An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
The Event: Chapter 6
People: Mick LaSalle just e-mailed me that he published the sixth chapter of The Event. I – being addicted to it – read it immediately and… it’s a great chapter. President Lyle B. East is… starting to act more and more “scary”. Some people are seeing him for what he really is: the beast. The one who attacks East most aggressively, however, is not someone people would have expected it from and…
38 Responses to “The Event: Chapter 6”
Dude I haven’t been this scared reading something since King’s book “The Stand”
I’m speechless so far (I’ve just started reading…i’m on the First Chapter…and I can’t stop reading)
Spelling has greatly improved, but don’t depend on the Spell-Checker for word choice!
So clue me in before I invest a night reading, what’s this book about?
Michael that is without a doubt trippy as hell man. Killer find, kudos for passing it along.
…WOW…is all I can really say right now…this is fantastic, fam! When a book leaves me shook? game over. it’s quality to me. and this is. but it’s because i see thru all the political rhetoric and other bullsh*t (please lemme go on that one, man lol, but seriously…) and realize it’s beyond all that, y’know?
C.Prez: yeah man, I do.
C.P. and Pyst; No problem of course: I spent a post on this last week, as did Joe. It’s a good read, isn’t it? I was captured by it: once one starts reading… one cannot stop.
MvdG,
Here’s how people are going to receive the book…I can see the arguments now.
But I’ll throw this at them:
“These politicians [are] hypocrites /
They got us hypnotized.
That why [Jada]kiss spit “Why?” /
We’ve got to lift our eyes.
Cause if we keep’em closed /
They just gonna keep control.” – Cassidy on “The Message”
That’s the message of the book…it has to be seen with non-partisan eyes and eyes on the greater message of the book.
C.Prez: I agree.
This kinda sucks…the lack of commentary on this book…but then knowing how things go ’round here, it’ll get politicized into oblivion.
C.P.: I published a new thread. Also look at this post I published last week:
The Event
89 comments.
Exactly what I feared…the commentators are looking the wrong way at things and not beyond “oh well his writing is suspect, he’s rehashing things, why is his commentary so scathing against the christian right, blahblahblah.” Can’t people see beyond that? I don’t care who it targets, as there’s a greater message out there…don’t fall for the b.s. research thoroughly and get a good handle on the character of a person, or a group, or whatever, and take things from there. It’s greater than politics, greater than the superficial stuff people tend to concentrate on, it’s about evil disguising itself as good, which is a tough trick to see through, but people need to see through it to prevent it from happening.
CP: that’s exactly why it should have been written in a nonpartisan way. The message gets lost. I get the message, but then I’m not one who needed to be convinced. Anyone who doesn’t see this kind of danger is going to feel attacked by the thinly veiled partisanship/ leftist ideology, so they won’t be able to see beyond that.
Agree with Stan on this one. By using so many of the current events in his book it becomes less about that general message and more about just ripping on the current administration in what appears to be a far left demonization(literally) fantasy. The VP is even named ‘Dickter’ for crying out loud. He needs to pull less from the current headlines for the backstory, otherwise it just looks like a hit job. Which I kinda think it is.
Y’all ain’t seeing past the “hit job”…of course it is…those on the right were in power fully so of course they’re going to take the absolute brunt of criticism…that’s life, live with it…if those on the left were in power fully it’d be a criticism against them…now if was written w/ a rightist slant, then the roles will be reversed. We know it’s a leftist-slanted book, who cares what slant it has to it, really? It’s the greater message as I stated above it goes beyond left/right/center/above/below/around-in-circles/north/south/east/west…and of the fact that everyone has to be on the Ps and Qs at all times and not fall for the bullsh*t and carefully, long, and extremely deeply look at the pros and cons of the existing leadership and not let emotion or fear drive you into making bad choices and who to follow. Sorry my sentences may or may not make sense but I think y’all get the gist of where I’m coming from…AKA STOP POLITICIZING IT as it will accomplish nothing.
I would take that statement and apply it to the book, CP. You acknowledge that it’s a hit job and I agree, and on that level it succeeds. But if the goal is to have people understand the message, the people on the right who really need to understand the message, then this is the worst possible way to acheive that goal. It’s doomed to failure.
You may be right that if the party affiliations of our current situation were reversed, someone would probably write something similar from the right. But I’d still feel the same way about it: it’s simply not effective. Sure, I’d probably find it less annoying if it favored “my side”, but I still wouldn’t be under any illusions that it would succeed in convincing people from the other side (in fact, it would obviously make them less receptive to the message.) And since the message is important, it bothers me that people would rather keep playing the polarizing game than find ways to get the message out in an effective way.
It would be easier to not politicize it if the author put a bit more effort into setting the story in a world that wasn’t an exact mirror of our own. By doing so he made it impossible to distance his story from current events. Does anyone picture anyone other than Bush when President East is mentioned? This novel takes demonization to a whole new level.
You want to see a better example of this kind of novel read Orwell. Thats all I’m saying.
Well then it’s on the reader to see through the hit job. If that’s how it’s laid out, so be it. It’s going to be like this the whole book so if you don’t want to read further, don’t. Like I said, it’s on the reader to see beyond the superficial.
I see what the author is trying to say. I see it because he’s driven the point home with a sledgehammer and is going to continue to do so every chapter till the end of the book. I guess I was just criticizing his overall style. I mean really, since he’s kept everything else the same, the news networks, the names of various talking heads, the events going on in the world, he might as well have just named every character in the administration the same too.
I think its lazy writing to not flesh out the world when writing a novel.
Like I said, if it’s not your cup of tea, don’t read it. *shrug*
But CP, it doesn’t bother you at all that writing the book in this way serves the opposite purpose than the one you’d probably want, because it alienates people who need to hear the message? Do you have any criticism at all for Mick LaSalle for writing it in a way that turns off anyone who didn’t already agree with him?
Not at all…I’m blinding myself to the partisan feel to the book. I understand it’s partisan but me bitching about who the book is attacking isn’t going to do anything (I read it as *insert name* is president and *insert political climate* is as such and there is war in *insert place* and *insert religion here* is being duped as these could be anybody or anything or anyplace or anytime, that’s how I’m seeing it, i’m bringing a non-partisan bias when I’m reading it and I’m more concerned about the fictional characters Sadie, the narrator, and SOS as they interest me the most and that’s where most of my focus will be). It’s a hypothetical allegory anyway, of course there are ties to what’s happening in the real world but at this point it’s becoming truly fiction and that’s how I’m going to see it. Read “The Stand” as there are political assumptions and accusations made, but I didn’t see that because it’s built in and didn’t affect me, especially as the book progresses and it becomes more and more fictional.
From Stanley’s argument, you’d think Orwell wrote 1984 to show totalitarians the error of their ways. But of course, totalitarians targeted by 1984 would not have enjoyed it because, even if they recognized themselves in it — even if they understood the nature of the commentary — they would simply think that the author was mischaracterizing them, being unfair, not showing the whole story. The targets of satire always think the satire is misplaced — sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. In any case, the goal of the work would not be to persuade the totalitarians into being better people. If they recognize themselves in it, that’s half the point.
It’s a tried and true device to assume an author’s intentions, get that part wrong, and then insist that the author did not accomplish that thing which was not even the author’s intent — and declare the work a failure. That’s good arguing technique, but it’s not really functional criticism. That said, I expect that a lot of people who read this aren’t going to like it and are going to have trouble putting their finger on what they don’t like, and that’s OK. What moves me to write is when they target people who do like it and try to persuade them that they’re missing something, when in fact those people are the ones who are getting it.
Mick so does that mean I’m reading “The Event” the wrong way or is it just the premise that the book can be and is subjected to each individual’s interpretation of it?
No, it means you’re reading it the right way.
And I love that you caught the Dre thing, dawg.
Uh, no, mick, but I’d assume that he wrote it to show people the error of being duped into allowing totalitarianism to flourish. That would be the target audience, and the biggest challenge would be to present it in a way so that those most likely to be duped would be most likely to be convinced of the danger.
Haha Mick the Dre/Em connection was easy for me to see…I produce hip-hop on the side so I’m well versed in that arena
Stanley is moving up, graduating from misunderstanding my intentions to misstating Orwell’s. Come back in six hours and we may be up to Shakespeare.
First, the biggest challenge for Orwell was not to present 1984 persuasively to “those most likely to be duped.”
The biggest challenge for Orwell was, or course, to write a compelling narrative. That’s right off the top. If you don’t have a story that makes the reader want to turn pages, you have nothing.
But putting that aside, Orwell did not at all address that book to “those people most likely to be duped.” He addressed it to those people most likely to ignore the warning signs and wish for the best — different people altogether.
Look, if he wanted to make a story to convince skeptics that totalitarianism is evil, he’d have had a PROLE as his protagonist, gradually coming to realize that the ruling regime really is bad. Instead he chose as his hero Winston Smith, a party functionary, a low-level member of the intelligentsia who AT THE START OF THE NOVEL ALREADY HATES the regime. He establishes a point of identification between intelligent readers and his protagonist and shows readers how they could end up trapped if they don’t look out.
Orwell assumes you already have a pretty good idea who the bad guy is. He assumes, without trying to persuade anybody, that the reader does not want to become enslaved. His goal was to show how the enslavement worked, the mechanism of it, and the hopelessness of it once it took hold. He didn’t think you needed to be told that totalitarianism is bad. If you liked totalitarianism he figured you wouldn’t be reading the book. And that if you did, you’d probably complain it wasn’t persuasive.
First, thanks for not disappointing with your condescension and insults. Might interest you to know that there are other ways to make your point, but you seem to feel this one works for you. Now, on to this:
Where you and I disagree is that these are different people altogether in the current situation that forms the basis for The Event. Your assumption, of course, is that anyone who ever supported Bush (other than those who gave tacit support due to their avarice for power) is not even part of your target audience because they’re too stupid to be persuaded. I take exception to that for reasons that are probably obvious.
I see your comparison between The Event and 1984 as inapt because it wasn’t patently obvious in 2000 that Bush’s administration would turn out the way it did (and as you might expect, I feel the Beast comparison is over the top anyway, but I’m willing to overlook that as a device.) Had you changed the setting, with only references to certain occurrences (religious/govt alliance, horrifically frightening catastrophic event and it’s use by the administration for political purposes, etc), then the point could have been made in a way that persuaded someone who wasn’t already convinced of these dangers.
I think a better Orwellian comparison for the point I’m trying to make would be Animal Farm. The animals didn’t see what was coming, but they’re pretty sympathetic characters: you see why they allowed themselves to be misled.
“I see your comparison between The Event and 1984 as inapt.”
I never compared The Event to 1984. I wouldn’t presume to do that. I just wanted to defend 1984, which was being mischaracterized.
Well, since you were the one who brought up 1984, I’m not sure who was mischaracterizing it. I see your description of that book as accurate but not analogous to your book. If you didn’t mean to make that comparison, I’m not sure why you brought it up, or why you used that discussion to shoot down what I was saying about your book.
Let’s keep the rhetoric clean, people. I mean, it’s only a work of fiction. C, look beyond the comparisons to the Bush administration and Current events. Mick, don’t worry about 1984 or any of that other stuff. Let’s not let this thread devolve any more…might I suggest y’all take my stance on it?
If it were pure fiction instead of propagit, I’d agree with you CP. I can look beyond that but I think it’s a shame that I should have to. The message would have been worthwhile if presented in a different way.
“C.P. and Pyst; No problem of course: I spent a post on this last week, as did Joe. It’s a good read, isn’t it? I was captured by it: once one starts reading… one cannot stop.”
I was out of town last week and didn’t see any posts. You are definately right Michael it does pull you in. If you like this kind of fiction writing I suggest Swan Song by Robert R. McCammon.
C,
Don’t trip, think it’s propoganda, but Jesus has a Parable about just such an occurance
CP: I have no problem with the religious angle about who was raptured in the story (well, I think it was slanted too far from organized religion but I’m not bothered by him making that point.) It’s the political garbage that ruins the message for me (and I’m not the only one who feels that way; maybe it just isn’t obvious to those of you who don’t identify with the GOP at all- even in past tense.)
If the political garbage you refer to in the story bothers you why aren’t you as bothered by religion being used for that very political garbage by the GOP you apparently identify with? If the GOP hand’t swung religion like a political sword so many times in the last 25 years your argument might actually have a point, but in this case by tying the two together in this story it makes perfect sense.
As for organized religion getting “left behind” (awful book titles) makes good sense as well since most are nothing but dogma which was never asked for by G-d, and money changers in G-d’s house. They’ve in most cases made religion a brand name, or commodity to be sold on TV to empty desperate peoples…if you send them a donation, and therefore are among the most evil peoples I personally can think of.
But opinions are like arseholes ya know? LOL
Hi all,
My attraction to The Event is that the story is about the Rapture. I don’t believe a novel ever touched this subject before. Honestly, I didn’t know what the story would be about and after reading the first sentence I got positively giggly knowing that the book would be about the Rapture. My guess is that the rapture is not general knowledge to most people. Also I find that if the Rapture does indeed take place, it would be perceived by those who were not raptured very much like Mick has portrayed it. The fact that the characters are recognizable just makes it more fun.
Pyst:
Pyst, please tell me when I ever stated that I wasn’t bothered by this?
And on the point about organized religion, some groups have given it a bad name, while others do not. There are good and bad people in churches and good and bad people who are secular. The organized religion itself is not a problem, it’s just subject to the same foibles and opportunity for exploitation as any other sphere of human activity.