Matt Zimmer (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
matt_zimmer) wrote2023-10-03 06:05 pm
matt_zimmer) wrote2023-10-03 06:05 pm
Entry tags:
The Simpsons "Homer's Crossing" Season Premiere Review (Spoilers)
Also reviews for the season premieres of Bob's Burgers, and Family Guy, the latest episode of American Dad!, and the novel Under The Dome.
The Simpsons "Homer's Crossing"
Honestly, that started off interesting. I loved Otto's fantasy sequence (where the heroes have no overbites), but the episode completely fell apart by the end.
By the third act I was like "Okay, this episode is about the controversy of defunding the police". Which is something you'd figure the allegory would have been clearer about before then.
I mentioned things fell apart. The If I Had A Hammer thing is one of the weakest endings the show has done in awhile. And this is a show that does nothing but weak endings. But they usually aren't enough to actually hurt the episode in question. This did.
It's supposed to be funny his actual name is Squeaky-Voiced Teen but I find it annoying instead.
Ugh. **.
Bob's Burgers "Fight At The Not Okay Chore-ral"
Mostly awful. I loved Linda and Louise's scene at the end where Linda assures her she'll be the toughest little cutie in prison, but I hate the fact that Bob and Linda can assign the kids chores, and they think they can veto the idea. I freaking hate that.
Part of me likes and respects how down-to-Earth and fair Bob and Linda are to these problematic kids. But there is such a thing as a parent being TOO cool and understanding. Bob and Linda let those kids walk all over them and it's annoying.
When I said the episode was mostly awful, I think that really came down to the Western stuff. Even for this show's fictionalized storytelling it was pretty bad.
Not good. *1/2.
Family Guy "Fertilized Megg"
I've always liked the friendship between Meg and Bruce and thought the episode was kind of sweet.
Lois being so excited to be a hot grandma was pretty funny.
I loved Dr. Hartman's bits about contractions too.
Papa John's IS pretty gross.
Stewie made the cutaway so he could see the play.
The hole in the wall was already there.
Pretty good episode. ***1/2.
American Dad! "Multiverse Of American Dadness"
Some pleasurably weird and bonkers ideas. I very much see Everything Everywhere All At Once as the chief influence but there is enough insanity for ten multiverse franchises.
Shaggy, huh? They should have brought Reggie back for that.
Lewis remains one of the best characters on this show. They are always finding new ways for him to both surprise me and make me laugh.
Fun episode. ****1/2.
Under The Dome by Stephen King
Where do I begin?
I guess the elephant in the room is that this is probably King's most political novel, at least until "Holly". And many of the sites I post these reviews on don't allow discussions of politics. I'm going to ask for a little grace and understanding from the moderators of those sites. And as far as posters on those sites go, let's not make a federal case of anything, all right? If I reach a conclusion you don't agree with, that's fine. I'm not looking to start a flame war.
Caveats out of the way. This is one of King's hardest books for me to read. Not just because it's over a thousand pages long. Truthfully, even then it feels like a taut, gripping read. No, the problem is that it's one of King's most enraging books. With the exception of "IT" and well, "Rage", "Under The Dome" pisses me off like little else King has written. The difference there is "IT" and "Rage" pissed me off for the wrong reasons (child orgies and school shootings). "Under The Dome" pisses me off for the right ones. It's King taking a righteous political stand, and it's effective as hell. But I have to say with around 15 years of hindsight, although the book feels timelier than ever, because it feels timely it also makes me feel it was probably a little bit unfair when it came out.
The book was King lambasting the incompetence of the Bush Administration. Big Jim Rennie was based on Dick Cheney. The idea behind the book is wondering what would happen if an administration that corrupt and incompetent were put in charge of a REAL life and death crisis. I know Bush botched 9/11, but this is King putting a hat on that. I'll talk a little further about how effective the book is as a liberal outrage machine (pretty damn) but although it feels more current than EVER, real-world current events make me feel like King didn't really understand the Bush Administration or why it was actually bad. I would believe Dick Cheney is a power hungry sociopath. But still Liz Cheney stood against Trump and up for Democracy after January 6, with the full support of her father. I see a LOT of Trump in Rennie as the dangerous demagogue who is SO obviously full of it and you can't believe how many people are falling for his repulsive and stupid shtick. But even though I hate Dick Cheney, and yeah, think he's probably evil, the truth is, on some level, he did want what was best for the country. Even if he only out to enrich himself and his friends with his evil policies, standards did exist for him in a way they do not for Trump. I feel like after having lived through this exact scenario for REAL, Cheney is getting a raw deal.
I appreciate King's role as a liberal gadfly. But while I definitely think Rennie is far too harsh an allegory for Cheney in hindsight, I think Andy Sanders is far too soft a comparison for George W. Bush. All of this compliments I just grudgingly handed Cheney go for Bush Jr. too. But... But... King has said he wrote Andy as hapless as he did because he felt sorry for Bush on some level, and felt he had good intentions, but was in over his head. I dispute the notion that Bush ever had good intentions. Sanders comes across as a sincere guy who genuinely wants to help people. Again, while acknowledging Bush had some standards of decency current Republicans lack, I do want to point out that Bush's personality was mean-spirited and that of a fratboy butthole. Whatever sympathy King felt for him being in over his head is another reason King often misses the forest for the trees in his political opinions. Bush was no hapless innocent. He may have been somewhat dumb and uncomplicated, but he was also petty and mean. So, yeah, no Uncle Stevie. Political allegory fail there, although the difference being than it wasn't just bogus with 15 years hindsight, it was bogus back in 2009 too.
Before I talk about what the book did right, I'm gonna mention its last failing. Maybe you'll think this specific failing helped me out as a writer, but really, it didn't really have much to do with how I approached Gilda And Meek. I didn't actually learn anything from King's mistake here, because it always seemed evident, and not something I needed to find out for myself. I already knew this bit.
But I think like all liberals 15 years ago, King earnestly wants to assure his conservative readers he doesn't hate ALL Republicans and desperately tries to create a "good" Republican in Julia Shumway to contrast her with Rennie. Because of the shots Gilda And Meek And The Un-Iverse takes at Republicans, that's partly why Bernadette Anderson is the way she is. Somebody I don't agree with politically, but somebody who is wholly consistent in those beliefs, even if they are inconvenient to her at various points. But the thing is I always have Bernadette say and do various conservative and Christian things. Barbie's recurring joke to Shumway is that she doesn't sound like a Republican. That's a damn failing. If the only way King could portray a moral Republican was by not having her act like a Republican, Shumway is not a complimentary character at all, or for that matter remotely successful as a contrast character. Her portrayal is a huge failing.
Time to talk about the good. I worry about this a bit. The book has SO much in it to praise and get worked up over I'll spend 8 hours on this review if I'm not careful. I want to get to everything I either loved or that resonated with me, but I don't wanna be here all day either.
Bold opinion: Stephen King has never created a character I hated more than Big Jim Rennie. Annie Wilkes and Brady Hartsfeld were both pretty bad, but literally EVERYTHING Rennie does is bad. I recognize Trump rather than Cheney because Rennie has no redeeming qualities. Barbie at one point seems to be getting mad because Rennie supposedly isn't stupid, and is still pulling the crap he is. I dispute the notion he isn't stupid. If King was trying to convince me he wasn't, every single thing he did wouldn't have been as damaging to himself and everyone else as it was. It's like King was writing about Cheney without realizing he was really writing about Trump 10 years in the future. The novel feels timelier than ever. But its timeliness makes it feel more unfair than ever too.
The first chapter of his hanging up on the army guy and then suggesting for no reason terrorists might be involved makes him a very easy character to hate. The fact that nothing he says or does is right, and that he's so rude and repulsive to everyone makes people falling for it even more inexcusable than if he had charisma. Again, a better slam at Trump than Cheney.
Speaking of which, the allegory for climate change, and that we all only have one Dome, so we can't afford to destroy it also feels more timely than ever.
Joe McClatchey shows that King digs and venerates smart kids. They are portrayed as cool rather than nerdy for being smart. I recognize Mark Petrie from "'Salem's Lot" there, as well as Luke Ellis from "The Institute". King does not believe smart and precocious kids in genre are something to be ashamed of or avoided. He believes in putting in the effort to make them cool and interesting so the reader won't be annoyed with them. Which is the right mindset, and he's usually successful there.
I have to say, and you'll probably call me crazy. But King sort of portrays the burgeoning insane fellowship, friendship, and romance (?) between Andy Sanders and Chef as somewhat comical (and considering it's based on viewing meth as a religious gateway I see why) but I dunno, I also find it incredibly sad and moving. Sanders has essentially lost everything he's ever loved and held dear, but Chef's madness has given him a renewed purpose. It's arguable he's the only person who died in the Dome who died happy and fulfilled. The love there between them both feels legit and genuine to me. Which, yeah, admittedly makes it funny and subversive. And real too. Don't forget real.
The stuff with Junior and his "girlfriends" and the gang-rape of Sam Bushey under the chapter titled "N'yuck, Nyuck, Nyuck" makes Under The Dome one of the darkest and most unpleasant King books of all time. The scary thing is this is done by people instead of supernatural monsters. Bushey's reactions during and after the rape is some of the most credible stuff King has ever done about the subject, and this is a guy who essentially spent the mid-90's sticking up for battered women. There is something raw and powerful here while she shoots Georgia Roux in the face, and after Roux shrieks she takes it back, the ridiculousness of the moment is built into both the horror and the tragedy.
I love the character of Thurston Marshall. Mostly because he's freaking well-rounded. I have a sneaking suspicion King himself doesn't like him. But what's cool is he impresses other characters that DO wind up liking him. He's sort of an insufferable prig. Who's heart is in the right place, and is freaking useful. I love that notion.
Rusty Everett's fight with his wife Linda over Barbie's innocence over the things he was being framed for again felt more true today than it did back in 2009. I recognize the fact that political disagreements in 2023 have destroyed families in their toxicity. I feel like the political message of Gilda And Meek And The Un-Iverse would have gone over better during the Bush Administration. While it's being used to critique Trump I very much feel the allegory is a failure there. In a lot of ways "Under The Dome" is the opposite. It doesn't feel true to life about what the Bush Administration was really like, but feels spot-on for the Trump years King couldn't even imagine at this point. If I could have traded Gilda And Meek being completed in 2009 for King publishing "Under The Dome" in say, 2018, I would have. Both political allegories seem to be badmouthing the wrong things at the times they were released.
My favorite narrative touch of the entire book (and this might go down as one of my favorite narrative touches of King's entire career) is when Joe promises his mother he will be careful, and she makes Rusty promise there will be no bloodshed, and the chapter ends with Joe saying "No blood". The next two word title page is "Blood Everywhere". THAT? THAT? Is everything I try to be in my writing. I love King's books, but I read very little in them that I personally aspire to. THAT level of genius is something I wanna do all day every day.
I mentioned Big Jim has no redeeming virtues. It's true. But it's not like he doesn't have interesting facets. Like why he loves girl's basketball. Something tells me King himself is a fan, and for the same reasons. There is a little too much knowing in King about the girls supposedly taking losing personally. That's an observation of a dude who watches and enjoys that sport for a messed up reason. Takes one to know one.
Similarly, the fact that Junior Rennie is a necrophilliac is appalling enough, but the fact that King makes him genuinely care about the well-being of the kids Alice and Aiden makes me unhappy for making me have sympathy with this monster. King knew which buttons to push there.
Speaking of which, the soldier Ames taking a vested interest in the kid Ollie surviving was great. In my head he adopted him after the story was over.
That's another thing. I felt the book ended too quickly. For a novel that long, I would have appreciated an Epilogue set a few months later telling us where the characters ended up after the Dome lifted, and specifically the nation's true reaction to Rennie's evil once they got the full story. Rennie wanted to be on the cover of Time Magazine. Did he actually get there for infamous reasons?
The stuff in the bunker with Carter and Rennie was kind of annoying because while I agree that the entire situation was Rennie's fault, Carter specifically chose to back that wrong horse. Little late to blame the obviously crooked and evil guy for being crooked and evil. Rennie is a special level of suck in that scene too, even for him. He blames everybody else for his own problems. I hate Rennie because he is the kind of blasphemer who unironically compares himself with Christ, which zero awareness that that is what he is doing.
I'm going to end this review by going off on a little bit of tangent. But I think it's necessary. Have you ever seen the TV show based on this book? It is pure crap. And indefensible. Not only does it botch every message King tried to preach, but it gutlessly avoids any appearances of political partisanship, which is insane, and totally on-brand for network television. But what I can't forgive is that the show was one of the worst written TV shows on the air at the time. There moments that are so bad I laughed. Stay away from that crap. If you have a strong stomach, the book is the truly interesting political allegory. It's a good read. But it will piss you the hell off. But at least it will piss you off for the right reasons. ****1/2.
The Simpsons "Homer's Crossing"
Honestly, that started off interesting. I loved Otto's fantasy sequence (where the heroes have no overbites), but the episode completely fell apart by the end.
By the third act I was like "Okay, this episode is about the controversy of defunding the police". Which is something you'd figure the allegory would have been clearer about before then.
I mentioned things fell apart. The If I Had A Hammer thing is one of the weakest endings the show has done in awhile. And this is a show that does nothing but weak endings. But they usually aren't enough to actually hurt the episode in question. This did.
It's supposed to be funny his actual name is Squeaky-Voiced Teen but I find it annoying instead.
Ugh. **.
Bob's Burgers "Fight At The Not Okay Chore-ral"
Mostly awful. I loved Linda and Louise's scene at the end where Linda assures her she'll be the toughest little cutie in prison, but I hate the fact that Bob and Linda can assign the kids chores, and they think they can veto the idea. I freaking hate that.
Part of me likes and respects how down-to-Earth and fair Bob and Linda are to these problematic kids. But there is such a thing as a parent being TOO cool and understanding. Bob and Linda let those kids walk all over them and it's annoying.
When I said the episode was mostly awful, I think that really came down to the Western stuff. Even for this show's fictionalized storytelling it was pretty bad.
Not good. *1/2.
Family Guy "Fertilized Megg"
I've always liked the friendship between Meg and Bruce and thought the episode was kind of sweet.
Lois being so excited to be a hot grandma was pretty funny.
I loved Dr. Hartman's bits about contractions too.
Papa John's IS pretty gross.
Stewie made the cutaway so he could see the play.
The hole in the wall was already there.
Pretty good episode. ***1/2.
American Dad! "Multiverse Of American Dadness"
Some pleasurably weird and bonkers ideas. I very much see Everything Everywhere All At Once as the chief influence but there is enough insanity for ten multiverse franchises.
Shaggy, huh? They should have brought Reggie back for that.
Lewis remains one of the best characters on this show. They are always finding new ways for him to both surprise me and make me laugh.
Fun episode. ****1/2.
Under The Dome by Stephen King
Where do I begin?
I guess the elephant in the room is that this is probably King's most political novel, at least until "Holly". And many of the sites I post these reviews on don't allow discussions of politics. I'm going to ask for a little grace and understanding from the moderators of those sites. And as far as posters on those sites go, let's not make a federal case of anything, all right? If I reach a conclusion you don't agree with, that's fine. I'm not looking to start a flame war.
Caveats out of the way. This is one of King's hardest books for me to read. Not just because it's over a thousand pages long. Truthfully, even then it feels like a taut, gripping read. No, the problem is that it's one of King's most enraging books. With the exception of "IT" and well, "Rage", "Under The Dome" pisses me off like little else King has written. The difference there is "IT" and "Rage" pissed me off for the wrong reasons (child orgies and school shootings). "Under The Dome" pisses me off for the right ones. It's King taking a righteous political stand, and it's effective as hell. But I have to say with around 15 years of hindsight, although the book feels timelier than ever, because it feels timely it also makes me feel it was probably a little bit unfair when it came out.
The book was King lambasting the incompetence of the Bush Administration. Big Jim Rennie was based on Dick Cheney. The idea behind the book is wondering what would happen if an administration that corrupt and incompetent were put in charge of a REAL life and death crisis. I know Bush botched 9/11, but this is King putting a hat on that. I'll talk a little further about how effective the book is as a liberal outrage machine (pretty damn) but although it feels more current than EVER, real-world current events make me feel like King didn't really understand the Bush Administration or why it was actually bad. I would believe Dick Cheney is a power hungry sociopath. But still Liz Cheney stood against Trump and up for Democracy after January 6, with the full support of her father. I see a LOT of Trump in Rennie as the dangerous demagogue who is SO obviously full of it and you can't believe how many people are falling for his repulsive and stupid shtick. But even though I hate Dick Cheney, and yeah, think he's probably evil, the truth is, on some level, he did want what was best for the country. Even if he only out to enrich himself and his friends with his evil policies, standards did exist for him in a way they do not for Trump. I feel like after having lived through this exact scenario for REAL, Cheney is getting a raw deal.
I appreciate King's role as a liberal gadfly. But while I definitely think Rennie is far too harsh an allegory for Cheney in hindsight, I think Andy Sanders is far too soft a comparison for George W. Bush. All of this compliments I just grudgingly handed Cheney go for Bush Jr. too. But... But... King has said he wrote Andy as hapless as he did because he felt sorry for Bush on some level, and felt he had good intentions, but was in over his head. I dispute the notion that Bush ever had good intentions. Sanders comes across as a sincere guy who genuinely wants to help people. Again, while acknowledging Bush had some standards of decency current Republicans lack, I do want to point out that Bush's personality was mean-spirited and that of a fratboy butthole. Whatever sympathy King felt for him being in over his head is another reason King often misses the forest for the trees in his political opinions. Bush was no hapless innocent. He may have been somewhat dumb and uncomplicated, but he was also petty and mean. So, yeah, no Uncle Stevie. Political allegory fail there, although the difference being than it wasn't just bogus with 15 years hindsight, it was bogus back in 2009 too.
Before I talk about what the book did right, I'm gonna mention its last failing. Maybe you'll think this specific failing helped me out as a writer, but really, it didn't really have much to do with how I approached Gilda And Meek. I didn't actually learn anything from King's mistake here, because it always seemed evident, and not something I needed to find out for myself. I already knew this bit.
But I think like all liberals 15 years ago, King earnestly wants to assure his conservative readers he doesn't hate ALL Republicans and desperately tries to create a "good" Republican in Julia Shumway to contrast her with Rennie. Because of the shots Gilda And Meek And The Un-Iverse takes at Republicans, that's partly why Bernadette Anderson is the way she is. Somebody I don't agree with politically, but somebody who is wholly consistent in those beliefs, even if they are inconvenient to her at various points. But the thing is I always have Bernadette say and do various conservative and Christian things. Barbie's recurring joke to Shumway is that she doesn't sound like a Republican. That's a damn failing. If the only way King could portray a moral Republican was by not having her act like a Republican, Shumway is not a complimentary character at all, or for that matter remotely successful as a contrast character. Her portrayal is a huge failing.
Time to talk about the good. I worry about this a bit. The book has SO much in it to praise and get worked up over I'll spend 8 hours on this review if I'm not careful. I want to get to everything I either loved or that resonated with me, but I don't wanna be here all day either.
Bold opinion: Stephen King has never created a character I hated more than Big Jim Rennie. Annie Wilkes and Brady Hartsfeld were both pretty bad, but literally EVERYTHING Rennie does is bad. I recognize Trump rather than Cheney because Rennie has no redeeming qualities. Barbie at one point seems to be getting mad because Rennie supposedly isn't stupid, and is still pulling the crap he is. I dispute the notion he isn't stupid. If King was trying to convince me he wasn't, every single thing he did wouldn't have been as damaging to himself and everyone else as it was. It's like King was writing about Cheney without realizing he was really writing about Trump 10 years in the future. The novel feels timelier than ever. But its timeliness makes it feel more unfair than ever too.
The first chapter of his hanging up on the army guy and then suggesting for no reason terrorists might be involved makes him a very easy character to hate. The fact that nothing he says or does is right, and that he's so rude and repulsive to everyone makes people falling for it even more inexcusable than if he had charisma. Again, a better slam at Trump than Cheney.
Speaking of which, the allegory for climate change, and that we all only have one Dome, so we can't afford to destroy it also feels more timely than ever.
Joe McClatchey shows that King digs and venerates smart kids. They are portrayed as cool rather than nerdy for being smart. I recognize Mark Petrie from "'Salem's Lot" there, as well as Luke Ellis from "The Institute". King does not believe smart and precocious kids in genre are something to be ashamed of or avoided. He believes in putting in the effort to make them cool and interesting so the reader won't be annoyed with them. Which is the right mindset, and he's usually successful there.
I have to say, and you'll probably call me crazy. But King sort of portrays the burgeoning insane fellowship, friendship, and romance (?) between Andy Sanders and Chef as somewhat comical (and considering it's based on viewing meth as a religious gateway I see why) but I dunno, I also find it incredibly sad and moving. Sanders has essentially lost everything he's ever loved and held dear, but Chef's madness has given him a renewed purpose. It's arguable he's the only person who died in the Dome who died happy and fulfilled. The love there between them both feels legit and genuine to me. Which, yeah, admittedly makes it funny and subversive. And real too. Don't forget real.
The stuff with Junior and his "girlfriends" and the gang-rape of Sam Bushey under the chapter titled "N'yuck, Nyuck, Nyuck" makes Under The Dome one of the darkest and most unpleasant King books of all time. The scary thing is this is done by people instead of supernatural monsters. Bushey's reactions during and after the rape is some of the most credible stuff King has ever done about the subject, and this is a guy who essentially spent the mid-90's sticking up for battered women. There is something raw and powerful here while she shoots Georgia Roux in the face, and after Roux shrieks she takes it back, the ridiculousness of the moment is built into both the horror and the tragedy.
I love the character of Thurston Marshall. Mostly because he's freaking well-rounded. I have a sneaking suspicion King himself doesn't like him. But what's cool is he impresses other characters that DO wind up liking him. He's sort of an insufferable prig. Who's heart is in the right place, and is freaking useful. I love that notion.
Rusty Everett's fight with his wife Linda over Barbie's innocence over the things he was being framed for again felt more true today than it did back in 2009. I recognize the fact that political disagreements in 2023 have destroyed families in their toxicity. I feel like the political message of Gilda And Meek And The Un-Iverse would have gone over better during the Bush Administration. While it's being used to critique Trump I very much feel the allegory is a failure there. In a lot of ways "Under The Dome" is the opposite. It doesn't feel true to life about what the Bush Administration was really like, but feels spot-on for the Trump years King couldn't even imagine at this point. If I could have traded Gilda And Meek being completed in 2009 for King publishing "Under The Dome" in say, 2018, I would have. Both political allegories seem to be badmouthing the wrong things at the times they were released.
My favorite narrative touch of the entire book (and this might go down as one of my favorite narrative touches of King's entire career) is when Joe promises his mother he will be careful, and she makes Rusty promise there will be no bloodshed, and the chapter ends with Joe saying "No blood". The next two word title page is "Blood Everywhere". THAT? THAT? Is everything I try to be in my writing. I love King's books, but I read very little in them that I personally aspire to. THAT level of genius is something I wanna do all day every day.
I mentioned Big Jim has no redeeming virtues. It's true. But it's not like he doesn't have interesting facets. Like why he loves girl's basketball. Something tells me King himself is a fan, and for the same reasons. There is a little too much knowing in King about the girls supposedly taking losing personally. That's an observation of a dude who watches and enjoys that sport for a messed up reason. Takes one to know one.
Similarly, the fact that Junior Rennie is a necrophilliac is appalling enough, but the fact that King makes him genuinely care about the well-being of the kids Alice and Aiden makes me unhappy for making me have sympathy with this monster. King knew which buttons to push there.
Speaking of which, the soldier Ames taking a vested interest in the kid Ollie surviving was great. In my head he adopted him after the story was over.
That's another thing. I felt the book ended too quickly. For a novel that long, I would have appreciated an Epilogue set a few months later telling us where the characters ended up after the Dome lifted, and specifically the nation's true reaction to Rennie's evil once they got the full story. Rennie wanted to be on the cover of Time Magazine. Did he actually get there for infamous reasons?
The stuff in the bunker with Carter and Rennie was kind of annoying because while I agree that the entire situation was Rennie's fault, Carter specifically chose to back that wrong horse. Little late to blame the obviously crooked and evil guy for being crooked and evil. Rennie is a special level of suck in that scene too, even for him. He blames everybody else for his own problems. I hate Rennie because he is the kind of blasphemer who unironically compares himself with Christ, which zero awareness that that is what he is doing.
I'm going to end this review by going off on a little bit of tangent. But I think it's necessary. Have you ever seen the TV show based on this book? It is pure crap. And indefensible. Not only does it botch every message King tried to preach, but it gutlessly avoids any appearances of political partisanship, which is insane, and totally on-brand for network television. But what I can't forgive is that the show was one of the worst written TV shows on the air at the time. There moments that are so bad I laughed. Stay away from that crap. If you have a strong stomach, the book is the truly interesting political allegory. It's a good read. But it will piss you the hell off. But at least it will piss you off for the right reasons. ****1/2.