Good ideas, especially the software-piracy thing. Nice!
I just wanted to toss in a plug for the original prose book version, _Peter and Wendy_, expanded from the original stage version. The book is an excellent (and funny, and charming) satire; its tone is pretty different from the Disney movie.
You can read it for free from Project Gutenberg: [www.gutenberg.org]
"Mr. Darling [...] was one of those deep ones who know about stocks and shares. Of course no one really knows, but he quite seemed to know, and he often said stocks were up and shares were down in a way that would have made any woman respect him."
I just wanted to toss in a plug for the original prose book version, _Peter and Wendy_, expanded from the original stage version. The book is an excellent (and funny, and charming) satire; its tone is pretty different from the Disney movie.
You can read it for free from Project Gutenberg: [www.gutenberg.org]
"Mr. Darling [...] was one of those deep ones who know about stocks and shares. Of course no one really knows, but he quite seemed to know, and he often said stocks were up and shares were down in a way that would have made any woman respect him."
My understanding is that it's traditional in the stage version to cast the same person for Mr. Darling and Captain Hook. I agree that it's neat, and lends interesting resonances.
Hee--I was just about to post a link to that story when I saw your question. Thanks for asking!
It's called "The Disappearance of James H____", by Hal Duncan.
[www.strangehorizons.com]
It's called "The Disappearance of James H____", by Hal Duncan.
[www.strangehorizons.com]
Thanks for the plug! Much appreciated.
In the interest of nitpicky accuracy, I should note that we're not quite the longest-running online sf magazine; there are nonpaying and semipro-paying magazines that have been around much longer. (For example, Dargonzine launched in 1985.) And Chiaroscuro/ChiZine launched in 1997, but didn't start paying pro rates until 2001.
But SH is arguably the longest-running online sf prozine, in terms of how long we've been paying pro rates. Depending on whether you count ChiZine or not.
In the interest of nitpicky accuracy, I should note that we're not quite the longest-running online sf magazine; there are nonpaying and semipro-paying magazines that have been around much longer. (For example, Dargonzine launched in 1985.) And Chiaroscuro/ChiZine launched in 1997, but didn't start paying pro rates until 2001.
But SH is arguably the longest-running online sf prozine, in terms of how long we've been paying pro rates. Depending on whether you count ChiZine or not.
My three favorite classic time travel/paradox stories are: "...And It Comes Out Here," by Lester Del Rey (1951), in which a guy gives a time machine to his past self, leaving open the question of how it was created; "The Men Who Murdered Mohammed," by Alfred Bester (1957), a quasi-comedy about a guy who goes rampaging through history, killing people (to get back at his wife for having an affair), with no immediately apparent effect; and "Try and Change the Past," by Fritz Leiber (1958), in which the universe resists all attempts at changing history.
I agree with you that telling a good story is more important than sticking too closely to source material. (Especially when the source material, like comics, keeps rebooting itself anyway.)
But I'm not convinced that your arguments don't cut both ways. For example, you praise Iron Man for compressing stuff while criticizing Batman and Fantastic Four for doing so.
And I think the makers of GL were trying to do some of that "hero learns something" stuff with the business about Hal's father having died, and Hal needing to conquer fear, and so on. Also, some stuff about him becoming more mature and less commitment-phobic re Carol, iIrc, though my memory is hazy.
I think for me part of the problem with Green Lantern was that they tried to pack too much into it--not too much source material per se, just too much stuff, and especially (as you note) too much backstory. But I had the same problem with Thor; I was annoyed and bored by the backstory stuff there (which I don't think was comics-canon, but I'm not versed enough in Thor lore to be sure of that). And yet I enjoyed Thor more overall than GL.
For me, what made Iron Man work was Downey. I didn't love the movie, but I liked him (and especially his dialogue) a lot in it, even though I'm not otherwise a big fan of his.
But I'm not convinced that your arguments don't cut both ways. For example, you praise Iron Man for compressing stuff while criticizing Batman and Fantastic Four for doing so.
And I think the makers of GL were trying to do some of that "hero learns something" stuff with the business about Hal's father having died, and Hal needing to conquer fear, and so on. Also, some stuff about him becoming more mature and less commitment-phobic re Carol, iIrc, though my memory is hazy.
I think for me part of the problem with Green Lantern was that they tried to pack too much into it--not too much source material per se, just too much stuff, and especially (as you note) too much backstory. But I had the same problem with Thor; I was annoyed and bored by the backstory stuff there (which I don't think was comics-canon, but I'm not versed enough in Thor lore to be sure of that). And yet I enjoyed Thor more overall than GL.
For me, what made Iron Man work was Downey. I didn't love the movie, but I liked him (and especially his dialogue) a lot in it, even though I'm not otherwise a big fan of his.
I'm with you on "Inner Light" and "Darmok," but I have to add that "Yesterday's Enterprise" is one of my very favorite Trek episodes. Possibly my favorite. (I feel like this paragraph needs "OF ALL TIME!" tacked onto the end.)
My favorite Enterprise episode was the two-part Mirror Universe episode "In a Mirror, Darkly." But it doesn't really hold up to the others on your list that I've seen (I never got far in DS9 or Voyager; some day I hope to watch the Good Parts Version of both of those). And although there were several other really interesting Enterprise episodes, pretty much all of them were deeply flawed in various ways.
(I actually rather liked the series finale of Enterprise, but I gather I'm nearly alone in that. And the episodes focusing on the doctor, especially the poly stuff, were almost always worthwhile, but still flawed.)
...I'm surprised not to see you list any holodeck episodes (especially on Voyager, but also TNG); I've seen few of them, but they're among the ones I most often hear people praise.
My favorite Enterprise episode was the two-part Mirror Universe episode "In a Mirror, Darkly." But it doesn't really hold up to the others on your list that I've seen (I never got far in DS9 or Voyager; some day I hope to watch the Good Parts Version of both of those). And although there were several other really interesting Enterprise episodes, pretty much all of them were deeply flawed in various ways.
(I actually rather liked the series finale of Enterprise, but I gather I'm nearly alone in that. And the episodes focusing on the doctor, especially the poly stuff, were almost always worthwhile, but still flawed.)
...I'm surprised not to see you list any holodeck episodes (especially on Voyager, but also TNG); I've seen few of them, but they're among the ones I most often hear people praise.
PS: In a 1940 comic book, a mystical flame (that had fallen to Earth thousands of years earlier) instructed a young railroad engineer named Alan Scott on how to make a mystical ring that would enable him to (among other things) walk through the fourth dimension, paralyze or blind people temporarily, and read minds. It could not, however, protect him against anything made of wood. Scott eventually retired after being accused of communist sympathies in the early 1950s.
Clearly, we can't have a modern movie about this character. Nobody would believe in a ring that could do that stuff, or in a railroad engineer as a hero; besides, his career ended ignominiously sixty years ago. No modern audience would be even remotely interested.
And that's why we can't possibly have a Green Lantern movie.
Clearly, we can't have a modern movie about this character. Nobody would believe in a ring that could do that stuff, or in a railroad engineer as a hero; besides, his career ended ignominiously sixty years ago. No modern audience would be even remotely interested.
And that's why we can't possibly have a Green Lantern movie.
I don't buy it. Superheroes get reinvented all the time, and reboots that rework the core mythology are really popular these days.
You seem to be saying that Wonder Woman's original origin story was fine because "it's superheroes. Just run with it," whereas any major modernization of her story couldn't work.
I would argue that her original origin was ludicrous and made almost no sense, except from a meta perspective. And thus that if you want to reboot her, there are any number of things you can do, as long as you're willing to scrap details of the original origin.
For example:
First, get rid of the costume. There are lots of other costumes she could wear. Someone could easily design a costume that suggests her traditional one while (a) being more practical, and (b) not being obviously based on an American flag.
Next, get rid of the "must go out to combat the worldwide threat." It made little sense in the original anyway. Make her an ambassador. Make her a princess who, while touring the US, decides she likes it here. Make her a castaway who can't find her way back to Paradise Island. Make her an exile. Make her the princess-in-exile of an overthrown government. Make her lose her memory (though I gather that's what happened in the current comics version?). Make her an adventurer who left the island in search of adventure. In a nod to the original, you could even have her be instantly smitten with Steve and follow him to America, only without the permission of the Amazons. There are dozens of ways this could be handled.
And then, voila, there's no need for a WWII connection, no need for an American-flag costume, not even any particular need to associate her with America. What if she decided America's record with gender equality wasn't good enough, and she went to Sweden instead?
"But she wouldn't be the female equivalent of Cap!" I hear you cry. So what? I think she's more like a peer of Superman anyway. Both are from distant lands; both adopted America; both have red and blue costumes; both first appeared around 1940.
(Oh, and definitely get rid of the invisible plane--which is about the most haphazard and arbitrary piece of her original origin, iIrc; she just invented it in her spare time--and possibly the magic truth-compelling lasso as well, unless you want to explore the bondage stuff.)
What I'm really saying is that stories transcend their origins. We see over and over (in comics and out of them) that stories can be retold in new and interesting ways, reworked with some changes and some similarities, remolded to fit the zeitgeist. Embrace that change; imagine a new Wonder Woman for the 21st century, and build on some pieces of her past while letting go of some of the more ridiculous and dated aspects.
You seem to be saying that Wonder Woman's original origin story was fine because "it's superheroes. Just run with it," whereas any major modernization of her story couldn't work.
I would argue that her original origin was ludicrous and made almost no sense, except from a meta perspective. And thus that if you want to reboot her, there are any number of things you can do, as long as you're willing to scrap details of the original origin.
For example:
First, get rid of the costume. There are lots of other costumes she could wear. Someone could easily design a costume that suggests her traditional one while (a) being more practical, and (b) not being obviously based on an American flag.
Next, get rid of the "must go out to combat the worldwide threat." It made little sense in the original anyway. Make her an ambassador. Make her a princess who, while touring the US, decides she likes it here. Make her a castaway who can't find her way back to Paradise Island. Make her an exile. Make her the princess-in-exile of an overthrown government. Make her lose her memory (though I gather that's what happened in the current comics version?). Make her an adventurer who left the island in search of adventure. In a nod to the original, you could even have her be instantly smitten with Steve and follow him to America, only without the permission of the Amazons. There are dozens of ways this could be handled.
And then, voila, there's no need for a WWII connection, no need for an American-flag costume, not even any particular need to associate her with America. What if she decided America's record with gender equality wasn't good enough, and she went to Sweden instead?
"But she wouldn't be the female equivalent of Cap!" I hear you cry. So what? I think she's more like a peer of Superman anyway. Both are from distant lands; both adopted America; both have red and blue costumes; both first appeared around 1940.
(Oh, and definitely get rid of the invisible plane--which is about the most haphazard and arbitrary piece of her original origin, iIrc; she just invented it in her spare time--and possibly the magic truth-compelling lasso as well, unless you want to explore the bondage stuff.)
What I'm really saying is that stories transcend their origins. We see over and over (in comics and out of them) that stories can be retold in new and interesting ways, reworked with some changes and some similarities, remolded to fit the zeitgeist. Embrace that change; imagine a new Wonder Woman for the 21st century, and build on some pieces of her past while letting go of some of the more ridiculous and dated aspects.
@m_faustus: I want a bank vault full of squirrels too! Maybe it could get its own spinoff show.
I nominate "single-penis families" as best phrase from a scientific paper ever.
"I came here to kick ass, chew bubblegum, or sleep through the rest of the film. And I'm out of bubble gum, and I've got a leg cramp. Ooh, here's a comfy bench. Zzzzzzz."
Hee! Nice.
"Right on the eve of his 14th birthday, Will Stanton discovers he's actually a magical boy who must find the six signs and release the Light."
I know there are a zillion other comments clarifying that you were saying that the movie, *unlike the book*, had HP influence.
But I wanted to note for clarity's sake that this particular description is actually quite close to the book. Will turns 11 in the book rather than 14, but otherwise I think that matches the book.
Which is to say, as we probably all know, HP was drawing, in part, on a long tradition of works in which a kid wakes up and discovers that they're actually magical.
Hee! Nice.
"Right on the eve of his 14th birthday, Will Stanton discovers he's actually a magical boy who must find the six signs and release the Light."
I know there are a zillion other comments clarifying that you were saying that the movie, *unlike the book*, had HP influence.
But I wanted to note for clarity's sake that this particular description is actually quite close to the book. Will turns 11 in the book rather than 14, but otherwise I think that matches the book.
Which is to say, as we probably all know, HP was drawing, in part, on a long tradition of works in which a kid wakes up and discovers that they're actually magical.
One of my favorite books in this area is Madeleine L'Engle's A Ring of Endless Light, in which Vicky Austin (protagonist of several of L'Engle's books) tries to cope with her grandfather's impending death. Sad and wise. Might be too Young Adult for some adult readers, but I liked it a great deal when I first read it, sometime after college.
Not quite in the same category, but it seems worth mentioning: when my father died unexpectedly in 2005, I grabbed Eleanor Arnason's Ring of Swords from my bookshelf on the way out the door. It is not about death or dealing with death, but it's sane and wise and rich and moving (Le Guin called it "intellectually, emotionally, and ethically complex and powerful"), and (as I wrote at the time) it let me get away from the real world without providing the cheap thrills and easy answers of escapism. So it very much helped me deal with death, but not in the same way that you're talking about in this article.
Not quite in the same category, but it seems worth mentioning: when my father died unexpectedly in 2005, I grabbed Eleanor Arnason's Ring of Swords from my bookshelf on the way out the door. It is not about death or dealing with death, but it's sane and wise and rich and moving (Le Guin called it "intellectually, emotionally, and ethically complex and powerful"), and (as I wrote at the time) it let me get away from the real world without providing the cheap thrills and easy answers of escapism. So it very much helped me deal with death, but not in the same way that you're talking about in this article.
Good post overall, but I disagree with what I think is the implication of this bit, about Ring of Swords:
"A lone human, Nick Sanders, has been absorbed into their ranks, and enters a homosexual relationship with his commander despite never having been inclined to do so beforehand. A similar fate befalls Hunt Morgan, a boy in M.J. Engh's Arslan[...]"
Whoa! This seems to me to suggest that Nick Sanders is held captive, tortured, and raped by evil homosexuals in Ring of Swords. Which is very far from what actually happens in that book.
Ring of Swords is an excellent book, part of Arnason's excellent Hwarhath series of stories and novels. As you note, the Hwarhath cultural norm is homosexuality; Arnason does a great job of portraying that society, with a great deal of nuance and subtlety.
And Nick Sanders is a great character, also portrayed with nuance and subtlety. It's been a few years since I read the book, but as far as I can recall, I would not describe his interactions with his alien lover as a "fate" that "befalls" him.
For more about Ring of Swords, see Brian Attebery's article. For more about the Hwarhath stories in general, including Ring of Swords, see Ruth Berman's review.
"A lone human, Nick Sanders, has been absorbed into their ranks, and enters a homosexual relationship with his commander despite never having been inclined to do so beforehand. A similar fate befalls Hunt Morgan, a boy in M.J. Engh's Arslan[...]"
Whoa! This seems to me to suggest that Nick Sanders is held captive, tortured, and raped by evil homosexuals in Ring of Swords. Which is very far from what actually happens in that book.
Ring of Swords is an excellent book, part of Arnason's excellent Hwarhath series of stories and novels. As you note, the Hwarhath cultural norm is homosexuality; Arnason does a great job of portraying that society, with a great deal of nuance and subtlety.
And Nick Sanders is a great character, also portrayed with nuance and subtlety. It's been a few years since I read the book, but as far as I can recall, I would not describe his interactions with his alien lover as a "fate" that "befalls" him.
For more about Ring of Swords, see Brian Attebery's article. For more about the Hwarhath stories in general, including Ring of Swords, see Ruth Berman's review.
@notallowedyet: Hear, hear!
@SG-17: Straight people in movies often refer to their spouses in passing. They often have photos of their spouses on their desks. Sometimes one character asks another, who's a close friend, how their spouse is doing. Sometimes two spouses are colleagues at work. Much of the time, none of that advances the plot in a significant and relevant way; it's just part of how people live and interact.
So why not do the same with LGBT characters?
@SG-17: Straight people in movies often refer to their spouses in passing. They often have photos of their spouses on their desks. Sometimes one character asks another, who's a close friend, how their spouse is doing. Sometimes two spouses are colleagues at work. Much of the time, none of that advances the plot in a significant and relevant way; it's just part of how people live and interact.
So why not do the same with LGBT characters?
@Starlionblue: That's one of my favorite things about Caprica. But I think this article is focusing specifically on military characters.
Ooh, I missed this article ’til now. Good stuff.
One of my favorite unusual infodumps is the brief introduction to Silverberg's "Lion Time in Timbuctoo," in which the author directly tells the reader (iIrc) that this is an alternate-history story, and lays out the basics of the divergence.
Which imo is a way better way of doing it than the usually obligatory paragraph of alt-hist stories in which the action stops while one character says to another "According to the Many Worlds Interpretation, maybe there are alternate worlds where things turned out differently. Imagine what the world would be like if the Nazis had *lost* WWII, instead of winning it the way they did in our world! For example, American would probably be a superpower instead of a third-rate has-been!" And so on.
One of my favorite unusual infodumps is the brief introduction to Silverberg's "Lion Time in Timbuctoo," in which the author directly tells the reader (iIrc) that this is an alternate-history story, and lays out the basics of the divergence.
Which imo is a way better way of doing it than the usually obligatory paragraph of alt-hist stories in which the action stops while one character says to another "According to the Many Worlds Interpretation, maybe there are alternate worlds where things turned out differently. Imagine what the world would be like if the Nazis had *lost* WWII, instead of winning it the way they did in our world! For example, American would probably be a superpower instead of a third-rate has-been!" And so on.
Good stuff; thanks for the article, and I agree with most of it.
I think I disagree, though, at least partly, with your point near the end about the emotional/psychological stuff; I think that a lot of the time that's exactly what "show, don't tell" is meant to be all about.
For example, if your character is tired, you can say "She was tired." Or you can indicate indirectly, through her actions and her dialogue and other people's reactions to her, that she's tired. The latter is often a lot more effective in conveying the idea that she's tired.
Of course, sometimes writers don't show well, and readers are left puzzled. If the character's actions suggest to readers that she's had a psychotic break or that she's not very smart, when the author meant to convey that the character is exhausted and not thinking clearly, then the showing has failed.
Anyway. I certainly agree with your overall points, that showing and telling both have their places, and can both be done badly or well, and that telling can sometimes be a much more useful and effective approach than showing.
I think I disagree, though, at least partly, with your point near the end about the emotional/psychological stuff; I think that a lot of the time that's exactly what "show, don't tell" is meant to be all about.
For example, if your character is tired, you can say "She was tired." Or you can indicate indirectly, through her actions and her dialogue and other people's reactions to her, that she's tired. The latter is often a lot more effective in conveying the idea that she's tired.
Of course, sometimes writers don't show well, and readers are left puzzled. If the character's actions suggest to readers that she's had a psychotic break or that she's not very smart, when the author meant to convey that the character is exhausted and not thinking clearly, then the showing has failed.
Anyway. I certainly agree with your overall points, that showing and telling both have their places, and can both be done badly or well, and that telling can sometimes be a much more useful and effective approach than showing.
Shran was one of the few things I liked about Enterprise.
And those Question scenes are awesome. I had no idea that the Justice League cartoon was so good; I'm gonna have to go watch some episodes. I totally agree that Combs makes him sound like Rorschach, especially in that first segment with Green Arrow and Supergirl.
And those Question scenes are awesome. I had no idea that the Justice League cartoon was so good; I'm gonna have to go watch some episodes. I totally agree that Combs makes him sound like Rorschach, especially in that first segment with Green Arrow and Supergirl.
The Eastern European ones are great. They remind me of Eastern European science fiction book covers.
Which makes me think: there are all sorts of things that can be on book covers, including abstract designs that have nothing to do with the content. Why do we insist that movie posters naturalistically depict characters and scenes from the movie? (Not always, but usually.)
I don't think those Polish and Czech posters would've made me want to see the movies, but I admire their willingness to venture off into the realms of abstract and/or not-obviously-relevant art.
Which makes me think: there are all sorts of things that can be on book covers, including abstract designs that have nothing to do with the content. Why do we insist that movie posters naturalistically depict characters and scenes from the movie? (Not always, but usually.)
I don't think those Polish and Czech posters would've made me want to see the movies, but I admire their willingness to venture off into the realms of abstract and/or not-obviously-relevant art.
