SF/F Commentary

On The Interview, Terrorism, and the Artistic Expression

By now, you’ll have heard that Sony had opted to cancel the release of Seth Rogen and Ethan Goldberg’s The Interview (2014)(starring Rogen and James Franco) in response to threats against their employees and movie theaters (many of which have refused to show the film).  They have since announced that the film will play in select theaters on Christmas Day and that they are still trying to find places to play the film so it will have a proper release.  Now, it seems, the film’s future is up to theaters. Update:  On Christmas afternoon, Sony will also release The Interview via several streaming sites, including Google.  So at least we can all see it if we want to. Chuck Wendig has already written an interesting post on the situation, and if it’s not already obvious, I have a few thoughts.  But first, a quote from Wendig: This proves that hackers, terrorists, and enemy nations now have a vote as to the media we make and the stories we see. That’s blood gone cold scary. This sounds like the plot of a Neal Stephenson or William Gibson novel, or worse, the plot of a novel by someone trying to emulate them. (“The sky was the color of a movie theater screen not carrying Sony’s THE INTERVIEW.”)  Disagreeable and controversial art is an essential element of our cultural discourse. These are the two points that I want to address here. Precedents and Cowardice The first is actually more terrifying than Wendig indicates.  It’s not that hackers, terrorists, and enemy nations now have the vote, but that anyone perceived as representing the interests of such groups have the vote.  Sony and the theaters which pulled The Interview didn’t need to know with 100% certainty that anyone would be attacked, nor that any 9/11-level events would occur; they only needed to believe that the threat was credible.  This gives far more power than I think Sony or anyone realizes.  Extremists of any stripe can dictate the terms upon which art is presented to the public based on perceived threats, rather than real ones, and corporations will listen.  Those threats needn’t be credible beyond the scope of the corporation.  The U.S. government, after all, doesn’t believe the threats are credible (and neither do a lot of Americans, apparently), and it’s unclear to me whether anyone actually consulted the U.S. government in any capacity (or any government, for that matter) about the matter (though they certainly did not Free speech isn’t an issue here (well, it is, but not in any legally binding way).  We’re not talking about whether a company has a right to withdraw its own artistic products, whether businesses can refuse to carry something, or whether criticism of any kind should be ignored simply because art is art.  This is about precedents.  Sony and theaters have now set that precedent.  North Korea, or any entity which has the means to present credible threats, can dictate terms and expect a response. So, congratulations, Sony and every theater which pulled The Interview.  You’ve set the precedent.  Now Paramount Pictures has recalled its 10-year-old comedy, Team America:  World Police.  A Steve Carell vehicle entitled Pyongyang will never see the light of day, too, since its studio decided to can it.  And by doing so — by responding — North Korea has been granted power.  They now know that when something they don’t like occurs somewhere else, they can issue a threat and be heard.  A nation which most of the world views with contempt or pity now has the validation of the international community, or at least a portion of it. In the end, I agree with President Obama that Sony’s decision to cancel the release of The Interview was a mistake, even more so because Sony never consulted the U.S. government about the matter.  This sets a terrible precedent, one which we all should find disturbing regardless of our political affiliations.  That art can so easily be stifled by the threat of violence should give us pause.  This is not the first time, and it won’t be the last.  If this is the trend for the future, then we should all be deeply concerned. There’s hope, of course.  Sony has retracted its cancellation, and the community of viewers seems to have roundly rejected the notion that Sony should have caved at all.  Thus far, that’s had an impact on Sony, but we’ll see if the other studios and the theaters which pulled the film, cowards that they are, will do the same.  At least Sony listened. Controversial Art To the second part:  indeed, controversial art is not just essential, it is required in our cultural discourse if culture is to advance in any discernible way.  Controversial art challenges existing cultural patterns, not necessarily to uproot them but to introduce advanced thought about our traditions, our everyday lives, and our cultural vices. In that respect, The Interview is a necessary feature of our artistic world, even if the film itself isn’t all that great (I haven’t seen it, so I cannot assess its merit).  That fact became apparent the moment North Korea responded to it with threats.  Any artistic work which is met with (threats of) violence is a work that deserves careful attention.  Communities which resort to such threats are ones which have insulated themselves from criticism, and by doing so, they have stagnated, as North Korea has.  The same thing has occurred in the science fiction community (albeit on a much smaller, perhaps less violent scale) and in gaming (regardless of what GamerGaters may think, there are people who identify with their group who have attacked women for criticizing gaming). Insularity breeds violence, literal or figurative, and to the insular community, artistic expression, particularly of the satirical mode, is perceived as a threat.  For that reason, art must continue unabated.  It must be shared.  It must be free to satirize and mock.  It must be free to be controversial.  And that means it must have a place to be shared.  Without controversial art, insularity

SF/F Commentary

On the World Fantasy Award and H.P. Lovecraft

(Correction:  a previous version of this post attributed the Guardian article to Damien G. Walter rather than Daniel José Older.  That has been corrected below.  My apologies for the mix-up.) We’re still talking about the World Fantasy Award and H.P. Lovecraft’s bizarrely shaped award-specific head.  Daniel José Older, who created the original petition to replace Lovecraft’s bust with that of Octavia Butler, recently revisited the discussion in his Guardian column, remarking that “the fantasy community cannot embrace its growing fanbase of color with one hand while deifying a writer who happily advocated for our extermination with the other.” I won’t rehash the whole discussion here.  If you don’t already know the happenings, then you can use the links I’ve provided here to fill in the blanks.  As for Lovecraft:  his racism is infamous enough that it required its own section on his Wikipedia page (albeit, a somewhat sanitized section).  I won’t go into all the nitty gritty details about Lovecraft’s views on race; rather, I’ll point you to this post from Slate (which is hardly an extensive or thorough analysis of Lovecraft, but it’ll get you on the right track). My personal view on this subject is fairly basic: It’s almost impossible for anyone in our community to stand up to the scrutiny of future generations.  Our social values evolve, and what might be considered acceptable for one generation could very well become taboo, immoral, or offensive in the next.  There are certainly exceptions, but the farther back you go, the less likely that person would stand up to the values of the present. If individuals are unlikely to stand up to scrutiny, it makes little sense to choose a person as the “face” of an award, no matter how great they might look today.  Again, exceptions may exist. I agree with Carrie Cuinn that a person is not representative of an entire field.  Fantasy, after all, is global in scale and encompasses a wide range of identities.  There is no single individual who represents fantasy as a genre, nor is there a single individual who by any stretch of the imagination represents the people who participate in fantasy in any capacity.  There is no such thing as a single fantasy fan who is all nationalities, all races, all genders, all sexualities, etc. etc.  If the problem with Lovecraft is that he doesn’t represent the fantasy field today, then how can we say that anyone else represents that field? In light of that, I can see why many would like the award to be changed.  Indeed, I think it should be changed for reasons that have nothing to with whether Lovecraft was a racist (though that’s valid, too, and should not be discounted).  I don’t understand how Lovecraft can remain as the figurehead of the World Fantasy Award when he is a) not a universal figure, and b) hardly a writer of fantasy at large.  Yes, he wrote fantasy, but he is recognized for a particular brand of fantasy.  He wasn’t an epic fantasy writer.  He didn’t write fantasy for young adults.  He didn’t write urban fantasy.  He didn’t write whatever weird fantasy might exist.  He wrote his particular form of fantasy and had a profound influence on the field as a whole.  That makes him important from a historical standpoint, but it doesn’t make him, in my mind, a valid figurehead for an all-encompassing award. The World Fantasy Award needs to account for all of fantasy.  Not just the fantasy of the one particular form.  Not just the fantasy written by one particular author identity.  Not just Octavia Butler or H.P. Lovecraft or J.R.R. Tolkien or George R.R. Martin or N.K. Jemisin or Nalo Hopkinson or John Chu or Laura Anne Gilman or whomever.  ALL of fantasy.  Anything less would be exclusionary by default.  And that’s no good.

SF/F Commentary

Cancer Free Since ’03

For those that don’t follow me on Twitter, you’ll have missed the whole “Shaun had a cancer appointment today” stuff.  As it turns out, I remain cancer free, and have done so since the conclusion of chemo in 2003. And that’s good news indeed. So hurray to me. Good news for the holidays and all that jazz. Now back to doing whatever I was doing…oh, right. Stressing out about work!

SF/F Commentary

6 Thoughts on 1.5 Seasons of CW’s Arrow — @cw_arrow

I’ve recently become a fan of CW’s Arrow.  If you haven’t seen the show, it’s easily one of the best superhero TV shows on air at the moment.  Don’t let the CW label fool you.  Arrow is good stuff.  It’s one part action thriller and one part superhero camp, all mixed together in a magic blender and served in an edible cup made of fruit or something.  Look, it’s just really enjoyable, OK?  And this is coming from the guy who has found DC’s output since Man of Steel pretty pathetic (the comics, the movie announcements, all of it)(yes, I know that Arrow came out before all that). So here are some of my thoughts on the first season and a half of the show.  Yes, you can expect some spoilers. 1.  The flashbacks are pretty clever as a narrative device.  Throughout the show, we’ve been presented with Oliver Queen in his “I play rich turd by day, but at night I’m an arrow-shooting vigilante” form alongside his “rich boy left alone on a dangerous island full of mercenaries, warriors, and military wackos” form.  This is hardly the first time we’ve seen this sort of thing (Lost had its own version of it, and shows like Heroes, X-Files, and so on have played around with the tactic), but the amount of attention paid to these flashbacks — as narratives unto themselves — is at least noteworthy. I particularly appreciate the attempt to connect what is happening in the present with what has already occurred;  there are moments in Season Two, for example, in which the present only makes sense if you know what has already occurred, a fact that is punctuated by the slow development of these narratives in side-by-side fashion.  Season Two even goes so far as to sort of “retcon” Oliver’s original “story” about what happened on the island, revealing that even we, the viewers, have been lied to.  It creates a great deal of tension and puts the past and present in conversation in a way that may actually be quite unique (or at least rather uncommon). 2.  I’ve been genuinely surprised by the quality of the action in this show.  By comparison to Agents of SHIELD, whose action sequences often seemed lazy and dull (normal TV fare) in the first few episodes (it improves by miles as the show develops), Arrow is slick and, at times, brutal.  This, of course, serves as an excuse for the various “fit” characters to prostrate themselves in glorious gladiator fashion.  Muscles and tight tummies are glorified to the max.  The show also gives play time to its less trained members, such as Felicity and Roy (the future Red Hood), the latter of which is some kind of parkour ninja.  I love that this isn’t just a show of muscly people punching really hard, but of muscly folks actually having to be competent at what they do (mostly). Arrow doesn’t always get it right, though.  I think the choreography and editing for Sara Lance’s Canary fights have lacked the same intensity as those of Oliver’s/Arrow’s.  I’m not sure why there’s such a marked difference.  Lance is supposed to be just as trained as Oliver, if not more because of her association with the League of Assassins.  So she should be quick, agile, and brutal.  But there are moments when her action sequences seem out of sync or slowed down.  Maybe this has to do with the fact that Caity Lotz hasn’t had the same character foreknowledge to be prepared, or perhaps they simply put less time into her physical presentation because the Canary is technically a secondary character, and one that probably won’t stick around for too long either because of her association with the League of Assassins or because Arrow intends for her to take the mantle of the Black Canary (no, not this), which was originally Laurel Lance’s superheroine role in the comics.  As much as I love her character, I do feel that there’s something missing in how her physical self is portrayed.  My hope is that they will correct this. 3.  I am at a point where I can honestly say that I despise Laurel.  She was a sympathetic character in Season One, but since the death of Tommy, she has spiraled down into a pit of alcoholism and general asshole-ish-ness.  It would be one thing if she were only destroying herself; however, throughout the first half of the second season, she’s been oblivious and, at times, downright vindictive. I don’t know if the writers thought it would be interesting to switch the roles of Laurel and her father, but that’s certainly what happened.  Except, Laurel’s transition does not make her sympathetic.  Sure, she’s begun attending AA meetings and trying to get her life under wraps, but even in her sober state, she’s just not a likable character.  In some sense, I think her post-sobriety personality is less complicated than the Laurel of Season One, and that makes her less likable and far less interesting.  Worse, she’s untrustworthy, flipping back and forth between standing by the people she loves and stabbing them in the back — granted, her stabs are less mean now that she’s sober.  It’s just not a good path for the character. The father, however, has become a lovable figure — loyal to friends and family and loyal to the Arrow (at first for reasons of necessity — the police won’t let him do his job — but later due to a kind of shared trust; the scene where he monologues on why Laurel shouldn’t tell him the identity of the Arrow was probably my favorite moment from him since I started watching the show). 4.  Oliver Queen’s character development is going to hit a wall pretty soon.  And that wall is “the present.”  I like Oliver.  Sure, his present self is rather simplistic in the aggregate — one-directional, if you will — but given where he began in Season One (vengeful vigilante/murderer)

Book Reviews

Novella Review: “Adrift on the Sea of Rains” by Ian Sales (Whippleshield Books)

First, I must apologize for the lateness of this review.  Mr. Sales has been remarkably patient with me and my repeated promises about getting it done.  I’m a notoriously slow reviewer for the simple fact that I find it incredibly difficult to say what I think.  A less cautious reviewer might simply speak from the heart and let the language be damned, but I think my academic side gets the best of me and demands I relate something more than a simple “I liked it.”  And that means I get stuck for long periods of time on any work of art. In any case, I have a lot to say about Sales’ novella, “Adrift on the Sea of Rains,” the first of a quartet of interconnected novellas called the Apollo Quartet (released by Whippleshield Books).  Set in an alternate history where the Cold War ended with the destruction of the Earth, a group of astronauts conducting experiments on the Moon struggle to survive long enough to successfully test an experimental machine that may save everyone. It’s a deceptively simple premise.  Sales’ hard SF narrative of scientific discovery at times gives way to a character study of Peterson, Sales’ primary protagonist.  Peterson’s past is interspersed throughout the novella in italics, providing a thorough account of a military-pilot-turned-astronaut and gifting astute readers with details of the American/Soviet conflict — a more educated reader might recognize details here that went over my head.  The narrative shifts between the present, in which Peterson and his fellow astronauts attempt to conduct a successful test of their machine, and Peterson’s past, in which we we are given a glimpse into the man Peterson used to be.  This device, however simplistic in design, provides the novella a comparative element that rounds Peterson as a character.  Far from someone stuck in a seemingly hopeless situation, Peterson is humanized as an individual whose past complicates our understanding of his present.  I wouldn’t call the format wholly successful — largely because I couldn’t quite discern the specific “pattern” in mind — but it did give the text a certain depth that would otherwise have been lacking, since the frame narrative, if one could call it that, is fairly straightforward by design.  Short fiction, I find, benefits from some degree of narrative experimentation. On a related note, Sales’ prose is never so overwhelmed by the technical, nor overly sterile — a formal quality I have noticed in my pitiful amount of reading in the hard sf field.  An apt description of the prose would be “economical,” providing the right level of character depth, technical detail, and tension to keep the narrative from being dragged under by gravity.  Sales’ pension for littering scientific detail throughout is largely responsible for this balance, though a less tech-friendly reader may not appreciate this balance. For example, this brief passage from the middle of the ebook provides a combination of narrative elements: They were trapped, but now there is an escape. All but Kendall gather in the wardroom to discuss their options, squeezing about a single table but, unlike at meal-times, confidently, keenly, meeting each other’s gazes. It occurs to Peterson that he has lived with these men for two years but he barely knows them. He sees seven men he knows chiefly by their reputations and the psychological profiles in their records. Their faces are as familiar to him as his own, but they might as well be the gold visors of spacesuit helmets for all their expressions tell him what each is thinking. Not once since they became isolated on the Moon have they worked together…  The Moon has changed them all; despair has made strangers of them…  Hope:  half a dozen modules in Low Earth Orbit. An elusive hope:  they need to find a way to reach the space station. They have one ALM ascent stage left — and Peterson gives thanks it still remains, not launched out of desperation by one of them during the past two years. There are certainly more dense passages throughout the novella, but Sales’ style is perhaps deliberately careful with its science.  Here, Sales establishes Peterson’s character in relation to his colleagues and provides snippets of technical detail as part of the mechanism for the emotional undercurrent of the entire narrative.  Sales never quite lets that emotional element take over, which seems a reasonable product of the setting and the people involved.  Unlike other “save the world with science fiction” narratives, Sales doesn’t indulge in melodrama to heighten the stakes (see The Core or 2012 for a prime example of this poor narrative practice).  There’s an almost passive quality to the character development, which I can appreciate simply for my perceptions of realism in this case. I can see where Sales might have turned the wrong way and made his deceptively straightforward narrative into something dull and lifeless.  But that never happens.  Rather, the narrative’s deceptively lackluster opening — a bunch of guys doing science on the Moon — is built up in slow, deliberate motions into a massive, world-changing conflict.  The end of that conflict came as a surprise, and unexpected though it was, I was happy to have caught the minute details which gave away what had actually happened.  Sales’ narrative seems to fall into a kind of rhythm in which the scientific “narrative world” becomes what Delany might call a reading practice or protocol; it invites attention to detail on the part of the reader, and that jolt to the brain actually saves me from getting stuck in a reader mode of one form or another.  I admit that this doesn’t happen all that often for me, particularly not with stories which are, if one is to look at the appendices, meticulously researched and detailed — a space science nut will certainly pick up details I simply missed (one of them needs to review this). Overall, I quite enjoyed “Adrift on the Sea of Rains.”  If you’re looking for a hard SF novella to munch on, this

SF/F Commentary

Award Recommendations: Things I’m Eyeing for the Awards Season (Suggestions Welcome)

A.C. Wise and Sarah Pinsker suggested I put together a list of recommendations for the awards season (Nebula nominations are coming up or something).  So, that’s what I’m going to do.  For now, I’m only going to discuss six categories, as I don’t read often enough in the others to have a say yet (YET).  Recommendations for any category, listed or otherwise, are more than welcome. Note:  I’ve included links to interviews or discussions at The Skiffy and Fanty Show about some of the items (which may explain why I’m voting for many of these). Here goes: Novels: City of Stairs by Robert Jackson Bennett (S&F Interview) Hurricane Fever by Tobias Buckell (S&F Interview) Ancillary Sword by Ann Leckie (S&F Interview) The Three by Sarah Lotz (S&F Interview) Memory of Water by Emmi Itaranta (S&F interview forthcoming) Gemsigns by Stephanie Saulter (S&F Interview) Into the Grey by Celine Kiernan (S&F Interview) Zero Sum Game by SL Huang (my review) Graphic Novels: Ms. Marvel Volume 1:  No Normal by G. Willow Wilson (episode forthcoming on S&F) Movies (narrowing this list is going to be difficult): Snowpiercer (may not be eligible due to weird release nonsense)(S&F Discussion) Interstellar (S&F Discussion) Guardians of the Galaxy (S&F Discussion) Big Hero 6 How to Train Your Dragon 2 Captain American:  the Winter Soldier (S&F Discussion) Edge of Tomorrow (S&F Discussion) Jodorowsky’s Dune (WISB Review) Fancast: The Incomparable The Book was Better Doorway to the Hidden World Galactic Suburbia The Writer and the Critic The Three Hoarsemen The Skiffy and Fanty Show (duh) Fanwriter: Cora Buhlert Foz Meadows Liz Bourke Kameron Hurley (S&F Interview) Paul Weimer (his work on Skiffy and Fanty is worth an acknowledgment, I think) Fanzine: A Dribble of Ink Nerds of a Feather Bookworm Blues Ecdysis Semiprozine: The Book Smugglers Strange Horizons Related Work: Speculative Fiction 2013 (I’m totally biased because I’m editing the 2014 edition w/ Renay) So, what am I missing?

Scroll to Top