Molon Labe, Like UC, Another Great Idea Ruined by an Author's Sick Sadistic Fantasies

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

The Real Hawkeye

member
Joined
Jan 31, 2004
Messages
4,238
Location
Florida, CSA
It's a damned shame that these two authors had to ruin what might have been a couple of great books with wide audiences. The Wyoming idea in Molon Labe' was an excellent one. Why did it need approving portrayals of torture/murder in a book whose author clearly advocated same? And don't tell me the author was just describing something that can happen in the real world. Of course such things happen, and lots of great books portray such things. Authors, however, convey either approval or disapproval of the actions of the characters they create, and this author clearly approved. The fact that the torture murderer was presented as a good guy here is unmistakable. This makes me wonder if the author is a psychopath like the character he portrays so lovingly and respectfully. "Just doing his duty for that poor girl," is what one is, I suppose, meant to think. This scene clearly demonstrates a very primitive and undeveloped sense of morals and justice, a justice and morality based on raw consequences rather than foreseeable ones.

Just like Unintended Consequences, I had to put it down just about half way through reading it. What a shame. Up till then, just as in Unintended Consequences, I was really enjoying it.

Of the three books I've read in this genre, Enemies, Foriegn and Domestic is head and shoulders above these two.
 
I guess i have to disagree with you there, i felt both books were excellent. Yes UC can be a bit graphic regarding torture, but i think its an excellent example of what happens during a civil war (or a near civil war). Just look at Serbia, Iraq, Sudan, Northern Ireland, etc for real life examples. I don't think the US would be any more immune if the events in UC were to happen for real.
 
I haven't read molon labe but UC is way better than EFAD IMHO. I especially liked the history lesson in the first half of UC, it kind of puts everything into perspective for me. Black arrow OTOH is utter tosh.
 
So far you're missing Hawkeye's point.

In one of my books, a main character murders another in cold blood. I didn't think much of this plot point in my outline, but when it came time to write the scene I found myself hesitant. Actually putting the words down was even more difficult.

At first I wondered whether or not I was going crazy, then I realized I was simply human.

Graphic violence should provoke a visceral reaction in the normal human psyche. It is how we rationalize it and process it that matters. If an author is obviously taking pleasure in it or directly or indirectly advocating certain aspects of the darker side of humanity, then I can see a possible problem.
 
Moral Issues

I have heard many people had issues with UC based on one of two things.

1. Graphic sexual descriptions

2. Graphic violent situations

To these two opinions I would say, GET OVER IT!

Look people, not everyone in this world is an alternating Tuesdays and Thursdays with the lights off, and mish posish only sex life. (I'm not thank G-d). Ross was trying to say, there are some people for whom firearms have little relavence, but who are attacked by some segment of out government. (His character Cindy Casswell has little interest in guns until the machine gun dealer meets her). We should reach out to them, even if we live a little differently.

As to the graphic violence, if you have not the stomach for that sort of thing, well I don't know why your reading these kinds of books. They talk about the culture wars getting hot. That would mean bad things for both sides. Ross and Boston T Party simply are addressing the reality of that side of things while still attempting to be entertaining. I'm not condoning torture, or anything that the Geneva Convention would poo-poo on. I'm just saying, in time of war, the laws fall silent. If you fight a war against your own government, it is b/c they violated your rights first. You might have to do something not exactly heroic to survive. Talk to a vet you'll find out real quick that war is a nasty brutal business.
 
Hmm. Well said, Devonai. TRH is on the money with his observation. It would be interesting to see how many here have no problems with the portrayal of torture in these books, yet have been so vocal in opposition of our current administration's apparent condoning of torture methods when used by our side in the war.

Seems clear that these books are popular with THR members almost solely due to the overriding theme of the plots -- the thesis that the right to keep and bear arms is the foundation of freedom -- and this popularity is not due to the quality of the writing nor exploration of the depths of the characters' humanity ... Thus, any hint of criticism of these books is not well-received by the majority of High Roaders.

What should separate the good folks from the bad folks ... is that we should be above employing torture as a means of extracting information or exacting revenge ... and certainly we should not portray torture as meaningful or enjoyable. But then, this topic has already been flogged mightily within the L&P forum at great length ...

As to the graphic violence, if you have not the stomach for that sort of thing, well I don't know why your reading these kinds of books.
Click to expand...
Another has missed the point. Graphic violence was NOT the issue -- the author's seeming approval of his character's use of torture methods is the issue.

Talk to a vet you'll find out real quick that war is a nasty brutal business.
Click to expand...
Gee, really? I AM a veteran of the current conflict (and a couple past conflicts), and while I'd agree war is nasty and brutal, I do not approve of torture nor approve of those who do ...
 
So, I take it you won't be reading the sequel? :D


I've just aquired a copy of Molon Labe, but not had a chance to read it yet, so I can't comment on the scene in question. But this thread reminds me of someone I know that often over-reacts to scenes of violence in movies and ends up completely missing the point. An example that comes to mind is the movie The Patriot. Benjamin Martin goes nuts during a fight scene and uses his hatchet to turn an enemy soldier into hamburger, getting covered with blood in the process. To me, I saw a man whose home was destroyed, one of his children murdered in cold blood right in front of him, and another one dragged off to be hanged. In a desperate attempt to save his other son, he loses control of his emotions in battle and goes bonkers, taking out his rage and pain on the last remaining enemy soldier. Then he looks to the sky, almost as if asking God how he could allow this to happen to him, or to help him maintain his sanity before he goes totally off the deep end. Then he realizes his other children are watching, and he struggles to bring himself back to a civilized state of mind, for their sake if nothing else.

The intensity was overwhelming. As a parent myself, I could almost feel the rage and intense pain he must have been feeling, and I understood completely how he could lose it and go berserk. I felt it was one of the more memorable examples of such anguish being portrayed on-screen in a such a powerful way that the viewer felt it, too.

My friend focused completely on the blood. "That's so disgusting. Why do they have to do that? They always have to make movies so gorey these days. It's just not necessary. You can make a good movie without all that gore. People these days just aren't happy unless they get to see lots of blood and guts."

I was almost surprised (but not quite, knowing my friend's usual perception of such things) that the sheer anguish of the scene went right over his head. I felt it was all about the intensity of the moment, and he completely missed the point. All he could think about was the unpleasing aspects of the graphics. Where he saw movie-makers obsessed with graphic displays of blood, I saw human feelings and emotions displayed in such a brutal moment of parental anguish as to force me to realize that I probably would have done the same thing in his shoes.

Is this an example of that type of situation? Dunno, I haven't read the book yet. I'll let you know when I get to that part. :D
 
I'm afraid I disagree with those who approve of the graphic portrayal of extreme violence, sex, etc. in literature and on film.

I went through eighteen years of civil unrest in South Africa, and had far too many opportunities to see violence at its most sadistic, brutal, eye-popping, stomach-turning extreme. I've spoken of those years many times since - but I've never described most of those scenes in graphic terms, and I won't, simply because most people are incapable of assimilating what they mean. One simply can't convey the reality of such brutality through words or pictures. For a start, one can't convey the smell... those of you who've seen "the worst of the worst" will know exactly what I mean, while the rest of you won't.

As for sex, why bother being graphic? Pornography has desensitised most folks about sex, which I think is a great pity. We've made sex into a minor tin god. I think we were much better off when there was still some mystery left to it, and a sense of responsibility.

I purposely choose not to read books, or watch movies, where the portrayal of violence and "extreme" sex is too graphic. For a start, they usually don't get it right, and secondly, someone has to uphold a moral standard. I'm not saying I'm any better than anyone else in this regard, but I have no intention of adhering to the lowest common denominator.
 
In a desperate attempt to save his other son, he loses control of his emotions in battle and goes bonkers, taking out his rage and pain on the last remaining enemy soldier
Click to expand...
I didn't see it as losing control of his emotions, I saw it as a conscious decision to temporarily become something so gruesome and repulsive that most would turn away in terror and disgust -- because to do less would be to lose his own life and the lives of his children.

Sometimes, some men find that need in their lives. Probably not easy to live with, but the ability to turn off your conscience and empathy temporarily is something that occasionally proves useful. How much better off would our nation be now if a few more passengers on 9/11 had said to themselves that they were likely gonna get cut pretty bad and were unarmed, but the hijacker's eyeballs looked like inviting targets...?

As far as torture, I don't see the need, even in the extremes. It's unreliable at best, and is always morally repulsive. But then, apparently others were a bit more conditioned by watching "24"...
 
I didn't see it as losing control of his emotions, I saw it as a conscious decision...
Click to expand...
Well, I guess we all see things in different ways. That's probably the reason for this thread in the first place.
 
So far, those who disagree with me are actually not disagreeing with me. They are disagreeing with a point I never made. The only ones here so far who have expressed an understanding of the point I was making have been Old Dog and Deronai. I do not say this because they express approval for what I say. I say it only because the others are responding to me in a way which makes clear that they don't even begin to understand the simple point I was making. If they would just read my post more carefully, it might make a difference. Then, if they demonstrate that they understand the point, I am perfectly ok with hearing their reasons for disagreeing, but until that happens, I cannot give their arguments much weight, as they address a point I never made or advocated.
But this thread reminds me of someone I know that often over-reacts to scenes of violence in movies and ends up completely missing the point. An example that comes to mind is the movie The Patriot. Benjamin Martin goes nuts during a fight scene and uses his hatchet to turn an enemy soldier into hamburger, getting covered with blood in the process. To me, I saw a man whose home was destroyed, one of his children murdered in cold blood right in front of him, and another one dragged off to be hanged. In a desperate attempt to save his other son, he loses control of his emotions in battle and goes bonkers, taking out his rage and pain on the last remaining enemy soldier. Then he looks to the sky, almost as if asking God how he could allow this to happen to him, or to help him maintain his sanity before he goes totally off the deep end. Then he realizes his other children are watching, and he struggles to bring himself back to a civilized state of mind, for their sake if nothing else.
Click to expand...
This is another example of someone arguing against a position I never held. I loved that scene in Patriot. This was not a case of cold blooded torture murder. The man was in the "heat of passion" as they say in the legal profession. We can all relate to that, and what he did was justified. First off, this was open war. Secondly, the folks he killed were in league with the guy who was intentionally responsible for the death of a son, the would-be intentional, unjust and illegal killing of another son, the burning down of his home and the rape of his nation. Every man can relate to what he did in response, and in fact cheer him on. That character was a brave and effective warrior to be honored. The scene I was talking about was quite different. In the book, a man simply takes it upon himself to exact punitive revenge on someone he didn't even know. Look, it's one thing to simply eliminate someone (as distasteful as we might find the actual act) who's an authentic and proven danger to liberty (and thus necessarily also to our and our loved one's lives), e.g., a tyrant as depicted in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. It's quite another to play God. The man's actions in Molon Labe were exemplary of a far more primitive sense of justice than that displayed by Gipson's character, or by Brutus et al in Julius Caesar. This seems counterintuitive at first glance, but it's absolutely accurate. What Gipson's character did was plain raw justice. Any acts in pursuit of real justice are called heroism in my book. Brutus was doing what had to be done, even if he ultimately failed to achieve that end, to restore a Republican form of government by eliminating a tyrant who had cunningly seized despotic power. The murder scene in Molon Labe, however, was an example of calculated psychopathy presented by the author as the height of decency and justice.
 
Last edited:
Forty years ago, as a grade schooler in a small town on the plains of Nebraska, we were shown archival films of scenes from the death camps of Nazi Germany. They left an indelible mark on a child's mind. Do you approve of history lessons of this sort? I don't imagine you'd wish to read Iris Chang's "The Rape of Nanking."
 
I've guess I've read a few books over the last 65+ years. :) I've gotten to where I (by and large) suspend my beliefs about the outside world, outside of myself and the world created by the author.

For me, the over-arching point is whether his people might indeed do what they do. "Do some people really do that (bleep)?" If the answer is yes, then I can start looking at details. You know, like comments about safeties on revolvers and all that stuff.

Yeah, people do that sex stuff. Some half-dozen years back, I read that half of all Internet websites involve sex. I don't know if that's actually true, but I still read that it's a big deal on the web.

Yeah, people do murder and torture. We read about it every day.

Some authors throw in such scenes, seems like, with an attitude of, "Well, time for a sex scene; sex sells." Others use it to develop a character, for good or for ill or just to show they're human. Murder/torture/"justice" may be used as symbolism or whatever the author seems to feel is needed.

I've no interest in a novel in which the main thrust is "the horribles" of humankind. But a scene here or there is nowhere near enough to turn me off from reading the whole book or, on the whole, seeing it as a great yarn.

Art
 
A useful political message is better conveyed without raising other conversial issues that distract from the main one.

Violating taboos against inflicting personal physical harm on other people is a surefire way to distract people. If someone comes away from your book saying "wow I really feel bothered about issue x" then you did a great job. If someone comes away from the book saying "what A did to B was so terrible" then you did a poor job. Unless it was impossible to make your point without depicting the controversial violence, then you should avoid it.

This is why scholarly works that feature explicit gratuitous depictions of sexual penetration are called "hardcore porn" while equally intellectual works lacking such depictions are called "movies" or "documentaries."
 
My problem with Unintended Consequences was with Cindy Caswell. The fact that she is to much of a fantasy figure was what I found wrong with her. A stripper / bi-sexual / gun-nut and that the main character is sleeping with both her and her friend put me off. It just seemed that the book lost a lot of credibility because it seemed to be to much of an outlet for male fantasy. The rest of the book seems more plausible.

I cannot comment on Enemies Foreign and Domestic nor can I comment on Molon Labe. I havent read either but I want to.
 
+++1 Tecumseh

That was exactly my reaction to UC. I lost all sympathy or ability to empathize for the Bowman character because of the representation of the Cindy Caswell character. Made Bowman about as appealing as Hugh Hefner. It turned what could have been a good book into puerile sexual fantasy.

It is not that the sex, or even the violence, was graphic. It is that it was so juvenile. Anybody who gets off on that aspect of the book, or defends it as "ok", needs a reality check. It seriously undermines the rest of the book
 
Forty years ago, as a grade schooler in a small town on the plains of Nebraska, we were shown archival films of scenes from the death camps of Nazi Germany. They left an indelible mark on a child's mind. Do you approve of history lessons of this sort? I don't imagine you'd wish to read Iris Chang's "The Rape of Nanking."
Click to expand...
Boy, your guess about me couldn't be more off. I have always been of the opinion that I don't mind violent depictions in movies and books. In the right context, they can be really entertaining and valuable, even for kids to see or read. I never, in fact, understood the trouble so many people have with it. It is not violence, per se, that is troubling to me. It is not even that there was a cold blooded torture murder depicted very graphically. What is troubling to me, and what caused me to choose to put the book down, was that the author was apparently of the opinion that the killer's actions were an expression of a high minded sense of justice which we, the readers, should be sympathetic with. Seems more like the fantasies of a very troubled little boy to me.

I lost respect for the author at that point, realizing that we, fundamentally, have little in common. It is an unpleasant reality that some people in this world deserve to be done away with. In certain circumstances you might even enjoy it, such as doing away someone who murdered your child or sister, but this guy torture murdered someone who might have tangentially, unforeseeable to him, had some causal connection with the earlier than anticipated demise of someone the murderer didn't personally know as a result of a preexisting disease, due to an overly zealous application of black letter law by a Federal judge. And the author chose to portray this psychopathic murderer as someone we ought to admire for his high ideals and sense of justice. It's not the murder that's the problem, those things happen in the real world, and we ought to know they do and not be squeamish about reflecting on this reality. Rather, it's what this scene reveals about the author that is problematic, in my opinion.
 
Although I did not care for Molon Labe as a novel, I had no problem whatsoever with the scene in question. The judge who was killed (I won't use the term murder) was a monster, and he got exactly what he deserved.

- Chris
Click to expand...
When a man has to kill someone, he does it. Sometimes good men are in such positions, and do what's needed. A man does not, however, take pleasure in the prolonged suffering of a helpless person, regardless of what that person has done. I don't care if we're talking about Adolph Hitler, or Joe Stalin, let alone an over zealous judge. The judge was a complete jerk, and perhaps even a danger to a free people. He may have in fact "needed" killing, deserving having little to do with that question. That's a far cry, however, from suggesting that the intentional infliction of a horrible sort of death is an expression of a high minded ideal to be respectfully admired.
 
I cannot comment on Enemies Foreign and Domestic nor can I comment on Molon Labe. I havent read either but I want to.
Click to expand...

I enjoyed UC and Molon Labe, but EFAD was tiresome and poorly-written. Black Arrow was also not worthwhile.
 
Sex & Violence?

Both subjects seem to make the meat of most movies and books these days , deal with it IMO.
UC was/is a great book and my bi- wife the dancer (yeah that kind) loved it and yes she enjoys shooting her own H&K P-7.
 
And my 2 former playmate girlfriends along with their girlfriends are all taking me to the shooting range for some class 3 fun then we are heading over to the mansion for some "Ooh la la" and other adult activities...

The point is that this element was more of a detraction from the book and just in there to allow the author some outlet for his own sexual fantasies and feelings of insecutity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

John Ross
  • Locked
John Ross’ Review of Matthew Bracken’s Domestic Enemies
Replies
40
Views
8K
General Gun Discussions
Leanwolf
L
C
  • Locked
Ripe For Genocide
Replies
1
Views
313
Legal
El Tejon
E
W
  • Locked
Essay on Project Safe Neighborhoods
Replies
3
Views
656
General Gun Discussions
whm1974
W
N
  • Locked
Speaking of the LFI...
Replies
6
Views
851
Strategies, Tactics, and Training
ctdonath
C
Top Bottom
Back