Follow TV Tropes

Reviews Literature / Victoria

Go To

02/19/2018 09:18:39 •••

The Alt-Right Parody We Deserve

Political fiction is always a tricky thing to talk about, especially here, but I think I can do it. See, Victoria isn't a book that aligns itself to the left or the right. Victoria's alignment is clearly 'Batshit Insane'.

Our story begins with John Rumford, who is kicked out of the marines because of Political Correctness Gone Mad and also because he was harassing some Muslims. He lives in a world 20 Minutes into the Future where America has been taken over by 'respect' and 'tolerance' and other objectively good things in sarcastic quotation marks, and this has somehow destroyed society. John forms the Christian Marines, a group of old-fashioned, non-PC crusaders to put the country back on track by - not a joke - telling women to Stay in the Kitchen, killing college professors because all educated people are secretly Cultural Marxists, and nuking black people, whom they refer to as 'Orcs'.

Yes. It's one of those stories.

Unsurprisingly, it's a hilarious trip through political So Bad, It's Good territory. Here's an excerpt on feminism!

2032 saw the beginning of what the feminists called Fair Discrimination. Under Fair Discrimination, girls got higher grades in school than boys for the same work, plus a monopoly on the playground while boys spent recess inside where they were forced to play with dolls.

Someone wrote a Self-Insert Fic where the villains are feminists whose grand evil scheme is to make boys play with dolls. And that's just the beginning. Rumford bans computers and cell phones, thinks poverty 'builds character', allies with literal Nazis, and exiles all non-Christians (and Puerto Ricans) from 'Victoria', which remains a perfect Utopia despite Rumford's tendency to kill anyone smart enough to operate a tin-opener on the assumption that they must be a communist.

As hilariously bad as this is, the story does go too far to be funny at times. Those wacky straw feminists? Upon defeat, as their comeuppance, those who don't immediately fall in love with the traditional gentlemen of the 'Christian Marines' are sold into sex-slavery in the Middle East. And that's not all.

The author believes Muslims are evil, atheists are heretics, LGBTQ folk are paedophiles, and all of these people deserve to die, along with anyone who disagrees. This book begins with a Racist Grandma vibe but it becomes very clear that the author (actually a man in his late 60s - unmarried, can't imagine why) is an extremely vicously intolerant man.

But this is a book that makes you think. It certainly made me reflect on how far a bigot will go to try to persuade himself that he has the moral high ground, in spite of thinking that all non-Christian, non-American, non-White, non-Male, non-Idiots are evil and should be shot, nuked or raped, as should anyone who disagrees with him.

Apparently, far enough to write a shit book.

03/06/2017 00:00:00

This review is making me laugh far too loudly for my workplace. Bravo!

04/24/2017 00:00:00

Calling black people orcs - it\'s not widely know, but the Ammon Bundy clan called black people zombies and bought a stock of anti zombie ammo (extra tearing, spinning, etc) so they can shoot black people with.

01/31/2018 00:00:00

BEST review ever it pretty much my opinion of the story

02/15/2018 00:00:00

.... Jesus, you\'re right, that sounds so stupid it\'s kinda hilarious. I can\'t decide if I should be disgusted or burst in laugh.

How did this even get published?

02/15/2018 00:00:00

The better question is, how did its trope pages fill up with mealy-mouthed apologists desperately trying to pretend it *isn\'t* racist trash by editing around every mention of the bad things the protagonists do with a deliberate mixture of lies and distortions?

02/15/2018 00:00:00

@Spectral Time: Seriously?! There are people like this?!

02/15/2018 00:00:00

Somebody also added this garbage hate speech book to 15 different literature category pages - 3 more than A Song of Ice and Fire - and they added a Heartwarming Moments section too. I for one found it extremely heartwarming when the white supremacists sold the woman into sex slavery as punishment for not staying in the kitchen.

As happy as I am that this review was more cohesive, well-written and well-received than this bigot\'s entire novel, and as much as the Fallout 3 fanfiction looking image on the main page makes me laugh, I would have no problem with just nuking the page. It\'s just an alt-right wish fulfillment fantasy book about how you too can save America by buying lots of guns and constantly being violently suspicious of anyone who looks like they\'ve heard a Kendrick Lamar song.

02/15/2018 00:00:00

Well, as you put it in your review, this page does have a point: it proves to us that people like it exist^^\'

02/15/2018 00:00:00

...And here I was hoping the Heartwarming page was for the TV show of the same name...

02/16/2018 00:00:00

Nope, I went to check, it\'s for the book.

02/16/2018 00:00:00

I obviously wouldn\'t do it because, y\'know, it would be vandalism, insomuch as you can vandalize a massive turd by drawing a massive turd on it, but it is tempting to visit that Heartwarming page, and... you know.

\"The most heartwarming part of the book by far is that our protagonist Johnny Rummington loves America SO MUCH that he\'s willing to side with Nazis in order to save it from the homosexual agenda.\"

02/16/2018 00:00:00

I will not, because I\'m on my third strike, and a single edit war will see me permanently banned without appeal.

Indeed, it is why I dare not fight the good fight trying to fumigate these pages.

02/16/2018 00:00:00

Do you guys want to call in the mods? From the looks of things, this might need it.

02/17/2018 00:00:00

I don\'t know, it seems to me like the pages really do acknowledge how racist this book is.

02/17/2018 00:00:00

Perhaps...

Something I find curious - the person who\'s added a lot of that stuff does seem to be acknowledging that the book\'s pretty damn racist, and it\'s not like they\'re wrong that YMMV tropes ought to be on the YMMV page.

That said...that very same person also started the Heartwarming and Tearjerker pages for this, and I feel compelled to ask...well...why.

02/17/2018 00:00:00

He *also* occasionally fills up the YMMV page with justifying edits and flat-out misinformation about things like the protagonists nuking Atlanta because of a black race riot, or trying to pretend the protagonists ever actually get angry about the Nazi's Nazism rather than their industrialism. When he's not trying to pretend that he only likes the novel as over-the-top satire that's So Bad Its Good, or that the protagonists' political incorrectness is all in good fun.

And he plopped a just-a-bit-too-sincere rant about how Stalin killed more people than Hitler on the quote page. And he remains angry and defensive about that comparison to The Turner Diaries I added a while back, that has since become an entire paragraph-long justifying edit.

02/17/2018 00:00:00

I canít say whatís true and whatís not, having not read the book. It might be useful to provide quotes and cite page numbers when appropriate.

Alternatively...we see about getting the page nuked.

02/18/2018 00:00:00

Taking a look at this comments section, which has apparently turned into a discussion thread...

These allegations by Spectral Time frankly strike me as rather overwrought in tone. They\'re also factually incorrect. Addressing them in the general order he states them:

  • I did add the Common Knowledge item about the nuking of Atlanta, but that\'s because that\'s what the book says. It was a genocidal insurrection that Rumford (the protagonist in the book) was trying to stop. Think of it as something like a hybrid Paris Commune and Rwanda Genocide, and that\'s pretty close; I can post quotes showing this if desired. The story that it was just a minor riot is simply not supported by the text. It seems it comes from fan haters originally, who want the over-the-top right wing heroes to look even worse than they do in the actual novel.

  • I didn\'t say the protagonists \"got angry\" about Nazism, but they certainly criticize the Nazi ideology in the book: specifically, anti-Semitism, intolerance, \"ranting\" and various other faults. As well as the Nazis being highly industrialized, urbanized and modern, which they (who are agrarian populists/reactionaries) also don\'t like. Thus I edited the page to reflect that. Again, I can post supporting quotes.

  • I have never posted anything on the \"Quotes\" page, except for a folder control item. I did post a quote on the main page by the character Rumford, for illustration under the entry for Dirty Commies, in which he says Stalin was worse than Hitler for killing more people (and incidentally, lists higher numbers of victims for the Soviet and PRC genocides than I personally believe credible). If Spectral Time has a problem with that, I can remove it, though I personally don\'t see why he should be upset about it.

  • I\'m not angry or defensive about anything, certainly not to the level Spectral Time appears to be, ranting all over the discussion pages against \"mealy-mouthed apologists\" and the like (in which I presume he includes me) and baselessly accusing me of lying. It is simply factually incorrect to say that Victoria is as bad as the Turner Diaries, for the simple reason that the latter gleefully celebrates global genocide of 99 percent of the planet\'s population and Victoria... doesn\'t. And just judging by its page on here and Wikipedia, Turner has a LOT of other horrible stuff Victoria can\'t match at its worst—but just the \"no cheerleading for global genocide\" bit kind of settles that point for itself. In fact, you could question whether that reference should really be there in the intro at all, since it seems intended only to poison the well against Victoria. I\'ve been willing to let it stay so far, but saying the two books are just the same is simply not correct. And the page introduction should not lie about the work. As it stands right now, it\'s still not exactly positive, but I would say it\'s mostly fair and accurate.

  • As for my own feelings about Victoria... I (obviously?) don\'t endorse the craziness as something I\'d want in real life, if I have to point that out. Rather, I tend to read it as satiric overblown right-wing adventure much like a Paul Verhoeven movie (though AFAIK that was not how the author intended it), and derive considerable amusement from it that way. I don\'t demand that everyone else should do that, but I don\'t see why I can\'t, either. Beyond that, I just believe in trying to be as neutral as possible about a very obviously controversial book that people might feel strongly about for any of a number of reasons. (In my own early edits, I tried to put in some humor and sarcasm , but that got shot down by another poster, in retrospect rightly so.) And like I\'ve said before on the Discussion page, I\'m happy to discuss any trope example other tropers are unhappy about. Though I\'d suggest we do that precisely on that page, rather than here, since that\'s how the rules say we should do it.

02/18/2018 00:00:00

I donít have a problem with that, I suppose - taking this to the discussion page, I mean.

02/18/2018 00:00:00

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I don\'t understand why we should be neutral about this book.

When you write from a neutral point of view, you are basically saying \"people are divided on this amd we can\'t favour one side over the other because that would be discriminatory/would compromise the quality of the information we are trying to present\". And I get that.

But we are talking about a book writen by a pseudo-fascist for other pseudo-fascists. Why should we try to appease them? What\'s wrong with explicitly stating that some sides are just wrong? Okay, so we could say that Victoria ia not as bad as The Turner Diaries, but that\'s setting the bar pretty freaking low. I see no good reason not to denounce this work publically as propaganda of a terrible ideology, other than to appeal to people who enjoyed the book unironically, that is to say, alt-righters. Who are basically neo-nazis.

02/18/2018 00:00:00

Yeah, that's essentially where I stand on it. Sometimes, neutrality is just worse than taking a side.

I mean, the page quote basically says "multiculturalism is bad". Why give credence to such people?

02/18/2018 00:00:00

>How did this even get published?

Probably a couple of things. For one thing, Lind has clout in right-wing intelligentsia. There\'s also the advent of electronic self-publishing, as well as the markets available at venues like gun shows, or other places where right-wing crank books get table space.

02/18/2018 00:00:00

^^Saying \"multiculturalism is bad\" is not \"pseudo-fascist\" or immoral in itself. I wouldn\'t necessarily agree with it depending on what kind of \"multiculturalism\" one\'s referring to, and I definitely have no love for Victoria, but the wiki doesn\'t need to be a liberal-progressive hivemind.

02/19/2018 00:00:00

Define \"multucultiralism\".

02/19/2018 00:00:00

I'm not sure I'd say Victoria is exactly fascist (unless you use that to mean just any right wing thing), but it sure is a goshdangit weird reactionary fantasy. Basically, the utopia the story imagines is a fin du siecle dieselpunk frontier republic, with period-appropriate social values. So a lot of anti-feminism, anti-Fed, anti-homosexuality, anti-Communism, nativism, etcetera... but also anti-Big Government, anti-Big Business, anti-tax, pro-guns, states' rights, direct democracy, isolationism and other libertarian-ish stuff that doesn't really fit fascism at all (which in all its versions, has statism and collectivism as a fundamental pillar). The thing Victorian "Retroculture" resembles most in real life is probably a bastard hybrid of classic agrarian populism/nativism/Know-Nothing-ism and Christian Reconstructionism.

Of course, given that, I easily understand why people can still find it offensive, especially if they take it seriously. However, when we had an earlier discussion about this, I was admonished that TVTropes expressly dislikes political preaching about how good/bad a work is. Another guy linked to this policy page:

Prescriptive Vs Descriptive Language

"Media articles should describe the subject, preferably in breezy, witty language. They should not be reviews."

"Other people may have different opinions about the quality of a work or a creator's work; they may even like something or someone for qualities that you find objectionable. Leave room for differences of opinion when you write about media."

"The wiki does not, as a matter of policy, have an opinion on any social or political topics."

The way I read that, it seems clear that we're supposed to be neutral, even about books some/many/most people don't like. If people want to state their own opinions about Victoria (or anything else), there is always the option to write a review, like (for example) Elmo 3000 has done here.

02/19/2018 00:00:00

I think we should work on cleaning up the related pages for this work. Way too many of them try to present this work as an inspiring story or a nuanced exploration of soci-political issues rather than the bigoted propaganda it is. Even the more neutral examples, unrelated to politics, seem suspect. It's like praising the prose and imagery of Mein Kampf.

For most works of fictions, entrypimping is harmless, but for this one it smells an awful lot like trying to spread the message.

02/19/2018 00:00:00

^^^Well, that\'s kind of my point.

Anyway, all else being equal, I\'d tend to favor Idumean Patriot\'s approach, but I have no stake in any particular outcome. Best take it to the discussion page, or if that fails, the mods.

02/19/2018 00:00:00

Iíve created a discussion on the main page - Iíd urge anyone whoís interested in continuing this debate to head there.


Leave a Comment:

Top