It’s the holiday where everyone gets off doing work! So I’m going to spend it by doing work! That’s not this blog!
Blame Derek for not getting any fun content this time around. The lazy sod had an entire week off to put something up.
Continuing our month of positivity, we come to a rather curious moment. In the last weeks I covered music and movies that I enjoyed. This week, I want to talk about television. First, however, I must make a confession.
I don’t watch t.v. There’s something about the serialized series that just does not do anything for me. I don’t spend much time in front of that screen so emblematic of the 1950s. It is not designed for me in mind. When looking at the things which are generally popular, none of them interest me. Unlike other mediums, television seems the most focused on hitting that ‘mainstream’ audience. I don’t know why that is, perhaps it is an unfair assessment. All I know is when my tastes don’t align for typical fare in other mediums, it is not too difficult to find a niche that I enjoy.
Perhaps I simply gave up on t.v. too early. When considering what I would do for this post, I ran through the few usual suspects of anyone in my position. I considered discussing those shows that did resonate with me. But what is there to say of Arrested Development, Firefly, Six Feet Under, Community or Pushing Daisies? They’re all slightly quirky. They’re all excellently done. They each strive to hit a specific style and accomplish it with varying degrees of success. And most of them were cancelled well before their time because they could never catch the mainstream taste and are left in some strange, unfinished or hastily completed limbo. Each speaks of the injustice afforded whatever endeavour that strives for something odd, different or unsafe. The sole exception being Six Feet Under which managed to survive perhaps longer than it deserved mercifully because it was broadcasted on a lesser known channel which was happy for whatever views it could obtain.
Paranoia Agent belongs to Madhouse Studio and licenced for North America by Geneon.
No, I’d rather discuss a piece that is complete. I’d rather discuss an anime.
The shock and horror–I know! I’m not a weeaboo (a term that, if you’re unfamiliar with then you most certainly aren’t one) and there are very few anime from Japan which I actually enjoy. One of the best, however, is a little series recommended to me by a random backpacker at a hostel in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. It is Paranoia Agent. It is a show that I absolutely love and think it is brilliant.
And it is a show you will never watch.
I don’t mean to say that for hipster credit but simply because I can think of very few people that would like the series outside of myself. Paranoia Agent is something unlike most other anime. It falls into that strange camp as Atlus games and Serial Experiment Lain. It is, primarily, weird. I’ve seen it twice and outside of loving it both times, I find myself unsure if I’ve truly got it both times. Not that Paranoia Agent is as indecipherable as Serial Experiment Lain. It’s a thematic piece and it wears its themes plainly. The rich symbolism employed serves to heighten and strengthen the story–not carry it. But it is a story that is, nevertheless, steeped in Japanese cultural. I love it because it is so refreshing. It’s something that would never be made in western entertainment and for that it says far more about human nature than its creator likely ever supposed.
But Paranoia Agent is bleak. It is unsettling. It is unpleasant. It is a complex psychological thriller that dips into so many stories, ideas and characters as to be nearly confounding. Its opening credits is perhaps the perfect highlight for what it is. Its title track, Dream Island Obsessional Park (such a delightful example of Engrish in all its glory), is overlaid an aggressively confusing series of shots containing characters standing in peculiar locations laughing maniacally. I don’t use that word lightly. It starts with a young woman, bare foot with shoes in hand, standing upon a highrise rooftop laughing into the wind as a heavy rain transitions us to two young boys in the wrecks of a typhoon struck suburb as the waters threaten to wash them away–while laughing. We see a girl submerged beneath water, a man standing upon the sky upside down, two women in a trash heap, a woman in the wreckage of a home, a man on a radio tower with a mushroom cloud in the backdrop, a homeless woman on the table of an upscale restaurant, a traditionally dressed tourist upon a snowy mountain peak, an elderly man dressed as an orchestral conductor on the moon and finally a school-aged boy with gold rollerskates and a bent gold bat in a green pastoral field. Of course, all of them laugh.
It’s demented and amongst these incongruent places often outright depicted as plain destruction and devastation are the main characters of the narrative. It’s a perfect way to introduce a cast as rambling as its narrative structure. In thirteen episodes we are introduced to a staggering number of individuals who barely feature outside of their own story self contained to a single twenty-five minute spread. The main characters are Tsukiko-a character designer- and the detectives Ikari and Maniwa. Ostensibly, Paranoia Agent is about the investigation into an alleged assault on Tsukiko by the aforementioned kid with skates and a baseball bat. But that isn’t what Paranoia Agent truly is.
The show is a rather harsh and unyielding criticism of modern society. Those other characters flashing past in its opening segment are the window into the troubled lives of individuals who struggle with school bullying, terminal disease, multiple personality disorder, gang corruption, parental abuse, constricting patriarchal expectations, dangers of virtual worlds, repressed fear and guilt and an ever increasing inability to handle all the pressures and stress building upon the cast until it forms an all-consuming tidal wave to consume them all. The main thread, however, focuses on people’s tendencies to retreat and try to escape their problems instead of addressing them. Here, the criticism is leveraged against societies tendency to extol and promote this behaviour. Tsukiko is the creator of the famous Maromi–a pink dog whose sole purpose is to be cute and gently comfort people in order for them to forget their troubles and woes.
Rather obviously contrasting this is the series primary antagonist, anglicized as Lil’ Slugger and taking the appearance of an elementary school student that shows up when people are at their lowest and in desperate need for escape. He provides it with a harsh strike from his bat. As the series goes on, this takes a turn from a minor injury which hospitalizes Tsukiko for a few days and leaves her with a quickly healed limp to outright pummeling the individual to death–arguably the definitive escape from one’s issues.
The show is heavy with its character study and psychological examination. It’s why someone like me absolutely adores it. But when examining the human psyche, one is unlikely to be exploring happy themes or stories. This isn’t your standard anime where a bunch of highschool students are on a fun romp to save the world from a supernatural horror. In fact, the supernatural horror itself turns out to be nothing more than man’s cowardice and overbearing despair in face of the pressures and isolation of modern society.
It’s not all doom and gloom, however. If there is an element of hope weaving through the series, it is that we are all connected and tied together. Ostensibly, this is framed as a problem as Tsukiko’s underlying psychological turmoil turns out to be such a minor issue that blossoms and grows wildly out of proportion and control as it infects, like a disease, those with even a simple fleeting connection to her. But though her issue is of such little significance, it is through the assistance of strangers that these problems are addressed. When we fall to our lowest, it is often the most unlikely people who can have the greatest impact on our lives. It takes near thirteen episodes for this ray of hope to shine upon the grueling dreariness that is the building despair of the cast but that it comes after all that slogging through mud and filth makes it all the more powerful.
Which is great for even at its best, Paranoia Agent still deals in simple plots and devices. The dialogue is not necessarily rich–perhaps owing to its translated nature–but the themes and characters of this twisted world more than make up for it. And for all its encouragement at its end, Paranoia Agent is not shy about still ending on a disquieting note. Much like it starts, the show concludes much the same way it started. Despite all the grandiose and city encompassing destruction that the story of Lil’ Slugger and Tsukiko covers, we’re left with the same shots of faces people complaining about their poor lot in life. It’s a pessimistic look, for certain, for though Tsukiko and the other characters which touched her life are changed, the rest of the world is not and we are left on nearly the exact same note as when we started: a crazed man in a hospital parking lot looking up in horror after coming to some inscrutable conclusion from an incomprehensible equation only he can understand.
In many ways, it reminds me of Lovecraftian horror. But instead of some tentacular beast from the distant unknowable stars coming to consume us, it is instead the horrors we produce on our own which threaten our society that dangles on the weakest of threads.
So, please, watch Paranoia Agent. It’s a fantastic series which no one will ever put on.
Book Cover – not my image.
The latest greatest craze for young adult novels is Divergent by Veronica Roth. It is well loved by more than just teenage girls (though I am not entirely certain on the breadth of its audience). Divergent is described as a well-written dystopian future with a richly created female lead. As I said, I have only heard positive things about this book. So, with some trepidation I plunged into the futuristic world of crumbling cities, segregated populace and randomly running trains.
Divergent is set in an unspecified city – though according to the back it is meant to be Chicago. I am not American, so likely I missed all the obvious references. For reasons, definitely not explained, society as we know it has crumbled and been replaced by five competing factions that have until the start of the story managed to work peacefully and effectively together. Each faction is dominated by a single personality trait: honesty, selflessness, happiness, intelligence and bravery. Each faction is responsible for a different aspect of life in a functioning society: Candor = the legal system, Abnegation = government and all volunteer organizations, Amity = farming and health care, Erudite = research and development, and Dauntless = security.
At the age of sixteen each member of society takes an aptitude test which is a short series of hypothetical scenarios in a virtual reality setting. Using a process of elimination the results will tell the person which faction they belong in. After the test, the sixteen-year-olds then choose the faction they would like to belong to. Strangely this Choosing Ceremony involves cutting your palm with a shared knife and dropping blood into a bowl representing one of the five factions.
Image from the recent movie – not my picture.
My first question was why? Why do they need to physically shed blood during the Choosing? Yes, I get that it is symbolic. The words that hold up society are Faction before Family. By bleeding for your faction you are binding your blood with theirs. Still, it seems unnecessary.
While most children will stay in the faction they were raised, those that leave for new factions are then condemned by their families and taunted by their new faction. I don’t really understand this reaction as it seems to run counter to the Choosing Ceremony and Testing. If you don’t want your children to change factions, then why give them a choice in the beginning?
After the Choosing, the sixteen-year-olds undergo Initiation. Again, I don’t know why we have a redundant set-up. The person has already been tested via some system whose results are not generally called into question. The young person has then made their choice. What is the purpose of Initiation? The flimsy excuse that it is the factions’ chance to weed out its members seems contrived. It is clearly an excuse to bully the Initiates, to put them through hazing rites.
So we follow our young female protagonist from the life she has been raised to the aggressive chaos of the Dauntless Pit. The cult of the Dauntless styles itself as a cross between military discipline and aggression and punk rebellion. They wear black. They are heavily tattooed, pierced, and dyed. They do crazy, bad-ass stunts that would normally be considered stupid. Ostensibly to prove how brave they are, the Dauntless will jump on and off moving trains. They will fight each other using their fists, guns, knives or any other weapon. They will theoretically face their fears. Everything about them is aggressive and often violent. They drink until drunk. They yell loudly. They jump off really high buildings to ride zip-cords. And they apparently only see violence as evidence of fearlessness.
Wow, don’t they sound cool?
Book Cover – not my picture.
Well, not really. Bravery or fearlessness is not marked by the ease in which you can kill another person. Just because you can pound the flesh of your opponent into the ground doesn’t mean you are dauntless. It is a very limited view on the concept. Now, to show some fairness the author obliquely mentions this was not always the way the Dauntless worked. However, the manner in which she concludes the story with a very violent night of executions ending with their protagonist easily killing dozens of people seems to celebrate the violence of the faction.
One thing that struck me in this world: who controls the trains and why do they never stop? It seems like such a simple question, almost inconsequential. However, the fact that there is no answer really starts to demonstrate the incompletion of the story’s world. I am not even going to question the serum or the fact that the protagonist inexplicably finds herself drawn into the greater conflict. I will not ask why the male lead randomly is attracted to our female protagonist – because presumably that can happen in real life. Of course this is a perfect relationship in which he truly understands her, though they don’t spend a great deal of time talking. I will not even question the timeline. In only one month’s time, our decisive protagonist becomes an expert in hand-to-hand combat and the most amazing marksman. All this while still recovering from a number of very serious injuries – I think she might be a relative of Wolverine.
There are two final things I would like to bring up in this incoherent ramble.
First, it is obvious from the start these factions are cults. There is no better way to describe the uniformity of action and thought demanded by the factions. It makes you wonder again how they started and how they had been getting along for so long before our book starts. It is makes me question the initiation process once more. Initiates that fail this process are kicked out of the faction (or the case of the Dauntless are likely dead) to become Factionless. The factionless are the homeless in this futuristic world. Why? I suppose they must all have failed their initiation. Strangely enough they also serve a purpose performing jobs that no one else wants. So why do they continue to accept the abuse they are given? Why does the Abnegation not incorporate them back into the factions? Perhaps the answers to some of the questions are answered in the other two books of this trilogy.
Symbols for the different factions – found the image on the interwebs – certainly not my own product (I think it is a movie poster but I could be wrong).
Second, how does being Divergent give you super powers? Just because your test results are inconclusive (you show equal aptitude for two or more factions), you suddenly can perform actions faster and better than anyone else. If anything, I could see this being a hindrance, you are not so focused. Instead those who are divergent can recognize they are in simulations (a trait unique to them) and they are harder to mind-control (which apparently is the purpose of each cult – I mean faction). This is stupid. There is – at least there shouldn’t be – anything special about our female protagonist. However, in fact she is special, super-powered because of her divergent nature. It is rather amusing as we start to learn there are a number of divergent people living in this world. But don’t tell anyone.
Divergent bears a strong resemblance to the Hunger Games. Both narratives are told first person, present tense from the female protagonist’s perspective. Both involve poorly structured dystopian societies. Both books celebrate and glorify violence and the killing of others. They both end in the slaughter of a number of characters. Tris in Divergent is more decisive than Katnis in the Hunger Games. I find both characters waver between bland and unlikeable – perhaps a reflection of my ancient age.
In summary: Divergent is a silly story with serious flaws of character, plot and world building. That said, it is far better written than Twilight (the lowest of low). Having read the story, I still don’t understand why people who are not sixteen like it.
Well, The International has reached its conclusion but I shall not be expressing my feelings on that. This is my month of positivity so I must post things that I adore! Last week I spoke at greater length than was necessary about one of my favourite bands. This week I want to focus on a different medium: movies! Get any group of people together an invariably a discussion about the latest or bestest moving picture is. Have any great desire for discourse on the subject and you’ll invariably get the dreaded question: What is your favourite movie.
Of course, picking a favourite movie is as hard as picking a favourite book, song or video game. There is just way too much breadth and variability to compare the different experiences offered by entertainment to ever really pick a true answer. How do you compare a really good comedy to a really good tragedy? Neither seek to produce the same emotion or entertainment and it is near impossible to ever say which is better when they share such few metrics for comparison. It is invariably a lot easier to ask one what is their favourite in a genre since those works are a lot easier to break-down and contrast.
Unless, of course, your movie crosses genres.
Clue theatrical poster. Belongs to Paramount Pictures.
At any rate, I’m going to talk about two comedies. These aren’t necessarily my favourite comedies either but they are both similar and warrant a combined look nevertheless. I have fond memories of both, coming across them at different times in my life. I wouldn’t say they are equivocal–but both take a different approach to their shared goal that it’s hard to hard to say, ultimately, which I prefer over the other.
I am, of course, discussing Clue and Murder by Death. Oddly enough, it was the more recent Clue that I saw first. I was perusing the old Jumbo Video (and that alone should date me) with my aunt when I stumbled across this peculiar flick. As a child, I was intrigued. I loved the boardgame and here was a video ostensibly made with all the familiar characters of Miss Scarlet, Colonel Mustard and Mrs. Peacock. I was a little concerned as I took it to my aunt for permission as it did bill itself as a murder and I didn’t know if I would be allowed to view it. To my mind, you could not break categories and to have both a comedy and mystery in one was something I didn’t fully comprehend.
But I loved the thing the moment it went into the VCR. It was silly and off-the-wall. But just as it came to an end, something peculiar happened.
The movie didn’t stop but rewound to an earlier moment and picked up from Wadsworth’s explanation. Unfortunately, given our dated technology, the tape of the movie could not accurately replicate the theatre experience. For what I was witnessing was something I had never seen before. There was not one ending to the movie but three. Years later I learned that all three were produced and shipped to different locations. Depending on where you saw the film, there was a different culprit to the murder.
Clue film cast.
It was strange and it was brilliant. This silly little film did something rather extraordinary. With the inevitably discussion that would follow later with peers, people would discuss the film and its conclusion only to discover that their answer to the mystery may not be the conclusion their friend saw. I can only imagine the confusion that this would cause and it perfectly sums up the frantic style of the movie as well as being faithful to the boardgame it spawned. Despite its rather shallow and meagre offering, Clue presents a rather intriguing undermining of audience expectations by toying with the very frame which movies are made. I’ve seen it multiple times since and each ending works with the film. It may not have the strongest dialogue and it wastes quite a bit of time with filler antics but otherwise it sets up multiple explanations for the murders which occur. When Wadsworth is explaining how a culprit could perform the deed, if you rewatch those scenes the possible guilty parties are absent. There’s an attentiveness to small details that just brings the entire package together.
More than that, however, Clue plays joyfully with the tropes of a mystery. Our expectations for these capers is that there is one correct explanation which the investigator must solve in order to crack the case. But for this movie, that is not the case. It almost exists in a certain quantum uncertainty–this made even more apparent with the DVD format restoring the ability to randomize how the film will end each time you view it. Dotted lovingly throughout the film are red herrings surrounding nuclear physicists that make me wonder if the quantum analogy isn’t perhaps done purposefully. It forms the audiences expectations for a tidy conclusion then insidiously destroys them the moment you stand up and speak to someone else about the conclusion.
Murder by Death poster. Owned by Columbia Pictures.
Murder by Death is, surprisingly, a movie along the same vein. It follows a group of individuals brought to a mansion where a murder occurs and locks them inside until the mystery can be solved. Whereas Clue embraces its nebulous narrative and uncertain outcome until the conclusion is reached, Murder by Death instead lampoons the mystery genre rather than its structure. Each guest is an immediately recognizable caricature of a famous fictional detective. We have a Sam Spade, Ms. Marple, Hercule Poirot and others. Each are brought alive by similarly famous actors like Peter Falk, Maggie Smith and Peter Sellers.
However, whereas Clue struggles in unnecessary scenes, some misplaced slapstick comedy and rather uninspiring dialogue at times, I find Murder by Death far more searing in its discourse. There’s more wit in its scenes and treatment of characters–fueled on by its need to satirize the mystery genre in its entirety. The detectives are revealed, one by one, to be cheap charlatans who rely on cheap toys and tricks in order to further their suspense in unnatural and baffling ways to keep their audience on their toes. These very same tricks are utilized by the movie in order to showcase how these manipulative devices are used to deny the audience of its mystery. There’s a condemnation at the heart of Murder by Death’s ridiculous action and its towards the authors and their penchant to cheat the audience of playing the detective themselves. The movie is fascinating as it’s almost a video essay on the director’s opinion of how not to write a mystery. That meta-genre knowledge is really what drives the humour of the flick though there are plenty of other jokes for those less savvy on the genre.
But while Murder by Death may be scathing in its view of the mystery genre, it is also an ode to its accomplishments as well. It reads like a love letter but a disgruntled but otherwise devout fan. At the end of the day (or night in Murder by Death’s case), while it recognizes that the motivation for the vast majority of writers is money, there still exists the love of mystery. We end with the bumbling detectives much as they were, unhumbled by their experience and heading home to repeat their romps in whatever fashion that has made them famous. But the closing scene reveals a final twist which still leaves the audience wondering and guessing over the villains plot, that air of mystery still leaving us wondering, guessing and desperate for more.
Murder by Death cast.
Ultimately, both Clue and Murder by Death are more than just comedies–they’re examinations of the mystery genre and the tropes used by their authors. They both seem well aware of the faults too typical of their medium. They’re bold in their bare-faced, unapologetic frailty. They demonstrate that no work is perfect but those imperfections need not detract from the overall experience. As the credits roll, they still had fun and, truly, is that not what we strive for with our entertainment?
It used to be that I would only read one book at a time. For a while I would read the book of the day obsessively; starting the novel of interest and doing next to nothing else until I had finished the story. Then I grew older and now I find myself (for the most part) better able to put books aside when things need doing (unless it is near the end of the story). I am also reading multiple books at once. Until I finished Beautiful Creatures, I was reading four books. Two of them were re-reads – which I have been discovering are actually terribly written stories for different reasons. The third book is a recommendation that will likely evolve into its own post so I will say nothing more about it yet.
Book Cover – I didn’t like the look of the movie posters so this is the only image you get today.
This brings me to Beautiful Creatures by Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl. It seems to be one of the more popular teen fantasy novels and yet another of that genre to be turned into a film (I have not seen the movie). The book’s story is not earth-shattering in its concept, progression or telling. It is however, a perfectly good coming-of-age, teenage fantasy romance novel. The writing is solid. There was nothing in the style or structure to cause offense. In fact I was pleasantly surprised to find the story told by the boy (Ethan) rather than the super-powered girl (Lena).
I also enjoyed the Deep Southern US small town setting with its neatly described ‘characters’. The main characters were part of large and complicated families – which is an excellent and realistic way to write about people. It is much better than the hero being an orphan – which I find cliched. The plot had all the usual drama associated with 15/16 year-olds: there was bullying at school (the super popular cheerleaders looked down their noses at the new girl to town), first and passionate romance (the kind that is destined and involves linked dreams and telepathy), the skepticism that adults actually know what they are doing (I personally love when the adults tell the teens they are being overly melodramatic), and the realization that the world did not work the way you thought it did (magic exists, parents lie to themselves and their children, and some people are just mean).
Beautiful Creatures examines at fate/destiny and good vs evil in the form of Casters (magic users) being claimed by either the Dark or the Light on the individual’s 16th Birthday. It touches on the role family history has in shaping our current world and the consequences of decisions or actions one makes. I feel there was an interesting opportunity to play more with the curse of the Duchannes family, the parallels between the past and the present and how interconnected everyone in a small town really is. And in fairness the authors may spend more time fleshing out some of their ideas. This is only book one in a series. Thought I currently have no plans to read the rest of the series.
The ending is not particularly surprising. It is not the strongest element of the book either – which likely is a reflection of this being the first novel in a series. Again, I feel there was a missed opportunity to tie the fragmented scenes of the past to the present. I was disappointed that the main character had even less to do with the final conflict than was teased throughout the story. It is set up that Ethan will somehow be in a position to save or at least try to save Lena. He doesn’t. And while Lena is supposed to save Ethan (not a bad concept) it was not sharply handled.
Over all the story is a well-crafted, predictable tale about two people falling in love for the first time and facing the uncertainties of life. I enjoyed the blend of realistic small town America and the fantasy of magic users in a fight between the light and the dark. It was good, solid and very nicely suited to its teenaged target audience.
While procrastinating my other work, I managed to read four books over the past four days. What follows is a simple book review of what I read; it may not be well-written, but you notice that I at least contributed!
Book Cover (not mine) – retelling of Beauty and the Beast
The first three books were all written by Melanie Dickerson: The Captive Maiden, The Fairest Beauty and The Merchant’s Daughter. They are all young adult, set in medieval times and retell classic fairy tales. The author is a devotedly faithful to the teachings of the bible, Jesus and God. I don’t know her exact denomination – however, her religious views are evident in her stories. All three of the books I read were modified to work some semblance of actual medieval reality (namely women have not position in society and there only goal is to marry someone who will take care of them) and God (all three maidens are deeply religious and it is their faith in god that allows them to succeed in overcoming hardships and finding the perfect man).
The books were fine. They felt authentic to the times with actual research into medieval life obviously completed by the author. The stories progressed along the classic lines of Beauty and the Beast, Snow White and the 7 Dwarves and Cinderella. There were some changes – as one would expect in a new retelling of a very old tale. I will also add that I like the way the author tied together Fairest Beauty and Captive Maiden to her other novel The Healer’s Apprentice – that was neatly done.
Book Cover (not mine) – retelling of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.
They were slightly offensive in that every heroine was divinely beautiful (inside and out – the author was quick to point out). I found this most frustrating in the Cinderella retelling as the evil people in that story was generally described as hideous – and much effort was made to emphasize the ugliness of the villains. Yet, while I appreciate the effort made to reflect the medieval period in which the stories were set, I found the general oppression of women too much for me to handle. There was no complexity to the characters or genuinely interesting twists to the old plot lines. Being that I am not devotedly Christian, the insertion of God only made these stories more banal and lifeless.
I like the classic fairy tales. I love when they are retold in new and exciting ways. I prefer when they are told in different worlds – so are not restricted to our history. These were fine stories, but they were not exciting, were definitely slow in pace and progress, and were not my thing.
The other book I read (not young adult) was surprisingly more enjoyable than I had expected when picking it up. Shanghai Sparrow by Gaie Sebold had an ugly – at least unappealing cover – but I picked it up anyway. Without reading much of the back I borrowed this book from the library. The main protagonist, Evvie, is a spirited orphan thief when we first meet her on the streets of London. She is about to get roped into a devious plan that will involve training at Britannia’s School for female spies, learning as much as she can about etheric sciences and travelling halfway around the world in an airship. Granted the time in Shanghai doesn’t happen until the very end.
Book Cover (not mine) – I still think there is something unappealing about the monsterous creature (which does not say Dragon to me).
It was an interesting tale set in steampunk, Victorian England. It was darker (but not too dark) and filled with the Fey. I am not a big fan of the Fey (or Fay or however you spell it). In this book they were the Folk. And while the Folk were intimately tied to the story they did not overpower the telling so I was able to ignore most of the aspects of the Fey I don’t like (primarily their other world – which is often considered underground of our own). The main heroine is quite likeable and the plot generally progressed at a good pace. There was the strange cut out, part way through the narrative when we skipped back in time to experience Evvie’s childhood. It was not my favourite section – though I do appreciate the author’s attempt to show and not just tell.
Still of all the books I have read recently, and not just the four I admit to reading this weekend (but the other’s really terrible books not worth mentioning by name) this has been my favourite. I like that it was fun. I like the twists in the plot and the character development. I liked the world in all its imperfect, smoke choked glory. I liked that it is a stand-alone (at least it is to my knowledge as I write this).
Downton Abbey is a period drama that came highly recommended. Everybody I know who has seen this TV series raves (positively) about it. After debuting in 2010 it has only taken me four years to finally watch the first season. Being a British drama, this meant only 7 episodes.
Obviously I own none of these images – all curtesy of the internet.
First reaction was a sense of general enjoyment, enough that I then borrowed season 2 from the library. So, what did I like about this series? Well, first response would be to adamantly celebrate the two old ladies dominating the cast: the amazing Penelope Wilton and the incomparable Maggie Smith. These two women steal every scene they grace with their presence. I liked the visuals, it is a very pretty set. The costumes are gorgeous. The actors do a good job with what they are given. I quite enjoy the concept of following both the upstairs and downstairs of a very well to do country estate during the early decades of the 20th century.
Maggie Smith as Violet Crawley, Dowager Countess of Grantham – One of the Very Best Characters.
However, some discussion has presented several very real and substantial issues I have with the program. My mother’s first reaction to the first season was, ‘This is so Pride and Prejudice’. Of which I quite agree. However, Jane Austin’s work took place over a hundred years earlier. Does this mean that English society did not change one bit over the intervening time? I am not an expert in English history (far from it), but even I feel things must have changed even a little during that time. Instead, so much seems to have been borrowed from those classic stories, the plots, the petty trials of the upper class men and woman, the cadence of their speech.
The scenes in Downton are supposed to be snapshots of daily life. Unfortunately I am left confused about much of what happens during the day – primarily for the Earl’s family. Do the women really spend 14 hours dressing, drinking tea and eating dinner? The script makes tantalizing suggestions of philanthropy activities beyond the walls of the house. Why do we never hear about them?
Penelope Wilton as Isobel Crawley – One of the Very Best Characters (foreground); David Robb as Dr. Richard Clarkson (backgound)
I like the everyday drama’s they make the best stories for the setting and visuals. They also make some of the best episodes; such as when Mrs Crawly is searching for an occupation in the village, the day the fair comes to town or the flower show. All of these are everyday sort of events taken from the perspective of the Family and Staff. Unfortunately not nearly enough time is spent on these little things.
In fact I have several complaints about the writing. First, why is every relationship a love triangle? Seriously! If a romance is teased between two characters, a third is suddenly introduced. Does this mean that the only desirable partner in life is one that another already covets? When one party loses interest in pursuing the relationship, will the other person lose interest as well? I get that we are watching a TV series, but not every relationship on the planet is a love triangle or quadrangle. Sometimes, two people meet, become friends and fall in love. They can have all sorts of tiny disturbances as personal opinions and biases are bound to colour their perspectives on various life things. The current set up is simply too melodramatic for me to maintain my suspension of disbelief.
Second, why does everyone like Mary? She is a selfish, self-centred bitch and yet no one (except the middle daughter) seems to recognize this. In fact, if a man is introduced to the scene he instantly is attracted to her. Does she produce a particularly intoxicating mix of pheromones? Now, I don’t have a problem with the concept of dislikable lead character. I even appreciate the idea the creators have in giving Mary some sympathetic scenes to create a more balanced character. I don’t think they were successful in what they did, but that is me. Still, more of the other characters should be able to see her for the bitch she is. Really, this illustrates a greater problem of not fleshing out the characters. Edith the second daughter is as bland as board. Their mother’s American background has never had any bearing on the character. I think the writers have been a little more successful with the great Lord Grantham and his recently chosen heir. Similar to the Family, many of the servants are one dimensional stock characters fixated on their good or evil perspectives.
The Three Sisters: Laura Carmichael as Lady Edith Crawley (middle child); Jessica Brown Findlay as Lady Sybil Crawley (youngest); and Michelle Dockery as Lady Mary Josephine Crawley (the eldest).
Third, what is the timeline? So, the first seven episodes span a two year period. The problem there is no sense of time flow as the episodes occur. The stuff that happens in the first episode or two is still fresh gossip by the end of the season. Really, do people have so little happening to cling to the petty gossip two years old? Perhaps things are spread out more? The problem is I cannot tell. There are not clear markers to indicate the changing of the seasons. For all intents and purposes all the episodes could have occurred over a four month period. There is nothing wrong with spanning a two year time, just make sure that comes out in the dialogue. The characters should have been referencing new scandals and incidents (that we obviously didn’t see).
This brings me to one of my brother’s greatest complaints and soon to my primary issue – Mary and the Turkish Ambassador. This episode has everything that is wrong with the series in it. It creates a love triangle/quadrangle with Mary and her consortium of male admires. The Turk is instantly taken with the eldest daughter of the Earl’s house. So much so, he goes beyond the acceptable flirting to convincing her to have sex with him during his one night stay. Then, in keeping with the ridiculous series of improbable events he dies upon her. Melodrama at its best, I suppose. So, of course, Mary cannot be found out. She enlists the help of her maid and mother to move the hefty Turk to his room where he will be found in the morning. Naturally, this is scandalous. Naturally there is a witness (of sorts). What is not natural is that it continues to be a threat to the family. At first it is one of the footmen that starts to spread the rumour of Mary’s misdeed. Then Mary’s own sister writes the Embassy about what she has overheard to have happened that night. Ok, footman is an ass and stirring up trouble – whatever. Edith however has as much to lose from the scandal brought to the family if this is flung around town. Also, the threat of such a scandal is still potent nearly four years later, when it is brought out once more in the first episode of the second season. What was a stupid plot to begin will not die. For an important diplomant, whose signature was supposedly necessary for peace with Albania – there were never any political ramifications. The only lingering plot device is the potential to tarnish Mary’s reputation – which shouldn’t be that great as every should already know she is a bitch. I simply do not care! I am tired of this thread and wish it would finally get buried beneath a mountain of granite never to see the light of day again.
This the ‘upstairs’ portion of the staff with the upstairs house maids flanking the central group of footmen, Her Ladyship’s maid, the Butler and Housekeeper.
The second season commences two years after the end of the first season. I still don’t understand the purpose these time jumps have. Well into the First World War there is much you could talk about. Instead, the writers are busy trying to ramp up the drama between all the couples in the story while only paying passing homage to the struggles of the times. I am not impressed and just about ready to wash my hands of the entire series.
Really, what can I say about this much anticipated, well-liked (according to Rotten Tomatoes) film? I know there are lots of people out there who really like X-men, who like anything to do with the comics. I could add that my mother really enjoyed the film. Or that my brother didn’t hate it. In fact, it was me who had the strongest negative reaction to this terrible addition to the X-men world.
My first and largest complaint is that the story essentially negates the first two X-men movies (X-men and X-men 2). I really enjoyed their stories and the characters and while both had their flaws, the resulting product was well executed. Days of Future Past (DFP) manages to reboot the franchise and thus rewrite history – even the really good stuff. This was disappointing.
The plot was ridiculous. Starting with the over-exaggerated grim future where a war against mutants and the humans who stand beside them are ruthlessly killed. The landscape is burnt black and there is no evidence of the winners of this terrible apocalyptic future. Seriously, if humans have managed to effectively cleanse the planet of the dangerous mutant threat, then where are they hiding? Why are they not running happily through the streets? Why is everything so impossibly grim?
So the magical sentinel robots manage to fight (with graphic brutality) and kill the mutants. They are able to target the mutant gene (I would love to know how) and amazingly they can target humans whose grandchildren will be born with this gene. First, in order to have this many different mutations, it is not one gene that is being affected. Second, exactly how do you screen for individuals whose distant relations will spontaneously develop a genetic modification. Please, someone glance at a biology textbook. Of course the super-duper robots are also able to adapt by copying the genetics of one super-special mutant. Really? I thought every mutant was its own special, unique individual – hence the variation in traits.
While the film was filled with cameos, it also heavily relied on the audience knowing most of the characters. At least it didn’t feel compelled to introduce many of the mutant extras – particularly those in the future. This may have had more to do with the fact those in the future spent the entire movie being torturously destroyed, violently ripped apart, etc. However, as my brother so neatly pointed out, there was no blood so that made the decapitations and subsequent skull smashing OK for a younger audience.
Ah, having now alluded to the future, I will divulge the twist, the main crux of the film takes place in the past. While time travel is stupid, the writers didn’t even bother to explain how this one happens. Further, their timeline, dates and technology do not mesh in the slightest. As the film is theoretically set about fifty years from today to create the Future, the main plot occurs in 1973 – for unknown reasons. It is amazing the robotic technology the super-genius villain is able to create using the most primitive computers. The sentinels of 1973 are more advanced than any technology we have now (40 years later). The age progression of characters seemed awkward because of this time travel plot.
Then there was the super cheesy characters and dialogue. Why is Wolverine the one to go back in time? Look people, he is kind of cool for his rapid healing, but there are lots of other really interesting characters in the X-men universe. Also, why does Eric have to be Evil all the time? Why did he supposedly kill JFK, only then confess he was trying to save the president? Why did Charles just accept this explanation so easily when he apparently spent the previous 10 years drowning his life and sorrows in drugs and alcohol? Why did this movie have to destroy the cannon set up in the first two films (the only two of worth)?
Most importantly, why am I even bothering to write about a film this bad? As my irritatingly observant brother noted, the writers, directors and general creators clearly didn’t care that much about the product they were creating. They didn’t bother to explain anything: the time travel, the magically amazing robots, the super-fabulous alloy that was not metallic, the room sunk beneath the pentagon that was accessed through locked doors but apparently not constructed of metal, the fact that whenever Raven/Mystique shifts she loses clothing when becoming herself but gains clothing when becoming someone else.
Movie Poster found on the internet.
The visuals were nothing special, the acting was, the fight scenes were largely predictable (expect the use of portals – which was pretty cool) and the final product was boring. It was long, tedious and didn’t make any sense. But it was not nearly as bad as Last Stand, so I guess that is something.
E3 is happening and I’m… disinterested.
E3 imagery and whatnot does not belong to me.
For those not aware, E3 (short for Electronic Entertainment Expo) is a yearly conference that covers the developments from the biggest studios in the video gaming industry. It’s a trade’s fair meant to announce and build interest in upcoming products from the major players (Ubisoft, Microsoft, EA, Sony and Nintendo). As a young, modern individual, I naturally have an interest in video games as they’re becoming one of the largest mediums of entertainment. Unfortunately, my interest lies in PC (personal computer) gaming whereas this conference mostly focuses around the home entertainment consoles. All I have to look forward to is the glimpse of the multiplatform releases which will inevitably arrive to the PC space some three to six months after they’re console launch.
So, while others are pumped for the exposition, I really can not get into all the hype. That said, I tried and turned on the stream for a few minutes to see how the conference is going. In prior years they had been really embarrassing for the members of the more enthusiast portion of the hobby with a greater focus on gimmick and generic titles that often involved presenters dancing or waving foolishly on stage as they tried to peddle the next motion sensor device as the hottest new thing. So, in one way, this E3 seems to be off to a better start. With the recent release of a new generation of consoles the focus is back to announcing and promoting games. The major studios have taken a more traditional, trailer focussed approach too which is a step above the antics of yesteryear.
What does this have to do with my title? That’s a good question as I’ve three paragraphs in and haven’t touched anything writing or speculative fiction related. So here’s the bridge!
One of the first trailers shown during EA’s presentation was for the upcoming Dragon Age 3 by BioWare. I’m a little surprised my colleague has not written about Dragon Age as he is the one to have played its most recent release. I used to be a great fan of BioWare when I was younger. They produced the nostalgia inducing, widely acclaimed Baldur’s Gate Trilogy which stands, if I may be so bold, as the single most influential western role-playing game in the entire industry.
Dragon Age Inquisition, outside of representing BioWare’s disdain for orderly naming in their titles, belongs to EA and Bioware and not me.
Sadly, their output after that has been lackluster at best. Part of that may have been a problem of coming out the gate too strong. Inevitably, all their newest work is going to get compared to that magnum opus and draw up short. Part of its problem, I think, is that BioWare was working with a proprietary intellectual property. Baldur’s Gate was set in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting for Dungeons and Dragons. This world has had years and years of development and re-iteration by the time the company picked it up. It had a lengthy history which the writers could tap into and the different regions they set the story across were pre-created with interesting and connected cultures. The process of world building is a long and involved one and when they adopted the world for their first games, all they had to focus on was the narrative they wished to tell and the components of creating a video game.
Of course, the downside with licencing is that you have to pay the owner a sizable fee. It’s reasonable any successful studio would want to create their own free of the constraints of licencing and adhering to established works. It gives them the freedom to develop their own world filled with its own peoples and histories and stories.
The downside is they have to make all this.
And the downside of that is we get racism.
I have come to loathe fantasy and its handling of races. I complained about this before when I felt that most writers essentially are rehashing the work Tolkien did with his re-envisioning of mythological creatures into a cohesive and internally consistent world. He established the repetitive trope of dwarves being incurable alcoholics obsessed with mining wealth and loathing elves. Elves, likewise, have morphed in the collective unconsciousness to become these tall, elegant and beautiful peoples with pointy ears and a dying culture. Orcs are a shorthand for middle easterners.
Sten as he appears in Dragon Age: Origins. He is a member of the Qunari who are both a race, religion and culture all in one!
And that’s, unfortunately, become the issue. So often when I see fantasy races in fiction it’s as a cultural shorthand for a real life peoples. It creates a rather uncomfortable situation especially given the rampant racism that erupts in these stories because now these peoples are actual different races. I feel there’s an issue when you conflate real cultures with fantastical peoples as it almost dehumanizes or “others” these cultures from which you borrow.
For example, Dragon Age features the Qunari instead of your standard orc. When we were first introduced to them in Dragon Age: Origins, the only member you met was a man named Sten. He was, by all appearances, a human with darker skin and lighter hair. I welcomed this as the shorthand for culture=race, I feel, has a tendency to draw upon and highlight differences between peoples rather than commonalities. Sten carried the appearance as being the same as the player (assuming a non-dwarf or elf background) with the biggest difference in his personality and beliefs being the cultural heritage of his distant upbringing.
Qunari concept art re-envisioning them for Dragon Age 2 so they’re clearly not human.
Dragon Age 2, however, made sure to clarify that this was not the case. Sten and the Qunari were shunted into the fantastical race segregation giving this air that culture and beliefs are tied to some bizarre genetic composition. We see this with the other races – all dwarves and elves essentially struggle beneath the expectations of their physical appearance intimately connecting behaviour and potential with one’s birthright. Of course, given this expectation from the audience one would imagine that fantasy would be a ripe area to undermine racist beliefs and tendencies. However, invariably, the narratives reinforce the core separation of racial thinking even if they attempt to express that racist behaviour is bad at the same time. Which is, of course, reasonable given the world’s creation in that these two entities are separate along racial lines.
So fantasy basically writes a creator into a corner. They have, biologically speaking, separate races but these races invariably take the cultural shorthands and iconographies of real life peoples. Even if the author attempts to argue that discrimination based along these lines they’ve created themselves is bad it does not ignore the problem that they’ve fallen into the trapped thinking these people fundamentally are different. Course, there are ways around this. For one, Dungeons and Dragons breaks down the different races into even more variable culture groups disassociating the race with any real world analogy. In the Forgotten Realms alone we have the High Elves, Moon Elves, Wood Elves, Dark Elves and just about any other permutation you could require. And though the difference between the factions is often represented physically with their bodily attributes (like the black skin of a Dark Elf or the golden skin of a High Elf) the biggest separation is their cultural and philosophical heritage. Furthermore, you generally do not have a genetic incompatibility with these different groups thus reinforcing their differences are not tied to inherent characteristics.
Unfortunately for new worlds like Dragon Age, they do not have the development to portray this distinction. There are only one group of humans, elves, dwarves and qunari which leads one to assume their differences are tied to genetic inheritance as it is to cultural education.
Sten updated to appear in the sequel’s design for his race. Personally, I feel it detracts from his story and the character in general. Mod can be found at: http://www.nexusmods.com/dragonage/mods/3803/?
The long and the short of it is I hate the Qunari’s stupid horns. I’d rather fantasy focus on creating unique peoples and beliefs without taking the lazy shortcut of highlighting people’s differences through physical characteristics. Take humanity in its entirety and there is a staggering breath of variety amongst our own race – we don’t need to put funny horns or ears on their heads in order to experience it.
According to the author the concept for the Winner’s Curse comes from a discussion about economics. In particular the idea that those at an auction who outbid everyone else have also been foolish enough to pay way more for something that the rest of the company thinks is worth considerably less. It is an interesting idea.
The book jacket designed by Elizabeth H. Clark.
However, that was not discussed or mentioned in the book jacket. The brief synopsis, like so many of its kind, misleads the potential reader. Or perhaps the attempt to simplify an entire story inevitably must distill down to something only vaguely connected to the actual plot. I know from the few lines I read before requesting the book from my local library, I had certain expectations about what I was going to read. I knew the main characters were young adults, that the main female, Kestrel, was going to purchase a slave, Arin, and that incident was going to change her life. I suppose that is in fact vague enough that anything could happen. However, as is the case I started to supplement the limited information with probable scenarios. It is something I am wont to do on a regular basis. In the past this has led to disappointment. However, I was pleasantly surprised by the Winner’s Curse. It was both well written and unpredictable.
I particularly enjoyed the manner in which the author dealt with slavery and conquering by foreign peoples. There was just the right balance justification so the reader could appreciate how both of the main countries involved in this relationship would see its rise and fall differently. It was power in the way it was subtle. There was not long-winded preaching paragraph about how slavery was bad, how war was bad or how being invaded and conquered was bad. Or even how rebelling was bad. There were atrocities committed on both sides, though happily not in graphic detail. Characters challenged preconceived ideas in realistic manners.
Kestrel and Arin were both strong characters with distinct points of view and ideas that shifted slightly over time. They worked well together, and the romantic in me kept trying to write a happy ending to their story. The final was not precisely sad, but it was a touch melancholy. In many ways it made the book. A more weak-willed author would have concluded with something light, fluffy and ultimately unrealistic. Rutkoski concluded the Winner’s Curse in a manner that was both satisfying and hopeful and yet, sacrifices had to be made. Neither character got everything they wanted. That was same sentiment was shared by the reader (at least it was for me). I wanted them to ‘win’, completely. To outsmart the rest of the world and pull of something that only works in books. Still, I cannot complain because this ending, the fast pacing of the rest of the book and the engaging characters kept me reading. In fact, had the book ended the way I wanted it too, then it would have been more like so many poorly written pieces out there – predictable.
In short, I thought the Winner’s Curse was surprisingly well written, fun to read and nothing like the book jacket suggested. I would recommend this for those interested in young adult reads.
* * * *
Well, I just was reading the fine print and discovered this is actually book one of a triology. I have to say this does indeed lower my opinion of the book. As a stand-alone, I thought it was great, as a trilogy…. Well, I haven’t read the second or third book yet, but I am not feeling it.