because they were an obsession of the world’s richest man and creator of the OASIS, James Halliday. This is in and of itself is hard to believe. The notion that an eccentric rich dude could cause a massive resurgence in this stuff is unlikely for two big reasons. First, it requires people to collectively stop caring about stuff (the most recent thing referenced is Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) which isn’t going to happen, there is more recent stuff that people are attached to. For every triumph that has aged well there are a dozen duds that are best forgotten. Second, because 80s pop culture, embodied by things such as Revenge of the Nerds (a noted favorite of Halliday) have been deconstructed as problematic and we are collectively making some measure of progress towards being more diverse and inclusive. It requires people to collectively stop caring about any of that. Of course, when 80s pop culture is a roadmap to becoming the richest person on Earth; you have a pretty good motive to not care.

This Easter Egg hunt, to claim Halliday’s treasure, has spawned an entire subculture and is the focus of the book. Our protagonist, Wade, has made finding the egg his own quest for the Holy Grail, and he is profoundly unlikeable. Now, some of this is because he’s a teenager with basically no support network, but those parts of him aren’t what I dislike. Wade is a walking encyclopedia of Halliday trivia who just cites stuff and identifies stuff. He doesn’t have any substantive opinions on this stuff, the most we get is that he dislikes a certain song. He, nor does the text for that matter, play with this stuff in interesting stuff. It’s all slavishly recreated so the reader can nod and go, ‘Oh, I get that reference’. Which is strange, a lot of these references are just straight up recreations, so you’re expected to know what’s going on, but nothing fun happens.

Now, you could just make an argument that since I didn’t experience the 80s first hand, there’s stuff I just missed. Which is partly true, but event the stuff I did get was dull. The climax involved a mecha fight, and as someone who will put up with a fair amount for giant robots, found the sequence to be dull. The problem is even worse when it involves videogames, reading someone play through a videogame is incredibly boring, fan service padding before we can get back to things actually happening again. It’s dull and uninspired, fan service that the reader should appreciate because it’s there, not because of what it does.

Wade lacking substantive opinions isn’t the only reason I dislike him though. He’s also the perfect example of my issues with 80s pop culture being problematic, as the trigger warnings should have indicated. Early in the book Wade uses a homophobic slur to verbally spar with someone. The point of hate speech is to be hurtful and the use of slurs to hurt. So, in 2045 homophobia is still a thing, no doubt because culture has regressed to the 1980s. The fact that it’s teenagers doesn’t excuse this as typical high school drama either, kids learn bigotry from somewhere and social mores change.

Now in order to discuss the transphobia I need to digress to how the book discuss cyberspace. This book has a sophomoric view of what constitutes real vis a vis cyberspace and virtual reality. The idea that everything that happens in the OASIS isn’t real, that it has to take place face to face in the real world is complete nonsense. It ignores how the OASIS is used in every aspect of life in setting. Outside the setting, it’s the view of the privileged super-user, it’s the view of someone whose never had a meaningful talk over Facebook, never had friends they’ve never seen in real life, never had to worry about who they were around people they knew in real life and didn’t need an alternative.

This brings us to Art3mis and Aech, two characters who take advantage of the OASIS to look as they want, not as they are. In the case of Art3mis, it’s to not have a wine-stain birthmark. In the case of Aech, it’s to be appear as a white male instead of a heavyset black woman. Art3mis, a badass and charming gunter, is the love interest who creates tension by proscribing the aforementioned view of reality. This “tension” also comes from Wade, who is insistent upon knowing the “real her. Setting aside the issue of not being happy with how someone chooses to present themselves and that being just as real as the body they’re born with, there are other issues at hand. First, there are the incessant jokes about how Art3mis might be a guy named Chuck who lives in his mother’s basement, which aren’t funny on either a societal or personal level. Wade is poor and the Great Recession never ended, that you have to live in your parents’ basement isn’t something to laugh about; it’s something to rage about because your generation, the generation before yours, were screwed into such a situation. On a personal level it’s not funny either, so what if Art3mis is biologically male? She chooses to present herself as a woman and that should be good enough. Wade’s transphobia and nonsensical fixation on the real world comes to a head for me with the following question “Are you a woman? And by that I mean are you a human female who has never had a sex change operation?” It’s incredibly offensive and it’s what you’d expect…out of a 1980s movie.

The reason I mentioned Aech is that her* identity is meant to be a shock, that someone wouldn’t present themselves as they actually were on OASIS. This is silly, a ton of people wouldn’t present themselves the same way; a ton of people would not be the same as they are in the real world for any number of reasons. Any hesitation that Wade has is swept away once he spends time her, because Aech is still Aech and this wasn’t some long con borne out of bad faith. But no issues are raised, because Aech isn’t the love interest and there doesn’t need to be “tension” in their relationship.

Speaking of romance, the relationships in this book are pretty bad. Wade and Art3mis is fairly groan inducing, partly cause Wade is a teenager whose idea of relationships comes from 1980s teen movies and partly cause Art3mis is made to be contrary. It takes up a not insignificant word count and it’s a lot of telling, not showing. Art3mis gets a few scenes where she’s allowed to be herself and not an appendage to something greater, and in those scenes she’s a wonderful character, a badass gunter with an endearing side. If the book had her as the main character, it would be infinitely better. The only other relationship is the love triangle between Og, Halliday and Lauren, which is a case of socially awkward people are bad at expressing themselves and end up making questionable life decisions because of it. Also there’s some grating parallels between that and Wade’s situation that are a cause for further groan. A healthy relationship where both people are alive is too much to ask for. These relationships aren’t charming, they’re forced.

Ready Player One is a bad book, it so very badly wants to be one of the 80s movies it has sycophantic reverence for, but it’s not. It’s a book that could have existed in 2011 because many of the issues I talked about weren’t as mainstream, but even then its problems were clear. In 2015 it’s a laughable work that oscillates between boring and offensive. In no way can I actually recommend that you read this book. Next week, I’ll be reviewing the 100 season two. Till next time.


*Another issue is that Wade doesn’t know the significance of pronouns and misgenders her once we know the truth, but all indications are that Aech identifies as a woman.






Review: The Last Colony

John Scalzi’s The Last Colony is many things. It’s what one has come to expect from the OMW series and all that entails*. It is also two stories crammed together, one of them is about establishing a human colony on a new planet and the other is following up on the geopolitics set up in the previous book. While these stories fall under the greater narrative of the book and involve the same characters, the two stories are left truncated. This leaves the weight of the story to fall upon the characters, which are able to do so with mixed results. Let’s not waste any time and jump in.

The viewpoint character for this book is the same as Old Man’s War, John Perry. This is a double-edged sword. While Perry is likeable enough and reads well enough, he’s also boring and largely ignorant of the greater situation. This problem is highlighted by the fact that he is surrounded by characters that are much more interesting. It could have been Jane, as someone who is trying to understand what it means to be human and knows something about the Conclave, or Zoe, the teenager with Obin bodyguards and is considered a living god. While the story is structured in such a way to make Perry important, it doesn’t change the fact that he’s dull.

Speaking of the story, I mentioned how it’s really two stories smashed together. The first one, is about establishing the colony of Roanoke and the politics surrounding the mission. This plot is essentially ended halfway through, after a dramatic climax with fallout never resolved in the story. The story than shifts to one of galactic politics where the Colonial Union is reaffirmed as a terrible government and Scalzi takes practically every measure to make it unambiguous. This isn’t terribly interesting as it makes the characters less relatable. While there is established motivation, it just feels distant. All of this is further compounded by Saviriti repeatedly calling out the CU, albeit with vague language. Not only that, but it leaves the characters feeling disempowered, they’re closer to disaster movie protagonists trying to survive instead of action heroes trying to win.

Both of these problems culminate in the book’s actual finale. Perry is able to emerge victorious through the off-screen help of his daughter in a matter that smacks of deus ex machine in a fight that has a token causality, who was an asshole anyway**. The book then ends on a happy ending as galaxy altering actions have happened with no pay off. It’s a rather dichotomous approach. On one hand, the characters are too engaged with the politics for them to be a backdrop for their own personal struggle. On the other hand, they don’t have the agency to actually do much about it. I would have vastly preferred it if was harder in one direction.

The book is fine and fun like its predecessors, but there are bigger problems than is predecessors on technical, structural level. Next week I”ll be reviewing Ernest Clines’ Ready Player One. Till next time.


*Although a minor character is a lesbian, so at least it’s not as heteronormative.

**One of the things I liked about Old Man’s War and The Ghost Brigades is how death was a fairy common occurrence for the protagonists. I agree with David Weber who has said, “War which is always heroic, in which only bad guys (who obviously had it coming, anyway) get killed, in which people hit by high-powered weapons either die instantly and painlessly or receive “only a flesh wound,” in which there are no mental or moral or spiritual casualties, is splatter porn. It trivializes and all too often it desensitizes, allows us to walk away from the hard questions and the moral wrestling with conscience, threats, and costs which should always be part of our understanding of what war really is.”

Review: the Ghost Brigades

John Scalzi’s The Ghost Brigades, the sequel to Old Man’s War, is a fine book. Scalzi is easy to read and technically proficient in the craft. The book is fun, military scifi in the vein of Henlien’s Starship Troopers. But it’s hard to say that this is a good book.

Part of the problem is in expectations. While it is set in the Old Man’s War universe and has some of the same characters, the book is ultimately telling a rather different story than its predecessor. Some of this is a matter of different themes. OMW was focused on world-building, technology and presenting an unambiguous picture from people in the trenches. TGB on the other hand, uses the set up of the previous book to question ‘what is a human?” as well expand the scope out of the trenches. It does the former a lot better than the latter.

The attempt at widening the scale of perspective doesn’t go over as well. It uses new information that is revealed awkwardly and ends up deflating the characters’ actions. It also creates a feeling of ‘middle installment do nothing’ where there’s all set up and no pay off. Given that this is a sequel and many of the fundamentals such as Scalzi’s writing style and the setting, are unchanged; this isn’t the worst. Finally, the new perspective changes the entire reading of the setting, which may or may not be to your liking, but given the aforementioned problem of all set up, is hard to judge this book on by itself.

Trigger warnings: Sex, Violence, Death


That’s my nonspoiler review of the book. But having reading the book, I have spoiler filled thoughts and commentary. So let’s not waste any time and jump into it.

Beware of Spoilers ye who enter


One of the things that made Old Man’s War easily readable was how relatable its initial set up. Earth, and the people on it, hadn’t radically changed in between now and the future of the book. In actuality this means that the book is positively relatable by a certain subsection; many of society’s evils are still present. While misogyny seems to be a thing of the past, structural inequality is still present, ableism is erased and heteronormativity is alive and well. Now you could argue that these problems started in OMW, but I read that years ago while watching a game of Diplomacy in college and didn’t have the same priorities as I do now. Also I’m talking about TGB, in which some of these problems are looked at a bit more.

The structural inequality is explained by the Colonial Union keeping Earth in stasis in order to farm it for a constant stream of soldiers and colonists. Soldiers come from developed countries and colonists from everywhere else. Perry’s first person, newcomer perspective coupled with the possibility of Scalzi fleshing out the world means that this didn’t come up in OMW. This demarcation plays out further as the more developed colonies were settled by Western countries along with the CDF being run by Westerners who are fine with this arrangement. A pointed emphasized by Boutin mocking the naming conventions of Special Forces. This is a terrifying, yet plausible future, in which current structures of inequality are perpetuated into space.

I’m of two minds with this revelation. On one hand, it makes enough sense, both in and out of universe, that’s certainly buyable. On the other hand, having these problems and then just chalking them up to a government conspiracy feels cheap. Any problem can just be explained away by society being locked in a state of arrested development. It does show a level of self awareness that the current state of affairs is bad but is still a relatable framework. Also it stretches my suspension of disbelief given the timescale.

Now an interstellar government engaging in a shadowy conspiracy in order to essentially grow people so they can engage in a go wide strategy in a game of Galactic Civilization is one thing. Said interstellar government being set on stopping another Civ from getting a diplomatic victory and being a pariah state is another. This is essentially the extent of any reasoning that we receive. All of this information is revealed in the book’s climax by an unreliable source, and then confirmed in the resolution; which doesn’t really make for a good twist.

This isn’t a problem for our protagonists though. As the text points out, they’re brainwashed child slave soldiers. They find out about this and reject the information out of hand as they continue on their mission. Jared as a blank slate to contrast Special Forces with regular CDF is fine; Jared as a somewhat more confrontational blank slate is less fine. The plot contrives to make their rejection to Charles automatic.

Of course, Boutin has a point, but his plan would involve killing millions of people. This is a trope that I’m so tired of, and I’m aware that this book came out before other examples that I can think of, where the villain has a point about the systemic injustice that our heroes represent and defend, but the villain is gonna kill lots of people so the injust system stays as is. At this point I’m left wondering why should I care? The setting worked as a Hobbesian nightmare of everyone against everyone else and you can write off the evil stuff that the CU does as realpolitik, it’s a lot less interesting when the nuance makes one side a lot worse.

I mentioned ableism above not because of anything specific, but because the CU has such a strange fixation on baseline humans, except when it comes to the CDF and the long term plan of turning everyone into a Gameran. There are so many questions about the technology that go beyond consciousness transfer that don’t belong in this book; it’s not the story that Scalzi wants to tell. But they are questions that indicate disabled erasure.

Heteronormativity on the other hand, is in full prominent force. All we see are hetero relationships; all we see is hetero sex. Special Forces apparently celebrate missions by having an orgy, which is totally voluntary but the only Jane skips out on. Not because she’s asexual, but because of some sort of relationship with Perry or Captain Not Appearing in this Book. There isn’t anything else to say, it’s just patently absurd nonsense that throttles the diversity of actual human experience. Or it’s a case of the CU altering the genome of Special Forces to wire them all this way; which isn’t substantiated anywhere in the text but headcanons exist by and large to subvert.

     TGB is a fine book, it has problems but they’re universally insurmountable to make the book unreadable. Next week I’ll be reviewing Pokemon X &Y. Till then.

Review: The Honor of the Queen

Last week I looked at the first book in the Honor Harrington series, On Basilisk Station. This week we’ll take a far more in depth look at its sequel, The Honor of the Queen. The reason for this is that there’s a lot more to discuss, or at least things I want to discuss. Given my distaste for faffing around with intros, let’s just jump right into it.

First, my spoiler free review: this is a vast improvement over the first book in basically every regard. It’s a fun read from start to finish with one glaring exception that is easy enough to ignore. If this is supposed to be more indicative of the series then this should be a fun ride.

Spoiler space

Spoiler space

Spoiler space, go!

Anyway, this review will be different than the first one in that I’ll be looking at individual elements instead of evaluating different parts of the book based on quality. In a lot of ways it’ll be like my s2 OITNB review, which you can find here, as I address points as they come to me.

Reginald Houseman: I mentioned that this book was very fun with one exception, and this is that exception. I hate Houseman, so very, very much. The problems start with his introduction and given background. Now to be fair, Weber wrote himself into a bit of a corner, with a genius economist character, it’s hard to actually demonstrate that competence nor is it something that the readers will want in all likelihood. At the same time, his presence on the diplomatic mission does make sense. That is all the goodwill I’m willing to extend as a reader though. The first problem, Houseman is an idiot, all of his interactions that are supposed to be demonstrative of his intellect or lack thereof is something I’d expect an idiot college freshman to recite without any idea of what it actually means or silly things like context, or points. The second problem, he isn’t even remotely realistic, he doesn’t act like any self righteous professors I’ve ever experienced. Third, he’s a caricature of things that David Weber doesn’t like in a check box fashion instead of anything more substantive. That’s the only explanation for why someone is labeled by the text as a socialist is basically spouting a Thomas Friedman column. Finally, there’s nothing redeemable about him, there are the same problems that the last book had it’s with opposition characters. Even his last scene is bad, as it excises him from the narrative in a way that’s honestly discomforting in how utterly callous it is.

Grayson: All in all, it has a fairly interesting history and it’s characters are are allowed to be something closer to actual people than we’ve seen so far. The existence of Bernard Yanakov goes a long way towards humanizing the world as a whole and addressing the gender issue in a way that was buyable, at least for me. Going forward it can interesting to see if it’s development is handled well. It really helps that Weber didn’t fill the entire planet with idiots, unlike Manticore’s political class.

Masada: These guys on the other hand, exist solely to make everyone else look good. They make Grayson appear reasonable despite their abysmal treatment of women, help underline galactic cosmopolitan norms and Haven to be something. Considering that their fate comes off as an afterthought it’s hard to come to any other conclusion.

Characters: Speaking of characters, there are far more actually enjoyable characters, or at least interesting characters to read this time around. I don’t think any of Honor’s subordinates can ever be interesting, but that’s fine. At least here we aren’t burdened with staff drama and even then they’re allowed to have cool moments; it’s just that these characters don’t exist outside of these moments. It’s everyone who’s more or less on her of importance that work here. A lot of it is due to the fact that they’re allowed to actually be characters with their own motivations and agency.  It’s something that Weber hopefully keeps in mind from here on out.

Cosmopolitan norms: On one hand, the pains that the book takes to underline this point can be a bit excessive. On the other hand, this is a good thing to underline.

There’s actually not as much as I expected to say about this, the book doesn’t take long before the action starts and it pays off.

Feel to comment, next week I’ll be looking at science fiction of a particularly different flavor in Kinghts of Sidonia.


Review: On Basilisk Station

David Weber’s Honor Harrington series is one of the biggest and still running scifi book series that I”m aware of.  For those who are unaware, Honor Harrington is essentially Horatio Hornblower meets hard scifi and a dose of space opera for good measure. It’s been going on for twenty years now with no sign of stopping. Since the first book is free, via Baen’s ebook library, and I wanted something new to read, I decided to check it out.

Overall, the book is not good. It’s mired in a tedious plot that the reader has no investment in with characters who are by and large, dull. However there is just enough good stuff in the book, and it’s short enough, that it’s not a slog to get through. If you want a straight up or down recommendation, then I’d say try it.  IF you want a more in-depth view then read on.

Spoiler space

spoiler space

spoiler space

The good: Weber showcases two things that he’s very good at that I care about and one thing that I’m ambivalent towards. His worldbuilding for the most part, is top notch and engaging. What we’re told about Manticore and the rest of the galaxy is clearly thought out and unique enough that it keeps my attention. Second, the space battle sequence that serves as the book’s climax is legitimately awesome and engaging, even though the outcome is more or less known at the outset. Lastly, while I can certainly appreciate the effort of making this scientifically plausible on an abstract level, as a reader I don’t care.

The okay: All of the characters are just okay. They’re fairly two dimensional and their career problems, which make up a decent portion of the book, are not riveting in the slightest. The main plot of Haven’s plot to take over Basilisk is equally okay, it’s there to keep the book moving but when so much of it just happens instead of being the result of actions of characters the reader is invested in, it’s hard to care. Overall, Weber’s writing style is very workman-like, serviceable more than great; which in many ways is exactly what’d you described of Baen as a whole, so there’s that.


The bad: The politics are,so, so, incredibly stupid to read in every manifestation. Haven being nothing more than a two dimensional villain that’s an attack on the welfare state*, to Manticore’s parties being resoundingly incompetent and stupid to the naval politics to Harrington’s feud with Hauptman. The more overarching problem is that everyone who isn’t a good guy is incompetent. That’s boring to read, protagonist succeeding through writer fiat by virtue of the opposition being too stupid to do anything effective isn’t compelling reading.

Taken as a whole, this was a book that I slogged through more by virtue of word of mouth saying it got better than it actually being good. Having actually read the second book, Honor of the Queen, I’m inclined to agree with that statement. Which will most likely be the subject of next’s week post. Feel free to comment, otherwise till next time.

*Yes I’m aware that Haven is supposed to Napoleonic era France, no that doesn’t invalidate actual passages from the text which make it a failed welfare state or that’s it’s a heavy handed way to set up an ancien regime analog.