Virtuality Moves Up

Has anyone else heard about Virtuality? Fox picked it up for a TV series, and they will be releasing the pilot on June 26th, at 8:00 PM. I've been following the project for a little while now, and it's certainly an interesting project, although it is in limbo as to whether it'll actually become a series or not. Originally, this was slated to be released July 4th on Fox, and this move might indicate that they have a little more faith in it.

Here's how the SciFi Wire described the show:

The crew of the Phaeton is approaching the go/no-go point of its epic 10-year journey through outer space. With the fate of Earth in the crew's hands, the pressure is intense. The best bet for helping the crew members maintain their sanity is the cutting-edge virtual-reality technology installed on the ship. It's the perfect stress reliever until they realize a glitch in the system has unleashed a virus onto the ship. Tensions mount as the crew decides how to contain the virus and complete their mission. Meanwhile, their lives are being taped for a reality show back on Earth.

It's supposed to be quite good, and there are a number of possibilities for where the creators can go with the storyline. It looks like it's got a fairly big cast, although there's nobody that really jumps out at me for people that I recognize. I'm mainly interested in this because Ron Moore's the guy who created it, and given his track record from Battlestar Galactica, there are undoubtably some high expectations for this from other SciFi fans. Plus, Peter Burg is directing the pilot, and I've generally been really impressed with his work.

What gets me more interested is that while there will undoubtably be Matrix and other sort of cyberpunk connections to this, I'm really excited that this seems to be a completely original show and story. This isn't a remake, adaptation or inspired by sort of project, and I really hope that this'll make it to the TV series stage because there are so few good space shows out there at the moment.

The Book Of Lost Things

I love stories. From a young age, I've loved listening and reading them, as a child who was never terribly inclined towards sports or other activities. From a very young age, I have been fairly shy around other people, instead usually to turn to books for company - this is not to say that I've been antisocial all my life - as people often let me down or disappoint far more than books do. It's with this basis that I love our ability to imagine.

While stopping by the bookstore recently, I came across an intriguing book - The Book of Lost Things, by John Connelly - and armed with a coupon e-mailed to me that day, I bought it, and found that it was one of the better fantasy books that I've read recently, and has reminded me of my simple love for stories, which this book is largely based around - a love for stories and the limits of imagination.

The book's premise is fairly similar to one of my favorite films, Pan's Labyrinth, which came out in 2007. David, a young English boy in 1939, has had a troubled life - his mother passed away from a wasting illness, and his father shortly fell for another woman, Rose, who bore him a son. David is resentful of this new family, and grows angry at the divided attention and the supposed replacement of his mother. He soon experiences a sort of episode - a blackout - and when he recovers, he begins to hear books whispering to one another. At this point, the London Blitz is well underway, and when trying to run away, a German bomber crashes near his house, and David is thrust into a fantasy world.

This is the interesting part of the book, and where there are a lot of parallels to Pan's Labyrinth, but also to other well known stories, such as C.S. Lewis's Narnia series, as well as Grimm's Fairy Tales and even Life on Mars. Throughout the book, the reader is never entirely sure as to whether David has really been thrust into an alternate world, populated by fantastic creations, or whether he is lying injured, much as Sam Tyler is in the TV show, or even it the entire experience is a sort of psychotic break, a device that David utilizes to escape from a world that he hates so much.

The ability to hear books whisper to one another is a fun concept, and is helps to reinforce what happens to David goes through. In this world, we come across a number of fairly familiar stories or concepts as David journeys onwards in an attempt to find his lost mother, but later, to return home. Various incarnations of the tales, such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Sleeping Beauty, the heroic knight, werewolves and vampires make their appearances, often with far more brutal and violent twists that are more reminiscent of the Grimm's Fairy Tales than their sanitized Disney versions. (However, the Seven Dwarves as a sort of communistical band who felt that they were repressed by the Capitalistic classes is downright hilarious) Essentially, this world of David's has been created from within his own knowledge of stories, a creation of his own imagination, one that is borne out of a sort of self-realization and psychology that helps mend his own hurt nature.

The story elements, upon looking back, are really quite simple, and throughout, I found myself catching what would happen next and realizing where the plot was going next, which gives the book an air of predictability to anyone who's listened to enough bedtime stories. But where that might have annoyed me in most books, it really didn't here - this was a story with a good character arc, one that is reminiscent of the classic stories of the growth of a hero - a brash, angry young man who sets off to prove himself to the world, only to discover his own nature, and thus the character growth beings until you reach the happily ever after at the end. However, while there are many elements to this story that are much like the fairy tales that we are all familiar with, it feels far more realistic. The epilogue, of sorts, recounts the remainder of David's days, in a way that really doesn't fit with the rest of the tales that I've come across, giving the antagonist - the Crooked Man - a grain of truth to his predictions and proclamations.

While the book is fairly clear about what the entire experience was, it can easily fit into any of the three descriptions - David fell into a coma, he created the world because of trauma or he really was catapulted into this other world. The ambiguity of this is a very nice element, while one is clearly correct, they all are essentially part of what happened. Looking back at this, it really doesn't matter to the overall part of the story - this story is more about the arc of the hero, self-realization and growth to beyond his angry and frustrated youth.

What the book really feels like, now that I've finished (and my copy was deceptively long, with a sort of notes and interview that takes up the last hundred or so pages of the novel) is an homage to the classic stories. There's a grain of humor and twisting of some of the classics that only a modern author could get away with, but what it shows, most of all, that these stories and one's imagination are still relevant and important. There are values to these stories that still permeate to the beginnings of the Second World War, and indeed, to the present moment, where some of the basic elements of good and evil are laid out. This book is about stories, and like David finds, how they can talk to you.

Star Wars Retrospective

Earlier this week was the 32nd anniversary of the release of Star Wars: A New Hope, and May 19th was the 10th anniversary of The Phantom Menace. These two anniversaries have gotten me thinking a little about just what Star Wars means to me. The initial answer is: quite a lot.

Depspite my participation with the 501st Legion, owning a ton of the books, comics and being able to quote the films, I've become far less of the rapid fanboy that I was at one point. I recognize some of the major flaws with the films, want to throw things at the television with any number of annoying characters and have absolutely no patience for the endless discussions about the exact length of a Super Star Destroyer on message forums. Yet, I go back for more with new novels, and will don my armor for events.

I first saw the movies with my Dad in 1997 when the special editions were released. I knew about the films, but after the first screening, I was absolutely hooked. A couple years later, I discovered the books, and went on to grab as many as I could while waiting for The Phantom Menace. When that was released in 1999, I absolutely loved it. I didn't care that Jar Jar Binks would be reviled anad that the film would be relegated to the bottom of the inevitable lists that appear on websites. It had lightsabers, space battles and new planets, and I loved it for that. The same went with Attack of the Clones, although you can add on the Clone Troopers to that list, which I still like. By the time Revenge of the Sith came onto the big screen, I had my own set of armor, but a more cynical attitude towards the films and franchise, largely from watching Firefly and a number of other features that were more story-driven, rather than effects driven.

While my love for the franchise has cooled significantly, it's certainly a series that I can still go back to for regular enjoyment. Looking back on the films, I realize that it's not so much the individual movies, but the overarching storyline of good vs. evil that I really have come to love, and this is certainly one that has grown far more than what it was originally envisioned to be. True, that's mainly because they can make money from the people willing to part with it, and I'm okay with that. True, the prequels had their significant low points throughout, but honestly, I look more towards the memories that I have of the films, the anticiption, conversations with friends and that excitement as I watched them, more than I really care about the story at this point.

Balancing Act

As I finish up my final seminar of class work with Norwich University's Military History program, I have begun to mentally shift gears towards the subject matter of my final paper, where I'm going to be examining the role in which warfare helped to influence the comic book industry around the time of the Second World War, a subject that has long fascinated me. While looking around for materials, I have been thinking a lot about comic books and their subject matter in a more abstract sense - the dual role of the hero and villain in society, and as such, I believe that comic books tell some of the most elemental stories, which helps, I think, to account for their appeal to a wide range of readers around the world.

There is a basic appeal to superheroes - the abilities especially - when I was a young child in Elementary School, I idolized the X-Men, because I loved what they were able to do, whether it was super strength, claws, flight, plasma beams, and so forth, and much of the deeper meanings behind some of the stories were lost on me until much later. The central meaning behind each story, I think, is of the hero, whom we are meant to emulate, but what I have come to be more interested in lately is the complicated nature of the hero and villain, and how one is inseparable from the other.

This thinking comes at an interesting time. Over the past couple of months, I have been reading about a rise in costumed vigilantism across the United States, dedicated civilians who are attempting to right wrongs that they come across. These individuals, most likely heavily influenced by repeated viewings of the recent Batman films and other comic book fare, take to the streets, their faces covered, to take on crime. I have to admit, I see the appeal in this sort of thing, and I've often wondered, if I was in somewhat better shape, how I would go about this sort of thing. Fortunately, Vermont is not awash in crime, overrun by gangs and drugs, so my services will likely remain dormant for now.

Interestingly, and unsurprisingly, the rise of this fad seems to prove a point about the existence of heroes - with their rise come their counterpart, the villain. Utilizing YouTube and Craigslist, an anti-heroes group, R.O.A.C.H., has formed, offering a ten dollar bounty for the identity of one of the heroes operating out of Ohio.

With a hero, or a force for authoritative good, there must be an equal, counterpart entity that represents the opposite side of the coin. The recent installment in the Batman franchise is possibly one of the best examples of this, which helped to make the film stand out - hanging upside down by his feet, Heath Ledger's Joker cackled at Batman:

"You won't kill me out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness. And I won't kill you because you're just too much fun. I think you and I are destined to do this forever."

Essentially, the point that the Joker makes in the film is that where Batman is the force for a form of justice and order, he exists as a sort of counterpart, a ying and yang sort of effect. The same idea is applied to the character of Harvey Dent, who epitomizes the theme of duality.

DC comics see this sort of theme between heroes as well, especially when one considers the personalities of Batman and Superman. While both are arguably forces for good, they represent two very different thought processes. Batman is a vigilante, whereas Superman seems to adhere to a far more strict ethical code. Essentially, one represents chaos and righteousness - the damaged man who has no powers to speak of - and the other represents law and order - the man who is invulnerable, godlike. While we are on the subject of Superman, we once again turn to the iconic villains, and Lex Luthor is arguably one of the main counterparts in his life. Where Superman often relies on feats of strength, righting wrongs in a purely physical manner, Luthor is much the opposite - he has no powers, but is able to counter Superman through his intellect alone. Here, major themes such as obedience and curiosity come against one another, and the realm of comic books are opened to a far greater realm.

Duality is an enduring human condition, one that is completely ingrained with much of our belief system, especially the Holy Bible. I do admit, I'm not wholly familiar with the book, but there is one story that has particularly stuck with me, and that is the role between good and evil, of God and his angel, Lucifer. Lucifer was struck down to Hell because he went against God, against authority, and by all accounts, good. In a way, I have always seen this as a larger theme, where good is associated with an adherence to authority, of obedience to law, where evil is often associated with everything that is the opposite - of stepping out of the lines, to question. I don't necessarily believe that there is any sort of natural right and wrong in nature, but I see these two elements - obedience vs. disobedience, predetermination vs. free will, black and white vs. shades of grey, as a permanent quandary that cannot, and will not ever be decided by any number of philosophers. As the Joker proves, one cannot exist without the other. As I learned in an ethics class in high school, one cannot know good without knowledge of evil.

This is a strong theme throughout the history of science fiction, from Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy to Michael J. Straczynski's Babylon 5, both stories that contained this as a dominant part of its mythos. Within Foundation, there was the effort to save society, where the Mule sought to undermine all that. MJS's Babylon 5 looked to the duel nature between the Shadows and the Vorlons as the same arguments between good and bad, dark and light, order vs. chaos, as the two extremes of reality. But these are extremes to each side of the coin, as society is eager to jump to, it would seem. One of my favorite television shows, Life On Mars, demonstrates much of the same storytelling qualities, with Gene Hunt and Sam Tyler being much the polar opposites of one another, which is why their partnership works so well for the story. (The UK version, at least. The US version employed this to a far more limited extent.)

If one looks to any sort of politics in the world today, you will see that there is a division between left and right politics, because of the seating positions of an older government. In the United States, these divisions fall much along the same lines - the right is often a force for order, for adherence to principles, often along with religious support and faith, where the left is often represented by scientific reasoning and knowledge. Strictly speaking, this is a broad generalization, but you get my point.

One of my favorite short videos that I've come across recently is 'Nemisis' a Norwegian (I think) short film that demonstrates this split nature between a hero and a villain. The protagonist, Arne, desires to be a hero, but alone, by himself, he is unable to become one without the antagonist, the Nemesis, as they find towards the end of the short film. Like many other stories, the heroes are often defined by what they are not, and oftentimes, villains are placed into the story with just these qualities, which will often boil down to these two extremes.

This, I think, is why the comic books, and their stories, are so enduring in society, much like the Bible has remained for the thousands of years that Christianity has been around. The duel nature of good and bad, right and left, heads or tails, is a fundamental part of how we see the world, and the comic book format tells these stories in one of the most fundamental methods, a hero that represents one side, where the villain, who is just over the top enough to match the hero in this instance, represents the other.

There is one movie that I can think of that does this in an even better fashion than the Dark Knight, in the same sort of genre, Unbreakable. The dominant theme here is once again, that of duality, and it incorporates the long history of comic books into this story, with the two characters as polar opposites. Where one was strong, the other was weak, and so on. One carried out crimes, where the other one sought to prevent them, a never-ending loop, a sort of natural balancing act that will continue to be examined, not only through the political, philosophical and religious realms, but also through that of the brightly colored panels of a comic book.

I highly doubt that I will explore this sort of thing in my capstone paper, but there are elements of the Second World War that certainly applies, with the absolute evil that is represented by the Nazis that took over Europe, countered by the just cause of the Allied forces that took it back. I think that this balance is best represented by the introduction of Captain America in the late 1930s, with a dramatic punch to Hitler’s jaw on the cover of a comic book. In a way, without a presence such as Hitler, the very heroes that inspire and motivate us would have no reason to exist. Much is the same in today’s society with a group of costumed heroes. Without crime, they would have no reason to exist, however amusing their methods are. Heroes will always be balanced by a villain who represents everything that they are not, for good or for bad.

Ground Control to Major Tom

On Monday, STS-125, the last space shuttle mission to the Hubble Space Telescope launched from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida to replace gyroscopes, batteries and to install two new cameras to outfit the aging satellite for the last time, making it the most powerful in its history. I've talked about space before, and I find it utterly facinating. Hubble itself has had a long and varied history when it comes to space, from a blotched lense to the historic repair mission, not to mention the thousands of beautiful pictures that it's captured over its long life.

The current mission is one that I've been looking forward to for a while now. A couple months ago, I wrote an article for io9, titled Stalking NASA, which was a laundry list of ways in which someone can follow up on NASA's activities via social networking sites. What they have been doing with this launch is really highlighting the mission. In the leadup to the launch, there was numerous updates from a number of twitter feeds for Space Shuttle Atlantis, a couple of the astronauts, NASA and a couple other lines. Facebook had a number of status updates for the specific pages for the mission, and almost the entire mission has been broadcast live online.

I'm really digging the ability to watch this stuff live. Whether it's watching Atlantis docking with Hubble to watching the astronauts work (in some cases, watching from THEIR view) has been absolutely fantastic. You almost get a feeling that you're right there with them in space. The images are absolutely stunning, and I really hope that this'll attract more interest to the space program.

Man, I want to go to space.

Album Review: Nothing Rhymes With Woman

My favorite group, Carbon Leaf, is back with their third major label record, Nothing Rhymes With Woman, the followup to their fantastic Love Loss Hope Repeat, released in 2006 on Vanguard Records. Over the past three years, they've been touring in support of that album, while working on new material. They've come up with what is possibly one of my favorite albums from the group, (although Echo Echo, their last independent release will always be my absolute favorite), and Nothing Rhymes With Woman showcases the best of what Carbon Leaf has to offer.

Where Love Loss Hope Repeat was fairly consistent throughout when it came to tone and theme, Nothing Rhymes With Woman is far more varied, and at my first listen, it felt like a step backwards. However, with several more plays through the disc, I've come to believe that the album has a far more nostalgic theme to it. Where Love Loss Hope Repeat was tightly structured around the idea that falling in love and out of it again is akin to the passing of the seasons, it came with a fairly dark and somewhat somber feel to the album as a whole. Nothing Rhymes With Woman feels far more free and lively in comparison, if a bit less connected together when it comes to the overall sound and feel to the album.

In a way, this album feels like it should fall between Indian Summer and Love Loss Hope Repeat. There's a share of the more thoughtful, lyrical songs, such as Mexico, Lake of Silver Bells, Pink and Snowfall Music, more lively, free songs, such as Indecision, Miss Hollywood, Cinnamindy, What Have You Learned, and X-Ray, while there's a couple harder songs such as Another Man's Woman and Meltdown.

This is also the first foray for the group with their two new members, Jason Neal and Jon Markel, who replaced Scott Milstead and Jordan Medas on drums and bass, respectively. The change doesn't seem to have effected the group all that much, although I can somewhat detect some differences there, but nothing overly noticeable. The other three members, Barry Privett, on vocals, Terry Clark and Carter Gravatt, both on guitar, sound excellent as ever - their overall sound feels tighter, more mature and overall is easily at their best - this is something that I've noticed on the numerous concerts that I've attended for these guys, and it's fantastic to hear it translate into this album so readily.

The overall feel to this album is that it is nostalgic, looking back to good times. Indeed, the opening track, Indecision, contains the lines: "I face the trail of the old lonesome pine, I catch a glimpse, flickers of brilliance, straight ahead for what's left behind. Long days, fade away, I hope to see them again." and "I may get lost but I'll know where I've been." Lonesome Pine was a track from Echo Echo, and I can't help but wonder if this album is an attempt to go back to that style - a number of songs, such as Indecision, Lake of Silver Bells and Drops of Rain feel as if they could fit on that album quite easily.

The idea of nostalgia is prevalent throughout the album, and there are two tracks in particular that really highlight this - X-Ray, which looks back to the rosy boyhood days on summer vacation, something that I myself remember fairly fondly, and Pink, which looks at a woman dying of cancer, looking back to the days before her illness. Looking back towards better days isn't necessarily a bad thing - in this album, it shines, as each song looks back towards good times gone by, as well as some bad ones, but there's a parallel feeling that there's more to come, that there'll be more to look upon in the future. I especially got this feeling with What Have You Learned, a quasi-breakup song that looks at the failure of a relationship, but also looking at what good can come from such an event in one's life.

Of all the songs on the album, my absolute favorite is Lake of Silver Bells. It's a gorgeous song that starts off smoothly before everything kicks into high gear about a minute into the song. This is the perfect song to drive along with the windows down, the volume up, and falls well within Carbon Leaf's tendencies to write very descriptive and lyrical songs, and it feels very much like the album that I like the most, Echo Echo, for much of those reasons. Thus far, it's easily the best album that I've listened to all year, and undoubtedly (and I'm a bit biased here) one of my favorites for the year.

Download Lake of Silver Bells. (It's okay, the record company okayed this one.)

Welcome to the Dollhouse

Joss Whedon's latest television venture, Dollhouse, just completed its short first season on FOX, after much drama, production problems and attempts to wade into a rapidly changing television market. While it did so, it showed that Whedon can still produce some of the most compelling television stories out there, an entire level above almost everything else that's been screened for audiences.

Dollhouse was a tough sell. I first came across Joss Whedon's work with the movie Titan AE (for which he had a writing credit) but it wasn't until I watched his fantastic show Firefly that I realized just how the television can be used to tell a story. Firefly was fantastic, and like many, I lamented its cancellation, although its short, bright run has made it a classic amongst fans, and is almost universally loved by geeks. So, it was puzzling to many people when it was announced that Whedon would be returning to television with a new show to FOX, even though it was largely perceived that FOX sabotaged Firefly. And that's before we even get to the story of Dollhouse.

Firefly was an easy sell. When asked, I'll tell someone it's a Western in space, a character-driven science fiction story that is full of humor, darker characters and some fun story lines. Dollhouse, when asked, takes a little more consideration and thought. The story revolves around an active, Echo, who is part of the Dollhouse. The Dollhouse is part of a network of facilities where a person can be made to order. Whatever you need, they can provide, whether it be sex, a specialist or a friend, all thanks to some sort of technology that allows for a human to be wiped clean and reprogrammed from a number of personalities or composite personalities. The actives are ostensibly volunteers, who signed up for a couple of years for whatever reason, and live a life of luxury in between times of being someone else. When this story picks up, there is a rogue active named Alpha who's recently escaped after killing several people, an FBI agent, Paul Ballard, who is trying to find out what the Dollhouse is and to take it down for its ethically dark activities, and Echo, who is special, somehow.

It's a very dark story, but it is the most important one being told on television right now. As to be expected from Joss Whedon, the show is extremely well written, with layers of meaning between the actions and dialogue of the characters in the show, revolving primarily around ones identify, humanity and soul. Frequently, a character will state that they know exactly who they are, only that they have been programmed ahead of time. The result is similar to watching the film The Matrix for the first time, and wondering, in the back of your mind, just what is reality? This show does much the same for me, and certainly presents the certainty of ones own identity and personal history in a new light.

Furthermore, the show is a classic example of the boundaries that Science Fiction often explores, the delicate relationship of scientific knowledge and religious faith, of knowing versus believing, of technology versus organic life. Just what is a person? is a question that seems to come forward a lot. Are they something that can be programmed at will, if one believes that a person is merely a series of electrical impulses? Or is there something more to that? It's a question that this show will never satisfactorily answer, but the fact that it even approaches the level of storytelling that can approach such an issue is remarkable.

The show is not without its problems. The first half of the season started off slowly, due to network insistence's and the need to tell the story while trying to attract an audience to an otherwise difficult story in the first place. The story of Dollhouse is a complicated one, probably more suited towards a science fiction novel, rather than a television series, because of the complexity and difficult nature of the show and the intelligence of an average television viewer. (Pretty low, if the extraordinary success of American Idol is anything to go by). Thus, while the momentum has taken a little while, so has the patience of the audience, who dropped out after a couple episodes, and leaves the show's future hanging in the balance. Fanboys will likely point to FOX straight off and place the blame firmly at their doorstep for dumbing down the show to being with, but I'm going to point at Joss Whedon for blame here - he's created an extremely complicated, interesting and extraordinary show that is above and beyond intelligent and fascinating, which is sure to drive away an audience. (LOST seems to be the anomaly in this instance.) But the show is also at times too ladened down with a message, it's too self-important and too self conscious of what it is trying to do.

Now that the show is over, the waiting game is about to begin as to whether there will be a second season, and I honestly hope that there will be, because Dollhouse is the sort of intellectual wake up that the television market needs, and while there is a certain pretentious nature to the show, it's just the thing that shows that there is still a heart and soul to the television industry.

I like this ship! It's exciting!

There is always an air of anticipation for a reboot of a much beloved franchise. Oftentimes, there is a delicate balancing act between creating a story that attracts new fans to the existing fanbase, while working to include said fans. It's a hard thing to do, and there more failures than succeses, at least where story is concerned. After watching the latest version of the Star Trek, I'm happy to say that this reboot falls far more towards the successes of the Daniel Craig James Bond films than the Ewan McGregor Phantom Menace. The new Star Trek is interesting, smart, refreshing and exciting. It's also just what the Star Trek franchise needs to start anew, and I suspect that with this film, there will be a resurgence in the franchise.

I've been cautiously optimistic for this Star Trek movie. The last film was released back in 2002, seven years ago, and in the ensuing time, there's been the off and on talk about a new film, new television show, and so on, but nothing seemed to come together until it was announced that J.J. Abrams, the mastermind behind Lost, Fringe, Alias and Cloverfield, and when the cast was filled out by a fairly talented cast of younger actors to play younger, alternative versions of the characters from the original show. Given that I've been a longtime Star Wars fan, with limited contact and interest towards the Star Trek franchise, I've been very interested to see just how this lines up with what I have seen from the shows and films that I have seen.

There's a lot to like from this new film. Abrams is best known for his storytelling - LOST especially - which is why this was so interesting to me. Beyond a good story, he's crafted a number of compelling ones, introducing a number of unconventional aspects to them as he goes. His first film, Mission Impossible III, best demonstrates this through the lack of over-explaination and facination with the sheer visual style that has become the standard for action movies nowadays. This same trait has been carried over to Star Trek.

The story picks up with the USS Kelvin coming across a strange formation in space that shoots out a Romulan ship, which attacks and destroys it, but not before a newly born James T. Kirk and his mother evacuate, changing what has been the established timeline in the Trek universe. We fast forward a little to Kirk and Spock as young children, where we see that their dominant personalities are already taking root - Kirk is a defiant and brash young man, while Spock begins to grapple with his dual heretige of Human and Vulcan. Fast forward once again and the two meet, and predictibly, their personalities clash from the start. It is here that the plot kicks in as well, with a distress call from Vulcan, where the same Romulan ship has appeared once again, with its captain, Nero, thirsting for revenge after his home planet was destroyed, despite the efforts of Spock in the original universe. Kirk, being disaplined for cheating on a test, is not assigned to the fleet, but he is brought on board by his friend McCoy and they're on their way to Vulcan... The plot doesn't really matter.

The plot is really the weaker point of the film. Romulans go back in time, change the timeline, take revenge on Vulcan, Enterprise moves in to save the day, end of story. It's fairly straight forward. I'm not very well versed in the Trek universe, so I can't really compare how well this story stacks up against the other ones, but while Abrams is really well known for his interesting stories, the main focus that he places here is on the characters. What we get is the origins of the iconic cast of characters on board the USS Enterprise. Everyone gets their due facetime, some more than others, and from what I can tell, everyone seems to really fill the roles nicely.

The people to really watch is Spock and Kirk, the two characters that define the franchise from the beginning. From the start, the two are antagonistic towards one another. Their personallities are ying and yang, and essentially, this film is about them clicking together to the point where they can not only stand one another, but also learn to trust and become friends. Both parts are really well acted by their respective actors (and Zachary Quinto as Spock is a brilliant casting choice), who picked up on the mannerisms of their older selves and provide a logical basis for what the characters would become.

One of the best elements of the film was the look and feel of the sets, as well as the film style. The sets are very modern looking, sleek, and up to date, as opposed to the futuristic version from the 1970s. There's lots of flat, touchscreens, glass readouts and all that, and the technobabble has largely been stripped away. There's plenty of lense flares throughout that help to give the film a classic science fiction feel, and is combined with Abram's frantic camera work during the space battles that left me breathless. Ironically, Lucasfilm Ltd did all the special effects work here, and it looks absolutely stunning.

However, what I really liked about this film is that the film isn't enamored of the Trek universe. It wasn't made for the fans, and as such, it's not just another go at the franchise to fill in a gap or any sort of story that hasn't already been covered over and over. Much like in the recent James Bond reboot with Daniel Craig, the creators haven't necessarily pandered to the same things yet again. There's homages to the original show all over, certainly, but they're not the focus. Rather, everything is there as a sort of tongue in cheek reference to the Trek that the fans love. There's an over the top and absolutely hilarious method to the madness, such as when Scotty is beamed directly into the Enterprise's water system, with Kirk chasing him to get him out. This all makes the film a rather fun one to watch, but not to take totally seriously.

Overall, I really enjoyed it, and as a Star Wars fan, I have to say that I welcome this new version of Trek. It's far more modern, creative and interesting than the other modern Star Trek episodes that I've seen over the years, and it's made me want to go back for more.

Vermont Political and Financial Woes

Over the past couple of years, I've gotten far more cogniscent of how politics work and what things mean. While I've largely followed national politics over the past two years, I've gotten a heavy dose of state politics, even more so since the national recession began. In the past couple ot months, I've become extremely frustrated with Governor Jim Douglas (R-VT) and his reactions to the state bugetary crisis. Like many states, Vermont has been hit fairly hard, at least on the state budget level. Overall, we've been lucky - we don't have large masses of housing that can't be sold, heavy industry that's been outsourced to other countries, etc. That being said, we still have a projected $200-$300 million gap, and it's splitting the state down party lines, and not in any good way. There's certainly ways to do this. Cut spending like crazy, eliminating programs, departments and personnel, as the Republicans suggest, or raise taxes and maintain a lot of these programs, as the Democrats have suggested. Both ideas have merit, in my eyes. There have been numerous layoffs already within the state, and some program cuts. The State Senate has already put together a number of plans, with cuts upwards of $100 million, with several additional taxes, such as a .05 cent gas tax and a couple of income ones, only to be told flat out by Gov. Douglas that he will accept no tax hikes at all.

Wait, what?

In normal years, I can fully understand not wanting to have any sort of increase in my taxes - I like my money. But these are extrodinary circumstances, which leads to a sort of double edge sword - while there are most likely programs that are out there that do cost money to operate that can be lost, there are plenty out there that need to remain, because in addition to all of those regular people who have problems, the people whom those programs serve and help to lead any sort of life. Saying no to a .05 cent gas tax makes absolutely no sense, especially when Douglas makes the argument that it will prevent people from ... whatever he's been saying that it'll prevent them from. Bullshit, because a year ago, a gallon of unleaded regular was at least $2 higher than it is today. If there was a time for such a thing, now is it. Once this crisis is over, I'd be more than happy to see it go. This tax in particular would be designed specifically to help fix Vermont's roadways, which, as I've been doing as a lot of driving and can vouch for this, need a lot of work. Between the potholes, cracks and bumps, that money can be put to good use, and free up funds for other programs. Education has been a big issue as well - while listening to the radio, Douglas noted that we have a declining number of students, but are paying for a higher amount. I honestly can't see any problem with this, beause education is the one place that really needs the attention and funds, especially when things such as arts and culture are being stripped away from our schools. Keep the funding and the teachers, and we can provide a far better education for the students that we do have. We certainly need that in this country.

My dad had a good point the other day - Douglas seems to only be saying no in order to maintain a sort of party line - Republican = no taxes, or no higher taxes. While this is admirable, there is nothing good that can come out of this, and he is increasingly alienating the Democratic majority in the Vermont House and Senate, which will make it harder for him in the long run, especially with an election coming up in 2010. He has already suffered a defeat - a needless defeat - earlier this year when he opposed the Marriage Equality Bill that brought Vermont to be the first state to legalize same-sex marriage via legislation, not by the courts.

I'm not opposed to cutting taxes, but I am opposed to the drive to indescriminantly cut away programs simply to maintain a party image to help with re-election. I'm regretting my decision to vote for Gov. Douglas, because I hoped that he would be sensible during this financial crisis. Sadly, I seem to have been wrong.

Happy Birthday Hubble

Today is the 19th birthday of the Hubble Telescope, which was launched into a high orbit on this day in 1990 by Space Shuttle Discovery. The Satellite has remained one of the most important installations to have been launched. The images that have been taken have helped to vastly increase our knowledge of the surrounding universe, and take some of the most beautiful sights from all over.

The Hubble Space Telescope was an important project for NASA, which was still reeling from the destruction of the Challenger orbiter just four years earlier after faulty parts and negligence contributed to the deaths of the crew members. NASA's public image was tarnished from the accident, and hopes were riding high on the successes of Hubble. The launch, STS-031, brought the Hubble 380 miles up, the second highest orbit, and twice that of the Shuttle's normal range.

After it's deployment on April 25th, scientists found that the images that they recieved weren't as sharp as they'd thought. The primary lense in the telescope was incorrectly built, 2.3 micrometers out of the correct shape. NASA's image was once again tarnished, and scientists worked quickly to devise a solution. This was aided by the design of the Hubble, which was the only satellite that could be serviced in orbit. The first of four servicing missions brought up a sort of add-on that allowed for Hubble's vision to be corrected. The mission was an overwhelming success (except that the astronauts couldn't get one of the doors closed, and had to ratchet it shut). Five spacewalks were performed, and with the new images from the telescope, the public image of the agency rebounded. Three additional Servicing Missions were conducted, one in 1997, 1999 and 2002, each of which upgraded equipment or repaired faulty parts.

The last mission is scheduled later next month, STS-125, which will install a new camera and spectrograph and repair several other instruments that have failed. Following this mission, the Telescope will continue its life through to 2013, and it will be replaced by the James Webb Space Telescope at that time.

Hubble's website. Follow it on twitter.

Education …

 has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading.

G. M. Trevelyan (1876-1962) British historian  

During my senior year of college, I took a course on Norwich University's history. Initially, I wasn't a huge fan of the idea of the course, because honestly, how intertesting is the history of one's own institution? I ended up loving the course, and wound up typing up a piece on the Norwich University students who fought at Normandy, and went to France to talk about it. 

One of the things that I really took away from the course was the school's founder, Alden Partridge, and his ideas about education. He was an incredibly patriotic man, who believed in the idea of a citizen soldier, but who also believed in a well rounded education. One of the big things that I learned was the idea of experiencial learning, and how much of the school's history was set around this style of learning. Partridge would take students out on hikes, marches, field trips, while bringing in experts on all sorts of vocations, but also making sure that his students got out of the classroom and into the field, where students could learn something hands on. 

While I majored in History at Norwich, I also minored in Geology, which I think Partridge would have liked - a mixture of sciences and arts. The Geology department at the school is absolutely fantastic, and those classes are amongst the ones that I miss the most while at the school. We took field trips - lots of them. It wasn't uncommon during some of my courses that we would get together on a weekend and end up in the middle of New York while looking at rocks along the way to see how the rock beds changed as we went further into what was a sea. More memorable, however, was the geology trips to the American southwest, where we visited and studied the Colorado Plateu and Grand Canyon. I feel that because I saw this all close up, I understand it far better than I ever could have by mere examination in a book. 

Over the past couple of months, I've gotten hooked on a webpage called Not Always Right, which features stories from people in service postitions and their odd, funny or disturbing encounters with customers. While reading these, I'm often astounded at the sheer stupidity of people featured in them, and it makes me a bit sad at just how ignorant, backward or just plain oblivious people can be, and while listening to the radio on a program about the state of education or something along those lines, the root problem to this can be solved by some of Partrige's ideas when it came to teaching - experiencial learning can help to solve some of the problems. 

I think that the biggest problem that the United States faces when it comes to educating students is that our education system is largely out of touch with how life really works. Thinking back to high school, I can narry remember a class in which I learned something useful that I apply to today. Most of my social interactions I've learned from summer camp, where I could work with people in the real world. But in school, I never really learned how exactly Shakespheare fit in with a job or anything along those lines. 

The general consensus seems to be that our education system is very out of date and needs to be revised because a lot of students aren't learning what they really need to learn. The content is there, but it seems to me that people aren't making the connection between the academic world, and how to apply things in real life. Looking back to High School and College, the best classes that I had were the ones that the teacher worked to link the class's content with real world applications. In classes such as tech, mathematics, sciences seem to have concepts that are much mroe easily applied in the real world, while classes such as history and other social sciences are a bit tricky, but it is doable. 

What the US needs to do is look to experts in the education field and to see just how kids are learning nowadays. The argument of "It worked for me" just doesn't work because the world that we live in is constantly changing - what might have worked for a politician years ago might not even apply now. 

Learning and education is the most important thing that we can spend money on - teachers shouldn't be cut back, and we need programs that help to support failing schools, rather than undercut their support when they clearly need it the most. But above that, we need to teach people how to think, reason and operate in the world once they come out of the educational system and into the real world.

Technology & Pirates

Last night, on my way home from work, I ended up listening to a couple commentators discussing the recent rise in piracy off the coast of Somalia. This has been of particular interest here in Vermont, as Captain Richard Phillips is from Underhill, and recently was returned home safely after a 5 day standoff with the pirates who took him hostage.  The article in general was examing a number of high tech ways that vessels, which generally don't like to arm their crews (for safety reasons), are adopting to fend off pirates. These items range from types of foam that can prevent someone from climbing up on a ship, water cannons, directed sound and light emitters that deafen or blind combatants, all of which have had some use in the seas already. Most of these things I remember being developed by the military for non-lethal warfare, and they seem to be pretty effective at repelling boarders, which is hoped will help to stop piracy in that region. 

I don't think that it's going to work, however. 

A short while ago, I did several reviews and an interview with Wired for War author Peter Singer, and I think that there are several parallels between this high-tech approach to taking on 21st century pirates, and our new, high tech ways to taking on insurgents in a 21st century world that Singer has outlined. Additionally, there were several points in my own studies on methods of warfare that give me some pause when it comes to new and high-tech gadgets being put into combat situations. 

On the more obvious side, technology seems to be the silver bullet for warfare. Soldiers nowadays have enormous capabilities compared to their historical predecessors. Our soldiers can fight in the dark, can shoot a person from over a mile away, can fly over a hostile combat zone from thousands of miles away, and talk to one another while fighting in a way to coordinate their movements. These advances have allowed our military personnel to be far more effective in combat, and as a result, more people come back alive than before. There is very little downside to this. 

What I fear, however, is that our military, and indeed, our society, has come to expect far more from fighting forces, and are more willing to utilize technology as a method of warfare. While covering the 2009 Colby Military Writer's symposium here at Norwich University a month ago, the panel discussion brought up the point that President Eisenhower noted in his fairwell address in 1961, warning against the rise of a military industrial complex, noting that going to war nowadays is far easier, because the personnel required is smaller, with technology being percieved as making up the difference far better than humans can. 

This has certainly been a big issue for Iraq, and numerous talks and people I've spoken with have noted that the human element to warfare is something that cannot be underestimated or eliminated. Author Alan R. King, noted that many of the problems that we had in Iraq was a failure to understand the human element within the country, with in turn cause the situation to worsen. Peter Singer also noted that a number of human rights groups have looked into the idea of utilizing unmanned drones in genocide areas, such as Sudan's Darfur, in an effort to stop the violence, and former CIA operative and author Robert Baer has noted that for all the satellites in orbit, having an operative in a room with someone is the best way to gather intelligence, because they can see, hear and feel everything that it going on, things that robotic solutions cannot do at the present moment. These 'solutions' are really not solutions. 

So, when it comes to the rise in Piracy in Somalia, technology is certainly going to deter some pirates. But, what happens when they aquire a water cannon of their own, or use goggles and ear plugs to counter the countermeasures? The same thing is happening in Iraq at the present moment with children armed with spray paint - an expensive robot is taken out of commission by a far cheaper solution. The other issue that I see with extensive countermeasures against pirates is that this could up the ante when it comes to the pirates themselves, and they have already threatened to do so following the deaths of the three pirates who took Richard Phillips the other day. Simply killing and deterring pirates at this point is a short-term solution, as we have found killing insurgents. Where there are people who have taken up arms, there will be people to follow, and the situation will escalate. 

President Obama has recently said that they will be putting a stop to the rise in piracy over there, but what exactly does that mean? Will we send in a carrier group to cover a large amount of ocean, while not addressing the underlying problem? Or will he go the route that will be unpopular and attackable by working with the remains of the Somali Government to try and control the problem through economics, which will ultimately solve the problem? The pirates are the symptom of a country in dire need of help, and working to alleviate that symptom will not bring about any sort of long term solution.

"These, Ladies and Gentlemen, are the nation's Mercury Astronauts."

Fifty Years ago, American received seven extraordinary men with a press conference just a year after the creation of NASA.

The announcement came at a pivotal time in spaceflight history, and unlike the Russian Space Program, which kept their Cosmonauts identities a secret, NASA started off their program with much press and public interest. The seven men, Scott Carpenter, Gordo Cooper, John Glenn, Gus Grissom, Wally Schirra, Alan Shepherd, and Deke Slayton, were turned into instant celebrities.

Spaceflight was perceived very differently at that point. For this announcement, nobody knew if it was even possible to send a person to space. The Mercury Program was designed to see if mankind could survive the journey into space and return safely, part of a larger agenda to bring the United States to the Moon, as outlined a couple years later by President John F. Kennedy.

Each of these pilots were graduates of Navel Test Pilot School, and underwent rigorous tests to reach the Press Conference. Of the original 69 who applied to the program, only the seven made it through. Six would fly the Mercury missions, before the program was phased out to the Gemini Program, which was designed to see if humans could build hardware that would work in space, and to see if we could live for longer durations. Apollo, the third program, would utilize the experience and knowledge gained during the prior two programs to reach and explore the surface of the moon, which was accomplished ten years later, in 1969 by Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong.

In January of 1961, Alan Sheperd became the first American into space, just weeks after Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin accomplished the same feat. He would later go on to command the Apollo 14 mission, and would walk on the moon. The other six astronauts would reach space, although Deke Slayton would only take part in the Apollo-Soyuz mission more than a decade later, grounded because of a heart problem.

The seven men are sadly underrepresented and rather unknown when it comes to World and American History - people tend to only remember Neil Armstrong, and while his accomplishments are nothing short of incredible, these men did more. They showed humanity that our long-held dreams of reaching space were not only possible, they were dreams that were reachable, and that we would return to the edge of our world time and time again. Like explorers of old, they broke barriers and ventured into the unknown to discover something new, to prove that there were no boundaries that could hold back humanity and that we would touch the sky.

You can see the original press conference here, here and here.

The 'To Read' List

So, it's been a little while since I've done one of these lists, and I've added a number of other books to the queue since I last listed off everything. Here's what I'm reading:

Currently:

The Catch, Archer Mayor - Just finished this last night. Good, light reading, something that came out last fall that I never got around to picking up when it first came out. It's not as good as the original Joe Gunther novels, but it was a fun read. Blood and Thunder, Hampton Sides - Fantastic history of the American west. I'm working through it slowly, and it's one of the best types of histories, that takes a smaller story and places it within the context of the greater happenings of the American expansion to the rest of America during the early 1800s. Shadow Bridge, Gregory Frost - I came across this book when I wrote about Borders giving SF/F authors problems by not selling their books. I'm only a couple pages in, but it seems intersting. A Game of Thrones, George R.R. Martin - Still plugging away every couple of months or so. At this rate, I'll be done with the first book by the time that Martin finished the rest of the series.

Next Up:

Anathem, Neal Stephenson - This one's garnered a lot of attention over the past year since its publication. The Warded Man, Peter Brett - My friend Eric highly recommended this book, and I suspect that I'll get to it quickly. Paris 1919, Margaret Macmillan - I 'read' this for a class in college, and need to give it a proper read now. Woken Furies, Richard K. Morgan - Third book in Morgan's Takeshi Kovacs trilogy. Western Warfare, Jeremy Black - Military History pleasure reading... Warfare in the Western World, Jeremy Black - Ditto. Not until I finish my program, most likely. Generation Kill, Evan Wright - This was made into a miniseries, and I'm intrerested in seeing what it's about and what it says about society. Redcoats, Stephen Brumwell - Another Military history piece that I haven't gotten to yet. Originally, this was to be used for a paper, but my topic shifted and I never got around to reading it. Hot, Flat and Crowded, Thomas Friedman - Christmas present. Looks facinating. What Is Cultural History? Peter Burke - Historigraphy book. The Graveyard Book, Neil Gaiman - Another one that's garnered a lot of attention lately. World War Z, Max Brooks - Despite my rant on Zombies, Ninjas and Pirates the other day, this looks like a fun read. Theodore Rex, Edmund Morris - Biography on Theodore Roosevelt. The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night, Mark Haddon - My mom recommended this one to me. At some point, I'll get around to reading it. The Yiddish Policemen's Union, Michael Chabon - I loved the Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, and this one's supposed to be just as good.

And Everything Else: Mao, Jun Chang Heartshaped Box, Joe Hill A Crack at the Edge of the World, Simon Winchester Girl Sleuth, Melanie Rehak The Ten Cent Plague, David Hadju Millennium Falcon, James Luceno The Force Unleashed, Sean Williams Invincible, Troy Denning The Day of Battle, Rick Atkinson The Big Red One, Wheeler Ike: An American Hero, Michael Korda John Adams, David McCullough Lord Tophet, Gregory Frost Pattern Recognition, William Gibson Close to Shore, Michael Capuzzo Flu, Gina Kolata Aspho Fields, Karen Traviss Devices and Desires, K.J. Parker The Zombie Survival Handbook, Max Brooks A Civil Action, Harr Edison's Eve, Gaby Wood A Canticle for Leibowitz, Walter Miller Atonement, Ian McEwan A Clash of Kings, George R.R. Martin Command Decision, Elizabeth Moon Marque and Reprisal, Elizabeth Moon Cosmonaut Keep, Ken MacLeod Fury, Aaron Allston Revelation, Karen Traviss Streets of Shadows, Michael Reeves Inerno, Troy Denning The Dragon's Nine Sons, Chris Robinson Tales of Ten Worlds, Arthur C Clark

53 Books in all. And that's before my school books.

Astronauts > Ninjas

From here on out, I'm decreeing that Zombies, Ninjas and Pirates are no longer cool, and that Astronauts, Mongolians, Vikings and Robots are taking their place as the 'cool' things to geek out about.

Let me explain.

Over the past couple of years, these three character types have become more popular than usual. Pirates, Zombies and Ninjas have long been popular with the geek crowd. Recent films and games have only thrown the fuel on the fire. At camp, there were endless debates as to whether Pirates or Ninjas were better, or who would win in a fight, and I remember at least a couple of camp-wide games that revolved around these types of characters.

A couple weeks ago, I watched one of Yatzhee's Zero Punctuation reviews for a game called Left 4 Dead, which is essentially a point and shoot at the undead, and where he says the following: "It's my observation that Zombies are second only to Pirates, Ninjas and Monkeys in the list of things nerds like and need to shut the fuck up about." After listening to that, it got me thinking - He's certainly right, but but necessarily for the reasons that he presents in the game (basically, he rants about how Zombies have been overused for just about everything.)

I've never really gotten the whole pirates vs. ninjas vs. zombies thing. Sure, they make some interesting stories, but not to the level at which they're really adored at. I think that it's easy to atribute much of the hype to films because geeks and nerds like the various films that they've been portrayed in, and like to talk about it. The endless discussions are informed by the imaginations of screenwriters, and not necessarily fact, and as a result, 90% of the discussions are pure crap in the first place, a sort of rosy-nostalgic look at what we think these things should be.

The root complaint that I have at this point is that for such an inventive, interesting and imaginative genre, there's very little actual innovation and imagination going on amongst the fan community. We obsess over pirates, ninjas and zombies because we've seen them before in films, and know all there is to know about them, reading over books like the Zombie survival handbook and Under the Black Flag if you're really into the subject.

I've seen the fan community in action - we're an incredbily handy bunch, and especially when it comes to things like costuming, there's very little that people can't do, and do it well. But, I try and think back to the various conventions that I've gone to, and wonder, when was the last time that I've seen something truely original. I've seen amazing costumes, especially from the 501st Legion that I'm a part of - and I'm not trying to disparage their work in the slightest - but everything revolves around existing media - Star Wars, Star Trek, Indiana Jones, Batman, Spiderman, you name it, you go to a big convention, you'll likely see them. Even for halloween, unless you're five, you're unlikely to see any originality when it comes to costumes.

Forrest Ackerman, who recently passed away in December of 2008, was the first Science Fiction fan, appearing at the 1st World Con science fiction convention in a costume that he made himself, a sort of astronaut, essentially starting the trend of fan costuming. While I'm sure that there have been more cases of originality, I really haven't seen anything like it. I've thought to myself that it would be really fun to try and construct something new and original for a con, before I remember that I'm really not that into costuming or conventions, but should I ever have the time and inclination, it'll be something to attempt, for sure.

But this is something that falls beyond costuming - it's largely affecting the entire genre. There are two specific examples that I can think of where this is happening - Pride and Prejudice and Zombies: The Classic Regency Romance - Now with Ultraviolent Zombie Mayhem! and the downsizing of the science fiction sections in Borders Books.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is a book that's unoriginal to its core - it takes most of the text of Jane Austin's Pride and Prejudice and inserts Zombies into it. I'm not necessarily against this by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm more worried about what it stands for in the greater sceme of things - a general trend of unoriginal thinking when it comes to the genre, especially in popular circles. The big comic book giants in particular are guitly of this sort of thing, running their characters for years on end, without rest or retirement, without replenishing the ranks with new characters that might be more interesting or more relevant. This sort of thinking penetrates all levels of fandom, from the top down. Fans don't necessarily demand anything particularly original, and the production end of things doesn't seem to mind turning over the same franchises to them. And I don't blame them - much of this is a business, and this sells - keep it up, because there are good stories there. But the fan community should demand better.

Borders, last year announced that they were reducing the numbers of SF/F books that they'd have in their stores, a move that would likely hurt smaller and up and coming authors, as it put them in a catch 22 type postition - they weren't selling enough books to warrent shelf-space, but at the same time, they're not selling well because they don't have the shelfspace, at least in theory. The trent here seems to favor more of the media-tie ins that sell far better. While that works for authors who are writing media-tieins, what about the authors who want to tell their own stories?

I don't think that it's any coincidence that books that are part of a larger franchise, such as Star Wars or Star Trek do excepetionally well, and they should - there are some excellent reads out there, and I know a bunch of authors who view their works as far more than a simple paycheck (Karen Traviss, Michael A Stackpole, to name two), and it shows. But, they sell, because they contain familiar concepts, characters and ongoing storylines.

I have no issues with tie-in media, so long as it's well written. But for me, tie-in media is a form of advertising. That's fine, especially because it's generally entertaining, and features stories that are fun, but I'll always value a story that's original (and there will be those that will argue about just what originality is - in this instance, not tied in with someone else's works) over everything else, just because it's something new, a different way at looking at a story or story type. And there are good arguments here - because technically, there are only a handful of different story types - I mean, how many stories about space ships can you really expect? In a recent article that I wrote for io9, I was almost shocked to find that the main villian in most of the military science fiction stories were insectoids - Starship Troopers, Armor, Ender's Game and Alien - all used similar elements to tell their stories. But, their stories are all very different, and I always find that I get more out of them, and most other standalone SF/F novels than I do for 90% of the tie-in books that I read. You just can't compare Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell to Spider-Man: Down These Mean Streets, no matter the protestations of tie-in authors, you just can't.

Sadly, this originality is something that seems to be lacking within the geek community, and we've become fans of the pre-existing. My complaint here is that Science Fiction and Fantasy has been an incredibly innovative and creative genre , and those qualities have become very far and few between when it comes to a good book or film. The imagination is still there, but the originality is not, and this is why we have the endless Zombies vs. Pirates vs. Ninja debates, I think - we just can't seem to think of anything else to geek out over. And while it's not completely original, how about Astronauts, Robots, Mongolians and Vikings? They're totally better than Zombie Ninja Pirates any day of the week.

Same-Sex Marriage

Vermont has been in the news a lot lately. Earlier last month, our Senate voted 26-4 in favor of a bill that would legalize 'gay marriage' in Vermont, making it the third state after Connecticut and Massachusetts to do so. Back in 2000, the state made a splash with the introduction of Civil Unions, which granted many aspects of marriage to same-sex couples, although not in name. Today, the State Representatives voted in favor of the bill 95-52, despite a threat from Governor Jim Douglas that any such bill would be vetoed as soon as it reaches his desk. His statement has caused a divide in public opinion towards the bill and the governor's actions. It's certainly a contentious issue, and while I can admire the desire to advocate patience and a broad examination of the issue, that's not really what's happening in the state - Douglas has taken it upon himself to essentially listen to his own beliefs and convictions, rather than what the people of Vermont seem to be trending towards, and has hidden behind an excuse that he would much rather have the budget passed first.

I can admire the personal conviction, I really do. I can understand why people don't wish to support the bill, and I actually agree with Douglas when it comes to getting the state's finances squared away first. The state is working to fullfill a $200 million shortfall, and is facing a number of postitions that are going to be cut, which is extremely unpopular at this stage. But, this decision on Douglas's part will likely hurt him in the long run, especially as he'll likely be running for re-election in 2010. Marriage that is more inclusive is becoming a more popular within the state.

What annoys me more is that these arguments dredge up much unpleasentness between both sides, and the arguments of the religious right in paticular are the arguments that are the most distressing. Their arguments are ones of fear, mistrust and ignorant thinking that represents the worst of our society, and while I'm not sure that marriage is a federal issue, it is most certainly a state one, and that it shouldn't be prohibited based on one's gender, no matter what religious texts are followed by the legislators. Religion can certainly inform the opinions of politicians, but it should not dictate policy.

Marriage is a civil issue, and as we have seen in our history, seperate but equal laws are not. Civil Unions have existed for nine years, and in that time, there have been problems that have cropped up, especially in other states. Allowing same-sex couples to marry would eliminate this problem, and it should be done.

Ground Control to Major Tom

The US version of Life On Mars aired last night, and for once in the show, I'm incredibly disappointed with how they decided to end the show, especially after how this version was generally quite good. While much of the episode was quite solid and helped to wrap up much of the story, the last couple of minutes almost completely ruin the rest of the series.

Overall, the US version of Life on Mars was fairly well done. There was a bit more in the way of a coherent storyline throughout, and it had me guessing as to what was really going on with Sam Tyler throughout - it was somewhat clear that unlike in the original show, where John Simm's Sam Tyler was in a coma from pretty early on, that wasn't necessarily the case here, and there were a number of theories that Sam himself came up with shortly after the pilot, as well as a number of things along the way (usually explained away by the end of the episode, such as drugs, helicopters and other plausible explanations).

What is most memorable about the original ending of the show was the sheer conflict that Sam's character had to go through - this was a significant leap in characterization, one that really would have been incredibly hard to imagine being in his position. In the original, Sam is forced to choose between 1973 and 2004, finding escape during a robbery, where he can return home at the expense of his friends. As it turns out, he returns home to the present, but disillusioned with how everything is done (and this is a brilliant commentary on modern policing), he jumps off of a building and returns to the 1970s.

In this modern version of the show, Sam has come across his father after his younger self is kidnapped, and everything winds up in Hyde, where his father is shot trying to kill him, and Sam finally is comfortable in the 1970s, when he wakes up. Not in 2008, where the show started, but in 2035, where he's on a space ship, about to land on Mars. The entire show was essentially a trippy dream on the part of the character, in a very odd sort of Wizard of Oz type of dream. The members of the 1-2-5 are his fellow crew members, and because they were cryogenically frozen for the trip, his mind went elsewhere.

This ending really bothers me, probably more than it should. It's an incredible letdown. I don't know whether this is because the show was ended early, or what, but there are three specific things that just didn't work.

Once Sam wakes up, we learn that he is really going to Mars. Like the original, the past and future have been blended - Sam was in a coma, and picked up things, such as Hyde, the doctors, and some other things and incorporated them into his fantasy while in a coma. US Sam did the same thing this time around, but went further - he picked up his fellow crew members and supplanted them and their personalities as his fellow police officers. While this is similar to the UK version, it falls far short - essentially, it was all a dream - every element of it, from car crash to his experiences in 1973. The original found Sam recovered and returning to work, where the viewers were faced with a stark difference between the way that police work was conducted, and even society, between 2004 and 1973. Sam found that modern times were far too sterile, grey and emotionless, whereas the 1970s were vibrant, colorful and overemotional, and that there were some important aspects to life during that time. This was something that was completely lacking in the modern version, throughout the show. Another, minor couple of points was that Gene was now 'Major Tom', and the entire space scene just seemed really, really fake.

Once the 1-2-5 wakes up, we learn that Gene is really Sam's father (which is really just too cute to be taken seriously) and that their relationship in real life was probably similar to what we saw in the show. Gene's advice to Sam, which seems to have been the entire underlying theme of this is to "Make your home where ever you are." This to me seemed to also be a major cop-out after all the experiences that he's undergone. The entire show should be building to the finale, and help support the final conclusions - this really didn't happen. From early on, US Sam has always seemed to fit right in to the 1970s, whereas UK Sam was constantly trying to find a way back home, because he was constantly running into problems with how he felt that police-work and society should work, and this was a constant issue throughout the show, which made Sam's return to the 1970s all the more meaningful. Here, this was a simple realization that Sam came up with after a trippy dream.

Essentially, The Wizard of Oz has already done this sort of storyline, and has done it better. While this in and of itself isn't a problem, it needs to be recognized within the show a bit. The UK version had some interesting references, but this show falls far more towards Oz than the original, and I don't remember coming across any references within the show. The UK version did a fantastic set of scenes with Israel Kamakawiwo'ole's wonderful version of Somewhere Over the Rainbow at the end, which added a bit of weight and meaning to the finale of that show, where as this one had nothing that really added to the show at all.

There are some redeeming factors for this finale, which actually worked really well up until the Mars ending. Annie Norton was finally made into a full detective, but even then, this seemed like it was an afterthought. (In the UK version, Annie was made a DI in the second series.) There was ample resolution with Sam's trip to the 1970s, but it was largely cheapened by the fact that he never really went there, even in his dreams.

Everything that made the UK show such a good one was noticeably absent in this version. This didn't necessarily ruin the US version for me, but they are impossible to really compare. Taken in and of itself, the US show worked quite well, and I was happy to see that it was as good as it was - the characters were decently done, the stories were interesting, and it was interesting. But, I'll always return to the original UK version.

Bryan Dondero to Depart the Nocturnals

According to Vermont's largest daily newspaper, Bassist Bryan Dondero is departing from the popular VT band, Grace Potter and the Nocturnals, raising some issues that he had with the band and their creative direction. The recent move has forced the band to cancel several shows (Revolution Hall in Troy, NY on March 25th; The 8x10 in Baltimore, MD on March 26th; and Mr. Small's in Millvale, PA on March 27th) that were coming at the end of the month, although there is no word as to whether the band will continue at Bonnaroo.

The article cited Dondero's displeasure with the band's move to a major record label in 2007 for their fantastic album This Is Somewhere, which marked a noted change from funk-soul in the band's style to something more along the likes of classic rock. In the article, he stated: "I was always a little skeptical, they’re owned by Disney." He then goes on to note that he and Potter disagreed on several points, and that he felt that he was going to be asked to leave the band.

This is a bit surprising, at least to me. I've been a huge fan of the Nocturnals since I started listening to them several years ago, and being from the same place, and indeed, attending the same high school as Grace, it's been absolutely fantastic to see the band grab so much attention as they have in the past couple of years. The group has largely been seen to have been a great creative force, and it's unclear as to how this will affect the band, especially as they are working on their next major record label album.

This also brings up the argument about indie vs. major label records. Obviously, there is far more creative control when it comes to an independant record, as the band found with their first two albums, which gained them quite a bit of notice around the state, and only with the major record, were they able to gain even more attention on a nation-wide level, especialy with appearances on Jay Leno, Grey's Anatomy and One Tree Hill.

That being said, Potter's latest single, I Want Something I Want is a huge departure from her normal style, and even I've been a little disapointed with the stylistic change here - it's an incredibly shallow and pop-ish song, far below what we've come to expect from her. It's not a bad song alone, but within the context of what we've heard before, it doesn't come close. However, the Nocturnals are on the rise, and it should come to no surprise that they will have to sacrifice some style and independance for the attention. While it's not a good situation, they can do far more later on, as well as with their live shows, which are incredibly energetic and exciting to watch.

I really hope that the Nocturnals will find another bassist in the near future, so that they can continue to play around the area, as well as complete their new album, but I hope that they won't forget their Vermont roots and where they came from, because that would be an enormous amount of talent that would be squandered with the regular, consumer level music. The Nocturnals are much better than that. I also hope that this doesn't spell any more problems for the band, because I'll be very, very sad if they break apart.

(Originally posted to Carry You Away) Image from Flickr

But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate

I almost hardly know where to start with a review such as this. Battlestar Galactica is finally over, after an unprecedented run over the past five or so years. Over the course of four seasons, a miniseries and film, Galactica has far and above exceeded expectations, and will likely be known as one of the greatest Science Fiction television shows to appear on our screens, indeed, one of the best television programs to have ever been created. There will be spoilers for the finale of this episode, so be warned.

The final episode has come amidst years of speculation and expectations, and was something that seems almost impossible to have been able to successfully wrap up a show with so much momentum and story behind it; yet, while watching on Friday night, I found my expectations blown away and replaced with genuine surprise throughout. There were many things that I had essentially accepted would happen - I predicted that Adama would die aboard the Galactica in a blaze of glory, that Lee and Kara would be finally united, that we would have a fundamental happy ending for the show, something to redeem the last four seasons of misery and heartbreak for the colonial survivors. But, in the way that good stories often are, Ron Moore and his fantastic team of writers have crafted something more. None of those predictions happened - Adama survived (although the Galactica was destroyed, for sure), Kara and Lee go their separate ways and the result is a fulfilling end, something far better than what I had predicted.

From the miniseries, Battlestar Galactica has remained a show that was consistently good, and one that held broad appeal to a wide audience. On the surface, for the first couple of seasons, the show was mainly a science fiction adventure, with space ships, action, robots and the vague notion that the fleet would continue on towards earth, giving the show's creators an easy out once the show started to wind down. But at the end of Season 1, the seeds of something far greater started, with the discovery of Kobol, which brought the show to something much more interesting, injecting religion, destiny, fate and a number of other heady concepts into the plotlines.

The finale itself has been described as brilliant, fullfilling and uneven by a number of reviewers, and each point has its merits. The finale is indeed well done, and a fantastic end to the series, but it is at the same time uneven, with the first half essentially an entire season's work of special effects work, and some of the best action that we've seen in the entire series, from ground combat against Cavil's forces, to some spectacular space sorties (although I have to say, my favorite space battles include the Battle of the Asteroid in Season 1, and the opening battle for Season 4). This first episode essentially brings everything to an exciting head, and brings out some of the best in the most unlikely characters. Baltar has his heroic moment after his talk with Lee about his self-centered nature, Cavill agrees to negotiate, and Boomer sacrifices herself to hand over Hera. It is here that we essentially learn the nature of the shared visions between Baltar, Roslin, Athena and Caprica 6. The climax of this part helps to fulfill Kara's destiny as well, giving purpose to the song that she has been hearing, and brings the story to its natural conclusion that has been building since the miniseries: she brings the fleet to Earth. Not the bombed out and uninhabitable Earth that they discovered earlier in the season, but the Earth that we now call our home.

Starbuck has been one of show's hallmark characters since the beginning, initially, because the character had been turned from a male in the original to a female in the new version, which caused much uproar from fanboys before subsiding. Since early in the show, Starbuck has been singled out as a special character, one with a growing significance over the course of the show, the highlight of this coming with her 'death' in the Season 3 episode Maelstrom, and her rebirth at the end of the episode Crossroads.

Kara Thrace's story arc has been an interesting one throughout the show, especially between her tent pole episodes You Can't Go Home Again, Scar and Maelstrom. Her story is complex, and where it would have been easier for Moore & co. to have simply explained away her special nature as being a Cylon, they resisted this temptation and made her something more - her true nature is never explained away, but in the finale, when Starbuck simply vanishes into thin air, her true nature almost doesn't need to be explained - there is a certain mystery and allure to her character that enriches the experience, and I believe that a straightforward explanation of her character would cheapen that.

Gaius Baltar is possibly one of the characters that has changed the most over the course of the series, beginning his life as a brilliant scientist who rejects the notion of a supreme being and religion, to someone who not only accepts the idea, but embraces it and that he holds a purpose in a larger picture. He fills the role between the side of faith and religion and reason and science.

Intertwining with Balter's evolution has been the presence of model # 6, known as Caprica. For the first chunk of the series, she really only existed in Baltar's head, until later on, when the Cylons split, and a number were captured or fled to the fleet. Capica, the flesh and blood model, likewise saw Baltar in her head. Both stated that they had destinies, that they had a place in god's plan. To someone like Baltar, this provided both amusement for the audience, but also an excellent story mechanism that helped drive his character, and provided some of the initial development. In the end, this ties together with Hera's fate, as well as the hallucinations that Sharon and Roslin saw.

Hera was a central part of the story from fairly early on, and she is essentially responsible for the last story arc of the series, with her capture and experimentation, and the subsequent rescue that the remains of the Colonial Fleet mounted to get her back. This has been building from the end of Season 1, where we learned that an upcoming hybrid child would have enormous consequences for the fleet. While a lot of the fanbase suspected that there was something to this, such as that she had abilities or something along those lines, this was something more simple, more elegant - Hera united the fleet and Cylon/Human factions, and brought forth a new era on their new home.

Halfway through Season 4, Kara leads humanity to Earth, where they find it bombed out and uninhabitable, after having found Kobol and New Caprica and left them. Having left Earth for new pastures, Starbuck once again brings humanity to salvation by randomly jumping the Galactica to safety after the battle with Cavill's forces, jumping right on top of the Moon and is joined shortly thereafter by the rest of the fleet, hundreds of thousands of years in our past.

As Adama notes to Roslin, Earth is an idea, and this is their Earth. In a way, this explains why the colonists never settled on the Kobol and New Caprica after the fall - this wasn't their Earth. Obviously, the story wasn't finished, but neither location would have provided any fulfilling conclusion to the human race - neither location was Earth. Earth, in this show, essentially provided humanity with hope, a reason to continue, and a home in which the slate was wiped clean, where they could completely start over. Kobol had too much history wrapped up in it, too much blood, while New Caprica was a convenient stopping point to appease political pressures, while sporting an unpleasant climate. The second Earth, our Earth, represented everything that Kobol and New Caprica didn't - a rebirth of society. The refugees rejected technology and in essence, everything that had happened before, to break the cycle and bring about Six's conclusion that humanity would not follow the same path that is had been consigned to before.

The last five minutes of the show proves to be the most on the nose and profound when it comes to delivering any sort of message in the show, as the episode jumps forward 150,000 years to modern day New York City, while Baltar's 6 and 6's Baltar (whom we now know are Angels or similar messenger) observes that society has become decedent with commercialism and technology, much like it had before in Kobol, the first Earth and Caprica, part of the repeating nature of parts of the show's mythos: "All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again." Yet, as Caprica notes, any complex system that tends to repeat itself will have its anomalies. The real question at the end of the episode, of course, is did the colonists break the cycle, or did they merely slow it down?

The balance between science / technology and human maturity is a theme that has long been used in science fiction. Numerous writers have talked about the subject, noting that our ability to create is often not outpaced by our ability to utilize our creations wisely. Such has been the case in Galactica's world, where humans create, but are ultimately destroyed by their creations, as we see throughout the show on Capria, Kobol and the first Earth. As the episode draws to a close with Jimi Hendrix's version of All Along The Watchtower, we are treated to a short series of clips of modern day robots, which had an odd prophetic feel to it - will we, in this world, follow in the footsteps of stories past, or, will we follow in Six's prediction that we will be the anomaly in god's complex series of systems?

The episode Crossroads ended with a Galactica version of Bob Dylan's fantastic song All Along the Watchtower, and so this episode ended with Hendrix's version, playing on a boom box in Times Square. While this was a bit of an odd choice for a musical selection for the show, there are many elements of the song that make this a fitting choice, one that has a lot of meaning wrapped up within it - in particular, the imagry of a god overlooking his creation, with its subjects trying to figure things out within - this fits very closely with the show, especially with this conclusion, to the song. It is an appropriate and fantastic way to conclude this fantastic show.

So Say We All.

How I See The World

I bought a new camera, a Nikon D40, a couple weeks ago, something that I've wanted to get for a long time now. Photography is something that I've liked for years, but it's something I've never been happy with with the equipment that I had before.

While in London, I kept a photoblog of some of the pictures that I took while out there, but I ended it later on after returning. Since I've picked up this new camera, I've resumed photoblogging, with a new site here: http://seetrilobite.wordpress.com.

I've been trying to update it on a daily basis, and I've recently updated my flickr account to accomodate the new influx of pictures. Let me know what you think!