|
chernobyl kinsman posted:how can you appreciate the horror in Arthur Jermyn without conceding something to Lovecraft's fear of miscegenation? Or for that matter, The Horror at Red Hook, in which the racial horror isn't even subtextual. That raises an interesting case study. Victor LaValle, a black author, recently published The Ballad of Black Tom, a reimagining of The Horror at Red Hook told from the perspective of the villain of the original story. It's quite pointed in its criticism of the original story as well as raising a provocative point about Black liberation. To what degree are Black people responsible for the safety of white people when trying to improve their station in life? It uses the central conceit of Lovecraft's work, that it would be quite terrible if humans were small and insignificant to the universe or, more controversially, that "outsiders" are displacing righteous (white) mankind from its safety and comfort, and uses it for grander purpose. After all, Blacks in the United States have never really believed that the world revolved around them and are used to much more powerful beings preying upon them. My point is that even though The Ballad of Black Tom is a harsh criticism of Lovecraft's racism, it's also a celebration of his writing. LaValle obviously appreciates Lovecraft's work, at the very least because he wrote a whole novella about it. The book uses the tone, style, and subtext of his work to create something a lot better. That's one of the neat things about art, I think, that you can celebrate it while rejecting the worldview from which it came. It should be possible to do this with Correia's work, but you have to take it seriously as a work that's trying to communicate something. It's all right to enjoy this stuff, but I think it would be unfortunate to pretend there's nothing wrong with it. pospysyl fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Apr 13, 2018 |
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
pospysyl posted:My point is that even though The Ballad of Black Tom is a harsh criticism of Lovecraft's racism, it's also a celebration of his writing. LaValle obviously appreciates Lovecraft's work, at the very least because he wrote a whole novella about it. The book uses the tone, style, and subtext of his work to create something a lot better. That's one of the neat things about art, I think, that you can celebrate it while rejecting the worldview from which it came. It should be possible to do this with Correia's work, but you have to take it seriously as a work that's trying to communicate something. It's all right to enjoy this stuff, but I think it would be unfortunate to pretend there's nothing wrong with it. Good poiny. I do, however, think there is a difference between enjoyment and appreciation. A heart vs mind thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
I'm pretty far ahead in my further reading of the book. Not to spoil a bunch, but the book is actually starting to denounce Pitt's "don't think, just shoot" approach to monsters. As far as MHI being descended from the KKK, they also get specific and mention that not only did the original version in the 19th century recruit black hunters, they hosed up a bunch of KKK dudes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I'm pretty far ahead in my further reading of the book. Not to spoil a bunch, but the book is actually starting to denounce Pitt's "don't think, just shoot" approach to monsters. As far as MHI being descended from the KKK, they also get specific and mention that not only did the original version in the 19th century recruit black hunters, they hosed up a bunch of KKK dudes. Ah, the I cant be racist, my best hunters are black defense
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 20:43
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:It is like saying you can enjoy the action scenes in Birth of a Nation without necessarily believing all that white supremacy stuff. On a narrative level enjoyment requires engagement. If you are not engaged with a story, how can you enjoy it? And if the rules of that engagement are to sympathize with the Klan lynching and terrorizing blacks and creating the dawn of modern white supremacy, how could it not be unethical to enjoy it? "If you do not believe in your heart of hearts that murdering 84 people is a reasonable and proportionate response to the killing of a dog, how can it be ethical to enjoy John Wick?" fake edit: though if you're going to insist on defining "enjoy" as "uncritically buy in to every single opinion of" i would be happy to say "appreciate" instead
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:"If you do not believe in your heart of hearts that murdering 84 people is a reasonable and proportionate response to the killing of a dog, how can it be ethical to enjoy John Wick?" Actually I tend not to enjoy any action films based on violence as political propaganda (i.e. Rambo III, Zero Dark Thirty, Commando, etc.) for that very reason. I find myself unable to enjoy a movie that asks me to invest in a worldview that I find poisonous. quote:fake edit: though if you're going to insist on defining "enjoy" as "uncritically buy in to every single opinion of" i would be happy to say "appreciate" instead Then by all means, give me an evaluation of why you find merit in Correia's prose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
quote:That night I dreamed again. But it was not about my apparent friend, the Old Man with the poor English. Nor was it about the Cursed One and his gang of abominations. This was something different. Pitt wakes up in a Radio City Motor Lodge in the middle of nowhere. quote:It is hard to sleep when roaches keep skittering across your body. My understanding is that since roaches can't shift into reverse, if one of them crawls into your ear canal it can get really nasty and potentially kill you. Sleep on that. Don't worry folks, cockroaches can walk backwards. After arriving back at base, everyone was loaded into a cargo plane. Boone's two injured men were dropped off in Atlanta with Roberts' decapitated body (I hope they find a tasteful way to deliver the remains to his family...), and Lee was dropped off in Alabama with his fractured rib to recover back home. Grant flew the plane back to the compound to continue the newbies' training. Because Pitt has been having these dreams, he's going with the leadership and the immediately available newbie team members (read: the ones who are important to the plot) to this little town in coastal Georgia. quote:There had only been three available rooms. The ladies had taken the nicest one, meaning that the toilet worked, and there weren't as many unidentifiable spots on the walls. I had bunked with Trip, Mead and Milo. Taking pity on me because of the beating I had received, they gave me one of the twin beds. Milo had seniority so he got the other. Trip had won a game of rock, paper, scissors (of course Chuck went rock) to get the couch. Mead got to sleep on the carpet with the mystery stains. Looking over the map of Georgia, Harbinger theorizes that the lifeboat with the Master vampires and Lord Machado landed somewhere on the eastern coast of Georgia, an area covered in islands and inlets. If they got a vehicle they could be just about anywhere in the South by now, but Harbinger bets that they dropped anchor and landed there for a reason. Pitt suggests that the Master vampires are only acting as a protection detail for Machado, which means they're not going to split up. They don't have any info that they can find off the bat in the archives on a Lord Machado or a Cursed One, but Sam has something to offer: quote:"Machado is a Portagee last name. It means ax. Like the kind that an executioner would use," Sam told us. His useful information was a bit of a surprise. His teammates regarded him strangely. The cowboy spent a lot more time busting heads than he did studying monster history. "What? I had a master chief with that last name. He thought the ax thing was pretty cool." I had never seen the word "Portagee" before. Apparently it's some archaic term/slur for Portuguese people. They're listening to the local police bands for any kind of murders or crime scenes that sound like vampires feeding on hillbillies. And unfortunately for the rest of the team, Harbinger called the MCB and gave the government a tip. quote:"We can handle them, Earl. We don't need no Feds," Sam said. A quick Google says a luska is some kind of sea monster/leviathan creature. quote:"After that the only other MHI personnel in the south are Boone's guys, and then the Newbies and a few others at the compound. I don't think we want to call up Grandpa or Dorcas. Going out from there we have two teams in the northeast, both on cases right now in New York and Baltimore. Next closest after that is Phillips, who's currently dealing with some devil monkeys in St. Paul. Only five other teams left, and they're out west or out of the country. Every single team is working a case." Ah, so that's what they're here for. Cash. Their plan is to split up and start covering ground. Boone and Priest will take teams out for intel gathering, one group will stay at the hotel, and Harbinger will take Pitt to scout the coast and try to find the location from his dream (and buy him some pants). quote:The Hind sat on the broken tarmac, looking like a squat and angry amphibian. I jumped out of the back of the pickup, and just barely had time to grab my gear before the truck roared off and sprayed me with gravel and dust. Milo was having entirely too much fun with the jacked up 4x4 that he had just bought off of a local named, and I'm not making this up, Cooter. There were even naked lady silhouettes on the mud flaps, and a little sticker of Calvin peeing on a Ford symbol in the back window. Harbinger and I headed toward the chopper. Gee, Skippy is completely covering every patch of skin, speaking a strange language, and has unusual customs based around war chiefs. I WONDER IF HE'S A HUMAN They spend the next hour flying over the Georgia coast, with Skippy blasting heavy metal the whole time. Finally Pitt recognizes a patch of beach and they spot the lifeboat on Ossabaw Island. Harbinger cuts off the music mid-drum solo to have Skippy land. Pitt grabs Roberts' FAL carbine from the chopper as they disembark. The birds are singing and the squirrels are chirping, which means no vampires around. The Antoine-Henri's lifeboat has more of that slime from the shipping container around it. A few hundred feet away is a nice two-story house a considerable distance away from any other residences. Approaching the back door, they find it ajar with a pair of muddy boots and some fishing gear nearby. Part of the roof is damaged as if something heavy landed on it. quote:Harbinger entered first. The door creaked on its hinges as he opened it fully. I had never done anything like this before. It was like a scene out of a bad cop movie, except we were private citizens. We were merely breaking and entering. The home is gorgeous and lined with marble and stainless steel appliances, clearly the residence of someone wealthy. The only thing not spotless are several sets of muddy footprints continuing up and down the stairs. As they pass through the living room, Pitt sees magazines and scholarly articles with the subscription addressed to Dr. Jonas Turley. The bookshelves are lined with books on Native American archaeology and art, many of which have the homeowner's name on the spine. quote:The door to the master bedroom had been smashed into kindling. As I stepped through the wreckage, my nose was assaulted by the smell of decay and small biting flies buzzed around my head. We had found the Turleys. Tissues break down rapidly in the warm humidity of coastal Georgia. Before they can search any of the papers strewn around, Harbinger senses incoming helicopters despite Pitt being unable to hear anything. He quickly signals the Hind to head back to the airport, and by the time they return to the living room Pitt can see a fleet of Blackhawks and Apaches approaching. quote:"That there is your tax dollars at work. Best throw your guns down in case one of the storm troopers has an itchy trigger finger." He placed his Thompson and his snub-nosed 625 on the loveseat. I carefully put Roberts' FAL and Smith on the couch. We both stepped to the center of the room, away from anything that could be considered dangerous. Harbinger placed his hands on top of his head. That seemed like a good idea so I copied him. Myers wants to know what the two of them are doing at a crime scene that they didn't call in. Harbinger says that they just flew up and down the coast until finding the missing launch from the freighter, and that he had no cell signal to call the government back. quote:"I'm supposed to believe that?" Myers gets a call on his phone. He tells Harbinger that this is officially a government case and he'll have MHI shut down if he sees a single hunter anywhere near it. As they're being hauled outside, Harbinger whispers to Pitt to stall. Unable to think of anything better, he starts asking Franks for the guns back. They argue about whether or not the guns are evidence in a crime, and Pitt tries asking for at least the 4506 and FAL back as something to give to a dead hunter's kids (before realizing that the full auto FAL, if even legal, is probably property of MHI). quote:"Listen, you monosyllabic moron. Let me spell this out. You can't just go around confiscating private property. There's a fourth amendment. Maybe you heard of it?" Pitt stands up and tries to fight back, but Franks is insanely fast and strong. He ends up with several broken teeth and taking a kick to the sternum that would have killed a man not built like a powerlifter before Myers comes in and stops him; of course he immediately threatens Pitt with arrest for attacking a federal agent, but lets him and Harbinger go. quote:He waited until we were well away from the helicopters and perimeter of armed guards before speaking. "Good stall. Not exactly the tactic I would have used, but letting Franks beat you up was great."
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:The entire novel is a glorification of power as the ultimate moral authority. When we are first introduced to the main character, he is explicitly described as a failure. He is belittled, disgruntled, and living a life devoid of both glory and significance. Even in exploring his personal history we discover his only moments of achievement and self-actualization are earned through the application of violence. He pays for college as a pit fighter. He briefly earns his fathers love as a child as a marksman. The primary act that begins the protagonists journey to self-actualization is the use of deadly force. His life is wholly bettered by the fact he was finally given an opportunity to cause violence without concern for the victim. By this, he is elevated to a new station in life which offers him both greater wealth and greater respect. The message here is simple, the application of strength by the strong is good, the repression of that strength is not. This describes virtually every action movie or book. The entire genre is defined by giving the (usually male) protagonist complete moral authority to commit wildly violent acts against dehumanized foes and to feel fully justified doing it. The viewer gets to think about how rad it would be if they could kill the poo poo out of some people and not feel guilty or face any consequences. Action movies and books are all power fantasies. Nothing you are saying here is specific to this particular piece of trash. Your post could basically be about Die Hard. poo poo, John Wick simultaneously celebrates and mocks this genre trope by giving the "hero" a completely absurd rationale for mass murder ("It was just a loving car, just a loving dog!") and the audience goes along with it completely because the whole reason we bought a ticket was to see them sick gun skillz. If MHI is fascistic for killing Evil with a capital E monsters then Keanu Reeves is literally Hitler reincarnated for headshotting dozens of poor russian immigrants whose only transgressions were being press-ganged by their crime boss uncle or whatever. And don't even get me started on fuckin' Wesly Snipes... I mean, if you're criticizing the genre as a whole, that's cool but there's nothing specific about this book in particular that is significantly more problematic than [Generic Action Movie].
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 21:46
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Actually I tend not to enjoy any action films based on violence as political propaganda (i.e. Rambo III, Zero Dark Thirty, Commando, etc.) for that very reason. I find myself unable to enjoy a movie that asks me to invest in a worldview that I find poisonous. You don't have to invest in it ya big dummy, in fact you can laugh your rear end off at it instead while still "appreciating" poo poo blowing up real good.   800peepee51doodoo posted:This describes virtually every action movie or book. The question is whether you could have an action book that didn't have even an implicit right-wing bias. Orwell thought so ("[these] are not Conservative tracts; they are merely adventure stories with a Conservative bias. It is fairly easy to imagine the process being reversed [...] If, for instance, a story described police pursuing anarchists through the mountains, it would be from the point of view of the anarchist and not of the police"). The counterargument would be that action scenes are mostly built around exceptional individuals which works against proper lefty ideals like solidarity and collective action. Still, I would read the poo poo out of a Mack Bolan-style book about a grizzled socialist gun nut in '80s South America murdering CIA death squads.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:The counterargument would be that action scenes are mostly built around exceptional individuals which works against proper lefty ideals like solidarity and collective action. Still, I would read the poo poo out of a Mack Bolan-style book about a grizzled socialist gun nut in '80s South America murdering CIA death squads. Instead of one protagonist alone, why not have one central character in a group? Like in Predator, or Aliens?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
Spark That Bled posted:Instead of one protagonist alone, why not have one central character in a group? Like in Predator, or Aliens? Oh, so now all Xenomorphs are evil? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
I think Mel Mudkiper would be talking out of his rear end if the plot was exactly the same but monsters were a wildly known phenomenon, with MHI as one of many competitors called in to handle tough or special situations like hunting down werewolves in Yellowstone or taking on Vampires in CQC. But making MHI this vital, irreplaceable fighting force that handles every monster encounter for the entire US but at the same time this tiny platoon sized group is off. There's no material reason for the newbies to do any better than any other group of fresh out of training soldiers and the Government really ought have been able to replace MHI after the 'incident' with a company of Rangers and never notice anything difference.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:The question is whether you could have an action book that didn't have even an implicit right-wing bias. Orwell thought so ("[these] are not Conservative tracts; they are merely adventure stories with a Conservative bias. It is fairly easy to imagine the process being reversed [...] If, for instance, a story described police pursuing anarchists through the mountains, it would be from the point of view of the anarchist and not of the police"). The counterargument would be that action scenes are mostly built around exceptional individuals which works against proper lefty ideals like solidarity and collective action. Yeah, I'm not sure it would be possible to make an genre style action movie that is left wing in structure even if you palette-swapped the ex-special forces operator rescuing his daughter who was kidnapped by drug dealers with a socialist activist seeking revenge for her partner murdered by racist cops or whatever. It would still be the same basic story of catharsis through justifiable homicide. You could do, like, a biopic of Nestor Makhno or something that has action scenes in it but then you're doing more of a war movie, which is different imo. Clipperton posted:Still, I would read the poo poo out of a Mack Bolan-style book about a grizzled socialist gun nut in '80s South America murdering CIA death squads. So basically Predator, from the Predator's perspective. I'm on board.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
Nobody's answered the very basic question of what they like about the book! All I see is dissembling over whether it's okay to like it, rather than actual defenses or endorsements. "I like it when the monsters get killed" isn't really a satisfactory answer, in much the same way that "I think the idea of outside forces eroding rational society is frightening" is not a satisfactory endorsement of Lovecraft. In the latter case, what you like is the stuff that comes from the racism, which means you don't like Lovecraft in spite of the racism, but because of it. When LaValle writes about Lovecraft, he "appreciates" Lovecraft's racism. Lovecraft's racism is integral to the value LaValle gets from it. I'm willing to believe that there is something worthwhile in this book, but you have to actually articulate it. What is it about Correia's weird, violent right wing fantasies do you like or appreciate? You aren't necessarily a bad person if you like this stuff, but if your only defense of it is "I like it when the monsters get killed," then you do like the stuff that comes from Correia's right wing paranoia and you aren't actually ignoring it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
pospysyl posted:Nobody's answered the very basic question of what they like about the book! All I see is dissembling over whether it's okay to like it, rather than actual defenses or endorsements. "I like it when the monsters get killed" isn't really a satisfactory answer, in much the same way that "I think the idea of outside forces eroding rational society is frightening" is not a satisfactory endorsement of Lovecraft. In the latter case, what you like is the stuff that comes from the racism, which means you don't like Lovecraft in spite of the racism, but because of it. When LaValle writes about Lovecraft, he "appreciates" Lovecraft's racism. Lovecraft's racism is integral to the value LaValle gets from it. This guy gets it
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:This describes virtually every action movie or book. The entire genre is defined by giving the (usually male) protagonist complete moral authority to commit wildly violent acts against dehumanized foes and to feel fully justified doing it. The viewer gets to think about how rad it would be if they could kill the poo poo out of some people and not feel guilty or face any consequences. Action movies and books are all power fantasies. This is exactly why I hate most zombie poo poo. It's written for the type of solipsistic rear end in a top hat who'd just love the world to be cleansed of everyone not like him, at the same time imagining himself shooting his annoying room mate, his ex-girlfriend, his boss, because after all they're only zombies. And if the lone protagonist ever stumbles on a settlement where people are trying to put society back together and protect each other, you can sure as poo poo bet these people are secretly evil or so stupid their experiment fails because, "only the lone wolf can survive in this dog eat dog world." The pathetic thing about those kind of post apocalyptic stories are they're treated as aspirational by the some of sociopathic basement dwellers they appeal to. 800peepee51doodoo posted:Yeah, I'm not sure it would be possible to make an genre style action movie that is left wing in structure… It would rather be something like Max Barry's Jennifer Government, where all the murder is done by right wing villains and the hero, instead of killing them, throws the bastards in jail—where the true punishment is the psychopathic might-makes-right rear end in a top hat is humiliated and forced to acknowlege that he's a loving nobody and the collective will of society sure as poo poo does apply to him. Stuporstar fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Apr 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:
pospysyl posted:Nobody's answered the very basic question of what they like about the book! All I see is dissembling over whether it's okay to like it, rather than actual defenses or endorsements. "I like it when the monsters get killed" isn't really a satisfactory answer https://imgur.com/gallery/L73De4L Killing monsters is more than enough, your satisfaction doesn't matter?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
Tbf the digression over whether it was okay to like it was because Mel Mudkiper came out and said "it's not okay to like it" which was very silly and deserved to get dunked on Anyway Correia writes a decent bloody two-fisted action scene which is why I'm on board. Absolutely disagree that you have to buy into his "weird, violent right-wing fantasies" to enjoy those. In fact the very first scene is a guy shooting his boss and throwing him out a window, that's something that all political denominations can enjoy
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
I like urban fantasy in general. It's an interesting genre with a lot of wiggle room to be creative (which Correia gladly indulges in, especially in the later books from what I've read), and something I personally enjoy working in. The action scenes are decent and effectively cinematic in style, and the gun porn is actually accurate almost all of the time and includes more obscure brands or terminology that only a fellow firearms enthusiast would pick up on. It's got humor that's actually funny, and it's a bit satisfying to see the Mary Sue protagonist get dunked on. And he gets dunked on a lot in this book.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:Tbf the digression over whether it was okay to like it was because Mel Mudkiper came out and said "it's not okay to like it" which was very silly and deserved to get dunked on And yet in all this dunking you have failed to explain even on a fundamental level how you enjoy something while staying disengaged from its messaging. I do not think you are upset so much because I am obviously wrong, as you say, but rather that you want me to be wrong and yet cannot seem to articulate why. quote:In fact the very first scene is a guy shooting his boss and throwing him out a window, that's something that all political denominations can enjoy Hate to break it to you but the perennial stereotype of the hateful boss that you want to kill is a part of the mediocre white male power fantasy. "Ha, he thinks he is BETTER than me just because he has had more SUCCESS. Well, yeah, I am more VIOLENT so your stupid societal power doesn't really matter does it?" etc. etc. Most people actually get along with their bosses and don't think of killing them. Its only the people who are insecure about their own station in life who begrudge those who hold any sort of authority over them. sky shark posted:Killing monsters is more than enough, your satisfaction doesn't matter? If your sole intellectual engagement with media you enjoy is to go "I like it, gently caress off" then I pity the desolation of your superficial experiences. Stuporstar posted:This is exactly why I hate most zombie poo poo. It's written for the type of solipsistic rear end in a top hat who'd just love the world to be cleansed of everyone not like him, at the same time imagining himself shooting his annoying room mate, his ex-girlfriend, his boss, because after all they're only zombies. And if the lone protagonist ever stumbles on a settlement where people are trying to put society back together and protect each other, you can sure as poo poo bet these people are secretly evil or so stupid their experiment fails because, "only the lone wolf can survive in this dog eat dog world." The pathetic thing about those kind of post apocalyptic stories are they're treated as aspirational by the some of sociopathic basement dwellers they appeal to. Yeah, I have a similar problem for the same reasons. Weirdly the only post-apocalyptic stuff I like is the Fallout series because you can make the conscious choice to act against genre norms and work towards the betterment of humanity rather than revel in its annihilation. chitoryu12 posted:The action scenes are decent and effectively cinematic in style A. Citation needed. B. Cinematic fight scenes are not a positive in a novel. Its a sign the author has no grasp of narrative craft outside of movies he has seen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:And yet in all this dunking you have failed to explain even on a fundamental level how you enjoy something while staying disengaged from its messaging. I do not think you are upset so much because I am obviously wrong, as you say, but rather that you want me to be wrong and yet cannot seem to articulate why. I just gave a whole paragraph explaining why I didn't hate the book and all you did was pull out one sentence and say "No, you're wrong."
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I just gave a whole paragraph explaining why I didn't hate the book and all you did was pull out one sentence and say "No, you're wrong." You explained why you liked it, you didn't explain how your enjoyment of it is separate from its messaging. How do you draw excitement from the action scenes if you are not invested in the narrative behind that action? And back to the cinematic thing. A cinematic action scene in a 1st person perspective novel is a total stylistic blunder. A cinematic experience necessitates the existence of an outside observer (i.e. the camera) who, even when focusing on a single character's experience, still frames that experience from an external perspective. 1st person writing, on the other, is fundamentally internal. A story told from within a human head cannot be cinematic by definition less the author is failing at one of the two elements.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 00:05
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:You explained why you liked it, you didn't explain how your enjoyment of it is separate from its messaging. How do you draw excitement from the action scenes if you are not invested in the narrative behind that action?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 00:22
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:You explained why you liked it, you didn't explain how your enjoyment of it is separate from its messaging. How do you draw excitement from the action scenes if you are not invested in the narrative behind that action? You're saying I have no investment in the narrative. That's not really true, and I think it's because you're so deep into the hidden meaning behind it and Larry Correia's politics that you've lost the ability to distinguish. I have an investment in the narrative in a sense that I find it interesting and entertaining enough to continue reading the book of my own accord, as opposed to struggling with every chapter. The characters aren't bad, the jokes are usually funny, and the actual story is mostly solid as it progresses further. It's serviceable pulp that catches my interest a hell of a lot more than some of the other books I've read here. I think the problem is that you've completely locked into the meaning you've found in it (an anti-government allegory about how private contractors need to commit extrajudicial killings of evil races) to the point where you're unable to find a way to separate it from the text of the book. In your mind, enjoying an airport pulp novel about a supernatural SWAT team stacking up on a vampire nest with silver buckshot loaded into their full auto Saigas is tacitly agreeing with the idea that vampires are actually an allegory for brown people and humans are an allegory for white people. You ask the question, but there's no answer that will be acceptable in your mind because you can't conceive of getting enjoyment out of it without agreeing with it. But you could theoretically find a political allegory in virtually anything. Aliens could be said to have a similar allegory. Does it suddenly become politically charged to watch it, leaving fans unable to adequately express to you why they can enjoy seeing Colonial Marines blow up xenomorphs with smart guns while separating themselves from the idea that it's a Vietnam War allegory and you're rooting for the Viet Cong to get slaughtered? So I ask you this: what kind of answer would be acceptable to you in explaining why I get enjoyment out of reading these ridiculous action scenes and one-liners like "Parlay-vou this, motherfucker"? Does one exist?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
To be fair, I dont think anything I have posited about the themes of the novel is necessarily hidden or obscure. Its anarcho-libertarianism and post 9/11 paranoia is not really subtext as much as it's just text. You act as if I am unearthing deep and hidden meanings while everything I have criticized has been obvious and at the forefront of the narrativem Why is it that I am simultaneously accused of restating the obvious while also reaching for esoteric interpretations? It seems the obviousness of the themes in the novel is wholly dependent on why you want me to be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
I don’t necessarily want you to be wrong about the meaning. But you (hopefully unintentionally) suggested that anyone who’s actually getting enjoyment out of this book is only doing so through tacit support of that meaning. I think it should be obvious why people would find that a bit offensive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:So I ask you this: what kind of answer would be acceptable to you in explaining why I get enjoyment out of reading these ridiculous action scenes and one-liners like "Parlay-vou this, motherfucker"? Does one exist? Of course one exists. For example, you could say "I do not find the moral implications of the text troubling" Or "I appreciate the text in its construction rather than its narrative" Or "I do not gain enjoyment from narrative but rather spectacle. My sense of enjoyment is wholly alienated from any form of the storytelling and is wholly dependent on stimulus." Or hell even, "I want to have Larry Correias success and want to see how he got it"
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 00:42
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I don’t necessarily want you to be wrong about the meaning. But you (hopefully unintentionally) suggested that anyone who’s actually getting enjoyment out of this book is only doing so through tacit support of that meaning. I think it should be obvious why people would find that a bit offensive. No, I suggested that anyone getting enjoyment out of the book because of its action or narrative is tacit. There are many ways to enjoy a text, but it seems everyone is going back to "it's about shooting monsters!" which is a way of engaging with the text that is inseperable from its themes
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
I need a bigger
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:You explained why you liked it, you didn't explain how your enjoyment of it is separate from its messaging. How do you draw excitement from the action scenes if you are not invested in the narrative behind that action? Why are you demanding the thread justify it to you? I'm here to mock it, as are most others. Occasionally I may point out something I like. If that bothers you, then sorry-not-sorry, gently caress off. Ultimately, you're just some stranger to me. You instead seem to be demanding some sort of obeisance to your enlightened, literary critique. But no one cares. Most of us are here to dunk on the book and make fun of it. You seem to think we need to have a serious, critical discussion on the implications of power fantasies. We don't. I mean, I'm sorry we all can't live up to your expectations when making fun of stupid gun book, but get over yourself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 00:54
|
|
|
Proteus Jones posted:Why are you demanding the thread justify it to you? I'm here to mock it, as are most others. Occasionally I may point out something I like. If that bothers you, then sorry-not-sorry, gently caress off. Ultimately, you're just some stranger to me. You are giving me a power I dont have. I am engaging with the book and mocking it too. If you dont want to take the direction I am taking in having a go at it, that's fine. If you don't think I have anything relevant to say, you dont have to listen to me. If my ideas didn't have merit, people would not be prompted to respond to them. I would just be tossing ideas into a void and probably eventually grow bored. I am not responsible for anyones decision to engage with me. I take the fact that people are so driven to respond a signal that I am speaking to something they also wish to resolve. Quite simply, if I am so dumb and crazy, why do so many people want to argue with me? There is no reasoning with a mad man afterall.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 01:04
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:You are giving me a power I dont have. I am engaging with the book and mocking it too. If you dont want to take the direction I am taking in having a go at it, that's fine. If you don't think I have anything relevant to say, you dont have to listen to me. Yeah, I over-reacted on that and I apologize. I come in expecting more making fun, puns, and other poo poo with this. Instead there's this huge debate on whether its morally questionable to enjoy a work whose ethos is contemptible. Which, while a fascinating topic, not one I want to engage in at the end of a day of work and I'm unwinding in these dumb forums. Especially with a bottom-of-the-barrel fantasy-militia series. So that's on me. I got frustrated the conversation wasn't delivering what I wanted. Again sorry for being a douche about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 01:11
|
|
|
Proteus Jones posted:Yeah, I over-reacted on that and I apologize. No worries! I have valued what you have said so far. I mean, I admit to being a bit, aggressive in my critiques, but I found it horrifying that a thread I originally thought would be "lets make fun of the crazy man" was turning into "actually this book isn't half bad, did you know there's a board game too?" Its like getting a group of friends together to make fun of the Turner Diaries and then slowly realizing a couple of people are going "this is pretty good." Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Apr 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 01:15
|
|
|
Monster Hunter: The Turner Diaries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
sky shark posted:Monster Hunter: The Turner Diaries. Actually someone earlier suggested that it be re-titled to The Turner Diaries: The Masquerade and I think thats much funnier
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Yeah, I have a similar problem for the same reasons. Weirdly the only post-apocalyptic stuff I like is the Fallout series because you can make the conscious choice to act against genre norms and work towards the betterment of humanity rather than revel in its annihilation. I liked John Windham's Day of the Triffids, despite how stupid the premise is on its face, because he actually used it to take a nuanced look at how humanity would fare after an apocalypse. But then, I trust someone who actually lived through the London Blitz to know how people actually would react to (and help each other out in) a doomsday situation. As for video games, I came to a point where I stopped feeling comfortable killing random mooks, even going so far as to work on a pacifist mod for Morrowind because I thought too hard about the implications of killing the native Ashlanders.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
Stuporstar posted:I liked John Windham's Day of the Triffids, despite how stupid the premise is on its face, because he actually used it to take a nuanced look at how humanity would fare after an apocalypse. But then, I trust someone who actually lived through the London Blitz to know how people actually would react to (and help each other out in) a doomsday situation. Have you read Blindness? It's a relatively similar story, although in style. One of my favorites. Yeah, I haven't gotten quite to that point yet with games, but I definitely understand it. I absolutely cannot play any games that represent real wars though. The Call of Duty games horrify me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 01:32
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Have you read Blindness? It's a relatively similar story, although in style. One of my favorites. I bought a copy of Blindness a couple months ago and it's still on my to-read pile. It's been a toss-up between that, Stanislaw Lem's Hospital of the Transfiguration, or A Canticle for Leibowitz next on my list.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
pospysyl posted:Nobody's answered the very basic question of what they like about the book! All I see is dissembling over whether it's okay to like it, rather than actual defenses or endorsements. "I like it when the monsters get killed" isn't really a satisfactory answer, in much the same way that "I think the idea of outside forces eroding rational society is frightening" is not a satisfactory endorsement of Lovecraft. In the latter case, what you like is the stuff that comes from the racism, which means you don't like Lovecraft in spite of the racism, but because of it. When LaValle writes about Lovecraft, he "appreciates" Lovecraft's racism. Lovecraft's racism is integral to the value LaValle gets from it. In a book loaded to bursting with gun porn, those things that famously don't care about how strong or tough you are. And right up until that scene you never get the impression that Owen, like the author, is more than a beefy guy in alright shape. Just like bringing up Utah beach when fighting with the french guy, it seemed obvious to me that when Larry wrote that scene he invented Owen's pit fighter background just to give him an easy way to beat Greg in an argument. I've already talked about the company being the coziest example of crony capitalism imaginable. But in addition, it's about as anti-second amendment as you can get. What good is a gun if you need special ammo to reliably protect yourself? sky shark posted:"Flexible minds" is the big thing. Every one of the "hunters" has survived an encounter & came out on top, without the high speed gear. Later in the series it goes into what happens when people don't come out on top, but still survive. You also don't want monsters becoming common knowledge, because IIRC some monsters grow more powerful the more people believe in them. That and you can't have Rangers operating CONUS, but MCB does have various people seconded from higher speed units... who often don't survive. FWIW the survival rate on "hunters" is atrocious as is. Owen used pretty textbook RPG character tactics to temporally survive the bad guy before something else solves the problem for you. I'm confident you could teach basics like 'distract the thing that's stronger than you' or 'lure the thing that's stronger than you into a trap' pretty easily.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 01:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
Larry Corndog is a repugnant man with bad views. He has managed to write a generally above-average product for this type of fare, nothing more and nothing less. It's interesting to see something that is normally an incoherent ARE GUNS racist screed play with the conventions of the genre. The protagonist is a gigantic self-insert who get his rear end kicked more than one normally would in this scenario, he is treating women and POC characters with more respect than one normally would in this genre, the gun porn is interestingly restrained and the man at least seems to write with a sense of actual humor which is incredibly rare, normally it's just "I will humiliate the source of my anxieties and invite such ridicule from my peers who I am writing to". In short, for who he is and what he's done, it's amazing that he CAN write with any sense of creativity. Were he not a tremendous thundering shitheel, this would not necessarily be a problematic book to read. I do not feel in the slightest we are all won over to his way of thinking. Nor do I need to feel that we must be reminded of the horrible politics because Larry himself does this in every botched turn of phrase or poor word choice or frantic walkbacks. This is just a public wake where the body has been disassembled, put up for viewing and commentary and it will be buried and forgotten, its unmet potential recognized and its awful parentage lamented.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 01:46
|
|