Texas Concealed Carry Law And You - Let's Read Monster Hunter International

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > The Book Barn > Texas Concealed Carry Law And You - Let's Read Monster Hunter International

«‹›3 »

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Who the gently caress has time for a quip when your boss is turning into a werewolf in front of you

EDIT: Also, I get that he kept a concealed pistol but he also carried spare ammo?

Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Apr 5, 2018

# ¿ Apr 5, 2018 16:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 09:43

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

chitoryu12 posted:

You actually always want to carry at least one reload if you've got a concealed weapon. Not because you might get into a huge gunfight with five dudes and need to John Wick your way out, but because:

1. You might miss a bunch and still be in danger, so you reload instead of just trying to beat the attacking person or animal with your gun.

2. You suffer some kind of problem with your ammo or magazine that can only be quickly solved by reloading.

Like I get that but I mean literally where was he carrying it if he was sneaking his gun in on an ankle holster in the first place

# ¿ Apr 5, 2018 17:45

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

This guy's writing is fascinating because I have never experienced a text so dense with cliche

every event and description and thought is written in the most obvious way possible

# ¿ Apr 5, 2018 19:45

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

so his dad is frank dux

Seriously though I will never understand the appeal to crazy right wing people about being like "I fought in a war THAT NEVER EXISTED"

Like, congrats, you're a war criminal. Not sure why you're bragging about that.

# ¿ Apr 6, 2018 00:48

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

sky shark posted:

At least for multiple books

How do you know this

EDIT: But seriously I cannot even follow this book as a joke and I followed loving Handbook for Mortals

This is just such joyless empty worthless trash

Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Apr 10, 2018

# ¿ Apr 10, 2018 17:01

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Who the gently caress reads this and then reads a second one

# ¿ Apr 10, 2018 18:31

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

ShinsoBEAM! posted:

In case this isn't super obvious, MHI is basically what if all those B-monster movie survivors joined up and fought monsters together but with guns then you have years of that idea swirling in your head together. This is also why 2 of the major side characters in the series Trip and Holly both are archetypes that are traditionally killed in B-horror movies, I believe they were envisioned early in the creation of the story.

I get the idea

It's a terrible idea terribly executed

# ¿ Apr 10, 2018 18:33

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

sky shark posted:

It's gun porn for gun people featuring people with guns killing monsters. What concepts are giving you difficulty?

Nothing is giving me difficulty, its just that gun porn for gun people featuring people with guns killing monsters is just a pretty lovely justification for a book to exist

Like, Handbook and RPO were bad. This is both bad and arguably fascistic.

# ¿ Apr 10, 2018 19:21

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Internet Wizard posted:

The part where it�s very bad at being something worth reading, even for somebody who is a gun person that likes the idea of stories about shooting monsters.

That too

Its just unbelievably poo poo

# ¿ Apr 10, 2018 19:34

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

sky shark posted:

It's the equivalent of a show from the WB so

Well, clearly some people disagree with you considering it's spawned 6 books and bunch of offshoots & sold well enough to be translated into multiple languages

Also for those interested it's free on kindle right now: https://www.amazon.com/Monster-Hunter-International-Hunters-Book-ebook/dp/B00APAH7PQ

Wait hold up

Do we have an unironic fan of the books in the thread

Holy poo poo hahahahahahahahahaha

# ¿ Apr 10, 2018 20:43

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Orthodox Rabbit posted:

This book at the very least gets points for having things happen that are not immediately solved by the protagonist downloading a strategy guide, repeated for the entirety of the book.

On the other hand, those problems are solved by the protagonist immediately having a gun

# ¿ Apr 10, 2018 20:57

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

sky shark posted:

Also if the concept of people enjoying these books breaks your brain, definitely don't go on Kickstarter where they raised over $120k for a RPG ($15k goal) - https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/gallantknightgames/monster-hunter-international-rpg-savage-worlds-edi

And over $100k for challenge coins ($3k goal) https://www.kickstarter.com/project...0hunter%20coin.

The idea of people enjoying the books doesn't break my brain at all

The idea of someone showing up to the thread and being like "no seriously guys its good" does

# ¿ Apr 10, 2018 21:40

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

How exactly does one have a technically accurate portrayal of fighting a werewolf

# ¿ Apr 10, 2018 21:51

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Ugh his combat tactics for this mythological creature are completely wrong, everyone knows the proper strategy for something that doesn't exist is to do this

# ¿ Apr 10, 2018 21:54

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

It looks like an original idea so it clearly didn't come from the book itself

# ¿ Apr 11, 2018 16:23

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

why are the vampires evil

why do good people who become vampires become evil

why is the state of vampirism all that is needed to justify extrajudicial military action

It seems this book works on the underlying assumption that a person's "categorization" is a meaningful and fully deterministic value. This underlying assumption suggests a deeply dangerous and deranged world-view that I think you do a disservice by failing to actually analyze.

and don't say "its dumb fun, you are not supposed to think about." This is a novel of implicitly coded political messaging and it is a moral failure to not engage with it.

# ¿ Apr 12, 2018 16:35

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Not to mention the inseparability of post 9/11 paranoia from the fundamental ethos of the novel

# ¿ Apr 12, 2018 16:49

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Zanzibar Ham posted:

Augh, you Monster Rights Activists are what's wrong with America.

But seriously, come on, I'm gonna assume MHI vampires are of the classic horror variety ie they happily feed on human blood.

well yeah but I wonder what this posits about Correia's view of human nature.

If becoming a vampire means they take on certain behaviors, then why does the vampire fundamentally retain most of their human identity and personality? How does the transformation manage to cause a person to utterly change in terms of moral behavior while they still retain all the rest of their basic nature?

As I see it, there are three possibilities.

A. Vampires are not actually evil. Correia is inadvertently making a commentary on the selfishness inherent in a carnivorous existence. The shift from hunger for, say, a cow to hunger for a human is not actually a change in moral prerogative. A vampire has as much right to eat a human as a human has to eat an animal. The vampires are not evil, they are simply in need of prey that has a better capability for self-defense. In this case, there is not an inherent moral justification to killing vampires. It is simply prey defending itself.

B. Vampirism is the empowerment of the Id over the Ego. The personality of a vampire remains relatively unchanged from their human form because the essential nature of the host remains unaltered. Instead, the drive to immediate gratification overtakes the more rational elements of the person, and they become driven by an untamable neural itch to feed that still renders them essentially human despite this impulse.

C. This is what I think is the correct answer. Correia has constructed a reality which is totally devoid of any concept of free will. We do not act in any way determined by our morals or sense of self. Instead, we are creatures of pure instinct, behaving in the ways natural to our physical form. There is no such thing as "self", instead we are all biologically mechanistic, acting in the way our glands ordain without any actual say in what we do. We do not think, we do not feel. We simply act and ascribe these higher virtues to our actions. In this way, the change from human to vampire is a fundamental change of impulse and biological imperative. Personality, morality, desire, etc. are merely a superficial coverings of our true nature, which is the total dominance of instinct.

# ¿ Apr 12, 2018 17:03

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Proteus Jones posted:

I feel like you're overthinking a Baen Truck Stop novel.

the most dangerous ideas are the ones which claim to be meaningless

Make no mistake, this novel is propaganda and it is intellectually lazy to avoid wrestling with its themes because the author pretends to be creating only entertainment

# ¿ Apr 12, 2018 17:07

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

chitoryu12 posted:

Propaganda for....what, exactly?

Hmmm a post 9/11 novel which celebrates the efficacy and morality of private contractors carrying out extrajudicial killings of "others" in order to protect innocent people from a constant and poorly understood existential threat

I wonder

# ¿ Apr 12, 2018 17:12

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

The fundamental ethos of the novel is

-There are people who are fundamentally dangerous to us by the very nature of their existence
-Killing these people is an absolute moral good
-Normal people cannot be trusted to understand this nature of this threat
-For-profit mercenaries are the most effective way to protect innocents against threats of this nature
-Ergo, for-profit mercenaries carrying out killing of others in secret is good

# ¿ Apr 12, 2018 17:19

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Zanzibar Ham posted:

The guy and his book are obviously racist but going 'oh so now all vampires are evil huh???' is a really dumb angle on that.

Well, the classical idea of the vampire was theory B in its original mythology

Vampires were a cultural metaphor for sexual repression and the fundamental fear of rampaging Id in a catholic society. If that is what he is going for, it just seems out of line with the rest of the book.

My complaint is not that all vampires are evil, as much as it is that the novel leaves unexplored why vampirism is a morally transformative experience

Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Apr 12, 2018

# ¿ Apr 12, 2018 17:24

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Darth Walrus posted:

I mean, are you not familiar with how fantasy is used as a metaphor for the real world or something?

Hell, if Tolkien made a rather racist treatise on the utopic European pastoral being disrupted by the arrival of lesser societies from beyond their borders just from his subconscious, it doesn't seem unreasonable to find far more explicit coding in a novel by a explicit alt-righter.

# ¿ Apr 12, 2018 17:33

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

ShinsoBEAM! posted:

Because if the things you were killing a lot weren't evil wouldn't that make you the bad guy?

I'm pretty sure Correia started with the end goal of monsters are evil so my dudes can kill them, and backworked in the justification as part of worldbuilding, he isn't trying to make some sort of literary point.

And this is getting to the core of my fundamental issue with the book

# ¿ Apr 12, 2018 18:25

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Samizdata posted:

Or you know, the author is threatened as vampires mean humanity are no longer the apex predators.

That's literally what I said in A.

Please read and then respond.

# ¿ Apr 12, 2018 18:34

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

ShinsoBEAM! posted:

I fail to see how this is different then the huge plethora of books/movies/fiction who throw in insert evil that everyone knows about see Nazi's/Mega-Corps/KKK, something else and then just runs with the default assumption that they are bad because well...of course they are, maybe add in a few scenes showing yes they are evil wow.

Well yes in general I take issue with that trope

I would also argue there is a significant intellectual difference in calling someone evil for what they are as opposed to being evil for whom they associate with.

Joining the KKK is not the same as being turned into a vampire.

# ¿ Apr 12, 2018 18:39

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Samizdata posted:

Yeah. I just said it in an easier to read format.

Ah, so you were making a narrative post then

# ¿ Apr 12, 2018 23:26

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

I am not sure why any of you are shocked by the protagonists lack of respect for female agency in his romantic desires. Its wholly consistent with the explicit moral ethos of the text.

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.

Is this not the whole ethos of MHI itself? We are given no explicit reason to believe monsters are universally deserving of death other than the fact that MHI declares it to be so. We are given no clear understanding of the agency or experience of the vampires, or werewolves, etc. We are merely told that the thing they are is a thing which must be destroyed. And the right to destroy them is contained entirely in the potential to destroy. MHI has the moral authority to take life solely from the fact that it has the power to do so. We are given no clear moral reasoning as readers to believe that there is anything ethical in what MHI does. Instead, we are told to view them as a moral force because they are strong and because the application of that strength is amusing to us.

Which leads to female agency. If the protagonist experiences self-actualization through the use of inherent strength, and this usage of strength is seen as "good" by the novel itself, why should we be surprised that he might seek to force the strength of his will against the will of another? He has earned everything by force, why should sexual gratification be any different? If the protagonist is able to bend a weaker will to act in a way that is gratifying to him, the novel clearly tells us he has the moral right to do so. It doesn't matter if she is interested in him if the protagonist can apply the force of his will to make her change. It doesn't matter if she already has a partner, because if the partner is lesser in strength than the challenger, the partner is suggested to be undeserving of satisfaction. In a world in which having the power to take something is the only justification needed to take it, what should it matter to the protagonist if his romantic desire is unwilling. He could forcefully rape her in the next chapter and the novel would celebrate it as the rightful order of a moral universe.

# ¿ Apr 13, 2018 13:55

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

quote:

"That's just the tip of the iceberg though. OSHA is crawling all over us for�I kid you not�workplace safety violations. As if there is anything safe about what we do at all. The EPA is angry about some of the pollution we have caused by burning certain kinds of monsters. Fish and Wildlife wants to fine us for killing a giant mutant Tennessee River catfish because it was endangered. Sure it had just crawled up on land and eaten some teenagers, but it was still an endangered species. We're in trouble with the BATF for some missing compliance paperwork for the machine guns and explosives�paperwork which they lost. And Immigration is investigating us for employing some illegal aliens."

Ah yes, the argument that all regulation is fundamentally shortsighted because those with the moral power to wield force are the only ones who have the authority to decide how that force should best be used. This is exactly what I was referring to as power being the sole ethos of the novel.

# ¿ Apr 13, 2018 14:15

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Proteus Jones posted:

Yeah, I made it through I think three of these things (because I really wanted to read about the adventures of monster exterminators), before I gave up.

There's a real thread of "The violent and strong are the only hope. And that's us. If you're peaceful (i.e. pathetic and weak), I suppose you can hide behind us and not get in our way. But we want money for doing this. We'd probably be doing an even better job if it weren't for all those pesky laws and regulations from those greedy, conniving politicians"

Absolutely. The fundamental ideology behind the story is both painfully trite and painfully dangerous because it is wholly built around the refusal to take personal responsibility for one's own failures.

Correia is telling you, reader, that you are not weak. You are strong but the REAL weaklings won't allow you to be strong.
You are not unsuccessful. The fickle GOVERNMENT is keeping you from being successful.
It is a pornographic fantasy for the un-actualized white male that he could be everything he wants to be if only he existed in a moral universe that celebrated his power. Its an ur-text of the alt-right.

# ¿ Apr 13, 2018 14:26

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Clipperton posted:

I've been skimming this thread until I'm caught up on the book, has anyone taken the position that it's NOT hilariously right-wing propaganda with a side of sex-pestery? Because AFAIK everyone's been clowning on its politics from page one

Like, who are you arguing with exactly

The issue is that the politics are taken as an absurd element of a comical book rather than a dangerous attempt to normalize fascism in a treatise on a toxic world view.

# ¿ Apr 13, 2018 16:08

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Clipperton posted:

I mean if you want to argue that books with gross politics are inherently toxic and can't be fun (disagree!) or that gun-porn is inherently right-wing (disagree somewhat!) or whatever then go ahead, that would be interesting and imo very relevant to a Correia read-through

Thats what I am doing

# ¿ Apr 13, 2018 16:29

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Clipperton posted:

You need to demonstrate that enjoying a scene of guys mowing down chupacabras with CAWSes will inevitably turn you into a Proud Boy.

That is a rather profound misunderstanding of the argument

# ¿ Apr 13, 2018 16:40

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

ShinsoBEAM! posted:

Because it's not. If Correia's multiple rants on why message fiction sucks and is bad during the sad puppies debacle, and talking about how his own books didn't have messaging in them (until Black Sword), then I'm not sure what more you need.

All fiction is message fiction. If you believe you are not writing message fiction, you write in a state of near total ignorance.

# ¿ Apr 13, 2018 16:46

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

chitoryu12 posted:

Correia is actually a Saiga fanboy.

See, I told you he is scum. Everyone knows you root for Neintando

# ¿ Apr 13, 2018 16:50

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Clipperton posted:

In what way is the novel Monster Hunter International by noted not-working-out enthusiast Larry Correia "dangerous"

each page is covered in a deadly poison!!!!

Seriously though, it seeks to normalize extremist viewpoints about violence and ethics by masquerading a deeply toxic world view in a facade of "dumb" fun. He's not the only one to do, its quite ubiquitous, but that doesn't mean I am not gonna call it out in the thread for calling it out. Media influences our view of the world and our understanding of the ranges of acceptable reality. This book, and series, acts as an attempt to shift that perspective towards fascism.

# ¿ Apr 13, 2018 17:17

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

chernobyl kinsman posted:

even, it should be noted, if that wasn't Correia's intent. it doesn't matter whether he meant for the book to normalize fascism; what matters is that it normalizes fascism

exactly.

Correia's pretense of his writing being apolitical simply highlights that Correia is a deeply uncritical person

# ¿ Apr 13, 2018 17:21

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

pospysyl posted:

I'm just saying, I don't think it makes sense to read the work of the leader of a political movement (as irrelevant as that movement might be) apolitically.

I absolutely agree

# ¿ Apr 13, 2018 17:35

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

What I am suggesting is that there is no way to enjoy the action scenes without implicitly buying into the morality of the text. You cannot separate the action from the ethos that justifies it.

# ¿ Apr 13, 2018 18:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 09:43

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

chitoryu12 posted:

Is it immoral just to consume media that potentially showcases immoral views, or is it also immoral to consume media produced by immoral people regardless of the content?

And if the latter, what level of immorality is permissible in the author?

Neither is my point.

It is not the morality of consuming the piece as much as the issue of believing one can enjoy an unethical piece of art while not conceding to the premise that makes it unethical.

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?

Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Apr 13, 2018

# ¿ Apr 13, 2018 19:43

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > The Book Barn > Texas Concealed Carry Law And You - Let's Read Monster Hunter International

«‹›3 »