Comic musings for 11/29

Some quick hits for the new comics that came in this week. I'm going to try to do this on a weekly basis and then have some longer posts about bigger issues.

Caveat this week. My local comic book store was missing about half its shipment, so I don't have as many books to read and talk about. The good news (or bad news, depending on your point of view) is that this means more to read and talk about next week.

Spoilers ho!

Teen Titans -- Jericho is reintroduced to the team. I have been excited about this possibility and trying very hard to ignore the "coming back from the dead" thing, which I thought was going to be avoided in the DC universe for a while. The Titans is my favorite book, in all its incarnations, and Joey was one of my favorite characters in the Wolfman run. Unfortunately, I don't think Johns has a grasp on the character yet. Joey narrates the entire issue, which I think is a first...we've seen the world through his eyes before, but not with him as an active narrator (I think). And the voice just feels off to me. Of more concern is his use of his powers. I don't recall him ever jumping into a teammate's body without permission or without that teammate being unconscious, but he does it first thing in this issue. What a lovely way to inspire confidence after you have been possessed and done evil things, have possessed another and forced them to do evil things, and then risen from the dead. Perhaps the re-activated formerly dead brain cells aren't quite firing yet. And honestly, I love the art, but this take on Jericho is going to take some getting used to...where's the damn muttonchops and the pirate shirt???

But overall I like this issue. There's some excellent touches outside the quibbles I make above. The origin of Bombshell is interesting. Miss Martian is fast becoming one of my favorite characters in the DC Universe. The interaction between Jericho and Ravager is wonderful and holds a lot of promise. The strange activities of Kid Devil are rapdily coming to a head. Diana Prince shows up and Cassie picks on her about her potential relationships. And Robin and Cassie uncover a theory I've had for a while. This feels more like an issue from the Wolfman/Perez run than any I can remember in a long time.

Green Lantern -- Hal fights the Global Guardians and we learn that one of its members might have a crush on him? Then the Rocket Red Brigade joins in the fun. Then the newly formed Justice League shows up in what I believe is their first appearance as a team (which is amazing since they haven't become a team yet in their own book). The action is fast and hard, but this storyline started out as an attempt to add dimension to Hal, who has been written very flatly for years now. And while that wasa noble thing to do, this issue has no character development for Hal at all. And we are stuck with the bizarre premise of the Air Force knowing Hal is a Green Lantern and allows him to fly their jets...without his power ring. But, it appears on of Hal's old nemeses is back, and that's a very good thing. The one-page jump to the Guardians feels terribly displaced, and the Qwardian pages don't make a lot of sense yet either, though the Sinestro Corps promises to be a lot of fun. Overall, a very uneven issue.

Superman/Batman -- Perhaps it's just me, but I still haven't put everything together with this story arc. Something bad is happening to the aliens who visit Earth, but for the life of me I have no idea what. The interaction between Batman and Plastic Man feels wrong. Since Plastic Man's membership in the JLA, Batman has had a healthy respect for what Plastic Man brings to the table. Suddenly, in this story, he no longer trusts him. I had suspected at first that the Infinite Crisis had changed their relationship, but Plas refers to his son, so we know the time they were together in the JLA is still canonical. And it is incredibly jarring for Batman to find himself performing missions for Lex Luthor. But, you know, that Ethan Van Sciver can draw, and it is delightful to see what he does with Starfire in her old costume. Another uneven issue and I am slowly losing patience after expecting a significant shake-up following Loeb's disastrous run.

Batman/Spirit -- This was just a lot of fun, especially when we find P'gell dating Commissioner Gordon and Pam Isley dating Commissioner Dolan. The interaction between the characters of the two worlds is very well done, and just feels right. The irony of Commissioner Dolan pretty much receiving a lifetime achievement award from a national police organziation is strong. Watching the Batman rogues gallery take front and center while the Spirit's regular foes dart around the perimeter is a very nice touch and deftly handled...of course everyone wants to see the Octopus without his mask. There are two drawbacks in the issue however; first, it's not Eisner's art. To his credit, Cooke doesn't try to channel Eisner, and it takes a while to get used to the look. The panels also aren't quite so full as they are in Eisner's work; there aren't things happening in the background in all the panels. Cooke's work is good, it just takes getting used to something different for something so iconic. The other bad thing is that Spirit is pretty passive throughout the course of the book, which just isn't the way he should be written. Batman steals all the big scenes, and Sprit isn't even allowed to be a sarcastic witness to the events. It's pretty clear that when the new Spirit series starts, he can't have a lot of interaction with the superheroes of the DC Universe. (And really, couldn't we see just one interaction between Ebony and Robin?)

Warlord -- A not-very-good conclusion to the ill-conceived re-imagining of a good SF series from DC. Warlord had a vibrant and large mythology that the new writer, Bruce Jones, chose to ignore from the start. Instead, we got a new mythology using some of the same names, which made things confusing enough. But some of the worst Bart Sears art I've ever seen (and I generally really like his work) made the series pretty much unreadable. The art gradually got better, but the series could never really recover from its dismal start. This last issue seemed to forget anything that happened in the other issues and went on to set the story in a medieval village rather than the Bronze Age setting the rest of the series used. The plot involved the classic sacrificing the virgin to the demon trope with a completely expected bait-and-switch at the end, and the unlikely denouement that comes from poor fantasy writing (kill the beastie, kill all its spawn?). I hope that DC will forget this series ever happened and that the real Travis Morgan will make an appearance in the DC Universe soon.

The Fountain and Genres

From an article on scifi.com:

Writer/director Darren Aronofsky wants to make one thing clear: His epic film The Fountain is definitely science fiction, he told SCI FI Wire. "I'm glad we're talking about this," Aronofsky said in an interview. "It's a really upsetting thing, because I've met people on the road who go, 'This isn't sci-fi because there aren't ray guns.' They haven't said it that obviously, but that's their point. And the fact that science fiction in movies has been so hijacked by techno-lust and by hardware 'button sci-fi,' as we call it, where everything is, if it's not buttons, it's now holographs."

This is the observation that led me to try to better define the subgenres of speculative fiction, at least in my own mind. I'm reminded of the book group member I wrote of before; the people that Aronofsky describes appear to think that a work is science fiction because it has certain things in it. A ray gun or holographs or aliens equals science fiction, and a sword equals fantasy (unless it is a light sabre). But my training in literature tells me that this can't be right; ray guns and holographs are part of the setting of the book, not what the book is about, right? Honestly, how many genres are defined by where the book is set? Aren't genres defined by what the book is about?

Sure, science fiction (at least in the movies) usually happens in space and usually involves a ray gun, but those things aren't what the movie is about...you know, the theme of the movie. Those things are usually just tools to get to the theme (if the movie has a theme; sometimes those movies have very little thematic going on in them at all). So, what is science fiction about?

The article goes on:

"Believe me, there were drafts of The Fountain where the guy in space had a little holograph," Aronofsky said. "But where we wanted to push our science fiction [was to] push outer space so far, and push technology so far,[to] remove all trucks from space. No more pimped-out cars in space. Return to an organic singularity, so that outer space suddenly becomes inner space. Because I think that's where technology takes you. ... You can't have those tricks. You have to simplify down to something that is absolute, that is mental and [is] no longer electronic. And I think that's where science fiction is going. And it completely is science fiction."

Suddenly Aronofsky isn't really all that different from the science fiction fans he complains about. It appears he is disturbed by the props that viewers use to determine the genre (holograph bad, organic starship good) rather than the real literary component that separates science fiction from the other (sub)genres. Again, what usually defines a genre in literature is what the book is about. And, unfortunately, The Fountain isn't about science or technology. Sure, those things play a part in the storytelling, but the real story is about a man's relationship with his wife under extraordinary circumstances. That Aronofsky can switch out the props in his story without feeling like the story has a different meaning is the true indicator that the movie is not science fiction. In science fiction, how the characters interact with those bits of science and technology is what the story is about. If Tom was attempting to maintain his emotional relationship with his wife via a holograph, that would be science fiction, but that's not what the story is about. (It can be argued that the method by which Tom continues with his relationship is magic, and then by Clarke's law, it is indistinguishable from super-science, but our point-of-view does not really give any indication that this is the case. It's natural, just unusual nature, or perhaps supernatural. Not science.)

Great film, The Fountain, even if its director doesn't get it (just kidding, Mr. Aronofsky--brilliant movie, we just use different tools to describe it).

Genre Speculation

The latest issue of Locus magazine has an interview with China Mieville, part of which I now quote:

I got very frustrated when the whole debate about New Weird was
going on. If it doesn't work, if it's a stupid category--fine, let's
talk about that. But people often say any act of pigeonholing is bad. That is
absurd, for we do it all the time. It's not like labeling in geology,
saying 'This is this type of rock' and that's the end of the story; it's a tool,
and you use it as long as it's useful.

I started a "book group" about five years ago, a bunch of friends gathering to discuss speculative fiction. Every four to six weeks we gather to discuss the latest selection (we're reading Brave New World right now). When we first started gathering, I thought we should read a book from each of the major subgenres--science fiction, fantasy, and horror--so that we could talk about what makes them what they are. The science fiction book we started with was Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson, and we immediately lost a member, because to his mind, the book was not remotely science fiction. For him, the book was lacking aliens and spaceships and ray guns, and therefore could not be considered science fiction. (I remember asking him how he would classify the novel, but I honestly can't remember his response.)

To some extent, it was this populist definition of science fiction that led me to start the book group and begin trying to build arguments for and against my own theory of the definition of science fiction. Over the intervening years, we have read fascinating works and talked about them, even going so far as to try to place them in genres and subgenres, and perhaps even subsubgenres (scientific romance, anyone?). But whenever the genre question arises, the conversation suddenly goes from cordial and friendly to sharp and formal. I really despise when that happens, but fortunately, we have all been friends for years, even decades, so we work our way past it. And I try very hard to indicate that it doesn't matter what definitions people use, so long as they work for the user.

But it's a funny thing about genres. As difficult as it is to work with literature and the way works sometimes get stuck in the spaces between them, think about music. I used to taunt a good friend who is a classical music fan by challenging him to define "classical music". Think about it for a while--I'm not sure it can be done. I'm a huge prog rock fan, and my wife sometimes says she hates prog rock, and yet we both like Rush. I spent an entertaining tailgating afternoon discussing with another friend "What is Southern rock?". And although I've never been able to reach consensus with anyone about the definitions I'm seeking, every person I talk to holds on to their definitions tightly, not appreciating even the friendly challenges that come from asking what someone's thoughts are.

Part of why I am writing this blog is to talk about the latest things I have read, and part of that discussion will have to include the genre I place it in. But it's a tool; it's my shorthand way of pigeonholing something easily for discussion. I don't ask that you, my hypothetical reader, agree with my definitions of the genres and subgenres, but accept them as the filing device I intend them as. And, to be honest, I will happily engage anyone with a friendly conversation about the genres, all the while trying to hold my proselytizing zeal to a minimum. My own tools will be discarded and modifed as needed, bearing in mind that thus far the tools I have I made for myself.

And if you have a real good definition of Southern rock, let me know.

The Fountain

I have been reading about Darren Aronofsky's new film for some time now. Given my reaction to Pi, perhaps I should've been wary; Pi was obviously brilliant, but I'm sure I didn't get most of the nuance of the film. But I had seen pictures from The Fountain and was somewhat excited about it. Then, earlier this week, I saw the full trailer and there was simply no way I couldn't see this film. My wife and I saw it yesterday.

Important thing to bear in mind as you read: I liked the movie a whole lot.

So, let me get this out of the way first, because I have seen articles in places that might lead you to think otherwise: The Fountain is not science fiction. It is clearly speculative fiction, but I would say it leans more towards fantasy, because the science part of the movie provides a background for the events in the movie, rather than much of the thematics or plot. There is the search for the elixir of youth being done in a manner befitting the scientific method, but when it is found, it's not an invention so much as the properties of a discovery from nature. And perhaps, my hypothetical reader, you might think I'm just splitting fine hairs since there is interstellar travel in the movie; it's okay if you think so. But to me, it makes a difference--in discussing the film, however, not in enjoying it. (I intend to write more about genres in the future, but if you want to see my position, you can visit my home page and choose the Science Fiction link to see what/how I think.)

The Fountain is an agonizingly, heartachingly beautiful movie. The story is about the timelessness of love, which can be beautiful in its own right, and the movie deftly sidesteps forays into mawkishness. But I also mean to say that the film is beautiful. The cinematography is amazing and will pull your heart up into your throat. The music is wonderful. Hugh Jackman carries the acting load and does so very well, making you feel his emotions in the twist of his face or the delivery of a line. Rachel Weisz swings between gloriously beautiful and merely fey, but the beauty of her character's soul when being fey might well outshine the gloriously beautiful parts.

So I realize I haven't really said anything about the plot. There are three storylines, each about 500 years apart (though there is nothing in the movie to indicate when the stories are actually supposed to be taking place; the trailers, reviews, and interviews contain this information). Story A involves Queen Isabella and Tomas, a conquistador she sends to the Mayans in order to find the source of eternal youth. Immediately you are submerged in a dual strangeness--the strangeness of another culture, the Mayans, and the strangeness of a place where myths appear to be true. Story B is more contemporary, involving the couple Tom and Izzi Creo; she's a patient dying of what appears to be inoperable brain cancer, while he is a devoted husband searching for the cure to the disease killing his wife. Story C is actually the "now" of the movie, with stories A and B taking place as flashbacks for the only character in Story C, a nameless space traveller who happens to look a great deal like Tom Creo on his way to a dying star.

The stories are interwoven throughout the movie, and events we see at first pass are revisited and expanded upon, or perhaps even rewritten as the characters evolve. I found myself setting aside my questions for after I left the theater, and I think that may be the best approach to take. Questions get answered in their own time, and if you get yourself all contorted about them in the course of the movie, you could probably miss the important things about each scene.

And let me be honest, there are questions when the movie is done. I'm okay with that, however; these aren't the questions of the "How could X surive the 50-story fall with only a broken leg?" variety. These are questions more like "What was the journey for X to get from this emotional space to this other emotional space?" You know, the important questions, not picking at continuity and believability flaws. But those questions I did end up with are typical of how I felt this movie worked; it's engaging and smart, and it doesn't dumb itself down to the typical mainstream movie-goer IQ.

And perhaps that's why this movie will fail. It's being treated as a mainstream movie, and it just isn't. The guy sitting behind my wife and I fell asleep halfway through, in one of the more majestic scenes, probably because he just wasn't engaged. My wife and I were. As the final credits rolled, most of the few people who attended were quick to get out and get on with their lives. I needed a while to compose my thoughts (and I remain through the credits anyway). My wife looked at me and asked "How could this movie have gotten made and been released?" It is that different from what is usually available, especially those brain-numbing movies that are labeled with a "SF" tag. But I believe it to be worth it. See it while you can, see it on the big screen, and see it digital if possible.

Introduction

I'm a writer, professional, in fact; meaning I get paid for the things I write. They just aren't the kinds of things I would choose to write, given all the time and/or money in the world. I'm also nearing that legendary "mid-life" point of my life where men are reputed to question the decisions they have made in the process of getting to where they are. I kinda like where I am, but there's always the "what if" things that bother you, and I suppose it's no help that I've spent most of my life reading and thinking about "what if" kinds of writing.

So I wondered out loud with friends at a restaurant, and my wife announces that I need to start a blog. She believes that the things that I have to say have some merit to them. I'm not so sure (a disturbing and profound weakness in someone who is wondering if they have what it takes to be an author), but I love my wife for, among other things, thinking that I might. So I'm going to give this thing a shot, trying to write frequently enough to get in the hang of it and eventually do it for publication.

You can find out more about me by connecting to my slightly out-of-date home page, http://bellsouthpwp.net/t/a/tarqas/. I haven't been updating it primarily because I was using Dreamweaver to do the job and when I changed computers, Dreamweaver didn't come with me nor can I find my disks. So, we may ascribe the lack of updates to laziness, but it is a highly technological laziness. At any rate, I'm sure I'll be touching on more of the ideas and items on my home page as we go on, but I thought I would include the highlights here:

• Born and raised in Raleigh NC (which while not important to a lot of hypothetical readers, if you are from the area, it really means something)
• Married, for a little more than six months now
• Four cats
• Lifelong fan of North Carolina State University (and a graduate, too!)
• "impact" shouldn't be used as a verb unless you are referring to teeth
• Geek who reads speculative fiction and comic books...and then thinks about them

And I like wordplay. Thus the blog title that is a pun about making puns. And perhaps also because I think more highly of my sense of humor than I might should. At any rate, welcome, my hypothetical reader.