I'm sure someone out there is convinced that our guys (American military forces) will never lose, or a carrier can't be sunk, but is that good storytelling? A hero only shines when they're up against a powerful, capable, even dangerous opponent... If the Good Guys win in every encounter, where's the conflict? That isn't a story - that's wish fulfillment. - Larry Bond, American war fiction author, co-authored Red Storm Rising with the late Tom Clancy, wargame designer and creator of the strategy games Harpoon and Command at Sea.
War fiction allows us to ponder the imponderable, such as nightmare scenarios that one hopes will never unfold in real life.
Ponder the imponderable? It’s much harder than you think, especially for a place like Singapore.
Despite the city-state's high literacy rate and high standard of living, people here have not been exposed to war fiction about the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) to the extent that people elsewhere - even in Malaysia - have experienced in film, literature and the creative arts.
Consider these examples:
In the Malaysian movie, PASKAL, a Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) officer goes rogue and joins a pirate gang. In the movie’s explosive finale, the officer fights against, and manages to kill, team members from the RMN special forces unit whose name inspired the movie.
In the award-winning television series, Money Heist (La casa de papel), Spanish thieves outfox authorities in Madrid when they storm the Royal Mint of Spain and start printing their own money. The series was so popular it gave rise to a story of a more ambitious heist where the Bank of Spain was robbed of tonnes of gold. The gang gets away and gets the loot by outthinking and outrunning the Spanish police and military. Enjoyed the story where underdogs win? I did.
The late Tom Clancy’s bestseller, Red Storm Rising, contains a number of battle scenes where US forces are beaten by their enemy. The US Navy aircraft carrier, USS Nimitz, is hit by Russian missiles after the carrier battle group’s sophisticated multi-layered defences fail to stop an attack by Russian bombers. Back in the 1980s, when the novel was published, the battle scene in the chapter, Dance of the Vampires, raised eyebrows as you had American authors writing about the sinking of American warships by the Soviet Union.
In war fiction, the Good Guys do not always win.
Robert Harris' novel, Fatherland, explores a world where the Nazis win and rule Europe after the Second World War. The book's cover asks the provocative question: What if Hitler had won the war? It is a bold plot, written by a British author, of a dystopian world.
Fatherland is just one example of historical fiction that builds upon the theme of a German victory after the Second World War. Another novel is Philip K. Dick's alternative history, The Man in the High Castle, whose storyline advances the idea of an Axis victory after the Second World War, with America partitioned by the war's victors: Germany and Japan.
Just imagine if Pukul Habis ended with a chapter where the SAF is destroyed and the Jalur Gemilang (Malaysian flag) was raised at the Padang. Too bold for your comfort? I thought so too...
On the other hand, if Pukul Habis was written in a way that trumpeted a swift and decisive SAF victory, this storyline would probably have earned five-star appeal with many readers - at least those from Singapore. But had the book taken that route (Note: Just to be clear for those who have yet to read the story, it was not written in this way), how do you think Malaysians would have responded?
As I have noted before, a self-congratulatory novel would have been much simpler to write. Spicing it up with secret-edge capabilities would probably have given some people a wargasm (assuming the security agencies didn't get provoked first, which was a risk I did not want to chance). Never forget: We live in a place where even plastic model makers are afraid of painting models of certain weapons like MBTs and missile systems green for fear of triggering the security agencies.
But pondering the impossible, asking what might happen if plans somehow DO NOT survive first contact in a fictional world is something that I have thought about on many occasions. Shouldn't the fictional world afford us some latitude in thinking the unimaginable?
Since the novel was published a month ago, I have received feedback from professionals in Singapore who are involved with defence matters. This includes several face to face meetings (which I enjoyed and found intellectually stimulating) that tell me that the novel has made such individuals think about certain circumstances and issues mentioned in the book.
So it gives me some confidence that suspicions abroad that Singaporeans are thin-skinned, hyper sensitive, soft and casualty-averse city boys, intolerant of any world view that does not conform to their own, is unfounded - for the moment. One would hope such confidence isn't misplaced. But time will tell as more and more readers share their thoughts.
I have read all the feedback on Amazon. I have also kept screenshots of the feedback posted, especially the negative ones for future reference. Reading such feedback and hearing your thoughts on the story whenever we get a chance to meet has been a good learning experience.
Indeed, my first principle when writing this story is that no book is beyond reproach.
I have to share, however, that what I find more worrisome than negative feedback is the mentality that the story may have been less objectionable if there was some sort of parity in the loss exchange ratio, a kind of balance with battle losses sustained by both sides in more or less equal measure, a storyline where the hurt that both sides endure rests in a kind of equilibrium.
My study of war at school, all my readings on warfare have made me acknowledge that the business of war is brutal, messy and unpredictable.
When the Royal Navy battleship, HMS Prince of Wales, and battlecruiser, HMS Repulse, were sunk off Kuantan in December 1941, the loss ratio was hardly a balanced one. Two major Royal Navy surface units sunk, more than 800 British sailors killed in action in exchange for three Japanese bombers shot down (one more crashed on landing). Where is the parity, the balance and the sense that all is fair in war?
The Fall of Singapore saw the Japanese capture Fortress Singapore, even when outnumbered 3:1 by British Imperial forces. These are real battle statistics - not something made up in a hyperactive mind and typed out as a story.
Even Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising made NATO's defence of western Europe a close run thing.
The book's chapter, A Walk in the Woods, relates the conversation between NATO Supreme Commander, General Robinson, and Russian General Alekseyev who believed the USSR would have been dictating terms if Warsaw Pact forces smashed "three or four more of your convoys". Make that one or two convoys, Robinson reminded himself. It was that close.
While some individuals in Singapore may chafe at the descriptions of SAF losses in Pukul Habis, there may well be elements in Malaysia who do not take kindly to descriptions of a two division SAF breakout after a weakly contested crossing of the Johor Strait, followed by a march north about 100 km in three days. An incompetent SAF would fail to achieve that sort of battle performance, and I hope the hat tip was not so subtle and too implied for readers to pick up.
I am fairly certain reactions to the novel are now being monitored by foreign military professionals whose job is to make sense of Singapore's commitment to defence and resilience.
In mature societies and in armed forces prepared to ponder the impossible, war fiction has served as a catalyst for discussions on unthinkable scenarios.
War fiction has also acted as a handy platform for raising situations that the directing staff for war games may find difficult articulating in their situation injects. Through such discourse, organisations improve through clear and thoughtful realisation that should the worst happen, their organisations would have the mindset and tenacity to adapt and adjust to whatever the fog of war throws at them. You don't get there by desperately clinging to hopium.
Larry Bond, the American author who partnered the late Tom Clancy years ago to write Red Storm Rising, shared with me how the United States military reacted to their scenarios which described losses among US forces, including the NATO-Warsaw Pact clashes that nearly ended catastrophically for NATO forces, as Gen Robinson himself conceded in the story.
"I've never had a problem or received any negative feedback about showing US forces losing a fight," said Larry. "I'm sure someone out there is convinced that our guys will never lose, or a carrier can't be sunk, but is that good storytelling? A hero only shines when they're up against a powerful, capable, even dangerous opponent... If the Good Guys win in every encounter, where's the conflict? That isn't a story - that's wish fulfillment."
Related posts:
Why
Pukul Habis was not written from a Singaporean perspective. Click
herePukul Habis: Author's Note. Click
here Pukul Habis: Full text of Prologue. Click
here Why does the English language novel,
Pukul Habis, have a Malay title? Click
here
Pukul Habis: Total Wipeout:
11 March 2023 update: Books Kinokuniya in Singapore has stocked Pukul Habis. Please visit its main store in Ngee Ann City or Bugis Junction, or check the Kinokuniya online store here. The title should be available via Kinokuniya Malaysia soon. Please enquire with the KL store.
For readers elsewhere, please check the Amazon sites that serve your location. "Look Inside" function on some sites shows sample pages.
Singapore: https://bit.ly/3XJzInH
Australia: https://amzn.to/3ViaX0i
United Kingdom: https://amzn.to/3EZ6clA Look Inside
USA: https://amzn.to/3Ui3Eo1 Look Inside. When ordering from Singapore, please click on the "Shipping to Singapore?" button. Ignore the "Temporarily out of stock" notice on the Amazon.com page.
