Unintended Consequences - John Ross


PDA






taliv
March 18, 2010, 05:01 PM
uhh, what's going on with this book? amazon wants $211 for it? B&N claims to have 6 used copies starting at $99?! Most online stores have it for $32 but don't have it in stock
Accurate press' link is busted

Is this book no longer being printed?

If you enjoyed reading about "Unintended Consequences - John Ross" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
BCCL
March 18, 2010, 05:33 PM
I think the hardback is out of print, but I've recently saw mention of a softback edition in the works.

I liked the history of the gun culture stuff, but some parts were kinda "odd".

The Bushmaster
March 18, 2010, 05:35 PM
Check with the moderators on www.missouricarry.com

They probably know. He is a supporter of the site.

NelsErik
March 18, 2010, 05:53 PM
John Ross replied to one of my threads in the legal section of this forum... He says they are printing new copies....

John Ross talked about his book in this thread! (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=511116)

IMO it's the second best book out there...

BullfrogKen
March 18, 2010, 06:52 PM
Wow!


For prices like that I'd sell mine.


Did you want to borrow a copy for yourself, Tom? Or are you just wondering what the deal is in general?

wishin
March 18, 2010, 07:36 PM
Prices are across the board. I found a new HB on-line for $32.00. (probably $100 shipping).

Shung
March 18, 2010, 07:50 PM
very high prices, few hard copies..


if you liked UC, read the Matthew Bracken trilogy (Enemies, foreign and domestic and sequels)

BCCL
March 18, 2010, 08:39 PM
I just read the first of Matthew Bracken's trilogy, one of the best of that type of story I've read.

MikePGS
March 18, 2010, 08:55 PM
I actually was able to borrow a copy through my local library. If you're just looking to read it, maybe that's an option for you.

DoubleTapDrew
March 18, 2010, 11:48 PM
Maybe we could have a THR book exchange section. It's a great book, I've read it a few times.

He was writing a sequel and last I talked to him heller was still in the SCOTUS and it sounded like he was waiting to see what happened. We won that but now that we've got antis in the white house, senate, and house, i'm sure there is quite a bit a creative mind could come up with about things coming to a head.

Shung
March 19, 2010, 06:13 AM
I just read the first of Matthew Bracken's trilogy, one of the best of that type of story I've read

and now you feel bad about Brad right ;) ?

earlthegoat2
March 19, 2010, 06:53 AM
Could it be demand has skyrocketed because of a new wave of gun buyers?? and now they are being scalped.

GoWolfpack
March 19, 2010, 08:59 AM
Could it be demand has skyrocketed because of a new wave of gun buyers?? and now they are being scalped.

The author talks about that on his web page. He says that as long as it continues to sell fairly well in hard back at the current price we won't see paper back cheapies. They're not printed at mass market speeds so demand outstrips supply at times. First editions of the book are quite expensive, accounting possibly for the high priced used ones the OP saw.

Check out John Ross's website here (http://john-ross.net/) and Unintended Consequences FAQ here (http://john-ross.net/faq.php).

dom1104
March 19, 2010, 09:08 AM
huh. The exorbitant high price for hardback must be why it is so easy to find digital copies of it online for free.

BCCL
March 19, 2010, 09:11 AM
and now you feel bad about Brad right?

For now, it's fiction so maybe he'll "return"........

Blue Jays
January 18, 2011, 11:08 PM
Resurrecting a rather old thread in case anyone has fresh leads where this book might be found at a modest pricepoint.
I'm going to check local libraries to see if any of them have this well-recommended book and/or if they'll share between library branches.

berettaprofessor
January 21, 2011, 01:23 PM
Don't know but if it were available as an electronic publication, it'd be a whole lot easier; Kindle Version Mr. Ross?

22-rimfire
January 21, 2011, 01:58 PM
I'd be more than happy to sell my hard back copy for $100. I honestly didn't care much for the book after the main character got older.

PRM
January 21, 2011, 02:15 PM
I think you have a couple of things happening.

1. The seller either does not know the market value of what they are selling.

2. They are trolling for an impulse buyer.

22-rimfire
January 21, 2011, 02:57 PM
Don't know but if it were available as an electronic publication, it'd be a whole lot easier; Kindle Version Mr. Ross?

I have heard that Amazon does not pay a royalty to publisher (and eventually the author) for providing the book via their Kindle product. I hope that is not true. It doesn't sound right. Amazon supposedly pockets the entire revenue. Maybe somebody could straighten that perception out??

JohnBiltz
January 21, 2011, 03:36 PM
The same thing was going on with Monster Hunter International before Baen published it. I pulled it up on Amazon before it published and I saw used copies of his self published book going for over $300.

berettaprofessor
January 21, 2011, 05:13 PM
Amazon does pay a royalty for Kindle sales. As a Kindle author, you pick the price and how much you want/sale.

Don't want to see Mr. Ross cheated out of his money, but the book is available as an electronic PDF via torrent download for those who know how to do it. I have a print copy but I just tried out the torrent download and I think it's a true copy.

PCFlorida
January 21, 2011, 05:59 PM
I have heard that Amazon does not pay a royalty to publisher (and eventually the author) for providing the book via their Kindle product. I hope that is not true. It doesn't sound right. Amazon supposedly pockets the entire revenue. Maybe somebody could straighten that perception out??

It isn't true. A friend of mine is a published author, and his current book is on Amazon for hardcover or electronic (Kindle) download. He get royalties on both.

451 Detonics
January 21, 2011, 06:08 PM
As with anything else in the world, it is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it. We sold this book along with TEOTWAWKI in our gunshop back in the 90's and always at a pretty good discount. Hopefully reprints will be available soon.

Travis McGee
January 24, 2011, 08:58 PM
Last week, I finally put Enemies Foreign And Domestic into Kindle. We'll see how it sells, and I'll probably put my other books on Kindle in a month or two.

Carl N. Brown
January 24, 2011, 09:16 PM
At Amazon.com Unintended Consequences has 398 customer reviews averaging 4.5 out of 5 stars.
The prices are enough to make one see stars:
- New priced from 243.65 to 317.36 and one at 625.00
- Used priced from 149.48 (very good) to 314.80 (like new), one at 500.00
- One used signed by author 249.50 (like new).
The vendors appear to be serious.

Kim
January 24, 2011, 10:58 PM
Good Grief. I have two signed books never read. Another read. I will not sell mine. Love the book. Have a poster sized print of the front cover framed in my home. LOVE IT.

Hatchett
January 24, 2011, 11:54 PM
I may be in a minority here, but I have to say that this book is a tumor on the face of literature everywhere.

Tommygunn
January 25, 2011, 12:09 AM
I understand Unintended Consequences may not be everyone's "cup of tea," but "a tumor on the face of literature everywhere."

Really?:scrutiny::scrutiny:;)

Hatchett
January 25, 2011, 12:48 AM
Maybe a bit extreme, but without specifically trying to offend any of its fans I have to say I find the novel entirely despicable on many significant levels.

Valkman
January 25, 2011, 01:54 AM
I own a lot of books, but UC is one of the best there is IMHO. I'm glad I got a copy long ago!

berettaprofessor
January 25, 2011, 10:34 AM
I view it less as "literature" in a Hemingway/Faulkner sense as it is a historical fiction novel and probably a veiled call to arms. So let's try not to be too critical of the writer and take it for what it is. I understand that some don't like the gratuitous sex scenes, but that's between the writer and each reader. Supply and Demand (i.e. cost) tells us that it at least has a readership greater than it's production.

ArmedLiberal
January 25, 2011, 10:44 AM
Maybe a bit extreme, but without specifically trying to offend any of its fans I have to say I find the novel entirely despicable on many significant levels.
Are you thinking of the racism? Very little regard for Black women in this book. The casual murders? Oh, I know, you really hated the whole feeding the hogs thing didn't you? Perhaps it was the portrayal of all BATF employees as both evil and incompetent?

I thought it would have been more realistic to have S & W revolvers falling apart after shooting a few thousand rounds of up-loaded .44 Magnum. I would have preferred some mention of Ruger revolvers as part of the .44 Magnum discussion. I'm guessing that Ross snubbed Bill Ruger for his magazine capacity comments.

I liked the book a lot and would recommend it to anyone. It's an excellent short history of US gun control and gun culture. It's a great plot, you have to root for the 'Good Guys.' I liked the boy hero aspect to it. I liked the rich details about guns, especially the WWII anti-tank guns.

I wonder if this book helped to rein in the BATF in the last 20 years. Seems to me that the BATF has not committed any large scale atrocities here lately.

I think there is a good market for Unintended Consequences and that it will be back in print soon. The illustration on the cover is outstanding.

I'm interested to hear more about why you hate this book.


ETA - I thought the sex scenes were mild, tastefully done, were an important part of the plot and were in no way "gratuitous." Also, there was nothing veiled about this call to arms.

Guillermo
January 25, 2011, 11:31 AM
I would have preferred some mention of Ruger revolvers as part of the .44 Magnum discussion. I'm guessing that Ross snubbed Bill Ruger for his magazine capacity comments.

maybe, maybe not.

It is important to remember that John is a Smith guy.

S&W is my favorite arms maker, bar none.

He manages to work the following into a column where he gives advice to Smith and Wesson on how to expand their heavy 44 magnum market.

http://www.john-ross.net/heavymag.php



So I'm a double action revolver guy. And it's pretty hard to be a double action revolver guy without coming to the conclusion that the best double action revolvers are almost always made by Smith & Wesson. Smith & Wessons have the best triggers, the best fit and finish, the best chamber/throat/bore dimensions and hence the best accuracy, the best balance, the best looks, and the best overall feel.


his disdain for Ruger is well documented (emphasis added)

Rugerís Redhawk and Super Redhawk are capable of digesting
large quantities of 320-grain magnum loads without ill effect.
Thatís the good news. The bad news is that from the factory they
have poor quality triggers, and their design is such that even the
most talented gunsmith canít make them as good as an out-of-thebox S&W trigger. Further, Rugerís interrelated dimensional
tolerances for chambers, throats, and barrels are not nearly as
precise as Smith & Wessonís, and Redhawks tend to be oversize in
at least two and usually all three of these areas, with resultant
mediocre accuracy. The problem is so pervasive that Hamilton
Bowen has built a business out of taking Redhawks in .357 or .41
Magnum caliber and reboring, rerifling, and rechambering them to
44 Magnum so as to get the proper (tighter) dimensions. This.
more than doubles the cost of the gun but some are willing to pay
that to get a bull-strong .44 that is accurate and points almost as
well as a S&W

Guillermo
January 25, 2011, 11:32 AM
I have to say that this book is a tumor on the face of literature everywhere

that is a funny line...

Blue Jays
January 25, 2011, 11:46 AM
Thank you all for your helpful follow-up on this older thread. Much appreciated!
It appears the plan is to watch for a copy to be borrowed from a friend or hopefully having good luck at a garage/estate sale.
Investing several hundred dollars on a novel just isn't in the cards right now.

As an aside, I'll continue to purchase any new books added to the "Enemies Trilogy" as they were each spectacular.

ArmedLiberal
January 25, 2011, 11:58 AM
Here's an Abe Books search. 5 used copies for sale at less than $150. One for $100.

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=John+Ross&sts=t&tn=unintended+consequences&x=0&y=0


I'm an optimist, I have hope that it will go back into print before too long.


Guillermo, thanks for the link to the John Ross site. He says that Smith and Wesson has rebuilt or replaced all of the DA .44 Magnums that he's worn out. Hard to beat that deal. That makes them equal to eternal and indestructible guns, for as long as S&W still lives.

Hatchett
January 25, 2011, 08:40 PM
I'm interested to hear more about why you hate this book.

On a purely technical level, the book is an example of very poor writing. It's wordy, it meanders, it's full of was and adverbs. In terms of narrative, the book is over a thousand pages and tells a story that could have been told in better depth in a few hundred. It goes on for pages and pages with gun descriptions that would look overlong in a technical manual and descriptions of gore that become boring rather than shocking purely due to their length.

On top of this, the book falls into a category of literature which is possibly the lowest form of writing. It seems to exist purely as the author's personal wish fulfillment. It is fairly obvious, in fact, that the novel's protagonist is little more than a clone of the author himself, made into some kind of superhero and given all the cool stuff, women, and riches that the author has always wanted. Wish fulfillment is one thing, but when wish fulfillment involves torturing and murdering people and feeding their severed phallus to a pig it becomes something deranged to boot. The novel is a power fantasy in which the author imagines himself imposing his will violently on others using his lovingly detailed guns. And of course he has no trouble at all doing this. One man with his .44 Magnum takes on all of the united states government and not only wins but wins very easily, which is of course so ridiculous as to be outright comical, except I think the author actually believes it.

On a moral level, it's worse, because I can't come up with any reading of this book that doesn't condone terrorism in our own country. The hero assassinates democratically elected officials for political reasons and to frighten other democratically elected officials into surrendering to his demands. That's not just terrorism -- that's Terrorism vs. American Democracy: Terrorism wins, and wins gloriously. This is what the author fantasizes about happening -- not court victories, not democratic victories, not victories in which the villains are exposed and lawfully punished for their crimes, but violent victories through terrorism, particularly featuring himself murdering the people he dislikes most. We even have a scene in which the hero forces a man, under threat of torture, to read a statement condemning the hero's enemies before he is murdered and hacked apart. This is exactly, 100%, what Al Qaeda does to people. Why isn't this obvious?

You mention racism. I'll go further and say John Ross multiple times presents black women as a caricature more filled with seething racial hatred and bigotry than an 1860s minstrel show. He indicates his disdain for ATF agents by presenting them as a ghetto black woman named Gonorrhea which his self-insert tortures and murders. That's so utterly backward that for that alone this novel could be read right along with the worst racist literature and fit in comfortably.

You mention the sex but I don't even remember any sex. I only remember rape. Graphic rape with relatively little to do with the plot or the characters. One rape scene occurs "off screen" when its implied that the protagonist rapes a congressman's corpse after murdering him, with the goal of making it look like he was killed by a gay lover, which also adds homophobia to the list of themes presented in this novel.

Finally, one image I recall strongly from this novel, especially now, is a finale in which the protagonist heroically approaches an unarmed, unprotected female politician, shoots her in the face, and heroically strides off into the sunset. All I can think is Jared Lee Loughner probably would love this book, if only it wasn't sold out and hard to find.

Taking all of this into consideration, I find the most atrocious part, perhaps, being that this novel is regularly presented as a must read for gun owners who want to be respected and regarded as responsible people. It's a novel that presents the American gun owning hero as a terrorist, an assassin, a rapist, and a racist, who gets a weird power trip and sense of invincibility from being a gun owner. I'm sorry, but we can do better than that. We can do much, much better than that.

General Geoff
January 25, 2011, 09:30 PM
That's not just terrorism -- that's Terrorism vs. American Democracy

You lost me at "American Democracy." The United States has never been, and hopefully never will be a democracy. Furthermore, you say the book condones terrorism; you forget that this country was founded by people who were considered terrorists in the eyes of Great Britain. The only difference between a terrorist and a patriot is whose side you're on.

Is Unintended Consequences politically correct? No. Does it contain unsavory scenes of violence, sex, and murder? Sure. That does not nullify its literary value.

Travis McGee
January 25, 2011, 09:51 PM
Yep, the book has some major problems, from my point of view as well.

But it was an early harbinger of the times, and for that alone perhaps, it's still under discussion on a gun board in 2011.

That's not nothing.

Hatchett
January 25, 2011, 10:14 PM
No, it's not nothing. If anything, it's frightening.

Travis McGee
January 25, 2011, 11:50 PM
The prospect of our current cold civil war turning hot should frighten any sane person.

Ross captured some of that, even if in an unintended way, pun intended.

Hatchett
January 26, 2011, 12:03 AM
Personally, what I took from the book is that Ross seems to think its something we'd all really enjoy.

BullfrogKen
January 26, 2011, 12:10 AM
There was enough in the book to make me unable recommend it without some big reservations.



I agree that when analyzed purely on its literary basis, it suffers. That's OK, and Mr. Ross explains why that is - he never intended it for wide publication. It was a story he said he wrote for friends.
It glorifies killing for political purposes in ways that make me very uncomfortable.
It contains many references to sex and racial overtones that he could have left out and not detract from the book at all. Left in, they left a bad stain on the story in my mind.


When I see the book parroted as a work that's "required reading" for gun owners, I roll my eyes.


For better reading on the subject of armed rebellion, I'd recommend Jeff Snyder's collection of essays in the book "Nation of Cowards" any day of the week and twice on Sunday. This literary work is on the required reading list for gun owners.

Tommygunn
January 26, 2011, 12:28 AM
On a moral level, it's worse, because I can't come up with any reading of this book that doesn't condone terrorism in our own country. The hero assassinates democratically elected officials for political reasons and to frighten other democratically elected officials into surrendering to his demands. That's not just terrorism -- that's Terrorism vs. American Democracy: Terrorism wins, and wins gloriously. This is what the author fantasizes about happening -- not court victories, not democratic victories, not victories in which the villains are exposed and lawfully punished for their crimes, but violent victories through terrorism, particularly featuring himself murdering the people he dislikes most.

Once the "protagonist" took care of the ATF goons who were raiding his friend's house, do you think he could have had a "court victory?" The character did a lot of horrendous things, but as far as he saw it he was in a state of war. Those "democratically elected" officials had violated the Constitution, which they had taken a vow to support.
Some of the things that were done in WW2 were pretty horrendous. I've been told by vets that even enemy soldiers who tried to surrender were sometimes killed if they were unprepared to deal with prisoners; it's even been said they hardly ever took prisoners unless they were specifically sent to obtain them.
Also, keep in mind that the book came out after Ruby Ridge and Waco, two atrocities perpetrated by federal LEOs that cost the lives of people who needn't have died had more intelligent people been in charge. These incidents deeply offended a lot of people and fed the militia movement.
Anyone in the position Ross's character was would not be in a condition to "play nice" with the people he opposed. Yes, what he did was disturbing .... a lot of things done in extremis will naturally be so. Do you think using flamethrowers on Japanese soldiers holed up in caves isn't "disturbing?"
What Ross's character did was certainly disturbing .... fedleos shooting a forteen year old boy in the back is as well, so is shooting a woman while she was holding a baby; both these incidents happened at Ruby Ridge.
Ross intended the book as a warning, IMHO. It would not have been as effective without his character commiting such disturbing, ruthless actions. Anyone in the character's position would have to be ruthless -- utterly ruthless, if he were to have any chance at all at prevailing. And that I think is where the most incredible aspect of the book lies; THAT the character prevailed. In real life it doesn't happen like that. One person able to do all those things -- even with the aid of a handful of compatriots?
No, I sorta don't think so. Any individual incident, maybe. I mean, yeah when agents are equiped with subguns that fire pistol rounds and you have a high powered rifle, you can hit them outside their effective range. But sooner or later Mr. Murphy comes a'knockin'. Or the govt. goons get lucky. OR they find one supervisor who is unusually wily.
For sure there is nothing Ross's hero did I would ever advocate in any normal situation, and not in any situation where legal remedy (such as provided by the county/federal courthouse) was available.
Cicero's warning might have some relevance .... "inter arma enim silent legis." That is, "during war, the law is silent." Because Cicero realized that people engaged in war are desparate to survive, and people in that condition do not play nice.

Guillermo
January 26, 2011, 02:43 PM
Henry Bowman was certainly a flawed character and such is required for a book to be believable. Are you not tired of so many of Tom Clancy's characters being so perfect? I certainly am.

As far anyone who is disturbed by Bowman's willingness to kill and torture I guess you hate Mitch Rapp of Vince Flynn's novels or Carl Lee killing his daughter's murderers in A Time To Kill.

The portrayal of black women was not positive, but I only remember two and they were both ATF agents. (gonorrhea and the woman who was doing an inspection of Bowman's friend who pointed the gun at him are the only black women that I remember) What ATF agents were portrayed in a good light?

I guess it is not in fashion to be upset about the portrayal of country folk as white trash because no one mentioned being upset about the family raping the girl in the woods. Why? Could it be because it could happen?

And you think a person like Gonorrhea couldn't exist? Upon reflection, the woman who lives diagonally across the street from me could BE Gonorrhea except that she works for a security company instead of the ATF.

Of course these complaints are PC smokescreen for the "big thing", some of us cannot publicly endorse an attempt at harming government officials. Whether it is fear of the moderators, the government or truly being uncomfortable with the idea I know not.

I have no such compunction.

Do I have complaints...sure. Too damned long.
The writing was pretty bad in the beginning but it was so long that he improved as he went.
Bowman's rape and alcoholism were gratuitous and lengthened an already long book...and it was for no useful purpose. The Bonus Army stuff was interesting but not necessary. I could go on but you get the idea.

Sorry for the rambling response...but give me credit...I kept it under 850 pages!!!

Hatchett
January 26, 2011, 05:35 PM
Henry Bowman was certainly a flawed character and such is required for a book to be believable. Are you not tired of so many of Tom Clancy's characters being so perfect? I certainly am.
I'm sorry. You can believe what you will about many aspects of the book but it is so far from "believable" on so many levels it may as well feature ghosts and dragons. And I never saw any indication that the Bowman character did have any flaws. In fact, he was just amazingly perfect. Never missed a shot. Never made a wrong decision. Never got a bad grade on a high school midterm. Never struck out with a lady. Never lost an argument or a bet or failed to embarrass (or murder) someone he didn't like. Everything fell exactly into place for him as if he had a sextuple-leaved clover branded onto his butt. He was, in fact, a perfect picture of the author himself, only made so much better through the magic of the keyboard. Any perceived "flaws" he has are there because they are shared by the author.

What ATF agents were portrayed in a good light?
It's less that the ATF agents who are black are portrayed badly than that several ATF agents are portrayed badly by making them black women. He used a racist caricature of black women as an insult for people he doesn't like. That's much worse than simply featuring unlikeable black characters.

I guess it is not in fashion to be upset about the portrayal of country folk as white trash because no one mentioned being upset about the family raping the girl in the woods. Why? Could it be because it could happen?
I'd forgotten that scene -- indeed, among the most ridiculous in the book, and another instance of randomly inserting graphic rape and torture and then ridiculously over the top splattergore into a book where it wasn't necessary whatsoever and contributed nothing.

Bowman's rape and alcoholism were gratuitous and lengthened an already long book...and it was for no useful purpose.
These things were indeed the most bizarre part of the book for me as well. They seemed to be the only instances in which the author's self insert wasn't depicted as perfect or as having everything go very well for himself as per his fantasy. This is purely speculation, but from the text I got the distinct impression that these are also aspects of the author's own identity being inserted into the character. This is one thing I can't condemn -- written expression as a form of dealing with one's own problems is something that should never should be taken lightly, but I have to say inserting them into an action packed power fantasy about murdering politicians is disturbing and bizarre at the very least.

Guillermo
January 26, 2011, 05:59 PM
Actually I did not address the believability of the book, only that a character has to have flaws to be believable.

The book is not believable because it revolves around the premise that a significant number of people have moral courage. That is not something that I have found to be true outside the military.

Bowman was an alcoholic that almost flunked out of school. Hardly what I would call perfection. He was also kind of a dumbass when the AFT came a knocking, not recognizing that his friend (whose name escapes me) was exactly the type of person's house that the ATF would do a no-knock search.

Henry Bowman also had a lot of money but Ross never explained how or why.

I too found the alcoholism and rape to be incongruent with the book. Like you I wondered if the author is familiar with both and wanted to shed some light on them.

Another aspect, which I found wonderful, was that the book is filled with great information. After reading UC I have read much about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and the Bonus Army. Ross packed in a bunch of facts that is useful in its own right.

BTW
one of the funniest things I have ever read was depicted during a John Ross interview.

Follow this link and go halfway down to where he is asked about his proudest moment as a writer. I have two words...high larious

http://www.absolutewrite.com/novels/john_ross.htm

Guillermo
January 26, 2011, 06:10 PM
He used a racist caricature of black women as an insult for people he doesn't like

I do not know how you arrived at this conclusion or what was a "racist caricature".

Understand that if one assumes that I have grown up, I did so in the south. As a youth I attended black churches and to this day I go to at least one family event every year in a 98% black environment. I do not remember anything unbelievable about either black woman that I remember from the book. (perhaps the ATF inspector and Gonorrhea were not the charaters of which you speak. Please remind me of others.)

If you have the time I would appreciate your extrapolation.

Carl N. Brown
January 28, 2011, 02:39 PM
Wasn't the Bowman character a rape victim too in the novel? It's been a while but what stuck in my memory were the historical fiction recounts of the Bonus Army March, Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, etc. The soap opera of Cindy and Henry got cartoonish at times, but I think that was Ross' intent to carry the reader from one historic vignette to the next.

"Unintended Consequences" ought to be read in the context of its times with the DOJ OPR Ruby Ridge Task Force Report, the Treasury Department Report on Waco, FBI Deputy Assistant Director Danny Coulson "No Heroes" 1999, FBI Report on Project Megiddo (the government's overblown approaches to Y2K and projected millinneal cult uprisings) etc. Especially government expert Henry Ruth's retrospective on the MOVE and Waco sieges.

The novel appears to try to be a warning that if the government's pride of might pushes the wrong people into believing they have nothing left to lose, there would be unintended consequences. Maybe he failed in the eyes of some or succeded in the eyes of some, but it appears to me more like a warning in the vein of Brave New World, Nineteen Eighty-Four or Fahrenheit 451 than a call to arms. (And, yes, those are all much better written than UC.)

Werewolf
January 28, 2011, 03:09 PM
Don't forget Barnes and Noble and the Nook!

dmancornell
January 28, 2011, 06:28 PM
"Unintended Consequences" ought to be read in the context of its times with the DOJ OPR Ruby Ridge Task Force Report, the Treasury Department Report on Waco, FBI Deputy Assistant Director Danny Coulson "No Heroes" 1999, FBI Report on Project Megiddo (the government's overblown approaches to Y2K and projected millinneal cult uprisings) etc. Especially government expert Henry Ruth's retrospective on the MOVE and Waco sieges.

+1.

The book is poorly written and uses the same phrasing repeatedly. The gratuitous sex and violence are completely unnecessary, even as filler. The author projects his every gun fantasy onto the hero character.

That said, the first half of the book is filled with some interesting historical background, but nothing that you cannot find in the library, and without the author's sometimes ridiculous storytelling. For example. Ross' account of the 1986 Miami shootout mentions the two agents armed with MP5's of double-teaming a stripper (?!?) while their fellow agents get gunned down by Platt's Mini-14. Mostly the first half serves as documentation of government crimes against citizens. Waco and Ruby Ridge are prominently featured, along with various BATFE abuses over the years.

The second half is a lurid murder/sex revenge fantasy against the government. It didn't read like a polemic, just a trashy account of how far the author-channeled hero would go to assault what he considers to be a fascist government. That part of the book can be reduced to a tenth of its actual length and still get the point across.

If you enjoy over the top violence against government crooks, check out Molon Labe (http://www.amazon.com/Molon-Labe-Boston-T-Party/dp/1888766077) by Kenneth W. Royce (aka Boston T. Party), which is somewhat better written and has a heavy libertarian bent, my kind of bias. If you're looking for an intellectual defense of 2A, stay away from UC.

Travis McGee
January 30, 2011, 05:20 PM
Fifteen years later, we're still talking about Unintended Consequences.

As an author myself, that speaks volumes.

Art Eatman
January 30, 2011, 06:33 PM
Sure, research can get the info that's in the first half, but at least it's all in one place--and generally accurate.

As far as the X-rated second half, at the rate prime-time TV is going, the book will not be such-a-much by comparison.

Werewolf
January 30, 2011, 11:48 PM
There was enough in the book to make me unable recommend it without some big reservations.



I agree that when analyzed purely on its literary basis, it suffers. That's OK, and Mr. Ross explains why that is - he never intended it for wide publication. It was a story he said he wrote for friends.
It glorifies killing for political purposes in ways that make me very uncomfortable.
It contains many references to sex and racial overtones that he could have left out and not detract from the book at all. Left in, they left a bad stain on the story in my mind.


When I see the book parroted as a work that's "required reading" for gun owners, I roll my eyes.


For better reading on the subject of armed rebellion, I'd recommend Jeff Snyder's collection of essays in the book "Nation of Cowards" any day of the week and twice on Sunday. This literary work is on the required reading list for gun owners.

Literary schmiterary...
If you're a bleeding heart liberal university prof then maybe UC suffers on a literary level but for those who read for reasons other than critical UC is a pure T unaduterated entertaining don't want to put it down novel in my opinion and I've read everything from Steinbeck, Dostoyevski and Dickens to the techno pulp thrillers out there. UC is good.

Glorifying killing political figures. In the context the novel was written it was absolutely necessary. In addition Jefferson's insight along the lines of sometimes the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of patriots is completely in line with the plot of the book.

Sex, racism? All necessary to develop the characters of Henry Bowman and the supporting characters. With out it they'd have been flat, lifeless robots. People into guns aren't androgynous drones and they have a very wide range of opinions re: race, culture etc.

For a book that many seem to pan it sures sells for a pretty penny on ebay.

BullfrogKen
January 31, 2011, 02:35 AM
Literary schmiterary...
If you're a bleeding heart liberal university prof then maybe UC suffers on a literary level but

Am I to take that as you calling me a bleeding heart liberal university professor?


And taliv, if you still want to read the book I'll loan my copy to you.

Hatchett
January 31, 2011, 04:46 AM
Fifteen years later, we're still talking about Unintended Consequences.
Gun people talk about it 15 years later. And more than anything all that makes me conclude is that a lot of gun people are at least a little bit crazy.

I'm sorry, but where people see in this book something excusable or even ideal, all I see is a very deranged state of mind -- a book Travis Bickle might have written at his most deranged, angry, and delusional. That so many hold it up as some kind of united statement of the American gun culture offends me. It is the absolute opposite of the culture of reason and responsibility we should represent.

NoirFan
January 31, 2011, 07:57 AM
Hatchett, you said everything that needs to said about this book in your post #47. Thank you for eloquently summing up everything about why this book is a chest-thumping <deleted> wish-fulfillment piece of <delete>. I consider it barely within the realm of reality that a sane human being could have written and published this book; when I hear its virtues extolled by 'gun people' who I otherwise respect, I feel like I'm in bizarro world.

danprkr
January 31, 2011, 09:11 AM
Hatchett & NoirFan,

I'm not sure I get it. Do you not realize why the 2A exists? It is to allow us to overthrow our government if needed. I bring your attention back to TJ's already referenced quote on the 'Tree of Liberty.' That will require violence.

Oddly what the book does is show one such overthrow that is relatively bloodless compared to what an outright shooting war revolution would bring. What I think is 'wrong' about the book is to naively believe that such a scenario could happen. My study of history has cause me to think we're ultimately headed to a much worse civil unrest period. If that happens maybe you'll be thinking that if the scenario in UC had been carried out sooner maybe lives could have been saved.

Think about it.

In short the 2A ain't about duck hunting!

Travis McGee
January 31, 2011, 09:20 AM
Hatchett: YOU'RE still talking about it. I'm just commenting on the fact that folks on this board are talking about it. I read it once, a decade ago, and agree with most of your points about it. But the fact remains it must strike some chord with you, or you just wouldn't give a damn. Now, if you want to tar all gunnies who have enjoyed it on one level or another as some kinds of psychos, well that one is on you, pard.

MaterDei
January 31, 2011, 09:50 AM
If this was a manifesto, and not a novel, I would agree totally with Hatchett.

The fact of the matter is that this is a novel and shouldn't be treated differently unless the author has stated that it is his public declaration of principles and intentions. All good novels have characters who are multifaceted. Interesting characters are gray, not just black or white. The protagonist, Henry Bowman, is certainly very gray, as are all the other 'good guys' for the most part.

The problems I have with the books are:

1. Too verbose
2. The antagonists are all, without exception, not gray. They are black and only black, which is just not believable.
3. The porn

If the book is read as a novel, then it's OK. I'm troubled, like Hatchett and others, that so many seem to treat it as their personal manifesto.

NoirFan
January 31, 2011, 09:54 AM
I'm not sure I get it. Do you not realize why the 2A exists? It is to allow us to overthrow our government if needed. I bring your attention back to TJ's already referenced quote on the 'Tree of Liberty.' That will require violence.

Danprkr, this book was written for serious 'gun people'. Among its target audience pretty much EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS the real reason for the second amendment. There is a big difference between knowing about it and reveling in it with lurid fantasies of torture, murder, rape, and terrorism against the government. Through his writing Ross seems to be gleefully anticipating the day when he can finally load his guns and gun down public officials and that is the most disgusting part of the book to me.

If Ross and his fans really want to live in a place where people routinely carry out regime changes through violence, a vacation in Haiti or Sierra Leone should suit them just fine.

edit: I apologize for the profanity in my earlier post.

Art Eatman
January 31, 2011, 10:10 AM
I don't understand all the excitement, whether pro or con. But, books are easy for me. I dive into the world of any book that seems halfway appealing, in its context, suspending belief in real-world facts. I finish the book, and I come back to the real world. No biggie; been doing that for over sixty years. (Easy enough; I just step out of the phone booth in my suit and with my cape folded away in my briefcase, and I'm once again good old mild-mannered Me.)

As far as the second half of UC, I guess I've run across a couple of dozen, maybe more, through the years, with some variant on the theme. I lose track. This go-round was a bit more lurid than some, but not as wild-eyed as others.

There's a gazillion books out there about the conflicts between citizenry and government. Heinlein, Kipling, Ruark, Dickson, you name 'em. Different points of view, different perspectives. Some better-written than others.

Hard to get emotional about any one book, really...Aww, Phil Sharpe's "Complete Guide To Handloading", maybe, or Hallock's book on the 1911. :D:D:D

Guillermo
January 31, 2011, 11:59 AM
Of course Dan is right, in the course of revolution the story told in UC was rather bloodless. Ross points out some of the people actually killed by the government. At the end a very few elected officials are killed resulting in the 2nd Amendment being restored.

Of course Art is right too. It reminds me about all of the religious zealots going after Harry Potter or Catholics frothing over Dan Brown. You just want to ask them if they understand the definition of "novel". IT IS A WORK OF FICTION.

In the greater scope of literature John Ross did not write a book that will be considered by history as a great. That's okay by me. It was enjoyable on many levels, was packed full of interesting facts and history and in the end I felt good.

Werewolf
January 31, 2011, 02:01 PM
Am I to take that as you calling me a bleeding heart liberal university professor?


And taliv, if you still want to read the book I'll loan my copy to you.
Nope...

But I can see how you might think that.

Should have worded it as "if one is" instead of "if you are"...

BullfrogKen
January 31, 2011, 06:05 PM
Well, I’m not a bleeding heart liberal university professor. I guess you meant that to be an insult in general then? Remember where you are, friend. This site is dedicated to reasonable discussion, and to set an example. It’s especially so when it comes to showing the world we’re capable of rising above throwing pejorative labels on people we don’t agree with. I’m about as far removed as one could be from being this bleeding heart liberal professor caricature you toss around. You don’t know me or who I am, but I’ll tell you this – I don’t like you assuming that someone who manages to be objectively critical of a work you dearly like must therefore necessarily also be opposed to the views expressed within that body of work.


We don’t agree on the quality of the writing in the book. You might really like the message (as disturbing as that might be), but you shouldn’t let that get in the way of objectively criticizing the quality of the book. U.C. badly needed an editor. But like I also said, that’s OK. Mr. Ross never intended it to become a widely published book. But since it has become one, it’s entirely appropriate to be critical of a work put into the public domain. Especially when folks declare it the most awesome ever . . .

Absolutely necessary to develop the characters? Perhaps. But in this case Henry Bowman was more than simply a well-developed character fleshed out with a few flaws to make him believable. I thought he came across as a very disturbed sociopath. And the few flaws John gave him weren’t enough to make him believable. He had none of the actual problems that make a character believable and authentic. People have family problems; he had no family problems because he had no family. People struggle over finances; he had no money problems because he was wealthy. No matter what he set his hand to, he had the Midas touch.

Some writers are artists with the written word, and write stories purely for the sake of telling a good story without trying to make political statements.

That’s not the case with John Ross. He’s not a literary talent, he’s a polemicist. He’s a lot like Ayn Rand in that the novels they both wrote contain personifications of their ideas in story form. They sermonize and advocate their ideas through the stories they wrote. And in both cases the heroes of the stories are the ultimate, unrestrained personification of their ideas, champions defined through their uninhibited behavior. Incidentally, Ayn Rand sorely needed an editor, too.

This is not merely a story. This is a polemic. And as a polemic, it’s rather disturbing. More to the point, in a polemic the hero in a story can tell us a lot about the author, the polemicist. Ayn Rand’s novels tell us a lot about who she was, not just her beliefs but also her personality. What bothers me most is not what his story tells us about who Mr. Ross is. I could care less about that. What bothers me is what it tells about the portion of the gun culture who celebrates it as a kind of anthem.


Werewolf, this book is not about revolution and revolutionaries. It’s about gaining power through assassinations, fear and intimidation. That sort of behavior has consequences all its own. John Ross conveniently ends his book with barely a mention of where that sort of behavior eventually leads a nation to become. Once we begin down that path, it guides a nation’s destiny. France’s revolution took that path, and it didn’t end with freedom and justice for all. This book is a blueprint for despotism and the repression of freedom, not the advancement of it.

As I mentioned before, if you want a body of work to celebrate, Jeff Snyder’s collection of essays Nation of Cowards was written during the same time frame and in the same backdrop of Ruby Ridge, Waco and Bill Clinton’s Assault Weapons Ban as U.C. That should be the gun community’s anthem, not this sociopathic, poorly-written drivel of a polemic disguised as a novel.

SleazyRider
January 31, 2011, 06:19 PM
Download it on Demonoid for free and read it on your computer or Kindle. I just did. It took all of 3 or 4 minutes.

Werewolf
January 31, 2011, 06:43 PM
We don’t agree on the quality of the writing in the book. You might really like the message (as disturbing as that might be), but you shouldn’t let that get in the way of objectively criticizing the quality of the book. U.C. badly needed an editor. But like I also said, that’s OK. Mr. Ross never intended it to become a widely published book. But since it has become one, it’s entirely appropriate to be critical of a work put into the public domain. Especially when folks declare it the most awesome ever . . .

I am not a literary critic but I do know what I like. UC was an engrossing novel I found hard to put down. The characters were real enough and the plot line plausible (though plausibility is hardly a requirement for a novel). The amalgam of fact and fiction was done well enough that anyone not familiar with the gun culture would have a foundation upon which to build when he was done reading the novel. In its favor the novel did not suffer from what I call the GREAT AMERICAN NOVEL syndrome. Hard for me to define that but think R A Heinlein and compare his early writings to those later in his life.


Absolutely necessary to develop the characters? Perhaps. But in this case Henry Bowman was more than simply a well-developed character fleshed out with a few flaws to make him believable. I thought he came across as a very disturbed sociopath. And the few flaws John gave him weren’t enough to make him believable. He had none of the actual problems that make a character believable and authentic. People have family problems; he had no family problems because he had no family. People struggle over finances; he had no money problems because he was wealthy. No matter what he set his hand to, he had the Midas touch.

Sociopath? Really? You better look up sociopath. Bowman was hardly a sociopath. That said the rest of your description doesn't hold up either. HB is a character in a novel, developed in a way that allowed the plot to develop along the lines the author wanted. Each of the things you describe above are developed in a way that is realistic and plausible. No Family - dad died at age - what 12 or so. Happens all the time. Mom died when he was an adult. Very close to Uncle. I'd say he had a family and a good one. Finances - well off through good planning by the family you say he didn't have and his own business acumen re: geologist. He wasn't lucky or fortunate as you imply the character or his family worked for everything he had. Me thinks you should reread the book.


Some writers are artists with the written word, and write stories purely for the sake of telling a good story without trying to make political statements.

Some... but most if not all eventually make a statement of some sort. It's part of the process. It is what it is.


That’s not the case with John Ross. He’s not a literary talent, he’s a polemicist. He’s a lot like Ayn Rand in that the novels they both wrote contain personifications of their ideas in story form. They sermonize and advocate their ideas through the stories they wrote. And in both cases the heroes of the stories are the ultimate, unrestrained personification of their ideas, champions defined through their uninhibited behavior. Incidentally, Ayn Rand sorely needed an editor, too.

Yeah...

So...

What's your point. Are authors not allowed to prosletize. If so the number of books written through out history would be way way fewer.


This is not merely a story. This is a polemic. And as a polemic, it’s rather disturbing. More to the point, in a polemic the hero in a story can tell us a lot about the author, the polemicist. Ayn Rand’s novels tell us a lot about who she was, not just her beliefs but also her personality. What bothers me most is not what his story tells us about who Mr. Ross is. I could care less about that. What bothers me is what it tells about the portion gun culture who celebrates it as a kind of anthem.

What better way to get the readers attention than to shock them. Mr. Ross wasn't writing a Doctoral Thesis he wrote a novel with the intent of explaining to those inclined to listen how we got where we are today re: gun rights and incidentally provided a fictional scenario to rectify the problem.

Hollywoods business is just that to entertain and by the way they do quite a bit of proseletizing. By your standards most movies and TV shows today should never be produced.



Werewolf, this book is not about revolution and revolutionaries. It’s about gaining power through assassinations, fear and intimidation. That sort of behavior has consequences all its own. John Ross conveniently ends his book with barely a mention of where that sort of behavior eventually leads a nation to become. Once we begin down that path, it guides a nation’s destiny. France’s revolution took that path, and it didn’t end with freedom and justice for all. This book is a blueprint for despotism and the repression of freedom, not the advancement of it.

Bullfrog, this book is a fictional account of how one man orchestrated and executed a plan to restore fundamental rights to Americans and he did it without starting a general revolution. Some tyrants died. It happens. In real life and in books.


As I mentioned before, if you want a body of work to celebrate, Jeff Snyder’s collection of essays Nation of Cowards was written during the same time frame and in the same backdrop of Ruby Ridge, Waco and Bill Clinton’s Assault Weapons Ban as U.C. That should be the gun community’s anthem, not this sociopathic, poorly-written drivel of a polemic disguised as a novel.

I disagree. The gun community has been polite and appeasing for too long. It's how we got to where we are. We don't need a revolution or political assasination to get our rights back. But we do need to stop pussyfooting around with those who would deny us our natural rights.

Ross' novel is fiction but fiction that makes one think.

unloved
January 31, 2011, 07:07 PM
I offer a quote which science fiction fans will be familiar with. It's sometimes attributed to Heinlein, sometimes to Niven.

"There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is 'idiot.'"

yeti
January 31, 2011, 08:10 PM
I enjoyed reading the book and that is the only measure of literature I feel the need to use any more. If I enjoy reading it it is literature if I don't, it's fish wrap. Unless it is written using iambic pentameter, then it is not even fit to wrap fish.

BullfrogKen
January 31, 2011, 08:43 PM
"There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is 'idiot.'"

Except when that novel is a polemic. Can you honestly say the heroes in Ayn Rand's novels did not express her own opinions and beliefs? I'd assert the same could be same for John Ross. Hell, take a look at Ross' bio and compare him to the character he created. It's practically him, right down to the rock pile in St. Louis he shoots at.


Hollywoods business is just that to entertain and by the way they do quite a bit of proseletizing. By your standards most movies and TV shows today should never be produced.

Who suggested we should take the other extreme? I have no problem with entertainment. I just don't proclaim television and movies my anthem.


I disagree. The gun community has been polite and appeasing for too long. It's how we got to where we are. We don't need a revolution or political assasination to get our rights back. But we do need to stop pussyfooting around with those who would deny us our natural rights.

Ross' novel is fiction but fiction that makes one think.

Yeah, my problem is what makes people think about for the solutions.


When I go to Harrisburg to meet with my Representatives and their Staff to help improve things here in Pennsylvania, I have to deal with jerks like this. During our annual Second Amendment Day three years ago three attendees showed up waving this sign, stating "<Representative Angel> Cruz should be hung from the Tree of Liberty . . . "

He was on my list of people to meet that afternoon to discuss a gun rights bill. He refused to see us after that.



http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=135340&stc=1&d=1296520795


As I said, I don't particularly have a problem with John Ross, or his polemic. I do have a problem with gun owners who feel it ought to be their anthem.

I understand your frustration. But rhetoric like this is not the path forward. And this community should set a better example to hold up as its "battle standard", if you will. The system is still listening. Go read Jeff Snyder's work for some better perspective on the issue and get your mind right about workable solutions.

Werewolf
January 31, 2011, 10:28 PM
I understand your frustration. But rhetoric like this is not the path forward. And this community should set a better example to hold up as its "battle standard", if you will. The system is still listening. Go read Jeff Snyder's work for some better persepective on the issue and get your mind right about workable solutions.


OK...
What could I possibly have written to indicate that I found Ross' solution workable? What.

Ross' solution is fiction. Albeit an entertaining and interesting one but certainly not workable in today's world. It seems that the crux of our disagreement boils down to what we find entertaining. My tastes are not your tastes.

That said: history shows that violent solutions to replace governments that don't acquiesce to the demands of the people are inevetible. Imagining that the government of the United States is immune is wishful thinking and may very well be one reason why its demise is not onlyinevitable just like all the other great nations of history but will come sooner than later. The US government will fall, eventually. Its not a matter of if but when. The manner of its fall is anyone's guess. Ross made a guess and fictionalized it on paper. His guess is as good as any. If those who don't cherish the RKBA choose to believe UC is our anthem, our banner then they are proclaiming either their ignorance or more likely their twisted agenda.

I for one refuse to allow them to dictate what I choose to read and find entertaining.

Will Ross' solution become workable in the future? If I knew the answer to that I wouldn't be spending my time here I'd be using my prognostication talent to predict what the next big winner in the stock market would be.

Stevie-Ray
January 31, 2011, 10:52 PM
Last week, I finally put Enemies Foreign And Domestic into Kindle. We'll see how it sells, and I'll probably put my other books on Kindle in a month or two. Well then, that may just be my first Kindle book.

Hatchett
February 1, 2011, 12:55 AM
I disagree. The gun community has been polite and appeasing for too long. It's how we got to where we are.
It certainly did -- it got us into being the only modern country in the world with gun control as lax as ours, and has had our gun freedoms steadily expanding in many ways such as concealed carry for years. But you're right. One way we can definitely ensure that is swiftly reversed is to start threatening to murder people. If only everyone shared your sentiment, hell, we could be as free as Liberia in just a few short years.

evan price
February 1, 2011, 05:33 AM
Have never read UC

But I can give you a treat- John Ringo's Ghost.

Like BDSM much?

danprkr
February 1, 2011, 09:14 AM
That said: history shows that violent solutions to replace governments that don't acquiesce to the demands of the people are inevetible. Imagining that the government of the United States is immune is wishful thinking and may very well be one reason why its demise is not onlyinevitable just like all the other great nations of history but will come sooner than later.

I too have never understood why people think that America is immune from the lessons of history. From health care (Yeah lost in court) to taxes, and monetary policy we are making many of the same mistakes that led to many nation's downfall, and expecting different results. I guess we're all insane by Einstein's definition. Except those of us who point it out, in which case we're crackpot idiots.

I have just never gotten that.

Travis McGee
February 1, 2011, 09:33 AM
Sleazyrider: can you tell me about Demonoid? I'm the author of three novels, with a 4th almost finished. I just put my first novel onto Kindle. I like the royalty structure, but I worry about being ripped off by hackers who might convert my Kindle versions into free versions available to anybody on the internet.

UC is out of print, and I don't think John Ross is depending on royalties for his living, so he might not mind folks reading UC for free. But I do mind, A LOT. Can you search for "Enemies Foreign And Domestic" on demonoid, and tell me what you find?

Thanks,
Matt Bracken aka Travis McGee

Guillermo
February 1, 2011, 10:12 AM
it got us into being the only modern country in the world with gun control as lax as ours

interesting that you consider "lax" 10s of thousands of laws when none are legal

Hanzerik
February 1, 2011, 02:21 PM
I still have UC in PDF format, but haven't read it in a while.

Local library had it and I read it in regular book format but that was years ago.

SleazyRider
February 1, 2011, 02:35 PM
Sleazyrider: can you tell me about Demonoid? I'm the author of three novels, with a 4th almost finished. I just put my first novel onto Kindle. I like the royalty structure, but I worry about being ripped off by hackers who might convert my Kindle versions into free versions available to anybody on the internet.

UC is out of print, and I don't think John Ross is depending on royalties for his living, so he might not mind folks reading UC for free. But I do mind, A LOT. Can you search for "Enemies Foreign And Domestic" on demonoid, and tell me what you find?

Thanks,
Matt Bracken aka Travis McGee
You'll be relieved to know that "Enemies Foreign And Domestic" is not available on Demonoid, Matt, nor is there anything under Matt Bracken.

Travis McGee
February 1, 2011, 07:44 PM
Thanks, SR. As far as you can tell, did somebody scan every page of UC, and put it into some online format? How do you think UC was converted into bit torrents, or whatever they're called? (I'm just trying to keep ahead of the tech.)

SleazyRider
February 1, 2011, 08:01 PM
Danged if I know. I'm technically inept, but my kids turned me on to Demonoid for movies and books. The amount of firearms manuals and firearms training videos is incredible, I might add. I've seen scanned books, but I'm thinking the vast majority of books are now available for Kindles and perhaps get magically converted.

I still don't understand the motivation of contributors, or how the site generates income, or the myriad legal issues involved.

Travis McGee
February 1, 2011, 11:51 PM
That's my worry about Kindle, that it has been hacked and the work downloaded and made available for free. I've seen youtube videos of hacked Ipads, where the shells are cracked and a USB cable attached. I'm sure it's being done with Kindle too. This is why I'm not putting all of my books onto Kindle for now. I want to test it for a few months.

Jorg Nysgerrig
February 2, 2011, 12:16 AM
This has strayed far the realm of GGD.

If you enjoyed reading about "Unintended Consequences - John Ross" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!