Your division at first sounds a bit off. The book's satire seems based more on the performance of it's "present" subjects rather than their actions in the past. Upon reflection, I can see how that's not a hard gap to cross at least on a case by case basis. One wonders how Trump's(That chapter shows that it's not so much modeling than inn…
Your division at first sounds a bit off. The book's satire seems based more on the performance of it's "present" subjects rather than their actions in the past. Upon reflection, I can see how that's not a hard gap to cross at least on a case by case basis. One wonders how Trump's(That chapter shows that it's not so much modeling than innuendo IMHO) reality shelter would fit both in this question and in general. The retelling would probably use that part to try to fuse the two(like dead set) while it looks for what rich person would have such apolitical clout currently.
That being said if you don't mind more pointed political criticisms: I sincerely hope we can find a better answer in the 2020's than "Maybe we can learn something from failed plans defending apartheid" .
I'm not sure I read the book as suggesting the latter in the way you seem to imply it is. I think having two key elements of the story coming out of the South African and Israeli settings were more about looking for examples of people who (for reasons perhaps right or very wrong) would have created the kind of environment for fostering deeply "unthinkable thoughts." But the book itself also indicates that such thoughts were, in fact, thinkable elsewhere, and also gives alternative successful pathways to thinking about how to fight the war (e.g., the Japanese arc). I also think that giving someone like Redeker the "credit" is intentionally meant as a Werner von Braun situation — which is to say, meant to raise the exact moral and ethical questions you are raising. It doesn't exactly imply that Redeker came out of the thing whole, either! :-)
I find it hard to bridge the interpretative gap between us that would turn the Yukio Mishima coded organization as a real alternative to Redeker. Even without explicitly invoking the japanese version of godwin's law " Having a Red Zone survive and get anime levels of good at killing zacks" ain't a true policy deviation nor quite a psychological one from America interpretation
I would have personally picked the China arc. The whole conflict of the rebellion and ethnics driving the defection is a straight out opposition to the broad strokes of Redeker. Which makes the author injection of the rebels implementation at the end bizarre and undermines a lot of trust in me in terms of my reading of it.
Edit: I get the attempt of a Von Braun situation but the execution still breaks credibility in my eyes. The caveat of Identity loss doesn't fully sell the moral snowflakeness(or if that's part of the unreliable narrator selling which part of it was unreliable) of the character and the chessey Mandela endorsement.
The second issue and that post-covid....the broad strokes of the plan just by itself isn't really that unthinkable to me. It's just uncomfortable triage....it's sucks to think about but not really "Sanity-breaking that could only be barely be come up by planners of racist atrocites" bad .
Your division at first sounds a bit off. The book's satire seems based more on the performance of it's "present" subjects rather than their actions in the past. Upon reflection, I can see how that's not a hard gap to cross at least on a case by case basis. One wonders how Trump's(That chapter shows that it's not so much modeling than innuendo IMHO) reality shelter would fit both in this question and in general. The retelling would probably use that part to try to fuse the two(like dead set) while it looks for what rich person would have such apolitical clout currently.
That being said if you don't mind more pointed political criticisms: I sincerely hope we can find a better answer in the 2020's than "Maybe we can learn something from failed plans defending apartheid" .
I'm not sure I read the book as suggesting the latter in the way you seem to imply it is. I think having two key elements of the story coming out of the South African and Israeli settings were more about looking for examples of people who (for reasons perhaps right or very wrong) would have created the kind of environment for fostering deeply "unthinkable thoughts." But the book itself also indicates that such thoughts were, in fact, thinkable elsewhere, and also gives alternative successful pathways to thinking about how to fight the war (e.g., the Japanese arc). I also think that giving someone like Redeker the "credit" is intentionally meant as a Werner von Braun situation — which is to say, meant to raise the exact moral and ethical questions you are raising. It doesn't exactly imply that Redeker came out of the thing whole, either! :-)
I find it hard to bridge the interpretative gap between us that would turn the Yukio Mishima coded organization as a real alternative to Redeker. Even without explicitly invoking the japanese version of godwin's law " Having a Red Zone survive and get anime levels of good at killing zacks" ain't a true policy deviation nor quite a psychological one from America interpretation
I would have personally picked the China arc. The whole conflict of the rebellion and ethnics driving the defection is a straight out opposition to the broad strokes of Redeker. Which makes the author injection of the rebels implementation at the end bizarre and undermines a lot of trust in me in terms of my reading of it.
Edit: I get the attempt of a Von Braun situation but the execution still breaks credibility in my eyes. The caveat of Identity loss doesn't fully sell the moral snowflakeness(or if that's part of the unreliable narrator selling which part of it was unreliable) of the character and the chessey Mandela endorsement.
The second issue and that post-covid....the broad strokes of the plan just by itself isn't really that unthinkable to me. It's just uncomfortable triage....it's sucks to think about but not really "Sanity-breaking that could only be barely be come up by planners of racist atrocites" bad .