Let’s Read Hostile Intent ch. 12-13

51iJgh-G2rL

Chapter 12 finally gets the plot moving along, as Devlin’s spy phone rings. There’s yet more long-winded explanations of all the awesome security measures Devlin is enveloped in, which I’ll skip except to point out these two absurdities:

Fingerprints scanned, the line was uplinked via satphone to one of the NSA’s birds, scrambled with level three remodulation logarithms.

I am fairly certain Walsh meant to say “algorithms” here.

A stealth-encryption field descended, so that even the most adept or malicious hacker would be left trying to apprehend emptiness.

My brother works in IT security and forensics. I asked him what a stealth-encryption field is and he just stared at me blankly.

Devlin talks to President Tyler and acts like a condescending dick for a while, before asserting that something else is going on with the terrorist situation and they should hold off on deploying him. As proof he points out Charles and his way-above-a-teacher’s-pay-grade suit in the video the terrorists released, guessing that he’s actually the ringleader behind the whole thing. Devlin’s advice is actually unnecessary, as it turns out that Devlin has no obligation to take on assignments if he doesn’t want to, which makes him more of an extremely high-powered mercenary than a secret agent. Which is fine, but the reason given for this kind of blew my mind:

A Branch 4 op had every right to refuse a presidential request. With their lives on the line every time, they were the arbiters of their own fate.

Soldiers and actual spies (not to mention police, firefighters and lots of other professions) also put their lives on the line every time, but they don’t have the luxury of refusing a job just because it might be dangerous.

“Also, this really is it for me. If we go red zone and score, I’m out. Last job. I disappear, you never hear from me again, and you damn sure never contact me. Yes or no, General?”

We don’t get a reason just yet for Devlin’s decision to retire after this job, but General Seelye pretends to agree with this stipulation while Walsh’s roving selectively-omniscient narration informs us that he’s lying.

The president look confused. Was this “Devlin” on the job or not? He wished that America were a kinder, gentler nation, one that didn’t need hard, rough men like Devlin to keep the women and children safe from people with legitimate grievances and misunderstood motives. He swallowed his pride. “Are you in or are you out, Devlin?”

Needless to say, over the course of the book President Tyler will learn that none of America’s enemies have legitimate grievances or misunderstood motives, and hard, rough men like Devlin are exactly what the country needs.

Devlin tells his supposed superiors to run a suite of implausible sounding analysis techniques on the video of Charles, then hangs up. Afterward Seelye and Grizzard theorize (with not much in the way of justification) that the entire terrorist crisis is actually a plot to draw CSS and the Branch 4 operatives out of the shadows, and they plan on using Devlin to spring their own trap in response. Meanwhile, Tyler acts befuddled and confused about everything, as usual.

I should point out that we’re now one-fifth of the way through the book and thus far our protagonist has appeared twice and has been given almost no personality, while the supporting cast consist of thin caricatures and morality play chess pieces. This will not improve going forward.

For the next chapter it’s finally back over to Hope and the situation at the school- in case it wasn’t already obvious, this book tends to spread its focus around thinly.

Now, given what we know of Walsh’s ideas on gender you might expect Hope to break down and cry helplessly (which, to be fair, would be entirely understandable given the situation) and wait for a man to come and sort out the problem, but as we saw with Devlin’s mother, Walsh is willing to grant women the chance to have a backbone in one situation and one situation only: protecting their children.

To go off on a tangent for a moment, writers (and culture in general) often glorify the “mama bear” phenomenon, in which mothers both human and non-human supposedly hulk the fuck out when their offspring are threatened and perform herculean feats of courage or strength. This is a real thing- the fastest way to get many animal species super pissed is to get between a mother and young, and countless parents have either endangered or willingly sacrificed themselves to save their children- but the explicitly gendered nature of the idea always bothered me. This trope has a masculine counterpart (see, for example, the Taken franchise) that usually consists of a father using some sort of pre-existing skill or talent to save the day, whereas the female version always involves the mother discovering some unknown, possibly quasi-supernatural strength from nowhere in response to their children being in danger. Basically, men get to be badasses who sometimes use their badassitude to rescue their kids, while women have built-in feminine super-powers that activate solely in that one situation.

For example:

But Hope was learning something about herself she never would have suspected:

She wasn’t breaking down. She was getting stronger by the minute.

But anyway, we can’t dwell on gender issues too long when Walsh has lots of other topics to address, like this jaw-droppingly inaccurate assessment of American societal values:

She’d been a good American, taught from birth never to resist a mugger, never to defend herself, never to fight back—possessions were just things, after all, and while things were replaceable, your life was not—never to assert herself. She’d been taught from birth never to complain, never to raise a ruckus, to accept everything that fate threw her way without complaint. The government will handle it. The police will take care of it.

One of the questions I keep asking myself while reading this book is whether it’s meant to be a castigation of American as it is now, or if it’s intended more as a dystopian reflection of where Walsh believes the country is headed. Sections like the one I quoted above make me assume the novel must be taking place in some kind of alternate reality, positing as it does an America where self-defense and gun laws aren’t blazing hot-button issues, and where the right to defend ones property isn’t sanctified to a higher degree than most basic human rights.

Her children weren’t things. […] They were hers.

I really wonder if this was intended to be deliberately contradictory or not. In the hands of most authors I’d say definitely, but with Walsh, who knows?

Now something began to well up inside her—not fear, not horror, not trauma, but an emotion even stronger: hatred.

[…]

didn’t know she possessed. She didn’t want to be defenseless any more; she didn’t want to be weak and passive in the name of “understanding” or “tolerance.”

Most of the time in this book when Walsh wants to make a point he isn’t in the least bit subtle about it, but at other times he seems to either accidentally insert bits of his own politics into the narration or does it deliberately in a vague way, as we see here. If you’re not keyed into American right-wing politics it might be hard to understand what this situation has to do with tolerance, but if you’re sufficiently up to speed it becomes abundantly clear what Walsh is actually trying to get across here, without saying it directly.

“Yes, Janey,” she said. “There is something we can give them. We can give them hell.”

__murica__by_mkgraphics-d5ifhdj

Of course, Walsh is trying to portray this as a glorious outpouring of long-stifled patriotism, but the truth is Americans are more or less encouraged to react to situations like this with jingoistic bloodlust.

Some disembodied voice on NPR was trying to put what was happening in Edwardsville in “context,” blathering on about Israel and the Middle East and the Iraq War and the CIA’s overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in the 1950s and—

Suddenly she found herself screaming at the radio, pounding the steering wheel and shouting, “Shut up! We are not the bad guys! Shut the fuck up!”

I can’t help but read this as defensiveness on Hope’s part, but I suspect it’s supposed to be more FUCK YEAH MURICA

A cop notices Hope screaming at liberalism in her car, but it’s okay because the cop tried to molest her when they were in high school and treats her well to make up for it (no, really) and she pretends to sheepishly leave the area while actually formulating a plan to go into the school and do….. something. Tune in next time to find out.

<———— Previous post

Next Post ————> 

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Let’s Read Hostile Intent ch. 12-13

  1. Chackludwig

    Oh yeah, fuck context, fuck greater causations, a good Republican drone doesn’t need any of that. Murrica stronk. Shoot badguy foreigner. Capitalism! Guns! Freemdumz!

    Is Walsh secretly Senator Armstrong from MGR

    Reply
  2. Pingback: Let’s Read Hostile Intent ch. 14-15 | Doing In The Wizard

  3. maverynthia

    Isn’t the line about women being trained to be helpless and passive basically true. Looking at how girls are brainwashed to be like Barbie and “always smile” and “never complain”, be ladylike, don’t raise your voice, always raise your hand to ask a question, and how women are to princesses to be rescued, and you should be into fashion so you can be looked at rather than LEGOs where you can create. And in romance novels and scenarios where women are to receive the love and not actively go out and be sexual. I hate to give him credit, but… yeah, that part is basically true.

    Reply
    1. braak

      Well, I think part of the problem is the pretty wild conflation of female helplessness with liberalism in general — i.e., this sort of implicit escalation of “be a damsel in distress –> don’t resist a mugger, it’s just property –> let the government sort it out –> let the government decide everything for you –> FULL COMMUNISM.”

      Like, letting a person who wants to rob you take you stuff is basically just good advice. It is dumb to risk your life for stuff — just, like, from a tactical standpoint, that is not an appropriate risk for the amount of potential reward.

      But also, also, it’s patriarchy that trains women to be that way — patriarchy that is also perfectly represented by this book and its attitude towards gender essentialism and complementarianism.

      So, I mean. Nonsense all around.

      Reply
    2. ronanwills Post author

      That’s true, but I get the feeling from the wording that Hope’s assessment was supposed to represent all Americans in Walsh’s wussified liberal dystopia.

      Of course, the book *also* has plenty of overt sexism as well.

      Reply
  4. illuminatedwax

    I’m really enjoying this Let’s Read, but I’m not sure what exactly is wrong with the selectively omniscient narration. I’m sure Walsh isn’t good at it, but roving omniscience is pretty common, even in the classics of literature. Or is your issue more that it’s being used as a cudgel to shoehorn in all the information we need to know?

    Reply
    1. ronanwills Post author

      It’s more a case of just how clunkily it’s used- the viewpoint literally shifts from paragraph to paragraph, with absolutely no indication that it’s doing so, which is extremely jarring.

      Reply
  5. andrea harris

    *blinks* *blinks*

    “RAWRR!! AMERICA!!!11!!”

    The line about being Hope trained to be a nice, uncomplaining, passive-accepter-of-whatever-life-dishes-out is hilarious. I mean, I’m sure loads of white, Christian males in this country would love to have women like that (they certainly say so at the drop of a hat), until, of course, they need the women to “fight”, if only for children or to “preserve the home.” This, by the way, is never to be directed against the men of the woman’s own family. If hubby or dad, for example, comes to take the children somewhere, it’s his decision that must prevail. (Unless he others himself by being a liberal or something.)

    Basically, everything hangs on politics, even the “Mama Bear” phenomenon. For example, Muslim women fight for their kids too, but they’re rarely granted the status of mama bears in the eyes of Walsh and Co. without jumping through some extra hoops (like, they can fight the Taliban, but not US soldiers). Not belonging to the correct political party (which attitude in other countries is called totalitarianism but here in ‘Murca is just plain good sense thinkin’!) means you aren’t quite reliable, you get demerits. And for a woman especially it’s always conditional: our pretty little brainettes and their cute attempts at “thoughts” aren’t really to be taken seriously, of course, but if we cross our men we’re regarded as doubly dangerous.

    And now we get to Devlin… and his “I don’t have to do anything I don’t wanna” act. It’s actually not as contradictory as it seems. Rightwingers these days talk up “duty” a lot, but when it comes down to it they’re really interested in throwing their weight around and not having to come in from playing if they don’t feel like it. They’re the ones who complain about the “nanny state” and how government isn’t your mom. They’re like the middle-aged men of a few decades ago who up and left their wives and started buying sports cars and acting like they were nineteen again, only they’re worse because they’re in politics now.

    Reply
    1. Signatus

      “For example, Muslim women fight for their kids too, but they’re rarely granted the status of mama bears in the eyes of Walsh and Co. without jumping through some extra hoops (like, they can fight the Taliban, but not US soldiers).”

      That’s actually pretty common, from Goodkind’s laughable bad guys to even examples in better books or movies. You can’t give your enemies human like characteristic or your readers will start questioning your main character’s baddassery and morality. By painting them like stormtroopers, you’re basically transforming them into something completely different to humans, which are the good guys. These terrorists are not humans, they are islamics, they have a tag to differenciate them from humans and thus there is no moral remorse in eliminating something that is not human. There is no ethic consequence, because readers will never consider this creatures to have families.

      Bad guys kill people. You can’t have good guys killing people. It would make no sense. Therefore, they don’t kill people, they kill (insert tag).

      In my opinion, that’s bad, lazy writting.

      Reply
  6. Signatus

    So what about the “show, don’t tell” principle? I don’t want her emotions described to me. I want her to show her emotions. The moment where she screams is the only where I can actually feel her frustration. The rest is bullshit trying to tell me; “this is what she’s feeling, look at it. Look all the hathred, and anger and stregth and stuff she’s feeling. LOOK!”

    Anyways, it is an interesting part because we don’t consider ourselves the bad guys (I’m not american but you know what I mean) and our “bad guys” don’t consider themselves bad guys. I lived in a country threatenned with terrorism. The assassinated are counted by the thousand, but while society considered them terrorists, people who sympathized with them called them “gudaris” which means warrior in their language. They felt they were doing this massacre for a greater good.
    I hope it is clear I’m NOT justifying terrorism in any form. I’m just saying we never consider ourselves the “bad guys” no matter what we do.

    Anyways, the whole “mother bear” conccept, I can understand. Like you said, get between mommy elephant and baby elephant and prepare to be trampled. Maternal aggression is very common in species who take care of their offspring, and it makes perfect sense from a biological point of view. Yet, the fact women are passive unless their young are in danger is another example of the phalocentric mysoginistic society in which we live in. The worst part of all is, apparently, a woman becomes a cool character when she does “manly things” whether a man doing “women stuff” deserves to be shunned.

    Reply
  7. Pingback: Let’s Read Hostile Intent ch. 10-11 | Doing In The Wizard

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s