'Patriots' is supposed to be a classic of survivalist literature. It's also been described as a `survival manual disguised as a book'. I found it to be neither.
The story is about a group that had set up a retreat so survive a `the end of the world as we know it' scenario. For the purposes of the book `the crunch' comes as an economic collapse of the US and much of the remainder of the civilised world. The book has a strong anti-socialism theme; the author explains that the collapse of the US was caused by the government running up a huge debt by allowing members of society to free-load. According to the author everyone should work or starve.
The first half of the book covers the members of `the group' making their way to the retreat, how they adjust to a more primitive lifestyle and defend themselves from aggressors. While the author goes into a little more detail on some of the survival aspects than might be strictly necessary I didn't feel it was a `manual for survival'.
Some areas are unrealistic, the group has been preparing for years and has hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition stored but didn't see a need to ensure there were sufficient sleeping quarters for everyone! Given that before the crunch they all spent a few weeks a year at the retreat preparing, training and storing equipment I fail to see how the sleeping arrangements couldn't have been already sorted!
The author is clearly a `gun nut'. No one simply "carries a gun", we have to hear what type of gun, length of barrel, type of clip, number of rounds, what sort of ammunition it's loaded with, type of gun sight and holster. Unless you're also obsessed with guns this gets a little boring after a while.
The book uses a lot of acronyms, and while there is a glossary at the end it's far from complete, unless you're ex-US army yourself, expect to Google a lot of terms as you read this book.
The double standards of the book annoyed me. The main characters feel it's acceptable for them to search anyone who passes on the road near their retreat but when others try and stop them they insist that they have the right to use a `public road'.
There is a section where the author goes back in time to before `the crunch' and introduces two new characters who are in trouble with the police over gun laws. I kept waiting for these two characters to be weaved back into the main plot but it never happened. I don't know why the editor didn't trim this unrelated thread. It's just a rant against federal gun laws.
But despite these weaknesses the first half is enjoyable.
The second half of the book degraded into a formulistic `invasion' of the US by foreign soldiers. A government is trying to re-organise within the US and has requested United Nations support. Since this new government has not been elected democratically, the `survivalist types' feel justified in opposing them, forcefully. For some reason the author made Europe `the bad guys' despite the fact that in the scenario as explained Europe was also in economic meltdown. The country most likely to be in a position to assist (or invade, depending on your viewpoint) would probably have been China. Despite the anti-socialist theme of the book it's somehow `evil' for those that America owes money to expect to be paid what they're owed. Apparently America is somehow special and is not expected to honour its debts. I can respect someone who has different standards but only if they apply those standards consistently.
Despite Mr Rawles being a retired Army officer who should know better, the plot degrades into a farce where we're expected to believe that a militia primarily made up of individuals whose 'combat experience' consists of shooting at deer a few weeks a year can be effective against a modern, well equipped, professional army. Disappointingly trite. If Mr Rawles wanted incompetent bad guys he should have picked an army from a third world country.
Three stars overall. The first half gets four; the second only two.