Sugar Rush of Cute . . . Or, Wreck It Ralph Review

By Steven Mclain

I remember when Disney and Pixar were the closest of friends.  They'd make fun animated movies together that were heart-warming, delightful and just plain fun to watch.  Then the divorce happened, and Pixar got heart-warming and fun-to-watch in the settlement.  Disney was left with something shallow and it showed.  Then along came Dreamworks, and it seemed like they and Pixar would dominate computer-generated movies--heck, it seemed like they would dominate the fun-to-watch and well-made movie niches.  Wreck It Ralph seems to have put that notion to bed.  It's fun, heart-warming, and compelling.  It is tightly plotted and understands the genre.  It's been favorably compared to Toy Story and the comparison is relatively apt. 

The movie is about video game characters who come alive at night.  Like Toy Story, the mechanism for this change is never fully explained, we're simply dropped into a world in which video game characters in an arcade go home at night, have social lives, and grouse about their condition.  Which is the essential premise: Ralph is a bad guy, and he's tired of being ostracized by the other characters in his game.  Dared to win a medal by one of the pint-sized townspeople in his game, Ralph leaves his game for the chance to win one.  Things get messy quick here, and in the course of his adventure he lands in the middle of a candy and confection themed racing game called Sugar Rush.

Daring to help the underdog beat off bullies, Ralph injects himself into the politics of the game world, with disastrous results.  With a name like Wreck It, you know nothing good can come of it.  Yet, despite his bumbling attempts to be good, his dogged pursuit of the prize at the expense of the people around him, and the heart-breaking betrayal of the one person who trusts him, Ralph learns that to become a hero, one must make the hard decisions.  Often, in the tradition of the greatest myths, the hero must sacrifice himself. 

But this is a game, and every game has a reset button.  Even for Ralph. 

I was impressed with this movie on several levels.  I went into it expecting a lot of pop culture references from my childhood, and I wasn't disappointed.  I worried, however, that most viewers would understand them, and that they would detract from the movie.  Disney managed to pop culture coup in that regard.  None of the references are vital to the story, yet they improved my viewing experience and revealed a much deeper subtext.  Way to go, Disney.

All in all, this movie might be the most fun I've had in the theater this year, and I highly recommend this movie. 

Friday Update!

By Steven McLain

First, I hope everyone had a safe and enjoyable Thanksgiving.  Most of my week has revolved around Thanksgiving in one way or another; I was either driving home for Thanksgiving, eating Thanksgiving, or recovering from Thanksgiving.  Good times all around.

Speaking of good times, I saw Wreck It Ralph this last Wednesday.  Expect a review on Monday but suffice it to say that it was very enjoyable, very tightly plotted and the pop-culture references were far less important than I expected.  On something of a related note, I saw in the previews that Disney is re-releasing Monsters, Inc. in 3D.  I'm kind of excited to see this movie in theaters again; I remember the first time being particularly fun.  That all being said, go see Wreck It Ralph.  It was delightful.

Even though I finished Christopher Buehlman's Between Two Fires over a week ago, I still have yet to start The Twelve by Justin Cronin.  I've been deeply involved in Lovecraft, particularly in Lovecraft tribute stories, which you can read about in a previous entry.  But while I'm loving rediscovering Lovecraft, I haven't been able to invest adequate time in newer, possibly just as worthy books.

In publishing new, the Amazon Kindle turned 5 this last week; to help mark this special occasion, Amazon released a list of the Top 5 Bestselling Kindle books ever, as well as the bestselling Kindle books by year.  It's really no surprise that Fifty Shades of Grey, and The Hunger Games trilogies dominate the bestsellers list.  Somewhat more surprising is that Fifty Shades did all that in a single year, placing itself firmly in the Top 5 in 2012.  Prior years included, The Help, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, The Lost Symbol, and The Complete User’s Guide To the Amazing Amazon Kindle in 2008.  I think the take-away from this is that eBooks are here to stay, and will only become more viable as a publishing platform, replacing standard physical sales.

Interestingly, the number one spot on Publishers Weekly Top 10 list this week is held by Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Third Wheel, by Jeff Kinney.  It's not surprising to see YA and Middle Readers books taking a place on the bestseller list, especially as Christmas draws nigh; I'd expect to see more in the coming weeks.

And apparently, Tolkien fans don't gamble.  At least, not according to the $80 million suit brought against Warner Bros, New Line and Middle-Earth Enterprises.  The family is alleging that the original 1969 rights included only physical properties, and not gambling or digital rights.  The sticking point seems to be the creation of Middle Earth themed online slots.  You can read the whole thing here. 

In somewhat related movie news, I'm planning on reading The Hobbit for the first time ever in anticipation of the forthcoming movie.  Some of you are astonished to hear this startling revelation--I mean, a Lord of the Rings fan who hasn't read The Hobbit?  But I'll soon rectify that and have gobs of fun belaboring the most bestest parts from the book that Peter Jackson omitted from the movie.

Now that Twilight no longer tortures our movie screens, Twihards are in search of the Next Interesting Thing and the best bet seems to be Mortal Instruments: City of Bones.  Adapted as a movie from Cassandra Clare urban fantasy series Mortal Instruments.  Take a look at the trailer below and let me know what you think.

 

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

Me, Myself and H.P. Lovecraft . . . Or, The Eldrtich World of Lovecraft Tributes

H.P. Lovecraft might be the most influential American author of the twentieth century that you've never heard of.  Chances are you know people he's influenced, from Stephen King to Mike Mignola.  But chances are equally great that if pressed, you might not really know Lovecraft from either of those two.  Lovecraft is a strange case of fame come too late.  In this case, his fame is almost entirely posthumous and due in large part to the efforts of friends after his early death to preserve his writing.

The most obvious reason you've never heard of Lovecraft--or if you have heard of him, never read him--is the dense, archaic prose in which he embeds his horrifying tales of the strange and eldritch.  Indeed, that prose is difficult for the uninitiated to fathom, and the threshold accordingly high.  Yet those who do plumb the depths of Lovecraft come away better for it; or at the very least, with a new perspective of humanity's role in the universe.

Because Lovecraft is the first author of the twentieth century.  What I mean by that is the H.P. Lovecraft was the first author to fully understand the anomie of the twentieth century as science removed humanity from its lofty position in the heavens.  The culture dissonance that would occur after the First and Second World Wars was preluded by H.P. Lovecraft.  His fiction divorces human beings of universal importance; to Lovecraft the universe is cold, and inhabited by beings so vast and powerful that their actions cannot even be described as malicious or aggressive.  They simply are, and to confront them is to beard madness.

For all of these reasons (and probably more) Lovecraft has made something of a comeback in the last few decades.  He's always enjoyed cult status, but the fall of the Soviet Union made him much more salient.  The rise of international terrorism and the absurd turn we've made in light of 9/11 makes him all the more relevant.  The mortgage crisis of 2008.  The Occupy Movement.  All are Lovecraftian.  Because he's all about forces beyond our understanding, and he knows that to confront them is to fall victim to madness.

Writers have paid tribute to Lovecraft for decades, but much of the earlier work focused on expanding the mythos Lovecraft had created.  August Derleth, who did the most to rescue Lovecraft from obscurity, also traded on the name and expanded the world that Lovecraft created, embedding his own moral and theological beliefs into a universe that Lovecraft understood to be largely amoral. 

Recently, I have had the pleasure to read two different takes on Lovecraft, and the idea of an uncaring, hostile universe.  The first was given to me as a gift, and features Lovecraft in historical settings.  Historical Lovecraft, published by Innsmouth Free Press, features 26 tales divided into roughly three historical epochs: Ancient history, the Middle Ages, and Modern Times.  Very much in the vein of stories initiated by Derleth, each story varies in how closely it hews to Lovecraft.  Some are deeply disturbing, and remind us that the universe is cold and dark; others feel like modern horror.  While you could make the argument that the modern zombie fascination is very Lovecraftian, the menace and the malevolence are simply lacking.  Nevertheless, disentangling Lovecraft from the early twentieth century New England in which he wrote allows us to see the broader implications of his mythos. 

The second collection of short stories is a collection of Lovecraftian science fiction.  The transition from Lovecraftian horror to science fiction is an easy one to make.  Alien seems so much like it came from Lovecraft's own imagination that one has to wonder if HR Giger and the writers (Dan O'Bannon and Ronald Shusett) weren't channeling his spirit.  Initially considered a horror movie, Alien has come to be regarded as seminal in a new style of science fiction in the universe is--you guessed it--cold and amoral; daring to look it in the eye may reduce to you a gibbering mass.

Space Eldritch, published as an ebook (with a print version on the way) by Cold Fusion Media, takes a somewhat different approach.  Narrower in scope than Historical Lovecraft, the stories themselves are more intimate and less disturbing.  Science fiction owes a debt of gratitude to Lovecraft, and it shows in the writing of these pieces.  Often paying tribute to pulp sensibilities as much as to Lovecraft, except for a few touchstone Lovecraftian images, few of the pieces seem to disentangle themselves from the science fiction tropes we've become familiar with.  Both Mission to Mars (the godawful travesty featuring Gary Sinise and Tim Robbins) and Paul Verhoeven's Total Recall make appearances when we encounter something menacing lurking beneath the Martian soil (to be fair, however, Philip K. Dick's influence is just as ubiquitous in science fiction as Lovecraft is in horror.) 

Ultimately, this collection of stories simply lacks the menace of Lovecraft.  Maybe that's a product of our times.  We've become used to the idea that science has all the answers.  Or at the very least, that answers exist.  Lovecraft was less interested in that than in examining a universe beyond human ken.  And I think the authors of Space Eldritch have failed that test.  They're fully a part of the modern zeitgeist.  Maybe we can't go back, but I like to think that Lovecraft is still viable and an important perspective in these uncertain times.

Between Two Fires Review

By Steven McLain

War, once more, has erupted in Heaven.  Not content with their place in Hell, the fallen angels have once more made war against Heaven.  But in their struggle, they have not yet been able to pierce the walls of Heaven and instead have turned their eyes on the Creation of the Lord.  Caught between Heaven and Hell, the sons of Adam, and daughters of Eve, are left undefended as the angels struggle to defend their realm.  Because in Christopher Buehlman's sophomore novel Between Two Fires, the Lord does not avail Himself to defend either His realm, or His creation. 

Battle of Crécy

In an attempt to usurp the Lord's place, the fallen have turned their attention to the earth, and have seemingly unleashed the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Death, Famine, Pestilence and War.  But Buehlman does something unique with this oft-turned trope: Instead of setting his novel in the present and drawing analogy to wars and rumors of them, Between Two Fires is set in the fourteenth century France.  During the height of the Hundred Years War, he dares suggest that the horrors of Crécy and the pestilence of the Plague that nearly destroyed Europe in 1348 were the work of nefarious agents, as many suspected, and in fact believed.

The story follows a knight errant, a waif, and a priest whose entire village has been emptied by the plague.  Buehlman doesn't suffer modern sensibilities.  The coarseness of the fourteenth century abounds.  Feudal, paternalistic, harsh, we're treated to an intimate portrait of a world we should be glad has left us behind.  Beginning with the near rape of our fourteen year-old hero, Delphine, we're immediately greeted to the sight of a village decimated by bubonic plague.  Defending Delphine from the depredations of his wandering brigands, our knight Thomas grudgingly takes her under his wing, or she takes him under hers, as she can see angels. 

Joan of Arc, 1485

This is not the first time we've heard of French girls heeding the advice of angels and saints.  Joan of Arc would lead her people to victory against the English a few years later and galvanize French nationalism.  But against charges of heresy, Joan fared worse than Delphine, who in Buehlman's novel, has been inspired to correct much of what the fallen have undone.  That journey, part Canterbury Tales and a great deal of Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror (to which he pays homage in the acknowledgements), leads through Paris, many smaller towns and villages, and eventually ends in Avignon.  Along the way, Thomas battles aberrations, demons and monstrosities of various sorts, both mortal and immortal.  We see the inhumanity of antisemitism, the prejudice and superstition of an age before Enlightenment, and the horrors of a world in which government is as often predator as it is protector of the people. 

Palais des Papes, Avignon

Unfortunately, the novel disintegrates roughly three-fourths through, as Delphine and Thomas arrive at the gates of Avignon.  The threat posed by the demons is clarified, but the menace is lacking.  Somehow, imagining demons as the ultimate source of our own worst excesses seems shallow, and though we'd expect deus ex machina in a story that features angels, demons, and the Lord as characters, somehow the climax lacks the divine grandeur one would expect.  The denouement, however, is poignant, and underscores the redemptive theology of Catholicism at that time, the same theological thread which would wind through many facets of Protestantism in later centuries. 

Ultimately, Between Two Fires is a book that demands a reasonable knowledge of Medieval history, and particularly the vagaries of the Hundred Years War.  For instance, one must know that schism in the Church had induced the Pope to relocate to Avignon; that Crécy was the first instance of the domination of the English longbow on French battlefields, and not the storied fields of Agincourt; and, especially, the sometimes strange feudal relationship between villein and seigneur.  These details definitely reveal much of what Buehlman cannot take the time to say, and I wonder how someone without that knowledge would read this book. 

While I would definitely recommend this book, I would not recommend it universally.  Those with an interest in the Middle Ages, or have some background knowledge, will find it thoroughly enjoyable.  I cannot speak to the pleasure others will garner.  So, mixed recommendation.

Slavery, Sir; It's Done . . . Or, Lincoln Movie Review

By Steven McLain

"Slavery, sir; it's done."

With these words, Daniel Day-Lewis's Lincoln has shattered Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens's dreams of a settled peace with the Union.  Or, at the least, a return to the Union without emancipation.  Cleverly realizing the shaky legal ground of the Emancipation Proclamation, Spielberg's Lincoln is desperate for a Constitutional amendment that will solidify its legality.  Slavery is at the heart of this movie, and Spielberg doesn't shy away from the moral minefield of the Civil War.  Impatient with anything other than the central issue of slavery as the driving force behind the Civil War, Lincoln narrates the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a document which eliminates slavery in any form from the Union.

Based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning book Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin, Daniel Day-Lewis's Lincoln embodies the spirit of the sixteenth president, a man haunted by the specter of war, by the memory of his dead son, and by the driving impetus of history.  He understands the unique place he's been granted, and ponders the decisions that have placed him in that moment.  But he is a ruthless, dictatorial man, bent on accomplishing a mission that might just split the country anew.  Though that mission is the complete abolition of slavery in the United States, we still see the burning passion of a man willing to push the Constitution beyond the breaking point to see it passed.

At his heart though, this Lincoln is a storyteller and a questioner.  Wandering the halls of the War Department in the wee hours of the morning, he sits with soldiers and listens to their complaints and answers their questions.  His parables explore deeper questions, hoping to unearth answers, yet comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty.  Despite that comfort however, he remains deeply troubled by them.

These characteristics make Stephen Spielberg's Lincoln both human and humane, and we're treated to the intricacies of White House domestic life, as well as the personal politics played between husband and wife.  Sally Fields is indomitable as Mary Todd Lincoln, who was as much a rock upon which the real Lincoln stood as the weight that bore him down.  We see, too, the anguish of a father mourning for his son while embedded in a war that has riven a nation; we see the terror and heartbreak of a father desperate to keep another son from joining that war.

This isn't the whole Lincoln, of course.  Glaringly absent is the Lincoln who may not have believed in racial equality, or the Lincoln who crafted policy based on his experience with Frederick Douglass.  Furthermore, this is a movie that emphasizes the top-down nature of emancipation; slavery is abolished by white men; it is accomplished by the president.  And though Spielberg gets issues of manhood right, he glosses over gender issues as political factors.

Ultimately, however, this is a biopic of a single man's experience with a great and terrible thing: The Civil War.  That it happens to be Abraham Lincoln's experiences is almost immaterial.  It is the story of a man striving to do something great with his life, believing he has been thrust into circumstances beyond his ability and understanding.  It reminds me of Frodo Baggins lamenting his responsibility; he wishes none of this had come to him and Gandalf replies, "So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us."

The movie, as such, is beautiful.  It is intimately shot, and depicts the grit and grime of the period; John William's score is reminiscent of all his martial scores since Saving Private Ryan.  With  Janusz Kamiński as Director of Photography, a long-time associate of Spielberg's, the movie has the same quiet verisimilitude of most Spielberg movies.  Ultimately, this is a stark, personal drama about the final days of President Lincoln, and his crusade to abolish slavery.

I would highly recommend this movie.

The Doctor, Jacob Marley, and Me . . . Or, A Doctor Who Christmas Prequel

Helping to raise funds for the BBC's annual charity Children In Need, Matt Smith and Jenna-Louise Coleman are here to introduce this a prequel to this year's Doctor Who Christmas special.

Awesome!  Did you love it?  I did.  Tell me what you thought in the comments below.

Weekend Update . . . Or, Lincoln's Revenge!

It's Friday again, and once more I'll recap the week and let you in on what's happening this weekend. 

First, Lincoln is being released today.  Based on the Pulitzer prize-winning Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin, Lincoln is the story of the eponymous president struggling with the carnage of the Civil War while pushing for emancipation.  Originally slated to star Liam Neeson, who dropped out because he felt he was too old for the role, the movie stars Daniel Day-Lewis as President Lincoln, and Sally Fields as Mary Todd Lincoln.  It looks interesting from a historical bent and I was pleased that Daniel Day-Lewis was able to capture the tone and timbre of the thirteenth president.  I'll be seeing this and it seems like a pretty good bet.

Other than that, there's Wreck It Ralph, from Disney, which has been getting a lot of word-of-mouth publicity.  Everything I've heard so far is good--good voice acting, good story, good CGI.  The only complaint so far is that its many pop culture references are directed toward an audience older than the usual cartoon demographic.  Bring your kids, or go see it on your own, seems to be the general consensus.  Either way you'll probably like it.

Also, if you haven't seen it yet, go see Skyfall.  I've already reviewed it here, but suffice to say, it was very good and definitely worth your time.

I just finished Between Two Fires, by Christopher Buehlman and I'll have the review up probably around Tuesday.  Quick snapshot: It's good.  Not as accessible as Those Across the River, and with a heavy dose of Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror, but otherwise a fun read.  That means that I've started The Twelve by Justin Cronin. 

Also, I've just started reading a new collection of Lovecraft inspired short stories/novellas.  Space Eldritch is a collection of science fiction stories with a Lovecraftian bent; I heard about it from Howard Tayler (Hugo award-nominated for his web comic Schlock Mercenary, and co-hosting of the writing advice podcast, Writing Excuses) whose long short story "Flight of the Runewright" holds pride-of-place as the capstone story. 

In publishing/book news, Sir Terry Pratchett has decided to turn over control of his Discworld franchise to his daughter, author and game writer, Rhianna Pratchett.  Diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 2007, Terry Pratchett has nevertheless remained active, and Rhianna is already working on the Discworld television show The Watch.  Head on over to tor.com for the rest of the details.

TV news: Elizabeth Henstridge and Ian De Caesstecker have joined the cast of Joss Whedon's S.H.I.E.L.D TV show.  You can get the full story at The Hollywood Reporter.

Hey, check this out.  James Franco as the Wizard of Oz?  You better believe it.  Directed by Sam Raimi and set to be released in 2013.

And here's the new Hobbit TV Spot:

That's my weekend, what about yours?  Let me know in the comments.

Where Have All the Good Super-Women Gone?

Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow

By Steven McLain

Superheroes are here to stay.  The success of The Avengers, Batman, and the reboot of the Spiderman franchise have done nothing but demonstrate the viability of superheroes as money-makers.  The question remains, though: Why aren't there any lady superheroes?  Sure, we've got Black Widow in The Avengers, but can you really call her a superhero?  Agent provocateur, definitely, but can you really classify her ability to get information from people as a super power?

Yeah, there's talk of Wonder Woman in the forthcoming DC/Warner Justice League movie, and the CW, who made Superboy and the Green Arrow fan favorites, have decided to reboot Wonder Woman on the small screen.  Focusing on her up-and-coming years, instead of as an established hero, CW is hoping to reproduce the success of Smallville.  The difficulty for them, however, lies in the fact that fans of Wonder Woman are really more concerned with her costume (or lack thereof) than with a strong, female superhero.  When NBC tried to reboot Wonder Woman with Joss Whedon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), fans rejected Adrianne Palicki as the iconic amazon because she wore pants.

Adrianne Palicki

If superheroines are to destined to become viable properties--as well as role models for impressionable young girls--the focus has to shift away from their . . . ahem, assets . . . and instead focus on strong character, a story that resonates with audiences, and the sense that they can be taken seriously.  Because, let's be honest: People don't take superheroines seriously.  Part wish-fulfillment and part wet-dream, superheroines typically lack the depth of more established superheroes.  There's really no shame in this; for decades the accepted demographic of superhero comics was boys and young men; skimpy outfits and bulging bosoms boosted sales.

Frankly, I think the answer isn't a top-down revolution instigated by publishers; I think it's a bottom up revision arising from a new crop of female writers and artists, and a commitment to art that exemplifies realism.  That last one's going to be hard, because at their core, these comics are escapist literature; superheroes, by definition, exceed reality.  They wouldn't be superheroes otherwise.  But the solution is there, I think, and it lies with women interested in comics and willing to bring that sensibility to the industry. 

Dark Knight of the Soul . . . Or, Iron Man Versus Batman!

By Steven McLain

With the recent success of Marvel's Avenger franchise, and DC/Warner's Batman franchise, I've been thinking a lot about how particular superheroes might match up in a fight.  Of course, there have been these types of mash-ups ad nauseum.  So I thought I might do something a little different.  Instead of the comics, I'm going to stick to movie continuities.  So, in this mash-up, it's Iron Man v. Batman, but only Christian Bale's Batman and Robert Downey Jr.'s Iron Man.

At first, I thought this might be pretty cut and dried.  Iron Man wins from the outset; he's got tank-busting mini missiles, he can fly, and oh yeah, he's got a superweapon exo-suit.  But breaking down the specifics, I think there's a lot of competition from Batman, and the decision isn't as cut and dry as I thought it would be.

First of all, Iron Man and Batman both have alter egos.  Tony Start and Bruce Wayne, respectively, are each brilliant, driven men.  They have access to seemingly inexhaustible wealth and have few scruples about how they use it.  Tony Stark is driven by insecurity vis-a-vis his father; Bruce Wayne is driven by grief over the death of his parents and desperate for revenge.  Tony Stark has an arc-reactor in his chest; Bruce Wayne knows kung-fu (or some variation thereof).

So, Bruce Wayne easily kicks Tony Stark's butt.  Stick Tony in the Iron Man platform, however, and things swing in his favor.  I've already mentioned the tank-busting mini-missiles, and the fact that he can fly.  So, basically, all he has to do is hover a few hundred feet off the ground and launch blasts of plasma at Batman.  Not even the graphite faceplate and the fancy Batsuit are going to save him from that. You can argue that the Tumbler and the Bat-wing might be able to counter some of that fire-power, but I counter with TANK-BUSTING mini-missiles. 

So one-on-one doesn't look so good.  But Iron Man has Stark Industries, and Batman has Wayne Enterprises.  Their resources offer them a distinct advantage.  Forbes every year estimates the net worth of fictional characters, and recently assessed the value of each.  Tony Stark comes in at $9.3 billion; Bruce Wayne trails with $6.9 billion.  At first, I'm a little skeptical of these numbers.  Sure, it seems like a lot, but it makes you wonder what Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are doing with their billions.

Connections seem to be everything in this case, as Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark are willing to leverage the power, influence and pockets of their companies toward their crime-fighting ends.  Batman turned every cell phone in Gotham into a Joker-detection device, opening him to charges of fascism.  Tony Stark can not only hack TVs (and we assume computers) at a distance, he has a more comprehensive intelligence network than the United States government.  So they both have access to incredibly advanced technology, and we've already established that Iron Man would win in stand-up fight.  The only question remains is whether Batman would ever show up at that fight.

Frankly, I don't think he would.  Batman is too cagey for that.  Despite charging in after Bane, Batman is a creature of the shadows, who has been trained in the arts of deception and misdirection.  We have to assume he would strike from the darkness, letting Tony Stark blunder around tossing off pot-shots and one-liners.  Maybe his concierge Happy could point him in the right direction, but without someone else giving Stark strategic direction, he's all too happy lumbering around in the dark.

And let's face it.  Batman is more than willing to risk it all to win.  He took the fall for Harvey Dent; he let his ancestral home burn to the ground; with a broken back he still managed to escape an inescapable prison and return to face his nemesis.  And he had his heart broken twice.  He knows pain, and he's willing to push through.  Stark, when the going gets tough, bails.

That weakness of character is ultimately why I think Batman would win in a superhero fight between the two of them.  He's wise enough not to confront Iron Man where he doesn't have the upper ground, and he's ruthless enough to give it everything he's got.

Agree?  Disagree?  Let me hear who you think would win in the comments below.

His Grimm Materials . . . Or, Philip Pullman Retells The Bros Grimm

By Steven McLain

On November 8th, the 200th anniversary of the first publication of the Brothers Grimm Fairy Tales, Viking Adults released a retelling of Grimm's Fairy Tales, as retold by Philip Pullman.

While publishers, and readers, are constantly vying for new editions of beloved tales, what's worrying about Pullman's retelling is the dearth of stories it contains.  With only fifty stories retold (and offered commentary and introduction) this is about a third of the stories contained in the two volumes of the original.  Pullman has decided to omit many of the more obscure stories, possibly because of their worrisome content or the historical distance of hundreds of years and several revolutions, political as well as social and technological.

The point, basically, is that the world has changed, and children--and their parents--are not the same receivers of stories as they once were.  We expect morals in our stories, or at least an orientation toward good that reinforces the triumph of good over evil.  But Grimms' fair tales offer no such consolation.  Instead, they present a weird, capricious world where evil may win, where vengeance is lauded, and where nature is both unknown and unknowable. 

While I understand the position from both Pullman and the publisher's perspective, I think we do a disservice to ourselves by omitting the strangest and most disturbing of these stories.  This is a different world, and we ought to remind ourselves of those differences; what better way than through story?  We are gripped less by plague, violence, hunger and social injustice--we live in a world fundamentally different than the world in which German housewives cautioned their children with fairy tales.

And for that we ought to reflect deeply, and often, on the changes which wrought our world.  The only way to do that is through the rich world of Grimms' Fair Tales, unexpurgated. 

Skyfall Review

John "Houzer" Smith

By Steven McLain

"There are no more shadows."  This was the repeated message in the new James Bond movie.  Once more reprising his role as James Bond, Daniel Craig is a much older, wearier and jaded super-spy.  The theme of the movie, in fact, is whether or not the Bond Initiative (as I'll take to calling MI6's double-oh program), should be continued.  **Warning, MINOR spoilers ahead**

Shadows, here, refer to the secret world of espionage in which Bond lives.  Repeatedly, politicians, administrators, even the bad guy, assert that the internet and our dependency on information systems have made the world a more transparent place.  The shadow world of Bond and MI6--and ostensibly the Cold War Manichean politics that spawned it--is no longer a tangible reality.  Intelligence is about something else.

This is just the tip of the iceberg though, as the ongoing debate harkens to something deeper: whether or not HumInt (or human intelligence) is even an avenue we ought to be taking, as the world careens toward information dominance.

The movie continually reiterates the message that with just a few lines of code the world can be hacked.  In a way, they're right; as networks, and especially systems of networks, become more integrated, a failure in one might snowball into the complete collapse of another.

Recently, US warplanners have demonstrated the vulnerability of networks during war exercises.  Wolf Blitzer, in a CNN special entitled "We Were Warned," convenes former US officials to respond to a simulated cyber-attack designed to "highlight the vulnerability of interdependent systems."  You can read the full analysis at Nature, but the message is clear: Failures snowball.  Cyber attacks represent the future of warfare, and as such, a world power ought to actively consider the way in which intelligence is not only gathered, but policed and protected.  Skyfall is thus about protecting secrets, and the necessity of continuing human intelligence gathering operatives throughout the world.

Indeed, when the War on Terror first ramped up, intelligence agencies increasingly became alarmed by the lack of eyes on the ground, and especially means of infiltrating terrorist cells--the CIA and others had already shifted toward more "eyes in the sky" style surveillance, and while powerful, lacked the initiative and intuition of agents on the ground.  Thus the shift toward a style of intelligence gathering that now integrates informants, agents, drones and satellites, as well as powerful data-sifters that continually monitor the flow of information.

Skyfall, however, maintains the notion that all this information is simply an extension of human networks; that is, human beings use and manipulate information to our own ends and that technology is simply a tool we use.  Manipulating those tools, however, influences our decisions, so maintaining the integrity of our information is vitally important.  Indeed, the object of Bond's search throughout the movie is not leaked State secrets, nor plans to a new missile defense system, or even the itinerary of the Prime Minister; rather, it is a list of agents in the field.  Of every agent in the field.  Not only that, it's a list that allies of the English government were unaware of, thus opening MI6 not only to threat by foreign governments and terrorist cells, but intense scrutiny by allied powers.

The action only really begins once James Bond is killed, shot by his own partner from atop a train.  Plunging hundreds of feet into a river, he floats downriver and is presumed dead by M (once more played by Dame Judi Dench).  Of course, we know that James Bond cannot die, especially before the opening credits (continuing the kaleidoscopic style of Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, and notably absent of nude women cunningly concealed to keep a PG-13 rating), but his whereabouts remain unknown until he returns to MI6 once it has been bombed. 

Returning, Bond is subjected to a slew of qualifying tests: All of which he fails.  Bond, the omnipotent, unfailing Bond, is gone and we're left with a man older, quieter and more aware of his own mortality.  Director Sam Mendes has done a superb job crafting a fallible hero who reflects the failings of the system he represents.  The success of the movie, however, lies not in its cunningly crafted analysis of intelligence systems in a world dominated by the internet, but rather the deeply personal conflicts between Bond, M, and their pasts.  Bond is forced to confront the death of his parents; M must contend with her own choices forced upon her by the exigencies of the shadow-world that she contests still exists. 

A movie with heart, wit and a lot of brains to match its brawn, I would heartily recommend this movie to all my friends.

Seen it?  Want to see it?  Just want to let me know your thoughts on Intelligence in a post-terrorist world?  Let me hear them in the comments.

How To Be Awesome and Have Fun Doing It . . . Or, Weekend Round-out

I've decided that Fridays are going to be devoted to a brief synopsis of cool things that happened in the last week, or cool things to do over the weekend.  These could be up-coming, or recently released movies, or movies you just plain need to see; these could be upcoming author signings; these could be books I'm currently reading and excited about . . . the list continues!  But regardless, it's a quick and easy way for me to let you know what happening in the wider world of awesome.

First.  Go see Argo.  You can read my review here, but suffice to say it's my favorite movie out at the moment.

Then, go see Skyfall.  It's the 27th James Bond movie and it's been getting incredible reviews.  It's on my agenda this weekend.

I'm in the middle of Christopher Buehlman's Between Two Fires and so far it's great.  It's the story of an excommunicate knight, a priest and a young girl who sees angels trying to make their way in fourteenth-century France.  Set during the Hundred Years War and not far on the heels of the disaster at Crécy, it has everything you could want in a historical fiction, but it's not entirely historical fiction.  It's also horror, fantasy and that weird blend of Gothic that Buehlman did so well in Those Across the River.

I also have The Twelve by Justin Cronin on my shelf.  The sequel to The Passage, it continues the story of the end of the world after a viral plague has turned most of the population into vampires.  The Passage, with its sudden and inexplicable conclusion distressed me enough to recommend no one read that book, but I've mellowed in the meantime, and now I recognize just how awesome (most) of the book actually is.  Now that the second in a planned trilogy has been released, I think you should give it a look.

Also, since the buyout of Lucasfilm to Disney has sent shock waves through the geek community, I thought I'd temper that with news of the merger of Random House (who publish Christopher Paolini, Dan Brown, and Jean Auel, among others), and Penguin Group (who publish titles by Patricia Cornwell, Tom Clancy, Laurel K. Hamilton among others, and who recently published No Easy Day), two of the largest book publishers in the world.  They're hoping to use their combined powers for good, offering brick-and-mortar stores a new vitality.  While they're not the juggernaut either Disney is, or Lucasfilm was, they nevertheless come in at a whopping $4 billion in yearly profit; that's some clout to throw around, and the resources a publisher needs to make some innovated but risky decisions.  I'm looking forward to seeing what they come out with.

And since I seem to be on a zombie kick this week, the new trailer for "World War Z" has been released to the internet.  World War Z is the documentary-style book written by Max Brooks (of The Zombie Survival Guide fame) that details the last days of humanity, and the reconquest of the planet by small pockets of human beings.  Based on the trailer, it seems like that documentary style has been completely abandoned; instead we're treated to the usual paint-by-numbers action flick starring Brad Pitt.  The movie does, nonetheless, depict some truly terrifying zombies.  Still excited to see the movie, but not quite as excited as I was two years when I heard about this being made into a movie.  Take a look:

Zombies Need Hugs Too . . . or, Humans Versus Zombies and the People Who Love Them

HvZ just finished.  In case you're wondering--yeah, I live on a college campus, and no, I don't play Humans versus Zombies.  But do I watch longingly from the sidelines.

HvZ (as we'll call it from here on out) is generally a college-wide event that takes place twice a year, during Spring and Fall terms.  It encourages Nerf sales and the stock-piling of stale marshmallows, and it brings people who might not otherwise see the light of day into the bracing fall air.  Basically, HvZ is a live-action roleplaying scenario, which simulates the (eventual and forthcoming) zombie apocalypse.  Players are encouraged to treat the whole thing as if zombies might actually jump out at you from around the corner.  And indeed, they might.

Their website calls it a "game of moderated tag," and what began as a simple game at Goucher College in 2005 has evolved into a cross-country extravaganza, inspiring corporate sponsorship, a documentary, and widespread media coverage.  So what's the big deal? 

Something like this needs an impetus.  Enough ink has been spilled over the sudden fascination with and revival of end-of-the-world speculation.  2012 is on the way, cults have loudly declaimed end-of-days (and then had to recalculate when it never showed up) and the ominous specter of terrorism looms over our heads.  And there's something to all that.

But why zombies?  Some have suspected that zombies represent a truly modern fear that transcends horror; not just the breakdown of society, but the complete disintegration of humanity.  Stant Litore, author of The Zombie Bible offers a few suggestions as to their continuing popularity.  He makes some good points, and mentions the thousands of people who annually dress up as zombies for zombie-walks nationwide.  So the enduring appeal of zombies remains.  

Think about it; we've been told that we're slaves to the machine.  We're manipulated and propagandized; the choices we think are our own are simply the machinations of Madison Avenue or a shadowy cabal of government agencies.  We go to war based on misinformation; we euphemize the truth and parse it into ever smaller bits.

We ultimately suspect that we are little more than mindless consumers, ever on the prowl for new things to consume--new toys to purchase, new iPhones to wait mindlessly in line for.  We are becoming, in a sense, zombies.

So maybe that's the psychology behind our fascination with zombies.  But it doesn't explain why hundreds of people would dress up for a week just to run around and act like Mad Max with a Nerf gun.  I think its something a little more primal than the need to survive; its the need for camaraderie.  We're communal creatures, and we have all experienced the anomie of modern times.  We feel isolated, lonely and downright individual.  We want to participate in a mass gathering, a collection of like-minded others who have the same passions.  Ultimately, then, HvZ is a confirmation of life, a reiteration of what makes us all human.  The yearning for connection and the hope we'll find someone just as screwball as we are.

November Update

I forgot to post what I'm up to, so here I'll remedy that. 

First on the agenda: I voted.  We have voting by mail here in Oregon and I took full advantage of that to get my ballot in early. 

Second: School.  I have a lot of papers heaped on me this week and next and I'm not looking forward to the late-night writing sessions. 

Third: Gotta write some stories.  I've been working on things for class; they're really outside my comfort zone but I think they're helping me see story-telling in a different light. 

Fourth?  Not sure there's anything else on my plate, but if I think of it I'll let you know. 

Whoa, whoa, whoa!  Plate?  November?  How could I have forgotten!  Thanksgiving is what's on my plate and a whole heaping pile of it at that.  I'm looking forward to getting away from college food and chowing down on my mom's pumpkin pie (or Costco's, whichever the case may be this year). 

What have you got planned?  Let me know in the comments.

When the Dead Walk . . .

Who would you rather have on your side: Rick, or Shane?  If you're not sure what I'm talking about, take a few hours or days to watch the first two seasons of The Walking Dead on Netflix.  The premise is simple.  Rick, the cop gets shot and falls into a coma.  During that time, the world comes to an end.  Zombies walk the earth.  He wakes up a few days later and has to make his way through the ravaged city, desperate for answers and to find his wife and son.  Meanwhile, said wife and son think Rick is dead and have come to rely on his best friend Shane to protect them.  Wife sleeps with Shane, Rick catches up to them.  Cue portentous music.

The television show, produced by AMC (probably the most innovative network on American television), is based on the series of graphic novels of the same name by Robert Kirkman, Tony Moore, and Charlie Adlard.  It follows the trials of a small band of people trying to escape Atlanta and make their way someone, anywhere, that's safe.  The dangers of the zombie apocalypse are exacerbated by the secrets each character possess, and the fault-lines dividing the camp.

That's the quick and dirty.  I recently caught up on the second season so I can jump into the third, currently airing.  I was struck by the dynamic between Shane and Rick.  Although Shane slept with Rick's wife--and even though Rick isn't exactly cool with it--he accepts that his family and Shane believed that he was dead.  It was one of those instances of forgiveness in extremis.  But the major contention that divides the two friends is the manner with which they deal with danger.  Shane sees danger in its immediate context: How it's a danger to the woman and child he believes he loves.  Rick sees danger in the context not only of the group he has become leader of, but also to the group's humanity and in regards to longer survival goals.  He sees survival as more than a zero-sum game.

They're both right.  Sometimes danger comes at you and you have shoot it in the head.  But other times are less black and white.  Highlighting the difference is the moral dilemma facing them both in the second season.  What to do with a prisoner they've saved/captured?  Shane understands from the beginning that they will probably have to kill the prisoner so that he cannot return to his own group and lead them to the small band of survivors Shane and Rick are both trying to protect.  From his perspective, killing the prisoner is the only option available to them.

But Rick sees the death in larger terms.  Not only does he want to protect the group, but the last shards of humanity they're all desperately clinging to.  He understands that the world they've inherited is cold and unfeeling, and with a child already succumbing to it, he wants to keep it as far at bay as possible.  But there's something else at play.  Rick understands that people are feeling, communal beings, and the connections we all form are just as important to our survival in crisis situations as the existential threats beating at our doors.  In a few words: We're more than the air we breathe.

So when the world ends, who do you want on your side?  Shane, who'll keep you breathing by doing everything possible, including leaving you to die if you become a burden to the group?  Or Rick, who will fight and sacrifice to keep you alive and offer you hope?  In the calm of your office (or wherever you're reading this) the answer seems simple.  I'd pick Rick, and most of the people seem to, and the writers of both the graphic novel and the television show seem to lean that way.  Shane, though, has definite advantages.  With the ruthlessness to get stuff done, he offers a viable means of surviving to the next day.

But I'm glad most people would pick Rick, because it offers us a method of preserving our humanity in the face of almost certain doom.  And that's reassuring.  Regardless, I'm excited for season three.

Who would you pick?  Rick the strategist, or Shane the tactician?  Let me know in the comments.

May Flights Of Angels Lead You To Sobriety . . . Or, Flight Review

Flight, directed by Robert Zemekis and starring Denzel Washington, is the story of William "Whip" Whitaker, an alcoholic who also happens to be a pilot.  I walked into this movie knowing very little, save what I'd seen on the trailers.  It looked like it was about a pilot who'd pulled off the miraculous crash-landing of his plane, a la Sully Sullenberger.  The trailer made it sound like the pilot was then going to be the target of a malicious government smear campaign to discredit his heroism and miraculous flying.

That's about the opposite of what this movie is about.  It's about addiction, redemption and the dark night of the soul.  And then its about the leap of faith that moves an alcoholic from his addiction toward salvation.  The religious themes in this movie were abundant, perhaps even overbearing, and it often meandered toward maudlin.  But at its core it's a movie about a man coming to terms with an addiction in the face of intense scrutiny.

Maybe all addicts feel this way.  I have to imagine that the lying and repression makes every question by a concerned loved one feel like an interrogation, and the well-intentioned inquiries are as intrusive as a horde of paparazzi.  So framing the story of alcoholism in the light of a plane crash is a good way of looking at how alcoholics come to terms with themselves and the consequences of their addiction.

As Zemekis's first live-action movie since Cast Away, it is ably directed, with fine work from everyone involved.  But the tone of the movie is simply off. So many of the appalling actions made by Whitaker are presented in a humorous and down-right comedic tone, so that the audience is left wondering what the big deal was anyway.  Binge drinking, snorting coke, driving drunk, flying drunk, are all presented with a humorous undertone so that when the eventual rock-bottom is hit, we're left wondering why.  Whitaker never seemed to have experienced his dark night of the soul; his leap of faith is made for the benefit of the audience, not the character.  This oddly inverted tone left me feeling uncertain, and at times apathetic.

Ultimately, the movie is a character-driven examination of one man's path toward redemption which meanders in places, is hilarious in some places (especially the use of secondary and tertiary characters--the chain-smoking cancer patient, John Goodman as a drug dealer, and Don Cheadle's deadpan delivery.)  Nevertheless, it was a movie that was heavy-handed, sentimental and sometimes dry.  Overall, it was an uneven job on Zemekis's part, but a fine addition to Denzel Washington, Don Cheadle, Melissa Leo, Bruce Greenwood, Kelly Reilly, and John Goodman's collective oeuvre.

I'd recommend this movie to a friend.

World Fantasy Award Winners

The winners of this year's World Fantasy Award were just announced. 

The competition was tough this year; up for best novel was the Hugo award winning Among Others, but Jo Walton, and the soon-to-be-a-movie Those Across the River by Christopher Buehlman. 

Heavy hitters like G.R.R. Martin and Stephen King were also represented, Martin for his latest addition to the Game of Thrones and King for his time-travel/alternate reality 11/22/63. 

But the winner was an obvious choice for me this year.  I've blogged about it already, raved enough elsewhere, and couldn't be more pleased that Osama by Lavie Tidhar was chosen as the winner of the World Fantasy Award.