As I figured, Redshirts by John Scalzi has won the Hugo award. Since the award is open to anyone who bought the required ballot, and has had a good marketing campaign over social media, ie a song by Johnathan Coulton.
I do not think that, as an award winner, it is going to age particularly well. Do not mistake me: I do not think that it is a bad thing. Far from it. It is fun, intelligent, but not particularly deep the same way as, say, Dune or Ender's Game or even last year's winner Among Others, are. I feel like it is a product of it's time, and that while future generations may enjoy it for fun, I can't help but feel that it is not going to last.
I can't think of a novel that deserved to win: 2312 already won the Nebula, and I do not like Kim Stanley Robinson; Blackout was good, but not Hugo worthy. Reading Saladin Ahmed's book is probably a good idea---I feel like there's a trend lately to have a fantasy novel to round out the ballot.
Scalzi was destined for a Hugo Award are some point. I think that he can create a great work of science fiction, and I'm glad a writer of the new guard won the Hugo. I just wish it had been for something more substantial.
Monday, September 2, 2013
Thursday, July 18, 2013
The Annex, RIP?
I wrote awhile back about the possibility of a Scott Pilgrim movie reboot. For all those reasons---a new perspective gained by age, millennial nostalgia, an opportunity to make a more balanced feature---a new one is, sadly, approaching: possible Torontonian nostalgia for the loss of the Annex neighbourhood.
Honest Ed's, the well known department store, is closing. In and of itself the loss of Honest Ed's means nothing: it is best known for it's garish lighting display which is succumbing to age, and really was little more than a proto-Wal Mart. It's loss will be missed, similar to that of the late, lamented Sam The Record Man in Yonge and Dundas. A part of the city's history will be gone forever, which is sad. Losing Honest Ed's will not change or affect the city or neighbourhood once it's gone.
It's what will happen after that what scares me.
See, Toronto is "enjoying" a massive condo boom. Every square millimeter of land is now fair game for hideous glass boxes to rise from the ground. I'm not opposed to condos on principle, since they do add density to a neighbourhood, and therefore demand for it's shops and services. However, there are some complications to Honest Ed's, namely the businesses that exist as an ancillary extension of the building. Their fate has not been discussed, and that fills me with dread.
By that I mean Sonic Boom, located within the building, chased out of it's old location by a friggin' Dollarama. In addition, there is a cluster of buildings next to Honest Ed's that is owned by the same people known as Mirvish village, where several buisnesses, from one of my favourite pubs Victory Cafe to Toronto comics landmark The Beguiling, are located. Their fate is now up in the air.
If the decision is made to gut the building, then Sonic Boom is homeless. While it's vinyl department has relocated to the very funky Kensington Market neighbourhood (another neighbourhood under siege---more on that later), what will happen to the larger store, where it will go (especially in a downtown core increasingly occupied by high end or big box retailers) would be an open question. If Mirvish Village is gutted (something that can happen either whole scale or piecemeal), the consequences will be dire.
If The Beguiling goes as collateral damage of all this, the impact on Toronto's comics community will be devastating. Granted, the city is littered with enough Android's Dungeon style comics shops, but The Beguiling is less a store than it is an anchor. Without it, the Toronto Comics Arts Festival is affected, not fatally, but definitely in scale. To be fair, if it does come down to that there will be resistance and rallies and petitions...but I live in a part of town where out local book shop was closed down by it's landlord to make way for a more lucrative nail salon. I do not have faith in the honesty of landlords.
As I mentioned, Kensington Market is under the gun as well: a recent condo/retail development has introduced the possibility (albeit a vigourously resisted one) of a Wal Mart in the area, threatening the smaller scale retailers that make up the market. If that happens, Kensington Market may go the way of Yorkville, which serves as a worst case scenario for what might happen: namely, a part of town that went from hippie stomping grounds to chic bourgeois shopping. Not a fatal blow for a neighbourhood, but I've enjoyed more fun evenings in the Annex or Kensington Market than Yorkille.
Condos aren't the root cause of this problem. Big Box chain retailers moving in and gutting neighbourhoods is the problem (best case scenario is that Loblaws or Target will move right in and establish a superstore). While we will likely gain in corporate conformity we will loose in so much else. Toronto will loose the messy, the tacky, and the grungy; that is, it will lose variety, opportunity, and discovery that dosen't just make a community, but also a city.
Honest Ed's, the well known department store, is closing. In and of itself the loss of Honest Ed's means nothing: it is best known for it's garish lighting display which is succumbing to age, and really was little more than a proto-Wal Mart. It's loss will be missed, similar to that of the late, lamented Sam The Record Man in Yonge and Dundas. A part of the city's history will be gone forever, which is sad. Losing Honest Ed's will not change or affect the city or neighbourhood once it's gone.
It's what will happen after that what scares me.
See, Toronto is "enjoying" a massive condo boom. Every square millimeter of land is now fair game for hideous glass boxes to rise from the ground. I'm not opposed to condos on principle, since they do add density to a neighbourhood, and therefore demand for it's shops and services. However, there are some complications to Honest Ed's, namely the businesses that exist as an ancillary extension of the building. Their fate has not been discussed, and that fills me with dread.
By that I mean Sonic Boom, located within the building, chased out of it's old location by a friggin' Dollarama. In addition, there is a cluster of buildings next to Honest Ed's that is owned by the same people known as Mirvish village, where several buisnesses, from one of my favourite pubs Victory Cafe to Toronto comics landmark The Beguiling, are located. Their fate is now up in the air.
If the decision is made to gut the building, then Sonic Boom is homeless. While it's vinyl department has relocated to the very funky Kensington Market neighbourhood (another neighbourhood under siege---more on that later), what will happen to the larger store, where it will go (especially in a downtown core increasingly occupied by high end or big box retailers) would be an open question. If Mirvish Village is gutted (something that can happen either whole scale or piecemeal), the consequences will be dire.
If The Beguiling goes as collateral damage of all this, the impact on Toronto's comics community will be devastating. Granted, the city is littered with enough Android's Dungeon style comics shops, but The Beguiling is less a store than it is an anchor. Without it, the Toronto Comics Arts Festival is affected, not fatally, but definitely in scale. To be fair, if it does come down to that there will be resistance and rallies and petitions...but I live in a part of town where out local book shop was closed down by it's landlord to make way for a more lucrative nail salon. I do not have faith in the honesty of landlords.
As I mentioned, Kensington Market is under the gun as well: a recent condo/retail development has introduced the possibility (albeit a vigourously resisted one) of a Wal Mart in the area, threatening the smaller scale retailers that make up the market. If that happens, Kensington Market may go the way of Yorkville, which serves as a worst case scenario for what might happen: namely, a part of town that went from hippie stomping grounds to chic bourgeois shopping. Not a fatal blow for a neighbourhood, but I've enjoyed more fun evenings in the Annex or Kensington Market than Yorkille.
Condos aren't the root cause of this problem. Big Box chain retailers moving in and gutting neighbourhoods is the problem (best case scenario is that Loblaws or Target will move right in and establish a superstore). While we will likely gain in corporate conformity we will loose in so much else. Toronto will loose the messy, the tacky, and the grungy; that is, it will lose variety, opportunity, and discovery that dosen't just make a community, but also a city.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Doing what we say
I don't read GetReligion blog frequently, as I am put off with the religious editorializing, though I suppose that comes with the territory, since the site editors are writing about how the media fails to cover religious news in a substantial way. I do take offence, though, when the analysis of the articles in questions turns into conservative Christian harrumphing at their isolation from the body politic, particularly when those opinions are reason enough as to why they are not being taken seriously.
See, recently Wendy "Khaleesi" Davis made a twelve hour filibuster against a Texas ordinance that would have closed essentially every Texas abortion clinic. Now, the editors mention that this bill is primarily intended to improve the safety and cleanliness of these clinics, especially given the horrific Gosnell story that the media has been covering with mixed success. I don't think that's unfair, however the people behind the bill (i.e., Rick Perry) are as concerned with that as much as they are with obliterating a woman's right to an abortion in a very obtuse manner, which is where the problem lies.
Look, I get where the pro-Life people are coming from. Really, I do. It would be a great thing if the abortion rate was at zero; you get no argument from me. However, believing that you can legislate the problem away is incorrect. Just look at Romania when they tried to do just that---or, rather, what happens to women when they are denied an abortion with the very plain consequences. Forcing a woman to unwillingly carry a child that she cannot care for
So, yes, pro-abortion advocates can be reasonably called women's rights activists, as they are fighting against women falling into a demonstrable decline in the quality of their lives. This is something that I really find difficult: bellyaching about how abortionist supporters "don't care about about unborn women" when pro-choice activists are fighting hard to keep women from enduring a situation that will not end well either for the mother or for the child.
I take very, very great offence at conservative Christian's complete unwillingness to do anything constructive to do anything to reduce abortion rates. And I do not mean taking an iron fist approach to obstruct a woman from receiving one. I mean, to ensure that abortion is not an option, to provide some choice. I mean acknowledging that economic reasons are often the most important ones when a woman considers an abortion. Women who can afford to take care of an infant will be least likely to consider an abortion.
We are living in very trying economical times. If a woman cannot afford the considerable financial costs of caring for a child, she is going to terminate her pregnancy, especially if the difficulties of reentering the working world are too great. Countries that actually provide significant maternal care for mothers have low abortion rates. Why aren't pro-lifers working on that?
Also, women who are informed about reproductive health and have access to birth control are going to be less likely to pursue abortions, and avoid the situations where a termination of a pregnancy becomes an issue. I don't mean hyping abstinence to the nth degree, as there is no evidence that doing so will work. None. Teaching young adults about birth control and how their bodies work reaps far more benefits than hammering into kids "just don't do it."
But we can't do that, can we? It's both theologically and politically impossible. Beyond the pale. Granted, the Bible is a little sketchy on the abortion issue itself. A firm approach to abortion guarantees that abortions will continue; and laws only slightly removed from The Handmaid's Tale will make the problem immeasurably worse. Tacitly or overtly, Christian conservatives favour policies that will scare people off from enacting them, and cause more problems than they solve if enacted. For that, they have my contempt.
See, recently Wendy "Khaleesi" Davis made a twelve hour filibuster against a Texas ordinance that would have closed essentially every Texas abortion clinic. Now, the editors mention that this bill is primarily intended to improve the safety and cleanliness of these clinics, especially given the horrific Gosnell story that the media has been covering with mixed success. I don't think that's unfair, however the people behind the bill (i.e., Rick Perry) are as concerned with that as much as they are with obliterating a woman's right to an abortion in a very obtuse manner, which is where the problem lies.
Look, I get where the pro-Life people are coming from. Really, I do. It would be a great thing if the abortion rate was at zero; you get no argument from me. However, believing that you can legislate the problem away is incorrect. Just look at Romania when they tried to do just that---or, rather, what happens to women when they are denied an abortion with the very plain consequences. Forcing a woman to unwillingly carry a child that she cannot care for
So, yes, pro-abortion advocates can be reasonably called women's rights activists, as they are fighting against women falling into a demonstrable decline in the quality of their lives. This is something that I really find difficult: bellyaching about how abortionist supporters "don't care about about unborn women" when pro-choice activists are fighting hard to keep women from enduring a situation that will not end well either for the mother or for the child.
I take very, very great offence at conservative Christian's complete unwillingness to do anything constructive to do anything to reduce abortion rates. And I do not mean taking an iron fist approach to obstruct a woman from receiving one. I mean, to ensure that abortion is not an option, to provide some choice. I mean acknowledging that economic reasons are often the most important ones when a woman considers an abortion. Women who can afford to take care of an infant will be least likely to consider an abortion.
We are living in very trying economical times. If a woman cannot afford the considerable financial costs of caring for a child, she is going to terminate her pregnancy, especially if the difficulties of reentering the working world are too great. Countries that actually provide significant maternal care for mothers have low abortion rates. Why aren't pro-lifers working on that?
Also, women who are informed about reproductive health and have access to birth control are going to be less likely to pursue abortions, and avoid the situations where a termination of a pregnancy becomes an issue. I don't mean hyping abstinence to the nth degree, as there is no evidence that doing so will work. None. Teaching young adults about birth control and how their bodies work reaps far more benefits than hammering into kids "just don't do it."
But we can't do that, can we? It's both theologically and politically impossible. Beyond the pale. Granted, the Bible is a little sketchy on the abortion issue itself. A firm approach to abortion guarantees that abortions will continue; and laws only slightly removed from The Handmaid's Tale will make the problem immeasurably worse. Tacitly or overtly, Christian conservatives favour policies that will scare people off from enacting them, and cause more problems than they solve if enacted. For that, they have my contempt.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Get Rid Of Slimy attiudeS
There is a belief that boys are not reading YA as much because too many writers, protagonists and award juries are females. I think this misses the forest for the trees; that is, the very attitude that says boys do not read YA because it is so female dominant is the problem.
First of all, I think that it is a pretty poor excuse if you assume that boys are not reading because women are writing and conferring awards. It is very patronizing indeed to think that only an author or a protagonist of your gender is the exclusive reason you are reading, or that you get anything emotionally or intellectually out of the books that you have read. As Liz Williams explains, for all the sexism that is rife in the publishing world, books stand or fall on their own merits. The idea that it must have a specific appeal to one gender or another is just dumb.
Secondly, this is a very self-reinforcing attitude. If you think that women are dominating YA (which is a contestable assumption), then first of all you're conceding the field, and second of all you're guaranteeing that only female-centered stories become synonymous with YA. Actually, come to think about it, why do we think that it's all women's fault, when women are no less capable of men of writing compelling stories and characters? Example: The Fault in Our Stars by John Green, which has a very compelling female protagonist, or The Scorpio Races by Maggie Stiefvater who has a very compelling male protagonist.
In my anecdotal/apocryphal/limited experience, YA seems to be 40/60 male/female. For decades, girls have had to make do with a predominantly male writer base and predominantly male protagonists. I can't for the life of me understand why male readers would be put off by a large percentage (I am not confident enough to say that the YA field is a majority female thing---see the Liz Williams article above) of women writers if they are willing to enjoy female characters in other media (ie, video games, as in Lara Croft).
First of all, I think that it is a pretty poor excuse if you assume that boys are not reading because women are writing and conferring awards. It is very patronizing indeed to think that only an author or a protagonist of your gender is the exclusive reason you are reading, or that you get anything emotionally or intellectually out of the books that you have read. As Liz Williams explains, for all the sexism that is rife in the publishing world, books stand or fall on their own merits. The idea that it must have a specific appeal to one gender or another is just dumb.
Secondly, this is a very self-reinforcing attitude. If you think that women are dominating YA (which is a contestable assumption), then first of all you're conceding the field, and second of all you're guaranteeing that only female-centered stories become synonymous with YA. Actually, come to think about it, why do we think that it's all women's fault, when women are no less capable of men of writing compelling stories and characters? Example: The Fault in Our Stars by John Green, which has a very compelling female protagonist, or The Scorpio Races by Maggie Stiefvater who has a very compelling male protagonist.
In my anecdotal/apocryphal/limited experience, YA seems to be 40/60 male/female. For decades, girls have had to make do with a predominantly male writer base and predominantly male protagonists. I can't for the life of me understand why male readers would be put off by a large percentage (I am not confident enough to say that the YA field is a majority female thing---see the Liz Williams article above) of women writers if they are willing to enjoy female characters in other media (ie, video games, as in Lara Croft).
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Witnessing my disbelief
I do not believe in God. I do not believe in any supernatural powers. Sometimes, I wish I did. A long time ago I looked inside myself and discovered that I do not have a God-shaped hole begging to be filled. That is just part of my personality; I consider it to be unchangeable.
Which is why I have a very mild annoyance at some of the conclusions raised in this article. To be sure, I am long out of the academy, and am wistfully remembering those days, mostly for all the things I should have done and done better. I've softened and mellowed my views since those days, but I have not dramatically changed them.
You know what was the most damaging thing ever done to my faith? Animaniacs. For reals.
See, one episode was set in part in h-e-double hockey sticks. I remember as a nine year old walking home from school, my mind abuzz. How can we be so certain that the Judeo-Christian religion is definitively the only one, the best one? After all, the Greeks and Romans thought theirs was the only certain religion, and now we know it to be false. Why are we so sure that we have it right and they have it wrong? Boom. Instant damage.
I always was interested in science. That itself damaged my religious beliefs: we have evidence for evolution, the universe, all those things. God? Ambiguous at best. No rocks I have ever turned over in my life have had "Made by God" stamped on them. Maybe I'm asking too much from God. I'm not asking for the blinding light of revelation, just a tiny bit more than what the religious folk are offering, okay?
I do recall going to Sunday school when I was very, very little. Whoever taught me said it was okay if I said "This is bad" to the creation of the universe. Guess I was always destined to be an iconoclast! I was never exposed to religious traditions to the same depth as some of my childhood peers, and (to my disgruntlement) Christians would bemoan the fact that if I only went to church weekly I'd have impregnable faith in God. I find that to be very condescending. I always had episodes of disbelief in my childhood---I had episodes of faith, to be sure, even devotion, but they were never strong enough to stick.
To agree with the article, ages 14-17 were decisive for me, though not in the way they would think. That was when my weak faith was slowly stripped away from me in degrees. Okay, I've conceded to a very milquetoast deist philosophy, I thought. Thing is, I was stripping the usefulness of God away in parts. God was reduced to simply flicking the on switch and going away to let humans figure things out. In other words, God was horribly redundant. By the time I was seventeen or eighteen I had abandoned the concept of God, not out of spite, but simple pragmatism. I didn't stop being a believer; I was just honest in my disbelief. There was no purpose for God, and therefore no need for me to believe in Him/Her/It.
This is the whole point to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if you were ever confused why: it's a deliberately nonsensical concept to highlight how, when examined closely, they break down under the weight of their own implausibility. Yes, if I had a stronger sense of faith I suppose I could counter that somehow, but once you start looking into the mythologies and folklore of the world, you begin to have a harder time accepting the existence of such entities.
I probably identify as a 'skeptic' as opposed to atheist. Not that I am totally immune to the concept of God, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don't think this fact is sinking in with believers, who assume if I'm in a meadow overflowing with daisies after a good rainstorm and a rainbow has come out I'll fall to my knees in wonder and dedicate my soul to Christ, or whatever. Rapturous wonder is wonderful, but it is not evidence in and of itself. If I do nothing else, I want to make it clear: a lot of people do not believe in God because they see no reason to believe in God, no hard or tangible reason as opposed to an inadequate supply of faith. I seriously resent the idea that all I need is a good session at a church to turn my into a believer. Really, I do.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I have difficulty believing in a soul when there is unmistakable evidence that our minds are linked physically to our brains. I could be wrong. Thing is, it is up to the believer to prove their point beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not saying that to be difficult. Back up what you are saying with little more than weak arguments and Bible verses---I'm not going to accept anything less, as I would not accept anything less over any other thing I believe in. Sorry if I come across as a militant atheist, but I have trouble accepting the existence of things beyond this world, and I'm sorry if having such doctrines pounded into my skull does not count as evidence.
(At this point the believers smugly whisper "String Theory" and "Hard Problem of Consciousness" to put the screws to any feelings of superiority of my materialist beliefs).
Okay, okay, I never said that strict empiricism is infallible. It is, however, considerably more useful that faith, since faith is pretty much, "Just believe down in your heart!" I'm sorry, but that just isn't good enough.
Empiricism and materialism have their own problems. That does not mean we approach them by piling on hypothetical, supernatural nonsense, usually because when we do find more information that changes our understanding of how things work we have to bend over backwards to accommodate our preconceptions, rather than the other way around.
This world is the only world we definitely know exist; this life is the only one we definitely know we have. We need to concentrate on that and not appeasing Gods that we may loose faith in after a couple of centuries. We need to place humanity and it's welfare as a doctrine above all other doctrines and dogmas. This may ruffle some Christian's feathers. Sorry if that upsets you, but I'm not apologetic for saying that. I'm more interested in the survival of humanity than the survival of Christianity. That's just how I roll.
Which is why I have a very mild annoyance at some of the conclusions raised in this article. To be sure, I am long out of the academy, and am wistfully remembering those days, mostly for all the things I should have done and done better. I've softened and mellowed my views since those days, but I have not dramatically changed them.
You know what was the most damaging thing ever done to my faith? Animaniacs. For reals.
See, one episode was set in part in h-e-double hockey sticks. I remember as a nine year old walking home from school, my mind abuzz. How can we be so certain that the Judeo-Christian religion is definitively the only one, the best one? After all, the Greeks and Romans thought theirs was the only certain religion, and now we know it to be false. Why are we so sure that we have it right and they have it wrong? Boom. Instant damage.
I always was interested in science. That itself damaged my religious beliefs: we have evidence for evolution, the universe, all those things. God? Ambiguous at best. No rocks I have ever turned over in my life have had "Made by God" stamped on them. Maybe I'm asking too much from God. I'm not asking for the blinding light of revelation, just a tiny bit more than what the religious folk are offering, okay?
I do recall going to Sunday school when I was very, very little. Whoever taught me said it was okay if I said "This is bad" to the creation of the universe. Guess I was always destined to be an iconoclast! I was never exposed to religious traditions to the same depth as some of my childhood peers, and (to my disgruntlement) Christians would bemoan the fact that if I only went to church weekly I'd have impregnable faith in God. I find that to be very condescending. I always had episodes of disbelief in my childhood---I had episodes of faith, to be sure, even devotion, but they were never strong enough to stick.
To agree with the article, ages 14-17 were decisive for me, though not in the way they would think. That was when my weak faith was slowly stripped away from me in degrees. Okay, I've conceded to a very milquetoast deist philosophy, I thought. Thing is, I was stripping the usefulness of God away in parts. God was reduced to simply flicking the on switch and going away to let humans figure things out. In other words, God was horribly redundant. By the time I was seventeen or eighteen I had abandoned the concept of God, not out of spite, but simple pragmatism. I didn't stop being a believer; I was just honest in my disbelief. There was no purpose for God, and therefore no need for me to believe in Him/Her/It.
This is the whole point to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if you were ever confused why: it's a deliberately nonsensical concept to highlight how, when examined closely, they break down under the weight of their own implausibility. Yes, if I had a stronger sense of faith I suppose I could counter that somehow, but once you start looking into the mythologies and folklore of the world, you begin to have a harder time accepting the existence of such entities.
I probably identify as a 'skeptic' as opposed to atheist. Not that I am totally immune to the concept of God, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don't think this fact is sinking in with believers, who assume if I'm in a meadow overflowing with daisies after a good rainstorm and a rainbow has come out I'll fall to my knees in wonder and dedicate my soul to Christ, or whatever. Rapturous wonder is wonderful, but it is not evidence in and of itself. If I do nothing else, I want to make it clear: a lot of people do not believe in God because they see no reason to believe in God, no hard or tangible reason as opposed to an inadequate supply of faith. I seriously resent the idea that all I need is a good session at a church to turn my into a believer. Really, I do.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I have difficulty believing in a soul when there is unmistakable evidence that our minds are linked physically to our brains. I could be wrong. Thing is, it is up to the believer to prove their point beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not saying that to be difficult. Back up what you are saying with little more than weak arguments and Bible verses---I'm not going to accept anything less, as I would not accept anything less over any other thing I believe in. Sorry if I come across as a militant atheist, but I have trouble accepting the existence of things beyond this world, and I'm sorry if having such doctrines pounded into my skull does not count as evidence.
(At this point the believers smugly whisper "String Theory" and "Hard Problem of Consciousness" to put the screws to any feelings of superiority of my materialist beliefs).
Okay, okay, I never said that strict empiricism is infallible. It is, however, considerably more useful that faith, since faith is pretty much, "Just believe down in your heart!" I'm sorry, but that just isn't good enough.
Empiricism and materialism have their own problems. That does not mean we approach them by piling on hypothetical, supernatural nonsense, usually because when we do find more information that changes our understanding of how things work we have to bend over backwards to accommodate our preconceptions, rather than the other way around.
This world is the only world we definitely know exist; this life is the only one we definitely know we have. We need to concentrate on that and not appeasing Gods that we may loose faith in after a couple of centuries. We need to place humanity and it's welfare as a doctrine above all other doctrines and dogmas. This may ruffle some Christian's feathers. Sorry if that upsets you, but I'm not apologetic for saying that. I'm more interested in the survival of humanity than the survival of Christianity. That's just how I roll.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Ready for the Last War: Starship Troopers and Modern YA Literature
Robert A. Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers is one of the most popular and influential science fiction novels written. It serves as a bridge between his juvenile novels and his adult work. At the time, the audience he wrote for would have been too young to have experienced the Second World War or Korea and too early to have experienced Vietnam.
Currently, the speculative fiction genre is experiencing a renaissance in young adult literature that has not been seen since Heinlein's time. Contemporary readers of young adult have been born into the post-9/11 world, with the recently "concluded" conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the pain of the great recession. The Second World War occurred seventy years ago, and is best known through the legions of first person shooters or movies it has inspired.
Contemporary writers are, whether they know it or not, whether they like it or not, playing in Heinlein's sandbox: writers such as John Scalzi write works inspired by Starship Troopers. It is a novel that celebrates the dedication and commitment towards service of one's country---in the form of cranky lectures in protagonist Johnny Rico's History and Moral Philosophy classes about how society would function better if there was the same dedication shown to participating in democracy that was displayed in military service (revealing the kernel of authoritarianism at the heart of libertarianism).
Contemporary readers are living in a turbulent world, where violence is common, particularly in the form of extra-state terrorism. Conflict shapes the world they live in. Is Robert A. Heinlein still relevant to contemporary readers of YA? Will younger readers have the same reverence for it that their predecessors once had? I am not entirely optimistic, myself, that Starship Troopers is going to age well.
The relationship between war and contemporary YA SF readers has changed. In Heinlein's time, even the most horrible atrocities of war may not have been hidden away, but they were not as explicit either. Photographs, perhaps movies, could be seen after a respectable period of time. Crucially, the government could and did intercept anything that could be construed as damaging to the public's morale. Today, any atrocity can (and frequently is) immediately uploaded to YouTube within seconds.
The relationship between war and media has changed. For example, much of Mockingjay concerns both the Capital of Panem and Katniss Everdeen's efforts to try and out-soapbox each other. As a result, contemporary readers are no longer passive, but can easily recognize propaganda and manipulation when they see it. Information control is a lot more difficult than it used to be. Also, it is recognized now that whoever frames the perception of the conflict best is destined to win. This is not a new revelation, but in a time when information passes freely, it becomes crucial.
The relationship between civilians and the military is also dissimilar: Starship Troopers was written in a time when armies might clash at a respectable distance from civilian population centers. Not that war was always conducted in this way, or that American forces never participated in fighting in urban environments, but increasingly the amount of fighting is, by necessity, going to occur in urban environments. The relationship between civilian and combatant is now gauze thin.
This is not to say that we have grown any more pacifistic. Far from it: look at the Hunger Games, Chaos Walking and Leviathan or Uglies series, all of which have war or at least violent conflict as a central aspect of their plots. However, compared to Heinlein's veneration of the central role conflict plays in the human experience, modern young adult science fiction has a more realistic and nuanced view of warfare than Heinlein. Isaac Asimov has a famous quote where he says that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Both Heinlein and modern readers agree: warfare's necessity forms a major part of Monsters of Men, the third book of the Chaos Walking series. Warfare involves violence, but it is a focused and deliberate kind of violence as opposed to mass murder or terrorism that often passes for it.
Still, modern readers realize that warfare has very serious consequences. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is involved in the aftermath of the Hunger Games in Catching Fire; and the rebellion against the capital involves false flag operations against civilians, among other things. Compare this with Heinlein's "Bugs" who are literally natural communists, incapable of distinguishing between civilian and soldier. There is nothing in warfare so horrible that you will not do it: you will make alliances with disreputable people who will make trying to live in peace after the war as difficult as possible; you will do things that you think only bad guys do, and you will do them willingly.
Ironically for an author that tried to tell it straight and as it is, Heinlein increasingly is coming across as a man with his head in the clouds. His perspective of warfare is not only dated, it is unrealistic. Because of the influence and prominence of Starship Troopers it will continue to shape military science fiction; however, readers of modern YA SF, while they may appreciate the novel for it's advocacy of commitment to one's country, are going to be better served by SF that acknowledges that war, while it may be justified, is often anything but glorious.
Currently, the speculative fiction genre is experiencing a renaissance in young adult literature that has not been seen since Heinlein's time. Contemporary readers of young adult have been born into the post-9/11 world, with the recently "concluded" conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the pain of the great recession. The Second World War occurred seventy years ago, and is best known through the legions of first person shooters or movies it has inspired.
Contemporary writers are, whether they know it or not, whether they like it or not, playing in Heinlein's sandbox: writers such as John Scalzi write works inspired by Starship Troopers. It is a novel that celebrates the dedication and commitment towards service of one's country---in the form of cranky lectures in protagonist Johnny Rico's History and Moral Philosophy classes about how society would function better if there was the same dedication shown to participating in democracy that was displayed in military service (revealing the kernel of authoritarianism at the heart of libertarianism).
Contemporary readers are living in a turbulent world, where violence is common, particularly in the form of extra-state terrorism. Conflict shapes the world they live in. Is Robert A. Heinlein still relevant to contemporary readers of YA? Will younger readers have the same reverence for it that their predecessors once had? I am not entirely optimistic, myself, that Starship Troopers is going to age well.
The relationship between war and contemporary YA SF readers has changed. In Heinlein's time, even the most horrible atrocities of war may not have been hidden away, but they were not as explicit either. Photographs, perhaps movies, could be seen after a respectable period of time. Crucially, the government could and did intercept anything that could be construed as damaging to the public's morale. Today, any atrocity can (and frequently is) immediately uploaded to YouTube within seconds.
The relationship between war and media has changed. For example, much of Mockingjay concerns both the Capital of Panem and Katniss Everdeen's efforts to try and out-soapbox each other. As a result, contemporary readers are no longer passive, but can easily recognize propaganda and manipulation when they see it. Information control is a lot more difficult than it used to be. Also, it is recognized now that whoever frames the perception of the conflict best is destined to win. This is not a new revelation, but in a time when information passes freely, it becomes crucial.
The relationship between civilians and the military is also dissimilar: Starship Troopers was written in a time when armies might clash at a respectable distance from civilian population centers. Not that war was always conducted in this way, or that American forces never participated in fighting in urban environments, but increasingly the amount of fighting is, by necessity, going to occur in urban environments. The relationship between civilian and combatant is now gauze thin.
This is not to say that we have grown any more pacifistic. Far from it: look at the Hunger Games, Chaos Walking and Leviathan or Uglies series, all of which have war or at least violent conflict as a central aspect of their plots. However, compared to Heinlein's veneration of the central role conflict plays in the human experience, modern young adult science fiction has a more realistic and nuanced view of warfare than Heinlein. Isaac Asimov has a famous quote where he says that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Both Heinlein and modern readers agree: warfare's necessity forms a major part of Monsters of Men, the third book of the Chaos Walking series. Warfare involves violence, but it is a focused and deliberate kind of violence as opposed to mass murder or terrorism that often passes for it.
Still, modern readers realize that warfare has very serious consequences. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is involved in the aftermath of the Hunger Games in Catching Fire; and the rebellion against the capital involves false flag operations against civilians, among other things. Compare this with Heinlein's "Bugs" who are literally natural communists, incapable of distinguishing between civilian and soldier. There is nothing in warfare so horrible that you will not do it: you will make alliances with disreputable people who will make trying to live in peace after the war as difficult as possible; you will do things that you think only bad guys do, and you will do them willingly.
Ironically for an author that tried to tell it straight and as it is, Heinlein increasingly is coming across as a man with his head in the clouds. His perspective of warfare is not only dated, it is unrealistic. Because of the influence and prominence of Starship Troopers it will continue to shape military science fiction; however, readers of modern YA SF, while they may appreciate the novel for it's advocacy of commitment to one's country, are going to be better served by SF that acknowledges that war, while it may be justified, is often anything but glorious.
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Why it would not surprise me if there was a "Maple Spring" this year
While walking through the downtown today, I noticed the protest scheduled for today to demand the resignation of Rob Ford. The travails of Ford will, make my words, mark his imminent departure from politics, one way or another. The man, simply put, just doesn't have the brains to be mayor. He certainly is not displaying any aptitude in handling this crisis, when clearly everyone associate with his administration is jumping ship.
History is not going to vindicate Ford. Aside from the discontinuation of the vehicle registration tax and garbage privatization east of Yonge, name me any proposal or initiative Ford has brought to the table that has survived. I'll wait. World's largest Ferris wheel? The casino? Privately funded subway---hell, the friggin' monorail? He has not compromised, he has not proven to be reasonable; he has only gone on the offensive, charging headfirst into the windmills, and now is being lifted aloft for all to ridicule.
At the same time, Stephen Harper is weathering the Duffy/Wright scandal. Harper is deprived of a chief of staff in the PMO; and the economy, despite every attempt to convince Canadians of what their lying eyes is telling them, is not coming back as a roaring success. Combined with funding cuts, and attempt to muzzle, Canada's scientists has proven to be a huge disaster for the Conservative party. If the economy continues to soften, especially with regards to the housing sector, it will be difficult for the Tories to claim the high ground on the economy.
The 2010/2011 Conservative wave has broken and is beginning to recede. Harper now faces a feisty opposition in Trudeau, and any hope of mobilizing Ford nation in Toronto has fizzled. Things are not much better than two years ago, when the Occupy movement began, and it would not take much of a nudge for the protests to start all over. There are two years left in Harper's mandate, but he will have been in power for nine years, enough to exhaust voters, especially when he is burdened with scandal and stagnation.
Currently, Turkey is convulsed with protests denouncing the ruling party. Such a spirit may yet make it's way to Canada's shores.
History is not going to vindicate Ford. Aside from the discontinuation of the vehicle registration tax and garbage privatization east of Yonge, name me any proposal or initiative Ford has brought to the table that has survived. I'll wait. World's largest Ferris wheel? The casino? Privately funded subway---hell, the friggin' monorail? He has not compromised, he has not proven to be reasonable; he has only gone on the offensive, charging headfirst into the windmills, and now is being lifted aloft for all to ridicule.
At the same time, Stephen Harper is weathering the Duffy/Wright scandal. Harper is deprived of a chief of staff in the PMO; and the economy, despite every attempt to convince Canadians of what their lying eyes is telling them, is not coming back as a roaring success. Combined with funding cuts, and attempt to muzzle, Canada's scientists has proven to be a huge disaster for the Conservative party. If the economy continues to soften, especially with regards to the housing sector, it will be difficult for the Tories to claim the high ground on the economy.
The 2010/2011 Conservative wave has broken and is beginning to recede. Harper now faces a feisty opposition in Trudeau, and any hope of mobilizing Ford nation in Toronto has fizzled. Things are not much better than two years ago, when the Occupy movement began, and it would not take much of a nudge for the protests to start all over. There are two years left in Harper's mandate, but he will have been in power for nine years, enough to exhaust voters, especially when he is burdened with scandal and stagnation.
Currently, Turkey is convulsed with protests denouncing the ruling party. Such a spirit may yet make it's way to Canada's shores.
Monday, May 27, 2013
The Last Act for Rob Ford
Rob Ford's administration is in his final days. I do not expect him to remain in office past Labour Day. As of today, his press secretary and deputy press secretary have quit, leaving him vulnerable to the media. He has never been able to handle the media by himself. What the Star has started, the Globe and Mail, with it's detailed account of the Ford family's involvement in the narcotics trade, has finished.
That is why I found this article by Joe Warmington of the Toronto Sun (ugh) to be...interesting.
"Doesn’t matter if the evidence is authentic? Impossible to survive? In football terms it’s bulletin board material. He got up from what he considers a blind-side hit and carefully tried to word his way out of what the Star reporters have alleged."
Let's see: dude has a DUI/marijuana possession, got kicked out of a Leafs game after getting drunk...not hard to see a pattern here. The man clearly has a history of getting drunk and high. And we have the Globe to thank for revealing just how prolonged and deep Ford's involvement with narcotics is.
"Ford Nation will fight on."
"They had him in check but not checkmate. In check good chess players still have moves."
This argument is pure drivel. Granted, things have changed (and not in Ford's favour) since Warmington wrote this. Ford's chief of staff and press secretaries have resigned: in the case of Towhey, he was fired after insisting Ford get treatment for his substance abuse issues. Not something to be proud of.
The clock is ticking in the hunt for the only thing that appears to have the power to crack this case.
The clock is ticking all right: for the final few minutes of the most bizarre mayorship Toronto has ever seen.
That is why I found this article by Joe Warmington of the Toronto Sun (ugh) to be...interesting.
"Doesn’t matter if the evidence is authentic? Impossible to survive? In football terms it’s bulletin board material. He got up from what he considers a blind-side hit and carefully tried to word his way out of what the Star reporters have alleged."
Let's see: dude has a DUI/marijuana possession, got kicked out of a Leafs game after getting drunk...not hard to see a pattern here. The man clearly has a history of getting drunk and high. And we have the Globe to thank for revealing just how prolonged and deep Ford's involvement with narcotics is.
"Ford Nation will fight on."
"They had him in check but not checkmate. In check good chess players still have moves."
This argument is pure drivel. Granted, things have changed (and not in Ford's favour) since Warmington wrote this. Ford's chief of staff and press secretaries have resigned: in the case of Towhey, he was fired after insisting Ford get treatment for his substance abuse issues. Not something to be proud of.
The clock is ticking in the hunt for the only thing that appears to have the power to crack this case.
The clock is ticking all right: for the final few minutes of the most bizarre mayorship Toronto has ever seen.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
A Scott Pilgrim movie reboot is probably inevitable (and hardly a bad thing)
Listening to Paul Chapman's "Greatest Movie Ever" Podcast a week ago introduced the idea that Scott Pilgrim is a fundamentally flawed movie that got a lot of praise for executing the style of the comics right, but failed to make Scott a fundamentally solid character. Chapman was under the impression that Scott was an idiot man-child whose quirkiness covered up for the complete lack of any sort of meaningful character growth. I don't fully agree, but neither is this a point worth dismissing.
Scott Pilgrim is a movie I like, but it comes with a very qualified like. While most critics fell over themselves with praise, I couldn't help notice that the movie had some real flaws. Specifically, the movie acts as a solid adaption of at least the first two books of the series, and goes wobbly when trying to cram in the rest. Adapting a six volume comic book series to one movie is going to be a challenge---specifically when two of the books have not been written yet. Timing the movie to be released at the same time of the conclusion of the comic series resulted in an experience confusing to fans of the book and underwhelming to newcomers.
The result is a movie that trips over itself. Confining the series to a single movie (while it may have made sense to do so, especially given the movie's dismal performance at the box office) resulted in a jammed, bloated epic that struggled to keep up with it's own frantic pace.
The ending of the movie is completely unbalanced: it was written with the intention of Scott remaining with Knives, and when I saw the movie for the first time I was incredibly confused when it turned out that he was sticking with Ramona. Yes, it would have made sense for the movie to end in a way that was different to how the books turned out. If it would result in a more coherent movie, so be it. Bryan Lee O'Malley admitted that the (in progress) ending of the final volume was still up in the air when the script was being written.
The secondary characters remained criminally underdeveloped, especially given how talented the actors who portrayed them. I loved Alison Pill's Kim Pine, and her previous relationship with Scott was only lightly touched upon. This presented an opportunity to add depth to Scott's character as much as hers, to help show why Scott was such a dolt when it came to women. Kim herself is a fascinating character in the books who deserved more screen time. Similarly, Scott's relationship with Envy Adams deserves more attention, since it informed his relationship with Kim.
In hindsight, casting Michael Cera as Scott was a bad move. He didn't play the part wrong, don't misunderstand me, but at the time the movie was being made the public was tiring of Cera and his presence was more of a liability than a help. This is more of a marketing problem, one that neither aids nor harms the film as a whole. If audiences were uncertain before whether to give this movie a chance, Cera cemented opinions.
Edgar Wright is the only movie maker of his generation that can capture the style and the spirit of the books, but the depth of the story remained elusive. In twenty years, when we (for some reason) are nostalgic for this period in history, Scott Pilgrim is going to be reexamined. People who will complain about the reception about this movie, and it would not surprise me if someone made an attempt at a reboot. Purists will be up in arms, but let's face it: as good as Scott Pilgrim was, it had potential that it simply did not achieve. An attempt to improve upon what came before is anything but a horrible fate.
Scott Pilgrim is a movie I like, but it comes with a very qualified like. While most critics fell over themselves with praise, I couldn't help notice that the movie had some real flaws. Specifically, the movie acts as a solid adaption of at least the first two books of the series, and goes wobbly when trying to cram in the rest. Adapting a six volume comic book series to one movie is going to be a challenge---specifically when two of the books have not been written yet. Timing the movie to be released at the same time of the conclusion of the comic series resulted in an experience confusing to fans of the book and underwhelming to newcomers.
The result is a movie that trips over itself. Confining the series to a single movie (while it may have made sense to do so, especially given the movie's dismal performance at the box office) resulted in a jammed, bloated epic that struggled to keep up with it's own frantic pace.
The ending of the movie is completely unbalanced: it was written with the intention of Scott remaining with Knives, and when I saw the movie for the first time I was incredibly confused when it turned out that he was sticking with Ramona. Yes, it would have made sense for the movie to end in a way that was different to how the books turned out. If it would result in a more coherent movie, so be it. Bryan Lee O'Malley admitted that the (in progress) ending of the final volume was still up in the air when the script was being written.
The secondary characters remained criminally underdeveloped, especially given how talented the actors who portrayed them. I loved Alison Pill's Kim Pine, and her previous relationship with Scott was only lightly touched upon. This presented an opportunity to add depth to Scott's character as much as hers, to help show why Scott was such a dolt when it came to women. Kim herself is a fascinating character in the books who deserved more screen time. Similarly, Scott's relationship with Envy Adams deserves more attention, since it informed his relationship with Kim.
In hindsight, casting Michael Cera as Scott was a bad move. He didn't play the part wrong, don't misunderstand me, but at the time the movie was being made the public was tiring of Cera and his presence was more of a liability than a help. This is more of a marketing problem, one that neither aids nor harms the film as a whole. If audiences were uncertain before whether to give this movie a chance, Cera cemented opinions.
Edgar Wright is the only movie maker of his generation that can capture the style and the spirit of the books, but the depth of the story remained elusive. In twenty years, when we (for some reason) are nostalgic for this period in history, Scott Pilgrim is going to be reexamined. People who will complain about the reception about this movie, and it would not surprise me if someone made an attempt at a reboot. Purists will be up in arms, but let's face it: as good as Scott Pilgrim was, it had potential that it simply did not achieve. An attempt to improve upon what came before is anything but a horrible fate.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Star Trek Into Darkness: One of the Best, yet also one of the Worst
Leonard Nimoy has a fun cameo in the new Star Trek movie, wherein Spock calls him up asking for advice on how to deal with Khan. Spock the Elder confirms to Spock 2.0 that there is a way to kill Khan. But it comes "with a great cost."
Such is the new Star Trek movie. Technically speaking, it is an excellent action scifi movie...but it is also a Star Trek movie, which carries additional weight. Not that this movie was expected to be cerebral (go see Star Trek: TMP and Star Trek 5 as examples), or not fun (see Star Trek IV for an example of how Star Trek genuinely can be fun). It is not bad, certainly not horrendous, and immeasurably preferable to the sorry run of the TNG movies, and several of the TOS ones.
But it is not going to be in the top tier of Star Trek movies, along with Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, Undiscovered Country and (to an extent) First Contact. It is not a terrible movie, let me stress that. I got my money's worth. It was an excellent space opera---but it did not live up to Star Trek's pedigree, not one bit.
It achieved what it set out to do, but at the cost of having a weighty story to it. It is the proverbial step forward, and also two steps back.
What I Disliked
Shallow characters and motivation
We don't know what drives Admiral Marcus, aside from a belief that war is inevitable with the Klingons. Why? Has there been some recent event necessitating a harder line with the Klingons? If so, what? I found him to be a textbook bad guy, which is always a major disappointment.
Similarly, we only know Khan is a genetically superior human who aims to destroy all that is not as perfect as he is. Now, in the original series we knew him from the episode Space Speed; and in Wrath of Khan you did not need to know who he was in detail to enjoy the movie. Here he comes out of nowhere, and you know he's a bad guy, but I feel disappointed that we did not know more about him in tremendous detail, other than he is evil.
Lifting so much of the movie from The Wrath of Khan, and completely missing the point.
Wrath of Khan is deservedly regarded as the best of the Star Trek movies. It deals with themes of life, death and sacrifice, themes picked up by Into Darkness, carefully examined and ultimately discarded. The movie apes the actions and borrow the characters, but fails to build a meaningful story to really arrange the proceedings. Ripping everything off of this movie except the theme makes ripping off Khan abjectly pointless.
This movie is too derivative of The Dark Knight's post-9/11 plot system: bad guy does something bad, good guy goes after him, bad guy gets captured, bad guy escapes (although they were a tad more clever this time around by turning Khan's release into a necessary evil), final confrontation. Fini. That too precedence over the themes of the movie, which was a major mistake.
Khan now has Wolverine-esque healing powers, you see. The use of his blood to save Kirk's life was predictable (I saw it coming from a mile away), though it rendered the importance of Kirk's "sacrifice" meaningless. Spock's death in Khan had importance because it was permanent; it could not be turned back. Doing so would have cheapened the movie's principal theme of the no-win scenario, and "how we deal with death is as importance as how we deal with life." Into Darkness completely invalidates that theme so recklessly its actually jaw dropping for those who love and cherish Wrath of Khan.
The fact that Kirk was willing to go to great lengths to save his crew as much as possible was excellent, and him dying for good (hey, Khan killed off Spock, after all!) would have carried some major dramatic weight (the inversion of the ending of Khan, with Spock racing to meet Kirk in the radiation chamber, while derivative, was a nice touch, I thought). Kirk would truly have learned the importance of sacrifice, of saving so many lives...yet not being able to save himself. But hey! He's all better now!
Hey, I hope Spock didn't bogart Khan's blood, seeing as how now there's a city full of dead people following the crash of the Vengeance into San Francisco. Strange that it gets glossed over so quickly---perhaps that was why the ending had the recommissioning of the Enterprise rather than any indication of the human loss.
Random moments of illogic
Why was the very important captain's meeting held ontop of a skyscraper where they could be attacked instead of a secure underground location? Why was the Enterprise hiding underwater in the beginning of the movie instead of space (y'know, being a space ship and all)? Why were the rescue shuttles arranged in such a fashion that they keeled over when the gravity got all wonky?
What I Liked
Khan played by the Cumberbatch, natch.
Khan here is formidable: a deadly warrior, a canny intellect, someone who cannot be left off of his leash for a second (and yet Kirk is forced to). Cumberbatch even manages to elicit a moment of sympathy for him, since he is fundamentally caring about his people...who like him are genetically engineered super beings incapable of coexisting with what they consider to be inferior lifeforms. He is pretty much invincible you can't kill him, all you can do is buy yourself a few moments to think while he is down.
The culture of the future Earth.
Earth does not feature as prominently in Star Trek as it really should. We don't see alot of the world outside of the Federation and Starfleet. I nodded approvingly when I saw the British flag flutter next to the Federation banner, because it reminded me that there is a culture here (especially a pop culture) that Star Trek usually sanitizes to within an inch of it's life.
I liked seeing scenes of Earth of people driving, or walking underneath the towering structures that now dominate Earth's landscape. I also liked the look of the uniforms. The uniforms no longer had the baggy, cheap look of the original series, and carried the proper authority of command that Starfleet deserved.
The look and feel of the Enterprise.
Granted, the iPod-y look of the Enterprise did get excessive. But I liked the way the warp core looked, because it screamed, "This is a warp core!" It looked like it had purpose and a function, that if you took every piece of it apart, you could determine what each component did. It was functional, and I really give the movie credit for that instead of using some plastic prop.
What this means for Star Trek
Well, the franchise lived to see another day, which ain't a bad thing at all. If Star Trek is going to survive, butts need to get into seats, and this movie will certainly deliver that. The needs of the shareholders outweighs the needs of the fans.
What Star Trek needs desperately is a weighty story, which we cannot get right now, since the important thing is to show that the Star Trek brand has not gotten stale. That means necessary concessions to the needs of the mass-market movie consumer. I do not believe we are doomed to stupid Trek movies from here on out, but while Abrams is at the helm, we're going to get slick, enjoyable, albeit weightless, movies. This is not the worst possible fate Trek deserves, but it does deserve better, and I do hope that the movies Abrams makes are the foundation for a Trek renaissance.
The next movie, hopefully, will boldly go where no man has gone before. Until then, we have the not enjoyable but not completely satisfactory either Into Darkness to tide us over.
Such is the new Star Trek movie. Technically speaking, it is an excellent action scifi movie...but it is also a Star Trek movie, which carries additional weight. Not that this movie was expected to be cerebral (go see Star Trek: TMP and Star Trek 5 as examples), or not fun (see Star Trek IV for an example of how Star Trek genuinely can be fun). It is not bad, certainly not horrendous, and immeasurably preferable to the sorry run of the TNG movies, and several of the TOS ones.
But it is not going to be in the top tier of Star Trek movies, along with Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, Undiscovered Country and (to an extent) First Contact. It is not a terrible movie, let me stress that. I got my money's worth. It was an excellent space opera---but it did not live up to Star Trek's pedigree, not one bit.
It achieved what it set out to do, but at the cost of having a weighty story to it. It is the proverbial step forward, and also two steps back.
What I Disliked
Shallow characters and motivation
We don't know what drives Admiral Marcus, aside from a belief that war is inevitable with the Klingons. Why? Has there been some recent event necessitating a harder line with the Klingons? If so, what? I found him to be a textbook bad guy, which is always a major disappointment.
Similarly, we only know Khan is a genetically superior human who aims to destroy all that is not as perfect as he is. Now, in the original series we knew him from the episode Space Speed; and in Wrath of Khan you did not need to know who he was in detail to enjoy the movie. Here he comes out of nowhere, and you know he's a bad guy, but I feel disappointed that we did not know more about him in tremendous detail, other than he is evil.
Lifting so much of the movie from The Wrath of Khan, and completely missing the point.
Wrath of Khan is deservedly regarded as the best of the Star Trek movies. It deals with themes of life, death and sacrifice, themes picked up by Into Darkness, carefully examined and ultimately discarded. The movie apes the actions and borrow the characters, but fails to build a meaningful story to really arrange the proceedings. Ripping everything off of this movie except the theme makes ripping off Khan abjectly pointless.
This movie is too derivative of The Dark Knight's post-9/11 plot system: bad guy does something bad, good guy goes after him, bad guy gets captured, bad guy escapes (although they were a tad more clever this time around by turning Khan's release into a necessary evil), final confrontation. Fini. That too precedence over the themes of the movie, which was a major mistake.
Khan now has Wolverine-esque healing powers, you see. The use of his blood to save Kirk's life was predictable (I saw it coming from a mile away), though it rendered the importance of Kirk's "sacrifice" meaningless. Spock's death in Khan had importance because it was permanent; it could not be turned back. Doing so would have cheapened the movie's principal theme of the no-win scenario, and "how we deal with death is as importance as how we deal with life." Into Darkness completely invalidates that theme so recklessly its actually jaw dropping for those who love and cherish Wrath of Khan.
The fact that Kirk was willing to go to great lengths to save his crew as much as possible was excellent, and him dying for good (hey, Khan killed off Spock, after all!) would have carried some major dramatic weight (the inversion of the ending of Khan, with Spock racing to meet Kirk in the radiation chamber, while derivative, was a nice touch, I thought). Kirk would truly have learned the importance of sacrifice, of saving so many lives...yet not being able to save himself. But hey! He's all better now!
Hey, I hope Spock didn't bogart Khan's blood, seeing as how now there's a city full of dead people following the crash of the Vengeance into San Francisco. Strange that it gets glossed over so quickly---perhaps that was why the ending had the recommissioning of the Enterprise rather than any indication of the human loss.
Random moments of illogic
Why was the very important captain's meeting held ontop of a skyscraper where they could be attacked instead of a secure underground location? Why was the Enterprise hiding underwater in the beginning of the movie instead of space (y'know, being a space ship and all)? Why were the rescue shuttles arranged in such a fashion that they keeled over when the gravity got all wonky?
What I Liked
Khan played by the Cumberbatch, natch.
Khan here is formidable: a deadly warrior, a canny intellect, someone who cannot be left off of his leash for a second (and yet Kirk is forced to). Cumberbatch even manages to elicit a moment of sympathy for him, since he is fundamentally caring about his people...who like him are genetically engineered super beings incapable of coexisting with what they consider to be inferior lifeforms. He is pretty much invincible you can't kill him, all you can do is buy yourself a few moments to think while he is down.
The culture of the future Earth.
Earth does not feature as prominently in Star Trek as it really should. We don't see alot of the world outside of the Federation and Starfleet. I nodded approvingly when I saw the British flag flutter next to the Federation banner, because it reminded me that there is a culture here (especially a pop culture) that Star Trek usually sanitizes to within an inch of it's life.
I liked seeing scenes of Earth of people driving, or walking underneath the towering structures that now dominate Earth's landscape. I also liked the look of the uniforms. The uniforms no longer had the baggy, cheap look of the original series, and carried the proper authority of command that Starfleet deserved.
The look and feel of the Enterprise.
Granted, the iPod-y look of the Enterprise did get excessive. But I liked the way the warp core looked, because it screamed, "This is a warp core!" It looked like it had purpose and a function, that if you took every piece of it apart, you could determine what each component did. It was functional, and I really give the movie credit for that instead of using some plastic prop.
What this means for Star Trek
Well, the franchise lived to see another day, which ain't a bad thing at all. If Star Trek is going to survive, butts need to get into seats, and this movie will certainly deliver that. The needs of the shareholders outweighs the needs of the fans.
What Star Trek needs desperately is a weighty story, which we cannot get right now, since the important thing is to show that the Star Trek brand has not gotten stale. That means necessary concessions to the needs of the mass-market movie consumer. I do not believe we are doomed to stupid Trek movies from here on out, but while Abrams is at the helm, we're going to get slick, enjoyable, albeit weightless, movies. This is not the worst possible fate Trek deserves, but it does deserve better, and I do hope that the movies Abrams makes are the foundation for a Trek renaissance.
The next movie, hopefully, will boldly go where no man has gone before. Until then, we have the not enjoyable but not completely satisfactory either Into Darkness to tide us over.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Orson Scott Card is his own worst enemy (and the enemy is winning)
There is an Ender's Game movie coming out. Big revelation, I know. I'd like to address one Tweet from one of my favourite internet critics, MovieBob, when he pondered what kind of damage Orson Scott Card could do to that project between now and November.
I'd say it's a simple question to answer: he already has.
There are mountains of quotes, articles and posts he has made on the subject of homosexuality (in particular), climate change, Israel, the Iraq War, etc. Mountains. The dude doesn't have to breathe another word, in all complete seriousness. If you know where to look (and there are many, many people who will help point you in the right direction), you can get volumes of his screeds.
Timing is everything: as recently as five years ago Card could probably have skated by consequence free. Remember, the election that brought in Obama also struck down same sex marriage in California. Four years before the Republicans won the White House for a second term by exploiting fear of same sex marriage. Now, with Minnesota proudly joining the ranks of the 12 states that recognize same sex marriage; and New Zealand, Uruguay, and France now recognizing same sex marriage, its going to get harder to rationalize away Card's "traditionalist" beliefs.
I'm actually interested to see what will happen to Card's creative output in a decade when same sex marriage gains more traction. I don't believe its going to be legalized nationwide for another fifteen to twenty years at least, though perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised. I don't expect him to be completely forgotten, as Ender's Game is a seminal work within science fiction; but his luster will dim, that much is clear, with the consequence of the rest of his body of work being ignored. Within half a century all he will have left is one book and a handful of angry screeds. That will be tragic. But it will not be unearned.
Naturally, the producers will (when Card's nonsense inevitably get raised) distance themselves from him. Card will go on a tangent about being censored and the media distorting his words, the first reactions of someone who has espoused unpleasant beliefs and is now being held to task for it. He'll double down further on his beliefs; and as America changes he will continue to be more and more isolated to the point where people will wonder what was so magical about him to begin with.
That's the way he wants it. So long as he's happy, I suppose.
I'd say it's a simple question to answer: he already has.
There are mountains of quotes, articles and posts he has made on the subject of homosexuality (in particular), climate change, Israel, the Iraq War, etc. Mountains. The dude doesn't have to breathe another word, in all complete seriousness. If you know where to look (and there are many, many people who will help point you in the right direction), you can get volumes of his screeds.
Timing is everything: as recently as five years ago Card could probably have skated by consequence free. Remember, the election that brought in Obama also struck down same sex marriage in California. Four years before the Republicans won the White House for a second term by exploiting fear of same sex marriage. Now, with Minnesota proudly joining the ranks of the 12 states that recognize same sex marriage; and New Zealand, Uruguay, and France now recognizing same sex marriage, its going to get harder to rationalize away Card's "traditionalist" beliefs.
I'm actually interested to see what will happen to Card's creative output in a decade when same sex marriage gains more traction. I don't believe its going to be legalized nationwide for another fifteen to twenty years at least, though perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised. I don't expect him to be completely forgotten, as Ender's Game is a seminal work within science fiction; but his luster will dim, that much is clear, with the consequence of the rest of his body of work being ignored. Within half a century all he will have left is one book and a handful of angry screeds. That will be tragic. But it will not be unearned.
Naturally, the producers will (when Card's nonsense inevitably get raised) distance themselves from him. Card will go on a tangent about being censored and the media distorting his words, the first reactions of someone who has espoused unpleasant beliefs and is now being held to task for it. He'll double down further on his beliefs; and as America changes he will continue to be more and more isolated to the point where people will wonder what was so magical about him to begin with.
That's the way he wants it. So long as he's happy, I suppose.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Questions about Boston that really should be asked
Like everyone else with a TV or WiFi, I was glued to the news on Friday as Boston was shut down to hunt for the remaining suspect of the Boston Marathon bombing. It was an operation peerless in scope and precedent, and I had several questions that went unaddressed as the newscasters and Tweeters updated the world on the progress of the investigation.
- Is this a law enforcement matter, a national security issue, or some new combination of the two?
- Was this a dramatic overreaction: I know that it was believed that the individual (going unnamed because I cannot remember his name for the life of me) was wearing a suicide bomber vest and armed and heavily dangerous, but this was still one individual. Shutting down an entire city to look for one person strikes me heavily as overkill.
- Would the involvement of military personnel be a violation of posse comitatus, given that state and local government was completely functional, and this was looking for one individual and not a systemic or organized attack against the government by a larger force?
- Despite the obvious loss of life during the Boston Marathon bombings, did the (and this is going to sound patronizing and possibly insulting, and I beg your forgiveness) minor economically, politically and militarily marathon really justify such an extreme response the same way 9/11 did?
- If not, what would justify such an extreme measure? Assassination of the president? Destruction of an important target (and if so, what would that be) for the government of the United States? Given the militarization of the police forces of the United States post-9/11, will this establish a precedent for similar manhunts for comparatively minor offences?
No, I don't presume to have any answers, if any objective answers exist to these questions. I am a little concerned that MURIKAN-style hoo-rah patriotism is drowning out desperately needed questions that must be asked.
Oh, and CISPA passed on the day of the manhunt. That too.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Doug Ford: A hero in his own mind
Doug Ford wants to run in any May election that gets called. I am not sanguine about his prospects, or any results if elected: while the constituents of his riding may go for it, I sincerely doubt that such a prospect may warm the cockles of Tim Hudak's heart. Hudak has not established himself as thoroughly as a good candidate, and if the Liberals do go down, it will be to the benefit of the NDP, not him. Having Doug in his pocket does not guarantee a good hand, because, frankly, he and Rob are national embarrassments. At least the rest of the country can take comfort in that they are confined to Toronto.
Metrolinx has prepared a list of possible taxes, fees and charges to facilitate badly needed transit construction in Toronto, including subway construction (ie, the Downtown Relief Line, not the utterly useless subway to Scarborough). Naturally, this is anathema to the proud Ford nation! Cheered on by the hacks at the Toronto Sun, Doug will no doubt ride a populist wave to victory (no...couldn't say that with a straight face, sorry), and if he dosen't win, and if the Tories aren't in power, no doubt he will challenge Hudak for the party leadership---and I'm certain the prospect of that is making many Dippers and Grits smile.
Doug Ford's declaration of intent sounds like a high school bully rather than a grown man. Granted, I'm sure this will have some sway over a certain category of voter. The kind that hates all taxes, ever, period, yet still expects things handed to them---the reaction, in other words, of a dense and spoiled brat, who wants things but turns their nose up at working for them. Somehow this is the embodiment of populist conservativism. Somehow.
Taxes suck. On that there is no disagreement. However, how else are we going to make meaningful contributions of transit and infastructure construction and maintenance? A casino at it's best would make, what, a hundred and twenty million a year---versus 1.7 billion dollars on a dollar a day parking levy (which I noticed Ford was not unopposed to at one point). Ford has had enough time to put together a free-market based strategy. He has failed. A year ago Karen Stintz sat down, did the numbers, and came to the conclusion that there was no way Ford's underfunded turkey could fly.
Here's the dirty little secret: every major North American city has done some combination of what Metrolinx is proposing. Even Chicago, which is basically the second home of the Ford twins. Dealing with information you do not want to hear is one of life's great challenges. It's not fun.
I pray that Ford, both of them, gets turfed at the next two elections. The city of Toronto cannot afford either of them. If they do get their way, this city is heading into a political dark age. But we won't be taxed to death: productivity sapping gridlock will reign, we'll be overpolluted and congested, perhaps, but we still won't be taxed, and that's the important thing!
Metrolinx has prepared a list of possible taxes, fees and charges to facilitate badly needed transit construction in Toronto, including subway construction (ie, the Downtown Relief Line, not the utterly useless subway to Scarborough). Naturally, this is anathema to the proud Ford nation! Cheered on by the hacks at the Toronto Sun, Doug will no doubt ride a populist wave to victory (no...couldn't say that with a straight face, sorry), and if he dosen't win, and if the Tories aren't in power, no doubt he will challenge Hudak for the party leadership---and I'm certain the prospect of that is making many Dippers and Grits smile.
Doug Ford's declaration of intent sounds like a high school bully rather than a grown man. Granted, I'm sure this will have some sway over a certain category of voter. The kind that hates all taxes, ever, period, yet still expects things handed to them---the reaction, in other words, of a dense and spoiled brat, who wants things but turns their nose up at working for them. Somehow this is the embodiment of populist conservativism. Somehow.
Taxes suck. On that there is no disagreement. However, how else are we going to make meaningful contributions of transit and infastructure construction and maintenance? A casino at it's best would make, what, a hundred and twenty million a year---versus 1.7 billion dollars on a dollar a day parking levy (which I noticed Ford was not unopposed to at one point). Ford has had enough time to put together a free-market based strategy. He has failed. A year ago Karen Stintz sat down, did the numbers, and came to the conclusion that there was no way Ford's underfunded turkey could fly.
Here's the dirty little secret: every major North American city has done some combination of what Metrolinx is proposing. Even Chicago, which is basically the second home of the Ford twins. Dealing with information you do not want to hear is one of life's great challenges. It's not fun.
I pray that Ford, both of them, gets turfed at the next two elections. The city of Toronto cannot afford either of them. If they do get their way, this city is heading into a political dark age. But we won't be taxed to death: productivity sapping gridlock will reign, we'll be overpolluted and congested, perhaps, but we still won't be taxed, and that's the important thing!
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Hugo Awards 2013
Okay...been awhile since I last updated this here thing. Let's see if I still remember how.
So, the 2013 Hugo Awards have been announced. Of the category I follow most closely, novel, I have read two of the nominees. They are:
*2312, Kim Stanley Robinson
*Redshirts, John Scalzi
*Blackout, Mira Grant
*Throne of the Crescent Moon, Saladin Ahmed
*Captain Vorpatril's Alliance, Lois McMaster Bujold
My official call for 2013 is...Redshirts, by John Scalzi. Scalzi will win the Hugo at some point in his career. I read the book in a day: it is gripping, thoughtful and intelligent.
Objectively speaking, however, should this novel be considered the year's best?
Kim Stanley Robinson is an author who everyone in the SF field is expected to revere; personally, I never liked the Mars trilogy too deeply, since it appeared to be all philosophy with no character or plot. His works to me have all been ponderous and intellectual, with no "zazz" factor, which is something that Redshirts cannot be accused of lacking. Blackout, like it's predecessor Deadline, is being nominated on the strength of Feed. The Newsflesh trilogy has been very enjoyable; but I hesitate at giving it so high a commendation.
Lois McMaster Bujold seems to get nominated every time she has a book out, and discounting her as a possible winner would be premature. I haven't read the Vorkosigan series in a long time, and I am not too invested in it. Throne of the Crescent Moon is continuing a trend of the past few years were a fantasy novel appears on the ballot, one that doesn't seem to win, despite how acclaimed it is. That is my prediction for it's fate.
So: Redshirts. A very good book...but is it excellent? Is it Hugo Award worthy? That's a difficult question to ask. The Hugo Awards are the fandom's award: it is determined by Worldcon attendees/voters. It is a crowd pleasing novel, and not a dumb one. I just can't quite give it my full accolade.
So, the 2013 Hugo Awards have been announced. Of the category I follow most closely, novel, I have read two of the nominees. They are:
*2312, Kim Stanley Robinson
*Redshirts, John Scalzi
*Blackout, Mira Grant
*Throne of the Crescent Moon, Saladin Ahmed
*Captain Vorpatril's Alliance, Lois McMaster Bujold
My official call for 2013 is...Redshirts, by John Scalzi. Scalzi will win the Hugo at some point in his career. I read the book in a day: it is gripping, thoughtful and intelligent.
Objectively speaking, however, should this novel be considered the year's best?
Kim Stanley Robinson is an author who everyone in the SF field is expected to revere; personally, I never liked the Mars trilogy too deeply, since it appeared to be all philosophy with no character or plot. His works to me have all been ponderous and intellectual, with no "zazz" factor, which is something that Redshirts cannot be accused of lacking. Blackout, like it's predecessor Deadline, is being nominated on the strength of Feed. The Newsflesh trilogy has been very enjoyable; but I hesitate at giving it so high a commendation.
Lois McMaster Bujold seems to get nominated every time she has a book out, and discounting her as a possible winner would be premature. I haven't read the Vorkosigan series in a long time, and I am not too invested in it. Throne of the Crescent Moon is continuing a trend of the past few years were a fantasy novel appears on the ballot, one that doesn't seem to win, despite how acclaimed it is. That is my prediction for it's fate.
So: Redshirts. A very good book...but is it excellent? Is it Hugo Award worthy? That's a difficult question to ask. The Hugo Awards are the fandom's award: it is determined by Worldcon attendees/voters. It is a crowd pleasing novel, and not a dumb one. I just can't quite give it my full accolade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)