Review of Ghost (Paladin of Shadows 1) by John Ringo

28 Comments

Recently author John Ringo was bullied out of a special guest spot at ConCarolinas 2018, apparently on the basis of his Ghost series. This is a troubling development, as many of his attackers cited the sexual fantasies in his work as a reason they didn’t feel “safe” with him at the con. This year an explicit sexual fantasy is a legitimate finalist on the Nebula ballot, and 50 Shades of Grey is on the average gal’s reading list, so complaints about sexual fantasies are a little hard to fathom. However, this turns out to be a more complex issue than I first thought. It sort of deserves a conversation.

There are three novellas in the book Ghost, all with the theme of white slavery. The first one looks like satire, the second is pretty straight-forward S&M erotica and the last looks to be another possible satire on prostitutes and human trafficking. I can see why this has tightened a lot of people up. It’s definitely transgressive fiction. It’s disturbing, and the social commentary is wrapped up with erotica so it’s hard to separate the two. Regardless, I think they need to be separated. Just because someone writes about “rape fantasies” doesn’t mean they’re dangerous. If they are, then we need to be questioning whether E. L. James should appear at cons, too.

Novella 1: Winter Born
Retired Navy SEAL Mike Harmon is going to college on the GI Bill. As he’s headed home from class, he sees a girl get kidnapped. Without thinking, he grabs onto the van and hitches a ride. He rescues two girls and finds enough information to catch a plane leaving the airport with a “shipment” of more girls. He stows away and ends up at a base in the Middle East where terrorists are planning to torture the girls to death and stream the video on the internet. Mike has managed to contact Special Ops, but it will be hours before a rescue mission can get there. The terrorists have already started their torture. Mike quotes “rough men stand ready” (incorrectly attributed) and goes to work. Can he get to the (naked) girls and organize them to hold off the terrorists until rescue arrives? Can he get a good lay out of it?

Novella 2: Thunder Island
Mike gets a monetary reward for his work on the rescue, and decides to contract out his services a la Travis McGee. He buys a nice boat to live on and takes up fishing. When spring break rolls around, he picks up two girls and takes them out on the boat. They later take him up on an offer to cruise to the Bahamas, and turn out to be interested in S&M sex. Because they’re going out of US waters, Mike has them call their parents for copies of their birth certificates and to get permission for the S&M part. They have a great time on the boat, but then Mike gets a call about a nuclear weapon in Bahamian waters. Can he deal with it?

Novella 3: On the Darkside
Mike is in Eastern Europe where he’s apparently on a tour of brothels. An older hooker offers to sell him a nuclear weapon. He expresses his interest, but finds the old warhead has already been sold. Mike reaches his contact in the US and sets out to find the weapon. Chartering a jet, he heads to Bosnia, where he hangs around the slave market (which the US government pretends not to see) until he finds the van the weapon was transported in. The weapon is gone, so Mike books a whore for that night and treats her poorly, but she’s okay with it after he gives her a big tip. Mike looks at opportunities and decides the weapon is most likely going to be deployed in Paris during the Pope’s scheduled visit. He decides to buy the girl and takes her with him to Paris. Can he stop the nuke from going off? Will the girl be able to find a sugar daddy?

First, I’m impressed with the quality of Ringo’s writing. The basic Ghost stories are entertaining and character-driven, and you can tell the author likes strong women characters. He’s created a very appealing main character. Plus, he’s created some pretty decent satire, even if he has made his points with a sledge hammer.

My main concern with these novellas is that Ringo has had his appealing main character think a lot of politically incorrect stuff and act illegally in at least three instances (aside from killing a bunch of terrorists), which isn’t something I think you want to put out there without discussing consequences. This is something that kids have trouble with already, and I can see this kind of issue could create the reaction Ringo got recently about guesting at ConCarolinas. The first illegal act was battery on an unconscious woman; the second was serving alcohol to minors, and the third was buying a slave. A couple of these were part of the set up for his social messages, but the alcohol is really questionable. Aside from that, these are highly sexualized stories.

The book was published in 2005, and I’m a little surprised that Baen let this go through, but you can never tell when a #MeToo movement is going to come along and create a backlash. Unfortunately, you can’t unpublish something so Ringo is stuck with it. I looked up an interview he did about the book, which called this a “controversial stance” and he said he thinks it represents the viewpoint of his core audience.

Hm. As a counter to political correctness, I can buy that, but is he encouraging his fans to do illegal stuff? Is he complaining about the basis for the laws? Will fans read this and think it’s a fun fantasy, or will some of them take it as a serious primer on how to behave towards other people? Most readers are going to miss the satire. Will what he’s written encourage sexual violence? Mass murder?

Comments about it?

Advertisements

Virtue Signaling: Weaponizing the System

14 Comments

Recently I’ve been blogging about virtue signaling, which is publicly stating your opinions on moral issues in order to show your support. Social pressure to conform leads to “MeToo” reactions, and something worse called “groupthink.” In groupthink, no one really thinks critically about issues, but instead responds to the social pressures with knee-jerk, mindless reactions.

This makes virtue signaling a powerful tool in the political arena. In fact, the dependability of the reaction it provokes makes it easily weaponized. All you have to do right now to take someone down is to call them a racist or a sexual harasser. This trend has gotten so obvious in broader US politics that I can almost see powerful and manipulative Puppetmasters pulling the strings—a war back and forth—with attacks taking down Hollywood political donors, artists, senators, members of the press, anybody who influential and on the wrong side of issues. I’m sure these Puppetmasters are laughing all the while, as mindless groupthink lemmings attack one another, doing their work for them. Anybody who questions the process gets a dose of the same.

Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly were early casualties, and conspiracy theorists immediately speculated that Weinstein was payback. It’s pretty easy to dig up questionable actions over a man’s lifetime, but women are harder. Taylor Swift was attacked as a racist by someone claiming her songs contain white supremacist lyrics. Meryl Streep is currently under attack by anonymous posters that have appeared in Los Angeles, accusing her of knowing and keeping quiet about Weinstein—complicity, in other words. Morning-after remorse has produced calls for Al Franken to unresign, and led Tavis Smiley and Joe Scarborough to wonder publicly what’s behind the attacks. Meanwhile, the Trump administration deftly avoided accusations by taking down attorney Lisa Bloom.

Bringing the focus back to the SFF community, I think these same hazards have been working in the heavy polarization of relations. Don’t get me wrong. It’s definitely important to call out people who are actually sexually abusive and racist, but because of the weaponizing, it’s gotten to be important to look critically at the accuracy of the claims and question what might be behind them.

The most obvious example is Vox Day, of course. Articles and comments consistently claim he’s anti-diversity, while a look at his publications and award nominations show clearly that he likes Chinese SF and promotes minorities. Another recent attack, of course, has been on Rocket Stack Rank as racist and sexist because of their dislike of non-standard pronouns. Wasn’t it at one time questionable to attack reviewers? Another example is last year’s attack on horror writer David Riley for holding conservative political views. Still another is the attack on editor Sunil Patel (see also here) for apparently being a jerk, while accusers couldn’t come up with anything more than vague claims about sexual harassment.

There may be questionable issues at work in all these cases, of course. Anyone has the right to feel affronted and to complain, but shouldn’t we be looking at things a little more rationally?

%d bloggers like this: