Unintended Consequences - John Ross

Don't forget Barnes and Noble and the Nook!

"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.

Click to expand...

+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 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.

Fifteen years later, we're still talking about Unintended Consequences.

As an author myself, that speaks volumes.

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.

BullfrogKen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Werewolf said:

Literary schmiterary...
If you're a bleeding heart liberal university prof then maybe UC suffers on a literary level but

Click to expand...

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.

Fifteen years later, we're still talking about Unintended Consequences.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

BullfrogKen said:

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.

Click to expand...

Nope...

But I can see how you might think that.

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

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.

Freebie!

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.

BullfrogKen said:

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 . . .

Click to expand...

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.

BullfrogKen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

BullfrogKen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

BullfrogKen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

BullfrogKen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

BullfrogKen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

BullfrogKen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.'"

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.

unloved said:

"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.'"

Click to expand...

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.

Werewolf said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Werewolf said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.






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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Well then, that may just be my first Kindle book.

I disagree. The gun community has been polite and appeasing for too long. It's how we got to where we are.

Click to expand...

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.

Have never read UC

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

Like BDSM much?