The Magic of Science . . . Or, Elysium Review

I saw Elysium last week.  It's taken me a while to comment on Neil Blomkamp's newest sci-fi effort for the simple reason that almost as soon as I left the theater I'd forgotten the movie.  Built around the story of Max (played by Matt Damon), it's a purposeless effort that degenerates into rambling, plotless meandering about halfway through.  Basically, after an industrial accident leaves Max with only five days to live, he sets off on a journey that will take him to Elysium, which possesses technology which can cure him. 

Visually it's a standout, if your baseline for special effects is sometime around 2001.  Everything is as gritty and solid as what you'd expect from Black Hawk Down.  I suppose that's impressive, because in this case nothing is actually real.  Green screen and computer effects abound, and are never intrusive.  This is a good thing.  The world definitely feels real, but there's no real awe in the movie.

And as far as science fiction is concerned, I'm not entirely convinced that this is movie belongs in that genre.  Though it takes place in the future, has some pretty cool tech, there's not a lot of science involved.

Let me explain.  The technology is good, and has a solid, believable feel.  But the science is entirely absent.  The physics of the Elysium hub are wonky, at best, and the medical technology is simply magic.  Apparently in this future, disease is completely eradicated and all it takes to cure even advanced cancer is to wave some sort of "healing light" over the patient's body.

This makes the movie less science fiction and more fantasy. 

It's an ongoing problem as Americans' knowledge of science becomes increasingly divorced from their technological prowess.  A two year-old can manipulate an iPad and operate the Blu-Ray player better than many adults.  Cell phones deliver constant streams of information without the operator needing to know how.  Indeed, the complex ballet of satellites, cell towers, internet trunks, operating systems, computer coding, software, hardware, etc., are totally opaque to most operators.  This makes them inexplicable.

As I've often said, we live in a magical age.  The dictum that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic applies.  The ineffable cause which lies behind the effect of your iPhone making calls and surfing the web means that you experience a sense of powerlessness.  You no longer control your own world, even as you manipulate it.

And we fear what we don't understand.

It's not surprising that conservative Republicans in the United States are pushing back against educational reforms that might actually work.  Comprised largely of the undereducated, they sense their powerlessness and inaccurately attribute it to government interference and shadowy liberal conspiracies.  Certainly, government intrusion is on the rise, and I'm certain PRISM and the NSA are getting a kick out of my ongoing ramblings.  But the real solution isn't withdrawal but increased participation in government and education.

What Elysium suggests is that the merger between corporations and governments (the two are largely indistinguishable in the movie) create uncrossable gaps between rich and power.  That gap is regularly bridged in the movie, however, so I'm not sure just what the moral of the story is supposed to be.  Even more worrying, the director fails to explain how the very limited resources of Elysium can be leveraged to cure the entire planet of its (incomprehensibly many) woes.  Every other person seems to have cerebral palsy, polio, or some other malady and the level of welfare would certainly have exhausted resources a long time ago.  (Which is probably why a very few fled Earth.  It wasn't selfishness but enlightened self-preservation.)

So as far as political statements go, it's milquetoast, and draping a science-fiction action adventure with that pale velvet means the whole movie suffers.  While it didn't suck, and I didn't feel cheated of the price of admission, it was nevertheless kind of blah.  

Wait till it comes out on Netflix.

(But, if you're in the mood for compelling science fiction that happens to also star Sharlto Copley in a supporting role, go see Europa Report.)

(And for a fun read on the actual science behind this movie, take a look at the Stanford torus.)

Lucy In The Sky With F-14s . . . Or, Top Gun Reboot

Recently, I got to thinking about what would make an interesting film.  Ideally, it would be engaging, decently plotted, fast paced and fun. 

Let me back up a bit.  Me and my buddy were hanging out and I said something like, "Even though I thought it was a terrible movie, I really want to see Pacific Rim."  Something about the swaggering ridiculousness of that movie appealed to me. 

But then he commented that all the bad parts would still be bad, but wouldn't be moderated by being unexpected.  I'd know when to cringe and when to sigh.  All I really wanted was to have fun.

So I said something like, "You know what would be fun?" 

That's the idea I want to talk about for a second.

What if we remade Top Gun?  Yep, bring back Maverick and Goose and Iceman and Joker and all the rest.  Exact same story, exact same script.  Update it just a bit by putting them in F-22s and make the MiGs Chinese planes. 

Except instead of this . . .

The only difference is that Maverick is a woman.

Think about it for a second.  Charlie is still a woman.  Goose is still a dude.  The love story remains unchanged except that in the new world where "Don't ask, don't tell" has been repealed, this kind of story makes sense.  (I'd even keep the music.)  But instead of a testosterone fueled romp, it takes on a whole new meaning and there's no inherent reason to even change the dialogue.  (Except for a few pronouns here and there.)

We get this.

It's still a great movie.  It is still full of great action, cheesy dialogue, intense rivalry and random volleyball game in the middle of the movie.  And lest you concern yourself that much of the narrative occurs in the men's locker room--easy fix!  Instead they banter in the gym (or if you want to go CRAAAZY just make it coed). 

So here's your homework for the weekend.  What's your favorite action movie and how does it change (or better yet, how does it remain the same) if you make your protagonist a woman?

Dust In Your Eye . . . Or, A Few Thoughts On Dust 514

Dust 514 is the Playstation  3 side of Eve Online's massive cross-platform push.  Eve Online is the wonderfully addictive space opera that you play from your PC.  As someone who has never played Eve, though, I can't say much about it other than it looks fantastic.  Giant space battles, an in-game economy that makes money in the real world, and a rabid fan-base that makes player interaction not just encouraged but necessary. 

Dust 514 is the planet side version of Eve, and allows players to engage in massive land battles for control of planets.  Built around the Unreal game engine, it boasts neither impressive graphics or novel game play.  But it's free.  It's cross-platform feature means that players on Eve can interact with players on the ground, offering support and in-game currency.  And by capturing planets, (someday) players can benefit their Even compatriots. 

I've grown fond of this game as time wears on.  Like Eve, Dust has a ridiculously steep learning curve and the near necessity of alliances with other players means that just jumping in a running around blasting isn't a viable strategy.  But the ability to customize your character is truly astounding.  Between the four races, there are at least eight variation on dropsuits (each of which has its own pros and cons) and every weapon has three variations.  Between suits, weapons, shield and armor enhancements, and role specialization the customization seems infinite.

Which is what give Dust it's true playability in my opinion.  Anyone can make a free-to-play game that let's players get their jollies off.  The customization in Dust is astounding, and allows you to approach the game differently every time.  And it doesn't hurt that Dust is a part of the massive and deeply immersive Eve universe.  You can go as deep as you want, and the rabbit hole never seems to end. 

At the moment, however, Dust is a Playstation 3 exclusive and I'm unaware if it will be available for the PS4 (though I can't imagine it won't be).  Only recently taken out of beta, CCP is still tinkering.  Renowned for their attention to detail, and their willingness to listen to player input, means that the game will only improve with time. 

If you like first-person shooters, or MMOs, or both, I think you'll enjoy this game.  Give it a shot.

Undaunted Fraud . . . Or, What Is History? Pt 3

Stephen E. Ambrose

This isn't news.  When Stephen Ambrose was accused of citing numerous works nearly verbatim without proper attribution, it was in the middle of the another plagiarism scandal involving Doris Kearns Goodwin.  You might know her from Team of Rivals, the book which laid the foundation for Stephen Spielberg's Lincoln. 

Back in 2002, ferreting out plagiarism in popular history seemed all the rage as journalists and amateur historians began noticing errors and discrepancies in Stephen Ambrose's The Wild Blue.  According to Fred Barnes over at The Weekly Standard, Ambrose lifted substantial sections from Thomas Childers's book Wings of Morning: The Story of the Last American Bomber Shot Down over Germany in World War II.  Childers, a University of Pennsylvania history professor, was attributed in footnotes, but his words remained largely unchanged in Ambrose's book.

At the same time that this was brewing, The Daily Standard turned its attention to Doris Goodwin and noted that much of her work on The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys pulled material from Lynne McTaggart's book, Kathleen Kennedy: Her Life and Times.  As with Ambrose, Goodwin was charged with lifting whole sentences and failing to attribute them properly.  In essence, she claimed another's work as her own.

A bookshop.  Cuz, you know, that's where real history happens.

In work that relies to a considerable extent on the work of others, plagiarism is always a looming danger.  Most academics rely on the research of others; indeed, modern research is more like adding a single pebble to an edifice than in laying foundations or erecting the framework.  We rely on the work of others to reinforce our work, or to support our conclusions.  The interpretation is often unique, and the work is genuine, but it relies on the work of others.  Clearly delineating what is your own from the another's work is necessary to build credibility and reproducibility. 

Because historians rely so heavily on sources, it's often difficult to reproduce certain conclusions.  The necessary documents are sometimes hidden in archives.  Those archives are more often than not on the other side of the country and can be accessed only with difficulty and expense.  So we trust that others have done a good job; that trust is built on an unshakable foundation of historical ethics.  And plagiarism undermines that foundation. 

To her credit, when Goodwin was called on her plagiarism, she responded by acknowledging her error and strove to correct it.  Though many charge that her correctives were insufficient, she nonetheless seemed to respond in a more forthright manner than Ambrose. 

Doris Kearns Goodwin

But his errors were more grievous.  He'd long been in arrears with veterans groups for his sometimes unflattering portrayal of soldiers in the second world war.  Their charges are serious, but far from condemnatory, since historians often make unflattering claims against revered figures and individual experience may differ from the broad summary which historians try to make.  More serious are accusations that Ambrose distorted the historical record or inflated his sources. 

In 2001, after the publication of his book Nothing Like It in the World: The Men Who Built the Transcontinental Railroad, 1863–1869 describing the building of the Pacific Railroad, a group of railroad historians compiled a paper detailing the numerous factual errors it contained.  Writing for the Journal of American History, reviewer Walter Nugent was driven to exasperation by the frequent factual errors.

What initially brought this whole controversy to my attention, however, was the revelation by Tim Rives, Deputy Director of the Eisenhower Presidential Center that Ambrose grossly distorted his relationship with the former President.  As Ambrose told it, Eisenhower approached him to write his biography after the former President read Ambrose's biography of Henry Halleck.  No such thing happened.  In fact it was the other way around, and Rives had the letter to show that Ambrose approached Eisenhower. 

Henry Halleck

When Ambrose's two volume biography was finally published, he cited the hundreds of hours of interviews he had had with the President as the source of many of his conclusions.  Once again, Eisenhower's exhaustive schedule told another story.  It showed Ambrose speaking with Eisenhower three times for a grand total of less than half a dozen hours.  Furthermore, Rives goes on to assert that interview times that Ambros claims in his book Supreme Commander just don't jive with Eisenhower's personal schedule. 

Basically, he made it up. 

This is ridiculously frustrating for a profession that already deals with the lay perception that "you just make stuff up."  The rigors of historical research and writing require that historians adhere to a level of ethical conduct just as strenuous as physical researchers. 

Undaunted Fraud . . . Or, What Is History? Pt 2

The Execution of Lady Jane Grey

Welcome back to my discussion on what history is and what it is not.  I suppose I ought to once again define my terms.  History is everything that came before now; it is the sum of all the moments that came before this one.  The study of history, which unless I specify otherwise is what I mean in this article, is something a bit more specific. 

The study of history is the attempt to create a narrative which approximates as closely as possible the experience of living those moments.  Experience is a loose term, but it requires that someone be around to live those moments.  It's also really helpful (though not always necessary) for them to write down their experience.

But it's impossible to fully recreate the experience of whole peoples, eras, civilizations, societies, et cetera.  It's impossible to even adequately summarize a single life -- even if you were to fill a library with dense volumes. 

Winston as a boy

Think about William Manchester's remarkable biography of the life of Winston Churchill.  At three volumes, each spanning nearly a thousand pages (or more), the biography seems incontrovertible.  A life read about in (let's assume) twenty hours, however, is hardly an adequate approximation of a life which spanned 90 years.  Sufficient, perhaps, but still inadequate. 

Volumes of this size also hide the vast repository of material from which each volume is gleaned.  Personal letters, official correspondence, personal recollections, government papers, diaries, journals, ledgers, tax reports, a myriad of sources are concealed by the authoritative presentation of those three volumes.

And that brings me around to a few short remarks about what a historian actually does.  When I tell people about the research I'm helping my professor do, I usually explain that the historian crafts a narrative from sources.  The comment I get back is, "So you make stuff up."

No, because a historian is beholden to the sources.  Let's look at something I'm researching as an example.  A public figure like President Eisenhower has his day minutely scheduled and it seems easy to trace this historical narrative.  On January 7, 1954, he delivered his State of the Union Address to Congress, in which he explained for the first time the New Look of the American military.  It emphasized a reliance on nuclear weapons to offset the austerity-level defense budget he advocated.  Notably (though not many people took much note) it articulated "massive retaliation" for the first time. 

The Library of Congress

Though he advocated that the United States was stronger with allies than standing alone, President Eisenhower admitted that "while determined to use atomic power to serve the usages of peace, we take into full account our great and growing number of nuclear weapons and the most effective means of using them against an aggressor if they are needed to preserve our freedom."  Importantly, though the United States would refrain from aggression, "we and our allies have and will maintain a massive capability to strike back" [emphasis my own].  (Take a look at the whole thing here.)

Historically, however, we attribute massive retaliation to John Foster Dulles, who was much more belligerent in a speech given to the Council on Foreign Relations on January 12, 1954.  You could (and historians have) make the argument that Dulles's belligerence informed President Eisenhower's later statements; that it was a case of the Secretary of State's tail wagging the President's foreign policy dog.  (Wow, that was a tortured metaphor.)

You can figure this one out.

This debate is entirely academic.  Who articulated massive retaliation first (and I've seen it attributed to others in the Republican Party as far back as 1951) matters if we want to understand where it originate, how it changed, and how the idea influenced Americans -- from the general public to policy makers.  More broadly, it helps vindicate Eisenhower, who was criticized for seeming to golf the presidency away; instead, it reinforces a picture of a man deftly manipulating the levers of state.

When historians are not true to their sources, however, the picture shifts and the events as they occurred are misrepresented.  Misrepresentation leads to being misunderstood, and the value of historical research is cheapened.

A historian must be true to his sources. 

With that said, tomorrow we'll finally get around to talking about plagiarism and the "Imbroglio Ambrose."*

*How the Ambrose Story Developed

Undaunted Fraud . . . Or, What Is History? Pt. I

History fascinates me.  It makes sense then that I'd get a degree in it, and want to pursue a masters, Ph.D and eventually teach it.  That last part is what fascinates me the most.  The modern historian's job is to teach, and they do their job both in the classroom and by constantly reporting the sum of their findings -- either in the form of books, or in peer-reviewed articles.  The telling of story in which the whole truth can never be known, presents inherent challenges.  The first is in answering the question What Is History?

A lay interpretation is something like "the sum of all things which occurred in the past."  But during the twentieth century historians (and just about everyone else) realized that as important as the events are the ways in which they are perceived.  This means that for every event that occurs today, there are millions of equally valid perspectives; history then becomes distilling them into a narrative that approximates truth.  A daunting prospect.  

I've spent the last two months or so reading just about everything ever written on and by Dwight Eisenhower.  I'm working for Dr. Christopher McKnight Nichols write his next book which chronicles the shift in Republican conservatism in the 1952 election of Dwight Eisenhower. 

What makes this project particularly compelling is the breadth of knowledge already compiled about Eisenhower.  His early life is far from fully documented, but from the moment he entered West Point in 1911 his life became documented in performance evaluations, journal articles, efficiency reports, public speeches, private correspondences, government reports, State Department communiques, Congressional Records, magazine and newspaper articles, drafts, memos, and his own letters and diaries. 

The extent of documents is daunting.  Much of it remains locked away in the vaults of the Eisenhower museum, or the Library of Congress, or scattered throughout the United States -- indeed, the world.  But so much more is published that researching from my cubicle in the library is made that much easier.

His first biography was published in 1945, Soldier of Democracy by Kenneth David, and paints the picture of a glorious war hero.  Invested heavily with overtures to greatness, it reads as though David Dwight Eisenhower (the names were reversed later to avoid confusion with his father, also David) had been born in the midst of thunder and lightening and three wizened crones had haggled over his future.  It's well written, but nonetheless is a homogenized "great man" history that paints the victory in Europe as all but inevitable. 

Later biographies follow that model.  Man from Abilene by Kevin McCann is a 1952 biopic published in the midst of his successful bid for the White House.  It's contribution lies in the presentation of Eisenhower's childhood before At Ease, Eisenhower's own reminiscences, was published.  But the adoration remains.  It would remain, in fact, until after Ike's presidency when arm-chair policymakers had begun criticizing and dismantling his two-term run. 

Kay Summersby

In 1948, Kay Summersby published her kiss-and-tell, Eisenhower Was My Boss which didn't so much tell as it intimated that the long and oft-repeated rumors about Ike's wartime lover were true.  After Ike died, Summersby published a follow-up which no longer hinted: it told outright.  The 1976 book was explicit in its title: Past Forgetting: My Love Affair With Dwight D. Eisenhower.  His wife, Mamie, responded by publishing the love letter Ike sent her during the war but it quickly became evident that perhaps the general doth protest too much.

The facade had slipped, and as public perceptions about Ike shifted in the years following his death, historians and pundits began chipping away at his accomplishments.  His presidency became the lens through which his life was viewed, and as nay-sayers began charging him with absenteeism in the White House, they began to suspect that he'd been an absentee general.  Living a life of luxury in England, gallivanting with Kay and his harem of WACs, the picture gradually being painted was a lurid depiction of a man given supreme command not because of his ability to form coalitions, but as a sop to Americans who needed a friendly face to promote the war effort.  Montgomery, Bradley, Patton, Alexander, Spaatz, just about every general other than Ike became responsible for winning the war. 

Ike with SecState John Foster Dulles in 1956

That sort of revisionism is a necessary response to the gushing praise of earlier generations, and it helps inform the contributions of others in that great enterprise.  Defenders of Ike had to answer these charges, and they helped create a picture of the President that was both more subtle and more involved than previous historians suspected.  A master manipulator, he guided U.S. policy through his deft use of his secretary of state, the vice-president, and the CIA.  With his intimate understanding of military procurement and insight into the ways the Army (still) pads its budget, he was able to steer the United States toward disarmament while maintaining national security.  He despaired of a time when a President would arrive who didn't have his knowledge of how the Army worked, understanding that it would ride roughshod over its civilian masters.

But then came Stephen Ambrose.  His two volume biography on Eisenhower remains the most popular depiction of the general and president.  The problem?  Much of it is made up.

Join me on Monday as I discuss Ambrose, making stuff up, and conclude just what history is.

Share The Road . . . Or, Where Not To Shop In Corvallis

Let's talk about customer service.  Here in Corvallis in the old downtown area, four (at least) bicycle shops co-mingle in a small two block stretch.  Peak Sports, Bike N Hike, Corvallis Cyclery, and Cyclotopia all vie for customers' dollars. 

Each store specializes a bit.  Cyclotopia and the Cyclery offer recumbent bikes and accoutrement that seems a bit left of center.  Bike N Hike and Peak Sports are both hybrid shops, offering bicycle gear (and bicycles) as part of "outdoor activities" in general.  Peak Sports has several different store fronts, specializing in outdoors in general, bike stuff, and bike repair.  Bike N Hike is basically just bikes. 

It seems strange that so many stores would crowd the same street, and I wondered if the demand justified the supply.

This is a college town after all, and between the months of September and June the population swells by 26,000 people.  That effectively doubles the population of Corvallis and these stores are all located within easy walking distance of Oregon State University.  During the peak school year, it makes sense that they would have enough dollars to keep the doors open.

And I suspect this is part of the problem.

With so many customers, demand is almost assured.  The money always flows.  This reduces incentive to stress high quality customer service.

Customer service is the single factor which separates two shops with comparable product and price point.  It's literally the difference between buying something at store X or store Y.

This last week, I've been trying to get my bike and myself road ready for the coming fall and winter.  That meant a tune-up on the bike (it was pretty bad) and a jacket that would stand up not only to the rain but also to the copious amounts of sweat biking pumps out.  According to bicycling.com "[a] cyclist can shed two to three pounds an hour while riding hard."  A pound works out to 16 ounces (or two cups) of sweat.  My commute is roughly two and a half hours round trip.  You figure it out.

It's not quite the season to look for waterproof jackets though but Oregon is fickle, and it could rain tomorrow or hold off till November.  I wanted to be prepared.

I did my research, and when I was ready starting shopping around for the best price.  I went to Peak first.

It's a good sized store, seems pretty well stocked.  It certainly had the requisite supply of bikes hanging on the wall.  But walking in is daunting.  First, the five guys standing at the cash register took a long time to acknowledge I'd come into the store.  I wandered into a side room before one of them bothered asking me if I needed any help.  When I laid out my requirements he looked around as if I'd just asked him the dimensions to Noah's Ark. 

"I don't know," he said.

Then he walked away leaving me eyeballing the merchandise.  Finally, I wandered away.  That guy, just then, lost the store at least $200. 

The guys at Bike N Hike were much more helpful, but in that kind of gruff, no-nonsense way you expect from a good mechanic.  They didn't have the jacket I needed either, but they were knowledgeable, and offered me some good advice.  They also did tune ups, something I'd never gotten around to asking about at Peak.  I brought my bike to them and they had it back to me the next day.

But still, I hadn't found my jacket.  A week went by, and I rode into town a few times.  By that point, it was quickly becoming apparent that my butt couldn't handle the pressure.  I needed padded cycling shorts but I didn't want to spend a fortune on them.  Again, I made the rounds.

All other things being equal, I like The Cyclery and Cyclotopia better than Peak and Bike N Hike.  They're smaller stores, and Cyclotopia especially has a kind of artisanal feel.  Their staff are helpful and they have more niche products.  If you're on a recumbent bike, or you need gear that you won't find elsewhere, I'd hit them up first.  But I just needed shorts, and their prices are a bit higher than elsewhere.

Regardless, I wound up going back to Peak against my better judgement.  The situation remained unchanged.  The five guys at the front ignored me for five minutes and when I said I needed shorts they kind of waved me toward the clothing section.  But I must have repeated that I needed a jacket because after another cow-faced "I don't know," a woman came out to ask if I was the customer who'd inquired about the jacket.

Her name is Joy, and she was a Godsend.  Not only did she know her merchandise and help me pick out a jacket that met all my specifications, but when she discovered it wasn't in stock anywhere she called the manufacturer in Portland and had them hunt one down for me.  But I'm one of those shoppers that needs immediate gratification and since I was dropping a couple notes, I wanted it now.  Expedited shipping wasn't too expensive, so I asked her to see if I could get it the next day.  She called to the warehouse and tried to make it happen.

But Joy's shift was ending.  The people at the warehouse had to find the shipment to rush it, so they asked to call back.  Joy turned my order over to one of the guys there (whose name I remember, but I've made an oath not speak ill of anyone on the interwebs) and I left with the expectation that I'd get a call that day saying it was being shipping, and a call the next day saying my jacket had arrived.

I received neither of those calls. 

Dude dropped the ball.  I probably won't shop there again.

The moral of this story is cautionary: Don't shop at Peak in Corvallis.  Or if you must, ask for Joy.

Attempt No Landing Here . . . Or, Europa Report Movie Review

Don't let the title of this blog fool you.  Europa Report, which was initially released to video on demand (in my case, Amazon Direct) lacks much of the daring that would have made it great, but it's still a far better science fiction than anything else on the market right now.

And as the title alludes to, Europa Report basically picks up 2010 if there hadn't been any monolith.  The central conceit isn't that humanity is trying to figure out some giant slab in space, but exploring for the simple joy of exploration.  Yeah, that's it: Space is just cool, and expanding the bounds of human understanding is worth a little risk.  It's the kind of moral the more science fiction needs to take, and makes the ending both inevitable and unforeseen.

The plot is pretty simple.  An international corporation (since the nations of the world no longer seem to care) has been assembled to explore some interesting heat signatures discovered on the surface of Europa.  Cue giant space ship (which actually looks like something we'd send to another planet).

The problems pile up within the first few minutes.  Communications are knocked out by a solar storm, but the crew is unharmed and decides to continue without any word from Earth.  (Though I'm forced to wonder what else they really thought they could do.  It's not like you can just turn around in space.  But I digress, it's not a big deal.)

Director Sebastián Cordero gives us three distinct story-lines.  Using "found footage" is less of a trope here, since it makes perfect sense that everything would be filmed, and getting hold of that footage is adequately explained in the film so the fourth wall remains intact (a problem Apollo 18 had).  The first story line is pure documentary, and interviews the directors of the Europa corp as well as chief engineers to help give context to the story--they're basically exposition.  

The second story line is a bit of a mystery.  We're quickly informed that shortly after losing contact with Earth, something bad happened.  A quick count of characters reveals that someone is missing but we're not told how that person went missing.  Instead, we're left to dwell on the loss and gradually immerse ourselves along with the astronauts in the vast emptiness of space.  It's a compelling emotional appeal which is unfortunately cut short.  Nonetheless, it remains a gripping second act.

The final story line (and most of the third act) is landing on Europa, drilling into the ice and in the words of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, waiting to see what licks the camera lens.  The film could have easily devolved into horror farce, but instead of cultivating worn out horror tropes it expands on the central theme of sacrifice in the face of human understanding.  And the final shot, while completely inevitable remains unexpected and the ultimate sacrifice is rendered triumphal.  

Should you see this movie?  Do you like good science fiction in a form that is intelligent without being oblique?  If yes, then definitely.  If you love action and 'splosions and not much else, then go see Pacific Rim instead. 

***

Update (15 Aug, 2013): The Mary Sue has an intelligent review out now. 

Michael Whelan Is My Hero

I've always enjoyed Michael Whelan's illustrations. 

Eventually, I realized that many of the books I enjoyed had covers by Whelan, and I started picking up books simply because he was on the cover.  In my mind, his covers are what signifies a good sci-fi/fantasy book. 

I was especially excited when I learned that he'd done the cover for Brandon Sanderson's first book in The Stormlight Archive, Way of Kings. 

Tor recently revealed the cover of Words of Radiance, the second book in the Stormlight Archive series.  In the article, Whelan discusses his process, inspiration, and the method of turning fantasy imagery into an illustration on a page.  It's a fascinating article by a master illustrator.

When Does the Music Stop? . . . Or, Game of Thrones Season Three

I'm finally caught up on Game of Thrones.  The HBO television adaptation, that is.  The books?  Not so much.  I just can't get through the first interminable pulp of the first book.  And I'm a little curious how it made it to NPR's top 100 fantasy/sci-fi list.  But that's for another post.  This one is all about Season Trés of the TV show. 

It's sort of like how I imagine that childhood game, musical chairs in hell.  The music just doesn't stop.  My girlfriend summed it up best.  We could have just skipped to the last four episodes and not missed anything.  Lots of walking.  Boobies for no good reason except to keep viewers distracted from the fact THAT NOTHING HAPPENS!  But I know that stuff has happened, two seasons worth of back-stabbing, machinations, war, incest, torture, castration and ice zombies have happened.  But I never had the sense that any of that needed to take place over thirty hours of screen time.  In fact much of it could have been dealt with in a few well-delivered lines of dialogue.  "Whatever happened to Theon Greyjoy?"  "Oh, I believe he's been captured and tortured by a rival house."  "Let's go get him!"  And so forth.

I'm not necessarily a "hater" of the series.  I love the idea, and I love that they've given so much attention to set design and costuming.  But like the book, it feels sprawling in a way that diminishes from all that effort.  Instead of presenting us with a compelling story told through taut narrative, we're drowned in detail and told to ignore the ponderous pace and lackluster plot.  And of course distracted with breasts.  Because apparently we're all too libidinous to want to watch a television series that didn't needlessly exploit women.  (You don't need to tell me it's historically accurate.  A: I know.  And B: This isn't history.)  All the time needlessly spend ogling naked women could have gone to story telling, character, plot.  Anything else, really.

But let me dismount my soapbox.  I'm going to file Game of Thrones in the same category as Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey.  I don't understand the appeal, but I appreciate that people seem to like it.  Let's just agree to disagree.

Man Booker Longlist 2013

I'm a little bit late on the ball this year.  I haven't read any of the books nominated for the 2013 Man Booker Award but I've heard good things about several.  Harvest by Jim Crace and A Tale for the Time Being have been praised as near-genre, and certainly many of this year's nominees play around with the form, and the range is spectacularly diverse.  I'll try to work my way through them in the coming weeks and give you a break from ponderous movie reviews.  

Five Star Billionaire Tash Aw (Fourth Estate)

We Need New Names NoViolet Bulawayo (Chatto & Windus)

The Luminaries Eleanor Catton (Granta)

Harvest Jim Crace (Picador)

The Marrying of Chani Kaufman Eve Harris (Sandstone Press)

The Kills Richard House (Picador) 

The Lowland Jhumpa Lahiri (Bloomsbury)

Unexploded Alison MacLeod ( Hamish Hamilton) 

TransAtlantic Colum McCann (Bloomsbury) 

Almost English Charlotte Mendelson (Mantle) 

A Tale for the Time Being Ruth Ozeki (Canongate)

The Spinning Heart Donal Ryan (Doubleday)

The Testament of Mary Colm Tóibín (Viking)

- See more at: http://www.themanbookerprize.com/news/longlist-2013-announced#sthash.PAaamyCm.dpuf

Five Star Billionaire Tash Aw (Fourth Estate)

We Need New Names NoViolet Bulawayo (Chatto & Windus)

The Luminaries Eleanor Catton (Granta)

Harvest Jim Crace (Picador)

The Marrying of Chani Kaufman Eve Harris (Sandstone Press)

The Kills Richard House (Picador) 

The Lowland Jhumpa Lahiri (Bloomsbury)

Unexploded Alison MacLeod ( Hamish Hamilton) 

TransAtlantic Colum McCann (Bloomsbury) 

Almost English Charlotte Mendelson (Mantle) 

A Tale for the Time Being Ruth Ozeki (Canongate)

The Spinning Heart Donal Ryan (Doubleday)

The Testament of Mary Colm Tóibín (Viking)

- See more at: http://www.themanbookerprize.com/news/longlist-2013-announced#sthash.PAaamyCm.dpuf

Five Star Billionaire Tash Aw (Fourth Estate)

We Need New Names NoViolet Bulawayo (Chatto & Windus)

The Luminaries Eleanor Catton (Granta)

Harvest Jim Crace (Picador)

The Marrying of Chani Kaufman Eve Harris (Sandstone Press)

The Kills Richard House (Picador) 

The Lowland Jhumpa Lahiri (Bloomsbury)

Unexploded Alison MacLeod ( Hamish Hamilton) 

TransAtlantic Colum McCann (Bloomsbury) 

Almost English Charlotte Mendelson (Mantle) 

A Tale for the Time Being Ruth Ozeki (Canongate)

The Spinning Heart Donal Ryan (Doubleday)

The Testament of Mary Colm Tóibín (Viking)

- See more at: http://www.themanbookerprize.com/news/longlist-2013-announced#sthash.PAaamyCm.dpuf