Ghost Sub

by Roger E. Herst

Hiding in enemy waters during a secret mission, the U.S.S Amundsen, loaded with cruise missiles, is trapped under the polar icepack and faces Russian discovery. When inexplicable events occur during this fateful patrol, the crew question the skill and judgment of their Black skipper. Complicating matters, to survive the Captain and Executive Officer must unravel a series of subtle clues aboard their submarine, then decide what to do with a new set of threatening facts.

Paperback

First published September 1, 1987

Reviews

[Suden Käpälä]

Int.v.260207a.

It's gonna be another one of those. A so-called 'review', which is arguably closer to a jury-rigged collection of half-hearted essays -- yet draped over several genuine observations about the actual work under scrutiny. It may tell you what you want to know about the book -- then again, it might not. It will (probably) tell you more about me, or about my love for music. It even contains cute images of a bunny and a tortoise. Be advised.



(In my defense, the above image is not chosen at random. It's not even fully unrelated. Really, it's not!)

  . . . Status . . .

First-off, perhaps I should clarify that I'd never call myself, a submarine 'buff'. I have no background and no training which would provide me w/ specific or in-depth knowledge -- let alone expertise -- about anything pertaining to this subject. If, through inappropriate hints & unrelated remarks in other reviews and comments here, I have inadvertently given that impression, I take full responsibility. (As far as that goes, on a socially mediatic website... Not. One. Single. League. Or so it seems.)

That said, I am an enthusiast; the silent forces have since a certain moment ever held my interest; and in fact, much auxiliary underwater activity also intrigues me. Part of the reason for this may be its kinship with another of my fields of interest: like extra-atmospheric operations (e.g., space travel), any aquatic environment is inherently alien and by definition hostile to (O2-breathing, 1 bar-optimized) homo sapiens, and holds many dangers that warrant a complex combination of (a.o.) focus, stamina, caution, reliable & redundant equipment, and protocol. This blend of psychological and technological requirements "is not for the faint-hearted", so to speak; I can't help respecting people who brave the perils of sub-surface conditions, and their exploits (whether fictional or not) invariably seem to lead to what I find engaging stories.

My curiosities r/ this field of human endeavour led me to garner some semblance of understanding about, e.g., the basics of submarine warfare. (Which, of all the above-mentioned fields, arguably breeds the most potent mix for mind-boggling adversities that need to be surmounted -- and that, in turn, can be a source for reverent, if often tragic or/and conflicted, depictions of the singular kinds of personalities that choose to enlist --for reasons misguided, enlightened, or all of the above-- in any service -- let alone, those that volunteer for submarine duty. It can also be a source for plain, simple, even cheap entertainment -- and that's fine too, I guess. I'll watch --or read?-- it. By now, however, it might be clear why I prefer my 'entertainment' in this 'genre' to be fictive -- I am fascinated by the materiel and environment, and I revel in the reflections that are ideally made on human nature of those concerned. As such, naturally, I could not, nor did I want to, circumvent (e.g.) the Kypck film adaptation. But I almost couldn't bear re-watching it, when I had the chance. Other true stories of the type, where things end in tragedy, I easily pass up -- but partially b/c I was at work (w/ radio announcements on PA in the shop) during the time it all happened (a quarter century ago, yes), I felt I had to. At the risk of sounding melodramatic, for all my obsessive superficial interest in these vehicles, I felt it was the right thing for me to do, to take notice of that crew, once more. However good (or exactly because it is), I'm sure I'll never watch the film again -- and I say that with the utmost respect.)

I've been transgressing. All I wanted was to steer this peculiar submarine interest of mine into military waters. Then, desperately wanting to avoid accusations of seeking sensationalism, I delved into the triangle of respectful depictions vs. entertainment vs. adapted true events... I think I overdid that a little. Sorry.



So... Where all this had led me, just prior to reading this novel, was to wonder what those factual errors in it (as referenced by 1 or 2 other reviewers) were, exactly. And if indeed, any errors were made.
Of note here, is that I tried to approach this 'project' --which my leisure reading, for reasons of Life Happening, has been reduced to-- as superficial as possible. As such, I attempted to not make a study of the content, nor trying to keep track of its characters and terminology. I failed. Spectacularly so.
And the fun of it was -- I "learnt something today". (Hah! So glad I could link to THAT, to signify this running gag's origins!) A number of times, it only seemed to me that something was amiss. The first notable instance of this was discussed 'elsewhere' (i.e., somewhere along my real-time reading notes/comments) on GR. Here, I'll illustrate it with a later example about a statement r/ the Sturgeon-class.
The text (p118) locates its torpedo tubes 'in midship', as opposed to those in the protagonist vessel (an older Skipjack-class vessel). This, I'll readily admit, I dared to highly frown upon. I expected it, at first glance, to be an erroneous translation -- which, as we'll see, are not uncommon here. Luckily, it was not; b/c that would have led to a big narrative problem, if not *gasp!* an outright plot-hole.
From my limited internal database, I could only imagine vertical silos --for missiles-- being situated around the middle of a hull. It seems I was wrong -- at least partially: actually, the Sturgeon's (by nature horizontally placed) "[...] tubes were located amidships to accommodate the bow-mounted sonar" (quickly clarified by images)... albeit not very far from the bow. Through this, my basic ideas of how torp tubes can be oriented and situated, had been challenged if not subverted. (Yes, we can safely say that the only issue here, was just me being unaware that such a forward-leaning location might be dubbed, 'mid-ship'. Even so, epics ensued. First, I was confused. Anger arose at my preconceptions being threatened. Then, reluctantly, I checked the facts. In the end, I had to accept the fallacy of my ways. And I feel smarter now, a more complete person. No, I don't suppose you believe the latter -- neither do I. But the truth is: so often, it's fun to have been wrong and stood corrected!)

I am still^^ exited, as of today ('26.02.06), to discover (and more so, anxious whether I'll learn) why the noted distinction twixt the handling of structural ordnance positioning on both boat types is tactically important to the book. I really hope to find out -- otherwise, we still might suffer from a plot-hole. I say 'we', b/c I'm in the same boat as the author, here -- yes, I must come to terms. I'm thoroughly invested.

(^^: I'm drafting this as part of a preliminary review... performing a pre-emptive strike, if you will. Nor am I delivering it --as the footnote referencer shows-- in chronolopgical order.)

(BTW, the above structure -- stating something, then adding deeper meaning/info by starting with a 'second negation' ["nor"], although the inital statement did not actually contain a true negative at all [instead, merely highlighting a possible paradox/deviation from expectations]... is that a commonly-occuring thing? Is it even correct? If either is so... is, then, the faux-logic / natural language basis for it, that the initial item does contain a perceived negation [namely, of common conceptions]? Syntactically, my wording feels blatanly false. Stillsuit -- p'unintended! LOL, it seemed proper to do it this way, so I may have picked up its use along my wanderings -- but I'm not a native speaker, and I suddenly doubted it correctness. As I do with many things. Just now, I had to look up my use of 'namely'. Yes, correct; but what am I, getting a mislocated case of 'the bends', here?! Anyway... About said quasi-logical syntax... Did I do it wrong? Honest question. Please respond!)

No. It was only another misplaced attempt at humour. That interjection r/ how to properly do something --if that's even what I did-- does not imply a messianic complex on my part. I'm not THAT complex... not yet.

  . . . 1SQ . . .

Let's cut back on the proverbial steam^, and back-track our course a little...

^: I was about to strike through that gass, and add, "... euh, diesel" or "uranium" --the latter of which might've added the need for additional explanation-- but after all, the Amundsen does run on S5W-powered turbines. And just like that, I've even added an indirect explanation that ultimately wasn't even critical to my objectives. The foremost being here, it seems, being funny. Or trying to.

... this novel was first published under the title, Status 1SQ (which made me look up that term, that I first came to know around 1996 from the CD inlay of Crimson Tide 's score -- which also marked my discovery of Zimmer).
Yet another edition boasts an alternate cover that shows a rather unexpected, for aerial, perpective on things. I do like some of the modern photo-real or artistic approaches to promotional ilustrations, but I can also appreciate a decent, simple, "commercially efficient" painting. (Meaning: not too elaborate -- it needn't always be of Whelan, Struzan, Alvin or Amsel caliber.) More about this novel, in the art dept., elsewhere.



Now, to get this out of the way (not-so-)immediately. Yes, this novel deals w/ some colour/race issues; and while (indeed and/or possibly) a tad dated in this day and age, it very much seems that the writer's heart is in the right place, as far as my own sentiments are concerned. I can't even pinpoint, exactly, why the manner in which this 70's publication addresses the principal main [sic] character's colour might even be felt as uncomfortable -- but, at times, I admit, it does. Perhaps it's the emphasis that is put on, e.g., physical differences -- form of lips, (inside) skin of hands. To lesser extent, their powerful build. It even feels wrong to quote it like that. But... why? The only reason I can think of now, is that such descriptions have become some sort of 'taboo'. Of course, there's many reasons & explanations to be had, as to how that is a natural development.
OTOH, from my POV, nothing goes truly awry in this novel -- the 'token black captain' may be subtly (dare I say 'respectfully') discriminated against by his some among the crew, and more overtly by his peers and some of his superiors at base; but shipboard, he's never under threat of anyone. And even ashore, he himself nor his career seems to be overly affected -- the former of which, come to think, might (if pressed) be perceived as a problematic reaction (rather: lack thereof). Generally speaking, the narrative addresses the futilities and downsides of discrimination -- and not even to an emphasizing degree. It's just dealt with, respectively, and mostly near the sidelines (meaning, not often as the primary focus of the narrative).

[Just for the record (let's overcommunicate this, because regretfully, it is A Time For Caution): I've no doubt that between the two, my respective invocations of a satirical cartoonish Tolkien (no, not that one, you silly!) and The Sisko (in no way less Awesome than Amundsen's skipper) make my personal stance theatrically, and thus abundantly, clear.]

Moreover, I do trust that I've waylaid, from where I'm periscopin', that I don't believe this book deserves a trigger warning. At least not about the above sensitivities.

For burn victims, however, this may be another matter. An accident is describedto occur, in which a crew member is deadly wounded by fire. He --I daresay, regretfully-- survives for a time, before --idem ditto, finally-- succumbing to what I feel is an act of deserved mercy.
The visualization is rather detailed, and being invested --both in the fictional situation and from an indirect personal vantage point (only b/c I've met people who have to deal w/ the consequences of burns)-- it was horrific to read about the resulting agonies and treatment process. The segment is not overly long, but to me, the realism was 'borderline acceptable'. Seeing it on film is one thing. Yet this episode, too, was gruesome. It unexpectedly made me try to imagine this horror, that I've occasionally spent thoughts on for some years now, via a new medium/way that I wasn't quite prepared for.

Again, this is ground that's being tread w/ care; but if it triggered me --who has had the luck of not sharing The Hound's trauma-- it could be painful to others.

(I only referenced Clegane, b/c he is my favourite Westeros-based punisher-type grumbler; his character's psychology is yet another vector that has led me to think about being burnt IRL; and --it shall be obvious to The Constant Reader-- that I am incessantly prone to meta-linking things which I am passionate about. If referencing my passion for GoT, in this instance, is taken to overshadow my passion to express a concern and sorrow r/ a very real affliction, then I reservedly apologize. It's hard 2 know, oftentimes, the divide between wanting 2 provide attention/acknowledgement, & running the risk of seeming insensitive. It makes pubic writing, for me, a chore. And perhaps... that's not such a bad counterweight 2 just blurting everything out, or staying silent.)

And, speaking of running silent... yeah, let's just get back onto our previous heading.

  . . . aboard a ghost sub . . .

Religion is a theme, too; and since the author has a solid history with it, this was to be expected. But at the risk of running this fire drill too often: this, too, does not factor into the narrative (which, geometrically speaking, seems as far removed from Heaven as is physically plausible for a machine of Amundsen's size) in disturbingly large quantities. It's a rather refreshing element, even.

  . . . intermittent comms black-out . . .

... because of decyption failure. And by that, I mean, the translation (of the edition that I was gifted) leaves something 2B desired.
For one, an anecdote which seems to be about Iwo Jima (referencing a certain Cushman (photographer Jeff) -- whom @ first glance I even saw referenced in a link r/ the battle) = sandwiched between 2 remarks about 'Nam. Under scrutiny, the well-known 'flag-capturing' scene was only referenced inside a marine's flash-back actually set during 'Nam. (The Cushman from the link turned out 2B no 'Jeff', but a Colonel @ Jima.)
Sounds confusing? It sure was, 2me! Yet I reject the responsibility; shan't assume even half of it. The surname and my quick search of it, probably, comprised just a glaring coincidence that briefly caught me off-guard. But the whole book-ended section's text was rather muddled, when it comes 2 separating the character's actual 'Nam remembrance (w/ Cam-wielding Cushman) from the less-than-actual bridge the Sgt. builds, 2 the photograph o/t waving flag being planted. It was awkwardly worded; yet I honestly think the author can't be blamed, either. It's an assumtion, but given both their track records: safe bet that the Lowlander did it.

Besides, this=just 1 of many xamples where the translation=lacking. More comments 2B found on this, elsewhere. It's not a bad translator, per se; they seem 2 have given it their best, but by my standards (or those of today), that just don't cut it.

  . . . broken radio silence . . .

... rather, the radio seems broken. (Yep, Crimson Tide again.)

Haven't even finished reading, 4 Pete's sake... and here we go already... bumping in2 an icy wall, frozen solid. No more characters left in this-here text field. Luckily, I've brought2bear my own secret weapon... which lay hidden under the surface... Remember that other edition?

  . . . ping . . .

The one with the alternate title and cover...?

. . . ping?

[Joseph Yarchak · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not well Researched

A decent read with numerous editing and grammatical errors. This book is technically lacking and detail defficient. There are way to many points that are too far fetched to believable or just factually wrong.

[Doug · Rating 2 out of 5]

Cold war book, to wordy and not very good. Deleted out of my library of books