Monday, January 14, 2008

Green Beings from Another Universe

I'm sorry, folks.


I'm sorry I'm delusional about the number of readers I have, and I'm sorry that for that tiny handful (as in, the hand of a tiny person, not a small handful in a regular size hand – think Lego minifig hands) that do read, but I haven't been as productive as I had been in the past.


I think, in fact, going forward, I'm going to try for a more weekly thing, and see how that goes.


What I will say, though, is that in that week, you might get a thick, chunky stew of reviews, instead of just the singular, well thought-out essay. Not really sure if that's a selling point or not. But here we go.


First up, my man Asimov. I will probably say this every time I mention Asimov, Heinlein, Tolkien, and Bradbury, but these guys aren't just masters of the science fiction, they are masters of literature. Asimov, perhaps one of the most prolific writers ever, is most renowned for his Robot and Foundation series, and rightly so. He pretty much set the groundwork for the sweeping historical fiction (in any genre), creatively appropriating Gibbons' Rise and Fall of Rome to extrapolate a future with a similar problem. And the Robot series are the rules to follow if you're going to write accurately about robots – if you don't follow the Three Rules, then your robots simply don't make sense.


Like all great science fiction, the story, while creative and interesting, takes a seat behind the message. Asimov was great at this; his stories were fairly basic—generally hinging on a rather small problem that “If only people would understand!” everything would be resolved. That's not to say there wasn't complexity, but that the complexity was more an exploration of a man's imagination rather than an intricate plot or characters of outstanding depth.


Such is the case with The Gods Themselves, a novel that won both the Hugo and Nebula Awards – the biggies when it comes to science fiction. It is basically the story of individuals who are jilted because their ideas go against the status quo. All of them are concerned with the Electron Pump, a device that exchanges material with another universe to produce unlimited and pollutant-free energy. It seems too good to be true, and they struggle trying to convince others that such is the case.


Told in three parts, the first is of a human scientist who, in researching a history of the Pump discovers that the man revered as the “Father of the Electron Pump,” Frederick Hallam, is almost certainly a fraud. It's not that he didn't discover the phenomenon that led to the pump, but that his discovery was an accident based on the stubbornness of a slighted man. More importantly, the idea is presented that if it wasn't for the beings in the other universe (the “para-Universe”), the pump could never work. This of course gets the researcher, Lamont, blacklisted.


The second part focus on the para-Universe and this is where Asimov shines. Here he develops a group of sentiences called the “Soft-Ones” that are at once individuals and parts of a collective being. Separate, they are Rationals (Lefts), Emotionals (Mids) and Parentals (Rights), and their personalities match these labels: Rationals are thinkers, delighting in learning and curiosity; Emotionals are flighty and silly, enjoying the physical above all else; Parentals are single-minded in their concern and love of their off-spring and the properness of the triad. Dua is an Emotional in a triad with Odeen (Rational) and Tritt (Parental), but she is no ordinary Emotional. She is derisively called a “Left-Em,” because she too has a strong desire to learn as much as possible. This inquisitiveness leads her to figure out that something is wrong with the Pump on their end and she has to figure out a way to stop it.


The last part is set on the Moon, and tells parallel stories of a Moon that is ready to be separate from the Earth and of an immigrant trying to redeem his name by proving that the Pump is harmful.


What makes this book so amazing isn't the story, though. It is the message underlying the story. Take this passage for example:


“It is a mistake,” he said, “to suppose that the public wants the environment protected or their lives saved and that they will grateful to any idealist who will fight for such ends. What the public wants is their own individual comfort. We know that well enough from our experience in the environmental crisis of the twentieth century. Once it was well known that cigarettes increased the incidence of lung cancer, the obvious remedy was to stop smoking, but the desired remedy was a cigarette that did not encourage cancer. When it became clear that the internal-combustion engine was polluting the atmosphere dangerously, the obvious remedy was to abandon such engines, and the desired remedy was to develop non-polluting engines.”


Sound familiar? Maybe because the mythical “environmental crisis of the twentieth century” Asimov writes about is exactly what is happening right now? Remember, though, that this book was written in 1972. Moreover, it isn't just the prescience of an environmental crisis that makes this book so great: it is the fact that he is aware of how closely linked the environment and energy are. But, even still, that isn't enough to make me feel such a connection with this novel.


No, it is because Asimov understands that it is not that we don't recognize the problem, we simply don't like the idea of the solution. This isn't a book about greed: Hallam isn't wealthy, and for the most part, wealth is being created for all with the Electron Pump. What it is about is comfort. And, with that comfort, is the conservatism that comes so naturally to those who see no need to rock the boat. For the world, they are content when the scientists say that: Yes, this will destroy the solar system, but not for trillions of years – well beyond the life expectancy of the entire universe. By accepting this as given, the society is saying it is lunacy to look for flaws.


Well, clearly we are far from a solution that, on the surface, is perfect. But what we do know is that what we have works. I know that if I get in a car and fill it up with gas, that I can deliver myself to where I need to go. I also know that, sure, I'm hurting the environment, but I'm hurting it in the future. For most people, ten years might as well be a trillion years. Logically, it makes sense: changes that climatologists are talking about are supposed to take hundreds, thousands, even millions of years. That's what we've always been told.


What The Gods Themselves points out is that it doesn't matter. What's important is not dismissing the warnings of others because it might take a little (or a lot) of sacrifice. It's ironic, then, how the situation is almost opposite in our world as it is in the book: they have unlimited energy and what seems to be a ton of time to work with; we have an energy crisis and almost no time at all.


And yet, what are we doing? We're trying to create non-polluting internal-combustion engines. We're trying to solve the problem with non-carcinogenic cigarettes. Last week it was sixty-one degrees Fahrenheit (289 Kelvin, for those keeping track). In January. In New York City.


That's not science fiction, folks.

Saturday, January 5, 2008

I Sing the Body Eclectic

It's been a while, my friends. I apologize for nothing.


Let's get started, shall we?


As the haul from Christmas gets sorted into piles, I am once again inundated with media. Hooray! It's hard to get away from it, considering my friends and family know how much I enjoy books, music, and movies (and conversely, how much I distrust my friends and family to purchase clothes that I might actually wear. The comedian Jim Gaffigan put it best when he noted if he gets clothes he doesn't like, he won't return it; he'll throw it out: “Oooh, you got me an errand for Christmas.”). It's equally hard to get away from it considering that I ask my family for books and movies.


But I like books, movies, and music. And I will share that “like” with you.


First up: Stephen Colbert's I Am America (And So Can You!). Any fan of the show will enjoy this continuation of Colbert's perfectly executed satire of any conservative talking-head on cable news. The book uses irreverence, stupidity, and parodied bigotry to provide a “hand-book” for the 21st Century American.


An Anti-Communist Manifesto, if you will.


It's incredibly amusing. One feature I particularly enjoy is his use of annotations and foot-notes to provide comedic commentary. Too often under-utilized in any entertaining and/or commercial text, it also gives the book the air of a pseudo-scholarly piece, thus perpetuating the “ludicrousness” of his words even more. It helps, too (at least for me), that these asides are usually puns.


What surprised me was that there was still material to delve, here. You would figure that, even with all the wonderful nonsense Conservatives serve up on a daily basis, eventually we'd reach the point where we have to go: We get it! Mission accomplished, Mr. Colbert! But this book has enough originality to remain fresh and laugh-out-loud funny.


However, there is one thing that bothers me: the preponderance of gay-jokes. I'm not offended by the jokes, because I know it's simply an extension Colbert's alter-ego. What I'm offended by is the lack of creativity. Here's the thing: My friends and I go to the gay-joke well (and the mom-joke well – essentially the same aquifer) all the time, for the most part ironically, but even more so because we tend to be uncreative (somewhat taking away from the irony). The big thing is though, that my friends and I are not professional comedians. Hell, I'd be willing to admit that many of my friends are the opposite of professional comedians (which might make them torturers or onions – you know, making other people cry). Therefore, I would expect a professional like Stephen Colbert to not dip his bucket in such a dried up well (when I pay for a joke, I want it juicy).


Some of the gay-jokes are funny, though. Makes me wonder if they'll be so funny when I'm burning in hell (which, after all the “flamer” jokes would be the ultimate irony, eh?)




I believe I've mentioned a little television program called “Futurama”? Not only was it one of the best cartoons ever, I would go out on a limb and say it was some of the best television, period. What it did in its four short seasons was combine the wackiness and intelligence of “The Simpsons” with the creativity and heart that was unique for a show of its kind. Whereas the “The Simpsons” had some sweet episodes (generally Lisa-driven) and “South Park” showed a social-conscience, “Futurama” decided to give its characters a humanity that was oddly opposed to the fact that many of the characters actually weren't human. One would think, given the futuristic, science-fiction setting of the show, that there would be a consistent zaniness that would override any sort of emotion. And yet, the writers and producers are aware enough to play on the fact that the main character, Fry, although enjoying his time in the year 3000, is still someone a thousand years past his own time (and thus past his family and memories). If you want to watch a show that will make you laugh and cry, watch the “Jurassic Bark” episode. If it doesn't move you, then you are a cold-hearted bastard.


The reason I'm writing about “Futurama” (a show that was canceled 4 years ago), is because the DVDs are all out. If you have the time, watch them on their own, and then go back and watch them with the commentaries. The three voice actors who consistently show up – Billy West, John DiMaggio, and Maurice LaMarche – are genuinely funny people, and even though they may not be commenting on the show you're watching (which is why you should definitely watch the episode first), they pretty much double the comedy on the DVDs. And David X. Cohen, the executive producer, is really funny too – while providing interesting insights about the making of the episodes.


More importantly: “Futurama” is back! Kind of. What I mean is that a new “episode” (which is really movie-length), has been released on DVD, and it was everything I had been waiting for. Titled “Bender's Big Score,” it's not the funniest “Futurama” I've ever seen. In fact, the beginning is almost pathetically sophomoric, going after juvenile jokes, almost as if the writers had a hard time getting into the rhythm after the long hiatus. But as the movie progresses, the show gets its legs back underneath it, and before you know it, we're back where the show left off: smart and funny science-fiction. The commentary, too, is fantastic.


I hope, of course, that this will be the beginning of getting this show back on the air with new episodes. For now, I know there will be three more straight-to-DVD movies, and I will be waiting breathlessly.


Okay, I'll probably breathe.




Richard Ford is one of those authors I had heard of only recently, and was surprised to find out that he's kind of a big deal. Pulitzers tend to do that for authors. So I decided I'd give him a shot and, as I usually do in situations with unfamiliar authors, I went straight for the jugular. I figure, if its an author I'm supposed to read, I might as well read that persons seminal piece, in Ford's case, Independence Day.


I was slightly disappointed that no aliens battled Will Smith for the resources of Earth.


What I wasn't disappointed by was how Ford was able to turn 450 pages of a rather boring story, and keep my interest the entire way through. And, it is boring, perhaps purposefully so. Independence Day is the story of Frank Bascombe, a man who epitomizes “mid-life crisis.” While not going crazy with a ridiculous car or younger woman (although he does flashback to a time when he spent a year in France with a med school student), he has clearly come through the traumatic experiences of his son dying and getting divorced with a radically changed philosophy.


In an odd way, he reminds me of Ron Livingston's character from Office Space – nothing really fazes him anymore. He is content to be content, moving through the part of his life Ford constantly points to as the “Existence Period.” It is almost depressing, seeing this lonely man live out a weekend of phony connections, and yet I have no sympathy for him, nor do I think he's asking for any. Bascombe is not, in any way, a loser (making the Willy Loman comparisons from some of the cover-copy disingenuous). Rather, he's man who is relatively successful economically, has a beautiful lady-friend, enjoys his job (despite people constantly denigrating it), and is excited for the time he will spend with his troubled son and the holiday in general. All in all, things are generally looking pretty good for a guy who, in 1988, is looking at a troubled economy and unsure political future.


What really impressed me was that, despite it's firm setting in an era that we are long past, I had no problem connecting with the story. For one thing, Ford is not shy about going all expository on us, interspersing dialogue with dense essays about Frank's beliefs and exploring the meanings behind the places and events going on around the characters. For another, Bascombe is funny in a way that makes us laugh with him, and not at him. Maybe it's the wrong impression, but I connect with him and enjoy him. His is an American life, but he isn't dragged down by it as so often movies and literature want us to believe is our natural condition. He is a father who isn't set up as being entirely at fault – his ex-wife, Ann, shares a great deal of the burden for the family's problems. Bascombe is, then, atypical of the American Man as such a being is often portrayed.

Frank Bascombe is a guy who moves past his flaws and, ultimately, learns from them. And if that isn't great writing, then maybe you should stop reading this blog.*

*Please don't stop reading this blog.