An Aside: Anime, Space Operas, and Space Westerns
I was watching the first few episodes of Gundam Wing the other day and I started to think about how prevalent space operas and space westerns are in Japanese animation. I can name half a dozen Anime shows that fit into the space opera or space western categories: Gundam Wing, Crest of the Stars/Banner of the Stars I and II, Outlaw Star, Cowboy Bebop, all the various Gundam series, Robotech, and many more. I am not, by any means, an expert in Japanese animation. I find the film genre impossible to keep up with, and so have only watched a small portion of what must be the most prolific of genres, even compared to America’s animation industry. But that hasn’t prevented me from making this observation. It’s too obvious, and it’s a curious reality. What exactly is so awe inspiring about space, giant robots, interstellar battles, and cowboys in space to the Japanese? Since the Anime market is not geared towards Americans, I find the Japanese fascination with these things rather strange. But I am not an expert on Japanese culture either, and have only a passing obsession with samurai history. My best attempt to quantify all this is to look at issues of time. Japan is a relatively new (post)industrial nation. An observation of science fiction in newly industrializing nations seems to point to a cycle of literature themes, with minor deviations to inject local cultural elements. Most industrialized or industrializing nations go through a face of space opera obsession, in the more “traditional” sense. India, for example, is experiencing similar thematic phases as early 1900s America. There are additional deviations in these phases, however, since it is impossible for science fiction to remain uninfluenced by what has come before it. But this is all a guess, and not, in any way, based on statistical data or absolutes. And since I can’t possibly answer this question on my own, I’m throwing it out to all of you. Why exactly are space opera and space western themes so common in Japanese animation? Are there cultural factors that create these thematic elements?
Traditional SF vs. Literary SF: Which is better?
Larry of OF Blog of the Fallen recently wrote a retort to the Crotchedy Old Fan’s blog post about why traditional science fiction is better than the “literary” vein. I’ve not read the Crotchedy Old Fan’s post, and briefly scanned Larry’s, but having seen the question, I have to wonder: can such a determination actually be made? I’ve always assumed that science fiction is a genre of many faces, spanning from the humorous to the serious, complex to the simplistic, adventuresome to socially aware. While such things may not be unique to the genre, they are powerful features that make this genre worthy of study on the academic level. But I’m not talking about academics here; I’m talking about whether traditional science fiction is better than its “literary” cousin. Before I can properly discuss this subject, I think it’s important to define the terms I’m working with. I don’t know if the Crotchedy Old Fan gave any proper definition for what he meant by “traditional” or “literary,” but it seems ridiculous to attempt any discussion on this subject without having a firm grasp on what we’re actually talking about. I consider “traditional” science fiction to be those works of fiction that intentionally evoke awe or comprise the fiction styles of such authors as Poul Anderson and Robert A. Heinlein on the classics end, and Tobias S. Buckell and John Scalzi on the more recent end. “Literary” science fiction is more difficult to define, and it is a genre that, regardless of any arguments to the contrary, overlaps with the “traditional” vein. “Literary” SF deals directly and obviously with social or technological issues, with less focus on the adventurous side of SF and more focus on characters and emotional issues. There are probably other features worth considering, but for now, I’ll get to the point. Any attempt to say “this kind of SF is better than that kind” is, to be honest, arbitrary at best. We can argue until we are blue in the face, but in the end it will always come down to personal preference. Some people like the traditional stuff, and others prefer the “literary” goodies. That’s the way it is and the way it always will be. Neither is necessarily better than the other; both contain good and bad books, great and lesser writers. And one cannot forget the overlap, because so much of what is considered “traditional” by many SF purists also cross into the “literary” world. SF has made its home in every style of literature we know precisely because literature itself constantly changes. Years ago people would have laughed at the idea of a science fiction class; now, they are becoming more and more common. The pulps are being treated with the same focus and care as Charles Dickens, thus inserting such works into the world of the “literary,” wherever that may be. Strangely, this is how literature in academia works. There is always a fight, a push to keep the current hated literature out, to keep it shoved into a dark corner with all the other “trash” and “garbage” of the day. Strange how as centuries pass, things change. You’d be surprised to find out exactly how literature has adjusted over the years, and we’re now seeing that change in academic circles in regards to SF. My point is, I think, that even the term “literary” is a pointless term. As much as I might want to define it, it’s meaningless when put against the backdrop of literature. Literature’s persistence to change makes any sort of logical determination of quality impossible. And if the term “literary” is pointless, so too is “traditional.” Neither is necessarily better than the other, because both change with time. Traditional SF doesn’t technically exist, because I doubt even those of us who claim to like it have any idea what it actually is. My definition will likely be contested by some and accepted by others. The same is true of “literary” SF, because, no matter how hard we want to argue for a category that can be defined as “literary,” it will never become true. And that means asking which one is better is also a stupid thing to do. Neither can be better. Personal preference rules the day, and always will. Besides, SF has had a hard enough time trying to argue its way out of the place the Academics placed it in all those years ago. Acknowledging that we all simply have different tastes (traditional and literary) might save the time already being wasted on arguing over the subjects of purity and superiority in a genre that has and always will be a vast spectrum of styles and ideas. But don’t take my word for it. My opinion is not, by any means, the only one worth considering. Let’s hear what you have to say about this subject.
Science Fiction Withdrawals (or How to Survive When Your Favorite Series Ends)
Battlestar Galactica is over, and it’s not the first of its kind–i.e. a great show–that has come to a grinding halt, leaving fans with nothing to fill the void. Oh, sure, when BSG ended we had loads of science fiction shows: Dollhouse, Fringe, Knight Rider, Life On Mars, Kings, Primeval, and a whole bunch of other shows either debuting or continuing in 2009. Hell, half of the shows mentioned were cancelled this year, leaving slim pickings in the science fiction department (and I use that term quite loosely to talk about television). Often the same thing happens within literature, with great series coming to an end, and few good replacements left in the mix (of course, this is far more common in fantasy than in science fiction–think Harry Potter and the void it left). What are we science fiction fans supposed to do? An even greater question is: What are we picky science fiction fans supposed to do? I never liked Dollhouse, and most of the other shows either lacked that spine-tingling anticipation garnering effect that BSG so easily produced or were downright terrible, which explains why a lot of them are no longer on the air. Do we just wait for the next big thing? And how are we to survive in the interim? I’ve found that a great way to survive is to start watching reruns. After all, sometimes it’s a good idea to go back to a show you liked so many years ago as a refresher. A truly good show is re-watchable, and if said show is particularly amazing, re-watching will create a whole new experience. Of course, if you’re as picky as I am, that means you’ll re-watch the same show over and over and over again, because it can sometimes take five or six years for something worthwhile to come along. The last time I religiously watched television was during the fourth season of BSG (because I got into the series quite late). Still, watching reruns is a great way to keep your brain entertained while searching for something new to replace the void. I don’t know how well this works for books, though. I have reread 1984 a handful of times, but that was more for my own curiosity than anything else. But reruns are a temporary fix for science fiction withdrawals. Inevitably science fiction fans have to find something to truly fill that void. Personally, this is a problem for me primarily because I am too picky. I don’t like most television shows, and getting my science fiction fix, especially in the ridiculous market we have now where channels that are supposed to play science fiction play something else, is next to impossible. Perhaps BSG is a fluke, or perhaps brilliant shows only come along once every few years. I find that the only way I can survive is to go on a science fiction movie binge; I fill my brain with Total Recall and I, Robot, and Sliders too. Sometimes I have to go outside of the genre to get the storytelling that I so desire–Band of Brothers, for example, is particularly good. Survival, it seems, depends on trying to keep yourself occupied with things you already love until such time as something new can come along to fill the space with shiny things. How do you survive? What do you do to fill the void? Do you have a few tricks up your sleeve? Let me know in the comments!
AmazonFail: Another Company Being Stupid
It’s apparently been going on for a few weeks, but it’s only just exploded in epic proportions in the blogosphere in the last day or so (as far as I know). What is it? I’ll give you the short version: Amazon essentially changed he way they list books on their best seller’s list, search feature, and the site in general, by removing sales information (specifically ranks) from books deemed to be “adult.” They apparently wanted to make it so “adult” books could not end up on the best seller’s list (and other reasons, I’m sure). Only, Amazon has seemingly gone off the deep end by removing sales ranks from a heck of a lot of books that are not only not adult at all (at least not compared to the stuff they’ve been letting through, such as American Psycho), but happen to have LGBT (lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender) themes or characters (a good example of how stupid this is can be found here, where a non-fiction book was cut off, while a violent, bloody fiction book was not). So, Twitter and the blogosphere (and all sorts of online news agencies) are throwing a fit over this, and rightly so (one fellow has even written an open letter to Amazon about the whole ordeal). Yes, there are a lot of links in that sentence–to highlight the enormity of this, I assure you. Amazon has apparently blamed this on a glitch in the system, but most are calling B.S. on that, and rightly so. I was shocked when I first heard about it this morning. I don’t know if this whole ordeal was done with any malicious intent; it probably wasn’t. Maybe it was a glitch after all, but you’d think a company as big and influential as Amazon would have tested this thing before implementing it, or at least took the notices sent to them by angry customers seriously when this all began. I’m going to keep this post short primarily because it seems like Amazon is going to fix the problem. If things don’t improve, I think we can all begin to speculate on why Amazon is pandering to the whims of the religious right. Right now, it doesn’t seem like there is much more to say other than pointing to the rants and angry posts of others. Am I upset by this? Yes, actually. Amazon better get its act together soon or they could end up with a hell storm on their doorstep. We’ll see what happens in the next week. Anyone out there have any thoughts? Feel free to leave a comment!
Nine Reasons Why Airports Should Offer Free Wireless
…or at least dirt-freaking-cheap wireless that doesn’t require you to pay for twenty-four hours of service when you’re only going to use, at most, a few hours… With all my airport problems over the weekend, I figure this is a most fitting list to place here. I wrote it while in the airport (or in the plane) and had it sitting in my blog folder on my desktop for a few days. Here goes: Airline tickets ain’t cheapI mean, I know the recession has dropped ticket costs some in the last few months, but it still costs an arm and a leg to fly from the U.S. to any major western country. I only have two arms and two legs. I can’t keep lending them to the airlines only to have to trade them for pieces of my soul later on. And have you tried to walk in any major airport without a leg? Not fun.I think wireless should come with the cost of the ticket. Free of charge. Security in the U.S. blowsIf you’ve flown anywhere recently you’ll have had the distinct pleasure of experiencing the crapfest that is the security line. Now, Manchester International Airport (not in the U.S., but necessary here for comparison purposes) has become an enormous efficient airport, with what look like busy days being reduced to the business of dead days (it took me all of five minutes to get through security there).The U.S., however, is completely and utterly disorganized. The lines are long, you never know which one you’re supposed to get into, the people in the line smell, the machines are (with exception to SFO) antiquated monstrosities from some far-gone era of pre-9/11 crappiness, and, well, they just suck.Just for that, we should be handed free wireless like candy. Or they could hand out chocolate bars or something. That would be a nice start to repaying us for having to sit through that crap. Airline stores are expensive for no reasonAnd those stores make a lot of money, by the way. It’s not like they’re concerned about business. But we’re still forced to pay ungodly amounts of money for stuff we could get for pennies on the dollar in the real world. That wouldn’t be a problem if it was easy to head off into the real world and buy some cheap burgers, but since we can’t, it sucks. The least these damned companies could do is offer an hour of free wireless for a purchase. Coffee shops do that. Seems only fair, right? Wireless is cheapI mean, come on, it’s not like having a couple wireless routers in an freaking airport is going to cost them mass amounts of money, right? The wireless they do offer charges you outrageous prices for service you can’t really use anyway (cause who spends 24 hours in a freaking airport anyway?). Why couldn’t they just offer cheap wireless instead of this expensive crap? At least then I wouldn’t have much to complain about. I’m awesome and deserve itEnough said. Airplanes suckThey’re frequently uncomfortable, loud, cold, stuffy, hot, and full of screaming children. It’s bad enough to deal with that kind of crap for an hour or two, but when you’re flying to Europe from the West Coast it’s like putting your head through a salt grinder. The least the airlines could do is appease you with free wireless while you sit through the gruesome waits for boarding, the screaming children, and the exceedingly old people who stink up the plain with their elderly farts… Delayed flights and other airport/airline evilsNothing worse than missing a connection because your flight was delayed. Okay, so Hitler and people who think vampires actually exist are worse than that, but delayed flights and missed connections are certainly in the top five hundred worst things ever…I’ll say no more on this subject, since the next one is directly related. Stupid people run airportsThere is some exception to Philly, I think, and SFO (to some degree, at least), but in writing up this post for WISB I experienced the full brunt of airport stupidity. Newark International Airport decided, on the day of my domestic flight back to San Francisco (on a Sunday), that it would change it’s procedures for arriving and departing airplanes. I suspect it had something to do with making the airport more efficient in getting planes up and down (it’s an enormous airport that puts through a lot of planes and people).Well, unfortunately the folks who run Newark are about as intelligent and George W. Bush. Their new-fangled system not only didn’t work, but it blocked up all the runways to the point where they could no longer let planes come in or leave…period. I’m currently sitting in the plane, in the queue, waiting for the airport to tell us we can leave…only we don’t know when that will be. For all we know it could be next Thursday.Now, I’m not sure why this turned out like it did. You would think that such a large airport would have used some sort of simulator for such a change in the system. Apparently not. I definitely think wireless should be given for this…not cool at all. Because it’s stupid not toI mean, come on, you’re a freaking airport, the one place where people of almost every culture are forced to intermingle and never communicate with one another. Airports are supposed to be relatively high tech, fun, and exciting, right? Or is that an illusion from my childhood? Give us the wireless! We wants it! We needs it! With that, I’ll ask you what reasons you think airports should offer free wireless. Leave a comment or send me an email!
Bringing the Ball To You: The Audience
Some formal complaints have been made and some things I fiddled with turned out to basically be as useless as I thought they would be (I’m looking at you Adsense). The honest truth is, I’m finding ads to be wholly insufficient. I’d love to have more relevant ones (such as the occasional ad from publishers). I find Google’s policies on ads and the like to be rather ridiculous considering that their ad model is literally one of the worst I have ever seen. They need a targeted ad system, one which allows users to have full control over what shows up on their sites. But as far as I know, they don’t. So, complaints have been made and things that will not be happening include Adsense and the paid post thingies. This is why I have readers: you can tell me when I cross the line. I have crossed that line, and now am backtracking. In fact, I want to use this space to ask for any other comments from readers. What don’t you like about WISB? What do you like? Seriously, I want honest opinions. If you despise something, tell me. If you like something else, tell me. I want to understand why you come to WISB and what might make you leave it. Your opinion matters and changes will be made if there are things that really need to go to preserve whatever it is you find most appealing in this website. So let me know!