SF/F Commentary

SF/F Commentary

Comic and Graphic Novel Suggestions: First Comic Book Shop Trip…in a While!

I’m going to run off to the comic book shop at some point this week.  And that means I’m going to buy me some comics…which is where you lot come in.  Since I haven’t been in the comic/graphic novel world in a while (aside from some manga here or there), I really don’t know what’s interesting and what’s not.  I’d like to know what kind of stuff you have enjoyed that you think I might enjoy too. What I’m looking for: SF/F-ish stuff (broadly speaking) Things that won’t require me to be overly familiar with preceding material (so don’t drop me flat in the middle of a story arc if I need to have read the previous two to figure out what the hell is going on) Graphic novels OR standard comics (or collections/omnibuses) No “universe” restrictions (you can throw me into DC, Marvel, or whatever) Pretty basic wants, no?  Superheroes, space stuff, dragons, whatever.  I’ll take my list of suggestions and go play around. So have at it!

SF/F Commentary

Comics and Tablets: Your Thoughts?

I’ve recently become interested in reading comics again.  I used to read them as a youngin’, but sort of gave up on them for one reason or another (I used to collect all the trading cards from Marvel, too, and probably still have some floating around — there’s a box of comics somewhere in my closet).  But rather than jump in to whatever is going on right now, I want to read a lot of the backlist to get a sense of how things have progressed.  Understandably, that means doing so digitally (through the Marvel database, etc.), as trying to buy all those older comics would probably bankrupt me. What I’m wondering is whether any of you have experience reading comics on any tablet.  I know there are a lot of different types out there, from the ASUS Transformer to the iPad to the Galaxy, but reviews can only go so far for me.  I need a bit more before I make that investment. If you have read comics on a tablet, or at least have experience with one, let me know your thoughts about that particular device:  pros, cons, recommendations, etc.  I am partial to tablets that are connected to a vibrant app community, as reading comics will probably requiring the use of apps (PDF and CBR/CBZ readers). Thanks!

SF/F Commentary

Shocking Revelations: Pointing Out Racism Doesn’t Mean You Hate White People

A certain someone has written a brilliant little post in which they argues that John Scalzi should be impeached as SFWA president and N.K. Jemisin / Saladin Ahmed should be removed from the Nebula Awards short list because they apparently hate white people.  You read that right.  And you will also notice that I haven’t linked to said individual’s post, if only because it is mind-numbingly stupid.  If you’re desperate enough to read it, though, you can do some clever Google searching.  For simplicity’s sake, I will refer to this individual as Mr. Frosty Pants. The post that has most offended Mr. Frosty Pants seems to be Scalzi’s rather popular “Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is.”  I recommend you read that post, since it is obviously a steaming pile of anti-white nonsense (this must be what the white nationalists mean when they huff and puff about the genocide against the white race; damn you, Scalzi, for your word murder).  Of course, in the real world, it is a somewhat humorous way to explore how racial privilege works.  This is not what Mr. Frosty Pants takes from it, of course.  Instead, he argues the following: And let me add this: defamation is not a numbers game based on how many people are in a country or room at a given time, however much some people would like to pretend otherwise and so think they have a free-fire zone. Defamation is defamation, and it is always wrong. I defy anyone to tell me in what instance defamation would be correct. Setting aside the fact that he doesn’t actually understand the legal definition of defamation, or the fact that defamation cases are nearly impossible to prove, since a requirement for proof is to demonstrate material damage from a given set of statements, I find the notion that Scalzi (or anyone) can possibly defame an entire race by pointing out even a perceived reality (boy, our politicians are truly fucked if Mr. Frosty Pants is right!).  Since Mr. Frosty Pants is, we can assume, a straight white male, it is highly unlikely that discussing the benefits his status entails in a society that remains, even to this day, race-conscious will result in anything approaching material damage.  After all, how can Mr. Frosty Pants defend the notion that Scalzi’s, Jemisin’s, or Ahmed’s words have had a realistic impact on his ability to function in a society where straight white men are, not surprisingly, still generally considered to be “at the top of the pack”? But Mr. Frosty Pants doesn’t accept the premise. Instead, he demands that these three anti-white bastards provide evidence: There is no racial or gender conspiracy in America to hold back N.K. Jemisin or Saladin Ahmed from doing a single thing in this country. If they believe otherwise, I publicly demand they start producing facts and names and address those specific individuals and stop attacking complete strangers based on the most childish stereotypes of the race and gender of millions of people they have never met. If either John Scalzi, N.K. Jemisin or Saladin Ahmed feel someone in America is contributing to racial stereotypes or cultural xenophobia, name them and confront them and leave the rest of us out of it as co-defendants or guilty parties. You may even find us on your side in such a matter, but not if we are demonized for waking up in the morning or for what we looked like the day we were born. Of course, since he also rejects the Southern Poverty Law Center, the NAACP, and other organizations that actually study this stuff, it’s pretty much impossible to present him with actual evidence, since he won’t believe any of it anyway.  But I’ll take a stab by presenting this.  In short, that link takes you to the text for the second session of the 109th Congress on July 24th, 2006, in which the speakers point out that race-based discrimination in a great deal of the voting districts originally covered by the 1965 Voting Rights Act is still happening.  Congress were debating whether to reauthorize that bill, which would allow, among other things, the Federal Government to maintain oversight on historically “racist” voting districts in a number of States.  Submitted during those debates were numerous documents and studies showing that most of those same districts had the same problems as they had had in 1965, when Congress decided they had to step in to protect minority votes in areas teaming with racists.  We all remember the Civil Rights Movement, don’t we?  They weren’t just hosing black people because it was a winter sport, or tossing bricks through Martin Luther King, Jr.’s windows because that’s how you show love in the South.  No.  They were doing those things because of deep-seeded racial hatred.  And it was the white folks who were the primary perpetrators of those crimes.  Not all the white folks.  Just a hell of a lot of them in certain areas of the country. The point is that Congress determined that we’re really not over all that stuff yet.  While angry white folks are not hosing people anymore (or actively tossing bricks through windows or assassinating Civil Rights leaders), the same racial hatred still exists.  Racism certainly has changed over time, generally speaking, but that doesn’t mean that we’ve magically moved on. So when Scalzi, Jemisin, and Ahmed point out, perhaps with a great deal of snark, that racism isn’t over, they’re not speaking from a position of racial hatred against whites.  When they talk about white people doing racist things, they aren’t talking about all of us (there were a lot of progressive-minded white folks in the Civil Rights Movement; some of them were assassinated, too).  Even when they are talking more generally about white people, such as in Scalzi’s post, they don’t do it to piss on the white race, or to suggest that the white race is inferior to another (which is the default root of

SF/F Commentary

Top 10 Blog Posts for April 2013

The following were the most popular posts on my blog for the month of April.  The repeats have me a tad baffled, as at least two of these posts are in the top 10 list of my most popular posts of all time.  Weirdness. Here’s the list: 10.  “Academic Spotlight:  Disability in Science Fiction:  Representations of Technology as Cure edited by Kathryn Allan“ 9.  “Retro Nostalgia:  Gattaca (1997) and Framing the Multivalent Ethical Dilemma“ 8.  “Movie Review:  Oblivion (2013)“ 7.  “Death Star Economics and Ethics? (Or, What Would You Do With a Death Star?)“ 6.  “Retro Nostalgia:  Metropolis (1927) and the Torment of Humanity’s Dreams“ 5.  “Book Suggestions for ‘American’ Lit Syllabus (a terrible title…)“ 4.  “Literary Explorations:  Gender Normativity, Genre Fiction, and Other Such Nonsense“ 3.  “Top 10 Cats in Science Fiction and Fantasy“ 2.  “Top 10 Overused Fantasy Cliches“ 1.  “To the Hugo Defenders:  Check Your Financial Privilege at the Door“ Anywhoodles!

SF/F Commentary

Link of the Week: Star Wars + Navajo = Awesome

The Daily Times reports that the Navajo Nation Museum and the Parks and Recreation Department are working with LucasFilm to translate Star Wars into DinĂ© bizaad, the traditional language of the Navajo people. There’s more detail at the link, obviously, but for now, I think it’s appropriate for us all to jump up and down in celebration.  Because this is too awesome…

SF/F Commentary

Movie Review: Oblivion (2013)

(This review is as spoiler free as I can make it.  In doing so, there are a lot of things that I’ll say without context, as the particularities of certain characters or plot elements have not been revealed in the trailers and are rather important to the viewing experience — mystery!) Tom Cruise’s new science fiction action adventure has been in theaters for a week-ish, and it has already opened the taste debate.  A great deal of “average viewers” have come out of Oblivion with positive feelings, remarking that, while far from a perfect film, it succeeds as entertainment with a sliver of substance.  Critics have not been so kind.  They’ve called the film self-serious, absent of self-awareness, a ponderous mess, and so on and so forth. I couldn’t disagree more. While far from perfect, Oblivion is what Prometheus promised to be last year:  a high concept, thrilling exploration of the human condition through the lens of science fiction.  Where Prometheus failed to deliver (see here and here for my take), Oblivion has filled in the blank, offering the same visual awe of 2012’s “big film” with a far more coherent and cohesive plot, consistent (though incomplete) characters, and a few decent twists and turns.  Most of all, Oblivion gives us a few answers, even if it never quite explains everything in the end.  All this combine to make a film that, in my mind, deserves a little more credit.  After all, it’s not often that we are given action-oriented science fiction that also has a little something to contemplate, right?  For that reason, I see Oblivion as an attempt to revitalize action-oriented SF with just a smidge of actual substance — a film that, despite its flaws, is entertaining and a tiny bit cerebral. If you don’t know already, Oblivion follows Jack Harper (Tom Cruise), haunted by strange dreams, and Victoria (or Vika; Andrea Riseborough), his companion and communications overseer, as they monitor the “strip-mining” of Earth’s resources for use by humanity off world.  From the opening moments, we learn that Earth was invaded decades ago by an alien species called the Scavs; humanity responded by nuking the Earth, forcing the surviving humans to move off world to Saturn’s moon, Titan.  Jack and Victoria have been tasked with maintaining a fleet of defensive drones as remnants of the Scav forces attempt to sabotage the operation.  But Jack’s dreams are not what they seem:  they are memories.  And as everything Jack knows about the world is uprooted by his discoveries, he will reveal an even more terrifying truth than the destruction of Earth. Sure, the film’s central conceit is certainly not original.  Post-apocalyptic SF is almost always cliche before you get into the particulars, and inserting an alien invasion doesn’t help with originality points.  Even the somewhat hokey voice over is so painfully common in genre films that it’s difficult to take it seriously (in the case of Oblivion, the voice over is actually important, but it does feel out of place, even by the end).  However, what I found most compelling about Oblivion was its method for exploring familiar territory:  fusion.  Cross-genre narratives are not unheard of in SF, but they are less common (at least in explicit form).  Here, Joseph Kosinski (the director behind TRON: Legacy — my review here) fuses post-apocalypse with alien invasions and cyberpunk (an element I won’t discuss here for fear of spoiling the narrative).  Part of telling good stories with old material is finding a different way to approach that material.  Oblivion does just that, pitting the “man on his own” trope on the same stage as a cyberpunk-ian identity crisis. It’s perhaps for this reason that I didn’t find myself bored while watching Oblivion.  Kosinski’s writing and direction, while flawed in places, provides a deliberately measured approach to these familiar concepts, refusing to resort, as a standard, to visual or action antics for the sake of furthering the plot — though you’ll find some of that here too.  Rather than become trapped in a long, drawn-out action sequence, Oblivion takes a slower approach, unfolding the layers of mystery piece by piece.  While there are certainly plenty of pretty (if not sexy) action sequences in Oblivion, they are, if anything, necessary components to the narrative, rather than mere eye-candy (in my mind). Equally arresting is the dramatic contrast between the natural and the artificial — a visual aesthetic as much as a thematic one, which is made apparent from the start, with extensive scenes involving Cruise, well, cruising around an “empty” Earth in advanced aircraft.  It shouldn’t surprise, then, that so much of the film is concentrated on the visual aesthetics of both the post-apocalypse and cyberpunk, blending the relative order of technology into a world of natural chaos.  From a purely visual perspective, Oblivion is absolutely gorgeous — even more so, in places, than last year’s Prometheus.  Several minutes are spent presenting vast natural wildernesses, rocky “deserts,” the natural encroaching upon the remains of human civilization, buried buildings, forgotten ships resting on dried seabed, and so on.  Even the action sequences — high-energy and, at times, emotional — are well-rendered, and themselves as visually arresting as the natural and artificial environments that dominate the set pieces.  It is unmistakably a gorgeous film. Cruise performs well in this environment, bringing a sense of heartwarming nostalgia in one moment and deliberate confusion in the next.  Contrary to what other critics have said, I see Cruise’s performance as nuanced, reflecting a character torn between two realities:  the one in which he is living and the one that lingers in the background like a ghostly echo (the one to be uncovered).  The film is undeniably about Jack’s journey to find himself and his place in the new world awaiting him, and Cruise plays well to this theme.  Truthfully, this is not exactly outside of his artistic territory, as some of his previous films have pitted one man (and his secondary character set pieces) against a new reality

Scroll to Top