Hands Up! or Enemy no. 1 | a Review
originally published on 09/12/2023;
Hello everyone, I am the wielder of guns and suitcases, G.E.M.Simov, a spy that is also a normal person, here to tell you about Lev Davidichev's book: "Hands Up! or Enemy no. 1".
Simple review details - I rank books on an out of 10 basis, granting up to 3 points in 3 categories, as well as a last, single point from my own self, depending on my experience with it.
It is important to point out that the edition I read was a translation and was not in English, so there might be a slight difference in the process of reading and understanding.
Content
This is a children's book that features two chapters that, as the author informs the readers, are completely skippable by children. However, those chapters are quite important in regards to what the book wants to tell its readers - aside from an exciting and comical story about spies and a third grader - as a result of which I consider those two chapters to be completely unskippable.
That is due to the fact that this is, earnestly, a children's book. It is silly, whimsical and nonsensical in an entertaining manner, it is absurdly ridiculous and preposterously implausible, as a result of which it might be difficult to take all that seriously by an adult reader, but it happens to have, within these oceans of weird stuff for kids, a lot of content that refers to other things.
Content that refers to the atmosphere at the time of the book's release, which comments on the flabbergasting concept of spies as they are in the Cold War. It features ruminations on what it means to be a parent or a grandparent, what it means to raise a child and what the concept of sloth is.
It also extends some comments towards the way things are run, in a purely organizational sense, extending towards capitalist societies, most easily discernible, but also towards the Soviet Union itself, which is drenched in bureaucracy to the very core. One very interesting thing that "Hands Up!" (as it will henceforth be referred to) does is talk about the idea of snitching as a means of running a functioning system. Naturally, everything is exaggerated to cosmic proportions, but it manages to retain the ability to be stripped down and directed at reality.
As might be known, snitching on the enemies of the Soviet Union (anyone willing to criticize the government) was encouraged in the USSR, as was snitching on enemies of the USA (anyone willing to criticize the government) in the USA. And, of course, that was done as a means of making the machine - the government or, rather, the country - run more smoothly. Naturally, it is important to consider what the true goal of operating the machine is - and that is not running the country effectively, in either the USSR's or the USA's case.
Similarly, is it the goal of "Tigers-Otters" (and later "Grave-and-Lightning") to perform their operations successfully, or is their goal to simply attempt them in the first place? Is it their goal to make a difference, or is their goal to occupy the time and resources of the country they are operating against?
These thoughts come up and plague the reader as they go through "Hands Up!", for there is a profoundly disturbing similarity between the way "Tigers-Otters" is run and nearly every country in the contemporary world is run. Here I go, however, looking for elephants beneath house-flies.
The actual thing that this book asks the reader, after presenting a number of arguments, is what sloth is. Sloth is treated as a weapon, as a disease, as something incredibly good, and as something very bad and troublesome. It is also treated as something natural and something artificial, something learned by people as they are raised by their parents and grandparents.
The book asks the reader to also provide an answer to that question, although not directly and explicitly - for what is sloth? To engage with sloth and consider how to deal with it, one must first know what it is, is that not so? And so "Hands Up!" provides a plethora of attempts to explain what sloth is, and it also attempts to provide a number of explanations regarding how to deal with sloth.
Now, those solutions are not evenly weighted. In fact, there is also another issue - one of these solutions, although advised against and not approved of, turns out to be very effective - far more so than the other solution. And that effective solution? Giving the lazy person (child) a number of generous slaps on the behind. With a belt.
It's incredibly odd how physical violence against children winds up being an effective means of solving any of the big issues that present themselves - and, of course, it isn't just senseless violence, it is a particular type of ass-whooping that is focused on the child's butt, and is also not intended to cause the child any harm. Still, it cures both sloth and brainwashing, and winds up being only a bit less well regarded than the other treatment option.
Now, given that this is a funny book, and given that it was written fifty years ago, there is definitely reason to believe that this aspect of things is exaggerated, though also rooted in reality. It is proven that the threat of violence works - even on children - but it has adverse effects. Violence, itself, also could function at getting the child to do what the parent wants, but is it the proper way, or will it have an incredibly problematic consequence?
Would the child consider the application of physical force normal? Will the child grow up to consider violence a viable answer to situations? These questions are not considered - because this is a funny children's book, and the fact that most of the Characters have a bad disposition towards violence against children is considered enough to tip the scales in favor of not beating kids, but then there's also the element of those who do consider whooping kids proper, and whose whoopings of kids wind up being effective, who both take some kind of moderate or prophylactic approach to the beatings. It should not be too much, but it should be used.
Ultimately, I was left confused on the topic of discipline through violence, mainly in regards to the stance of the author, and that's a bit problematic.
Regardless, this is only one aspect of the book. There are many others to consider, and they are all quite interesting and drenched with meaning. Far more so than I would have expected out of a children's book, which is very pleasantly surprising. One of those, that I would like to present as an important bit of content, is the way parents and grandparents are examined in regards to raising a child.
The fact of the matter is that the child should not be spoiled. What that entails is, frankly, very esoteric, as teaching and compelling a third grader to cook, and to cook his own food, to wash his clothes and to iron them… Seems a bit excessive. However, at the same time, how would one not be spoiled? Through a very sophisticated, or at least well thought out, system of education that does not exclusively rely on school.
Truly, "Hands Up!" does not exactly present a plethora of solutions, but it makes a point of underlining the importance of a team effort. Raising a child must involve both the parents, and must not rely on one or the other. In addition to that, they must provide a good set of examples for the child - ones that the child can follow. This appears to be common sense, but it would be surprising how many people in reality, and in the book, do not do those things. It is odd that they consider one singular aspect of their presence in the child's life to be enough - namely the fact that they are providing money for everything that the child might need - and then they put very little effort in everything else.
That requires an examination of what the words "father", "mother" and "parent" mean, what kind of weight they carry. Sure, one can examine them as just indicators regarding what one or the other did in relation to the creation of the child, but then parents like that are not proper parents. The book does not explicitly ask these questions and ponder those things, but it does so indirectly. There is a very particular set of words in it that goes along the lines of: "the family had lived for the father, but now the father would live for the family"
That's clearly indicative of what the role of the father in a family is, what being a father means and, subsequently, what being a parent means and so on. This is also a very valuable statement to consider, and maybe even take to heart, but I'll move onto the other type of parent - the grandparent.
Those old folks, particularly grandmothers, but also grandfathers, happen to have a very weird lot in life. They don't have a life of their own, not as it is described in the book, but, instead, they live exclusively for the family. They do all the housework for the family, while the parents go to work and the child goes to school. Even then, however, if they do not do all the housework and don't live exclusively for the family, it appears as though the issue of them not having a proper life remains.
The way grandparents are presented in this book, and old people in general, is that they have lost their own lives and have transitioned into living for their families in a manner that winds up not allowing them to have lives of their own. Few to no friends, no time for much of anything, no activities relating to physical well-being aside from going to the doctor, and so on. In contemporary times, this is not such a great issue - or at least it does not appear to be - but it can still be considered.
There's a definitive call for the discovery of a balance between family and one's personal life. However, there is no such thing as balance when it comes to one's work life. Even though the villains are shown to not sleep, to not eat and to not rest in favor of their work, the author winds up reprimanding the reader - in a direct destruction of the fourth wall during which he straight up says that it would be better if the good guys also worked that hard.
In fact, there's a certain good Character in the book who gets injured and, instead of resting at the hospital, he just keeps doing his work. Now, it can be argued that his job - in that particular moment - was very important, but it gets stated, multiple times, that the pain from his injury is interfering with his work. That, coupled with the anti-sloth rhetoric that the book utilizes, comes off as a bit weird. Perhaps it was done as a means of sneaking past the censors - needing to have a very poignant worker-related message, one that highlights the importance of work over one's own well-being, but it is strange nonetheless - especially when it comes to glorifying villains for the way they do their jobs.
Now, as a spy novel, there can be said to be something that remains to be desired, though, at the same time, everything is there. High speed car chases, stealing and commandeering various vehicles, disguising oneself so as to fool everyone chasing after them, infiltrating the enemy's base and, through genius subterfuge, outdoing them, guns - pistols, mainly - being brandished threateningly, cigarettes being smoked - smoothly - and even a world ending plot!
But then it somehow doesn't… It does not feel as though it has the things that it needs to have. It does not feel as though it is enough. It is a spy novel, through and through, but the longer it goes on the more unimpressive the element of the spies becomes. Perhaps that has to do something with the capabilities of everyone involved, perhaps it has something to do with the ludicrous manner in which the villains are portrayed, perhaps it has something to do with the fact that there's an incredible ineptitude on display - by the Villains - or due to the fact that there never was any tension or perceivable danger for the Characters, with some very minor exceptions.
Is that meant to indicate that the book's contents were not sufficient? No, not at all, though there's a great deal of pondering that is left up to the reader. In fact, there's a whole lot of book that is also left up to the reader, which could be perceived as a Story related issue, but it is definitely something that is also bound to the content of the book. As previously mentioned, there are many chapters in "Hands Up!", but there are also even more sub-chapters. The way things work is that there are ten chapters written by the author, with each containing a varying number of sub-chapters.
Then, things come to the eleventh chapter, and the book simply ends. The author implores the reader to finish the rest of the book, gives a small inciting incident, and that's everything. This is very odd, and it is definitely not how I would have expected it to end, if it was not explicitly stated, by the author, in one of his fourth wall breaks, that the book has ten chapters and then one that must be written by the reader, at the very beginning of the book.
It's weird. It's definitely a weak point, but mostly in regards to the story. Now, when it comes to content - there is none there. The strands that were being slowly unraveled could have, easily, been extended. The critique of bureaucracy could have been expanded upon, the tremendous effort to conclude how to properly deal with sloth could have been crystallized, and a proper statement in regards to belting kids could have been given, the Characters could have been more properly developed and so on and so forth.
However, with the last chapter not existing, everything is left up to the reader's imagination and choice, which is not a problem in and of itself, but the key here is that there's just nothing.
Alternatively, it could be considered that such an ending is reasonable, for everything that needed to be said has been said. The concepts that were being explored were explored, particularly the fact that those who wield dishonesty are bound to wind up craving honesty, OR that their dishonesty will be their downfall. However, at the same time, it is not quite so certain.
Not only do we have reality as an example of dishonesty getting people very, very far, but the book itself builds up the villainous plan to appear totally impossible to counter. Even with all the setbacks experienced by said villains, in the end, everything seemed totally under control for them. That conflicts with the overall sentiment that being honest is the winning strategy, when there is, at best, simply a stalemate.
I suppose that these examinations can go on and on forever, or for a much longer amount of time, but the key here is that the book contradicts itself by presenting the reader with the task of finishing it. That is simultaneously completely in line with it - after all, by urging the reader to write the rest of the book, the author is battling sloth and laziness - but everything else that the book contemplates is severely undermined by that maneuver.
Still, it is more good than it is bad. 2/3
Richness of Expression
"Hands Up!" rocks. It is incredible when it comes to the way the author expressed himself. An example of that would have to be the words used by the Characters in certain situations - Kayuk, Keyuk, etc. - or the way things are named and titled, such as the oberfobergogerdramhamschnapsfuhrer or the Most Central Department, or Ugh three zeroes, or the Hippuputamus (because there was a spelling mistake in the documents and he wound up being the Hippuputamus because of it), or Hidden-Covered, or Tigers-Otters, or… Well, literally everything in it.
All the imaginative and absurd things that dwell within this book - including its sheer title - are astoundingly amusing and pleasant for the reader. Alas, it feels as though there is a quality to them that might be very difficult to recreate via translation, and the only reason it was all so magical is because the original Russian is very close to the language I read it in, and then I also know Russian so it worked. However, when reading the name von Gaden, a person would associate it with being a German name. When reading it in the translated edition, it gains an entirely different meaning, because Gaden means nasty, and so it's not just a play on German names, but it is also an indicator for what kind of person the fellow in question is.
In fact, all the villains have such magnificent names. General Mishmashen, who clearly winds up turning everything into a mishmash of stuff, or officer Rahit, whose name translates to rickets, who is untrustworthy (as can be considered the legs of a person afflicted with rickets), and so on and so forth.
Not only that, though, but there were also certain combinations of words that struck me as odd and interesting, or even the names of good Characters - such as the doctor having a name strikingly similar to asparagus. Then the names of the villainous plans are also amazing, without even needing an example but still - "fruit-vegetable" is an amazing name for a plan!
On top of that, there were certain ways things were described, such as the big, round, hairless head of Hidden-Covered. Then there were ways things were stylized, with words changing sizes or fonts, as well as locations on the page. And, while that is not associated with the Richness of the author's Expression, it is still striking, as well as capable of provoking a different manner of reading the words, of altering the expression.
I do have a few complaints, but they are only present due to the fact that there are errors in my version of the book. Lines in paragraphs are swapped, words are almost completely illegible, and then the book is also quite old. However, those are generally not bound to the Richness of Expression, even if they are, at times, capable of causing problems with understanding what the author meant to say.
As a children's book, this one is phenomenal. There really is nothing I can point at and say that it was not good, as a result of which I am happy to provide it with the highest possible score. 3/3
Story
This is where things get a little messier than one could have wanted them to be. Not only does the story fail to end, even if conclusions start moving towards their flourishment, but it also happens to, in a few moments, fail with conveying the story it is trying to tell in a consistent and coherent manner.
The main spot where this issue is most prevalent is the very beginning of the book. It starts off with a prologue that goes over the events of what is, roughly, a third of the story, and then that third of the story is told to the reader in great detail. The most bothersome thing is that, due to the fact that this is a spy novel, and anything related to spies is mean to feature some tension and suspense, one goes into it expecting some suspense, even if it is going to be warped by the exaggeration and the child-friendly nature of the book.
However, when the big events of the beginning are concisely explained in four paragraphs, and then gone over a number of big chapters, things become totally unbelievable, or, rather, unacceptable. I already know what will happen to Ugh Three Zeroes, to Tolik Prutikov, to Hippuputamus, to Meow and the Canary, so I can't really end up on the edge of my seat when something starts happening with them. I already know what will happen.
In short, the book spoils its first third by literally telling the reader what will be taking place over the course of that first third, and then it also ruins its ending by telling the reader that there is going to be no ending, and that things are up to the reader. That means that it is incredibly unlikely to have any Characters get cleaned off - as is, supposedly, common in spy thrillers. It is a whole wonder that one of the funky Characters DOES get killed off, but then that was coming from a mile away, as the story had positioned him in such a position that he was not getting out of it alive, he just had nothing left to do in the story.
That's not a bad thing. Whenever a Character does what they're meant to do, and they wind up having no place in the story, it is reasonable to get rid of them. As a result of that, Characters are not allowed to have complete arcs, to develop completely - because the book is going to end prematurely, and thus we can't have these vital Characters get out of the story before the reader has the chance to play with them.
This is both impressive, in the sense that the author consciously wrote with that in mind and still he managed to create a decently entertaining and captivating story, and it is also incredibly upsetting, because the story could have been that much better if the writer had written with the plan of actually having an ending for the book.
Ultimately, what the reader is left with are a number of immensely colorful Characters who go through trials and tribulations and grow in certain ways, but they never ultimately reach their pinnacles, with a notable set of exceptions. One of those is Ugh Three Zeroes - who goes through a complete development, but manages to stay in the story only thanks to the fact that his arc was centered around redemption, and then that only worked out for him because his growth had already happened before the story had even begun, and at the start of it he was just coming to terms with himself.
Then there's general Mishmashen, who has his arc, which leads into him also developing a bit, but he winds up being completely done and out of the story. Similarly, von Gaden starts off, has an arc that features a great number of tribulations, but then he does not actually go through Character development. He is already his ultimate form, and he is just coming to terms with the realities of the world around him. Unfortunately, having played his part, his story also ends - much like that of Mishmashen.
I can't say that this is a thoroughly bad thing, as in a normal story, being able to end certain Characters' stories, would have been a fantastic thing. However, when the goal of this book's story is to give the reader a number of Characters to play with, then what's the point of concluding their stories prematurely and taking them out of the playing field? I would have loved to have von Gaden plotting and scheming, or Mishmashen plotting and scheming, or even officer Rahit plotting and scheming, but, alas, I can't. I'm only left with one scheming guy!
So the story being unfinished on purpose violently clashes with the story itself. There are two stories here - one that should have been told, if one wanted to tell a story, and one that should have been laid out, if one wanted to prepare for a story to be told. "Hands Up!" fails in doing either the telling or the laying out. It is immensely successful in both regards, separately, but when meshed together, it winds up being monstrously contradictory and unpleasant.
I feel a resounding lack of desire to even recount the events of the story, as they simply don't appear important enough for the convulsive evaluation of the story - there are many Characters whose paths cross, there are some plot-lines left unresolved, without the apparent intention of having them get resolved in the reader written chapter, and then there are other plot-lines that are established and set up with the intent of being resolved by the reader written chapter.
The Characters get to grow as people, and some of them interact with others in very meaningful ways, which only makes it more exciting to finally have them meet, but then there are also some Characters whose interactions with others appear somewhat irrelevant. Then… Bah, it's infuriating, because there's clearly great amounts of thought and effort put into writing this story, but then it's so haphazardly splattered everywhere that it fails itself.
I was left both satisfied and unsatisfied. That means the story was good enough to get me somewhat invested, to get me engaged and caring for the Characters and the conflict, but then it also makes mistakes that are major enough to take away from my satisfaction. 2/3
Legendary Point
Does this book get the Legendary point, so craved and wanted by all and none at the same time?
I am uncertain whether it does or whether it does not. The absurdity and the color of the expressions, the fact that it is an amazing children's book - those provoke me, those make me want to say yes. However, at the same time, the failures in regards to the unraveling of the plot-lines and the concepts presented are so bothersome that I am also inclined to say no.
And that type of conflicted-ness bothers me greatly. So much so that I am actually more prone to saying NO, because the disappointment I was forced to experience by this book, by its quality that wound up squandered, is so unpleasant that I might remember that sensation, rather than the Characters or the concepts. This, sadly, "Hands Up!" does not get the point. 0/1
Conclusion
7/10. "Hands Up!" is a very good children's book that might, actually, be a magnificent read for absolutely any child, and then almost any parent. However, reading it without being a child or a parent, or at least a parent in waiting, then it might be more salty than it ought to be. Regardless, it's one I would recommend to everyone.
I tuck it under my belt, another shining achievement that I proudly display, rough and coarse, but shimmering with unpolished wonder.