Category Archives: Criticism

Not A Superman Review

Not my image. I took it from Nathan Marchand because I'm too lazy to make my own. Accessed from: http://www.nathanjsmarchand.com/?p=1356.

Just to make things clear.

This is not a Superman: Man of Steel review. For that, kindly see my sister’s post last week on sufficient thoughts about that production. I am not going to write today my feelings on the movie because, as I’ve mentioned, this is not a Superman review.

But just to be clear, I’m not reviewing Superman today.

That out of the way, Man of Steel was boring. Partly because of the reasons my sister mentioned and partly because I’m not a fan of comic book movies. Woe befall me for this is clearly not my generation to dislike comic book entertainment. We’re inundated with the material. There’s a practical deluge of comic bookiness pouring from every orifice of society. Trilogies upon trilogies of the silly stuff cram our summer theatres. Television is trying their own hand with the Avenger’s spin-off starring a remarkably unimportant member of the film. Arguably, we can thank comic books for Intelligence as well as it has quite a few tropes typically reserved for the graphic novel genre.

Oh, and let’s not forget the video games.

It may be a little incongruous for someone who writes fantasy and science fiction to dislike comic books. Even more bordering hypocrisy, I read quite a few when I was a child. I collected, almost religiously, the Power Pack series and I shudder to think how awful those stories are now that I’m much older and capable of actual taste. But, to be fair to my younger self, youths have terrible quality control and if there is ever a market for gluttonous devouring of the power fantasy, children would be that market.

I mean, to throw some psychology at the topic, the Theory of Mind is the ability to attribute mental states to oneself and others as well as understand that people have different beliefs, intentions and desires from our own. It takes around four to five years of development for us to realize others can have thoughts that are wrong (see the pencils in a Smarties box experiment) and it can take up to seven years for children to understand points of view (see Piaget and the three mountains task). This gave rise to the egocentrism concept – a characterization of preoccupation with an individual world that regards the self’s opinions and views as being the most important and most valid. Though most theories of development basically stick with children and that’s it (the pedophiles), David Elkind found that adolescents exhibit many characteristics of egocentrism up to fifteen and sixteen years of age. This is evident in the obsessive pre-occupation with one’s own self-image and the idea that everyone else is as obsessed with that individual’s appearance and behaviour as the teenager is herself*. If you don’t trust Elkind, you can kind broach the topic of acne with any teenager and learn the trials, tribulations and world devastating effects a simple pimple can have on the poor adolescent.

Image from Man of Steel which obviously does not belong to me. I wouldn't make such a silly movie.

I’m fairly certain Superman’s true power is in maintaining an immaculate coif no matter how brutal a fight gets.

Given the pre-eminence of their own feelings and experiences, I’m willing to make the leap that children (youths to teens) are quite happy to read comic books which feature heroes of such astounding power, perfection and coif hairedness as to be little more than caricatures than actual characters so they can live vicariously through those experiences as if they were their own. They love the power fantasy because it makes them feel powerful. Given that youths typically have low self determination as they still live at home and beneath their parents rule, the idea of being able to fly around the world, fight aliens and be universally celebrated I propose would be highly appealing.

So, yes, I loved reading the Power Pack because it was about four siblings who inherited super powers from aliens and saved the world. As they were also children, it was far easier for me to imagine being a Power Pack member and enjoy their exploits in fighting the monster of the week. Course, as I grew older, wiser, more educated and mentally developed, these stories failed to grow with me. Comic books rarely exhibit complex characterization. Watch Man of Steel if you don’t believe me. The worst thing that happened to Clark Kent was that his adoptive father got sucked up in a tornado so that Old Yeller could live long enough to be quietly replaced by some other pooch later in the film when the director assumed everyone stopped caring about the mongrel.

That’s your standard fare for comic books. Few demonstrate as much complexity as The Watchmen. And rightfully so as I’m not convinced that a pre-pubescent should really be reading the Watchmen with its gratuitous violence and attempted rape. I mean, I suppose they could read that but they’re going to need some adult explanation to understand what’s going on, especially given the complexity of the situations involved (the attempted rape eventually developed into a relationship between the two characters… so… yeah…). But that was the point of The Watchmen, to add a level of realism and gravity to the otherwise fluffy and irrelevant comic book genre. When all your characters are paragons of virtue or wickedness, it’s really easy to run dry of novel or interesting plot lines. Of course, comic books aren’t really milling the literary genre for depth or profundity. Most of the time, the story arcs are the filler between splashy panels where your super powered heroes can punch various wickedness through walls and other obstructions.

You can see that clearly in the movies. Man of Steel was essentially two acts with the first mostly faffing about with Supes as he struggled to get through the modern economy holding a handful of unrelated jobs. The second half was just an all out brawl between Clark and his extended family when all that prior fancy camerawork was turned towards such thrilling moments involving Russel Crowe opening doors and a bunch of CGI buildings doing their best Tohoku 2011 shuffle. Things happened but never for any real purpose. Amy Adams presence was demanded at a bunch of locations presumably so we would have some perky bosom to see us through since Diane Lane’s getting a little worn for that duty.

Not mine. Belongs to Marvel and the like. I also wouldn't make a movie this silly. But I'd love to lay claim to Iron Man 3.

Gaze upon my works, ye mighty, and despair.

But no greater example of this fluff over substance is there than The Avengers. Josh Whedon’s magnum opus, if box office sales are any measure, features a thrilling two and a half hours of computer generated laser showing with a total of zero minutes to any character development. This is made grossly apparently since every Marvel movie following The Avengers has had to cover the character development – from Tony Stark’s post-traumatic stress disorder in Iron Man 3 and Chris Hemsworth presumably having to pout for a good twenty or thirty seconds before beating up some snerfnerblerm.

Course, presumably, this is exactly what the audience wants. They want mindless explosions. They want joyless quips between boring, tired ubermenschen that have fifty years of existence with no character growth or change. They want to see the bad guys lose and the good guys win. I guess it’s fun to see the struggle of good and evil play over and over again since that’s about as much thematic depth as these flicks ever come close to exploring. I guess it’s entertaining to see what few interesting ideas the comics barely explore in their tangentic rambling on such topics like exclusion, discrimination and racism before having the heroes solve all their problems with a fist to the face reduced to even simpler terms to fit into chunk sized hour morsels.

I wouldn’t know, I find comic book movies boring.

*For those who care: Elkind D (December 1967). “Egocentrism in adolescence”. Child Dev 38 (4): 1025–34. http://www.psychlotron.org.uk/newResources/cogdev/A2_AQB_cogDev_egocentrismTests.pdf

Superman – Man of Steel a review

Leave a reply

I finally got around to watching the latest film version of Superman: Man of Steel, 2013. It was sadly disappointing.

Now, first I feel the need to point out I am not my brother. I do not hate everything. In fact, I like superhero movies. I don’t read the comics/graphic novels, so I am not hard-core fan. Still I enjoy the hero’s tale, good triumphing over evil, amazing powers and greater responsibility and all that fun stuff.

Superman may not be a childhood favour – I always found his story a little bland. However, I do have fond memories of watching the first several seasons of Smallville – before my source dried up (I was watching a housemate’s bother’s collection in university). I know the basics of Superman – he can do amazing things, including disguising himself with just a pair of clear glass frames. He can leap tall buildings, stop bullets with his chest and somehow fall victim to Lex Luther on a regular basis. I have seen some of the older films and was looking forward to the new reboot.

The cape looks foolish and why doesn’t he realize that he is wearing his underwear infront of everyone?

Casting is probably one of the strongest elements of the movie. It had an incredible supporting cast of well-proven actors. And the main lead fit my visual of the title character perfectly. There was clearly a huge budget available for all the shiny, computer assisted cinematographic tricks used to push the visual appeal for good to great. And Christopher Nolan was also part of production.

So, what happened?

Well, not a lot of anything. Man of steel turned out to be one of the most boring movies I have seen in a while. The most exciting part was surmising that Superman’s ‘flight’ was gas-powered through flatulents. How else do you explain the puffs of air emerging from his backside as he leaps into space?

Poot and he goes a little higher!

From the previews I had expected an origins story – but there was no character development. You could not even describe the film as an epic good vs evil as there was not progression of such a plot. It seemed at several moments the writers wanted to do something, they had half an idea, but then nothing came of it.

Superman’s history was interspersed throughout the long two hours in which nothing much occurs. Sure we see scenes of Clark being bullied (for undiscussed reasons), but what was the point? Why was he bullied? What did he learn from this experience? And why do all modern superheroes have to follow this over-done plot device? Can we not have a reformed bully become the hero?

Lois Lane was tossed into the film because even the director recognized you need a female on screen. But her role was so muddled and random to be completely irrelevant to the story. After doggedly hunting down her mysterious guy (Superman), she is suddenly caught by the FBI – how? And why does Superman, having met the woman once and told her to leave him alone, suddenly want to protect her more than anyone else? I think we are supposed to believe that they have some sort of romantic connection, but why? They interact for barely five minutes together over the course of the entire movie. Also, why is Lois taken by the bad guys? What use do they have for her?

Look I am evil. See, I am wearing black and a perpetual scowl. Oh and some facial hair, for twirling purposes only.

The evil guy – with the ridiculous sounding but otherwise forgettable name – would have twirled a ludicrous moustache, if he wasn’t so two-dimensional to even lack that interesting aspect to his character. He was genetically evil – or so he claimed – without being consistent. He was a warrior bred to protect his people, but initiates a coup and tries to take out one of the few remaining people when he attacks Superman.

I also really struggled with the alien ancestors of Superman. For a species supposed to be different from our own (they are Aliens), they were disappointingly human: in appearance, behaviour and thought. There was nothing particularly interesting about them as all of their characteristics and problems were pulled unimaginatively from our own western-culture thought and history. Their evil plot to terraform earth and rebuild their population on our deaths was so poorly justified. There was no way the audience could sympathise with their actions – which given humanities propensity to do the same should have been an easy accomplishment. Actually, what little dialogue and … culture? … was littered at the beginning of the film I felt the writers wanted to comment on … something.

There were snippets of conversation and thought regarding over population on Krypton and the unfortunate consequences. This led to colonization in the galaxy that was mysteriously abandoned. Birth was controlled by use of test-tube babies. This in turn resulted in limited bloodlines and genetically engineered individuals. Questions arose about the role of genetics over an individual’s fate, free-choice, and natural birth. With our growing skill in genetic engineering this could have been a topic of relevance, but the science was botched (how do two individuals genetically modified not to breed miraculously give birth to a child?) and like everything else the topic fell to the side.

Also, why did the planet suddenly exploded for no particular reason? For those not in the know, planets do not suddenly and violently explode by themselves.

So, underdeveloped, bland and boring summarize my Superman experience. The visuals were nowhere near original or spectacular enough to compensate for story in which nothing really happens over a 2 hour period.

I Don’t Know Parks and Rec – Lego Movie Review

Leave a reply

An accurate portrayal of the agents of death coming for me perfectly captured by Jules Delaunay.

First, I must address the uncharacteristic absence of myself upon the prior Friday. For those rife with worry and concern, I can confirm that I had most grievously been stricken by that most deadly of contagions – the flu. It had been of my utmost concern to do my daily work but between preparations for the arrival of the dear kin to our home and my own flight from the plague ridden halls my sister haunted, I had not succeeded in preparing some words in advance. Consequently, when the day of postage arrived, I was struck down mercilessly beneath my malady and spent most of the sun’s hours unconscious and in a fitful state. My recovery, however, is arrived and thus I am able to scribble towards you now.

Course, my goal isn’t to spend the entire day discussing with you sickness and suffering. Instead, I want to talk about the Lego Movie.

Yes, the Lego Movie.

Obviously, this junk all belongs to Warner Bros.

Promotional material for The Lego Movie.

This film, by all promotional material, was quite obviously a Derek movie. I mean, it even featured Will Arnett (of Arrested Development fame) as Batman and if that doesn’t have Derek written all over it than I don’t know what does. I hadn’t seen any trailers or really anything about the film, mostly because when I go to the theatre it isn’t to see children’s entertainment. In fact, it’s been awhile since I have seen anything directed at a child. Even Disney, that great malicious blackhole that pulls in infants and adults alike, had failed to pull me or my family to one of its awful attempts to milking older creative works for every copyrightable ounce they could.

Needless to say, I didn’t have high hopes for the feature but, because I’m such a wonderful friend, I was willing to see it for Derek’s sake anyway. Surely, you all are on the edge of your seats awaiting my verdict. Well, I shan’t keep you in the dark for long.

The Lego Movie is weird.

There is truly no other way to describe the film. It’s bizarre. It’s non-standard. It’s off kilter. It’s a peculiar little creation that left me thinking about it long after the ending credits rolled and the audience was reminded one last time that “Everything is Awesome!”

But why this confusion? Well, I’m not entirely convinced that the Lego Movie is a children’s film. That isn’t to say that it wasn’t designed with children in mind. It was targeted, almost locked on and homing in on the youngest generation capable of producing speech and willing to put forth any amount of effort to getting their bum in a seat before it. All of its components are simple and digestible for the little ones. It’s bright and colourful. The pace is frenetic as it careens between showy extravagance and goofy exploits. The dialogue is digestible and much care is taken to scrub it clean of any possible offense from its initial presentation. The characters are simple with direct arcs and uncomplicated personalities… for the most part. For a good half of the film, you could be lulled into gentle repose by the mind numbing banality of its narrative, kept awake by the sheer creativity of its visual effects as the animators explore a building block world with far more exuberance and ingeniousness than any child will ever display.

And then suddenly the movie plunges off the edge of the map. Gleefully, I should add.

As it turns out, The Lego Movie is my favourite kind of media. It is thematic and every character and theme is purposeful in exploring those themes. Consequently, there are some unexpected narrative twists that will most certainly turn some audiences off of the whole spectacle. There is risk, of all things, in a god damn Lego Movie. I can not stress how utterly bewildering this is in this day and age. And it is with regret that I have to draw attention to how rare this is.

You see, there’s a funny thing about children’s movies – and children’s entertainment in general – that the Lego Movie highlights in grand fashion. I have no idea who this stuff is directed at. At the end of the day, the Lego Movie is most certainly not targeted at children. Its messages and themes are wrapped up in irony: a concept infants under five or six years of age are going to struggle with simply due to developments of their cognitive functions. The grandest theme the movie itself is exploring is wrapped in tradition and rigid adherence to classical methods versus creative freedom, a conversation skirting quite close to copyright and the discourse surrounding those laws – themes that I can’t imagine are pinging on prepubescent radars. And it’s a Lego Movie. There’s no way that teenagers are going to be the primary market for a children’s toy line.

No, the narrative focus seems most assuredly directed at adults though with about the surface complexity as your typical children’s fare. There’s clearly been placed a lot of work and effort in communicating the writers’ themes in this piece, something that is most unusual for the genre it’s in. Let’s face it, people don’t hold much expectations for children’s movies. Check Rotten Tomatoes and the vast majority of the time, the highest rated movies in theatres are typically children’s shows. Does this mean that children’s shows are our best products?

Well, of course not. Had we not a separate category for them at the Oscars and they would almost never receive any recognition. Instead, there’s a general consensus that we don’t need to be harsh or critical in our assessment of a children’s movie because it’s “just for children.” However, this is a sentiment I vehemently oppose. And the Lego Movie is the perfect example why.

Accessed from google image search. Don't know how memes are referenced.

Good luck finding a mate though, Mr. Blacksheep.

Watch the first section of the Lego Movie as Emmet goes through Builder’s World (or whatever the hell the construction setting is called). It is a fascinating if not poignant example of just why we should be equally critical of children’s movies if not more critical than an average film. This media is, essentially, propaganda for the most impressionable members of our society. Emmet’s world is very much the epitome of a collectivist totalitarian society. It is run by the villain President Business who enforces a strict code of conduct on his people through a Rulesbook they all read and follow every morning that details the exact business of their lives which the citizens are expected to adhere and maintain with a smile and song. This regime is worked into every aspect of their lives, even their music and entertainment is dictated by the Rulebook and everyone watches the same show and listens to the same song day in and out with a smile. Obviously, despite the facade of cheerfulness, we’re presented with the extreme of a socialist dystopia which is immediately countered with the introduction of “master builders” – individuals capable of bending the fabric of their very world through their individual creative genius. It’s the age old collectivism vs individualism dynamic with such a sickeningly severe condemnation of collectivism ideals and socialist stances.

Let me take a moment to highlight this. The opening act of the Lego Movie focuses most of its time communicating to children that co-operation and community are terrible things and should be abandoned instead in the name of personal glory and fame.

While this is certainly trumpeting the typical “American Dream” I have to wonder if this is the moral that we want to express to our kids. And it’s not like you can really shake your head and just say “Well, it’s a children’s movie.” The studios are expending a lot of time and money to communicate these lessons to the children whether we ignore it or not. This isn’t to say other movies don’t try to convey messages and ideals but there’s a difference between Fight Club pushing for anarchist revolution on an audience capable of evaluating Tyler Durden’s message and a group of children who aren’t likely to question whether the overall theme of a colourful, singing ensemble should be followed or not. Had the Lego Movie continued in its generic hero’s journey direction, would we as an audience be comfortable with children taking home the lesson that working in a team and co-operating others is bad and we should really abandon our friends in pursuit of a dream that doesn’t exist?

Thankfully, the Lego Movie is far more nuanced and spends quite a bit of time subverting the traditional morals that are usually bandied about in these pictures. It’s more to the movie’s credit that it manages to strike a balance between the collectivist and individualist ideals. And it’s a shame that such an effort will not stand out compared to other children’s entertainment which will be rated the same because “it’s just for children.” And it is foolish for us to think that these movies are heavily laden with ideals. Even the decision to not use swear words is promoting a certain ideal – despite it being a common one shared. So, in my incoherent, rambling way, this is my argument for why we need to be more critical of children’s entertainment.

Hoop and stick. As effective at entertaining children as a multi-million dollar production since 2000 B.C.

Anyway, there’s lots more words I could write on the Lego Movie. Unfortunately, I lost my train of thought after taking an extended break to make Derek’s apartment smell like orange and apple peels before the girl could return so I don’t remember where I wanted to take this. Suffice to say, I enjoyed the Lego Movie. It’s something more than “a children’s movie.” It’s a proper movie, much like the Incredibles and Wall-E. Which is how I feel children’s movies should be. At the end of the day, targeting solely children is a pointless endeavour. Kids are dumb, there’s no two ways about it, and they like simple things. Hell, halfway through the Lego Movie, the row in front of me seemed to get more interested with the popping of the lid on their M&M container than the millions of dollars in front of them. Parents will always laugh about purchasing a big toy for their child only for the kid to be more intrigued by its big box. Children will find entertainment in anything, so making them the primary target is a waste of effort. Instead, we should focus on making movies like the Lego Movie. Yes, they’re accessible at a low level so children can enjoy them. But there’s more to that picture than a bunch of animated building blocks. It attempts to pierce into something fundamental. It tries to comment on our lives and experiences. It diverges from being just mindless fun and approaches something, perhaps, a little closer to art.

Intelligence – a review

Leave a reply

Ok, I would just like to point out that I am not skipping this week – so take that!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you didn’t already know, the Olympics are on right now. I think they are rather interesting and I have been watching many of the different sports. I have also spared a few moments to watch some TV – alas, I have not read anything worth noting. So instead I am going to take a very brief moment to comment on one of the newest TV series titled: Intelligence.

It is terrible.

In fact I am struggling to find one redeeming quality in this show. Now, I know that people will blissfully sit and watch awful programming. I have been known to absently watch poorly created TV without much thought; usually with knitting needles busily clicking in my hands.

So, let’s take a moment to consider the various aspects of the show.

Characters: well, they are all really, super boring with no characterization. Essentially, all the characters are interchangeable. Really, if I was to describe them we have: The Male Lead (with noticeably sloping shoulders), The Female Lead (a brunette), The Super Genius Scientist (of unspecified discipline, but advanced age – hence the smarts), The Scientist’s Sidekick (who is his son – wow, isn’t that new and different!), and the Hard-Ass Female Boss (the older blond). I assume the characters have names, but they are forgettable.

Plot: so here we have a super-secret technology based agency who have created an amazingly dangerous weapon by implanting a computer chip in a human. Yup, that is all they have done. A small chip, the size of a pea (or there about) was inserted in the brain of a human. How does this make them super-human and extremely dangerous? Why was this human able to survive the surgery when all others died? How can we protect this expensive asset?

Well, these are reasonable questions and the show has answers for some of them. First, there is a gene that allows only some people survive the implantation of a computer chip into the brain. Wait. A gene? As in genetics and DNA?? But that doesn’t make any sense at all. Even those with a rudimentary understanding of biology must recognize the fallacy of this statement. How could there possibly be a genetic trait for such a concept? What sort of mutation exists that allows people to better interface with implanted computer chips? I mean really?!

Second, according to all the people on the show, one single, small chip was implanted in the Male Lead’s brain. As best I can tell it is a portable internet search engine – WiFi enabled. Apparently through tech-magic, it also allows the user uninterrupted access to all types of technology that are powered by electricity. The Male Lead can turn on cell phones, hack into closed circuit surveillance cameras, utilize satellite imagery, search every database in a millisecond and remotely unlock key-pad operated door locks. All this using a very tiny chip and I have yet to touch the fantasy of ‘cyber-renderings’, which are ultimately too stupid to comment on.

At one point the Male is lamenting the ‘knowledge’ streaming through his head. He knows all the details of his partners life because of the data trail she leaves behind and he really wishes for one day he could wake up and just not know these things. At which point the Female should have said ‘Then stop googling my life, you stalker!’ Alas, the show failed to see the ridiculousness of its own creation.

Their magic chip is capable of everything or anything at every moment, which does create a huge disconnect. Where is the drama, the tension, the drive of the plot when the magic-chip will come through and expedite the problem solving process? The show has completely failed to define the limitations of their magic-chip. Without this critical framework, the creators really have nothing to explore since any problem the characters come across can be easily solved with that all-purpose magic-chip. Without challenge, there is no conflict and without conflict the show lacks any real draw.

The Third question is really stupid. The chip was implanted in a military-marine, who should be well trained to protect his brain. So why they brought in a female secret service agent to protect him can only mean they are looking to set up a love interest (how predictable).

This brings me awkwardly to the Writing. Obviously the writers have put little thought into the world’s development. They have not flushed out any of the characters. They do not have a clear idea what sort of themes they want to explore – and this is perhaps the most frustrating as there are so many options. You could explore the impact of bionics on humans and the blurring between man and machine, but not if the only difference is one tiny implanted chip. It would be interesting to explore the benefits (beyond a glorified search engine) and the manifold limitations (data corruption, viruses, the need to constantly clear the memory, etc), but they do not.

The writing in each episode has the heroes charging off to save the people from their everyday problems: kidnappings and terrorist attacks. All the while they are trying to keep their implanted human secret while using him as their most effective asset. There is question about government and power that could be explored, but isn’t. And of course, with modern media there are the constant, illogical and poorly conceived action beats. Why does a car chase suddenly erupt, well because it has been 10 minutes since the last chase/fight/explosion. Uhg, how predictable.

In the end, Intelligence brings nothing new to the table. It doesn’t even competently rehash old ideas. It is bland, super-bland. It is just another program adding to the monotony of current television programing.

Choking Creativity – Copyright Laws

Leave a reply

Disney is awful.

Ironically, I don’t know who the artist for this apropos image is. Accessed from logoblink.com.

I don’t mean awful in the sense that their products have been of grossly questionable quality for a number of years. Which isn’t to say things like UP aren’t awful in the descriptive sense and people are willing to overlook it’s short comings to an astonishing degree because of nostalgia for a time when Disney’s work wasn’t so creatively bankrupt. But that’s another rant.

No, Disney is awful in a very real and more important sense. They are killing our culture. It is the slow, spiteful squeezing of our society’s windpipe until we are unable to breath anymore. And they do this while gleefully sucking in as much air as they possible want.

So what on earth am I talking about? Copyright law.

Now, as a creative person it might seem a little odd or even counter intuitive that I would have an issue with copyright. It is, after all, ostensibly designed to protect my interests so that I may receive due recompense for some theoretical body of work that gets published one day and released to the market. It’s designed so that someone won’t just swoop into this very site, pluck my silly stories about heroic adventurers in ludicrous fantasy settings and sell them on their own without giving me proper value for my work. Which is a noble goal seeing that copyright’s first incarnation appears to be Charles II of England’s rather misguided attempt to try and control what media was being released with the invention of the printing press.

Now, as a creative person, I wholly encourage the protection of an artist’s work so that they may profit off their endeavors. Creating art isn’t really the same as creating a table as we’re discussing ideas and ideas don’t truly exist in a corporeal fashion. This becomes more and more apparent the further we get from actual physical art. A statue is hardly going to be stolen and it’s craftsmanship isn’t something easily replicated. A novel, on the other hand, is quite easy to replicate as you merely have to copy the words and order the original artist made. This isn’t to say that sculpture should be exempt from copyright but I think it demonstrates my point rather effectively. Here are some famous sculptures of our past.

Perseus by Benvenuto Cellini (1500-1571)

Perseus with Medusa’s Head by Antonio Canova (1757-1822)

Perseus and the Gorgon by Laurent Marqueste (1890)

What do all three of these works share? Despite being a hundred years apart from each other, they were developed in a time before The Walt Disney Company would prevent them from ever being formed. You see, culture isn’t created in a vacuum. Ideas are shared, expanded, re-explored, re-imagined or often just outright copied but with the creator’s own personal touch. All of these statues are based on the Ancient Greek Perseus myth. Their sculptors did not create the characters depicted in them. Perseus himself was not recompensed for his likeness. Marqueste, Canova and Cellini did not have to fill out a bunch of legal documents, forge specific contracts to licence the image or postures or even need to seek the Greek’s approval in order to make these. They were inspired, perhaps even by each other, and they just created. Two of them after the first copyright laws were coming into form.

And we are all enriched because of it.

The Disney Company, however, would like to see this changed.

First, a quick little sojourn through copyright’s history. When it was first fashioned to protect creative works for artists’ benefit, the length of the copyright lasted 14 years with the possibility to apply for a second 14 year extension. No artist in their right mind would pass up on 14 more years of pay, so it was effectively a 28 year hold on an idea so that the original creator could reap what financial benefits they could before their idea was thrown back into the public domain to be played with as others saw fit. This is fine. It allows the Canova’s and Marquestes’ of the world their own opportunities to fashion statues of naked men holding severed or soon to be severed women’s heads.

But, as Tom W. Bell from techliberation.com so well demonstrated, this time frame is entirely arbitrary and subject to change through his predictive Mickey Mouse Curve.

I don't actually know if this is creative commons but I will not miss the irony if he sends us a cease and desist for this.

So what are we looking at here? This is a graph charting the course of the expiration date of Steamboat Willie as it nears its entry point into the public domain only for new copyright law to extend its duration. To be clear, one can not copyright a character but they can copyright a movie that features the first appearance of said character. That would be the eponymous Steamboat Willie featuring the world’s most recognizable rodent. Technically, I can use Mickey’s likeness so long as its part of a commentary on a related issue – say if I were to show Mickey Mouse in a satirical cartoon of stomping North American culture. The important thing to note is the length that copyright now protects a work. From something that was originally 28 years has become 50 years then the death of the creator then the death of the creator plus 50 years until our current copyright of the death of the creator plus 75 years.

Let’s take a moment to ponder this.

Current copyright protects a work for 75 years AFTER the death of the person who created it. It’s not even sensitive to the time that the work was made. Let’s jump up to our statuary example above. According to modern copyright, the Canova estate would be eligible for suing poor Mr. Marqueste for his clearly derivative work of his statue Perseus with Medusa’s Head. Had Mr. Marqueste gotten the copyright on the butchering of Medusa, I would not have been able to include an image of his work in a rant on copyright until 1995. Nineteen years ago, I would have been unable to picture a work of art made in a time before colour photography was invented to allow me the opportunity to even photograph it!

We have now created for ourselves a point in cultural development where works can not be touched by the public sphere for an entire generation after it was made. And this is working off the assumption that copyright doesn’t get extended beyond its current term which, I’m sure before 2023 rolls around will be changed again. Just to reiterate, no culture is made in a vacuum. Everything builds upon itself. Shakespeare wouldn’t exist without the prior poems and legends which he fashioned his stories from. Romeo and Juliet was based on an Italian tale translated in Arthur Brookes’ The Tragic Tale of Romeus and Juliet in 1562. As a reminder, the play was first published in 1597. The only copyright law we have which would historically allow arguably the most famous Shakespearian work to exist is the original copyright of 28 years. Seeing that Shakespeare died in 1616, according to Disney’s will, the play shouldn’t even exist at all even if we assume Arthur Brookes keeled over the moment his Tragic Tale hit the printing press.

The ultimate irony is that Disney has and continues to profit off the public domain. Their most recent work, Frozen, is based off Hans Christian Anderson’s highly acclaimed The Snow Queen (1845). Disney has over 100 movies based on others creative works with their most famous and celebrated ripped directly from the same public domain they refused to let their rat enter. Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Sleeping Beauty, The Sword in the Stone, Robin Hood, The Jungle Book, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Hunchback of Notre Dame all owe their thanks to free access to their original work. Which, as I said, is just the tip of the iceberg.

Finally, let’s remember that the song Happy Birthday to You is actually a copyright work. The owner of this cute little cultural artifact is Birch Tree Group Limited which was acquired by Warner/Chappell Music who to this day enforce their copyright claim and collect about $5,000 a day in royalties for the song. That’s over $1,800,000 a year for a song they had zero hand in creating. That’s right. Every time you sing this song on a relative’s birthday, you are breaking copyright law for a tune attributed to an 1893 kindergarten teacher and technically owe Warner/Chappell Music royalties. So it’s time you paid up.

Ranting Ranters Rant

Leave a reply

So, Derek informed me that I haven’t made a rant on the blog for over two months. Two months! The poor rant tag is likely wallowing in self-pity and neglect. This was an injustice I could not ignore so vowed today I would rant about something… anything! Nothing would be safe from my disgruntled attitudes and opinionated opinions.

Ripped from planetminecraft.com which makes me think this is either clip-art or pulled from some anonymous source on the Internet. Sorry to the original artist.

Except there was one problem – I didn’t particularly have anything to rant about. I haven’t really seen anything disappointing or worth evaluating, much like my colleague (with the sole exception of the new Archer episode but I don’t feel I could get a full blog post from that). What little media I’ve consumed has been passable. Some of it has even been acceptable. Community started it’s fifth season and they came up with both a reasonable explanation to bring the gang back to college but also introduced enough changes to make the series seem fresh again. They also pointed out a number of the issues I had with the series and hopefully they will address them in future episodes. We also got the return of Starburns which suggests that some of the problems plaguing development have been smoothed over.

Sherlock (the BBC one) has come back. They had that messy Moriarty issue to deal with and did it fine. The episode was rather mediocre by the end but they were trying to both address Conan Doyle’s clumsy attempt to kill the protagonist and bring him back in one of the most famous instances of writer’s guilt and retconning. On top of that they had their own bungling of the source material and asinine modern introductions to try and sweep through as well. All in all, the episode seemed to convey “We screwed up and this is us sorting house.” Though the ending did seem to tease another super villain which, if true, will probably ruin the show. Sherlock is, much like his regular incarnation, best suited when he’s dealing with one off adventures than any silly contrived super plot from mega-villains.

I haven’t seen Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit yet and that might not happen for another week so my blood hasn’t boiled over that inevitable coalescence of Hollywood subsidized stupidity. On the gaming side, I’ve been playing mostly Dota 2 and Civilization V both of which are in a good point developmentally speaking. Civilization released a second expansion I finally got my hands on which seems to have added some much needed complexity and depth to its mechanics with the introduction of trade routes and a new World Congress. More importantly, they fixed whatever coding issues made the damnable game take upwards of ten or fifteen minutes to load which is what murdered what interest I had in the title.

Needless to say I was having a bit of a quandary. Then, as I was taking a shower (I do my best thinking there, don’t you know), I realized I could probably ramble on a good long while about television and its narrative structures and how they could potentially be influencing other media. I had a really good argument that would focus on the required nebulous concepts and maintenance of status quo in television series in order to maintain an indefinite development cycle to keep its production employed. I wanted to then extend how these techniques have been bleeding into other mediums like novels with their focus on long, convoluted epics that don’t seem to really go anywhere as well as film and their need for trilogies. I would then elegantly tie it up with franchising in video games, possibly using the always apt and applicable trainwreck of BioWare’s Dragon Age series which is always a great example of everything that’s wrong with narratives and the industry.

I was going to begin that discussion on the foundation that, of all the new media available to the modern consumer, television is the worst cognitively speaking because of its passive consumption with its audience. Due to my scientific and psychological background, I was going to draw on brain activations and mental health as a quick way to demonstrate televisions deleterious effects.

And then I couldn’t find my sources.

You see, we at somewherepostculture try to maintain an air of professionalism. We often fail, bumble or come up short but the effort is put forward. I didn’t want to just blindly throw out the statement that “television consumption is a cognitively lazy leisure activity that encourages its viewer to sit and vegetate instead of engage with its product” without having some fancy dude in a lab coat to have crunched some numbers to support that statement. Now, this statement is practically common knowledge at this point and I figured it would be a quick search through the old Google search bar.

Three hours later and the best I had were a handful of articles on sedentary living and its effects on the development of children’s Theory of Mind.

So, instead of a rant on television, you’re now getting a rant on the commodification of knowledge.

Seriously, I can’t think of a greater sin we can commit in the modern age than to lock away knowledge and theory behind pay walls. The development of the Internet is perhaps the greatest invention of our time capable of revolutionizing the way we view and deal with in information. We have seen its sporadic and unpredictable effects through our lives. There’s the growing focus on the personal lives of the average individual – Facebook and Twitter practically replacing much regular socialization amongst peers as well as becoming its own entertainment. Nations are finding the free flow of information incredibly difficult to dam. The riots and rebellions in the Middle East often take to social networks to organize and spread their message. Australia has tried to control the access of certain irreputable material with about as much success as they have from preventing foreign flora and fauna getting introduced to their backwards country. Edward Snowden revealed the global monitoring and surveillance of the American Government on such a scale that would make even George Orwell blush.

And our universities – states of higher education and progressive thought – first order of business is to try and hide their studies and research behind strong armed publishing arms looking to try and make a buck off the advancement of knowledge. Because, apparently, we as a society still haven’t learned the value in education and must insure only the wealthiest or the most willing to be indebted for the rest of their lives like some rejuvenated medieval serf system are worthy of said knowledge.

This is in the face of rampant misinformation and lies. When an agency like Fox News can boldly throw up outright fabrications and avoid any persecution because they self stylize themselves as an entertainment outlet and not a news agency then we know something is wrong. American right-wing politics is practically composed of a body engaged in a competition amongst themselves to look the most ignorant and out of touch with reality.

Sorry – I generally don’t try and bring any big political elements into this blog.

The fact of the matter is, after the invention of the Internet no one knew what the hell to do with it. The common person takes it grossly for granted. I know, because I was one of those people. Course, being in Canada gives me and my colleagues a unique perspective in that our Internet providers practically run a monopoly on their service and offer such ludicrous deals to the average customer that you can find better service in airplanes than you can in Canadian homes. But, I’m not going to make a grand call of action and demand we storm parliament hill for change. I mean, if you want to then go right ahead. But it’s cold outside and the cost of gas is so high right now.

No, instead I’ll probably write a story about it. A story inspired by how stupidly difficult it is to find a source to demonstrate that television makes us really lazy.

Call Forth Consistency – Summoner Wars Rant

2 Replies

So, it appears even with my post on resolutions, neither of my co-contributors managed to put something up despite their promises to the contrary. I am shocked – shocked I tell you! But mostly I’m just happy they demonstrated my point about New Year’s resolutions. Never fear, though, I will never leave you dear reader. I am enduring just as are my misguided rants. Today’s is going to be on Summoner Wars.

For some background – I was introduced to Summoner Wars first by Derek who raved online to me about how great the game was. Then, when Jeremy picked it up and I got to play it, Derek had nothing but harsh criticism for it. Go figure. However, that didn’t dissuade me from the little past time. It’s cute and quaint in its own way but it isn’t Netrunner for all the positives and negatives that entails.

But that doesn’t really tell you anything about the game.

All cards and therefore art belong to Plaid Hat Games and whatnot.

Summoner Wars features a slightly asymmetrical confrontation between two players on a custom but simple board. Each player chooses a faction represented by a pre-fabricated deck of cards containing one Summoner, three walls, three different types of commons and three unique champions along with a handful of summoner specific events. I would probably liken the game as a mixture between Chess and Magic: The Gathering but with a focus on simplicity and accessibility. It offers some synergy between the cards, most of it focused on proper timing with events. The factions offer their own unique abilities, however, whether it be from the Swamp Orcs and their spreading walls that cover the field or the Deep Dwarves who all feature special abilities that each cost magic but have powerful timing events that make all of those abilities free for one round.

Most interesting is the economy of the game is focused around magic. Well, that in of itself isn’t interesting, but magic is built either through conscious discards from your hand or by landing the final blow on a monster or wall. A player is forced to make tough decisions about whether they want to play their little common minions or discard them for magic to build up a large enough pile to bring forth a champion (all of whom cost far more than the commons). Positioning becomes important as players try to control the board and ultimately the flow of dead bodies by their movement and placement of walls. More importantly, my sister and I have found that it is almost as valuable to kill your own guys as it is to kill the enemies. You only have the opportunity to attack with three cards per turn, however, so it becomes yet another balancing act of choosing whether to go for a full out assault or making quick strike forces which you then murder before the enemy has the opportunity.

The unique and inspiring Tundra Orc Smasher.

It’s quick to pick up, taking a game or two to grasp the basics fairly easy. And the fact that it’s a deck based game with very simple deck building rules as well as pre-constructed armies means introducing new players is a breeze. While I applaud Netrunner for its complexity, it does have the issue of forcing players to keep up with new releases in order to stay competitively viable. But almost a third of a Summoner Wars deck is locked; you can’t mix and match events between summoners, can only have three champions and you must stay within faction when building (or include mercenaries). There’s a very limited pool that doesn’t grow nearly as fast as Netrunner. Especially when new releases for Summoner Wars are often new factions.

So the simplicity is Summoner Wars greatest strength. You can sit down and play it right out of the box without having to construct a deck and when you’re done you can just shelve it knowing it’s ready to go next time you want to battle your opponent.

This isn’t to say the game doesn’t have its flaws. What I want to focus on today, however, is less on the game systems on more on its “fluff.” Specifically, one of the biggest issues I have with Summoner Wars is its art and its themes.

The artist apparently hates feet.

Each faction follows the same formula: stereotypical Tolkein fantasy race preceded by a generic adjective. You have the likes of Swamp Orcs, Sand Goblins, Tundra Orcs and Guild Dwarves squaring off against one another. Elves are on display in the delightful Phoenix (fire), Shadow and Jungle varieties. The closest we get to a unique offering are the Mountain Vargath which are goatmen… from the mountains. So, bonus points for representing goatmen which don’t see ubiquitous fantasy representation but it’s not like we really ran off with the idea here.

Even worse is that the themes of these factions is absolutely lazy and thoughtless. My biggest gripe with the game is that I detest the art. And I don’t mean this just from a style perspective. Though, style is one of my biggest issues. The direction they went with is a very simple, painterly direction. There’s few details and each card is over dominated by the three primary colours used to distinguish each faction. The event cards for the summoners show a zoomed in section of their face which just further highlights the basic design. You could argue that this helps to place the emphasis on the text but Summoner Wars, as mentioned, isn’t a particularly complex system and if Netrunner and Magic: the Gathering can afford to have some rather beautiful art than so can this game.

Best part about the jungle guard is that they’re supposedly reclusive hermits on the fringes of their society, eschewing the rest of their people’s ways and luxuries… while looking the exact same as their kin.

But outside of the direction, I think the biggest problem with this approach is that it makes all the cards from one faction blend together. Distinguishing between an Jungle Elf Archer and elite Jungle Guard is based more on posture than unique silhouette or form. Summoners and champions lack visual punch to really make them stand out amongst the crowd as well. And this isn’t even broaching the ridiculous use of high heeled battle boots on the few females that show up either.

This bland art flows directly from the rudimentary theming of the factions. I almost can’t blame the artists for providing little visual interest in their designs when they are given something to work with like Glurp the champion of the Swamp Orcs. Course, this isn’t an excuse, for a talent artist would be able to design something from practically nothing. If the art is uninspire, however, the theming is just downright apathetic. The Swamp Orcs main feature is that they grow vine walls across the battle field. Let me throw some emphasis on that last sentence: the Swamp Orcs grow vine walls.

I don’t know if the designers at Plaid Hat Games have seen a swamp so let me link some pictures to demonstrate:

I’m even being generous with this one. It’s a mangrove swamp and could have worked with their design theme if they’d just chosen to go with Root Walls instead.

Not a vine in sight. I’m not sure why the Swamp Orcs are focused on vines but the Jungle Elves are not. In fact, the Jungle Elves are equally contentious with the majority of their faction filled with elephants, hyenas, rhinoceroses and lions. For those not fluent in basic ecology, all these creatures are to be found in African Savannahs, not the tangled undergrowths that are typically associated with jungles. To top it all off, their second summoner about to be released is wrapped in a white wolf pelt because apparently the artists can’t even be bothered being remotely close to the faction’s theme (yes, I know it’s to keep with the white primary of their faction but they didn’t even need to choose white as one of the three distinguishing colours of the Jungle Elves in the first place).

This gets back to my earlier complaint about how fantasy seems to be drowning beneath the cliches of its genre. On one hand, Summoner Wars attempts to subvert the tropes of typical fantasy by giving some of their races uncharacteristic ecological backgrounds. But then, when I look at the Tundra Orcs, there’s nothing that really makes them unique from a standard orc other than they have blue skin. They’re still barbaric savages decorated in bone and scraps of cloth. Why aren’t the Tundra Orcs wrapped in hides and furs to keep them warm? It seems like such a logical conclusion from their name.

To finish, I just want to include a picture of a dwarf from the upcoming Obsidian game Pillars of Eternity. Little has been revealed about the setting but I think the image will do most of the talking for me.

Concept art for Pillars of Eternity copyright to Obsidian.

At the end of the day, Summoner Wars isn’t ruined by it’s poor art and horrific faction themes. But it’s not made better by them either. Other games are celebrated for their different factions and spend the appropriate time developing them and distinguishing them. The Corporations in Netrunner are all very well realized and I think it makes the game as a whole a lot better for it.

Book Review – Untold

Leave a reply

I feel the need to defend some of my reading material. Why? Because of my very judgemental brother of course. Not only does he hate everything – he can always defend his point of view by pointing out the obvious (and less obvious) flaws in the book/movie/game/etc. So, even when I come out of a movie thinking geez that was fun, a few minutes discussion with Kevin will leaving me disappointed in the film.

Since he doesn’t read much, books in theory should be safe from his hypercritical views. But it doesn’t seem to work that way. First I struggle to relate the plot of my stories in any manner that doesn’t sound utterly ridiculous. Further, the self-proclaimed God of Taste will on occasion read the book summary online. And that I suppose is really where this post began. With a movie poster for Divergent and a curiosity to know what the story was about.

According to some online summary, Divergent is supposed to be a dystopian future similar to the Hunger Games. Only none of the described problems seem like reasonable problems. How is a government that is characterised as being selfless considered evil? How can people really expect to divide the population into five classes based on personality and not think there will be individuals that do not fit in their system? More importantly what does it matter which personality you have? There is not indication of how these classes integrate into society. It seems silly as many young adult novels do. While I am curious to see if the book is as bad as the summary suggests, I am not quite willing to sacrifice the day required to read it.

On the other hand I did read and enjoyed a different young adult novel, Untold by Sarah Rees Brennan. Untold is the sequel to Unspoken (which I think I have mentioned before). The summary: well, in brief it is about a town of wizards divided between the evil side that want to kill people for power and the good side that don’t want to kill anyone. It is set in modern England. So, in some ways I suppose you could compare it to Harry Potter which also explored good and evil and magic in modern times. Certainly both had secret wizards capable of fantastical feats but hidden from the rest of society.

One of the biggest questions raised with Harry Potter was: If magic is so powerful and capable of doing all sorts of things why do wizards have to hide from the rest of society? I don’t think it was ever fully rationalized. I could apply the same question to Untold. The only answer I can find is that Wizards are not capable of just anything with their power and that for most of them their power is confined to the small English town through tradition and design. Certainly everyone (or nearly so) in the town is aware of the concept of wizards, it is accepted but not much discussed (on account of death being connected to power). The wizards themselves have a strong connection to the town (it was built expressly for them hundreds of years earlier) and desire to continue ruling it. But still I ask, why there? Why can they not do magic elsewhere? And if they can, why do they not rule the world?

While the main characters are still in school, it is not the driving force behind the books. Untold does not have a Hogwarts, it has an entire village – kept isolated by magic and wizards. Very few people seem to move into the town and few seem to leave. This seems reasonable for small towns and certainly builds that insular world of Sorry-in-the- Vale.

Ok, I can see where the story sounds a bit silly and I really cannot explain it away. The characters however, are really what have sold me on the series. They are teenagers – a point against them, but in some ways they are not real teenagers. First their banter is far more interesting to listen to. Second, although they can be very moody, several are spunky, straight-forward and optimistic. It gives the cast a good balance as there is always someone there to call out the particularly emotional ones and give them a good kick in the pants.

I like the connections between people. Families are not perfect in this story, even the one example of a seemingly perfect family has to deal with real issues of trust and potential divorce. There is a range of families and different relationships expressed in the book. Some parents are absent. Some parents don’t care for their offspring, other parents seem to care more for their nephew than their own son. The main character is not your typical orphan. She is deeply connected to her family and struggles when they show how human even her parents are. Even in the conservative English village there is a hint of diversity with the main character and her Japanese ancestry; with characters exploring their sexuality. All of these conflicts are well done and I think they remind the reader that not everyone is the same and you cannot judge people just by their appearances.

So, what is the point of this lengthy (for me), incoherent ramble? Well first and most importantly: Untold, the second book in the Lynburn Legacy, is a good read. I liked it. I would recommend it, particularly to those enjoying young adult. And even better, it doesn’t have vampires, werewolves or zombies. Second, it is probably a blessing that my brother doesn’t read much. It keeps him from tainting everything I like.

Crown of Midnight

Leave a reply

This week’s brief review is looking at Sarah J. Maas’ latest novel the Crown of Midnight. It is the second book in A Throne of Glass series.

The stories revolve around the young assassin, Celaena Sardothien. She is working for an evil King in order to win her freedom. Naturally nothing about life is as simple as she pretends. There is the crown prince Dorian and the Captain of the Guard Choal for a love triangle. And then there is her friend, the princess Nehemia, who would like to see Celeana fighting for the people, the land or good in general instead of her own selfish desires.

The novel is a quick read. The pacing is fast. The main character is physically strong. The use of magic should appeal. It is a land that was once seeped in the ancient and mystical, until suddenly it wasn’t – until the King decreed magic was banned and set about slaughtering all its visible remnants. There is an undercurrent of bringing back the forgotten magic – a concept I like.

However, I find the book has been tainted by the Fae. I am not entirely certain I can articulate what it is about fairies that displeases me so. Perhaps it is the fact they are thrown into the world as a seemingly easy way to explain things like magic. Perhaps it is because they are nothing more than lifeless derivatives of Tolkien’s work that I find so insipid. The Fae are always magical, always gorgeous, always faster, smarter, prettier, with golden pale hair and pointed ears. They live forever and are often – especially those following in Tolkien’s glorious footsteps – perfect in morals and rule. This holds true once more. The Fae have been persecuted, driven from the lands/hunted from their homes – slaughtered and killed and etc.

The big twist in the book regarding the main character’s past was not unexpected. I thought it was a bit excessive for two reasons. First it was a bit too predictable – which I suppose would could interpret to mean that the author was successful in setting up the plot. Except that it is an old plot twist that is common to this style of story. The second thing that rubbed me as being slightly off was a comment made by one of the characters, Nehemia. The princess says and does what is most convenient to the plot. At one point she is speaking with the Prince will Assassin and Captain dance in the moonlight.

“Responsibilities. We will always have burdens that no one else can ever understand. That they…will never understand.”

These words bother me even more having finished the book and knowing the big twist. They bother me because it has been implied at several junctions Nehemai know of the twist, yet I do not feel this is accurately expressed in her words – and sometimes in her actions. Of course, it could be related to some other idea yet to come. For while this book certainly felt like a second book in a series, I cannot tell from the story ending or the author’s webpage if this is going to be a trilogy (most common) or longer series (increasingly common). I suppose only time will answer this question.

So, to wrap this up. Yes, Crown of Midnight is a good read. I think it holds up rather well to the first book in the series, Throne of Glass. It is fun, fast and frivolous. It is a solid young-adult fantasy novel that does show the influence of Cinderella in subtle ways.

Gail Carriger – Author Review

Leave a reply

Gail Carriger is an amazing author of highly entertaining Victoria Steampunk novels. To date I have read both the adult and young-adult, all of which take place in the same world – England mostly.

What I absolutely love about her work is the quirky way she has of using words. Carriger does not shy away from the use of a larger vocabulary often ignored by current fantasy authors. She pairs descriptors in absurd ways that still function most hilariously. It is absolutely the very best thing about her books – her writing.

The names in her works have become increasingly ridiculous – and thus increasingly amusing to pronounce. For example in the young adult books about finishing school we have Professor Shrimpdittle and Lord Dingleproops. Not all the names are so over the top to make reading them an entire distraction. She does strike a balance between the outrageous and slightly less exotic.

As for the stories themselves – well I certainly enjoyed them, but they are far from perfect. Really, have you ever read a book that didn’t have at least one thing you would change? In this case I sometimes struggle with the amazingly fantastical nature of the technology. The first series, The Parasol Protectorate, had a new automaton creature each book: swarms of lady bugs and needle shooting hedgehogs come to mind first. I suppose it would be less of a bother if she didn’t try to explain each one with science – the humanoid with clockwork gears and thick greasy blood covered in a wax skin was particularly cumbersome.

Another aspect I completely disapprove of is the direct interactions with Queen Victoria. I am really not fond of authors involving actual people in their fantasy stories. Of course, I would prefer if the author would simply make up their own world, similar in flavour and style but different in name, history (which it already is) and people (no actual historical figures present please). It is often jarring to read.

Actually, one of the neat things about her books was the use of the supernatural – which should be nothing but silly. I don’t know why all steampunk must feel the need to include Vampires and Werewolves and the like. However, I did appreciate the way it was dealt with in these books. The supernatural was in the process of being incorporated into society – it was used to explain some of the social rules that govern that time period. It was interesting the way the characters of the time tried to use science to explain the supernatural around them – in this case an excess of soul. But what was best about the explanation, it was done in such a way the author could use a completely different one as the technology and science evolved over time. After all scientific views are not static in the least. It was also impressive the way different people viewed the supernatural – some clearly supported and emulated them, others tried to hunt them down and kill them. There was a healthy mix of both, with a clear bias leaning in favour of the main character.

Both heroines are adorable. They are spunky, go-get-them types that work to some degree within the confines of their social world. Again, the writing is immensely entertaining when it comes to the dialogue and the frequently outrageous clothes donned by several of the secondary characters.

The young adult stories – Finishing School series – predate the events of the Parasol Protectorate series. It is interesting to see the author’s struggles with technology. The Finishing School – located on a dirigible and staffed by clockwork servants – seems almost more advanced than the more typical housing arrangements of the Parasol Protectorate, so I am curious as to how she will explain some of its loss.

Those reading both series will find that some overlap in characters. Though they are not primary characters, some are strong secondary ones. Also, the Finishing School series has a much lighter, faster and more youthful feel to it which is appropriate to the audience. Again, because of the brilliant writing, it is still wonderfully entertaining to older audiences.

So, for those that like well written books of the supernatural steampunk persuasion I would highly recommend Gail Carriger. Both the young-adult and adult books are instantly captivating. The element of the absurd is laugh-out-loud fun and the characters are ridiculously engaging. This is not your average fluff fantasy, this is perfectly written entirely diverting fluff.

The Books:

The Parasol Protectorate stars Alexia Tarabotti in five novels.

Soulless – In which the intrepid heroine accidently kills a vampire and becomes embroiled in a plot to manufacture the supernatural.

Changeless – In which our heroine is forced by circumstances from the comforts of fashionable London to the uncivilized backwaters of wild Scottish highlands.

Blameless – In which the practical heroine must flee homicidal mechanicals for the dubious safety of Italy.

Heartless – In which family and history clash and ghosts request our heroine’s aid.

Timeless – In which the story of supernaturals and our heroine’s own extended family (including their histories) are explained, if not by science, then by their limitations in the exotic lands of Egypt.

Finishing School stars Sophronia Temminnick in four novels (two of which have been published to date).

Etiquette & Espionage – In which our fearless heroine discovers mysterious going-ons at a rather atypical floating finishing school.

Curtsies & Conspiracies – In which our crafty heroine continues her studies into the nefarious practices of poison and deportment.