June 2012

SF/F Commentary

Gritty Fantasy: Why Do I Love It So?

Today’s post is based on a question from Dirk Reul: What is it that people find fascinating about gritty fantasy compared to the classic story types like The Hero’s Journey? As I noted when the question was asked, I can only talk about this topic from my personal perspective.  Sadly, the radiation from Japan’s nuclear power plan problems has yet to give me the ability to read the minds of everyone on the planet.  I’m as upset about it as you (admit it, you wanted to get super powers too). First, to definitions, just so we’re clear what we mean (or I mean) by “gritty fantasy.”  George R. R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire is gritty fantasy.  J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings and successor works are the classic “hero’s journey” stories.  The difference between the two isn’t so much the lack of a quest, but rather a rejection on the part of gritty fantasy of romantic notions about medieval societies.  In classic fantasy, death is glory; in gritty fantasy, death is horrible, costly, and deeply personal for the characters.  There may be overlap, but I think the absolutism is essential.  For the purposes of this post, I will focus specifically on A Song of Ice and Fire (books one and two, which I will refer to as GRRM to save space and my fingers).  Expect a few spoilers. As much as I enjoy glorious tales of heroic quests, the gritty realism of GRRM and related works does something else for me:  it gives me a sense of insecurity.  I know the hero will survive in classic fantasy tales.  But I don’t know that is true in something like GRRM, because characters are routinely killed or abused by other characters.  Take, for example, Eddard Stark.  He is set up as our main hero in A Game of Thrones.  We come to love him, flaws and all, and to care deeply for his cause and for his family.  But he dies at the end of the book, betrayed by the very people he hoped would help him save the kingdom.  It doesn’t get any better for the Starks after that.  Sansa is kept hostage by the sadistic King Joffrey; Winterfell and the Starks are betrayed by Theon Greyjoy, their ward, and the city burned to the ground; Arya is forced to skulk through an increasingly dangerous terrain, at first pretending to be a boy; and Catelyn, Eddard’s wife, must watch as her son, Robb, makes war, worried that her two daughters will be killed by the Lannisters (Joffrey at the head), and that her son(s) will die.  There is nothing safe about this situation; for me, it produces a sense of compelling dread, because anyone could get hurt at any moment. Likewise, gritty fantasy gives me the violence that is almost always absent from classic fantasy.  As much as I love The Lord of the Rings, it is a narrative that, in my mind, finds a kind of honor and glory in war.  When I read Tolkien-derivative works, I expect this dynamic, and even enjoy it.  Romanticizing war creates an emotional connection to the moment that is two parts hope, one part fear.  One of the scenes that makes me cry in the film adaptation of LOTR is the moment when the Riders of Rohan appear on the hilltop looking over the fields of Pelennor, ready to ride into certain death.  I love this scene because it is so human.  It’s about sacrifice for honor, something I think we’ve lost in this world because we don’t seem to understand what it is that soldiers do — our honoring of soldiers is somewhat empty. But gritty fantasy tends to avoid these glorifications.  War is terror.  It is blood and mud and guts and death.  It is a sea of despair.  People die, and they don’t die well, because there is no good death in battle.  And death outside of war is equally without glory.  Disease.  Starvation.  Murder.  All of it working in conjunction to make a medieval world that feels lived in, rather than ideologically constructed (utopian).  GRRM does this remarkably well, taking the piss out of those moments when we expect honor and glory to drive men and women to victory.  Instead, they tend to fall, often to dishonorable men.  Wars are sacrifice, but whatever glory can be found there is bittersweet.  Take the first battles at the end of A Game of Thrones.  In one such battle, a small contingent of soldiers is sent to meet Tywin Lannister’s host, but only to distract him while the greater force heads out to take the armies of Tywin’s son, Jaime, and free Riverrun.  A lot of people die.  But there is no moment of glory for them. There are no beautiful horns chiming in harmony.  Whatever stories are told are glorifications, but the narrative itself never gives us that glory (in fact, the battle is show from Tyrion Lannister’s perspective, a mangled dwarf who has never served in battle, let alone been trained for it). Those are two reasons I enjoy gritty fantasy.  What do you think?  Do you agree?  Or are there other things that draw you to gritty fantasy?

SF/F Commentary

Game of Thrones vs. People Who Only Threw a Fit After-the-fact

George Bush is in the HBO production of Game of Thrones (season one).  Not really.  A replica of his head was dressed up in a manky wig and put on a spike to represent one of the heads King Joffrey lobbed off towards the end of the first season.  Said replica was on the screen for such a short amount of time that nobody figured it out until someone made a passing comment in the commentary on the DVD suggesting as much.  Oh.  My.  God.  The world has just ended.  It’s over.  Hollywood wants to kill George Bush.  It’s finally true!  The liberals have come to kill our babies and eat our brains using parasitic tube monkeys.  And then they’re going to cut off George Bush’s head and put it up on a spike with a nasty black wig! None of that is true.  Well, except everything before “Oh.  My.  God.”  In truth, this is one of the stupidest things people have gotten upset about in Hollywood this year, let alone this decade (and the one before it).  There are a lot of more important things to get pissed about.  Such as how women are portrayed in films and TV.  Or representations of people of color.  Or the fact that most of the crap they put on TV looks like it was written by a 5-year-old missing half a brain.  But this?  Please.  Grow up. And, yes, contrary to what some of a different political persuasion than myself might say, I would not have cared either if the bust was Barack Obama, except for the fact that there are almost no black people in Game of Thrones (season one) to begin with.  Putting him up on a spike wouldn’t make any sense, and I might get a little annoyed at that if I actually noticed it.  But would I have?  No.  I didn’t notice George Bush either, and I don’t even like him as a President. That said, I don’t really know where I stand with the producers’ rational for why they used a replica of his head.  Is it possible they couldn’t afford to rent or make a whole bunch more body parts and heads?  Maybe.  Could it also be a veiled political statement?  I guess.  But that would assume David Benioff and D. B. Weiss are stupid enough to a) put it in their movie knowing some place like Big Hollywood will scrutinize everything they do, and b) mention doing so in the commentary.  If you wanted to make a political point, I’d think you’d take the moment to say something in the commentary.  Maybe they’re that dumb, but I find that hard to believe, and I don’t feel like making that judgment right now. So I will officially file this in my “stupid crap that the world got upset about” bin.  Do with it what you will.

SF/F Commentary

Question: Is “Solar System SF” the future of Space Opera?

Paul Weimer (who podcasted a review of Prometheus with me about a week ago) was kind enough to ask the question in the title, perhaps in some vain hope that I actually know what I’m talking about.  I’ll start by first saying much of what follows is uneducated speculation, in part because predicting trends in SF is a crapshoot (remember when Mundane SF was the “next big thing”?) and in part because I am not familiar with all the SF novels being published (traditionally or otherwise) simply because it is not my job to be familiar, and I’ve got 20 other things going on — some of them actual jobs or job-related. That said, one of the curious things about this question is that it wasn’t immediately clear to me what Paul meant by “Space Opera.”  As a narrative tradition, Space Opera has been identified as the “high adventure” genre, often coupled, in some ways, to Planetary Romance (Burroughs, for example), but with greater reach, greater inherent optimism, and an extraordinary love affair with the infamous “sensawunda” (also:  colonialism, but you can read John Rieder’s book for that).  It’s a genre that reminds us at once of the great history of SF and all that is wrong with it.  But Space Opera does have a newer face.  Some call it New Space Opera — a crummy term, to say the least, but effective enough.  I see this new type of Space Opera as a more serious version than its predecessor, not in the sense that old form SO lacks seriousness, per se, but more in the sense that New Space Opera, insofar as it exists, seems to be constructed on a frame of complexity and rigor.  You might also say that NSO has a serious tone that seems absent from SO, though I am not altogether convinced that this is necessarily true, particularly since some authors identified with NSO, such as Tobias S. Buckell, seem to draw heavily from old SO.  In other words:  NSO may or may not exist, though there is probably something going on in SO that is distinct from the older form.  The community should probably discuss this trend at length (maybe it has). I say all this as a way to attempt to explore Paul’s question, which seems to hinge on a concern with definitions.  Since SF based in the solar system (that is, SF in which humanity moves about the solar system instead of remaining stuck on Earth or going elsewhere) has usually remained the domain of hard SF (not exclusively — Burroughs again), I suspect that SO which takes on the traditional narrative forms are unlikely to sustain a movement in solar system SF (these titles are getting ridiculous, I know).  It’s not that there can’t be sensawunda and adventure in our solar system; quite the contrary.  Rather, it seems to me that SO has a tendency to look to far off, practically unattainable futures in which interstellar travel is a given, aliens (or human factions) are plentiful, and the wonder of exploration to alien (not extraterrestrial, per say) worlds is practically a necessity to narrative.  That’s what the community has made SO into for so long, to greater and lesser degrees (for taste, of course).  My gut tells me that SO which clutches to local concerns will invariably collapse back into hard SF, though I cannot as yet explain why in any intelligent manner. That doesn’t mean SO in the SS won’t exist — a stupid position to take.  It means that such writing won’t take over the traditional form.  There’s something else in store for SO.  Something that NSO, existing or otherwise, must be leading to.  But I have no idea what that will look like in the end.  Do you?

Retro Nostalgia

Retro Nostalgia: The Fifth Element (1997) and the Legacy of Camp

The Fifth Element is one of those films that the genre community loves not because it is a good film, but because it’s actually pretty awful, and intentionally so.  At least, that’s how I interpret it.  It has always seemed like a film that deliberately sought out science fiction’s pension for high-flying, mythological fantasy (in space).  In some sense, it’s the opposite of Starships Troopers, released in the same year.  Both films are satires:  Starship Troopers a more socio-political satire of the military industrial complex, and The Fifth Element a satire of genre — or what I call the  “legacy of camp.” What amuses me about The Fifth Element is how easily it manipulates genre conventions to produce a narrative that functions in part through humorous hyperbole, and yet never needs to make a whole lot of sense.  The central premise, for those that don’t know or only vaguely remember, is much like any Doctor Who season finale:  some kind of evil, ancient alien force appears out of nowhere (in the form of a planet that gobbles up aggressive energy, like missiles, to increase its size), and the only one who can stop it is a genetically engineered messiah (Leeloo, played by Milla Jovovich) and an ex-soldier.  Of course, there are lots of obstacles in the way:  an inept human government/military, an evil corporate loon with the weirdest hairdo in history (Gary Oldman), some evil mercenary space orcs, and a couple of socially awkward priests.  Let’s also not forget that one of the most important scenes in the entire movie is an opera/faux-future-pop mashup laid over Leeloo’s comical smackdown of those absurd space orcs.  And did I mention that the music in said scene is performed by a blue alien diva with tentacles?  Yeah. The plot is eccentric enough — and ever so genre — but the film’s technological imagination is where the nonsensical really shines.  Take, for example, the main city:  hover cars are everywhere, despite societal evidence that this would be a complete disaster; Chinese restaurants deliver in person, flying around in makeshift sailing ships; Korben Dallas (Bruce Willis) has enough high-powered rifles to make even an NRA activist scared (and apparently he’s not the only one); and homes are equipped with self-cleaning showers and other gadgets that would make Bill Gates wet himself.  Elsewhere, we’re to believe that scientists can reconstruct any biological being from a handful of cells; luxury cruise ships roam the stars undefended, while mercenaries destroy everything they’re paid to eliminate; and aliens of unimaginable cleverness (who made Leeloo) are so inept at protecting their own ships that their destruction becomes a convenient plot device.  It’s the kind of movie that, if it took itself seriously, would fall apart the moment someone started to think about it all. But The Fifth Element doesn’t take itself too seriously.  It’s camp through and through.  The acting is overboard, right down to a somewhat dumbfounded Tommy Lister playing President of, well, everything and Gary Oldman pulling out all the stops as the ridiculous Zorg, weird hairdo, accent, and all.  It’s as if the creators sat down one day and said, “How can we make this movie so ridiculous it’s actually entertaining?”  And it’s that willingness to embrace the campy side of SF that makes The Fifth Element one of those rare humorous gems, memorable not for being a gamestopper like 2001:  A Space Odyssey or Blade Runner, but for being that absurd movie we can all watch and love together.  It never needed to be a good movie.  It only ever needed to be that right mixture of camp and humor (a skill Joss Whedon has learned to master quite well). This is where I have to wonder:  What other films do the same thing?  Do they work as well as The Fifth Element?  Why or why not? —————————————— Retro Nostalgia is the product of my compulsive re-watching of classic and/or quality science fiction and fantasy films (and their related components).  In each feature, I’ll cover some element of a particular film that interests me, sometimes from an academic perspective and other times as a simple fan.  Previous columns can be easily found via the “Movie Rants” label.

SF/F Commentary

Live-writing: Experiments Be Fun

For the curious, I’ve been doing irregular live-writing sessions for a short story to appear on this blog called “Lendergross and Eaves” (a weird fantasy crime noir involving a toad-person drug lord and a female police inspecter–the latter of these is to be played by my friend Jen).  Live-writing is more or less like it sounds:  I create a Google Doc, share the link with everyone, and then for 30 minutes do nothing but write while random strangers watch me and read up on my progress. Thus far, the experiment has been fantastic.  I’ve written a considerable amount (about 2,000 words in two sessions) and have decided to open up the comments feature so people can ask me questions while I’m writing.  In other words, I’m loving it. For anyone interested in watching me work, or seeing my progress on your own time, all you have to do is go to this link.  I will announce live-writing sessions on my Twitter and Google+ pages.  And if you show up during one of those sessions, feel free to leave a comment with a question! Anywho!.

Retro Nostalgia

Retro Nostalgia: Alien (1979) and the Uncanny Valley

Having recently viewed and podcasted about Ridley Scott’s prequel, Prometheus, I decided it would be a great idea to revisit the Alien franchise by re-watching Ridley Scott’s original:  Alien.  Released in 1979, the film remains one of the most terrifying science fiction movies to hit the big screen, despite the obvious dating in its technology (updated considerably in Prometheus — because computers with green letters and typewriter clicking sounds are so obviously old school).  But what is it that terrifies us about the xenomorph in this film and its immediate sequels (Aliens and Alien 3)? For me, it has to do with the premise behind the concept of the Uncanny Valley: At its most basic, Masahiro Mori’s concept suggests that the more human an inhuman thing appears, the more uncomfortable human beings become.  Many have applied the concept to robotics and video games, but I think the above image shows how it can also apply more broadly to the fantastic.  While some research suggests that the hypothesis doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, I do think it remains an important explanation for why we are terrified of the xenomorph and other science fiction creations (perhaps someone could explore how it relates to Splice, which seems to dig into an even greater human terror:  our creations turning on us). Where the xenomorph sits on the scale is up to speculation, but re-watching Alien reminded me how human these creatures really are.  It’s against those humanoid features that its most terrifying aspects play out on the screen.  It’s a bipedal creature with arms and hands not unlike our own, with an identifiable head, pelvis, and similar humanoid features, such as feet.  But its skin is insect-like; it’s mouth is full of sharp teeth and hides a second mouth that shoots out to puncture flesh; it’s head is elongated to exaggerated levels; its blood is acidic; and it has a long, skeletal and pointed tail, which it uses to coax terrified prey closer to its mouth. All of these features at once remind us of ourselves, but also remind us of what we are not.  And for me, that’s bloody terrifying.  Giant squid other kinds of incredibly inhuman creatures don’t terrify me nearly as much as those beings that verge into human territory.*  This is perhaps why the Space Jockey, as re-imagined by Ridley Scott in Prometheus, made me uneasy.  Once you see what they look like underneath all that bizarre armor, they are surprisingly human, more so even than the xenomorph.  And something about that makes their actions in the movie more terrifying, but also strangely more familiar (but that’s perhaps something to think about another day…). What about you?  What terrifies you about the xenomorph or other science fiction monsters?  The comments are yours. ————————————————– *I’m speaking about terror with regards to the unreal.  If a xenomorph and a giant squid showed up in my living room, both with the intent to kill me, I would be equally terrified of both.  Thankfully, that would never happen.

Scroll to Top