James Webb Writes About Incest and Pedophilia

Right Wing News ^ | 10/15/2006 | John Hawkins

[ReagansRaiders]

Back in September, I did a piece on some of the N-Bombs and bizarre sexual content in three of James Webb's books, which to me, seemed to be pretty relevant.

After all, the WAPO has been trying to make the fact that George Allen said the word, "Macaca," which about 3 people had ever heard of before Allen said it, into the biggest story of the election cycle. Meanwhile, James Webb's books feature N-bombs galore and women slicing up fruit with their private parts. But that, the MSM doesn't want to go into detail about.

In any case, recently, someone alerted me to a depraved passage in another one of Webb's other books, that just blows everything away that I've posted so far. For reasons I cannot fathom, in Webb's book, Lost Soldiers, he has a scene that features incestuous pedophilia. Now here's the kicker: not only is it a completely gratuitous scene, the characters in the book, bizarrely, don't even seem to react to a sex act being performed on a child in front of them.

If that sounds surreal, it's because it is. It's like Webb was sitting around one day and said, "You know what this book needs? A father performing a sex act on his child while people act like it's an everyday occurrence. That will really throw people for a loop!"

Now, I'm going to go into detail about what happened, but it will be below the fold in case any of you want to spare yourself something even more disgusting than the Foley IMs.

Continued...

[Reagan79]

The media will just say he is really a Republican.

[Rembrandt_fan]

I read Webb's 'Fields of Fire' which, while not a great book and entirely too derivative of Norman Mailer's and James Jones' works, was a solid, well-written novel, and certainly one of the better Vietnam war novels. A published, award-winning fiction writer myself--and no fan of Webb's political views--I resent this attack on his character by way of his fictional works. One of my short stories is about an acquitted child molester; another centers around four people who killed for money. Does that mean I sympathize or empathize with or secretly fantasize about their crimes? Emphatically, no.

Webb has plenty of weaknesses insofar as his political and philosophical views are concerned, all legitimate targets in a political campaign. This article was shoddy and below-the-belt.

[Williams]

Here's my theory, I believe passages like this are added to books to make them acceptable to the liberal left media and its constituents.

I read three books recently: Charlie Wilson's War (Afghanistan), The Kite Runner (Afghanistan), and Empires at War (French & Indian War). Especially in the first two, you have some liberal craziness inserted even though the topics lend themselves totally to anti-communism, pro Reaganism. In the third, you have tons of extra concern for the Native Americans.

It's like you're reading an all out gung ho conservative treatise and suddenly a giant liberal shiv is stuck in the page and twisted. In The Kite Runner, the anti-Reagan passsage is so glaringly and inaccurately thrown in the purpose is obvious - to make the book acceptable to the New York Times.

[John Carey]

YIKES!

[sitetest]

Yikes! I read what was "below the fold." Wish I hadn't!

Too bizarre for words!

Frankly, the descriptions in those passages are nearly as alarming as the gratuitous sex act, including:

"His muscles were young and hard, but his face was devasted with wrinkles."

and:

"Young men with hard bellies and shattered faces and wild tatoos were waiting for the hogs."

I think Mr. Webb may have some unresolved... "orientation" issues with which to deal.

[Williams]

If you read the books, was there a reason of any kind why the man put a boy's penis in his mouth? Just asking.

[MEGoody]

women slicing up fruit with their private parts

If a woman can do this with her private parts, seems like it would be a good reason for a man to stay away from her.

[Anvilhead]

I agree. Writing about an evil character or action is nowhere near the same as ACUTALLY DOING IT. Most of the books I've enjoyed had a great deal of moral ambivalence.

One of the primary reasons for Batman's popularity is because his only superpower is psychosis. Benevolent, certainly, but he is still psychotic.

One of my favorite books growing up was Snow Crash. It has a brief and consensual sexual encounter with a man and a 14-15 year old girl. I can't imagine that the writer was endorsing sexual abuse. And I certainly never thought that that was an invitation to molestation.

[ReagansRaiders]

To quote Hank Hill:

"That boy ain't right...."

[Rembrandt_fan]

I read 'Fields of Fire', not his other books. But if I get the gist of your question, would there be any reason to include a disgusting, morally vile scene in a novel other than to titillate the reader in that despicable, time-tested de Sadean tradition? Sure. Nothing better illuminates a character than what he or she does. An author describing the way a couple makes love, for example, shows worlds about that couple's relationship--more so than any number of narrative paragraphs and pages telling the reader how much they care (or don't care) about each other. An author describing a character performing a horrific act on a child shows you that character's unadulterated propensity for evil, the depths of that evil. Personally, I wouldn't include such a scene in my own fiction. Writing about horrible people doing horrible things makes me feel like I need a bath afterward.

The key is intent. If the author wants you sexually aroused by that which is being described, then what you're reading is soft-or hard-core pornography. If the author wants you disgusted by the actions of a given character, or wants you to gain deeper insight into that character, then the scene is necessary, not gratuitous. One usually doesn't need to be a Literature major to tell the difference.

[Corin Stormhands]

Writing about an evil character or action is nowhere near the same as ACUTALLY DOING IT.

Well, of course. But when you view this along with Webb's over issues, with women and minorities, his anger issues and more, I think there's a sufficient cause to at least ask questions about who the real Jim Webb is.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Well, then, you should read the chapter at least before defending it. There is no suggestion in the chapter of any "reprehension" you should have toward the character, no explanation of why he did what he did, why nobody thought it was odd, nothing at all. It's just there, as if Webb was thinking about doing it and thought it would be fun to write it.

Because, as a writer, you must understand that you can't write something down if you haven't imagined it first in your head. You can't write what you can't think about.

Sure, you could totally disagree with something a character does -- that's true a lot of times. But if I write about a child molester, i'm doing it based on what my brain has absorbed over the years about child molestation. I've read what they do in the papers, seen it on TV shows and in movies, and I can write about it.

Name me one place where Webb would have read about or otherwise been introduced to the concept that a father would pick up his naked son and perform a sex act on him in public. It makes no sense, it's not something I've ever heard of, which is why it seems to be revealing of something in Webb's brain that just isn't quite "right".

Because he was able to imagine that happening, thought it made sense for the character to do so, and didn't expect the reader to be grossed out or to gain a harshly negative view of the character as a result of it.

[lazlohollyfeld]

Couldn't have said it better myself, CharlesWayne. It takes a sick mind to imagine such a sick act. What is wrong in a world that carries several weeks of stories about Allen and what he may or may not have said, about his religious heritage, and inane words he said decades ago and then completely ignore the weird and grotesque words that are published in Webb's novel? These words are far more socially damning than anything Mark Foley ever wrote to anyone and should make him unfit for office -- and a novelist.

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "Well, then, you should read the chapter at least before defending it."

And I'm telling you I don't need to read that chapter, nor am I defending it, in terms of necessity of inclusion or any other measure of literary merit. A line by line scansion of Webb's fiction is not necessary for the argument I'm making. I'm arguing that Webb should be criticized on the basis of his political views and personal philosophy, and that his fiction--while its themes may offer clues to his personal concerns--is not a legitimate source of political criticism.

Vote against Webb because he betrayed the trust of Reagan Administration, vote against Webb because he is an opportunist who switched parties and hitched his wagon to the antiwar Left, vote against Webb because he has overseen one of the dirtiest campaigns in political memory, but don't bring excerpts from his fiction into it as some kind of code to his character. 'Fields of Fire' established Webb as a serious writer. What he did with that reputation with subsequent books, I don't know; I haven't read his subsequent books. I don't need to read his subsequent books to detect the fallacy in the article author's argument.

[weegee]

Writing about an evil character or action is nowhere near the same as ACUTALLY DOING IT

Like writing sexually explicit instant messages to a page isn't the same as actually DOING IT?

[squarebarb]

It sounds as if the scene --- with the non-reacting people -- was meant to titillate if not outright gratify.

There has been a whole rash of novels with pedophilic themes in them, to the point where it has become fashionable. It's called 'edgy', 'dark' and other cliches. White Oleander comes to mind, and for my money, Lolita goes inthe same category.

I can't imagine this scene being other than gratiuitous and aimged at pedophiles.

when a scene and characters don't make sense and seem highly improbable, when there are no consequences of such an act you're dealing with pornography.

Where are the consequences? Does the narrative follow the brutalized child and describe his/her terror, feeling of violation?

No? Porn fantasy.

[Anvilhead]

As far as I know, he, while certainly a pervert, never tapped anything less then 18. So Yes.

[Dante3]

Can you imagine the hysteria if Allen had written that stuff? That scene sounds demented.

[GladesGuru]

In some Islamic lands, a crying male infant (child) is comforted by stroking the penis.

Their ways are NOT our ways.

I'll email Webb and ask if this is a reference to that practice. That is assuming that I can find an email address, that he reads it, and decides to answer a question which may well get CAIR bloviating .