TF: Feast and Famine

Tribulation Force, pp. 94-104

Nicolae Carpathia, it turns out, is too busy to meet Buck for lunch at the Manhattan Yacht Club, so he's arranged to have Buck greeted there by their mutual friend, Chaim Rosenzweig.

It's not meant to, but this strikes me as suggesting that Nicolae is both responsible and considerate. Say what you will about the Antichrist's evil agenda, but you can't deny that he's putting in the time and working hard at it. Being so busy, he isn't able to turn his attention to his visiting friend, so he arranges to have Buck met by a Nobel laureate in his place. That's kind of classy.

Buck made his way through the crowd of tables to the booth by the window, where he was exuberantly greeted by his old friend Chaim Rosenzweig. The man knew enough to whisper in public, but his enthusiasm was boundless.

"Cameron!" the Israeli exulted in his thick accent. "How good to see you! Sit down, sit down! This is a lovely place, no? Only the best for friends of the secretary-general."

"Will he be joining us, sir?"

Rosenzweig looked surprised. "No, no! Much too busy. Hardly ever able to get away. Entertaining heads of state, ambassadors, everyone wants a piece of him. I hardly see him more than five minutes a day myself!"

This chapter is sprinkled with little asides like that "knew enough to whisper in public, but …" to contrast Buck's sophistication with his friend's loud lack thereof. Broad ethnic stereotypes, apparently, make embarrassing dining companions, confusing the salad and dessert forks and committing a host of other embarrassing faux pas. But we should note that Chaim is the one who shows the good manners here of greeting his friend properly. Buck is the one who doesn't "know enough" to say hello, instead greeting Chaim with a chilly, dismissive, "Is it just you?"

Several pages are exhausted with yet another rehash of how Buck and Chaim first met and of the last time they saw one another — which Buck remembers but Chaim doesn't because he was brainwashed to forget Buck's presence at that meeting. I get that Book 2 in a series requires the occasional review of events from the previous book, but it seems like two-thirds of Tribulation Force's 450 pages are devoted to such summaries while the remaining 150 pages of actual story line will itself be repeated and reviewed in Book 3.

So here we get the Rosenzweig variation of a conversation Buck has already had with Stanton Bailey and Steve Plank, with the brainwashing victim baffled by Buck's supposed absence from the meeting at the U.N.

"Where were you?" Dr. Rosenzweig asked.

"That's the question of the ages," Buck said. "Where are any of us?"

Rosenzweig's eyes twinkled, though Buck felt like a fool. He was talking gibberish, but he didn't know what else to say.

He really ought to have a cover story by now, a prepared answer for this question. Particularly since, after lunch, he's planning to see Hattie and Nicolae, both of whom, like Bailey, Steve and Chaim, are bound to ask, "Where were you?" Trying to evade the question might cut it with the others, but it seems urgently important that he be ready with an answer for Nicolae that won't lead the Antichrist to conclude that he Knows Too Much.

Having a cover story for the others is relatively easy. All they know, in their brainwashed state, is that Buck wasn't at the meeting, so any plausible-sounding excuse might work with them. But Nicolae will be asking this question fully knowing what really happened — knowing that Buck was there and knowing what, if anything, Buck is supposed to believe instead.

Buck's answer to Nicolae will thus involve a bit of gambling and guesswork. Buck knows what false memories Nicolae brainwashed into the others' minds, but he has no way of know what false memories he himself was supposed to have been brainwashed into believing happened. Nicolae may have tried to brainwash Buck into believing something specific — some particular explanation that would account for his supposed absence.

With the others, Buck could invent some story, telling Stanton, Steve and Chaim that, for example, he'd been mugged on his way to the meeting, held up at gunpoint and forced to miss being there. But that excuse wouldn't work with Nicolae himself. Nicolae knows where Buck really was, so he would know that the story was an invention — a conscious lie. There's a one-in-a-million chance, I suppose, that Buck might guess the exact alternative scenario Nicolae had tried to brainwash him into believing, but trying to make that guess wouldn't seem wise. Guess wrong and Nicolae would know that his attempts to brainwash Buck had failed — that Buck is probably a Real, True Christian, and therefore his enemy. And that this brainwash-proof enemy likely remembers seeing Nicolae fire the bullet that killed Stonagal and Todd-Cothran.

Buck's best chance, then, would be to apologize profusely while remaining as vague and confused-seeming as possible about where he thinks he really was. "I'm so sorry I wasn't there," he should say. "It was unforgivable, inexcusable. I … I really don't know how I could have … I must have fallen asleep, or … I mean I don't know what I … I looked up at the clock in my office and suddenly realized that I'd missed. Inexcusable. I can't … Bailey was furious, you know. Exiled me out to Chicago. I can't blame him. I'd have done the same thing if someone I was counting on … I just don't … In any case, I'm so sorry. I really meant to be there, I wanted … Please forgive me."

That sort of thing. And since that's going to have to be his official story with Nicolae, he needs to be saying the same thing here to Chaim.

Instead, though, Buck acts like it's a game — like he's just playing coy by refusing to tell Chaim where he was instead of attending that meeting. As though pretending he has some great secret would reduce others' suspicion of him. The authors suggest that this works with Rosenzweig, but I can't imagine it working with Nicolae.

Rosenzweig was a bright, quick man with a love for intrigue. "So, you don't want to tell me. All right. Not being there was your loss. Of course, you were spared the horror it turned into, but what a historic meeting nonetheless. Get the salmon. You'll love it."

Buck had always, always made it a habit to ignore recommendations in restaurants. It probably was one of the reasons for his nickname. He realized how rattled he was when he ordered what Rosenzweig suggested. And he loved it.

The italics on that second "always" are in the original. I'm trying to imagine taking a friend or coworker to a restaurant and having them respond like that to a recommendation.

"So this is Dmitri's, you have to try the snap peas."

"No way. I always, always ignore recommendations in restaurants."

I can think of some nicknames that might result from that, but none of them are as polite as "Buck." This is another example of what we discussed last week of the way Jenkins makes a point of telling us something about his characters that he thinks is really cool, but which makes us find that character even weirder and less likable. Buck's affectation about ignoring his friends' suggestions just makes me think of Pee-Wee's Big Adventure — "I'm a loner, Dottie. A rebel."

Anyway, what's most interesting in this whole luncheon conversation is something that Buck and Chaim never discuss — something that never even occurs to Buck.

To fully appreciate the perversity of this conversation, just consider where Buck was at this same time the previous day.

Twenty-four hours ago, he was sitting in church, listening to a sermon on the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. That sermon was unlike anything any of us have ever heard on the topic because like the preacher, Bruce Barnes, Buck believes that the Four Horsemen are the first four seals of judgment that the book of Revelation prophesies will unfold during the Great Tribulation. And Buck believes that he is living in the Great Tribulation. So what Buck heard Bruce describing in that sermon had for him the immediacy of the five-day forecast on the Weather Channel. He was hearing what was about to happen.

Here is one passage from Revelation that was discussed in that sermon, John's description of the third horseman, traditionally referred to as Famine:

When the Lamb opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature say, "Come!" I looked, and there before me was a black horse! Its rider was holding a pair of scales in his hand. Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, "A quart of wheat for a day's wages, and three quarts of barley for a day's wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!"

Buck believes — he knows — that Famine is coming. Soon. Bruce guessed they might have a short window, perhaps 18 months of relative calm in which to prepare, but in at most a year and a half, Famine would ride forth over the entire world and a piece of bread will buy a bag of gold.

That was yesterday. Today, Buck is sitting in a swanky restaurant enjoying a nice piece of fish with his friend Chaim. That would be Dr. Chaim Rosenzweig, winner of a Nobel Prize for inventing an almost magical formula that turns arid deserts into the most abundantly fertile soil the planet has ever seen.

Famine, meet Dr. Cornucopia. More than any other human being who ever lived, Rosenzweig has the capacity to stop Famine. His formula is capable of slaying the rider on the black horse, or at least of sparing the lives of the millions who will die 18 months from now.

This would seem to be an example of the classic dilemma of an unstoppable force confronting an immovable object. Inevitable famine confronts unlimited fertility. Something's gotta give.

Yet it never occurs to Buck, or to the authors, to make anything of this astonishing juxtaposition of feast and Famine.

At an absolute minimum, we'd expect Buck to be concerned about stockpiling food against the coming of the rider on the black horse. Tim LaHaye's premillennial dispensationalist theories rely heavily on the book of Daniel — a book that borrows and repeats motifs from the story of Joseph. So the authors ought to be familiar with the idea of planning ahead for the seven lean years. Like Joseph, Buck knows that the seven lean years are coming. He doesn't have the luxury of seven "fat" years to prepare, but with Rosenzweig's miracle formula, 18 months should be time enough.

But Buck doesn't think to enlist Rosenzweig's help with stockpiling food for the coming of Famine. He doesn't think about stockpiling food at all.

Throughout their conversation in this chapter, Buck and Chaim return to the subject of Rosenzweig's formula, but Buck never once connects this topic with the Famine he knows is soon to arrive.

They discuss Rosenzweig's arrangement with former U.N. Secretary-General Mwangati Ngumo, in which the Botswanan Motswana president (in the LB universe, heads of state, rather than diplomats, serve in the United Nations, retaining both posts at once) would be permitted to license the formula for his country in exchange for being replaced by Nicolae as secretary-general. Chaim is excited by the prospects of his formula helping to feed the hungry in Africa:

"It's too early to tell, of course, but if the formula works as well as it has in Israel, Botswana will immediately become one of the most fertile countries in all of Africa, if not the world."

Buck, however, is horrified by the prospect of feeding a hungry world. Feed the people of Botswana and the people of Africa and it won't stop there — soon even the Russians will have access to food.

"Oh, Chaim! For what? Billions of dollars that Israel no longer needs? It makes no sense! Having the formula made you the richest nation on earth for its size and solved myriad problems, but it was the exclusivity that made it work! Why do you think the Russians attacked you? They don't need your land! There's no oil to be found! They wanted the formula! Imagine if all the vast reaches of that nation were fertile!"

This is at first baffling. Then, after you think about it for a moment, outrageous. Buck, the author's ideal of an RTC, stridently argues against sharing food with the hungry. Feeding the hungry in Africa or Russia is, to Buck, the nightmare scenario, an evil plot of the Antichrist.

The backwards and upside-down morality Buck displays here overshadows some of the other howling atrocities of that paragraph. Buck's confusion of price and value, for example — his assumption that scarcity is the only measure of worth and that abundant food is worthless, because while it may feed the hungry, it can't be sold to enrich the sellers. Or the fact that a plot point in this book hinges on the problem of food scarcity in Botswana, even though the rapturing of that country's children and RTCs would leave it with less than half of its pre-Event population. Or that Russia was trying to use nuclear missiles to steal a secret formula.

But ultimately, in the Left Behind series, none of this matters. According to the official LeftBehind.com timeline — a graphic showing the End Times check list as it relates to the books in the series — Tribulation Force is supposed to recount the arrival of the second and third horsemen, the second and third seals of judgment, War and Famine.

As it turns out, there's plenty of War, but not much in the way of Famine. The rider on the black horse is pretty much a no-show.

It's fun to speculate on how the conflict of Feast and Famine might have played out here. Rosenzweig's formula might have fended off the third horseman, creating a prophetic paradox that alters the events of the check list. Or his formula might have been used for a Tribulation Victory Garden in the backyard of New Hope Village Church. Or maybe this formula — which has only been in use for a few years, keep in mind — spreads throughout the world and then backfires, poisoning the soil and causing the judgement of the third seal to come to pass. Or maybe …

The possibilities seem endless, but in this book the possibilities never get started. If you're looking for that third horseman of the Apocalypse, you won't find him here.

That's a good thing for Buck, since he and his Tribulation Force friends never do get around to stockpiling food.

  • Jeff

    [[Occasionally if what the verb should be would be ambiguous then you say "shi", which means "Is" or "It is".]]
    You mean like “This!” [BEG]
    =====================
    [[There was a band, Mithotyn, whose themes are listed as "Vikings, Norse Mythology, Battles, Legends."]]
    Oh, so very long ago, there was a great video of Led Zeppelin’s “Immigrant Song” done with kittens. Does that count?

  • Art

    @Art: The “mom rule” isn’t about familiarity, it’s about respect. That’s why the issue isn’t simply “would you say this to your mom?” but also “would you say this in front of your mom?” and “would it be OK with you if someone else said it to her?”
    If my mom wrote the fic described on Topless Robot, and Topless Robot, who were all strangers to me, savaged it the way they did the fic, I would probably laugh, albeit guiltily.
    That’s part of being fair and evenhanded, after all — I don’t actually expect strangers to treat my mom the way I treat my mom, because she’s not *their* mom, and if my mom does something hilariously worthy of criticism then it’s only fair to expect strangers to hilariously criticize it.
    (I am leaving aside the tangential issues of how it would affect me to know my mom fantasized about raping a childlike character under her care.)
    I’m actually reminded of a story about a friend who had a beloved math teacher as a kid, and who only knew very vague stories about how the math teacher had once had a failed acting career long in the past, and then as an adult went Googling his math teacher’s name and to his surprise found an IMDB page describing a terrible B-movie the teacher starred in. My friend described one particular scathing IMDB review in detail, which went on at length about how horrible an actor the teacher was, how horrendously miscast he was, how ludicrously hard-up for acting talent the producers must’ve been, etc.
    My friend laughed uproariously at all of this, despite — or, really, because — of how much he loved his teacher as a teacher, thanks to the bizarre juxtaposition of his mental image of his teacher with this random film reviewer who, sitting from a long distance, saw this person from a completely different (but, in the reviewer’s own world, justified) light.
    I wouldn’t think highly of someone who saw something like this and actually got really upset or offended because a film reviewer thinks of an actor as an actor — even a horrible actor who’s worth insulting at length because of how unpleasant it was to sit through watching him — and not as my mother or my spouse or my best friend in the whole world. People see the people I love differently than the way I see them. It’s part of the diversity of the world. It’s not something worth complaining about.

  • lonespark

    The recent direction of this discussion reminds me of a friend who was unhappy to be often finding photos of his parents in his favorite UseNet porn groups.

  • Amaryllis

    Argh. Typepad is eating comments again.
    I stopped in briefly, earlier, to answer Laima’s question, and my post is nowhere to be seen. And now I’m even farther behind.
    Oh well.
    @Even more briefly, @Laima: I’ve met, casually, some of the folk/trad/acoustic/eclectic performers in the Baltimore-DC area. We were invited recently to a party at Jennifer’s, and were quite boggled when Joe Hickerson picked up a guitar and started singing.
    /name-dropping (which may not actually impress anyone else, but I was thrilled. As my husband puts it, he Knows Stuff.)
    If you liked the Ocean CD, you’ll probably also like Lisa Moscatiello; she did some of the vocals for Ocean. She’s got a good ear for an interesting song, both traditional and contemporary, and a truly gorgeous voice.
    Also, Grace Griffith, another local fine voice.
    We’re friendly with the accordianist for a local on-again, off-again group called “Big Blow and the Bushwackers,” who are good fun in performance, eclectic acoustic featuring didgeridoo and various other interesting instruments.
    And for something completey different, and not local (to me, anyway) my husband used to have an internet friendship with the English group, The Whisky Priests, but they’re not everybody’s cup of tea. Or mug of Newcastle Brown Ale. Or, ocme to think of it, currently active.
    I included links to a couple of these the first time around, and maybe that’s what tripped up Typepad. So if you’re interested, you’ll have to Google for yourself, and blame it on Typepad.

  • Tricksterson, Commander of the Evil Clown Brigade, Keeper of the Death Sheep and Minion of MG

    I’ve only read the first of the Bahzeel books and didn’t find him that obnoxious, maybe because I’ve been less saturated with him than Honor, or maybe because fantasy kind of lends itself more naturally to Mary Suism so I forgive it easier, or maybe with him being the chosen champion (esentially a palidin) of a god a certain amount of Mary Suiosity comes with the job.

  • Jessica

    lonespark: The recent direction of this discussion reminds me of a friend who was unhappy to be often finding photos of his parents in his favorite UseNet porn groups.
    But it was still his favorite porn group?

  • lonespark

    Well, I don’t know. I think he kept switching groups and finding it everywhere.

  • Jeff

    [[The recent direction of this discussion reminds me of a friend who was unhappy to be often finding photos of his parents in his favorite UseNet porn groups.]]
    If I found pictures of my folks doing porn (UseNet is to spammy to find much of anything these days), I’d probably think “Go Mom!” (When she first hooked up to the Internet, I kidded her that her first site would be HunkyYongMen.com.)

  • Spearmint

    I’m not sure what you mean by “objectionable class origins”
    Apparently I meant I had no idea what I was talking about. I remembered her being a duchess or something, and I do think it’s kind of ridiculous to be writing books where all the heroes are nobility in the 1990s, but she was born bourgeois and got raised, didn’t she? Sorry for the libel, Admiral Harrington.
    Mallory could still kick her butt, though. XD
    Plus Downbelow Station is the only science fiction novel I’ve ever read where the interstellar war is resolved by people unionizing, so yeah, read it. It’s awesome. Kinda boring in parts because there are too many narrators who aren’t Mallory or the equally badass Elene Quen, but awesome.
    Filk was also my reason to start reading Cherryh, in my case the “Pride of Chanur” song. It proved a sound basis on which to make purchasing decisions.
    The recent direction of this discussion reminds me of a friend who was unhappy to be often finding photos of his parents in his favorite UseNet porn groups.
    LOL. That’s never a nice surprise.

  • Jessica

    Well, I don’t know. I think he kept switching groups and finding it everywhere.
    Sorry, I was mostly just being snarky. Years ago, my wife had a “Would you rather…?” book. One of the questions was “Would you rather watch a porn movie with your parents or starring your parents?” I always opted for watching with them. The squick factor of Mum and Dad together is just waaaayyyyy too high for me.

  • hapax

    equally badass Elene Quen
    Huh. And I always thought Elli Quinn’s name was based on a half-remembered Ellery Queen…
    (frantically checks dates: DBS 1982, TWA 1986. Huh.)

  • Laima

    thanks, Jason and Amaryllis for more music recommendations. Yay!

  • Spearmint

    Huh. And I always thought Elli Quinn’s name was based on a half-remembered Ellery Queen…
    Huh. That totally never occurred to me, but I wonder… it’s awfully close, isn’t it?
    Of course Elene is a pregnant harbormaster, not a mercenary. But she did defeat two armadas, win the Company Wars once and for all, save Pell Station and bring democracy to outer space, so Elli could do worse for a namesake.

  • Jend

    Wow, I made it to the end of the comments…
    Regarding Bahzell, the first two books were pretty good. I liked the second one better because that’s the first one I picked up. The third one is where it veers hard into Mary Sue territory and never looks back.

  • Caravelle

    Spearmint, I’m not sure what you mean by “objectionable class origins,” but it occurred to me that I really should read Downbelow Station, since Signy Mallory sounds cool, based on the filk, and it’s now on my PaperbackSwap request list. So thank you for the reminder! (Even though you’re clearly evil because you don’t passionately adore Honor. ;) )

    I loved Downbelow Station and don’t remember finding it boring, but this is certainly colored by the fact that I read Cyteen first. A Cherryh book where I understood what was going on was a revelation.

  • Cat Meadors

    Lori, Art, etc – it’s not really about your literal mom, “mom” is just a generally useful generic shorthand metaphor. Please disregard any specific thoughts about your specific mom. The idea is more like – is doing this displaying your best behavior? Would you do it to or in front of a person you want to make your best impression on? (You can also substitute “would you do that at a job interview?” or “on a first date?” but again: generic metaphors, not actually meant to be used literally to say, “well, I’m [self employed]/[already in a steady relationship] so I don’t care, so it’s ok to do [whatever] in this situation.”)
    And one of the main points is that it’s not at all about the recipient of your actions. I think Santorum deserves to become synonymous with “frothy mix,” while of course my actual real life mom never would because she is completely awesome, but that’s irrelevant. “Deserves” doesn’t come into it. Calling names isn’t nice, and therefore I shouldn’t do it. Of course I can vigorously oppose Santorum’s policies and actions; there’s nothing to say I should let him impose his hateful hateocracy on the world just because he thinks it’s a good idea, and in fact there are plenty of reasons why I should oppose him. But resorting to name-calling just diminishes me in my own person, so that’s not one of the ways I should go about it.
    Again; I’m flawed, I don’t always live up to this standard, etc., etc., but it’s good for me to keep it in mind. (Especially driving. How embarrassing would it be to flick off your mom in traffic?)
    As to why this site is different? I don’t think literary criticism is covered by this rule. I wouldn’t have any problems with LaHaye and Jenkins reading anything that Fred or I have written here, and if there have been other commenters who have gone over where I would draw the line, that’s their line to worry about. It is certainly ok to say, “I think you’re wrong, and here’s my supporting evidence.” Even if it gets a little snarky, I’ve never seen offensive. Heck, that’s why I stick around here; Fred is criticizing their books from a Christian viewpoint, with respect for the source materials that [he believes] they’re misrepresenting.
    (Which is not to say there’s never been anything offensive here. It’s not like I’ve read all the millions of words on this site; if I did see it regularly I’d probably reevaluate my position. Or not: see “flawed”, above. But I think I would.)

  • http://profile.typepad.com/seithman Jarred

    I am leaving aside the tangential issues of how it would affect me to know my mom fantasized about raping a childlike character under her care.
    You’re assuming that the adult is the author’s intended Mary Sue in that fantasy. Just something to consider.

  • Lori

    Lori, Art, etc – it’s not really about your literal mom, “mom” is just a generally useful generic shorthand metaphor. Please disregard any specific thoughts about your specific mom. The idea is more like – is doing this displaying your best behavior? Would you do it to or in front of a person you want to make your best impression on? (You can also substitute “would you do that at a job interview?” or “on a first date?” but again: generic metaphors, not actually meant to be used literally to say, “well, I’m [self employed]/[already in a steady relationship] so I don’t care, so it’s ok to do [whatever] in this situation.”)

    I understood this and was merely using “mom rule” as shorthand. I still think there can be quite a bit of variation in applying this rule, depending on how you’re raised, your culture, etc. The answer to “does this display your best behavior?” is going to depend on what you think constitutes best behavior.
    If that’s not true because best behavior is a fixed concept then the rule itself is useless. You have no need to ask yourself “does this display my best behavior? and then make a judgment about that. Instead you would simply ask “is what I’m about to do on the approved behavior list?”

  • Jason

    You’re assuming that the adult is the author’s intended Mary Sue in that fantasy. Just something to consider.
    confession time….. I find that particular fantasy so completely and utterly disturbing that viscerally my initial reaction is the kid deserves whatever scorn and ridicule he gets. My brain says that’s not the correct reaction or the way a good person would feel, but my gut feeling still goes with the other. I find that particular fantasy so revolting that I think it would color any interactions that I would have with a person whose mind created something like that. I think that’s probably more my character flaw than his.

  • Hawker Hurricane

    I’ve only read the first of the Bahzeel books and didn’t find him that obnoxious, maybe because I’ve been less saturated with him than Honor, or maybe because fantasy kind of lends itself more naturally to Mary Suism so I forgive it easier, or maybe with him being the chosen champion (esentially a palidin) of a god a certain amount of Mary Suiosity comes with the job.
    ————————————-
    Oh, I love the first two books, in spite (because of?) the ‘Mary Suiosity’. They are fun fun fun, with Bahzeel’s reaction to authority figures… the third book (Wind Rider’s Oath) went too far, although the secondary story about a different champion was well done. The short story in the third book, though… did we really need to send in the Marines?

  • Art

    As to why this site is different? I don’t think literary criticism is covered by this rule. I wouldn’t have any problems with LaHaye and Jenkins reading anything that Fred or I have written here, and if there have been other commenters who have gone over where I would draw the line, that’s their line to worry about.
    Really? You don’t think Fred has ever gone past simply critiquing the books to outright mocking L&J as people? You don’t think the passages about how if a woman tells you her husband loves these books you need to get her to a domestic violence shelter, or snarking about L&J’s obvious cultural shelteredness and talking about Jenkins’ “phone fetish” — you don’t think that crosses the line to, well, making fun of L&J as human beings rather than merely treating the text dryly as nothing more than a text?

  • http://profile.typepad.com/seithman Jarred

    confession time….. I find that particular fantasy so completely and utterly disturbing that viscerally my initial reaction is the kid deserves whatever scorn and ridicule he gets.
    That’s an understandable reaction, and I neither blame nor fault you for it.
    I just thought it was time to point out that everyone seems to be assuming that the author is picturing himself as the abuser/agressor in the story. That may not be the case.
    Of course, I grant you that you might find the idea of someone fantasizing about being the victim equally disturbing. But I might suggest it’s disturbing for rather different reasons.
    I think that’s probably more my character flaw than his.
    I think “character flaw” is overstating the matter, personally. Whether you’re talking about the author or yourself. But that’s just me.

  • Spearmint

    A Cherryh book where I understood what was going on was a revelation.
    It’s funny cuz it’s true.
    My favorite example of that is the central trilogy of the Chanur series, where she does these little “Last time on The Pride of Chanur” segments to summarize the previous book. It’s like watching a Go master- you saw all the pieces on the board in the last book, you just had no idea what they meant, and then she explains it and suddenly the whole strategy snaps into focus (and you feel like a moron for not figuring it out yourself, but that’s a side issue).

  • Jason

    @Jarred
    Of course, I grant you that you might find the idea of someone fantasizing about being the victim equally disturbing. But I might suggest it’s disturbing for rather different reasons.
    I don’t know which is more disturbing. That would require thinking about the story way more than I would like. I’ve already used several gallons of brain bleach and I haven’t even read the stupid thing.
    @Art-
    Really? You don’t think Fred has ever gone past simply critiquing the books to outright mocking L&J as people? You don’t think the passages about how if a woman tells you her husband loves these books you need to get her to a domestic violence shelter, or snarking about L&J’s obvious cultural shelteredness and talking about Jenkins’ “phone fetish” — you don’t think that crosses the line to, well, making fun of L&J as human beings rather than merely treating the text dryly as nothing more than a text?
    The thing is I think that mocking is sometimes justified…and when you crap out a whole bunch of hastily written novels that promote a twisted version of Christianity and are padded for maximum number of books in the series so that you can make more $$$$, you ought to be shamed, both for your twisted, warped, messed up theology and your blatant marketing and capitalizing on your religion. Mock away, Fred. Mock away.

  • Lori

    You don’t think the passages about how if a woman tells you her husband loves these books you need to get her to a domestic violence shelter,

    That’s one interpretation of Fred’s comments. An interpretation which many of us thought was inaccurate. Don’t put it out there as fact.

    or snarking about L&J’s obvious cultural shelteredness

    This is pretty much an observation of fact. There are things that L&J write which make it obvious that there are many, many things about the world and the non-RTC culture that they don’t understand. Considering that their books are supposedly set in that world that’s a valid criticism.
    One I might add that not everyone would take as an insult. We do, but plenty of people see L&J-style cultural ignorance as a testament to their skill at being “in the world but not of it”.

    and talking about Jenkins’ “phone fetish” — you don’t think that crosses the line to, well, making fun of L&J as human beings rather than merely treating the text dryly as nothing more than a text?

    Again, at least some of the comments about the phone thing are legitimate criticism. Phone conversations are over-used, especially in the first book. It’s nonsensical within the Left Behind world and it’s just poor writing. Some commenters may go over the line in making fun of it, but I don’t think Fred does.

  • http://ldwheeler.livejournal.com L. David Wheeler

    @Spearmint: Filk was also my reason to start reading Cherryh, in my case the “Pride of Chanur” song. It proved a sound basis on which to make purchasing decisions.
    Filk has been (or in some cases will be) my gateway to a number of books, films, TV series, etc. I didn’t see Firefly when it first aired — just never caught the Whedon Bug — but after hearing a ton of Firefly filk (Vixy & Tony, Tom Smith, The Great Luke Ski and Seanan McGuire have all written some, to name just a few) I had to check it out. A number of filkers have done Bujold-inspired work, enough to intrigue me to the point of bumping Bujold up on my TBR list to find out what they’re talkin’ about. And I probably wouldn’t have picked up Tanya Huff’s Blood books or Seanan McGuire’s excellent, recently released debut novel Rosemary and Rue without my acquaintance with them from the filk community. (Kind of like I discovered Kit and Benighted/Bareback though this very blog.

  • Flying sardines

    @ chris the cynic | Oct 03, 2009 at 01:50 PM
    “Act of Rebellion (or Why you shouldn’t shoot him)” Or the death of Carpathia gets Lcifer’s hug.
    LOVE IT!!! <3 Thanks – that's a classic. <3
    This doesn’t really belong here, depending on your perspective this is either too early (it takes place during Buck’s meeting with Nicolae after this interlude with Chaim) or too late (it is somewhat in response to the unanswered question in Mr. Exposition of what happens if you simply shoot him. I really hope that one day I can write something whose quality is such that I don’t have to apologize for it. This is not such a thing. Sorry for the low quality, I think it should be clear what I was going for in spite of it.
    Low quality? Not at all. Don’t be harsh on yourself that was F****N BRILLIANT! :-D
    More please! Please more!
    (& yeah I know this is probably too late in the thread to say but I had to say so anyhow.

  • Jusa Saari

    To be exact, Buck isn’t arguing against sharing food with the hungry, he’s arguing against enabling them to grow their own. “Give a man a fish, and you feed them for a day; teach him how to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.” It’s not that Buck doesn’t want to give anyone his fish, no; he simply wants them to not have fish, period.
    Nice people, eh?
    I remember reading (parts of; I couldn’t force myself to read all of it) Left Behind series years ago, and the farther it progresses, the more it starts to resemble a Chick tract: you just know that the author has to be trolling, intentionally parodying a fundmantalist strawmen, but you also know that they aren’t.
    ***SPOILER WARNING***
    The scene in the last book where Jesus basically goes Cthulhu, with everyone who hears his voice dying a messy death while everyone else gets crushed by hails, has to be some kind of record for heresy. When you remember that it was written by people who presumably worship him, you can’t quite decide whether to laugh or weep or both…

  • Ivan

    There is another thing about Buck’s horror of sharing the formula that I don’t quite get. His reasoning is “You’re so special now, other countries tried to obliterate you and slaugther everyone. Are you going to let all that go??”
    Of course, the attack was harmlessly deflected thanks to the big guy (And I’d think the jews would take this as good evidence that RTCs can screw themselves, their rabbi’s were obviously right. They were protected after all, not the American Christians.) But given that information, why would they hesitate to share? It’s just being nice. Even if they are not special anymore, who’s going to risk sending their armies against Isreal now? There’s still mysterious things going on, with those two prophets having a far-more-special protection against two guys, instead of a mere 3 armies. And they’re at peace with their neighbours anyway. And they have that seven-year peace promise going for them, which Buck would mention is predicted to be a lie if he were nice, which he isn’t….

  • Webstarr1

    “Ooh, you should try the fish.”

    “Nope.”

    “Why not?”

    “Fuck you.”

    (This, like that earlier conversation with Stanton, works better if you imagine Buck is wasted)

  • pending

    I’m embarrassingly late to the party (but enjoying every page, thanks!) but I think there’s even *another* opportunity missed here. I love Greek mythology, and Greek mythology raises fighting an inevitable prophecy to an art form: no matter how well-intentioned, how smart your ideas for overcoming your fate are, they’ll fail and bring you to the end even faster.

    How amazing would it be if Buck *did* somehow enlist Chaim’s help, or barring that (because… It’s Buck) Chaim had decided to share his formula with the world through the magic of the OWG? It’s his dream that through this united, peaceful world, the first gift humanity reaps is the end of all hunger. But then… THEN… It’s discovered (18 months after the fact, ‘natch) that something is horribly, horribly wrong with the formula. The miracle potion that’s been used on every farm in the world turns out to leach minerals from the soil/poison water/whatever and instantly the world goes from unbelievable abundance to inconceivable famine. Chaim isn’t the answer to the rider on the Black horse, he IS the rider.