Remaking Science Fiction

IO9 pointed me to a couple of interesting articles published by the LA Times over the weekend - Hollywood remakes sci-fi classics. This is nothing new, by any stretch of the imagination. (You'll get the pun in a second...) As I've talked about before, franchises are very good things for the Science Fiction industry if you want to make money. It guarentees a fanbase and can really bring together a huge community of people (with deep pockets, at times, especially collectors). What these articles bring up is a bit of a paradox that this presents the Science Fiction genre - for a genre that often is associated with the future, things that are new and unheard of, having sequel after sequel of some franchises seems to be hypocritical at best.

The future looks very familiar. Science fiction, by its nature, is a celebration of the new, but you wouldn't know that by watching Hollywood's space operas. "Star Trek," for instance, is on the way back to theaters next summer in hopes that moviegoers will still want to boldly go where millions and millions have gone before. And it's been more than 30 years since "Star Wars" made film history, but the Force is still very much with us -- whether we like it or not -- with a seventh film in theaters this past summer, one of the year's bestselling video games and a new weekly animated television show (there's also talk of a live-action series in the next year or two).

And that's just the tip of the meteorite.

The "Terminator" and "Robocop" franchises are being revved up now for more mechanical-man mayhem, and classic films such as "Forbidden Planet" and "When Worlds Collide" are in the remake pipeline, while the new take on " The Day the Earth Stood Still," starring Keanu Reeves, opens Dec. 12. Even " Battlestar Galactica," which began as a small-screen "Star Wars" knockoff in the 1970s, has been revived with spectacular results and will break new ground in 2009 with the TV movie "Caprica" on Sci Fi, with a series to follow.

This has really never occurred to me, mainly because of the things that I've grown up with, but also because I happen to agree with William Shatner when he talks about the subject:

"Science fiction should be about ideas and what it means to be human, it should always be about the new and the challenging"

While I think Shatner can be a bit of an arrogant twit, he's hit the nail right on the head - while a lot of science fiction property exists as franchises, this isn't necessarily at odds with the subject material. Battlestar Galactica certainly proved that you can take a much older franchise and turn it into something both new and relevant to today's society and culture. It's the content that matters, and what makes the best series and works easily accessible, relatable and relevant to modern society.

The classic books, such as Dune, Ringworld, Foundation, Neuromancer, (to name a very few off the top of my head), are still widely read today because they have messages that readers can go back to. The same thing goes for films and television series, such as Babylon 5 and Star Trek. These shows are still popular, and will likely remain so because of the messages that they have. One point that can be taken from some of these franchises being remade and redone is that they still have a lasting message, one that can be updated for the times or done in new ways. While this obviously doesn't work out all that well for some places, I think that it still speaks to the longevity of some stories.

Article Source

The Star Wars Encyclopedia

When I was in Middle School, for Christmas, I was given what was one of my most coveted books of my collection - the Star Wars Encyclopedia. It was a tome of Star Wars knowledge, and for someone who was reading the books at a ferocious rate, it was an amazing resource for remembering small details about the Star Wars canon. Unfortunately, upon its release in 1998, the book was put out of date almost immediately with the release of The Phantom Menace, the first of the prequel trilogy, and along with that, a major book series, The New Jedi Order (NJO) and as the Star Wars franchise churned out more and more books, cartoons, comic books and other media, the first version fell horribly out of date. It still remains a fairly good resource for what had been published up until 1998.

Now, ten years later, Del Rey has published another, far more extensive version of the Star Wars encyclopedia. While the first volume came in at around 350 pages (pretty much the same page count of one of the novels) this new version weighs in at not one, but three volumes, each with the same amount of content as the first version, covering not only the new material, but material which has only recently been released to the public. There is information that falls right up to the currently running Clone Wars television series, in addition to the three prequel movies, the Clone Wars franchise, New Jedi Order, Legacy of the Force and the countless comic series and standalone novels that have been released since then. This book is a welcome addition to the Star Wars books out there, and I'm astounded as the amount of information that has been added in the past decade.

Compared to the first volume, this is a far superior work, and certainly a staple for anyone who's read the books extensively. By this point, I have a difficult time keeping some of the books separate from one another, because of the sheer amount of information, but also because I no longer re-read every single book multiple times. (Hopefully, someday, I'll get around to reading everything chronologically. Probably when I retire, or win the lottery...) The biggest drawback in the new volume was an incredibly handy feature in the first book, and that was a source citation at the end of each entry, such as [TTT] [SOTE] [ANH], which would represent the source material from which the entry was drawn from. This book doesn't have a system like that, and at times, that could be a problem, especially when it comes to the really minor details, characters, ships and things like that.

Reading the entries, I was brought back to when I first had the book, when I was really into the franchise. (I've cooled somewhat on the entire thing, and am no longer the rapid fan that I once was. Let's ignore the part where I have Storm Trooper armor for that argument). During high school, I read a lot, usually finishing a book in a day or two, depending on the author and writing style. I picked up Star Wars books as they came out, and over a couple years, I had read pretty much everything published, and eagerly awaited the release of the new books. During the times that I waited for new books, I spent a lot of time in the school library, talking to other fans via TheForce.net's message boards, which still maintains a lively literature discussion area. I don't post there very often, except to post the occasional review, because the climate there has become very different from what I liked and enjoyed. Since high school and college, I've not kept up with the Star Wars books to the same extent that I used to. I currently have seven or eight books on my to read shelf, from ones that I've just not have the time, or made a priority. At some point, I'll get to them, if anything, to see what has been happening. This encyclopedia will certainly help me keep track of some of the details as I catch up, especially with the larger series.

While the Star Wars universe has really changed over the last ten or so years, with the release of the three new movies, a couple major book series, paging through the pages of these three volumes really put me back in one of the library chairs where I read, a powerful nostalgia trip, which I missed. It's just one of many things that makes me even more resolved to lock away my DVDs and pick up more books. If there's anything I regret over the past couple of years, it's not making the time to really read more.

December is SciFi Month

I know exactly when my tastes in Science Fiction and Fantasy began to change to what they are today - December, 2003. While driving a friend up Burlington, we stopped by the University Mall in South Burlington, ostensibly to do some Christmas shopping. Earlier that week, I was reading a copy of SciFi Magazine, which had run a review of the recently released Firefly DVD set. It had an outstanding review, and with a little more followup research on Amazon.com, I was stunned to see this with a full five star review almost universally. I hadn't seen any of the show, so picking it up from the mall that day was a somewhat whim purchase. It looked interesting, and with the coming vacation, I would have plenty of time to watch it.

When I returned home, I sat down and watched the first episode. It wasn't until a couple minutes into the show, after the opening introduction that the show hooked me, hard. There was something about it - the superior CGI, witty dialog and interesting storytelling that I really hadn't seen in a whole lot of television shows before. To be fair, I hadn't really watched a lot of SciFi TV prior to this - some Stargate, some Star Trek, but not a whole lot beyond that. For the next three days, I watched the entire series, bouncing around the house humming the theme song, before telling my siblings about the show and marathoned it with them over the next couple days.

I can extoll the virtues of the show endlessly. After Star Wars, Firefly became a new series for me to completely obsess over. Watching the show from that point, and eventually watching the commentaries, I began to view science fiction in a far different manner than I had before. Whedon's technical commentaries on how the show was shot - how they did the lighting, what the dialog meant, and how the characters came to be - as well as seeing something completely different - made me begin to look at television and how science fiction should be in a far more critical level.

Shortly on the heels of Firefly came a second franchise that I like just as much - the 2003 version of Battlestar Galactica, which was released as a pilot miniseries in December. I watched it after reading several articles (again from SciFi Magazine) and like Firefly, fell completely for the show, but in a different way. Like Firefly, Galactica presented a non-conventional approach to space sci-fi with its presentation and storytelling, and I really liked that, along with the fantastic CGI, characters and stories.

Both shows are rarities in the genre. There are very few shows that have similar content, which is a huge shame. I like space ships, visiting new planets, especially in the manner that Battlestar Galactica and Firefly went about it. A third show that I came across several months later, Farscape is also up there.

The way that I viewed these shows percolated down to other elements of how I viewed television shows, movies, books and comics. I began to take in these while paying far more attention to the story, characters and the smaller details that I'd previously missed or never paid a whole lot of attention to. Instead of taking things at face value, liking things simply for the sake of liking them, a critical perspective helps to fully realize and enjoy the story for all of its points.

So, this December, I'll be back to my roots and revisiting some of my more favorite episodes. It's liely been a year or so since I've actually sat down to watch an episode of Firefly, and it's been a while since I've watched Battlestar Galactica. It will be a fitting thing to do as that paticular show draws to a close with the final season this spring.

Rant: Fanboy Expectations

There's a couple of things that I've never really gotten about science fiction fans when it comes to the genre, particularly when it comes to remakes or sequels. I come across these arguments almost everywhere, and it's just plain irritating.

"This has forever ruined the series for me"

Okay, this comes up a lot with Star Wars and whenever the prequel trilogy / TV series has been mentioned or when you talk about the Special Editions. Granted, The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith are nowhere near as good as the original movies, nor is the Clone Wars series. But when you look at the films, there are a lot of differences when it comes to the intended audiences. Episodes One, Two and Three really weren't aimed at the fans of the original series - they were to be included, but honestly? The entire prequel trilogy series was a good way for LFL to reboot the entire Star Wars franchise.

When it comes down to it, Star Wars has always been a huge franchise, not a work of art. While there is certainly a lot to be said for how it has changed cinema, I find a lot of the arguments about the destruction of the property because of some of the recent changes to be extremely superficial, misguided and completely irrelevant. There's some good evidence that this had potential to be a good money-maker. The novelization for the book was published several months earlier, and a number of toys were created right off the bat, which have remained popular to this day. There are a lot of properties out there, franchises, that have become incredibly popular, culturally relevant and just as shallow when it comes to marketing and money. Most children's television shows and cartoons have had a very high value tacked to them when it comes to licensing the property because it sells incredibly well. Transformers, G.I. Joe, Voltron and He-Man all come to mind.

Franchises are an incredibly good idea if you have a marketable idea. Spreading a film's image over books, comic books, action figures, playsets, video games, and spinoff features brings in a lot of money, because fans, especially geeks/fanboys, are able and willing to spend a lot of money. Even better, when a film, such as Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, gains a cult/icon status in culture, when it has the potential to continue to sell to multiple generations. Star Wars succeeds at this because it appeals to a very broad range of people, and it is not necessarily tied to the generations growing up around the 1970s. It contains ideas and situations that apply and still instill a sense of wonder in people today.

Given the cult status of many of these icons, it becomes incredibly difficult to confront, meet and exceed the expectations, especially with people who have grown up with the series. In my mind, it's a nearly impossible task, one that is archived very, very rarely. Off the top of my head, I can only really think of a handful of films, such as The Dark Knight, that has really blown expectations away from an already lauded film. The real task for the crew there will be to find a way to overcome the high points of that film with a sequel. Terminator 2 and Spiderman 2 also come to mind. I'm sure that there are some others, but I just can't think of any others at the moment. No, wait, Lord of the Rings was one of those series that continually build upon the successes of the prior films. But for those couple, there are numerous other sequels that just didn't work. The Chronicles of Riddick, following Pitch Black, was an admirable attempt, but it didn't quite make the grade in a lot of eyes. Spiderman 3 certainly failed storywise, as did Terminator 3. There's a couple batman sequels that are truly abysmal, because they attempted to really please the demand after the first films, but failed. In addition to this, there are a number of remakes and up-and-coming projects in the near future that will have a lot of off the cuff fanboy complaints before the films hit screens. Forbidden Planet, The Day the Earth Stood Still come to mind, while War of the Worlds, Solaris and a couple others have already been made, to varying results.

It comes as no surprise, to me at least, that turning a series of films into a franchise has become a very popular thing now-a-days. There's the new Star Wars, Stargate and Galactica TV series, Star Trek, Indiana Jones, Batman, Terminator, James Bond, and the Hobbit films, as well as a couple others - all with massive fanbases across a number of different formats. No matter what the critical reception is, they stand to make billions of dollars in profits from these fans, and will likely introduce a whole new generation and group of fans into their ranks.

Coming back to my original complaint about these fanbases and how these films have a far more difficult time meeting expectations. It's an incredibly frustrating thing to see at times, but from everything that I can see, fans are a greedy bunch of people - they want their originals back in prime, untouched condition because they thing that the film is something that's unique, special and inflexible. That, however, completely clashes with the fact that we're considering an industry that exists as a business - to make money. For some stories, it doesn't make sense NOT to make a franchise out of it because of how popular they've gotten. Honestly, I'm surprised that we haven't seen concrete plans for a Cloverfield 2 yet.

I've been seeing this argument a lot with the upcoming Watchman film, and with the news earlier today that another 15 or so minutes are being cut from the film, we can expect to see another rash of complaints at how the film will be completely ruined. Honestly, I've never understood how watching a new version of something can completely ruin the experiences that you would have gotten from the first. Time still goes in a straight line, right?

Currently Reading

I'm a little annoyed with myself because I haven't gotten around to reading very much while I was off from school for a couple weeks. I finished Thirteen and American Nerd, and am through a couple other books, but I was hoping to get at least a couple more finished. Here's what I'm reading and what's on my TO READ list.

Currently Reading:

Neuromancer, William Gibson. I've had this book for a couple years, but I've never really gotten around to reading more than the first couple pages. After reading several of Richard K. Morgan's books, I'm enjoying this one more, and seeing where Morgan got some of his ideas and influences.

Homesteading Space, David Hitt. Book 4 in the Outward Odyssey series, about Skylab, I'm a little ways in and while this book seems a bit denser than the prior installments, it's absolutely fascinating.

Schulz and Peanuts, David Michaelis. Biography of Charles Schulz - I'm about halfway through this one, and this one is also a fascinating read, providing some good insight into the creation and life of Peanuts.

Hopefully I'll get through some of these in the next couple of days, if I can manage the time. Here's what's remaining on the To Read List: (In no particular order)

Mao: The Unknown Story, Jung Chang. I've had this for about a year, but haven't gotten in the proper mood for it yet. Maybe after I take Non-Western Military History this seminar.

The Big Red One, James Scott Wheeler. About the 1st Infantry Division.

Paris 1919, Margaret Macmillan. Peace treaty of 1919. I've read a little of it, and I need to get into the proper mood.

Heartshaped Box, Joe Hill. Horror story by Stephen King's son.

Ike: An American Hero, Michael Korda. I'm a huge fan of Eisenhower, and I've wanted to read this for a while now.

A Crack at the Edge of the World, Simon Winchester. Geological history.

The Day of Battle, Rick Atkinson. Book two of Atkinson's trilogy, the Liberation, this one's about the invasion of Italy during WWII.

John Adams, David McCullough. I still haven't finished the miniseries that was based off of this. I'll have to read this and/or watch this first.

Girl Sleuth, Melanie Rehak. History of Nancy Drew and I'm assuming, the publishing industry. I've had this for more than a year now.

The Ten-Cent Plague, David Hajdu. I picked this up when I went down to NYC this past May. Looks like a fascinating history of the comic industry during the 1950s.

Woken Furies, Richard K. Morgan. Last book in the Takeshi Kovac's series. I just finished Thirteen, so this will probably wait a while.

Western Warfare 1775-1882 and Warfare in the Western World 1882 - 1975, Jeremy Black. I just finished a seminar that covered a lot of this time period, so I might pick them up again soon, while the information is still fresh in mind. They're both relatively short, but dense reads.

Generation Kill, Evan Wright. This was made into a series by HBO. Looked interesting, and the book was a used one.

Redcoats, Stephen Brumwell. War in the colonies between 1755-1763 and the British soldier. Looks fascinating.

Close to Shore, Michael Capuzzo. Summer of 1916 and a rash of shark attacks that captivated the nation. Social history, looks interesting.

Flu, Gina Kolata. About the 1918 flu epidemic.

Pattern Recognition, William Gibson. Another Gibson book that I've had for a while, but never got around to finishing.

Devices and Desires, K.J. Parker. I started this one and stalled about a third of the way through. Maybe when I get some free time, I'll pick away at it.

Gears of War: Aspho Fields, Karen Traviss. I picked this up because KT is writing it. I haven't played the game at all, but it looks interesting.

Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, Susanna Clarke. Another one that I read then put aside. Very good, but very dense. I'll get back to it sooner, rather than later.

Blood and Thunder, Hampton Sides. One of my favorite historians, this time he turns to the story of Kit Carson and the American West. Sooner rather than later as well.

A Civil Action, Jonathan Harr. Legal story, involves geology to some degree, one of my former fields, looks interesting.

Theodore Rex, Edmund Morris. History of Theodore Roosevelt.

Edison's Eve, Gaby Wood. A whim buy at the Northfield Bookstore (very cheap paperbacks/used books) about the history of robotics.

Salt: A World History, Mark Kurlansky. History of Salt. Looks very interesting.

Tales of Ten Worlds: Arthur C. Clarke. I put this up on the list when Clarke died. Book of short stories, I really need to get to it soon.

A Game Of Thrones, George R.R. Martin. I've had death threats because I haven't read this yet. I'll get to it!

Marque and Reprisal / Command Decision, Elizabeth Moon. Two books in a series that I've started. Fun, light sci-fi.

The Dragon's Nine Sons, Chris Roberson. This one has a cool cover.

Star Wars:

I've amassed a 7 book backlog of Star Wars titles, with another coming next week sometime.

Millennium Falcon, James Luceno

The Force Unleashed, Sean Williams

Coruscant Nights II: Street of Shadows, Michael Reaves

Legacy of the Force:

Revelation, Karen Traviss

Fury, Aaron Allston

Inferno, Troy Dennings

Invincible, Troy Dennings

Forty-One books. I'd been hoping to finish this list by the end of the year, but yeah, that's not going to happen. I think that the ones that I'll be making a priority, after the ones that I'm reading now are A Game of Thrones, Western Warfare/Warefare in the West, Jonathan Strange, Salt, Blood and Thunder, a couple of the Star Wars ones and the Arthur C. Clarke collection.

I need more free time. Maybe I should play the lottery.

American Nerd: The Story of My People

My copy of American Nerd came in last night, and it proved to be a fairly short read, only 222 pages, which took me the better part of my evening to get through. While it is very short and somewhat abbreviated, it proves to be an interesting read that brings up some interesting points about American Nerd culture.

Ben Nugent's book seeks to examine the roots and definition of the Nerd. In doing so, he teases out two large factors in culture that have helped bring about the popular nerd image, and that's isolation from the main population and an affinity for rules and structure. From my own experiences and observations, these are relatively accurate assertions that these elements do help to influence those who call themselves nerds or geeks.

Nugent's book looks to history for some of the background on the subject. What I found most fascinating was his take on elements of the progressive movement on society and how this has some root causes for nerds and for why they are generally abused by popular culture in general. One thing that is made clear - nerd/geek culture is created, in part, by isolation from the rest of the population. Nugent goes back to the 1880s to the first Ohio school that introduced mandatory physical education, through to Theodore Roosevelt and building of a 'all American' sort of culture. Athletics in schools, by nature are exclusionary - they seperate out the weaker, meeker and smaller. There are many tales of the nerds/geeks in high school being picked off one by one by one in dodge ball.

One aspect of this is duality, a theme that comes up multiple times throughout the book, and through different means. Nugent brings up several racial and social theories to help explain this. One example of this is how he examines and compares geeks vs. jocks. Jocks tend to draw more from the animal side of the spectrum, tend to be more empathic and emotional while geeks tend to veer more towards the machine side, where logic and reason take precedent. The animal, emotional and empathic side of things, because of the progressive movement, has become the more accepted social position in the US.

While the book does take a good look at the background history of nerds in the US, there are serious flaws in the book's structure. It bounces from history to social theory to biography and guide to nerdom, with very little overall flow. While the book brings up a number of points, is up to date (items such as Robot Chicken, Freaks and Geeks, Battlestar Galactica and other geek fare) and is fun to read - it doesn't get drowned by the bulk and density of some historical events.

This book is too short and doesn't go far enough to examine the history and cultural factors in nerd/geek subculture. The history is abbreviated and the methodology is inconsistent. There is no bibliography, despite his criticism of another book of not having one, although there are some footnotes throughout the book.

While it purports to examine the story of Nerds in the US, there are some very obvious gaps here that undermine the history. There is no discussion of the rise of computers - I don't believe that Steve Jobs is mentioned with the creation of Apple computers, nor is NASA talked about, which seems like a huge thing to overlook when talking about geek/nerd history. Nor is there any discussion on the impact of Sci-Fi films during the 70s and 80s. There's some talk about Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, a little more about Dungeons & Dragons, but there's precious little talk about the impact of these huge juggernauts on the geek/nerd community. While it's unreasonable to expect that this book would be anything comprehensive (or any book on history, for that matter), leaving things out such as this seems to be a gross oversight.

To some extent, this book feels uncompleted. There are short sections that cover a broad range of subjects, so it feels like it covers a lot of ground. This is good, but unfortunately, it only seems to cover the surface of much of the issue. That being said, it is an interesting read. It's certainly a book that can be expected as nerd-culture has gotten far more popular in recent years.

The best thing that we have here is a good definition of the term, of the entire population that's out there. It's a good start, and hopefully, we'll be seeing some more work in this aspect of history soon.

Living in the Future: Robotic Warfare

A while ago, I wrote a post entitled Living in the Future, where I made a couple observations about how we're living in a bit of a science fiction world, what with anti-satellite technology, mobile phones, cloning, stem cells and the internet. While looking at the New York Time's website, I came across an interesting article entitled A Soldier, Taking Orders From Its Ethical Judgment Center. The article is looking at the idea of utilizing robotic soldiers on the battlefield because it's felt that they would be far more unlikely to violate international laws, as a human soldier might. There are obviously other advantages to robotic soldiers, especially in a day and age when a climbing casualty rate among soldiers has an inverse affect on morale and the desire to fight back home.

On a science fiction level, this is nothing new at all. Robots deployed to battlefields is something that's been seen before, and from my own readings, with fairly mixed results. Just look at films such as The Terminator (and assorted sequels) or the Matrix, and you certainly have the case for only using organics on the battlefield, on the oft chance that something goes terribly wrong and the machines that you just deployed turn out to be just as unstoppable when they turn against their commanding officers. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any films or books that I've read where robotic soldiers were used successfully, but I'm sure that there are a couple out there.

This comes at a fairly interesting time, as something similar just broke at the Pentagon recently with an article at New Scientist, which talked about the development of hunter robots to track down uncooperative people en-masse. In this instance, I think that the Spyders from Minority Report fit the bill nicely - small, three legged robots with iris scanners and the ability to subdue a person with a small electrical charge - the film proves its foresight in the world and the developments of technology. There are obvious needs and reasons for such a machine and tactic, but there are frightening implications. As the New Scientist article points out: "how long before we see packs of droids hunting down pesky demonstrators with paralyzing weapons?" This would certainly be an unthinkable use for such technology, and in both cases, I can see a number of scenarios where these types of things could be misused.

Furthermore, machines break down, sometimes when you most need them. I know I have enough problems with my work computer, and while soldiers feel exhaustion, they can tell you when something is wrong. Machines have a far more limited ability to do something like this. Furthermore, I would be very concerned about two things - technology transfer to other, potentially hostile nations in the event that military hardware is captured in the field, and counter-electronics combat that could potentially render machinery ineffective. There was a great scene in one of the recent Clone Wars episodes where the soldiers threw specialized grenades to disable the droids that were attacking them. (Why on earth hasn't this been done far more often in Star Wars?) I remember reading back in 2002/2003 at how easy it is to build your own EMP weapon, and while military hardware is generally shielded, I would be very concerned about attacks coming in the form of viruses that would corrupt machinery. No matter the defenses enabled on anything electronic, I would bet that there's some geek out there that would be able to overcome the defenses if bribed with enough Mountain Dew. (Stereotypes aside, there are people who are crazy good at that sort of thing).

Personally, I'm not thrilled at the prospect of having robotic soldiers trampling all over the battlefields. Drones are certainly acceptable, because they're only able to do what the soldier on the other end is telling it to do, but don't you think that people should take to heart what Asimov laid down to protect humanity?

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Pushing Daisies will be pushing daisies

Another one bites the dust, and ironic titles aside, Pushing Daisies is the latest wonderful and brilliant show to get axed far before its time. The show, which was the first one last year to be awarded a full season, was cut short by the writer's strike last year, and like a lot of shows affected by the long hiatus, saw diminishing ratings this time around. The good news is that they've filmed through Episode 13, which means that we'll get to see them finish up the show at some point, either broadcast or on DVD. The problem with Episode 13 is that it's reported to be ending on a cliffhanger.

Honestly, while I'm completely in love with this show, I'm a little surprised that it's lasted as long as it has so far - 2 short seasons. The reason that I'm surprised is because of the extremely quirky nature of the show. It's out there. While there's a lot to be said for the rush of genre shows such as LOST, Heroes and Terminator, Pushing Daisies is best considered a fairy tale. Where the other shows are fairly rough around the edges, dark and brooding at points, Pushing Daisies, while it has some fairly dark edges to it, is a light, bright and cheery show.

The basic premise, for people who aren't familiar with the show, is this: Ned, an isolated, shy and nervous man, has a unique ability - he can bring dead people back to life with a touch, but only for a minute. Longer than that, they'll remain alive, but someone nearby will die. If he touches those who he's just awoken, they're back to dead, and he can't bring them back. He accidentally killed his mother and a neighbor when he discovered this ability (to be distinguished as something very different from the abilities of heroes), and as the show opens, keeps his childhood sweetheart alive after coming across her body. He makes a living running a pie shop, and helping a private investigator find out about murder victims by asking the bodies who killed them. Yeah, it's a weird show, but it had such a wonderful sense of humor, dialog and quirky plots that made this something to look forwards to week after week. Unfortunately, it seems like it was just too out there for audiences.

I like dramas and science fiction shows when they go dark. Comparing the two Battlestar Galactica TV shows (the original and new version) and it's pretty clear which one has the superior story, characters and conflicts, and since Battlestar, there's been a whole group of shows that really go darker, which, as a story mechanism, is a good thing, because it allows writers to go places with their characters and really tell a good story. Pushing Daisies, on the other hand, showed that there was an alternative, that we don't necessarily need a brooding cast of characters - flawed and neurotic, maybe - and that something can tell a very good story and be lighter at the same time.

An inevitable comparison to this show might be Heroes. Indeed, Brian Fuller, the show's creator, worked on Heroes, and will likely be returning to it once Pushing Daisies run is over. On the surface, there's the obvious similarities that there are characters with abilities that make them unique. Daisies and Heroes are radically different once you get past the initial similarities. The stories are more personal, not as interconnected or complex and at times, far more relatable than anything that heroes has done.

I'm very saddened about the loss of this show - it's one less thing to look forwards to, and it's so unique that there's unlikely to be anything to fill its gap anytime soon. However, a shorter show-life means that the show doesn't go bad - Arguably the case with Heroes at the moment - and I've been seeing that shows with shorter lives seem to be the really good ones because they haven't had time to become bad shows. Pushing Daisies is a good, great and brilliant show. I shall treasure the remaining episodes.

American Nerd & Culture

Earlier today, while browsing through Slash-dot, I came across what looks to be a facinating book entitled American Nerd: The Story of My People, by Benjamin Nugent. As the title suggests, the book is about the nerd/geek culture, looking back over its history in popular culture. Checking up on the publisher's website, I found the description blurb:

Most people know a nerd when they see one but can't define just what a nerd is. American Nerd: The Story of My People gives us the history of the concept of nerdiness and of the subcultures we consider nerdy. What makes Dr. Frankenstein the archetypal nerd? Where did the modern jock come from? When and how did being a self-described nerd become trendy? As the nerd emerged, vaguely formed, in the nineteenth century, and popped up again and again in college humor journals and sketch comedy, our culture obsessed over the designation.

Mixing research and reportage with autobiography, critically acclaimed writer Benjamin Nugent embarks on a fact-finding mission of the most entertaining variety. He seeks the best definition of nerd and illuminates the common ground between nerd subcultures that might seem unrelated: high-school debate team kids and ham radio enthusiasts, medieval reenactors and pro-circuit Halo players. Why do the same people who like to work with computers also enjoy playing Dungeons & Dragons? How are those activities similar? This clever, enlightening book will appeal to the nerd (and antinerd) that lives inside all of us.

Followup poking around found some articles on NPR, On Point and the New York Times, all of which had some interesting things to say about the book, but also some of the cultural differences that help to spring this argument.

Nerds, it is explained, are a type of stereotype of a small group of any given population where logic, knowledge and to some extent, social awkwardness are the key defining features of a person. That doubtlessly doesn't need to be explained to anybody, for who can forget about that kid in High School? From what I've been able to glean, Nugent looks to a number of areas to find out where this perception comes from - literature, history, society, and from listening to a couple of interviews and similar articles, he hits the nail right on the head, and provides some really interesting examples of where this comes from.

I've long identified myself as a geek, and I'm always remembering that I had a comparatively easy time in high school. I had the glasses, social awkwardness, nose in a book and a huge interest in a lot of my school work. This isn't to say that I was a stellar student, but when I was interested in something, I went after it. For me, a defining feature of geekdom is something that a roommate of mine said in England: "I'm jealous of you - you have a real passion for what you're interested in - that's something that I don't have." Something that I've long identified with people who tend to be more geeky/nerdy is that there is an intense passion for detail with whatever interests them. In the 501st, that tends to be costuming accuracy, with some PhDs that I know, that tends towards historical accuracy, completion. Film and music nerds collect or at least know about everything that a particular artist or director releases. As the saying goes, Knowledge is power, and there's certainly good argument for that, when you have people like Bill Gates being one of the most important innovators in the world today, from the simple roots of building his own computers.

There's a whole gamut of activities that define geeks - Dungeons and Dragons, space, Science Fiction magazines, comic books, and so on. What's interesting to me here is that (as the book recognizes), geekdom and nerd culture has become much more popular in the past couple of years. I noticed it at camp when one of the classes that I taught, fantasy gaming, filled up very quickly by the same group of kids who lugged around Dungeons & Dragons, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Star Wars books and action figures wherever they went. Since then, I've noticed the same thing - geeks are 'cool' now, or at least the expected appearance of a nerd is.

To some extent, pop culture is responsible. Commercial juggernauts such as LOST, Heroes, Harry Potter, Spiderman and any number of other genre-related media items certainly haven't hurt, and most likely, have helped this subculture along nicely. The books and films can be among some of the most creative and thought provoking works out there. Indeed, on the occasions that I've been out in armor for the 501st, ridicule is overwhelmed by awe and fascination from bystanders. People are fascinated that I've put together my own armor, and the times when people make fun of me are fewer and farther between. That doesn't stop some of our members from experiencing major problems, such as assault, which does happen on occasion.

Still, I don't believe that popular culture picking up geek culture is totally responsible for its growing acceptance. Not all nerds are interested in Science Fiction and Fantasy, and its certainly not a defining feature of the group. Rather, I think that its the degree to which people like me can obsess and escape to things that are presented in science fiction and fantasy that makes the genre so appealing, as it pulls from a number of intellectual levels with made up languages, obscure sciences, literary items and practical craftsmanship.

Furthermore, I have to wonder if these traits - the desire for knowledge, social awkwardness and logic - are becoming more acceptable in and of themselves in a digital age. Certainly, geeks and nerds were at the forefront of the computer revolution because of its complexity, but from my experiences, the internet nullifies some of the barriers that make geeks more socially awkward - for this reason, it would seem, games such as Second Life or World of Warcraft are very popular (monster-slaying reasons aside) as people can vicariously live through their characters and open up a bit more without being self conscious.

Nerds are certainly here to stay, and from all indications, will become far more hip as popular culture allows, and as the traits that define us become more needed and desired, something that I can easily see happening as the internet becomes more inclusive. In the meantime, I'm going to buy that book.

Thirteen

I finished my latest seminar on Sunday, which meant that for the next two or so weeks, I'll be completely free from academic readings until it all starts up again. I used the first day of my new found freedom to get around to finally finish one of the books that I've been picking away at for the last month and a half, Thirteen, by Richard K. Morgan.

Morgan is one of the best Science Fiction writers of the decade, and has consistently churned out fantastic works. My favorite book of his thus far has been his debut novel, Altered Carbon. His latest, Thirteen (Or Black Man, if you're overseas), is an interesting, complicated and thought-provoking read.

Thirteen follows some of Morgan's style that has been seen in some of his other works - indeed, this novel could easily take place in Takeshi Kovac's world, just an earlier, more recognizable version. There are elements common to both - a tough main character bred to fight, Carls Marsalis, a vast conspiracy, some harsh violence and sex thrown in for good measure. This is science fiction grown out of an adolescence fantasy - it came into adulthood with plenty of problems and it's not for kids, that's for sure.

Thirteen follows Marsalis as he's recruited by an international governmental organization, COLIN, to track down a renegade killer who escaped from a crashing inter-solar space ship after killing and eating the crew, and while on the ground, is picking off people, seemingly at random. Marsalis is tasked with this because the investigators believe that the killer is the same type of person as Marsalis - a Variant Thirteen, a genetically modified human, bred to be the baseline human, with all of the aggression and resourcefulness as our ancestors might have been twenty-thousand years ago before agriculture tamed us. Along the course of the book, a massive governmental and corporate conspiracy is uncovered, with far-reaching implications for all of the characters.

This was a facinating, although somewhat dense read. Morgan's writing makes me slow down and take things in far more slowly, and I suspect that I'll be thinking about everything over the next couple of days just to finish processing it. Like his other books, this one is complicated, which makes it all the more satisfying to read - very seldom now do I come across good SciFi that really makes me sit back and think to put the pieces together - oftentimes, it's far more simplistic and clear cut.

One of the more interesting points of the book was the near-future that it portrayed - clearly a result of the last eight or so years of American politics. In this future, the United States has split into several parts, the Rim (West Coast), The Confederated Republic aka Jesusland (The South) and the northeast, all taken with regional stereotypes and expounded upon. Jesusland, incidentally, takes its name from an internet diagram of the US after President George Bush's reelection in 2004 of the South as its own country, with the United States as Canada. It's not an unreasonable assumption to make, and its certainly a grim prediction, taken to extremes.

The original title of the book, Black Man, is a big portion of the book's plot, dealing with discrimination on an entirely new level - one's genetics. In this world, even though there are fairly good levels of equality, the color of one's skin has fallen away to one's genetics, where variants are the ones who have a whole new level of discrimination - to the point where they're not allowed to breed, are killed or persecuted for who they are and generally have a miserable life because the rest of the population doesn't like them. It's a chilling topic, and an interesting one at a time when there is much change heralded around the country, where the recent election is seen as proof-positive (to some extent this might be true, but it's only a start) that racial equality has been archived.

This is science fiction at its best. While there are some of the other usual standbys here - artificial intelligence, space ships, colonies on Mars, these are merely details to the larger story that folds in numerous excellent characters, motivations and a story on top of that. Morgan has crafted a fantastic story here that doesn't rely on gimmicks or require the reader to suspend their disbelief in any extended fashion - the story here is not only believable, but terrifying in the fact that it is guided by a future that could be. It is for this reason that Morgan is one of this generation's finest writers, and Thirteen, while slightly overlong and at times, a little too similar to his other books, is a good example of his abilities as a storyteller.

Now, onto the next adventure before reality once again sets in for another long eleven weeks.

On Days Like These

My Saturday can best be described in a repeating series of one letter: EEEEEEEEEEEEE!!! Alternatively: [Excitement]^2

I got a new car. A 2002 Mini Cooper, in fact, a car that I've been wanting to get for literally years now, but I've either been intimidated by the fact that a good portion of them happen to have manual transmissions, or that I was never really in a position to be able to buy one until recently.

Last week, I came across an ad (thinking back, I can't for the life of me think how I got around to searching for one - probably just a whim, honestly) for a 2003 mini (This one had an automatic transmission) in Grand Isle for a very reasonable price. I ran some numbers and realized that this was something that was well within my budget. I talked with my dad about the possibility and for advice, and a day later, he let me know that there was another Mini for sale near where he worked - this one was slightly more expensive, but it had far fewer miles on it, and the difference, I reasoned, would certainly make up for the higher price in the long run. This was a 2002 Mini with 35,000 miles on it - at the price, it was certainly a good offer. This one was also a five-speed.

On Friday, went up to take a look at the two of them, looking first at the automatic one up in the Islands and loved it. The car handled great, and minus a few problems (tires were worn, and there was a small leak in the back somewhere) it seemed like a good deal. The next one was in Williston, and having learned to drive stick the day before at home and on some of the back roads of Moretown, I test drove this one out of traffic around my dad's office - it was a little different than the car that I practiced on, but I liked it just the same. The dealer, Williston Wheels, offered an additional price drop on it, which had me sold.

So yesterday, instead of trooping in New Hampshire, I called up the dealer and arranged to pick it up. Dad came along with me and we looked at the car again, then went to the bank, finalized the loan and paperwork, and the car is now mine. I got a very good loan rate, and I arranged it so that the payments will come directly from my paycheck, which will be really good. The rest of the day I spent getting used to the car and the 5-speed. I'm still not totally there when it comes to driving stick, mainly with starts and hill starts, but I'm getting better at it quickly. I spent a couple hours driving around in circles in an industrial park practicing, then went to see a couple of friends to show this off to them.

I'm very, very, very happy with this vehicle. The Mini handles very well, is responsive, beautiful and suits me well for what I need a car for. It's a huge step up from my other car - powered things, a CD player (this was a big plus for me, as my old car didn't have even a tape deck), remote entry, etc. While I liked my Prizsm, it was time for a change. There was a rash of problems this past summer that sapped up quite a bit of money, and honestly, I wanted something that stands out a little bit. It's not that I want to be noticed or something like that, but wanted something 'cool'. And this car is certainly cool.

I know when I first fell in love with the little car - when I saw the film The Italian Job, released in 2002, in theaters with some campers on a change-over weekend. The last half of the film basically runs as a commercial for the car as they zip around with a half ton of gold, in and out of traffic and through places that certainly aren't designed for cars. Since then, I've always seen them, especially in Europe, on the streets, and I've never gotten tired of how they look or wavered in really wanting one. So, I quite litereally have a dream car here.

Back to my original noise: EEEEEEEE!

The Clone Returns to the Homeland

I came across this film on io9 earlier today, and it really caught my eye: The Clone Returns to the Homeland. It's a Japanese film that has been rated fairly highly and compared to Andrei Tarkovsky's "Solaris", which is supposed to be one of the best SciFi films out there. I have yet to see it, but I'm a fan of the remake. (A lot of people really didn't like it for some reason - I thought it was brilliant).

Trailer:http://twitchfilm.net/site/view/the-clone-returns-to-the-homeland-trailer/

The story follows Kohei Takanara, a Japanese astronaut, who is killed in an accident in space. His wife expects compensation, and receives a clone of her late husband in his place, with all of his memories implanted. Unfortunately, the memories haven't settled right, and the clone is fixated on his twin brother's death. From the trailer and plot descriptions that I've been able to find, this one looks like a very good film, on all levels.

Unfortunately, being a Japanese film, it'll take a while to actually reach the US, and will most likely be hard to find. Plus, I don't speak Japanese. That being said, I'll be interested in watching it whenever I can find it.Here's the film's official site.

The Aftermath

Now that the endorphins from last night has somewhat worn off, I had a couple of thoughts about the election that has completely consumed the news and minds of the entire country. It has been an exhilarating, interesting and ridiculous two years of campaigning, and I for one, am both happy with the end result and that it is now over - for now.

The first and foremost thing that I am the happiest with is the sheer heroic nature of this election on numerous levels. America, a country long seen by the world in the light of its history with African/Colored Americans. This, in my mind, is the complete realization of the entire Civil Rights movement, and I was astounded at the landslide in the electoral college last night when President-Elect Obama took the election at a huge margin. This to me speaks to the distance that the American people has come, and while it is not a complete journey yet, it is something to be vastly proud of.

That being said, I was extremely disturbed by the comments of a number of people throughout the election. The past eight years seems to have reinforced a sheer willful ignorance on the part of the American people, and this was no exception. The shouts of Senator McCain supporters during his rallies and my fellow Norwich Students, of Kill Him! Hang Him! was very troubling and it shows that there are still deep divisions within the country. To his credit, Sen. McCain did his part to silence this, but nowhere nearly as effective as Pres-Elect Obama did during his rallies at cries directed at Sen. McCain during his campaign.

This was a huge element that I didn't like - it drudged up a lot of unpleasantness and as in any campaign, there was a lot of mis-direction on the part of both parties. In particular, I took issue with the charge that Sen. McCain was going to be a second President George Bush and that President Elect Obama was essentially a socialist.

Sen McCain isn't and wouldn't be a second President Bush. I suspect that he would have made a fine President, certainly better than our current one, because of his long experience in the Senate, and because of the nature to which he has worked. The election spinsters did an effective job of turning him into a much further right-winged politician, when he's shown himself to be a more moderate one at times. I don't think that I would have liked how he handled the war, or how he would have approached the financial crisis, but I would suspect that he would have maintains the status quo to some degree. Perhaps even made things better, if gradually. Most troubling was his selection of Gov. Sarah Palin, whom I saw as both a loose cannon, and someone far more unprepared for the office of the President if need be. Her selection showed that Sen. McCain was far more reactive than Obama, which is something that I don't think is healthy with that amount of power.

To the allegations that P/E Obama is a socialist - I disagree, and this is something that has been both spun out of control by the media and the popular labeling of people like 'Joe the Plumber'. P/E Obama's plan to raise taxes on a percentage of the population is a very small one - 4%, which isn't nearly the same thing as advocating state ownership or takeover of production, something that is never going to happen. While I think that raising taxes isn't going to be popular with those being taxed, I think that it would have a chance of working. I was somewhat disturbed to see the number of people who just took this campaign line at face value, with little thought or critical thinking about how this would play out. The Obama administration will still have to work with Congress and the American people to enact his plans.

As far as foreign policy and experience goes, I think my boss hit the nail on the head - The current administration was composed of a lot of experienced people, and look where that got us. We have squandered a national surplus, wracked up enormous amounts of debt and have fallen out of favor with the world because of our actions overseas, and particularly Guantanamo Bay. That being said, while experience is necessary, P/E Obama has an experienced VP in Sen. Joe Biden, as well as numerous qualified people around him as advisers. This is where the media should have been looking far more closely, because this really is where any president gains their policies from.

The Media has been a real mess and problem throughout the entire election cycle, and I'm very glad that I got rid of my cable in the past couple of months. There are far too many political hacks, who are blatantly partisan, who don't ask the questions that need to be asked, and merely perpetuate what each party was saying, but not what they were doing. Of all the political correspondents that I followed, John Stewart of the Daily Show was the only one who was really worth watching and listening to.

Overall, I felt that P/E Obama's campaign was far better than Sen. McCain's, right down to basic themes. The Obama Campaign was far more positive, held itself to a much higher level and held a candidate that was calm, collected and respectful. The McCain campaign, on the other hand, seemed to spend far more time attacking P/E Obama as a person, politician and a candidate and was far better at trying to instill fear into voters. While I don't see McCain as a main perpetrator of this, he's ultimately campaigning on that sort of thing.

All in all, this has been a fairly positive experience for the United States. It revealed many problems that are still underlying throughout the country, but despite these problems, we were able to elect a candidate that has fairly broad, but not universal, support, one who initially campaigned on education, and someone whom the world sees as a positive leader. While change is not going to come overnight, or most likely in this first term, it is a very important start for our generation, and it is something that I was immensely proud to have witnessed and participated in.

And of course, I was really impressed with the 'hologram' technology that CNN unveiled last night. Does anybody know - was that a true hologram, or just a computer projection worked into the broadcast? If anything, it was really impressive!

WE DID IT

WE FUCKING MADE HISTORY!

Paper Ballots

Why on earth doesn't everyone else utilize these? I just voted in Montpelier - No lines at all at 8 am - and used a paper ballot. Simple, one sheet, fill in the dots for your choice.

Not mine, but what I used

I'm watching NPR, Twitter and the New York Times and I'm seeing that there's massive problems with a lot of the new fangled technology for voting, and I have to wonder - why doesn't the rest of the country use a standardized ballot that is most likely cheaper and simpler to use, not to mention a hard copy record of what you just voted for? There's been a lot of talk about voter confusion as things change, but honestly? It seems like far too much work and added complexity with these things.

Technology can just plain suck.

Down to the Wire

I remember where I was exactly 4 years ago at this point. I was in a computer lab here at Norwich University, in the Cabot Wing, I'd just finished a geology lab, and was killing time before something else. Over the past year, there had been the campaigning between the parties, and eventually George Bush and John Kerry. I while I was sitting there, I was talking to a fellow student, a kid that I'd tutored in geology and asked him who he was voting for. Given that this was a military college, I wasn't terribly surprised that he said that he voted for Pres. Bush. When I asked him why, he told me that he wasn't sure, but he knew that he didn't like John Kerry very much. Thinking about it then, I realized that while I had made up my mind about who I would vote for, I didn't really think about why I was voting for any party.

Certainly, there were several reasons for why I was voting against Pres. Bush and siding with the democratic party. I was shocked at the way the war had begun to turn, and being the young, somewhat mindless liberal that I was, I was unhappy about the perceived arrogance in America's place in the world, at how we could simply impose and mislead nations and our own people to achieve something that I for one thought was the desires of a small group of people within the government.

Since that moment a number of years ago, I've been working to better understand the political world in the nation. I don't know that I see that specific moment as a turning point, but it is one that stands out in my mind as a point where I began to really question what was going on. I had, at many points, questioned the Republican party. But I had done little, if any questioning of the Democratic, or any of the smaller parties that seem to appear around an election, if however briefly. My views have changed and matured over these past couple of years.

Earlier this year, I attended the Society for Military History conference in Odgen Utah, where I was talking with our program director about politics. Somewhere along the line, I spoke to how I was disturbed at how much the government spends and wastes every year, and that to some extent, I believed far more in a sort of hands off approach to the government, such as when it came to business. He remarked that that it was fairly libertarian thinking for someone who described themselves as liberal. This made me question some more things about how I approach my views on politics.

I realized that it is impossible to pigeonhole an extremely complex set of beliefs and ideas into one or two 'sides', which makes this race even more frustrating than it already is. I like the idea of a smaller government. A character from The West Wing had a fantastic quote:

"I am a citizen of this country, I am not a special subset in need of your protection. I do not have to have my rights handed down to me by a bunch of old, white men. The same Article 14 that protects you protects me, and I went to law school just to make sure."

She was referring to the constitutional amendment in which women were specifically given the right to vote. I agree with her in theory, especially with something that she says later on, that more laws further limit, especially when there is already something in place that does the same thing. In practicality, however, some people seem to really need things laid out in plain, clear cut rulings in order for the desired effect. Of course women, blacks and whoever else is allowed to vote. But that didn't stop numerous people from preventing that desired effect for so long.

Thinking back to the fundamental differences between the parties, I still lean far more towards the left than I do the right, because of a couple of points that the right has picked up, which essentially boil down to two items - hypocrisies and discrimination.

I largely see the right, conservative wing of politics as something that is contradictory in nature, mainly with the issues that they support. While proponents to a smaller government, hands off, or whatever, there are still feelings that certain books should be banned from the public because of the content that they contain, the government will restrict who a person can marry or what they can do to themselves, while pushing for greater security while hiding behind the notion that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.

What frightens me the most is the introduction of religion into the far right that dictates much of the policy in the country at times. I have nothing against religion - I certainly don't believe that freedom of religion translates into first amendment violations or a freedom from religion, but I don't believe that the government should endorse or have anything to do with it, except for instances of attacks because of someone's religion. Religion in government has been used to discriminate against various minority groups around the country, which I can't support. This has transformed things far from the more traditional conservative view of governmental policy.

Furthermore, it seems to help continue a trend between logic/reason vs. belief and faith. The past eight years have shown that a governmental body can encourage the notion that knowledge is optional and that intelligence can be trumped by a gut feeling. This is a theme that will continue for decades and centuries to come, but in this day in age, it seems like a very sad thing to watch happen.

To be sure, the left wing of the nation is hardly better when it comes to certain issues. Rampent spending, redistribution of wealth, etc are not terribly solid ideas to begin with and can cause further problems. To some extent, I have to wonder if at times, the left and right, with the basic idea that people should be free from their governments. If anything, I see most liberal thinkers as increasingly isolated, operating in a vacuum when it comes to their beliefs. While this is the case with every extreme of the political spectrum, the left can seem to be far more idealistic, but far more clueless.

What has disturbed me the most in this current election has been the sheer amount of racism and idiotic misconceptions that have been perpetuated by national media and political junkies rooting for the various sides. Watching various news programs, I have been continually stunned at how people believe that Sen. Barack Obama is a Muslim, that he has been linked to terrorists, and at how my classmates and people around the nation have even been heard calling for him to be killed. I also find it sickening at how the notion of guilt by association is still alive and well in this country, fifty years after Sen. Joseph McCarthy started his campaign against communism. Similarly, I find it extremely annoying to continually hear that Sen. John McCain will be a President Bush 2.0, where he isn't - McCain, to me, seems to be far more moderate and less religiously inclined than Pres. Bush. Even more disturbing is how he's failed to silence or to little to stop rally-goers from yelling things such as Terrorist, kill him, and other derogatory things during speeches. Sen. Obama has proven himself to be a far better person by doing the opposite.

This election has brought out the best and the worst in our country, in my opinion. I could not have written this four or eight years ago, and I think that I've just touched the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what I believe. I sincerely believe that the next four years will get better. I hope that over these next four and hopefully eight years, this race will have started some change and realization between the two sides of the country.

Tomorrow is November the 4th, election day, and I hope to look back on it as the day the world changed.

Real Life Mirroring Fiction

The New York Times has an interesting article posted today about a number of startling similarities between the current presidential race and the fictional Santos/Vinick race in the television show The West Wing. When I first saw the entire series of the West Wing, I was drawn in by its realism and dialog. While it's not a perfect show, I've been told that it really captures what goes on in the White House.

What's interesting is the last two seasons, where President Bartlett's second term in office is coming to a close, and a new presidential race is coming up. In the race is Senator Matt Santos, a Hispanic Democratic senator from Texas, who enters the race wanting to change things up, bring a new perspective on Washington and goes from a relatively unknown contender, to a nationally known one after the first couple of races.

Sound familiar?

Similarly, the Republican candidate is Senator Arnold Vinick, who is a moderate conservative, who is direct and wants to control the spending in Washington. He's somewhat anti-religion in government, and was a member of the Senate for a long time.

The similarities are deliberate, to a point. Santos was directly based off of Senator Barack Obama, when the show's creators were looking for material. Sen. Obama had just given the speech that gave him wide recognition around the nation during the 2004 presidential election, and he was incorporated into the show. What's interesting is how similar this presidential race has become to the fictional one.I don't know to what extent McCain was used for Vinick, but I'm sure that there is some basis in his character, at least superficially.

A couple crisis' come forth at the tail end of the election - a nuclear power plant goes critical, while a major confrontation between Russia and China puts US troops in action in Asia, which puts both candidates in a tough spot when it comes to their own plans for office. Here, we've got the Iraq war, while longer, it is going to cause some problems for the candidates, and the current financial crisis that has exploded in the past couple of months, which will further crimp some plans. Interestingly, I haven't heard Obama talk a whole lot about education lately since the crisis has come out, but that could just be because I haven't been following the news lately.

I will be very interested to see just how well this race follows the West Wing race. In that one, Santos narrowly defeats Vinick. Vermont turns to be a red state (which was odd, although not unsurprising, considering the state's fiscal conservatism, which honestly makes me wonder a little just which way VT will go. I forsee Obama taking the state, but McCain making some good showing), and the vice presidencial candidate for Santos, Leo McGarry, dies of a heart attack. Hopefully, we'll have one of those three actually happening next week.

A Film Update I Want to See

This is an interesting bit of news that I came across via the SciFiWire, the SciFi channel's news site - J. Michael Straczynski is updating Forbidden Planet.

Yes, JMS, the same guy who did Babylon 5, easily one of the greatest SciFi shows out there, is turning his attention to one of my favorite films of all time, and working to update it. This has me very, very excited, because this is one film that I've always thought would be a good one to modernize with CGI, and with this news, it's clear that they're getting a competent writer.

Here's the original story:

Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski, who also wrote Clint Eastwood's upcoming Changeling, is writing a long-in-the-works update of the SF classic Forbidden Planet for Warner Brothers, according to The Hollywood Reporter. Joel Silver is producing via Silver Pictures. Warner picked up the project on the down-low earlier this year. As late as last year, it was set up at DreamWorks, with David Twohy attached to direct. Prior to that, New Line had it. James Cameron, Nelson Gidding and Stirling Silliphant have been associated with the remake over the years. Released in 1956, Planet told the tale of an expedition sent from Earth to check on a colony of scientists on a far-off planet. They find two members, a man who has found alien technology that doubled his intellect, Dr. Morbius, and his daughter, both of whom have managed to survive an unseen monster roaming the planet. The movie is loosely based on Shakespeare's The Tempest. The movie, directed by Fred Wilcox, starred Walter Pidgeon, Anne Francis and Leslie Nielsen, but is perhaps best known for the character Robbie the Robot.

Straczynski certainly knows something about the movie - there's a number of references in B5 in the way that it was filmed and some of universe that he creates - the planet Epsilon (where B5 is located) comes to mind, and I'm sure that there's a couple of others.

This is SciFi during the golden age - it's got the ray guns, the robots, confident captains and space ships, not to mention a monster. While it's certainly cheesy at points, it also has some of the most memorable moments, as well as some of the most basic themes of science fiction - exploration, the unknown, technology - there's a sense of wonder throughout the film, and it's for these reasons that the film stands the test of time, even if the technology doesn't necessarily do so.

Hopefully the film will be faithful to the original, but will be able to stand on its own. And, hopefully Warner will attach a good director to this.

Trick or Treat: The Origins of Halloween

I love Halloween. Of all the holidays, it ranks up there as one of my absolute favorites, although my appreciation of it has changed over the years, from the free candy one was sure to recieve with a good enough costume through to today, where I've come to really enjoy after taking an English course on Gothic literature and gaining an appreciation for the darker elements of the day and horror in general. As a geeky person (and member of the 501st), there's the added element that seems to really appeal to this social group in which they are able to celebration their interests in a time that it's socially acceptable by dressing up as their favorite movie characters.

It wasn't until this morning that I really began to wonder just how it came to be that you could have small packs of children, dressed as goblins, witches and power rangers, pounding on doors, demanding candy and wrecking havoc throughout the neighborhood. I came across a set of photographs on Wired Magazine's webpage, of Halloween costumes from the 1940s, prompting a line of thought that made me wonder about America's history with this holiday, and what it meant.

Halloween is commonly connected to things such as witches, fairies, devils and other devilish creations that give the night something of a sinister edge. Interestingly, this is not too far off from the original reasons for the celebrations that gave basis of the holiday. The earliest connections to the modern holiday is the celebration of a Celtic day called Samhain, the New Year in the calendar and was traditionally linked to agriculture, given the time of the season. Few records exist for how the holiday was celebrated, and by the 9th through 12th centuries, Christianity was becoming a dominant force in Europe, and as this gained far more importance and power, local traditions were folded into the religion. This is similar to what happened with Easter and Christmas, with Christianity pulling elements of local traditions and essentially updating them in ways that would allow the locals to better accept this new religion without too much fuss.

Samhain has long been associated with death and the underworld, with early connections to the fairies. One version of the take tells of setting aside of food and drink for wandering spirits who come out on this New Year's Day. Along with this, people would imitate these spirits, or represent them, and would accept these gifts. "The road from the saga literature of the early centuries of recorded history to children in masks trick or treating door to door is a long one, with many intersections and fords and side roads and curves, but we can already see in the earliest materials associated with the ancient ancestors of Halloween the beginnings of traditions still practiced today." (1)

While there was an association with spirits and the dead early on, it wasn't until Christianity took its hold in the holiday that these elements were branded with an evil connotation. Elements of native religions were labeled bad, and associated with the devil - to some extent, its this transformation that gives modern Christianity its imagery of hell - "The Celtic underworld inevitably became associated with the Christian Hell" (2) At this point, while there was an effort to re brand this holiday as evil and to try and coax people over to more acceptable holidays and celebrations, there was resistance to this. This became All Soul's day, and then to All Saint's Day, also known as All Hallows - Hallows meaning saint. People continued to celebrate the dead and the wandering of streets, as well as the gifts of food and drink. "Consequentially, All Hallow's Eve, alias Hallow Even, alias Hallowe'en, is an ancient Celtic pre-Christian New Year's day in modern dress." (3)

There are still links to the agricultural nature of the day through to the present day. Houses are decorated with pumpkins and corn stalks, which connects the two somewhat. Carved Pumpkins further connect the day to evil or dead spirits via a story of Jack the Blacksmith, who was banished from both heaven and hell and forced to wander the earth. To light his way, he used glowing coals in a vegetable that he was eating (4), giving us the modern day jack-o'-lantern. Elements such as witches, also with links to ancient religions and branded as evil by Christianity, have also been associated with the day.

Halloween in America has been celebrated for a long time, since the colonies in the 1600s, where it was likewise an agricultural holiday. The Salem Witch trials of 1692 only added to some of the elements that are celebrated in the modern day. With Irish Immigration during the 1800s, the holiday was further reinforced. (5) It was also during this time and the early 1900s, that the holiday began, along with others such as Mother's Day, Christmas and Thanksgiving, to be commercialized in an effort on the part of businesses to increase profits. (6) While looking over pictures of the 1940s costumes, it would seem that this commercialization was probably pretty low key compare to what the holiday is today. According to Wikipedia, the practice of trick-or-treating didn't come into widespread practice until around the 1950s (7), which would place it firmly within the time of a boom of commercialism in the United States following the 2nd World War. Undoubtedly, the growth of the holiday has been helped along by the growth of the middle class and the consumer culture that has gone along with it. With the introduction of the block-buster movie season in the 1970s, costuming would have most likely become much more popular, especially with children and young adults, who would use the holiday as an opportunity to dress up as their favorite movie characters. Unsurprisingly, in recent years, there is quite a bit of business in creating Halloween costumes and candy through to today.

I remember Halloween with quite a bit of nostalgia. Among some of the costumes that I've donned over the years is Batman (probably my first), an American Indian, Luke Skywalker (Return of the Jedi) and obviously recently, a Storm Trooper. Growing up in a small town, there was always a bit of excitement for the event, to walk up and down Rt. 100 with a group of friends until we were tired from walking back and forth. We rarely had people come to our house because we lived several miles away from town in a very sparcely populated area, but we would put out pumpkins and a plastic ghost. I can't remember when I stopped trick or treating, and I know that I didn't dress up last year for it, or at all when I was in college, although I did help out with the Haunted Hay ride fundraiser that Norwich would sponsor every year with the town of Northfield. By far, the best display of the season will be at Ellies Farm and Market, which boasts hundreds (I believe 700 this year) of lit pumpkins in the forest.

Looking over the costumes that I saw this year at the parade in Woburn or on Church Street or at the Spirit of the Tower event that I attended in armor, it's fairly clear that Halloween has become a sort of celebration of popular culture, especially when it comes to science fiction and fantasy, as these genres seem to have really become popular in the past couple of years. Certainly, there's plenty of films to choose from when it comes to costumes, and this translates, as the most popular costume that I saw this year was Batman and Captain Rex, characters from The Dark Knight and The Clone Wars, but numerous other movie costumes were present.

For me, the holiday will always be one of nostalgia and geekiness, which is how I like it.

1 - Jack Santino, Halloween in America: Contemporary Customs and Performances. (Western Folklore, 1983), 5 2 - Ibid, 7 3 - Ibid, 8 4 - Ibid 5 - Ibid, 12-13 6 - Leigh Eeric Schmidt, The Commercialization of the Calendar: American Holidays and the Culture of Consumption, 1870-1930 (The Journal of American History, 1991), 888-890 7 - Halloween, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween#History_5 (Accessed October 28th, 2008)

Coming Around Full Circle

Yesterday was the Woburn Halloween Parade in Woburn MA, which is turning into a major 501st NEG and Rebel Legion Alderaan Base event, typically drawing in troopers from a couple other garrisons from the surrounding area. It's a big parade, and last year, we started the tradition of a big, major, eye opening prop to parade around with. Last year, it was Jabba the Hutt. This year, it was a life-sized Dewback.

A year ago, I rejoined the 501st after a long break. While I had joined in 2004, having received my armor in 2003, I only was able to troop once, in 2005, for Celebration 3, and then I essentially dropped off the radar, until last year's parade. Since doing so, I've trooped with three different garrisons on their home territory (New England, Connecticut and Canadian), while meeting an additional two in their own territories (Empire City Garrison and the Alpine Garrison), not to mention the numerous people from Carida, Ohio, German, Carolina and other garrisons who've been at these events. I've trooped 31 different events in a year, essentially just over one troop every other week, ranging from really big ones, such as the Woburn Parade and the Darth Vader Balloon, to the smaller cons and events in the region. The events have been fairly trivial, such as a couple of library visits, with just a handful of people, to incredibly relevant and meaningful events such as the Autism Walks that I just did.

I troop (as we call attending these events in armor) because ... I can't think of just one reason. I troop because it's fun, because the people that I've met have become some of the best friends in the world to me, but because it's important. Being a part of the 501st has become a major part of my identity and who I am. I've noticed over the year that at family gatherings or with friends, when turned to the subject, I talk about it at length, the virtues and the downsides, but why trooping matters to me.

The simplest answer is : I do it for the kids. Kids, everywhere, old and young, always have the same look of amazement and wonder on their faces when they see a storm trooper in front of them. At parades, I hear children screaming "Darth Vader! Darth Vader!". Ignoring for a moment that we portray villains, we step off the big screen and become reality. In doing so, we make something that kids only imagine, real, and that is something special.

But that's not the entire answer. Trooping, I've found, has provided me with a valuable community that I hold above all else. I've found that where I go, I can meet people who are just like me, with one major shared interest. Politics, skin color, language - none of this matters. True, within the group there is a variety of opinions and differences, and should the floodgates open to that particular argument, I suspect that it could get quite heated at times. But that is what groups are - they have their own dramas and issues, and I've made a share of mistakes along the way. But with mistakes, you get up and move on, and that's what I've done.

Looking back over pictures from last year's events, I've been thinking about how much has changed over the past year since I returned to the fold. I've had some incredibly difficult months in my personal life, experienced things that I didn't want to, but by the same token, have met some of the most wonderful people in the world, and have had some of the best times of my life with these people. I've started grad school and am almost halfway done. I've become a very different person, I think, because of these experiences, and much of that for the better, especially recently. Looking at my suit, I realize just how far I've come when it comes to costuming accuracy, and I shudder to think about just how badly I must have appeared on that first troop in Indianapolis, in tennis shoes and taped seams. My armor has undergone numerous modifications and alterations - it's had the velcro ripped out, replaced, ripped out again, glued, reglued, taped, modified and added on to, body suits have come and gone, as well as helmets and handplates. I've picked up two sets of armor, and I've recruited at least three people into the legion, one of whom is already an active member who's most likely catching up to me in troops. I don't like to dwell on my successes, or trumpet them, but dammit, I'm proud of what I've done thus far this year.

One thing has not changed in this past year, and that's the enthusiasm and excitement for the Star Wars universe. It sounds corny, but it fits. I like celebrating the films that have had such an impact on my life, but also bringing that to life for the people that we come across and help out, and I get to be a complete geek while I do it.

I wonder what the next 365 days will bring.