Sharpe's Devil - Bernard Cornwell

Sharpe's Devil is gonna be it for me and Cornwell for awhile. Not that it was a bad book, but it's probably best not to read too many in a short span. The patterns start to show.

Sharpe's Devil is a revisiting of sorts to Sharpe. The story takes place in 1820, as Sharpe, now a farmer in Normandy, is asked to travel to Chile by Louisa Parker, who he met during the course of Sharpe's Rifles. By the end of that story, she'd married Blas Vivar, and he's lost somewhere in Chile. Louisa can't get a straight answer out of anyone other than some vague mumbles about Blas dying at the hands of the rebels, so she pays Sharpe to go. And go he does. He needs the money, and he owes Blas besides.

Unfortunately, Chile's a dangerous place, and not because of the rebels. As usual, the Spanish soldiers aren't bad, but their leadership, starting with Blas' replacement Bautista and going down, is worthless. But just because they're bad at leading soldiers, doesn't mean they're bad at robbing a country blind or covering their butts, and Sharpe is more than a little out of his depth in their duplicitous games.

Cornwell changes things up some for this story, because Sharpe's search for the truth about Blas makes it more of a mystery than a straight action story. There's also some intrigue involving Napoleon, still imprisoned on St. Helena. Cornwell still writes a good battle scene, but I'm curious about some of the views expressed. One thing that comes up repeatedly is a frustration with the governments of the day. It seems to especially gall certain characters in Chile. Here they are fighting to expel the Spanish and gain determination for themselves (though not the native people, it should be noted), and their fledgling government is pulling the exact same crap. Not paying soldiers, preferring their armies fail because it offers a way out payment (fire the commander for incompetence), the same nonsense that's already taking place around the world. A chance to do things "right", being squandered.

Alongside this, whether in reaction to it, or simply as a constant counterpoint, there's a belief in the "one great man". The fellow who could take all the disparate people willing or eager to fight and lead them to make something grand. I'm sure you can guess who that was referring to in this book. I'm not sure if this is something Cornwell actually believes, or if it's simply a common belief held in the setting of the story. Sharpe declares himself a monarchist, and doesn't seem to care overmuch about democracy or any of that. It could be a part of the same train of thought that made enlisted men resistant to following officers promoted from the ranks (like Sharpe). The idea that leaders are supposed to be a better, higher quality class of people even if they often are not.