Will Grayson, Will Grayson: A Review

Will Grayson, Will Grayson turned me into a mushy pile of emotional goo. I know that aspects of the text are problematic and the end was totally Hallmark, but I guess its emotional sentimentality was tuned just right for me. Or maybe it's just the Holiday spirit. Either way, I found it, in part, a lovely, lazy Sunday afternoon feel-good read.

However, in traditional English-student-wanna-be-writer, my perceptions are split into one that is informal, another that is academic (with a cultural criticism sort of bent), and another that writer-centric.

Writer's Perspective

It was problematic for me. For me, there were expectations that were unfulfilled. For example, the title implicates that the Will Graysons will interact with each other way more than they actually do. I don't understand why it's titled the way it is, except maybe to set up the end with all the Will Graysons saying how much Tiny Cooper meant to them (even though they had never met before?).

Unfortunately, the ending felt particularly forced to me. We have an emotional resolution given by strangers essentially - this is just unsatisfying on all kinds of levels.

Cultural Crit

I think the text works strongest from a cultural perspective because it contests the way homosexuals are viewed and written by working as an emotional snapshot of two boys: one is straight, one is gay and their respective romance. In so doing, it deconstructs certain stereotypes about homosexuals: though Tiny is flamboyant, he's a football player and not really "effeminate" (in fact, one of the hilarious songs is poking fun about what a big deal society makes about homosexuality in general), but one of the Will Grayson is neither "flamboyant" or "gay" but simply himself - and in a world where the media still presents a one-dimensional view of homosexuality (even if it's positive and progressive), this sort of "normality" (for lack of a better word) is invaluable.

The text takes the labels of "straight" and "gay" and says, Look. There's more to these people than that. And I think that's wonderful. I also think it's great that, as a romance of varying levels, it acknowledges the fact that love is multi-dimensional - two people can love each other as friends without jumping their bones.

Super Sad True Love Story: A Review

I finished reading Super Sad True Love Story today (I've already returned the book because I hadn't expected to blog about it, so forgive the absence of quotes to demonstrate what I'm talking about). For the most part, I enjoyed reading it. I understand it's satire -- which is something I still have trouble grasping even as English student, total fail -- which is why I was hesitant at first to publicly muse about it. However, I find myself compelled to write about it, if only to collect my thoughts.

As a dystopian novel, it's pretty brilliant. The population is obsessed with these äppäräti (computers on steroids) which rank you in the world: fuckability, attractiveness, etc etc etc. It seemed like a future stage in evolution for the people who are constantly on their social networks or buried away in their iPods. At one point, when the äppäräti is disconnected, a person commits suicide because he felt as if he couldn't really connect to anybody, that he looked out at the world and the human faces were not enough.

Kind of creepy. Kind of disturbing. Yet...I could see it happening. Maybe. It reminds me of a Victorian piece I read for class, actually, and how the author mourned that people didn't know each other in the big cities, that they were egotistically indifferent to their fellow humans (and we still criticize this aspect of the big cities even today).

The second element of satire I noticed was the quest for eternal youth in science. The protagonist worked for a company that would help their clients live forever through various processes that sounded very time consuming and expensive. And it reminded me so much of the magazines I see -- urging people to look younger, to make those wrinkles go away, color that grey hair away, to chuck everything that's human into the bin, as Rose would say. The author introduced an idea that I felt was not followed through enough: that as people underwent the processes that would make them younger, the constant rewiring of their brain synapses would change their personality.

Isn't that fascinating? Isn't that true on some sort of level -- especially if someone becomes obsessed with their appearance, their youth, their age?

I thought it was brilliant and I wish it had played a much more significant part in the text itself.

The third element of satire I noticed was how the American government was becoming positively totalitarian -- and nobody really seemed to care or notice (I especially liked the stabs to Right Wing Fox News). Everybody throughout the novel is too concerned with how fuckable they are, how much money they have, whether they are important to society to even wonder what the hell is happening around them. Self absorbent, the lot of them.

So as a dystopian novel, it works for me.

What does not work for me, was the representations of gender.

We get more of Lenny's story (the protagonist) than we get of Eunice (the token love interest). At first, he sees her as this pixie dream girl and then is shocked when he was mistaken about who she was, that she was broken and in need of fixing (this is a paraphrased quote).

This typical fare for most love stories that I've seen, I believe -- so I don't believe this is part of the satire.

Throughout the story, he muses how Eunice will raise his rankings (and she does -- he increases several hundred points in fuckability factor). This isn't really addressed in the story -- and yes, the reader sees that Eunice was using Lenny until someone better who had more to offer her (more for her to use) came along, but this is also so typical. How many stories have we seen where an average joe, usually unacttractive, is with a beautiful 80 pound woman? It's in almost every single sit com. How many stories have we seen a woman who is portrayed as simply being interested in shopping, material goods, and men who can help her achieve those things? All the time. How many stories have we seen a woman who has lousy self esteem, searching and searching for a man who will help her validate herself instead of just finding her own self-validation.

All. the fucking. time.

The only complexity that this story had to offer was that it was implied that one of the factors that influenced her decision was that the other man could help her protect her family more. But we don't really see her reasoning that out. The readers don't really get her side of the story -- not as much as Lenny's, that's for sure, and not enough to write her off as anything but typical.

Though Lenny was a product of his time, the readers could relate to more than that -- to his quest for more, for something of value and significance in the petty world in which he lived.

But with Eunice -- I didn't get that. I wanted more from her. I wanted her to be more. I'm tired of seeing women in love stories (even if they're super sad) as little more than objects of desire -- even if they're broken. And, somehow, it's supposed to absolve the guilt when we see that just as he uses her she's using him (and others) so that everybody can walk away with a cynical view of the world.

I don't mind cynicism -- I just like my cynicism to be complex.

Promethea: A Review

Promethea is amazing because it is a story about women, about strong women. There is no husband chasing or love interest (and the one "romance" that appears is positively tragic and portrayed in a negative light). The threat to the women, who have all embodied Promethea, a character made of stories, an idea given flesh, are masculine. There is no Eve syndrome, no Virgin-Whore dichotomy, damsel of distress - none of the typical stereotypes you see in a lot of mainstream entertainment.

As a woman, I found it unbelievably refreshing to have such a breaking of gender roles.

Many of the times when I watch/read a lot of mainstream literature, I feel that women are often portrayed in very simplistic ways, that they rarely achieve the depths of a male protagonist. However, in Promethea, we have different women playing off different aspects of Promethea, making Promethea possibly one of the most complex characters I've ever encountered.

Besides the gender dynamics, I think the story is ultimately about ideas and how they construct reality. Thus, on one side, certain people (usually male) fear that Promethea will bring about the end of the world. Others, usually women, believe that the end of the world is simply the fall of old ideas and old perceptions to new ideas, newer perceptions that forge forward into realms unknown.



One of my favorite images in the novel is when Promethea/Sophie runs into Little Red Riding-hood as she had imagined her earlier: smoking, a take-no-bullshit attitude, and oh, a machine gun. Such a transformation from the origins of the myth as a cautionary tale for young women. It's also very meta in that Sophie created this idea of Red Riding-hood "just after this movie Reservoir Dogs came out. It had you holding a gun, and this caption saying 'Let's go to Grandma's!" Now, it's been a while since I've seen Reservoir Dogs, but I do remember it as being extremely masculine. And it appears that Sophie's applied ideas that are usually seen as a male gender role and applied them to a female, creating not only a new, bad ass version of Red Riding Hood, but a spectacular feat of gender-bending as she breaks down and deconstructs the ideas that shape the world into a new world of "no limits."

I particularly liked Moore's commentary on how women, even when they're thrust into a role of so-called empowerment, are still overtly sexualized from a hetero point of view (ie, women fighting in stilettos and leather corsets).

To the Promethea of the Sword, whose kingdom was usurped by masculine authors under one identity, she was written in a sexualized fashion:

All that drivel he wrote about my taut thighs and heaving bosom...I mean, I don't think I can remember my bosom ever having heaved. Has yours?

Or, from the Author himself:

What a PICTURE you are, with thine flashing BLADE, thine rippling THEWS.

"Rippling thews?" Oh, you ridiculous creature."

I just like that Alan Moore points it out and deconstructs it. He dispels a conceptualized gender role ideal and replaces it with something more real (even though the character he uses to do so is essentially an idea herself, really, quite fascinating).

So because most of the protagonists in this book are women, a lot of the women do things that are typically attributed to men in most mainstream fiction:

They save other women (but even the women they save are not pathetic, doll-like creatures)




they guide and protect and heal people (but that is not their sole function),



(also, note the red poppies) (also note, this is the most "sexualized" form of Promethea in that she is the one that wears the least amount of clothes, yet, no attention is called to it - it is neither celebrated nor denounced - she simply is allowed to be; she also takes on a "motherly"-ish role as she helps guide Sophie and, from that point of view, it's very rare to see the body of a mother portrayed in such a fashion - to me, it acknowledges the fact that women are three dimensional, complex, and full of depth)

and sometimes, the saved becomes the savior.



And I just find that - absolutely beautiful. The gender bending, the empowerment.

There was one little niggle I had - there seemed to be an anxiety regarding lesbianism running through the book. I'm not sure how it'll be resolved, but I thought it interesting that it was there. I look forward to seeing where it goes throughout the later books with fingers crossed.

I leave you with one of my favorite images from the novel and with the sincere hope that you will read it, whenever you have the chance.

I Am Legend: A Review

Here's the thing. I believe that Science Fiction (even the kind that has a bit of horror thrown in for a bit of spice) needs to be progressive. It needs to look forward, not backward.

And I am Legend fails utterly and completely.

But first - the positives. I love the movie with Will Smith, but they really shouldn't have changed the ending. The book ending was complicated, full of switched around perspectives, and absolutely brilliant (possibly the only thing that was brilliant in the novel). But really, the movie and the book are like two different universes - I guess, the movie would be like an alternate reality or something, where people were bearded (but not evil)...okay, nevermind, Star Trek references aside.

I think my biggest beef with I am Legend the book was its representation of women. And boy, did it leave a lot to be desired.

It begins with the vampire women doing this Sexy Dance in order to lure him out of his house. Naturally, he hates and despises them for this and describes them as "lewd puppets." He also targets the women vampires for his research methods, and he even asks himself why he only targets the women for his tests but then the issue is never really addressed When he meets Ruth (another problem entirely), he treats her cruelly, harshly, while imposing his own set of gender preconceptions on her that the story itself does not complicate or even question.

For example,

He had forgotten about sobbing women.

He grunted, getting the uncomfortable feeling that she was playing with him. That's ridiculous, he argued. She's just a woman.

How can she look at them so calmly, he wondered, ask me questions, make comments, when only a week ago she saw their kind tear her husband to pieces?

As he sat looking at her, she arranged the folds of the robe around her legs and he got a momentary glimpse of a brown thigh. Far from being attracted, he felt irritated. It was a typical feminine gesture, he thought, an artificial movement.

"Tell me about yourself," she said. Another typical feminine question, he thought.

It irritates me because the author highlights the emotions of women -- it's not just women he forgets, a woman's strength, a woman's resourcefulness, a woman as a person, but it's their sobbing. The idea is reinforced when he doesn't understand how she could just stand there calmly, asking him questions about the vampires outside his doorstep because she had just, supposedly, lost her husband to them a week before. Here, he expects her to be an emotional mess, incapable of reasonable thought, a being of pure emotions simply because she is a woman (in juxtaposition, Robert himself had to kill his vampired wife and survive on his own for three years; naturally, because he was a man, he never wondered to himself how he could still rationally function so soon after the tragedy of his wife and daughter).

The author also heightens the artificiality of women - her gestures simply cannot be...curiosity, they must be womanly and, because they are womanly and meaningless (which no...the bastard kidnapped her, why wouldn't she want to know more about him), Robert also labels them as artificial.

The story itself does not undermine Robert's own prejudices and hypocrisy (meaning, I don't care if a character is a misogynist pig, but if the story backs him up and says yes, he's right in his perception of women, that pisses me the hell off) because Ruth ultimately is a "fake" - she's not a woman, she's a bloody vampire. And even as a female vampire, she's still completely emotional ("She must have been startled by his cry then, even though she'd been expecting it, and forgotten all about her job [to spy on him]...")

A few months ago, I wrote an entry about Avatar and Pocahontas, how the idea of a woman falling in love with an outsider is a popular theme in American literature. I am Legend is no exception. Ruth, the vampire, falls in love with Robert.

She warns him of the vampires coming to execute him, she tells him that she was going to warn him again, that she was going to help him escape, and is glad that he is so brave before she gives him a kiss.

What. The. Fuck.

Even if Robert was afraid that Ruth was a vampire and thus was treating her so cruelly, that doesn't excuse the savagery of it. And why should she fall in love with someone so deeply she'd be willing to betray her people? She knew him less than a day. He killed her husband.

The way the author portrayed her "love" in the story - I'm not buying it. I find it mildly insulting. Perhaps if she believed that his execution was wrong, perhaps if she wanted to not birth their new society with violence -- and yet, despite the thousands of living vampires Robert has massacred he's giving HER a lecture about violence! -- and wanted to save him out of principle instead of out of love - that, I could understand. That I could respect.

But no. A kiss in the dark and she suddenly loves him. She's not even a person - she's always and completely a tool: used to spy on him, used to love him. Again, her emotions are highlighted - she is incapable of reason (even her decision to help try to minimize the violence of the new society is because Neville asks her to, not because she believes it's wrong). His perception that she is a "brainless convert" is never really refuted by her actions...she simply, always succumbs to her emotions. Instead of complicating stereotypes, it simply reinforces them.

The Astonishing Adventures of Fanboy and Goth Girl: A Review

Let us take a moment to analyze the title of this work of fiction.

Titles are tricky beasts -- you have to be careful with them. Titles, much like first sentences and paragraphs, make promises to the readers. Now readers, as everyone should know, are demanding little three year olds who want those promises kept, gosh darnit. As a reader, I demand (petulantly) that those promises be kept.

Astonishing -- that's a big word with lots of baggage that promises to be absolutely amazing and fantastic. For example, finding something that's big and little at the same time is astonishing. Going through a star gate and transcending to a higher plane of existence -- that's astonishing.

Lusting after a the gorgeous senior with the killer legs? The tantalizing boobage? Hoping the girl who sits across from you will open her legs even wider, giving you even a better a glimpse of her crotch? These are not astonishing. This is cliche and, despite the fact that the narrator is like the smartest guy in the school with the greatest graphic novel idea in the history of ever, is not astonishing.

It's just a pathetic cliche. So he gets punched in gymn class. Why should I, as a woman, give a frack?

So, the adventures of Fanboy and Goth Girl are not astonishing. Fine. People have relative units of measurement when it comes to the human experience.

Fanboy and Goth Girl, Adventures of. So, we get to see Fanboy somehow reconcile his bitter existence with his parents, take off a graphic novel idol of his List of Everybody in the World He Hates. Great. Personal development - except he's still treating girls like objects for his gazing pleasure -- but never mind that. Boys will be boys after all.

So how does Goth Girl grow? What's her great adventure? What's her character development? Oh that's right --

SHE DOESN'T HAVE ONE.

She's just there to teach what's his face an important lesson. And to show off her titties not once, but twice, to make an Important Point (tm). Because a girl's worth is only defined by her sexuality.

No Thank You, Mr. Author Man.

Obviously, there is a limited understanding of female sexuality here. The sad part? Goth Girl gets it - she even attempts to nail it into the narrator's head. But then the ball is dropped - it's gone, and instead, as Fanboy -- poor little fanboy who can't get a girl or keep a friend, boo hoo -- is having one of his wettest dreams fulfilled as the Hot Girl bemoans the fact that guys just want to have a good lay with her, he wonders:

Then why dress like that? why make it so we can't help looking at you? I don't get it. I don't understand.

Frak that bantha poo.

Men are uncontrollable hormone monsters. Women are vestal virgins when they're not being whores by dressing like sluts (and either two can become hormonally driven bitches if they happen to be pregnant or just having a bad day).

This is the antithesis of astonishing. This is a reaffirmation of the tired old gender roles that poison people's concepts of men and women and everything in between. This is not an adventure. This is just a re-treatment of the tired old ground that boxes women and men away in these tiny, little stereotypes that are too small for earth, let alone the gigantic expanse of a universe just waiting to be explored.

It is utterly wearisome.

And I want my five dollars back.

The Forever War: A Review

As I'm reading The Forever War by Joe Haldeman, I've noticed that sexuality appears to be an underlying theme. At first, I couldn't determine if the author was homophobic or if the protagonist was homophobic or if its a little bit of both.

For example, when Mandella discovers that about a third of the population back on earth are homosexual he says,

I never had much trouble accepting homosexuals myself, but then I'd never had to cope with such an abundance of them.

Which isn't actually acceptance at all -- because, in his view, they are not necessarily people, just things to be dealt with or tolerated to an extent. I still haven't determined if Haldeman challenges this view by his depiction of homosexuals in the text, or if he reinforces this idea as the text continues.

Mandella's reaction to the idea that his mother had a woman lover was also ultimately negative because he left the house much earlier than he had planned. He also felt "hollow and lost."

Later on, Mandella says,

I'd gotten used to open female homosex in the months since we'd left Earth. Even stopped resenting the loss of potential partners. The men together still gave me a chill, though.

I found this mildly offensive - sex is sex, one shouldn't be worse than the other. Also, potential partners? He's ultimately putting himself first and the women as secondary of concern -- which is basically objectification. In other words, women are meant to be potential partners for himself, instead of their own individual selves.

But then we have this little conversation with an officer who is supposed to help him deal with the time dilation (he's technically a couple centuries old, even though he's only "lived" much, much less than that):

"The main problem is with, uh, you're [Mandella] heterosexual."

"Oh, that's no problem. I'm tolerant."

"Yes, your profile shows that you . . . think you're tolerant, but that's not the problem, exactly." [. . .] Only emotionally stable people are drafted in UNEF. I know this is hard for you to accept, but heterosexuality is considered an emotional dysfunction. Relatively easy to cure."

"If they think they're going to cure me --"

"Relax, you're too old [. . .] William, everybody on Earth is homosexual. Except for a thousand or so; veterans and incurables."

[. . .]

O brave new world, I thought. "[. . .] A billion perfectly adjusted homosexuals."

"Perfectly adjusted by present-day Earth standards. You and I might find them a little odd."

"That's an understatement. [. . .] Yourself, you, uh, . . . are you homosexual?"

"Oh, no," he said. I relaxed. "Actually though, I'm not hetero anymore either. [. . .] Nothing but metal and plastic from the waist down. To use your word, I'm a cyborg."

[. . .]

Sitting here in a bar with an asexual cyborg who is probably the only other normal person on the whole god-damned planet.

1. The officer calls Mandella out -- he thinks he's tolerant, but he's really not. I appreciate that. I also don't think the officer is tolerant either as there is still a sense that homosexuals aren't people, but some kind of Other (because they're odd). Now, I can understand the new recruits being odd -- but not because of their sexuality but because of culture/future shock (they come from different centuries after all).

2. Haldeman essentially flips the table on sexuality: instead of homosexuality in need of being "cured" (as some circles seem to think even today), heterosexuality is the one in need of being cured (I argue, why does sexuality need to be cured in the first place?). Instead of homosexuals protesting that they don't or shouldn't be cured, heterosexual Mandella instantly rebels against the very notion of changing or being "cured" -- like most people would (I wonder how the heterosexuals in The Forever War universe felt about being cured to homosexuality and if there were any riots/protests, etc).

3. Mandella still considers homosexuality to be abnormal, as evidenced by his discomfort when he thought the officer was a homosexual and his observation that, because of the officer's non-homosexuality, he is the only other normal person. Personally, I find it sad that Mandella would consider something inherently unnatural as machinery instead of healthy human organic material to be more natural than naturally occurring homosexuality (before, in terms of the story, people were engineered/cured to be homosexual that is -- which I don't really consider natural).

I also find the depiction of homosexuality in the book to be somewhat stereotypical:

When Mandella first found out the prevalence of homosexuality back on earth, the man who briefed him on how times had changed is described like this:

It looked as if there was something wrong with his skin, his face; and then I realized he was wearing powder and lipstick. His nails were smooth white almonds.

He looks unnatural, but more than that, he is unnaturally effeminate.

Later on, Mandella and his female lover are treated by a doctor who

fluttered his hands. [. . .] Foster was all right. A flaming mariposa, but he had an amused tolerance for heterosexuality.

A mariposa is a flower, which is often associated with femininity. And the fluttering of the hands is also associated with weak femininity -- you know, the kind that swoon into a hero's arms.

I found this portrayal of homosexuality to be constant throughout the novel. Towards the end, people could switch whichever way they desired -- I suppose that would be nice since it would be individual choice. But homosexuality is still given the stint.

For example, when they all get back and realize that the war is /finally/ over, they find that there are a lot of clones of a perfect individual running around. The clone says that heterosexuality is in vogue again in order to keep a good supply of genes on hand in case the cloning doesn't work out but that a homosexual doesn't

have to go to these breeder planets. You can stay on one of my planets [the clone planets].

And then later on Charlie, a homosexual, says that he's going to be switched over to heterosexuality because the alternative of having sex with a Male clone is less attractive than having sex with women. But surely there are other homosexual men who wouldn't want to make the switch? Am I missing something?

So why am I harping on this? Science Fiction is about the future. It's about exploring our souls in terms in hypothetical scenarios with a science-ish slant. It's about experimenting with different way to view things. It is for this reason that I believe Science Fiction is so ideal in breaking people out of their boxes and their preconceptions. Yet both Stranger in a Strange Land and The Forever War put decidedly negative, bigoted, narrow minded views about homosexuality. Sexuality is an ideal which much of the modern science fiction fare today is content to leave at the status quo -- which really frustrates me. It's one of the reasons I adore Caprica because they have non-stereotypical homosexual characters who are real and married. One of the characters can say that his brother would get the girls and he'd try to catch the eye of some guy -- it's portrayed as so normal and natural that there's not even a word for homosexuality in Caprican culture (or so I understand). This is what I'm talking about -- I adore it when science fiction uses it's hypothetical scenarios to just turn around and challenge the way people view the world.

I still appreciate the way Haldeman flips the tables -- this was written in 1975 and I think the scenarios Haldeman proposes questions what many people would have considered "natural" or "normal" in that time era -- and even today, really. Even as the prevalence of homosexuality is ultimately a social construction, I think the implication that Haldeman should be making is that the assumed normalcy and naturalness of heterosexuality is also a social construction, a revision or challenge of the socially constructed assumptions regarding the inherent normalcy (or naturalness, rightness) of heterosexuality.

However, as much as I hoped that the story would go in this direction, it ultimately did not: the prevalence of homosexuality in The Forever War universe is unnatural because people are engineered or cured to be homosexual -- in other words, aspects of their identity are being suppressed. I find this inherently problematic -- as if Haldeman is trying to say that heterosexuality really is the normative standard because people have to be forced/fitted to be homosexual. In other words, homosexuality is still portrayed as an unnatural occurrence in The Forever War universe, instead of being as natural as heterosexuality.

Fast Forward: A Review

I just finished reading Fast Forward, a science fiction anthology.

I really didn't care for it, which distresses me a little bit. I'm not entirely sure if it is because I was sick for the majority of the time I was reading it or if I was simply reading it the wrong way, though I suspect the latter simply out of principle.

I think that reading short stories is different than reading novels -- it requires more concentration and, at the same time, less concentration. More because a reader needs to really pay attention to catch all the little details, less because it is usually less complicated than a novel. I, however, read the anthology like I read a novel: plopped myself on the couch and just started to read.

Reading an anthology all in one go is probably like eating an entire plastic jack 'o' lantern full of Halloween candy in an entire evening. Perhaps I should have read one story per night instead of several stories in one sitting because, even though I knew it was an anthology, I kept waiting to get to know the characters better and then the story was over and it was time to begin a new story with different characters created by a different author with a different writing style.

I fancy it was a bit like speed dating though this is perhaps a faulty analogy since I've never actually been speed dating.

Whatever it was, it was dizzying and not in a good way.

I think my aversion to anthologies is probably the same reason why I prefer tv shows to movies. A short story is limited. You really have to cram a lot of information and emotion in one short story -- it is exhausting to read and even exhausting to write.

For me, I need to be in a certain mental space if I want to read a short story. It was something I always suspected, but I also had to take into account that most of the short stories I read was in an academic setting instead of a free-time luxury (which also requires a different type of reading -- reading is actually a very complicated activity not to be taken lightly).

Anyway, I didn't enjoy all of the stories either. Even though it had science-ish gadgets, it didn't feel like science fiction. According to Asimov,

The core of science fiction, its essence has become crucial to our salvation if we are to be saved at all

and I just didn't get that feeling at all. There wasn't that exploration of the soul that I really wanted to experience. Maybe it was because it felt like any other kind of story with the desktop set to SCIENCE FICTION. Like paper dolls with electron dresses or something.

Disappointing.

A Princess of Mars: A Review

My first experience with Edgar Rice Burroughs' Mars series was my mother reading them aloud to us. I think it was in our double digit years but before we were teenagers, so probably about 8 years ago at the very least.

I've grown up a lot, and, though I still enjoyed A Princess of Mars as swashbuckling daring, I found it disappointing Science Fiction compared to others that I have read.

I think that Burroughs missed many opportunities to flesh out the different Martian cultures -- for example, Green Martians have another set of limbs between the legs and the arms: how does this affect their fighting style, what sort of weapons would they make to accommodate the limbs, etc...

Red Martians are portrayed as the more civilized of the two, yet even the Red Martians are quite war like. I think it would have been interesting if the races had been more 3d.

Asimov described science fiction as a reaction to superior technology -- I would also like to add that it is a reaction to the culture. However, John Carter doesn't really have to do that for two reasons:

1. In the case of the Green Martians, he is already their superior. Since they are a war like race (multi-limbed Spartans!), they value physical prowess. Since the gravity on Mars is lesser than gravity on earth, Carter can easily make 50 foot leaps. Since he is stronger, his blows also hit relatively stronger. There is no reaction to be had because they are beneath him in every way.

2. The Red Martians are very similar to humans: sure they lay eggs, but they have the same number of limbs as an earthling, have family units, create, study, and are, compared to the Green Martians, civilized. In fact, regarding families, Carter was of the opinion that the lack of a family unit among the Green Martians contributed to their war like ways.

In short, John Carter is not forced to question anything -- he embraces the Red Martian as being most familiar, affirming his own assumptions both on Earth and on Mars (which leaves its own implications regarding tradition, culture, that sort of thing). There is nothing that really causes him to pause and to question himself.

Compare to Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land where Martian philosophy was devoutly explored and how that related to Earthlings (water brothers to sex to poly-amorous relationships). Burroughs doesn't really use A Princess of Mars to explore social norms (whether different or earthly traditional), political thought (other than the obvious "savagery is bad" sort of thing), etc.

However, that said, I still enjoyed it as a pulp adventure story, just a bit deficient in the Science Fiction Exploration of the Soul department -- which, apparently shouldn't be such a surprise. According to Wikipedia (I know, I know), it's actually a Planetary Romance. *shrug* Who knew?

Also, I had forgotten how many times Dejah Thoris was put on a pedestal with her beautiful face and her perfect lips, and her slight, girlish figure. Perhaps she and Edward Cullen should meet. ;)

Soon I Will Be Invincible: A Review

I just finished reading Soon I Will Be Invincible.

I'm including this under my Summer of Science Fiction because this a story about an evil genius who attempted multiple times to conquer the world through science. However, there are also aliens, fairy, and magic, all of which had the potential to be a fantastic novel of superheroic proportions.

It failed. Dismally.

Superhero Fiction is a delicate niche -- I mean, it has to be. It's hard to take people running around in spandex seriously.

I think the problem with this novel is that it takes itself too seriously in all the wrong ways. Doctor Impossible continues to try to conquer the world in cartoon, devilish ways. Robots, fungus, moving the earth's orbit to create an ice age, that sort of thing. Seriously, if you're gonna have a villain taking over the world two things need to happen in order to make him a villain instead of a two-pence clown with delusions of grandeur: 1. Have a half-decent reason that doesn't include vengeance when life deals the villain a rotten hand in his childhood. 2. Make the schemes actually plausible. Bonus points if the villain doesn't end up ruling a post-apocalyptic earth

The villain of the story, Doctor Impossible, is obviously crazy but not in the bone chillingly way. More in the shake your head and cluck softly, you poor thing way.

It also felt a bit like Doctor Horrible's Sing-Along Blog (which isn't his fault since Grossman wrote the novel before Whedon wrote DHSAB). Doctor Impossible even had a freeze ray and a death ray. There were even attempted witty retorts which fell flat most of the time (it's okay, Grossman, not everybody can be Whedon).

The thing is, Whedon did it better. Doctor Impossible wants the girl and take over the world. Dr. Horrible is conflicted between being a villain and pursuing Penny -- a conflict that doesn't really bother Doctor Impossible.

In some ways Corefire, who is often hinted at being a jerk (seriously, that's prime material there!), resembles Captain Hammer -- they are both heroic tools. However, Doctor Impossible goes into monologues in which he says that the good guys are supposed to win, end of story, that's the way it's done: I'm supposed to try to take over the world, they're supposed to stop me, I'm supposed to lose, they're supposed to win.

This. Irks. Me. It's like...predestination, like everybody's just reading the script. Doctor Horrible didn't stop trying and doesn't fool himself with the angsty I'm supposed to lose nonsense. "It's not about making money, it's about taking money," he says.

Doctor Impossible had no vision beyond his character's role.

Doctor Horrible did.

The ending wasn't even worth the time it took to even read the novel. Since Doctor Impossible never let the reader forget that he was supposed to lose, it really wasn't that surprising when he, well, lost.

The characters of the novel were very unsatisfying and one dimensional. They were all either extremely smart or they were lucky. Heck, one was the daughter of an Alien Princess. This bugs the heck out of me. Superheroes aren't supposed to make the privileged even more privileged -- it's supposed to be the empowerment of the average Joe as it explores philosophical issues, the spectrum of evil to good and all that grey in between, and -- I can't stress this enough -- about the people.

This wasn't about the people. It wasn't even about the ramifications of good or evil. Sure, mentions were made that people who had super powers often tended to be mentally unbalanced in some way, but it wasn't enough. In essence, Soon I Will Be Invincible did not deal with Asimov's rule: it didn't explore how these people reacted to their own powers (angsty drivel doesn't count, sorry). It didn't really go into how the public saw these heroes. They were just kind of there. I honestly think that every superhero story needs a person who is human so that it can explore their reaction to all this Super as well. Soon I Will Be Invincible touched on it, but then the ordinary girl overshadowed by the Supers became super herself. Sigh.

Another disappointing aspect of the book was the style of the writing. Seriously, I can't help but wonder how this got published.

There are two alternating point of views within the novel -- not something I would choose, but hey, to each his own. The problem is that they both sound exactly the same. Seriously. They both go into long, boring, repetitive monologues, they both push the rewind button as they constantly deviate from the main plot of the story to enlighten the reader about various characters, their back stories, etc.

It was like a little kid constantly interrupting their older sibling as s/he tries to read a book.

Intensely annoying and rather amateurish compared to someone like Neil Gaiman.

But not everyone can be the Gaiman. But that fact shouldn't deter them from trying to outdo him in their own way.