Goodreads Ireland discussion

I have spent the last day or so turning the events of the book over in my head and I'm trying to figure out why they framed Dreyfus in the first place? I don't think they knew it was Eaterhazy to start with so did they just need a fallguy and Dreyfus was an easy option?

Maybe. But sending him to Devil's Island just seemed so over the top. I know Picquart says it's because they hoped he'd just die there. But somehow I think by sending him there they made more of the case then there would otherwise have been. Yes, Dreyfus and his family would always protest his innoncence but it's not like they could point the finger of guilt at anyone and maybe with visiting rights Lucie and Mathieu may not have fought so vigourously. That's a lot of maybes, I know :-)

Yeah I can see that but not even letting the men who guard him talk to him seemed so extreme but then if you are trying to let a man die or get him to kill himself, you go to extremes. It was so sad at the retrial when they described him as bent over and frail with white hair and then they have him state his age and he says 39.

I found the punishment so severe and worse than I had even imagined. I don't know why Dreyfus was framed other than he made a good scapegoat because he was Jewish. I was so frustrated that Esterhazy was acquitted as I thought they'd finally get to the truth. Zola was over-the-top but I imagine it was the times.

I loved that Dreyfus never gave up the fight. There he was Picquart's office asking for his rank to be increased. From his point of view, and I agree whole heartedly, he was wronged and he wanted to be made whole. I love he still had his zeal. I never could have made it through the torture he endured.

As for picking out Dreyfus as the culprit, I think the wolf just picked out the weakest pack member and that was Dreyfus as he was a Jew. The whole story just turned my stomach.

Dreyfus was a strange character, in some ways he was hard to imagine as a real character because he seemed so ubder control almost aloof. But as Susan points out not many would have survived his ordeal so maybe his reserved manner helped him. It really annoyed me that Esterhazy got away with it though.

I would say it wasn't fair but my mother told me at 6, "who ever old you life was fair?"

Very true :-) but he was such a smug git

He was a A-Hole.

He really was. I thought they would get somewhere when his distant cousin or whatever agreed to testify against him. Alas .......

I think they were worn out from all the fighting. It's inexplicable to me so maybe that's why I can't come up with a good reason.

I finished this today after work and really enjoyed it. I felt it read like a thriller, full of suspense but with an accurate portrayal of history. I was really saddened by the ending as I wasn't familiar with the case and didn't realise how he actually was released from jail.
The injustices carried out by the army sometimes made me gasp out loud reading this, wanting to shake some sense into people so I can only take that as a great achievement for an author to provoke such a reaction.
I would def read more of this authors work.

I think that's what makes it so good Seraphina, you want to reach into the pages of the book and slap some sense into the characters. Henry, in particular, drove me mad. I have read a fair few books by Harris and he is a consistenly good writer. His Roman series is excellent as is Fatherland.

He really did manage to make you angry Seraphina. A powerful book in so many ways. His other books are well worth a look . Fatherland has always been a favourite of mine , a murder mystery set in a world where Germany won WW2. But my favourite of his are the Cicero books , Lustrum and Imperium , following Ciceros rise to power throught the eyes of his slave.

As a character Henry was probably the most irritating. And what was more maddening was that no one seemed to have achieved any justice by the end of it. A very well told tale

Harris' last book The Fear Index was a slight let down for me so I was delighted to see it was a temporary blip.
Henry got on my nerves as well. Pretty much a mindless robot in so many ways, blind obedience to the point of stupidity

I agree Paul. the fear index wasn't up to his usual standard. Also Pompeii was less than his best I think.

This is a powerful book. I was so annoyed that the "bad guys" never really got their comeuppance. It's brilliantly told and all the better for being true. After finishing I spent hours wiki-ing it!

I hit wikipedia as well reading it. Had to be done. I actually liked Pompeii but it doesnt have the same depth as others of his work. I think Archangel is the only one of his I havent read at this stage so I'll have to give it a go at some point.

I think Archangel is actually the weak link (that said I haven't read Fear Index). I really liked Archangel up to point and then it just seemed a little far fetched. Pompeii was the first book I read by Harris and it is what led me to read his other works. I loved it.

Trelawn wrote: "I think that's what makes it so good Seraphina, you want to reach into the pages of the book and slap some sense into the characters. Henry, in particular, drove me mad. I have read a fair few book..."

Trelawn- that's a great way to express it. The whole affair was hard to believe. So much corruption and so much suffering. This book will probably get me to read more of Harris, but some of the discussion here leads me to think I should look at reviews as some of them aren't as good.

I finished this book today and loved it. It was so well written. And so interesting and amazing that that sort of thing can happen. I can see why some readerz were so frustrated with the pig headedness of the prosecutors. They let their prejudices cloud their minds so much. thank you for nominating this book.

I don't really have much to add to this since we are all in agreement that it is an excellent book and really shows just how interesting history can be. Any historians know if it really is an accurate portrayal? I'm inclined to trust Harris seeing as he outlined it in the foreword that it true aside from the minor quirks of characters etc. to make it compelling. I've no clue on this era really but I will try and research into it further tonight.

As far as I know it's pretty accurate as regards the conditions Dreyfus was kept in and the cover up etc.I am not well up on the main players though so I don't know how much dramatic license was employed there.

I'm glad these threads are kept open indefinitely. Fantastic book--my only regret is that I couldn't see my way clear to read it last year with you all. I'm fascinated with the portrayal of Picquart at the end when he sends Dreyfus that oblique comment on the calling card--that he will see him at some point, so that the two of them never actually meet until Dreyfus requests his promotion. Picquart assumes so much about how Dreyfus feels: that Dreyfus would have a hard time saying thanks, and that he, Picquart, would have a hard time accepting thanks. It pointed to what I think was a character flaw in Picquart; throughout the novel, he makes all kinds of assumptions about what people believe or feel. Then he's surprised that the Dreyfus family took umbrage at his rebuff. It shows such a contrast between his emotional sensibilities and his rationality. I really liked how Harris portrays such prickly, complicated characters--it made the novel much more textured than a typical "fighting for justice" novel.

You can't go wrong with Robert Harris doing historical fiction

I need to listen to this - another one I bought ages ago and constantly over look as it's not from audible.

I don't know Declan. Must have been before my time.

Declan started the group and was our beloved moderator.

Cphe, someything tells me it was actually Allen who initially recommended it.
I know myself and Allan had previously nominated it before Kevin successfully picked it.

Cphe wrote: "Hadn't read the author but I'm fairly certain it was Declan who recommended it when he was here several years ago. I'd bought it solely based on his recommendation but hadn't got round to reading it."

Cphe, it probably wasn't Declan. When he was moderator he didn't nominate books and only voted in case of a tie. He took a neutral position.

Which is the best thing to do with a book you loved :-)
I do remember this as being one of the more popular reads we had in the group . I'm looking forward to reading his latest as soon as Trelawn finishes it :-)