This is for the Audible Version:What did you love best about State of the Union? Love is a big word. I enjoyed the majority of State of the Union. The plot was interesting, character development for the key players was done effectively, and the overall pace was perfect for a book in this particular genre. This is the 1st book of Brad Thor's that I have listened to, but it is the 3rd I have either read or listened to. I really enjoy reading this genre of super soldier, super spy, or action hero (if you will) steps up takes charge and gets the job done despite the odds or sometimes the mysterious ways fate lets the impossible be possible. Thor does a great job of pushing the boundaries of the believable with the over-the-top action. I really don't remember thinking, "what the ..." "how they do that" as I was listening to this particular story. What other book might you compare State of the Union to and why? State of the Union is like most action adventure thrillers books. Brad Thor is like Vince Flynn and the late and great Tom Clancy in where they take a particular person and develop the character into an all American hero who will go above and beyond to protect America and her citizens. You can look at Harvath (Thor), Rapp (Flynn), Ryan Sr/Jr (Clancy) and seeing the similarities and differences very clearly but they all have the central theme of putting America's best interest over their own lives and in some cases the lives of multiple people because killing 100 can still save millions no matter how you do the math. Was the Narrator good?This is the second series of audio books I have listened to in which George Guidall was the narrator. I really enjoy his voice control, pace of speech, and the inflections he is able to do to make each character's voice different. I look forward to continuing to listen/read this series of books by Thor and cross my finger Guidall continues to narrate these books.
Great story, but the least-fave of the 3 Brad Thor novels I have read so far. But, still enjoyable. The plot is bigger, the characters are given much more depth & are more plentiful; however, I felt at times like it did not mesh well together & that the sum of its parts made it too ambitious a tale.The title, which I read about on BradThor.com, is a neat play on words - it refers, of course, to the President's State of the Union address, but also the state in which the former Soviet Union exists in post-Cold War... :)I also thought that President Jack Rutledge should have had a large role; yes, this is squarely a Scot Harvath adventure, but as the central plot figures around a nationa/international crisis, Rutledge didn't appear nearly enough. I get that his top agent is his "ambassador" of sorts, but I would have loved for more backstory on what was going on around the White House, etc. while the nuclear threat played out.The Alexandra Ivanova character is also sparse at best, which is odd, because she is mentioned in the plot summary as if she is more prominent than she is. For that matter Meg Cassidy was underutilized as well, for my tastes.The story sort of plays out like a game of Chess; the bad guys make moves, & the good guys follow suit. It's compelling to see where it is all going to lead, but, like Chess, being a spectator isn't always captivating at all times.I found the use of tech within the story to perhaps be a sign of the future in these novels; some of it realistic, some of it not, but that's exactly what I want. It keeps it unpredictable that way.Looking forward to the next book, "Blowback", despite any mild criticisms I may have had of "State of the Union".
What do You think about State Of The Union (2007)?
Okay, sometimes the dialogue's a little unbelievable, and maybe Scot Harvath, world-class skier turned elite anti-terrorist operative, is just a little too perfect to get next to as a character, and yes, sometimes the set-ups for the action scenes sound like a catalog put out by the guys who manufacture military gear (do we really NEED to know who made the gloves?) But damn it, once the killin' starts, these books are FUN. Brad Thor writes big mean baddies with huge evil plots and then proceeds to let his good guys kick serious ass for 400 or so pages. Sure, it's all been done, but it's enjoyable to watch it be done with panache. I wouldn't suggest a diet of this sort of thing any more than I'd suggest eating every day at McDonald's, but EVERYTHING doesn't have to be Michael Chabon, you know? Relax and enjoy the ride.
—J.D.
Although I didn't hate this book, it could have been a lot more enjoyable to read if Brad Thor would simply hire a decent editor. Dozens of pages of Harvath's self love could have been edited out, both shortening the story, and making it more readable. And if Harvath is Superman, how come he gets captured because of a stupid mistake in every book, sometimes more than once - and why does he always miss the crucial shot, letting a bad guy get away to torment him later? And how often do we need the technical descriptions of all the equipment Harvath and his compatriots are carrying - sometimes we might get by with just knowing the caliber and model number of the pistol, without being told about its grips, sight rails, trigger pull, and all three sighting systems. Now, having said all that, you might conclude that I didn't like the book - well, that would be wrong. The book was fairly entertaining, and the plot was unique. I just wish it had been better polished.
—Bruce Snell
Awful. Tom Clancy Wannabe. If I read another line that says "all of a sudden" I will go nuts! The dialog was supposed to inform those less informed, but instead just bugged me at how unrealistically the characters talked. Here's the template: "I have an idea." End of chapter. "Have you heard of ?" "Do you mean the ? What does that have to do with " "Well here it goes..." This book was a lame attempt at an action plot, similar to Dan Brown's action packed, end of chapter hanging, page turners. The style gets old fast, and is only good for a cheap, carnival type thrill.
—Jeff Brateman
