![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Hench by Natalie Zina Walschots
I found this book mostly kind of morally bewildering. I've seen a lot of online reviews call it morally grey, but if it is, it's not morally grey the way I normally understand it- tension between conflicting moral principles, struggle between doing the right thing and inaction, ambiguity about who the bad guy is.
In this book, there are Villains, who do things like build death rays and mind control devices and use them to threaten cities. They are opposed by Heroes, who do anything to stop Villains, even if it results in collateral damage. There are civilians, who just try to go about their lives. And then there are Henches, who work for Villains in mundane capacities like driving them around or fixing their internet or maintaining their payroll.
And I dunno, it strikes me that Henches are just Villains? Maybe I'm too black and white to understand Walschots's version of moral grey, but I personally think if you're working for a guy using a death ray to threaten civilians you're also a bad guy. You're responsible for some part of the pain the Villain is inflicting.
That made it hard for me to find a pov into the novel, because Anna's certainty that she is right and superheroes cause more harm than they mitigate is the book's apparent moral center and I couldn't accept it even as some sort of antiheroic idea, and trying to read the novel thinking the book disagrees with Anna and is interested in watching her descent into amoral supervillainy structurally doesn't work. It didn't help that Walschots was allergic to any kind of long form infodumping, I never could quite make sense of any of the backstory involving all the central superheroes and villains, and I definitely never found the worldbuilding keystone that would underpin a setting where Anna had a point.
I found this book mostly kind of morally bewildering. I've seen a lot of online reviews call it morally grey, but if it is, it's not morally grey the way I normally understand it- tension between conflicting moral principles, struggle between doing the right thing and inaction, ambiguity about who the bad guy is.
In this book, there are Villains, who do things like build death rays and mind control devices and use them to threaten cities. They are opposed by Heroes, who do anything to stop Villains, even if it results in collateral damage. There are civilians, who just try to go about their lives. And then there are Henches, who work for Villains in mundane capacities like driving them around or fixing their internet or maintaining their payroll.
And I dunno, it strikes me that Henches are just Villains? Maybe I'm too black and white to understand Walschots's version of moral grey, but I personally think if you're working for a guy using a death ray to threaten civilians you're also a bad guy. You're responsible for some part of the pain the Villain is inflicting.
That made it hard for me to find a pov into the novel, because Anna's certainty that she is right and superheroes cause more harm than they mitigate is the book's apparent moral center and I couldn't accept it even as some sort of antiheroic idea, and trying to read the novel thinking the book disagrees with Anna and is interested in watching her descent into amoral supervillainy structurally doesn't work. It didn't help that Walschots was allergic to any kind of long form infodumping, I never could quite make sense of any of the backstory involving all the central superheroes and villains, and I definitely never found the worldbuilding keystone that would underpin a setting where Anna had a point.