An experiment. I'm going to write a Right Wing story.

[Pulp Hero]

(First off, this isn't exactly sci-fi, though I suspect it will veer into Tom Clancy styled nearfutureweaponwank enough to perhaps qualify.)

So I'm in a book store recently and I see The Patriots. The cover of the book really does say it all, but I read a few random passages to be sure just how insane, right wing-wanky, and poorly written it was. It was worse than I had guessed. I saw a few other pieces of fiction along the same vein.

I thought, "My god, I could crap out something better than this!" And thus the genesis of my project was born-

Can I write a piece of right wing survivalist, anti-government fiction and have it still be readable (and not vomit on myself)?

I've been brainstorming all week, and the plotlines and characters are surprisingly easy to come up with. Whenever I get stuck, I literally just watch a bit of Fox News until the issue resolves itself in a puddle of idiocy.

I'm holding off actually writing anything down until this weekend, as I want to see just how far I can get in 48 hours.

***

The plot is set in an alternate universe that diverges in 1980. Ronald Reagan never existed and Jimmy Carter served two terms. America slid further into depression and the government gradually overtook major businesses through the 1980s-1990s, while at the same time slashing away at our military.

The government created the Department Emergency of Shelter Services (DESS) which pretty much merged and took over the responsibilities of FEMA. The DESS houses a third to a quarter of the US population in government facilities and supervises putting people to work on government projects.


A police officer in Louisiana comes across a car crash, and when he approaches is shot at by the man trapped in the car. He shoots back and kills him. He discovers a secured briefcase on the man which JDLR ("Just Don't Look Right") and finds that it contains a number of documents sent by a US Senator to Mexico (Mexico has become a thriving socialist state, and has a large military with lots of soviet hardware) agreeing to cede a large chunk of the country to Mexico in return for being made a leader in those areas in the Mexican government. That police officer then has to dodge Mexican agents in the US and DESS/Military as he tries to expose the Senator.

***

Thoughts on my project, and anything you'd like to see, or think would be a good addition? (NOTE: I'm trying to play this straight, and not create a "Colbert" version of one of these books.)












(PS, To any who care, I'm still working on the 'King of Sand' story, but I've been busy a lot. I've been mostly revising the current written work to be more mature and refined the behind the scenes mythology.)

[Count Chocula]

If you want some good grist for the mill, try signing up at www.frugalsquirrels.com and reading the "Patriot Fiction" forum. To be honest, there's actually a lot of good solid 18th-20th century survival technique/equipment information mixed in with the outlandish scenarios (a nuke detonation EMP returns America to 1850 ZOMG! and the like). The last year probably has some real gems.

I'd link you to some good stories, but I've been banned because I'm Catholic. Yeah.

[Samuel]

Ronald Reagan never existed and Jimmy Carter served two terms. America slid further into depression and the government gradually overtook major businesses through the 1980s-1990s, while at the same time slashing away at our military.

Er, Carter would be out of office by 84. More to the point if things kept on getting bad a new party would come to power. Have a Republican get power in 84, things get worse and the backlash let the left get through a large amount of changes.

The government created the Department Emergency of Shelter Services (DESS) which pretty much merged and took over the responsibilities of FEMA. The DESS houses a third to a quarter of the US population in government facilities and supervises putting people to work on government projects.

Oh come on- go all the way. Socialized health care, government housing that has cameras for the war on crime, massive wealth redistribution, etc.

A police officer in Louisiana comes across a car crash, and when he approaches is shot at by the man trapped in the car. He shoots back and kills him. He discovers a secured briefcase on the man which JDLR ("Just Don't Look Right") and finds that it contains a number of documents sent by a US Senator to Mexico (Mexico has become a thriving socialist state, and has a large military with lots of soviet hardware) agreeing to cede a large chunk of the country to Mexico in return for being made a leader in those areas in the Mexican government. That police officer then has to dodge Mexican agents in the US and DESS/Military as he tries to expose the Senator.

Er... at this point the US is effectively a Soviet ally, what with the weak military and dramatic left ward shift. Not to mention shooting at a guy trying to help you out of a car crash is stupid- unless the police have been empowered to search individuals without warrents. And gun possession is illegal.

You could have it be a trick- the USSR has been backing Mexico as an attempt to sway the US even more to the cause of socialism and China is attempting to sabotage the alliance so that its Latin American allies can help save the day and get the United States on its side.

[Darth Wong]

Can I write a piece of right wing survivalist, anti-government fiction and have it still be readable (and not vomit on myself)?

There are two things which make real right-wing fiction unreadable:

1) The incredible wanking over the righteousness of right-wing people.
2) The fact that left-wingers in such stories are not given any comprehensible motives at all. They're just evil.

In order to make a readable right-wing fiction, I'd imagine you need to tone down on both of those elements (although if you take them away entirely, I suppose it wouldn't be right-wing fiction).

I've been brainstorming all week, and the plotlines and characters are surprisingly easy to come up with. Whenever I get stuck, I literally just watch a bit of Fox News until the issue resolves itself in a puddle of idiocy.

I'm holding off actually writing anything down until this weekend, as I want to see just how far I can get in 48 hours.

***

The plot is set in an alternate universe that diverges in 1980. Ronald Reagan never existed and Jimmy Carter served two terms. America slid further into depression and the government gradually overtook major businesses through the 1980s-1990s, while at the same time slashing away at our military.

It's pretty hard to imagine a totalitarian takeover of the country without a strong military. You should probably describe the leftist government as taking over the military.

The government created the Department Emergency of Shelter Services (DESS) which pretty much merged and took over the responsibilities of FEMA. The DESS houses a third to a quarter of the US population in government facilities and supervises putting people to work on government projects.

That seems cartoonish and illogical. It would be easier to simply describe the economy crashing and a huge proportion of the population going on welfare, which must be supported by an ever smaller proportion of hard-working Real Americans™. This huge welfare population wields increasing political power because they have so many votes. If you want to go for the racist right-wing crowd, you could "accidentally" depict most of these people as dark-skinned.

You don't have to portray the politicians as evil under this scenario. They're just self-interested, and they go where the votes are. It's totally democratic. As the story builds, the government will be forced to use its military to quell riots and rebellions fomented by hard-working Real Americans™ who are sick of being taxed on the fruits of their hard labour to pay for the huge welfare population.

A police officer in Louisiana comes across a car crash, and when he approaches is shot at by the man trapped in the car. He shoots back and kills him. He discovers a secured briefcase on the man which JDLR ("Just Don't Look Right") and finds that it contains a number of documents sent by a US Senator to Mexico (Mexico has become a thriving socialist state, and has a large military with lots of soviet hardware) agreeing to cede a large chunk of the country to Mexico in return for being made a leader in those areas in the Mexican government. That police officer then has to dodge Mexican agents in the US and DESS/Military as he tries to expose the Senator.

Now that's just plain silly. It would make more sense to have the huge welfare population be full of Mexican illegal immigrants who were granted asylum by left-wing administrations, and of course they have ties to their Mexican homeland so there is a movement to harmonize Mexico and the Southern part of the US.

If you wanted to make it less cartoonish while still appealing to the racist right-wingnuts, you could make the huge darkie population be poor, but not necessarily all on welfare. They could all be uneducated troglodytes, living in vast slum communities with limited or nonexistent job skills. Their incomes would be supplemented by wealth redistribution from Real Americans™ (of course, in such stories the white people are always hard workers rather than douchebag bank executives) rather than being totally supplied by them.

[Sidewinder]

I think the story will be more successful if you focus on the US, and not overburden it with bullshit about Mexico or other foreign nations trying to conquer American territory. Maybe your hero should find evidence of a secessionist movement (see the Burr conspiracy), and try to prevent a second civil war?

Mexico has become a thriving socialist state, and has a large military with lots of soviet hardware

Wouldn't this suggest a left-wing government is beneficial to the government, i.e., the complete opposite of what the Republican Party claims would happen if the US government became socialist? If you're going to sprout propaganda, try to keep your message consistent.

[Ford Prefect]

Wouldn't this suggest a left-wing government is beneficial to the government, i.e., the complete opposite of what the Republican Party claims would happen if the US government became socialist? If you're going to sprout propaganda, try to keep your message consistent.

No, because the Socialist Mexico is the enemy. Additionally, a lot of right-wing fiction is completely at odds with itself; see Michael Z. Williamson's The Weapon where the ruthlessly totalitarian police state antagonist is chewed out for being a pacifistic nanny state. It's hilarious, of course.

The fact that left-wingers in such stories are not given any comprehensible motives at all. They're just evil.

Or fat. You could probably get away with having left-wing characters with functioning motives so long as they're sickeningly obese, sexually impotent, known rapists etc.

[Simon_Jester]

I dunno. I think the story would be more interesting with non-caricature villains. Most stories are.

It might be less effective as didactic propaganda... but that's not really the point, is it?

[Sidewinder]

Wouldn't this suggest a left-wing government is beneficial to the government, i.e., the complete opposite of what the Republican Party claims would happen if the US government became socialist? If you're going to sprout propaganda, try to keep your message consistent.

No, because the Socialist Mexico is the enemy. Additionally, a lot of right-wing fiction is completely at odds with itself; see Michael Z. Williamson's The Weapon where the ruthlessly totalitarian police state antagonist is chewed out for being a pacifistic nanny state. It's hilarious, of course.

The contradition is also insulting. To make Socialist Mexico an enemy, maybe you should put it in the same boat as Afghanistan during the 1980s, i.e., Mexico getting a Communist Revolution, only for the Commies to beg the USSR for direct military aid because Mexico's new government couldn't control their own damn nation. The hero may be galvanized when he learns the Soviets killed US citizens when their soldiers crossed the US border in pursuit of the Zapatistas or other anti-Mexican-government forces. (The Great Gamble describes an incident where Soviet paratroopers attack what they thought was a Mujahideen base in Iran- when they attack the wrong target, Iranian jets were scrambled to prevent the Soviets' escape.)

[Ford Prefect]

The contradition is also insulting.

What do you expect? It's right-wing fiction. Ultimately every 'enemy' is nothing more than a stand in for a particular political group or opinion that the author doesn't like. This basically makes this project doomed to failure from the beginning. As Darth Wong says, it's not really right-wing fiction if it's not hugely self-righteous and filled withh cardboard caricatures.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, you could have a right wing story that boils down to "actual communism really sucks, guys." Or "republics can in fact fall apart due to an excess of bread and circuses." There's historical precedent for that, and your antagonists don't have to be strawmen for them to cause problems if they're acting along those lines.

The problem is what happens when the analysis and plotting stops there; that's where you get cardboard cutouts. Like most fiction written for a highly specific target audience, there's a temptation to lower the standards of good writing to "what I can get away with," but it's a temptation, not a requirement. As I understand it, that's the entire point of Pulp Hero's exercise here: to prove that such a story can be written to decent literary standards, and that it doesn't have to be dreck... if the author is willing to actually put some thought into the setting and into making non-cardboard antagonists.

[Chris OFarrell]

Remember, there is nothing Right Wing morons love more then to 'save' a Left Wing radical crazy liberal from themselves and bring them 'around'. So you have to have some left wing people who get 'converted' to see the light at some point from some horrible left wing crap...

[Jeremy]

To resolve the small military nannies vs totalitarian state problem, the Military should be stuffed into "blue helmets", denied adequate funding, and be sent to various places around the world under the command of foreigners--bleeding them out. This eliminates the honorable military from being able to object to the government at home. Enforce the totalitarian scheme with a national police force. Such a federal agency is a mainstay of RW fiction and can incorporate the FBI, DEA, IRS, and the ever favorite BATFE. Deputizing armed gangs has also been explored in several books.

Though, I am not clear on if you are writing just to prove how formulaic such plots are, to show how easy you can hook RW'ers, or to genuinely write something filled with less wank.

If you are doing only the latter, why not try to write a piece starting with a liberal shift in government, where eventually RW'ers are cajoled into violence to undo the left wing policies that were instituted? That seems to be a fairly common sentiment on this board, that RW'ers are currently being encouraged by certain medias and organizations into boisterousness and eventual violence (a la lynched census worker). Such an approach could logically express the liberal viewpoint, depict the "lurking" danger of the RW, and draw in RW readers by giving their view into the reaction against the liberal establishment.


I do not mean to undermine any literary effort of yours so take my suggestions with a grain of salt. To be clear I am a right winger and have read several fictions of this theme. However, I would be happy to read about a liberal antagonist who has more motivation than anger at God for toppling over the Tower of Babel and personal avarice.

[Darth Wong]

The root problem is that I don't see how a sensible person could write a right-wing fiction without bile rising in his throat and choking him to death. The moment you start writing about homosexual liberal activists persecuting righteous God-fearing heartland folks for trying to live free, I would tend to think any rational human being would suffer a seizure.

As I said earlier, take away the horrid wanking about how evil liberals are and how perfect the Dukes of Hazzard are, and you don't have right-wing fiction any more.

[The Grim Squeaker]

As I said earlier, take away the horrid wanking about how evil liberals are and how perfect the Dukes of Hazzard are, and you don't have right-wing fiction any more.

I have to disagree at this bit of stereotyping. You might as well say "Take away all the horrid wanking about shooting all the businessmen/managers/white rich population segments and wanking about how great communism is and how great, direct and efficient revolutionary justice is and you don't have (very) left wing fiction".

For craps sake people, stop treating the other side like a damn parody or a bunch of foaming extremists. (Albeit, in some chunks of the world that might be an understandable generalization ).


As for the fic writer - Protip, find something/some issue which you're relatively "right wing" on (say economic policy, military policy, or just the opposite of extremely left wing stuff) and try to base yourself from that viewpoint and on.

[Darth Wong]

As I said earlier, take away the horrid wanking about how evil liberals are and how perfect the Dukes of Hazzard are, and you don't have right-wing fiction any more.

I have to disagree at this bit of stereotyping. You might as well say "Take away all the horrid wanking about shooting all the businessmen/managers/white rich population segments and wanking about how great communism is and how great, direct and efficient revolutionary justice is and you don't have (very) left wing fiction".

How many stories about a glorious communist takeover of the United States have you ever seen for sale anywhere? There is no real market for the fiction you're talking about. The right-wing wanker fiction we're talking about, on the other hand, is all too real.

This "for everything we say about the right, you can say the same anbout the left" bullshit is nothing more than knee-jerk false equivalence, based on the completely bogus assumption that both sides are equal.

[Korgeta]

(First off, this isn't exactly sci-fi, though I suspect it will veer into Tom Clancy styled nearfutureweaponwank enough to perhaps qualify.)

So I'm in a book store recently and I see The Patriots. The cover of the book really does say it all, but I read a few random passages to be sure just how insane, right wing-wanky, and poorly written it was. It was worse than I had guessed. I saw a few other pieces of fiction along the same vein.

I thought, "My god, I could crap out something better than this!" And thus the genesis of my project was born-

Perhaps but till then, the author who you criticised was able to write a novel and have it published, you are in no position to slam the author's writing and then say you could write better when you have yet to write anything that is worthy enough to be catch the public's eye, and their wallet. The scenarios you presented can be better, the second is a old clichéd scenario itself, furthermore An alternative universe of events should not be a total whitewash of that country's currant problems of that time such as Mexico. The idea of ceding territory comes with little reason, because on the face of it as it stands it's political suicide for any leader to secretly sell off their land and for little benefits as well. You need to go more into detail if you want to successfully persuade these ideas are forthcoming.

I haven't myself come across a right wing themed book, but the closest I have read that is possibly right wing is Frederick Forsyth, he is not a 'terrible writer' and is quite persuasive with his arguments on his newspaper article. It's not a case if you happen to think right wing politics is rubbish because if that is the case you will never write a good one, (by right wing readers standards) If your going to write a pro right wing story then you must do so in believing that right wing policies you selected are worth supporting and that the reader too should support them.

[Darth Wong]

Perhaps but till then, the author who you criticised was able to write a novel and have it published, you are in no position to slam the author's writing and then say you could write better when you have yet to write anything that is worthy enough to be catch the public's eye, and their wallet.

By this logic, Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard is absolutely beyond reproach.

[The Grim Squeaker]

As I said earlier, take away the horrid wanking about how evil liberals are and how perfect the Dukes of Hazzard are, and you don't have right-wing fiction any more.

I have to disagree at this bit of stereotyping. You might as well say "Take away all the horrid wanking about shooting all the businessmen/managers/white rich population segments and wanking about how great communism is and how great, direct and efficient revolutionary justice is and you don't have (very) left wing fiction".

How many stories about a glorious communist takeover of the United States have you ever seen for sale anywhere?

Israel and imported Russian books.

There is no real market for the fiction you're talking about. The right-wing wanker fiction we're talking about, on the other hand, is all too real.

Oh, i'm not arguing with the fact that the political balance of the USA being to the right (same as Europe is to the left, and Korea is off the scale). I'm arguing with what I percieved as the claim that there isn't left wing fiction as bad. (There's just less of it, especially in the USA. Now, in some other countries, that's not quite the case).

This "for everything we say about the right, you can say the same anbout the left" bullshit is nothing more than knee-jerk false equivalence, based on the completely bogus assumption that both sides are equal.

You can say it, but it doesn't mean that it's real, accurate, proportionate or true. .
Fiction is fiction. (and ass wipe unworthy crappy fiction is still fiction/propaganda/etc')
I'm talking about this from a literary POV, not to argue that right wingers in the USA are some sort of endangered minority or even less than a majority (at least, compared to politics in Europe, Canada or my country).

[Korgeta]

Haven't read it. (Though I do know who Ron Hubbard is) Though are you slating the author or the book in this matter? Am not sticking up for either but surely you of all people know it's hard work that gets you somewhere that builds up a reputation, the book is perhaps rubbish to you and it proarbly was.

Just so you know I was at a writer's workshop a few years back that was taught by a guy called John Beevers who published his own works, and said in a nut shell that publishers only read the first paragraph of the chapter or skim through the book. There is no logic in the publishing process of a book, the only factor is will it catch the attention of the reader? Even martha cole has wrote some rubbish but she's the one who gets the money and adaptions. That is what it all comes down to in the end.

[Ford Prefect]

Perhaps but till then, the author who you criticised was able to write a novel and have it published, you are in no position to slam the author's writing and then say you could write better when you have yet to write anything that is worthy enough to be catch the public's eye, and their wallet.

Hold on a moment. I actually have read popular right-wing fiction (the aforementioned The Weapon, A Watch on the Rhine, some of the Starfury stuff, as well as excerpts from half a dozen others) and I can safely say that this idea of 'publishing means they are automatically better than us' is fucking bullshit. Amazingly, if you pander to an insane clique you can sell books to them. The fact that they have sold books says nothing about their quality relative to an unpublished writer.

[Pelranius]

Would The Big One count as right wing? It's pretty well written but its certainly doesn't reflect Limbaugh/Beck orthodoxy.

[mr friendly guy]

If your going to write a pro right wing story then you must do so in believing that right wing policies you selected are worth supporting and that the reader too should support them.

I guess all those A's I got in English writing what I thought the teacher wanted to hear rather than what I truely thought never happened. After all, there is no such thing as pretend and no sirree, its not possible just to follow a formula of what right wing people actually like.

[Simon_Jester]

Perhaps but till then, the author who you criticised was able to write a novel and have it published, you are in no position to slam the author's writing and then say you could write better when you have yet to write anything that is worthy enough to be catch the public's eye, and their wallet.

Hold on a moment. I actually have read popular right-wing fiction (the aforementioned The Weapon, A Watch on the Rhine, some of the Starfury stuff, as well as excerpts from half a dozen others) and I can safely say that this idea of 'publishing means they are automatically better than us' is fucking bullshit. Amazingly, if you pander to an insane clique you can sell books to them. The fact that they have sold books says nothing about their quality relative to an unpublished writer.

Even the pandering authors tend to be good on a scale that includes the entire population. Most people's attempts to write a novel would be pure shit, to the point where nobody would read it. So actually publishing a novel is a sign of some basic level of competence.

Not all published authors are better than all unpublished authors... but not ALL people with a degree in X know more about X than all people without the same degree. That doesn't mean there's no correlation between degrees (or publication) and competence or knowledge.

[Steve]

If you want to be truly subversive of the genre, tweak how your antagonists are portrayed.

Sure, if you're doing the right-wing anti-government stuff the Liberals and Leftists and Government people are the Bad Guys, but keep them from being mustache-twirling Snidely Whiplashes and Dick Dastardlys who want to disarm the People and make them the Government's helots. Make them genuinely likable characters in personality. They're charitable, kind to others, honest hard-working people working hard to make a better world, maybe some minor personal flaws like a bit of an ego or being too shy/insecure, etc, things that don't immediately mean they're "evil". People who are convinced that what they're doing is the Right Thing for everyone, will save the country/keep it safe/etc.

Sure, if it's an actual right-wing work they're Wrong. But they're not Wrong because they're Evil, nor necessarily Evil because they're Wrong. Nor are they necessarily naive fools who don't understand what they're doing, they simply are convinced they're right. Their flaw, that makes them antagonists, is their inability to see that what they're doing isn't working/is making things worse.

[Ford Prefect]

Even the pandering authors tend to be good on a scale that includes the entire population. Most people's attempts to write a novel would be pure shit, to the point where nobody would read it. So actually publishing a novel is a sign of some basic level of competence.

Not all published authors are better than all unpublished authors... but not ALL people with a degree in X know more about X than all people without the same degree. That doesn't mean there's no correlation between degrees (or publication) and competence or knowledge.

So, what's your point? That if include absolutely every single person in the world, we are bound to find a worse writer than Michael Z. Williamson or Tom Kratman? Incredible. Setting aside the fact that we aren't talking about every published novellist to have ever walked the earth, how does this even begin to address the fact that not every published writer is better than every unpublished writer? Or that we are therefore not allowed to criticise? You can only hold this opinion if you've never actually read these books, where strawmen of the author's political position do hugely illogical and ridiculous things just because they don't agree with the author, where the narrative will twist itself in knots in order to justify the preferred opinion or make the other side look terrible, where simply by expressing the views of the author the main characters come across as gigantic sociopaths. Watch on the Rhine could have been the most eloquently written, most beautifully structured piece of prose in existence and it would STILL be twenty four chapters of SS apologism.