Saturday, April 7, 2012

G is for Graphic Novels and Neil Gaiman

It took me almost 25 years to discover the world of graphic novels, but to this day I am ever thankful that I did. Graphic novels are very special – they’re the place where comic books and more traditional novels meet. They’re a melting pot of art and literature, a place where writers and storytellers of all different medium unite in collaboration.

Almost everyone who's ever read a graphic novel – and many who haven’t – have heard of legends Frank Miller and Alan Moore. They were the masterminds behind famous works such as Sin City, Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and 300 (Miller), V for Vendetta and Watchmen (Moore).They are perhaps the most recognizable names in their field and are credited with popularizing the “graphic novel” as an distinct genre separate from comic books and print novels. Watchmen even made TIME magazine’s “100 Best Novels List”, the only graphic novel to do so.

However, Moore and Miller aren’t the only big names in the industry. Art Spiegelman’s World War II inspired Maus made a huge splash, not only in the graphic novel community, but with historians as well. In fact, the first time I read Maus was for my Holocaust history class in college. It is to date the only graphic novel to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Since Maus, graphic novels have continued to cross boundaries between various medias. Television shows have increasingly turned to graphic novels in order to expand on their plots and characters. NBC’s Heroes for example, offered a graphic novel version to supplement the show. And Joss Whedon, already a member of the comic book-writing community, developed and wrote several graphic novels to accompany his hit show Firefly. The first, Those Left Behind, was written to bridge the gap between the end of Firefly and its companion film, Serenity. Another entitled The Shepherd’s Tale, expanded on Shepherd Book’s previously unknown, pre-Firefly history. Furthermore, many famous literary texts have been turned into graphic novels, from classics like Frankenstein and Fahrenheit 451, to modern children’s favorites Percy Jackson, The Looking Glass War and Artemis Fowl.

One of my personal favorite science fiction/fantasy writers – Neil Gaiman – jumped fields to write The Sandman, one of the most highly praised graphic novel series of all time. I’ve long been a fan of Gaiman’s work, having loved his novels Neverwhere, American Gods, Coraline and Stardust, but when a friend of mine found out I’d never heard of The Sandman, she immediately raced out and bought me the first installment (called Preludes and Nocturnes). 

When asked why he enjoyed writing graphic novels, Gaiman said, “One of the joys of comics has always been the knowledge that it was, in many ways, untouched ground. It was virgin territory. When I was working on Sandman, I felt a lot of the time that I was actually picking up a machete and heading out into the jungle. I got to write in places and do things that nobody had ever done before. When I’m writing novels I’m painfully aware that I’m working in a medium that people have been writing absolutely jaw-droppingly brilliant things for, you know, three-four thousand years now . . . But with comics I felt like – I can do stuff nobody has ever done. I can do stuff nobody has ever thought of. And I could and it was enormously fun.”
__________________________________________________________________________________
This post is part of the Blogging A through Z Challenge 2012. My theme is (in case you didn’t already guess) science fiction. Stay tuned for the rest of the alphabet, and if you’d like to check in on the rest of the participants, simply click here.  


Friday, April 6, 2012

F is for The Fifth Element and Firefly: Favorites of Sci-Fi

When I was trying to come up with my topic for the letter “F”, I started thinking about my sci-fi favorites. And then I realized that not one, but TWO of my very favorite of favorites start with the letter “F”. Fortuitous, right?

Of course, I've already discussed them in past blog posts, so I thought instead I’d play a little show-and-tell with some of the best scenes highlighting why this movie and film are so amazing rather than repeat myself as I gush about how amazing Joss Whedon is. Or how much I love Nathan Fillion as Captain Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds. Or my belief that Bruce Willis is the best action star in the known universe. Or how Zoe and Leeloo are Damsels OF Distress (see previous post here). Or . . .

The Fifth Element: 
New York cab driver Korben Dallas didn't mean to be a hero, but he just picked up the kind of fare that only comes along every five thousand years: A perfect beauty, a perfect being, a perfect weapon. Now, together, they must save the world.

My thoughts:
This was one of the first sci-fi movies I saw in the theaters (unfortunately many of my other favorites like The Terminator and Aliens left the big screen before I was old enough to see them). I remember being mesmerized by the futuristic scenes, laughing like a lunatic at every Chris Tucker scene, and falling a little bit in love with Bruce Willis as Korben Dallas. This movie has it all - love stories, awesome action sequences, crazy side characters, a terrifying villain, and even a blue opera singer. Check it out!


"Diva's Opera" clip

"Sending in someone to negotiate" clip

"Count to ten" clip

Joss Whedon's Firefly: 
A brilliant space-western set five hundred years in the future, the crew if the Firefly-class spaceship Serenity will take any job, legal or illegal, to keep fuel in the tanks and food on the table. Things get complicated after they take on a passenger wanted by the new totalitarian regime and find themselves on the run, desperate to steer clear of Alliance ships and the flesh-eating Reavers who live on the fringes of space.  

My thoughts:
Though just about everything pertaining to this show is brilliant, I have to say it was the chemistry between the cast that really made this show really special. Well, that and Whedon's hysterical dialogue (see clips below). This show was a brilliant combination between old world and new, hilarity and tragedy. A definite must see.  

Wash - "I shall call it This Land" clip

Zoe and Mal: "Big Darn Heroes" clip

Mal: "Mark of a great man" clip

Zoe and Mal: "First Rule of Battle" clip

Simon and Mal: "Kill me in my sleep" clip

So there you have it, two of my all-time favorite sci-fi movies/shows. I hope these clips give those of you who have never seen The Fifth Element and Firefly a better understanding why I hold them in such high regard. And for those of you who are already fans . . . well, I hope you enjoyed the show. There were a bunch of other clips I wanted to add, but unfortunately this post was already too long. 
__________________________________________________________________________________
This post is part of the Blogging A through Z Challenge 2012. My theme is (in case you didn’t already guess) science fiction. Stay tuned for the rest of the alphabet, and if you’d like to check in on the rest of the participants, simply click here. 

Thursday, April 5, 2012

E is for Equilibrium and Emotions

I talked some yesterday about emotions in the context of androids; today I delve further into the topic and its relationship with human existence. A few years ago I was discussing Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 with one of my college professors and he suggested that I watch the movie Equilibrium (2002). I immediately raced out to rent it, and to this day it is one of the most unusual and interesting movies I've ever seen. (I am not alone in this – while the film was largely panned by critics, it's now considered a "cult classic" by fans.)

The film is set in a dystopian world under a totalitarian regime with a VERY strong military presence. Human emotions have been deemed the cause of all conflict, and thus outlawed and controlled through the use of a suppressive drug called Prozium. Grammaton Clerics – such as the protagonist John Preston – search out and destroy any art, film, music or books that might stimulate an emotional response, as well as persecuting “sense offenders” for their crimes.

However, the question must then be asked: what do we live for, if not emotions. Love, passion, sorrow – what is life without them? When John arrests and interrogates resistance member Mary O’Brien, she opens him up to this uncertainty . . .



This is one of my favorite scenes, not just in this movie, but any. As Mary suggests, life is nothing without emotion. If you cannot feel, then you cannot really live. I think this is a concept that a lot of science fiction attempts to warn us about – Philip K. Dick in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Lois Lowry in The Giver. I wonder if it stems from a fear that scientific and technological advancement might be leading us further and further away from human connection.

Regardless, I’d highly recommend Equilibrium for those who have never seen it.
__________________________________________________________________________________
This post is part of the Blogging A through Z Challenge 2012. My theme is (in case you didn’t already guess) science fiction. Stay tuned for the rest of the alphabet, and if you’d like to check in on the rest of the participants, simply click here.


Wednesday, April 4, 2012

D is for Deckard, Do Androids Dream?, and Philip K. Dick

Philip K. Dick is known for many literary contributions to the science fiction field - however, my favorite is his novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. It would later serve as the inspiration for Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, one of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time.


Perhaps the most interesting thing about both novel and film is the age-old uncertainty they examine: what does it mean to be human? Though Scott and Dick question in different ways, both frame the discussion through protagonist Rick Deckard

In Do Androids Dream?, androids, or "andys", are differentiated from human beings through their inability to empathize. It's an emotional response they simply lack and cannot emulate, thus separating them from humanity. However, humans are now able to manipulative and control their emotions through the use of a Penfield Mood Organ - a technological device which allows them to "dial" a desired emotion. Furthermore, they connect with one another and tap into the collective experience through another mechanism known as the Empathy Box, thereby using machines to feel empathy . . . the exact emotion androids are alienated (and persecuted) for lacking. Later when Deckard comes across a human bounty hunter nearly devoid of empathy, he finds the lines between people and androids awfully blurred. This forces the reader to wonder just how "human" anyone really is.

In the movie, it is Deckard himself that the viewer questions. Is he a human as he believes, or is he really a android (aka. replicant) implanted with false memories? SPOILERS ahead. In several interviews, director Ridley Scott has said that he believes Deckard is, in fact, a replicant. When he went back and edited the film for the Director's Cut, he even added a few scenes strengthening the argument. On the other hand, Harrison Ford - the actor who portrays Deckard - stated that he played the character as a human during filming. It was a major source of tension between director and star, and a debate which remains open ended.  

Though the viewer is forced to wonder whether Deckard is human or replicant, perhaps the more important question is whether there's really a difference between the two. As Deckard says after replicant Roy Batty dies, "All he'd wanted were the same answers the rest of us want. Where do I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got?" These are the questions we all ask, humans and androids alike. In the end, Deckard suggests that the perhaps the two aren't so very different.
__________________________________________________________________________________
This post is part of the Blogging A through Z Challenge 2012. My theme is (in case you didn’t already guess) science fiction. Stay tuned for the rest of the alphabet, and if you’d like to check in on the rest of the participants, simply click here.


Tuesday, April 3, 2012

C is for Chosen Ones

Many of the most famous protagonists within science fiction come from an elite group known as the Chosen Ones. These characters are typically hero figures, set with the impossible task of saving the world. My three favorite examples are Anakain Skywalker (Star Wars), Neo (The Matrix) and Harry Potter (okay, not exactly sci-fi, but he’s just too good to leave out). But what is it about these characters that makes them the “chosen”?

It all begins with a prophecy. For example, in Star Wars there is an ancient Jedi legend that foretells the one who will bring balance back to the Force:
“Fully defeated by just anyone, the dark side cannot be, but only by the Chosen One. And who might be this Jedi? Know I do not, but not yet born is he or she. This much, sense I can. A vessel of pure Force the Chosen One will be, more powerful than any Jedi in history.” - Yoda from the Great Holocon
Similarly, in The Matrix the Oracle tells Morpheus that he will find the one destined to end the war between humans and machines. And finally in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Sybill Trelawney prophesied:
“The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches . . . born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies . . . and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not . . . and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives . . . the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies.” Sybill Trelawney in The Order of the Phoenix
As you can see, these prophecies never outright state who the Chosen One is. The Oracle didn’t turn to Morpheus and say, “Hey, you know that guy Thomas Anderson, aka. Neo? Go find him so he can save you from the Machines.” Instead she gives vague hints that make many doubt whether "The One” was, in fact, chosen correctly. These same doubts rear up in Star Wars after Anakin falls to the Dark Side and the balance of the Force becomes more precarious than ever.

Furthermore, sometimes these prophecies offer more than one possible outcome. Professor Trelawney's foretelling indicated two different boys who might be able to defeat the Dark Lord. If Voldemort hadn't  chosen to believe that Harry was his biggest threat, Neville Longbottom - also born in the seventh month - could have easily been the one.


In the end, what really differentiates the Chosen Ones from the rest is choice. One cannot simply fulfill their destiny because a prophecy tells them to - they must decide. It's the climax of every hero story. In order to defeat Agent Smith, Neo must accept Morpheus’s belief in him. In The Half Blood Prince, Harry Potter realizes that, chosen or not, risking his life to defeat Voldemort is the right thing to do. And as for Anakin, it's his decision in the end of Return of the Jedi to kill the Emperor and save his son that fulfills the prophecy and brings balance to the Force, once and for all. It is their choices, in the end, that make them heroes.
__________________________________________________________________________________
This post is part of the Blogging A through Z Challenge 2012. My theme is (in case you didn’t already guess) science fiction. Stay tuned for the rest of the alphabet, and if you’d like to check in on the rest of the participants, simply click here.  


Monday, April 2, 2012

B is for Buffy, Blade and Bram Stoker: Vampire Hunters

With the recent popularity of Twilight, The Vampire Diaries and the Sookie Stackhouse novels, vampires have become something of a hot topic. Each of these series features one or more protagonists of the blood-sucking persuasion, thus turning vampires into sympathetic heroes. Even Anne Rice is guilty of humanizing these demonic beings, and while I respect her amazing storytelling talents more than I can express, I take a slightly more . . . old-school view of these creatures of the night.

That being said, I thought for this post I would discuss the men and women that make up the other side of this genre – vampire hunters.

When I was in middle school a friend of mine introduced me to Joss Whedon’s hit tv show Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I was immediately enraptured by Whedon’s witty dialogue, gruesome villains, AND his depiction of a sassy, petite demon hunter. Despite her diminutive stature, Buffy was everything a slayer should be: athletic, powerful, and above all, stylish. She could vanquish a demon in under a minute, all the while wearing three-inch heels. Definitely one of my childhood – and present day – heroes.

After Buffy, my interest in slayer legends expanded with an introduction to the vampire hunter Blade. I read some of the Marvel comics and absolutely loved the film series starring Wesley Snipes. I thought the concept of a vampire hunter who was himself half-vampire thoroughly fascinating. To loath vampires to the very core, and yet have inherited their thirst for blood, a constant reminder that he's made from the very thing he hates . . . now that’s genius. Add in a double edged sword and the ability to walk in the sunlight, and you’ve got a recipe for a lethal hunter.

Last but certainly not least, I want to mention perhaps the most famous and influential vampire hunter of all time – Abraham Van Helsing. Unlike Buffy and Blade, Bram Stoker does not portray Van Helsing as a “career” vampire hunter; rather, he becomes one out of necessity. When Lucy Westenra falls ill of an unknown disease, Dr. John Seward contacts Van Helsing because of his knowledge of “obscure diseases”. Though by no means a demon hunter, he recognizes the mark of the vampire upon Lucy, and eventually tells his friends how to kill her. He manages to destroy the three blood-sucking brides of Dracula single-handedly, and is instrumental in defeating the most famous vampire of all time himself, Count Dracula.

Needless to say, I doubt today’s sparkling vampires would hold up against hunters such as these.

__________________________________________________________________________________
This post is part of the Blogging A through Z Challenge 2012. My theme is (in case you didn’t already guess) science fiction. Stay tuned for the rest of the alphabet, and if you’d like to check in on the rest of the participants, simply click here.

Sunday, April 1, 2012

A is for Asimov and Automatons: Questioning Robot Ethics

It's April 1st and that means it's finally time for the Blogging from A to Z Challenge 2012. For those of you who missed my previous post, my theme for this challenge is Science Fiction! Here is my very first post of the contest, and today A stands for Asmiov . . .

Science Fiction writer Isaac Asimov - considered one of the "Big Three" with Robert Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke - is perhaps most known for his Three Laws of Robotics. Created as a safeguard against human injury at the hand of our creations, these laws state: 

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 them by human beings, except when such orders conflict with the First Law.
3) A robot must protect its existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First and Second Law.
*** 4) or 0) A robot may not harm humanity , or through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm. (This law was introduced at a later date.)

However, robot ethicists have argued that these laws are unethical because they take away autonomous beings' free will; they believe that robots need to develop their own ethical code, rather than have one written for them. This at first seems absurd, especially in light of movies like The Terminator where robots are intent on wiping out humanity. Films in which I’m sure the characters were thinking "now would be a really excellent time for a few laws of robotics". And when we think about it, robots aren’t living creatures, and therefore don’t deserve the same right as human beings . . . right?

And yet, if we’re giving them the right to life, do they then not deserve, like all beings, free will? Could they not merely be considered the next wave of evolution? Just as human beings were once the newest evolutionary phase, don’t robots then deserve the same chance at a life of freedom and choice? When god created mankind, he instilled within us an ethical code (much like Asimov's Laws); but he also allowed us the free will to override it should we see fit. Do automatons not deserve the same? 
Human beings have gone through a long road of evolution to reach our modern principals of morality – we once believed slavery was not only morally acceptable, but industrially necessary. It took a span of many  years to reach the conclusion that this was not in fact the case. Should robots, even knowing their potential threat to humanity, be denied this same evolutionary process? Does it make us unmoral as creators, to disallow this for our created? Or is it our responsibility to ensure peace? Can we even do that, knowing how destructive and un-peaceful humanity is?

God knows I never thought I, who am terrified of terminators and weary of technology, would be advocating for robot rights.

Perhaps we can only imagine a destructive race of articficial beings because we, the human race, are ourselves so destructive. Therefore, we fear that what we create will be similarly instilled with the seeds of destruction. Much as we pass on many of our own beliefs and prejudices to our children. Perhaps we should wait until we’re a more peaceful race before we introduce another . . . though in that case, we’ll be waiting an awful long time. I fear that technological progress far exceeds the speed of moral progress, and no amount of Robotics Laws will ever change that.