The Ninth Circle - R.A.Meluch

[A.G.McDowell]

This is almost a second reboot of R.A.Meluch's Romans in Spaaaaaace!
Universe, as it focuses in two new groups of characters, with many of
the previous cast having only minor roles.

The Ninth Circle is the self-proclaimed title of a group of ex-Roman
legionaries in training, severely traumatised by their experiences, who
react by turning themselves into murdering pirates: the name comes from
the ninth circle of Dante's Inferno.

The other new group are scientists studying the (Xeno-)biology of a
previously unexplored world. These are not Science Fiction hero
scientists: these are Save-The-Spotted-Owl scientists as seen by climate
change denialists. They are hidebound in pacifist-environmentalist
groupthink, they let their preconceived ideas stop them from evaluating
evidence properly, and they are simultaneously split by academic
squabbles and under the iron control of a similarly misled
administrator. They are simultaneously cowardly and led by their
misconceptions to take stupid risks - they incur most of the casualties.

I like to reread books before reporting on them - the view of the
scientists discouraged me from this, but recent events made it more
palatable to me. There is plenty of stuff going on, there are puzzles in
Xeno-biology that get solved, and if you liked the Merrimack and its
Marines, there is enough of that here that you needn't feel that the
brand of Romans in Spaaaaaaace! has been used to trick you into buying
the book. The one open-minded scientist is Patrick Hamilton (Hamster's
husband) and Hamster herself is the previous character who gets most
time - Hamster and her husband both come out of this pretty well. If
you're into psychological studies, you'll probably appreciate the Ninth
Circle ex-Romans more than I did (There are also interesting things
about the Ninth Circle I'm not telling you).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Foundations_Theory claims that there
are six recognised moral virtues, of which liberals tend to focus on the
first three, and conservatives add the next three. The second three are
Loyalty, respect for Authority, and Purity rules. I think this book is a
demonstration of the military virtues of Loyalty and respect for
Authority. The military (including the Ninth Circle) demonstrate
loyalty, and following Authority keeps the Marines (who aren't mental
giants) from making stupid mistakes, except when their leaders err. But
if you're trying to solve a problem, I don't think loyalty helps. I
think there's good reason to value it less in some circumstances.

As for cowardice: I am not brave. I have have seen just enough of some
UK troops to see that many of them are recklessly brave. As far as I can
tell, the military recruit and select for this, and they send them on
adventure training courses designed to encourage this. It works. I know
that you can find PhD scientists and mathematicians who are into martial
arts and would seek out adventures. I still acknowledge, based on my
experience, that for a reliable source of high-quality reckless bravery
UK front line/elite troops are better.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <mmqlso$3iq$1...@dont-email.me>,

A.G.McDowell <andrew-...@o2.co.uk> wrote:
>This is almost a second reboot of R.A.Meluch's Romans in Spaaaaaace!
>Universe, as it focuses in two new groups of characters, with many of
>the previous cast having only minor roles.
>

I initially enjoyed this series as pure Star Trek (complete with
Kirk/Spock/Bones analogues) space opera, but ultimately I had
three problems with the way things were progressing, and ended up
dropping the series:

1) The pointless universe reboot in the first book. You don't do
something like that without it becoming Chekov's gun, but
apparently it wasn't..

2) The lame ending to the main Earth/Rome conflict by the deus
ex expedient of simply rendering the main opponent crazy rather
than actually "defeating" him.

3) The out of left field, offscreen, marriage for Farragut...
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[David Mitchell]

On 29/06/15 06:44, A.G.McDowell wrote:

> As for cowardice: I am not brave. I have have seen just enough of some
> UK troops to see that many of them are recklessly brave. As far as I can
> tell, the military recruit and select for this, and they send them on
> adventure training courses designed to encourage this. It works.

To an extent. There's a fine line between "recklessly brave" and
"reckless". I know that many of the casualties incurred by Briish
troops in Iraq as a consequence of encountering IED's were due to their
habit of deliberately driving into suspicious items on roads just to see
what happened, because they were being driven insane by the boredom of
life at base.