Monalisa Foster's Ravages of Honor

Join us on Facebook

Sometime, in the course of human events, consuming a form of entertainment that is in your favorite genre but it is different in a lot of ways than the works that you usually consume is a good thing. Seriously. Listen, if you read this blog frequently (Hi, Mom!) you know that I usually take my Science Fiction with a huge helping of gun/blaster shots and a heaping side of BOOOOOMMMMMM!!!!! I like that. But let's face it, not all SF has to be that. That's a good thing, because not all SF is that. Take, for example, Monalisa Foster's Ravages of Honor. 

Seriously, it's a good book and there is enough gratuitous violence to keep us all entertained. We get everything from veiled threats to outright carnage. I love the fact that Ravages of Honor has a futuristic setting, but a lot of the weapons are things that Richard the Lionhearted or Tokugawa Ieyasu would have recognized. Some of this stuff is just amazing and it fits. Morgan-Foster does a great job blending old with the new. That in and of itself is a bit of a change (and no, lightsabers don't count as ancient weapons) but it's not the one I'm referring to. Don't get me wrong, a sword wielding donai (what's a donai? Well, you can either take my word that it's a genetically engineered person bred for war OR you can read the book and see if I'm telling the truth.) is a lot of fun and not someone I'd want to run up against, but that's not all there is to it.

I've read a lot of Science Fiction over the years. I mean, I started reading SF in the early eighties when I had to go to the public library to get it because I wasn't allowed in the big kids part of the school library. That was a long time ago, seeing as I just hit forty-three. In three plus decades of reading/watching Science Fiction and Fantasy, I have read precisely one other SF/F author that does romance as well as Foster and that's Catherine Asaro. Asaro has won multiple awards from the Romantic Times so I'm guessing that someone with more experience with works in that genre can back me here.

The main characters name is Syteria and she goes through a romance arc unlike anything I've read since probably Radiant Hawk by the aforementioned Asaro. It's weird because I haven't really read any pure romance since I was a kid raiding my Aunt Janice's book collection (yes, it happened. Don't tell anybody though, k? This is just between me and you.) and that's because I'm not really a fan. But if you add it to a SF narrative, I'm in and boy, am I in.

I don't want to give too much away about the arc itself. Suffice it to say that at one point, I thought it might go a different way. I was actually rather surprised that it didn't. I have a habit of predicting the end of a book based on gut feeling and half-considered plot points and I'm nearly always wrong but I was absolutely sure I had this one figured out. Oops.

There is also a David Weber-esque amount of political intrigue. There might actually be more than what he would typically put into a novel, since political machinations in the Honorverseor Safehold, for example, are typically between an established authority and the loyal opposition or a force from outside the state itself. The political scheming in Ravages of Honor takes place within a kingdom. It's a rough galaxy out there and it's one I'm glad I don't have to try to navigate, unlike our heroine.

No, Syteria is not native to the Imperium. She comes from a far off planet and finds herself thrust into a place where she doesn't speak the language and doesn't understand the customs. This is a technique used by a lot of authors. Gene Roddenberry put both Spock and Data into their respective Star Trek series for just this reason. Heinlein used Thorby to show us how Free Trader culture worked in Citizen of the Galaxy. An outsider learning about how a culture works in a work helps the reader/viewer learn about the culture that a writer has created without forcing us to feel like we've been spoonfed information. Foster's use of a time honored technique does her credit. Even for a science fiction author there is no need to reinvent the wheel, especially when it works this well.

Of course, the other characters in the story have to make sense as well, and this is where Foster really shines. I'm guessing she's done some serious research into how real world cultures work because I can see flashes of things here and there that make sense based on a real world perspective. She's mixed things together really well to come up with something that feels authentic but that is original. The characters in Ravages of Honor act in ways that are human. They may not be purely logical, but they make sense given the motivations of the character and that's huge. One of the things that drives me out of my gourd sometimes is when characters act in ways that they have no reason to. Foster's characters do things based on their own thoughts and feelings and the cultures they were raised in.

Don't let all of that fool you though. This is still a strong SF story, complete with starships and secret technologies. There's even a mad doctor and some alien fauna that has the potential to really ruin your day if you're not careful. The thing is that this story would probably work without  the SFnal backdrop if it were rewritten that way. There aren't a lot of stories I'd say that about but ,for this one, it's true. I'll confess to not having read anything by Mrs. Foster prior to this, but I look to be changing that in the near future. If her other stuff is this good, it'll be worth my time. Oh, and it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see this one nominated for a Dragon Award, either. I'll be keeping it in mind when it comes time to fill in my ballot in a few months.

Bottom Line:  5.0 out of 5 Concealed Daggers

Ravages of Honor
Monalisa Foster
Polite Society Enterprises LLC, 2019

Ravages of Honor is available for purchase at the following link. If you use my link to get to Amazon and buy basically anything I get a small percentage at no extra cost to you:

An Open Letter to Chuck Wendig

Hi Chuck,

Now, before I really get into this let me get two things straight here.

1.) I'm an asshole. It's true. I admit it.

2.) So are you. Seriously. I'm a reviewer/blogger. You're an author/comics writer. In a lot of ways you have more clout than I do and, I'll admit, that's because you've earned it. That much having been said, we are both equally assholes. You should probably just admit to it too.

Now, I didn't write this letter just to call you an asshole, Chuck. If that's all I wanted, I could very easily have Tweeted my opinion out to the universe and just had done with it. No, I'm writing this today to make you, and anyone else who sees this letter, aware that people like you are the reason I will never for as long as I live be civil to your side in a political debate.

Oh, and don't get me wrong Chuck. The fact that you've accomplished more than I have doesn't mean that I have a single shred of respect for you as an author, a political commentator or as a human being. There is no reason on I should. I mean, you said this:

This post was made in response to the fact that a man who stood accused of horrible things got confirmed to the Supreme Court. Here's the thing: There was no evidence that he did anything. The media may have said that the claims of Christine Blasey-Ford were credible, but that doesn't mean that they were. There was no corroborating physical evidence. There was not a single corroborating witness. The accusations were simply that, accusations with no proof.

And don't tell me that women don't make shit up Chuck. There is ample proof that is has happened in other cases. And, even a loud mouthed ignorant son-of-a-bitch like you has to admit that, although neither one of the links contained above any evidence that Blasey-Ford made anything up, they do both point to the possibility. And, quite honestly Chuck, do you remember all the #metoo hoopla surrounding the Kavanaugh confirmation? Yeah, if I were to present those stories above as conclusive proof that Blasey-Ford lied, I'd have just as much validity as any woman out there screaming about how Kavanaugh did it and she had been raped. Yup.

But honestly, I'm getting sidetracked here. This isn't a letter about Kavanaugh or any of the insanity surrounding him. This letter is about an even bigger issue.It's about civility between the parties in this country. It's about why we can't all just get along. It's about people like you and their hypocrisy. Check this out Chuck:

What you personally are saying here is that it's "chilling" if someone who supports your point of view is fired for their views, but it's okay if they disagree with you. She made a comment that was interpreted as racist, yes. You find that objectionable. I'm not sure it was even meant as a reference to race, but that's neither here nor there. What you're saying is that Roseann deserved to lose her job because you didn't agree with her statements. That's fine in and of itself. And it's not just about racism either Chuck. It's about "wackadoo conspiracies." I'll be honest here. I don't know what Roseann said outside of her racist comment because she's annoying as shit and I don't bother with many celebrities outside of the world of SF/F. That's just me. I thought they should have never brought the show back, not because of any statement but because it was annoying and boring.

My problem is that this statement proves that you think that comic book companies (and by extension others) should have the backs of their creators... but only if they believe as you do. What bothers me is that you think that you should have the right to spout your bullshit but that I don't have the right to spout mine. I know you think that there is a difference between what you said and what Roseann said, but there's really not. Free speech is free speech, even when you disagree with what's being said. So yes, Chuck, your losing your job is exactly the same as Roseann losing hers.

For the record, I can appreciate the fact that you at least admitted the fact that Marvel had the right to fire you. That applies even though you seem to think you didn't deserve it because you spouted the right ideas.

And that, Chuck, is the reason I refuse to be civil. As long as it's okay for you to call someone a "callous fuckneck," or a "grotesque monster," it's okay for me to call you an ignorant fuckstick or a troglodytic moron. It really is Chuck. And that's true even though I vote Republican. See, you are free to disagree with me.

Let's take this a step further though. I've already gone over your literary success versus the fact that I've never published anything. I don't have much of a writing resume outside of this blog. Do you know what I do have though? A history degree. One that I worked hard for. And do you know what I learned while studying history? I learned that any time a political party (in this case the Democrats) believes that only they should be able to speak their mind and that anyone who disagrees with them deserves to be punished, bad things happen. They try to make those they disagree with change their tune using physical force. I am aware of precisely zero times in history where this was not the case once they took power.

So yes, Chuck, people like you are why I'll be keeping my guns. People like you are the reason I believe that we have an honest-to-goodness shooting war, complete with bombs, guns, blood and fire, coming to the United States. People like you are the reason I hope that it gets here while I'm still young enough to fight in it and before my daughters are old enough to. Because Chuck, when it's not okay to disagree with the Democrats in this country and they try the Hitler/Stalin method (Hitler put his political prisoners in camps. That's how his concentration camps started. Stalin sent wrongthink speakers to Siberia.) there will be violence. And when you try to say that your point of view should be permitted but Roseann's shouldn't, or that Republicans shouldn't be able to ask why they should believe someone who can't provide a shred of evidence for her allegations, that's what you're leading people to, whether you intend to or not.

It's worth mentioning that in the not too distant past,  I would have been pissed that Marvel fired you. My reasons for no longer feeling that way are written here. Suffice it to say that if conservatives can lose their jobs for freedom of speech, then so can liberals. I know you acknowledged this yourself. Thank you.  I just hate the fact that I don't hate Marvel right now. Free speech should be for all, but if it's not for all then it's not for anybody. So, given the way conservatives have been treated, I'm glad that Marvel fired your and I hope your fiction publisher does as well.

At let's not forget this at the end of the day: I'm nobody's bitch. I'm not going to surrender and speak civilly to someone who won't act the same way. In the words of the rapper DMX, "If it's fuck me... then you know it's fuck you." (Yes, I left  a word that I found distasteful out. The point is still valid.)  I don't encourage anyone on my side to be a bitch either. You won't hear a call for civility from me.
You know why Chuck?

Because I won't surrender. Because being civil to a piece of shit like you gives you control of the battlespace. Because being nice means giving up. I won't be giving up.

So, yeah. Just a reminder: You're still an asshole.

Snoogans,
Jimbo

Science Fiction, the Seldon Plan, The Mule and American Politics

 (WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!!! Well, sort of. I mean, the most recent of the books I'm talking about was published over twenty years ago and the oldest was published over seventy years ago, but there's some stuff in here from the books that you won't know about if you haven't read them.)

I'm not sure why, but Isaac Asimov seems to be the least respected of the grandmasters of science fiction. He's been one of my favorite writers since I picked up a used copy of Foundation and Earth at a rummage sale in the gym of a local high school. The gentleman who sold it to me warned me that it was heavy reading. Easy for him to say. It wasn't his budget that had to expand to try to get the Foundation series or the Robots series. I enjoyed FAE for what it was but it took a lot of reading other things to make it make sense in many ways. I'll never get why a man that could conceive a world so rich in history (granted, all of it made up) with characters so vibrant wasn't seen as a master. I think I get it now though.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that knows me that most of the people I talk books with are conservative. I have to wonder if the opinions of Asimov are less based on his writing and more on his political leanings. It makes sense that a rightist would be a little annoyed by ideas he didn't agree with. We're not leftists who want to ban everything we disagree with as "hate speech" but some things are out of our comfort zone. They're just not as entertaining to us. Probably the biggest reason I love Asimov when a lot of others like me don't is because I read the books before I was really old enough to make the comparisons a lot of others make. I was eleven or twelve when I got the first one and not much older when I'd worked my way through all of them. I see what they think now, but I'll always remember the joy of reading through those books the first time. Somewhere out there, someone isn't getting this. Let me break it down a bit.

The Foundation in the novels was a product of Hari Seldon and his science of Psychohistory. Seldon, and those who came after him, were the shapers and molders of all of human history from that point on. Their purpose was a better life for all humanity. This was to be achieved by following "The Seldon Plan." The plan adapted to changes in humanity but at the end of the day it was all about following the teachings of one man and his scientific model of humanity. There's more to it overall, the idea filled several novels, but that's it in a nutshell.

The Seldon Plan then, is essentially Marxism writ on a galactic scale. It is the so-called "scientific" way of achieving utopia for all humanity. A way of managing all people so that the greatest outcome is achieved for everyone. A goal worth striving for regardless of the cost because it will benefit all in the end. It is a philosophy of trusting the government to solve all of society's problems, Yes, Asimov was a Marxist and so was Seldon. I have to wonder how many modern-day social scientists, politicians and historians have read his work. I really do.

Part of what irks so many conservatives about  Asimov's work is the (unspoken in the books) assumption that there are right and wrong sides of history. To the left, their march to triumph is inevitable. All who oppose it are evil and will be crushed underfoot. History will remember anyone who spoke out against them as racist, evil Capitalists. Anyone who does not conform will be left behind on the ash heap of history and reviled throughout eternity by all right thinking people and, after the triumph of the Left, all will agree what proper thought is. In the books, no one seriously opposes the plan. The whole galaxy lines up behind Seldon and his Foundation and marches forward into the future fighting to maintain his plan. Well, until the Mule shows up and ruins everything anyway.

The Mule, you see, is from outside the system. What's worse, he stands in opposition to it. He has powers of mind control that he uses to cause others to deviate from the plan. He causes the entire Seldon Plan to begin unraveling. Everything begins to come apart at the seams. Human civilization goes completely off the rails and misses a war they were supposed to fight to correct some problems in their society. The people only find this out because of a recording left by Hari Seldon that details what was supposed to happen. The world is saved through the romantic tendencies of Arkady Darell and her love of intrigue, along with some help from a few others who follow her advice. Here's the thing though: To the Left, Trump is the Mule and they don't have an Arkady Darell lined up to save things after Trump destroys "progress."

Looked at from this point of view it's no wonder that they're all crapping their pants. Trump represents the abolition of all they hold dear, the upset of all of their plans. They've gone from a black president back to a Straight White Male who is also a CAPITALIST!!! The chosen one was not anointed  president. We've moved backwards. The Plan is off the rails and we're all headed for destruction. Doom and destruction are assured if we step off the path that was laid out for us by Karl Marx. The world is ending. Trumps evil mind-control rays made us all racist and misogynist and probably some other kind of -ist as well.  I guess they could be right, but let's just say I'm not convinced.

I didn't support Trump. I told everyone I knew that I was going to lose my shit regardless of which asshole won the election. I delivered. I've voted in every election I've been eligible to vote in since the day I turned eighteen. I voted for myself in 2012, not because I thought I'd make a GOOD president but because I thought I'd make a better president than either one of the candidates that year. Having said that, I'd still vote for Romney before I'd vote for Trump or Clinton.  At the end of the day though, Trump will be the president come Friday and I'll give him a chance even if I do expect him to blow it. The only really qualification Trump has shown so far is an ability to talk shit. We'll see if there's anything underneath.

For what it's worth though, I don't think Trump is The Mule. I never subscribed to the Seldon Plan but I don't think he is deliberately out to destroy anything or to become a dictator. He has enough money that he could have bought himself and island and ruled it if that's what he wanted. I'm not convinced he'll be a good president but I don't see him as the next Obama or Carter so he probably won't be the worst. We'll see. In the meantime I'll be watching them all freak out endlessly. It's going to be a fun four years watching them, even if Trump is as bad as I think he'll be.



Some Foundation books are available at the links below:

Somebody Help Me Out Here

Okay, so I just don't grok something. I tend to think of myself as a pretty smart guy. I've got a decent IQ. I did well in every subject I've ever studied except handwriting and I'm told that that's because smart people tend to sign quickly and without putting a lot of thought into it. That's one of the reasons that doctors are known for poor handwriting. They tend to be pretty smart people. Here's my thing: I just don't understand something here and it's Science Fiction related in this context so I'm going to write about it: How in the BLUE HELL is the society of Panem, found in Suzanne Collins's The Hunger Games series considered to be a rightist culture? It is true that Ms Collins has been interviewed multiple times and considers herself to be a leftist. I respect that. She has the right to be a leftist. But seriously, I just don't get this. Let's go over the evidence as it is contained in the text and someone here, anyone here, please explain to me how this adds up to a rightist society. I'll start with the most obvious reason that this is a leftist government and go from there.

All economic activity is controlled by the government.

Seriously. All of it. The first thing that happens in District 12 when it gets a new mayor is that they close down the Hob. Why? Because unregulated economic activity takes place there. It's not taxed or controlled. People meet and exchange goods freely and the powers that be see this as a bad thing. It is literally illegal for people to have a freaking flea market because the government isn't getting their cut. Listen, I get the necessity of a certain amount of taxation, but seriously why shut it down? At worst there could have been some taxation put in place. The fact of the matter is that the government in the Capitol couldn't stand the thought of someone making money that they weren't taxing and would rather burn something down that allow the people of the District to profit by it. That's a leftist thing folks. The Hob is a free market. That's what those of us on the right support. Burning it down and punishing the dealers there is the mark of a Communist, not a rightist.

And yes, I get the fact that the people of the Capitol are rich. Guess what? Josef Stalin had five dachas and a chauffeur driven car. He was the leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Yes, my friends, the leaders of Socialist/Communist nations have always been rich. "From each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs" is the Marxist idiom. It's weird how the leadership in a Marxist nation always "needs" more than the family of four in the three hundred square foot apartment.

Religion has been eradicated

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."

It took me a minute to realize what was missing in the books here. Religion has been killed so thoroughly that it's not even brought up as a taboo subject. Seriously, we don't get so much as an "Oh God" when a tribute is wounded or a quick prayer by that one weirdo when their friend/child/brother/sister/whatever gets chosen as Tribute. There isn't even a crumbling old church that has been abandoned for a generation or generations. There is literally no trace of religion whatsoever. The Marx quote above says it all where that's concerned. The father of the Communist movement hated religion and so do his followers.

Gun Control is absolute

"Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the party." - Mao Zedong

Read the books. Watch the movies. Owning a gun, or even a bow and arrow, carries the death penalty. The reason for this is simple: An unarmed society is a society full of slaves. The Districts are Hitler's labor camps writ large. (And yes, the leader of the National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party was a leftist.) Would anyone with a gun put up with the government seizing their child to fight in some sick game? Taking the guns out of the hands of the people and placing them all into the hands of the government is a common tactic of every totalitarian government and was pioneered by the Left. Oddly enough, gun control in the United States started as Jim Crow laws that sought to keep blacks from owing firearms. Yep, you guessed it. It's easier to lynch a man that can't shoot back to defend himself. And those are the same laws pushed for by the Left in the states today, only now it's the state doing the lynching and the general citizenry, as opposed to just one race of it, that is forced into subjugation.

Even in the Hunger Games, where the entire POINT is to kill everyone the Capitol still doesn't want anyone getting funny ideas about guns. I don't see that as just a coincidence. The fact of the matter is that guns are dangerous to oppressive governments and the Capitol knows that. What if the kid with the gun won and told other people how to use guns? (And for the record, no that's not as easy as the movies make it look.) They're scared of guns. They're scared of what the people will do if given the ability to resist. They're communists.

Media production and consumption are controlled by the Capitol

"A newspaper is not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, it is also a collective organizer." - Vladimir Lenin

Leftists have always understood the power of the media, whether in their hands or the hands of their enemies. I wish I saved the notes I took for a paper on the effects of nationalism on the troops serving on the Eastern Front during World War II. The Capitol uses the media both to inform and to terrorize. Forcing people to watch the Hunger Games every night is an intentional reminder of the war they have lost. It is also a reminder that things will be worse if they rebel again. Snow states as much in his office. He uses the games to take hope away.

Media control is thought control and it's something that every Communist government has used. Lenin, yes, but also Ma, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, the list goes on. Control the media and you control the message. Control the message and you control belief. Control belief and you control the people. It's simple really. It's what the Capitol does. It's what Communists do.

The Peace Keepers are Ubiquitous

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." - Barack Obama

One of the defining characteristics of a fully developed Communist state is it's ability to react overwhelmingly to threats within its own borders. The media controls the mind, the national security apparatus controls the bodies. Whether it's the secret police ala the KGB or its forerunner the NKVD or tanks rolling on Tiananmen Square, a  hard left government must always have the means to crush an uprising should they lose control of any aspect of the society for one to develop.  The Peacekeepers are clearly that force. They're feared by the populace. They're never shown serving the public, but simply in keeping it in check. Would you call a Peacekeeper to help you find your lost child? Neither would I.

Oh, and let's talk about District Thirteen for a second. Don't they beat people up for the "crime" of over-eating? They're more Communist than the Communists. And who does Katniss execute at the end of the series?  President Coin of District Thirteen. The one who allows this to happen. So, we execute the Communist who is more Communist than the Communist and this is a book a rebellion against a rightist government? Huh?

So here's my question:

Why is it that an avowed leftist has written a book where the central government is controlled by leftists? Where food is withheld from people to enforce obedience and given to them in reward for government service ala the zeks in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago? Could it be because, even to an avowed leftist, a truly leftist government is the scariest thing she cold come up with? That her villains are ultimately the very thing she claims to support? I mean, how much proof do you need? When your own supporters think that you're the worst case scenario isn't it time to back up and evaluate what you're doing?

At the end of the day, I think that a work (series of works?) like this reveals the problems better than anything else in fiction could. Yes, there are real world examples of why this doesn't work. Some have happy endings, the death of Nicolae Ceaușescu being the most obvious example. Others still don't. North Korea is still imploding. China is still nominally Communist while working toward a free market-ish economy. It should be noted that the lives of the people are improving.

There is a disconnect here and it bothers me. I don't get how to get my head around the fact that a supposedly leftist individual can write a book that's all about a rebellion against an obviously leftist government and this is supposed to make sense. Now, don't get me wrong. I love the books. That's why I put the effort into A.) reading them and B.) writing about them. I just don't get it. Any help figuring this one out would be appreciated.

The books and movies of The Hunger Games series are available at the links below:

Daniella Bova's Tears of Paradox

I should wait until tomorrow to write this review but I'm going to write it now to try to get some of this out of my system. Daniella Bova has managed, in her book Tears of Paradox to write what amounts to pretty much my worst nightmare. The book is entertaining, gripping and relentless. Bova reminds her audience of the need to protect our rights from our government. Tears of Paradox is the first in the series. I have not read the second one yet. I won't spoil the ending, except to say that it's a cliffhanger. I will say that this tome creeps me out worse than any horror flick I've ever seen and I've seen a metric crap-load of them.

Bova's work is the story of Jason Wallace and his girlfriend, eventually wife, Michelle. It follows them from when they first started dating and through their marriage. The two have their trials. They go through good times and bad times. They deal with issues with their extended family. They worship God the same way. They're there for each other when they need to be. And oh my Lord do they need to be. Not only do they have problems beyond what most married couples do in a very important part of their marriage (I won't spoil what) but they are dealing with the descent of the United States into a Marxist abyss. Things start out bad and get worse.

Bova does a phenomenal job of presenting every Conservatives fears in story form and making it entertaining. We see the loss of personal liberty, the persecution of Christians, the slide into moral decadence and the loss of freedom. She details the fall of the Second Amendment and the rise of "doctors" who quite frankly don't give a rat's ass about what happens to their patients as long as the paperwork is right. The effects of Marxist polices on everything from health care to the economy are exposed and found wanting. Every Rightist who knows a Leftist that has been asked what we're afraid of needs to buy them this book. Every Leftist who would ask the question needs to read this book. Note that Bova doesn't do much with race. That makes sense. Race is not a primary concern for the Right in this country and she did well to leave it out.

There is a strong Catholic theme to this book. It reminds me that I never finished my RCIA and I need to get off my duff and do it, but it's more than that. Bova does an excellent job of portraying Catholics and, by association, Christians in a totally different light than a typical Leftist would. Her Christians are good people with a belief system that they draw strength from. Unlike a lot of authors in the hear and now, Bova portrays her Christians as  warm, loving, caring people who know they're not perfect and simply strive to be the best they can be. They don't agree with much of what's going on around them but they have their reasons and they don't back down. It's not about hatred. It's about their beliefs and a lack of willingness to violate them simply because someone else disagrees with their stance.

Having said that much, you can consider this your trigger warning. If you find a realistic portrayal of religious people offensive you're better off reading something else. If you tend to be the whiny type, unable to read something you disagree with or to be tolerant of someone who disagrees with your point of view maybe you should try something else. I hear there are good vegan cookbooks out there. That's not offensive to you, right?  Have fun with those.

The author's portrayal of the media as a bunch of Leftist propagandists spouting approved doctrine hits home with me. With a few exceptions, it fits the real-world media to a "T". While outlets like Fox News hold the line to a certain point, even most hometown news that I'm aware (and certainly here in Detroit) has a strong Leftist slant to it.

Bova seems to have a good sense of the history of Socialism and the existence of informers. In any truly Leftist society they will be everywhere. Family members, co-workers, it's all been documented, especially with opening of the East Germany archives. Bova impresses me with her ability to make everything uncomfortable. The characters in this book know that someone out there is willing to inform on them. Whether it's the doctor, a co-worker at the pharmacy or the idiot nephew they know where the threats are.

As much as I'd like to say otherwise, this book is not perfectly crafted. Even for someone who agrees with the politics of the book, it comes across as a bit on the heavy-handed side. Message oozes from this book like lava boiling out of the top of a volcano. I mean, I get the fact that this is a political book and I agree with its moral but I do wonder if perhaps a bit more subtlety would not be in order. The characters in Tears are not politicians by any stretch of the imagination but they do talks politics a lot. They agonize about politics regularly. It affects everything they do. It's not that it's an inaccurate portrayal. It's more the ham-fisted approach to making her point that is the problem.

This is also certainly not a book for the faint of heart regardless of religious and/or political persuasion. There is a lot of loss in this book. There is one scene that is bloody to the point of being slightly nauseating. (It needs to be but that's not the point I'm making here.) This thing has the potential of giving me nightmares. It starts about five minutes from now and that is part of the problem. Even with something like The Hunger Games you can kind of blow it off as being nightmarish but ultimately unrealistic. Tears of Paradox is too realistic to be simply shrugged at. Bova brings us face to face with something that could really happen. Indeed, her scenario is one that could already be in motion. It's enough to make you nervous.

That much being said this is still a good book. Bova ends her work with an afterword about why she wrote the book but I don't think it's really necessary. It exists, it reads well and it makes a definite point. I will read this again and I plan on acquiring the second book in the series, The Notice in the near future. I like to think and Bova has my brain working.

Bottom Line: 4.25 out of 5 Rolls of Toilet Paper (read the book, you'll get it)

Tears of Paradox
Daniella Bova
Self Published, 2014

Tears of Paradox can be purchased here: