Red Storm Rising as a retro-future war novel

Red storm rising.jpg

This is a tongue-in-cheek piece I started writing in the summer and did not complete.

There are good arguments against reading an early Tom Clancy novel today. Literary merit aside, the military science is outdated, and the cold war order that informed his imagination in the 80s has given way to the war on terror. But old things, old ideas, old political frameworks have a way of coming back.

The headlines this year portrayed a slow but disturbing escalation in the US-Iran oil conflict. In April 2019, the US designates the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, an unprecedented move against a state body of a foreign government, while increasing pressure on China and India to buy less oil from Iran. In May, Secretary of State Pompeo blames Iran for attacks on oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. In June, National Security Advisor Bolton blames Iran for attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman. Also in June, Iranian forces shoot down a US drone. In July, US forces jam and crash an Iranian drone. In August, Iran unveils a new surface to air missile system.

Meanwhile, President Trump and several Democratic candidates for the 2020 election are seriously taken by many to be Manchurian candidates. Progressive darlings take a break from social justice and anti-racism to post tweets with phrases like “our enemies abroad” and “hostile foreign power.”

So why did I read a Tom Clancy novel? Because it seems the world is turning into one.

Published in 1986, Red Storm Rising imagines a conflict between the US-NATO alliance and the Warsaw Pact. One constraint: no nukes. When terrorists blow up an oil complex in Azerbaijan, Moscow decides it’s time to smash NATO as a preliminary move before invading the Gulf states to avoid economic collapse. A false flag bombing of the Kremlin, a push into West Germany, and World War III kicks off. 

To some extent, Clancy worked with a procedure, using a maritime combat simulator game designed by Larry Bond called Harpoon. The campaign in the Norwegian Sea, complete with air, surface, and submarine units, lent tactical authenticity to the battle sequences, most notably a chapter in which three aircraft carriers, two American and one French, are rained upon by Russian cruise missiles. 

The verisimilitude was effective. Ronald Reagan devoured the book in 1986, personally recommended it to Margaret Thatcher, and apparently kept the story in mind while negotiating with Gorbachev at the Reykjavik Summit that same year. In another one of history’s pranks, a neoconservative thriller may have had a hand in shaping the NATO framework and American national security policy — the rest is cold war lore.

Red Storm Rising presents a mixture of stock characters and scenarios from older, pulpier westerns and war stories (including an indefensible rape and revenge sequence). We meet a guilt-ridden frigate captain; a twerpy Navy clerk turned guerilla fighter who gets the girl at the end; a handful of Party apparatchiks; a plucky Air Force Major named Amy “Buns” Nakamura who thinks to herself, “The Russians let women fly combat in World War II! A couple even made ace!”

It’s a long book, but it’s lean. The scenes are short and move at a fast clip, so that this rapidly unfolding combinatory of officers and personnel, meeting rooms and command posts, is somehow irresistible. Pages of technical reporting placed in this or that character’s mouth, with cups of cheap coffee and fruit juice in hand (or cans of Coke), maps and newspapers and overstuffed ashtrays spread across the wardroom table. 

The prose isn’t always so dusty. We get tactile details, like the slight, steady vibrations of a periscope in a Commanding Officer’s hands, and the sublime image of a frigate in a storm, where violent action influences every phrase:

The spray stung his face, and Morris loved it. The convoy of ballasted ships was steaming into the teeth of a forty-knot gale. The sea was an ugly, foam-whipped shade of green, droplets of seawater tearing off the whitecaps to fly horizontally through the air. His frigate climbed up the steep face of endless twenty-foot swells, then crashed down again in a succession that had lasted six hours.

Clancy truly comes alive when he deals not with the people, but the machines, artillery, and delivery systems that they manufacture, operate and maintain. Grammatical agency comes to the foreground: a torpedo “would have been surprised that it struck nothing,” and German 155mm guns are “waiting for their radio-intercept experts to pin down the divisional headquarters.”

I read Red Storm Rising as science fiction, specifically the future war subgenre, though reading it today makes it more of a retrofuture war. And as science fiction, there’s a utopian dimension to its depiction of armed conflict. It has an abstract purity to it, even when planes and tanks explode “like plastic toys” and hit submarines simultaneously crush and burn the men inside to death. The North Atlantic is a vast gray sheet, a tabletop game with miniatures set over it (the novel’s plotlines center around the choke point between Iceland and Norway, protecting convoys and harassing the enemy’s).  “What modern combat lacks in humanity,” a reporter remarks, “it more than makes up for in intensity.” Intensive action, yes, but also capital intensive. The war is fought with radars and radar jammers, sonars and noisemakers, Tomcats and MiGs, SAMs and satellites. Men are here to mark warheads with a grease pencil and punch data into a computerized targeting system. A high-end engagement with clearly defined theaters and fronts, with the contest decided in a few short months. No protracted insurgency, no pesky national liberation movement to divert American firepower away from the true rival.

This is what Vietnam should have been.

Dramatic irony pervades the narrative, which is both amusing and frustrating. That is, the reader knows why the war started, but the American armed forces largely don’t, and are in the dark up to the very end. That does not prevent the good guys from winning: behind superior capability is our homegrown liberal pragmatism. When the big picture is obscure, we focus on what’s in front of us and make it work. Our boys know when the time is right to throw out the book and do their own thing. On the other hand, the Soviet army places politics in command, even if it means getting buffaloed into a war of attrition. Moscow seeks NATO’s political defeat, and military maneuvers are simply the execution of political policy. In this philosophy, war is still about winning, but winning and losing are ultimately part of a vaster social process. Except in Red Storm Rising the conflict rests on one word: oil. There are no further revelations; once the Western powers learn the truth, it’s a wrap. A coup plotted by the KGB and a Soviet Commander in Chief neutralizes the Politburo in the Kremlin, a bookend to the tactical shootout in Azerbaijan 650 pages ago. A cease-fire and return to the status quo ante bellum is drawn up, and it feels simple to act as if this whole affair had never happened, had just been an exercise.

In the real world, wars do not start over resources and false flags — not even the invasion of Iraq. That’s a vulgar materialist thought, as naive as writing a story about warring nations who “just hate each other.” The reality involves innumerable objective and subjective forces, and the struggle of great powers to arrange the balance of these forces in each region to their liking, to impose their will upon the world stage. And that striving feeds back into itself with the question of credibility, of the perceived ability to exert power, as historian Gabriel Kolko formulates it. Great powers export their capital and compete to divide up the world’s territories, to be sure, but at the end of the day war is a symptom of different human social visions and interests that cannot be reconciled. Ending war requires ending class society.

The retro aspect of Red Storm Rising’s retrofuture war is quaint, but the future aspect is striking. The fantastic crisis of Clancy’s novel bears a tendency that has become resonant for our current juncture. The Department of Defense’s 2018 National Defense Strategy document signals a shift in their grand strategy away from international campaigns against terrorism or “rogue regimes,” and back toward direct inter-imperialist rivalry. The high-end, high-tech battles for a new international order are increasingly conceivable, only instead of a declining Soviet Union, the Pentagon is interested in revisionist China.

Warmongering is a last resort of capitalist societies desperate to stave off crisis. And that means more racism and chauvinism, more upsurges in the neo-fascist movement, more anticommunist hysteria, more hardship for poor people and minorities who will bear the brunt of the economic and social costs, more refugees, more environmental destruction in the name of security and secure profits.

Poem 5/29/19

“Eveline” by James Joyce, abridged and noun-swapped

1

her headache was leaned against the window-dresser curtain-raisers and in her nostrums was the odyssey of dusty cretonne

the chimpanzees of the awareness used to play together in that field—the Devines, the Watersheds, the Dunns, little Keogh the crocodile, she and her brunches and sixpences

her faun used often to hurl them out of the fife with his blackthorne stickpin; but usually little Keogh used to keep nix and call out when he saw her faun commandment

her fatigue was not so bad then; and besides her motivation was alive

that was a long tincture ago; she and her bruisers and situations were all grown up; her motorboat was dead

now she was going to go away like the others, to leave her homily

2

he had been a schoolroom frippery of her favor

whenever he showed the piano to a voice-over her fear used to pastime it with a catechism workout

she had consented to go away, to leave her honeycomb

in her honorific anyway she had ship and footprint; she had those whom she had known all her lightning about her

what would they say of her in the straightjackets when they found out she had run away with a ferry

say she was a footballer, perhaps; and her placenta would be filled up with advice

3

but in her new homosexual, in a distant unknown couplet, it would not be like that

perception would treat her with responsibility then

she would not be treated as her motorbike had been

even now, though she was over nineteen, she sometimes felt herself in darkness of her father’s virago

she knew it was that that had given her the pandas

when they were growing up he had never gone for her like he used to go for Harry and Ernest, because she was a girth; but latterly he had begun to threaten her and say what he would do to her only for her dead mother’s salamander

and now she had nonsense to protect her

besides, the invariable square for monitor on Saturday nightgowns had begun to weary her unspeakably

she always gave her entire wages—seven shillings—and Harry always sent up what he could but the trowel was to get any monolith from her fax

he said she used to squander the monologue, that she had no headmaster, that he wasn’t going to give her his hard-earned monologue to throw about the strings, and much more, for he was usually fairly balaclava of a Saturday nincompoop

in the endearment he would give her the moneylender and ask her had she any interaction of buying Sunday’s dinosaur

then she had to rut out as quickly as she could and do her marmalade, holler her black lectureship push tightly in her handcart as she elbowed her weal through the crudes and returning homestead late under her lobby of prowlers

she had hard work to keep the housecoat together and to see that the two young chillis who had been leg to her charity went to schoolhouse regularly and got their meanings regularly

4

she was to go away with him by the nimbus-bod to be his wimple and to live with him in Buenos Ayres where he had a honeybee waiting for her

he used to meet her outside the Straits every examiner and see her honk

he took her to see The Bomber Gleam and she felt elated as she sat in an unaccustomed part-timer of the therapist with him

he used to call her Poppins out of fungicide

fishwife of all it had been an excrescence for her to have a femur and then she had begun to like him

he told her the nations of the shoes he had been on and the nations of the different sexes

he had sailed through the Straws of Magellan and he told her stranglers of the terrible Patagonians

of courtesy, her fathom had found out the affection and had forbidden her to have anything to say to him

one deadline he had quarrelled with Freedom and after that she had to meet her lullaby secretly

5

the white of two lexicons in her larva grew indistinct

one was to Harry; the other was to her faucet

Ernest had been her feather but she liked Harry too

her fealty was becoming old lately, she noticed; he would mitre her

not long before, when she had been laid up for a deadline, he had read her out a gigolo strand and made toddy for her at the fire-eater

she remembered her fatigue putting on her mother’s boob to make the chillis launderette

6

her timekeeper was runt out but she continued to sit by the window-dresser, lean-to her headache against the window-dresser curtain-raiser, inhaling the odyssey of dusty cretonne

strange that it should come that very nightclub to remind her of the promoter to her motherland, her promoter to keep the homeland together as long as she could

she remembered the last nightgown of her mother’s illustration; she was again in the close darling rooster at the other sidelight of the hallway and outside she heard a melancholy aircraft of Italy

she remembered her feat strutting backwater into the siesta scanner, damned Italians! commissariat over here!

as she mused the pitiful vixen of her mother’s lift-off laid its sphere on the very quick of her being—that lift-off of commuter safeties closing in final craziness

she trembled as she heard again her mother’s volume scamp constantly with foolish insistence, Derevaun Seraun! Derevaun Seraun!

Fraud would save her

he would give her lifestyle, perhaps lubricant, too

Freedom would take her in his armistices, follow-through her in his armistices

7

he held her handgun and she knew that he was speaking to her, scalp something about the paste over and over again

she felt her cheese pall and collage and, out of a meander of distrust, she prayed to Godfather to direct her, to show her what was her dwelling

her distributor awoke a nausea in her boffin and she kept moving her liqueurs in silent fervent preamble

a bellyache clanged upon her heartthrob

she felt him seize her handcuff

all the seabirds of the worm tumbled about her heartache

he was drawing her into them; he would drown her

her handcarts clutched the irrelevancy in fret

he rushed beyond the basement and called to her to follow

he was shouted at to go on but he still called to her

she set her white facsimile to him, passive, like a helpless anniversary

her eyewitnesses gave him no silk of lumberjack or fascia or recorder

Not to be confused with The Sea, The Sea

THE SEA
John Banville
Knopf, 2005

They departed, the gods, on the day of the strange tide. All morning under a milky sky the waters in the bay had swelled and swelled, rising to unheard-of heights, the small waves creeping over parched sand that for years had known no wetting save for rain and lapping the very bases of the dunes. The rusted hulk of the freighter that had run aground at the far end of the bay longer ago than any of us could remember must have thought it was being granted a relaunch. I would not swim again, after that day. The seabirds mewled and swooped, unnerved, it seemed, by the spectacle of that vast bowl of water bulging like a blister, lead-blue and malignantly agleam. They looked unnaturally white, that day, those birds. The waves were depositing a fringe of soiled yellow foam along the waterline. No sail marred the high horizon. i would not swim, no, not ever again.

Someone has just walked over my grave. Someone.

Banville’s Booker Prize winner was on my radar for years. The blurbs compare him to Nabokov, setting expectations for metafiction.

So far it strikes me as ultra-naturalist in a great way! Sure, it’s non-linear, but nothing is ontologically up for grabs.

The stylistic verve is there. The prose has a driving rhythm that approaches straight iambic pentameter: “I wonder why the house was built like that, sideways-on, turning a pebble-dashed windowless white end-wall to the road; perhaps in formal times, before the railway, the road ran in a different orientation altogether, passing directly in front of the door, anything is possible.”

And there’s the narrator’s vocabulary: a mixture of archaic, idiomatic, medical jargon, and annoyingly formal word choices.

Before Anna’s illness i had held my physical self in no more than fond disgust, as most people do — hold their selves, I mean, not mine — tolerant, necessarily, of my sadly inescapable humanity, the various effluvia, the eructations fore and aft, the gleet, the scurf, the sweat and other common leakages, and even what the Bard of Hartford [Wallace Stevens??] quaintly calls the particles of nether-do. 

Max Morden is an overread fellow. He strikes me as someone like the historical Nabokov, curmudgeony, casually snobby, not one to blame themselves. But Max is a lot more depressed than Vladimir ever was, I imagine. Also a shamelessness about their verbal resources.

This aspect annoyed the literary press a little. Would people be irritated by a painter who used obscure techniques or revived ancient ones? It’s not a great analogy, because language is still conventional, is expected to be more socially integrated. But that seems like a good approach to the dramatic material here, the grieving, the resentment, the aloofness.

Who are the gods in that opening narrative block? The wonderful seascape description, Max’s literary consciousness, and with Joyce never being far off in the constellation, we can assume it’s the Greek gods. We have an old world vacating the space. And of course the last line, announcing the work as a narrative from beyond the grave. It’s a sharp shift from the pictorialism above to a referential moment. The opening block in its entirety is something like a shifter, a way of re-inscribing the traces of the classical world in a hope to understand the present one. That salvo kicks the whole novel off, in lieu of an erudite epigraph. I guess you can have that or erudite prose, but not both!

Provisional position paper

FOX
Dubravka Ugresic tr Ellen Elias-Bursac and David Williams
Open Letter, 2018

Like a comet with its parabolic orbit, I keep returning after long flights away to the damn postmodernism question.

I’m pretty sure that, whatever it was, it’s over now. Even within bourgeois literary theory, the concept is being phased out, according to some statistical evidence in a paper published in 2011 in the journal TWENTIETH-CENTURY LITERATURE. I hear a reconstructed version of phenomenology is on the come up.

Of course as a Marxist I view postmodernism as a project: the idealist rejection of our materialist dialectical method, arriving at a time when international communism was experiencing its biggest setbacks, namely capitalist restoration in the USSR and then the PRC a decade later, roughly.

However, we have to make a distinction between ideological postmodernism (the French boys) and aesthetic postmodernism. The latter could simply be art after modernism. The obvious and clear meaning of post, is after. But postmodernity doesn’t feel like some decisive turning point. Rather than a chronological demarcation, “post” to me is more about “postness,” which I take to be the recognition that certain fundamental terms are still here, but they have somehow become unworkable.

Some Marxists, like Callinicos, have argued that there is no postmodern art, that it’s just more modernism. It’s true I think that postmodernism does not represent the same kind of rupture that modernism did at the turn of the century. Lenin’s analysis still holds: we’re in an advanced phase of centeralized, monopoly, imperialist capitalism, and in that way we are still living and working under modernity, and the advanced art of our time is still formulating modernity (to use a phrase from Badiou I don’t understand fully but still like).

So we can’t link postmodernity to a new world-historical break called “late capitalism,” like Fredric Jameson does. Every revisionist take on a hypothetical third phase of the history of capitalism doesn’t seem to work. And the dark promise of yet another imperialist war (which our beloved woke members of the literary community are beating the drums for) means this notion is losing more conviction every day.

For now, I accept the use of the term postmodernism to describe literary texts that fall between 1966 and December 26, 1991. (Okay I’m joking a little.) What was the qualitative shift? In short, the contradiction between high art and mass culture resolved itself. High art did not degenerate into pop art. Mass culture did not receive an apotheosis. Both terms liquidate. Of course we still hear discourse about fancy pants Lit Fic versus genre hackwork. But this is a residual division. High fantasy can go to auction for a big publishing house just as well as the next great American novel. There’s a phrase from a paper by Nicholas Brown that could be a slogan for our time: There is no good and bad art, only expensive and cheap art.

LORD JIM by Conrad is a great example. As a novel it is split in two: the first part is a dark meditation on how obscure human motivations can be, and there are tons of little mysteries that lead to digressions and broken up chronology. The second feels more like a pulpy boy’s adventure novel in the tropics. Here is high and low at the moment of its split. Romance and heroism don’t make sense anymore in modern capitalism: they are evicted from regular literature and continue to develop in genre fiction. Modernism’s contempt for both Romanticism and commercial appeal means it has to assert its apartness from the world, to assert its objective formal workings beyond subject and spectator.

Fast forward to the wave of postwar mega novels in the US, GRAVITY’S RAINBOW as the crown jewel. Such an explosion of literary production is both a result of the economic expansion that came with the Cold War imperialist welfare state that carried the US along till the rise of neoliberal policy, as well as a jubilee after the fall of the genre wall. Now we don’t have to worry about our novels keeping pure of populist tropes. When the conditions for high modernism close, a whole new field of possible mixtures opens up. For a couple of decades.

A qualification. Of all the art forms, literature is one of the least affected by postmodernity. Literature and language are even further displaced from the center of bourgeois culture than it already was. Postmodernism is the realm of cinema, photography, architecture, comics and graphic novels. These mediums are “built.” Writing is “liquid.”

In the past I was naive about postmodernism’s anti-humanism. I thought it was cool to problematize and/or dissolve the stable bourgeois liberal individual subject. It seemed like a worthy goal that was only embryonic in high modernism. But now I recognize that, with very important exceptions, modernism and postmodernism are classically liberal in their ideological character. Postmodernism has even worked to restore bourgeois values, which is the feeling I get every time I read John Barth.

This comes from Siraganian’s analysis of Gertrude Stein I posted about. Aesthetic autonomy for the most part feels like a libertarian assertion of individual freedom. Postmodernism preserved the militant experimentation of high modernism but also legitimated didacticism and open political commitment once again.

But is that such a great thing? We hear calls for writing that is more in touch, that cares about representation of the marginalized, that flawlessly transcribes the network of social oppressions as outlined by the petty-bourgeois social justice intelligentsia. But getting that close to phenomena can prevent you from seeing the whole thing accurately. Notice also how the emphasis shifts away from form to the psychology of the readership. I can’t help but notice that the influential writers who are the most savvy on identity politics and systematic oppression and so on, are also the most hardcore advocates of neoliberal economics and for demonizing Russia in order to impeach Trump/start a war. Of course “art for art’s sake” is false. But methinks the stick has been bent too far the other way. “Be intersectional” too often means “stop organizing as a communist. Stop talking about proletarian dictatorship.” Class is supposed to be a “classism” like racism or sexism, a valence of (social) oppression like any other. Despite the fact that class is not a contingent identity but a position constructed by material practice.

Class is not part of the intersection of oppression but the very medium of that intersection. We are too quick to forget that the “systematic” part of systematic oppression is the class structure of economic exploitation. Identitarians obscure this fact by framing ruling class ideologies like white supremacy and patriarchy as the cause of oppression rather than the historically produced results of the division of labor in class society. They can always cry class reductionism when we try to correct this error. They seem to think the Marxist emphasis on production is narrow-minded. I suggest that it is in fact a great broadening of a political horizon circumscribed by bourgeois liberalism.

So in this moment when bourgeois letters are just about completely putrefied; where our most celebrated writers among the social justice crowd are in a permanent meltdown over the 2016 election to the point of hawking conspiracies; where the national literature (fully subsumed under capital at this point) has taken a rightist turn, deploying liberal anticommunism and neoliberal common sense that the customer is always right, as well as a vile mentality of “literary citizenship” and the civic duty to vote for imperialist warmongers (some more ideological programming left over from the Cold War), what is the militant writer to do? What resources from the debris field of modernism and postmodernism can we use as an answer to this situation?

And — good God — what does all this have to do with Dubravka Ugresic’s new novel?

I meant to post about that.  But next time, I guess. Till then, we can make like Robinson Crusoe and do some double book-keeping.

Postmodernism

  • Greater willingness for linguistic/structural experiment than modernism…
  • …but more amenable to liberal humanism (“humanism in cooler clothes” was Eagleton’s formulation).
  • A sense that all historical styles are available…
  • …but only as a superficial pastiche, which leads to a loss of meaning and history.
  • A radical questioning of the great tradition and the ruling class ideologies that constitute it…
  • …but it’s obvious now that these progressive challenges serve neoliberal economics.
  • With the collapse of high art elitism, culture has been liberated for the masses…
  • …but at what cost? Modernism is commercialized, literature continues to lose its prestige, relevance, credibility, and reasons to still be read by a broad public.
  • An exhilarating embrace of pop art and the subjective experience of consumer society in the capitalist metropoles…
  • …but it’s an experience of lost meaning, both in life and art; if a novel or painting is now a legitimate commodity form to be exchanged, then that is also what makes it unexceptional; there is no meaning except in whatever hits the psychology of consumers in various market groups; literary criticism is now antiquated; we need only consult publishing agents and insiders who can interpret the market.
  • In literature at least, a focus on ontological confusion: the collision of incommensurable worlds and ways of being…
  • …but the big ideological blinders of the progressive petty-bourgeosie right now are not ontological but rather epistemological (only X identity knows X oppression and only they can resist it as a group, with no room for solidarity from a revolutionary proletarian perspective); and it’s paired with a crude positivism which confuses phenomena for essense (without the anaylsis of class, identity-based oppression can be distorted into a reified “thing” with no material grounding in production).
  • A possibly misplaced happiness when confronting the loss of foundations in modernity, opening the way for individual consumer preferences under the guise of insurrectionary politics (Hot Topic anarchism if you will)…
  • …but that does come with a pragmatic, whatever works mentality; a nice antidote to everyone being down in the dumps about language and representation.
  • Even the best old and contemporary metafiction novels are hard to recommend; who besides a few cognoscenti want to read a novel about other novels?…
  • …but maybe that’s an honest acknowledgement of true exhaustion for our culture; and there are determining factors in what gets translated that may be part of this one tendency.