BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU

I just finished reading 1984 by George Orwell the other day, and let me tell you, it is the perfect book for someone disillusioned by the partisan politics that are rampant today. Nevermind that it is an allegory for the direction in which the Communist Party in the Soviet Union was headed in the 1930's, because that is not the context in which I read the book. A few days after I finished it, Mark Dayton was sworn in as the first Democratic governor of the state of Minnesota in almost 20 years. Don't get me wrong-I don't mind at all that he is a Democrat, what I do mind is that his motivation, and what motivates all our elected officials seems to be favor in their party, rather than favor with their constituents. If you take the telescreens in 1984 to be analogous to modern journalists who follow politicians every move, then politicians are not free to think their own thoughts because THE PARTY will know about it. Pro-life Democrats are heavily criticized by other Democrats because they don't follow party lines. Anti-death penalty Republicans are chastised for being soft on crime. When a politician goes against the will of The Party, they are in a sense taken to the Ministry of Love and tortured until they agree with the party, or they are just never allowed to run for office via never receiving a party endorsement. Evidence of this is on talk radio. Sometimes I listen to conservative talk radio (for some laughs) and I've heard Rush Limbaugh say that compromise should not be an option and anyone who compromises is not a true Republican. He paints President Obama in the same light that Emmanuel Goldstein is painted in Orwell's book: as the ultimate enemy of the state. Other evidence of politicians being slaves to their party is Mark Dayton and president Obama*. Dayton wrote an editorial for the Star Tribune (that I'm having a really hard time finding now) where he outlined his plans as governor: tax the rich, feed the poor, maintain womens right to choose etc. blah blah blah. There was not an original idea in the whole thing. He just recycled the platform of the Democratic party and called it his campaign. Obama made himself look like a giant tool by coming to MN, endorsing Dayton and saying it was important that Democrats take back the governors mansion here. I was very disappointed with Obama because of that. Not because of a million other things I could choose from to be disappointed with him about, but because he made himself a tool for his party.
This is how bad partisan politics in the United States has become. Every politician, even president Obama, wants to satisfy their party so badly, that I wonder who is even in power. The terrifying conclusion that I came to is that we are a country of two kings who are at war with each other. The war they wage is for control of the government our founding fathers set up 230some years ago. The problem is that the two main parties have such a stranglehold on the general public. They use fear tactics and repetitive mantras (no new taxes! tax the rich!) to get the crowd mentality to take over. Some lyrics by Tool really sum it up: "Choices always were a problem for you/what you need is someone strong to guide you. Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow, what you need is someone strong to guide you." (Opiate, from their Opiate EP). I know I sound crazy, and that's why I try to keep my mouth shut about these things and just vote for goofy third party candidates. I proudly wasted my vote on Tom Horner in 2010. I would do that again.
As for the book 1984 by George Orwell, I enjoyed it a lot. Look what I took from it. What I most enjoyed was the level of detail in the book. It was very vividly described. Winston's fall from rebel to party loyalist was a little quick, but it still felt natural, and I'm sure in his place I would probably have done the same thing. I hadn't even finished reading this when I recommended it to people.


*I know I harp on Obama a lot, he's not a bad guy, and I even feel kind of bad for him. He came into office with so many good ideas and promises, and he hasn't been able to do a thing because of the oil spill and the wars and recessions. Between him and McCain in '08, I would have been satisfied with either, between Dayton and Emmer in '10, I fear an apocalypse either way.

the Bicentennial Man

Recently, I watched The Bicentennial Man starring Robin Williams. It is based on an Isaac Asimov short story by the same name that I have not read (yet). It was an enjoyable movie about a robot that serves the same family for four generations.
It was kind of a romantic comedy/sci fi, and wouldn't normally be my kind of movie, except that I enjoyed it because of how they held on to the themes from Isaac Asimov's stories about robots. In his robot stories, he blurs the lines between humanity and robot and asks "what makes us human?" The movie does the same thing. Throughout, the robot transforms from a big, blocky machine to basically being human. It becomes a human not just on the outside via face-upgrades and skin, but also on the inside and mentally/emotionally. In it's childhood, the robot needs to be taught how to behave, how to respond to different greetings. One funny scene near the beginning is when Andrew (the robot) learns how to say "good night." His owner says "good night" to him, and he responds by agreeing and saying that the night is good. His owner then says that he just responds with "good night." The turning point in Andrew's life is when he is bored in the basement (robots don't need sleep, so what is he supposed to do all night?) and decides to start repairing all the broken junk they have down there. His owner notices his initiative and starts nurturing him (probably at the expense of raising his daughters). Andrew takes to woodcarving, and starts selling "hand" made clocks. He gets rich doing that, and then questions of who "owns" his money arise. Should the robot get the money? What does a robot need money for? Eventually they decide that Andrew should have his own bank account. Later on, he uses his money to try and buy his freedom. His reasoning is that people have given their lives for freedom for thousands of years, and he sees it as something worth giving up everything he has. He is granted his freedom for free by his very generous owner and moves out. What I like about the movie is that all of his more mental/emotional developments are complimented by exterior developments as well. After he gets his bank account, he decides to spend his money on facial upgrades that would better show his emotions.
Overall this is a very excellent movie that I would recommend to anyone who likes sci fi, but specifically anyone who enjoys Isaac Asimov's stories about robots, since it is the perfect adaptation of them.

was 2010 really necessary?

I of course mean the book/movie, not the year. Debating whether or not a year was really necessary is kind of pointless since you can't stop it from coming or going. I haven't had a chance to read the book yet, and honestly that's because I'm afraid to start reading it, based on my previous experiences reading Arthur C. Clarke.
As a movie, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, is enjoyable. It was exciting, and fun to watch, even if John Lithgows character was really whiny and annoying. The reason I ask whether or not it was "necessary" is it's merit in continuing the story started in 2001: A Space Odyssey. 2001 was a conceptual film about human evolution, and ends with the next step in human evolution (after humans). To continue that story means it would have to continue following human evolution after that, into abstract forms that aren't relateable and don't make sense since they would have to be energy beings or something. It would be a really boring movie, and not the same kind of boring that 2001 was. Rather than continuing down that path, the storytellers (Clarke and Peter Hyams) decided to try and explain why HAL tried to kill everyone in 2001, and explain what the monoliths are. It's a noble endeavor, however it takes away from the mystery of 2001. I liked 2001 because it was whatever you wanted it to be. You could interpret the ending in a lot of different ways, and it could mean something different to everyone. When Clarke and Hyams decided to explain what happened, they took all the mystery out of it, and I think they took the fun out of it too. To answer the original question "was 2010 necessary?" I say no, it wasn't. I enjoyed it, but it was not a necessary continuation of the story that began in 2001.

New years resolutions

I'm going to start writing for the blog again. I'll still publish posts on Friday mornings at 11AM. I'm going to try and get Michelle to write for it consistently, too.

We are of peace...always

If giant alien ships randomly showed up in 29 major cities across the globe bearing this message, would you believe them? That's the catchphrase for Anna, the Visitor high commander in the new ABC series V.
What makes the show great is that there are mixed reactions to the Visitors (as the aliens like to be called). People don't just bow down and worship the V's (well, some do), and they don't let them just take control of everything (like in Childhood's End). Most people in the show are pro-V, because they don't seem to do anything bad, and actually promise universal health care and all kinds of cool alien technologies. Others, like Father Jack Landry are skeptical of the V's. Father Jack is a member of the Fifth Column, a resistance group that knows the true nature of the V's: they are actually reptilian underneath a "human skin." Even though the V's plan isn't revealed (they have some vague and scary plan the whole time), it is clear to the viewer that they are evil. In the beginning, they lied about their true nature when Anna said their scientists can explain why they look exactly like humans, and then FBI agent Erica Evans found out someone she thought she knew and trusted was actually a V. It shows that they have infiltrated all walks of life and that anyone could be a V.
That's half the fun of the show: trying to figure out who is a V. After their true nature is revealed, Father Jack cautions people against jumping on the V bandwagon in his homilies, much to the chagrin of the other priest at the church. That priest is so blindly pro-V that I'm convinced he is one of them. The other half of the fun of the show is all the big reveals and twists that they have. The show is so quick and action packed, and then at the end of every episode someone says something like "We have to tell Tyler the truth about his parents" and it leaves me begging for more. Many times while watching the preview, they'll say "Next week, on V:" and at the end of the preview I shout "I CAN'T WAIT THAT LONG!"
Aside from cheap tricks like plot twists at the end of every episode, the show doesn't drag it's feet in the middle. There are a lot of characters, and there is a lot going on in each episode. The Fifth Column members are always looking for ways to help them fight the V's and convince the rest of humanity that they are being lied to, and there are many scenes with Anna and Marcus (her second in command) plotting and scheming up on the ship. What I like about the scenes where Anna and Marcus is that they have a special camera angle they use just for when they are plotting something.
The show is also very character-driven. Erica leads the Fifth Column, while her son Tyler gets closer to a Visitor named Lisa. Lisa frequently brings him to Anna (the high commander), and Tyler becomes very pro-V. Obviously, this leads to some tensions between him and his mother, but they manage to have some kind of relationship just the same. This is just one example of the character driven nature of the show, but suffice to say that none of the characters are the same at the end of the season.
I could go on and on and on about how great V is, but I might end up ruining the whole show by just giving a synopsis of it. You'll just have to buy the DVD on Tuesday when it comes out.

V on amazon.com

the difference between Ursula LeGuin and Kurt Vonnegut

Recently, I've tried reading two different books: a Wizard of Earthsea by Ursula K. LeGuin, and Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut. One of these books was easy to read and enjoyable, the other was really boring. Which one is which? Knowing me, the easy one was Kurt Vonnegut (if you've been reading this blog, you know that I want to name my firstborn son "Kurt").

I got to thinking, why is Vonnegut so much easier to read than LeGuin? Because of how their books are written. LeGuin wrote the basic framework for a story: she has characters, and the characters do things and things happen to them. There is very little dialogue, and little character development. Essentially, the characters are just doing things.

Vonnegut, however, doesn't really tell much of a story. That is, it's not something you can summarize or explain in anything less than what Vonnegut already did it in. You can't summarize the story in a paragraph, you explain what the book is about. Player Piano is about the effects of a world where manual labor is completely replaced by machines, and the effect that has on one Dr. Paul Proteus. Why do we care? Because Vonnegut makes you care. The reader learns so much about Paul that Paul seems more like an old friend than a character Vonnegut made up. Things happen to him, but you get to see inside his mind and see all of his reactions and thoughts. You learn a lot about the place that he lives in, the life he leads, and what causes his world to change. It's a thrill ride of a book.

Obviously, these are two different people we are talking about here, so they'll have different writing styles. I just happen to like Kurt Vonnegut a lot more. Not all of Ursula LeGuin's books are just like a Wizard of Earthsea, either. I also read the Left Hand of Darkness (a book anyone interested in gender studies should read), and that book is more like Kurt Vonnegut's style in that we get to know the characters and the place, and there is dialogue. I wouldn't say it's exactly like Kurt Vonnegut's style, since nobody else writes like him, but it's closer to him because we get to know the characters.

Both are good writers who come up with really original stories, but if you asked me who you should read first, the answer will always be Kurt Vonnegut.

A Canticle for Leibowitz

I don't think I "got" this book. It's supposed to be a cult classic, but I'm obviously not in the cult. It has several motifs I've found in other sci-fi: it is several stories that tell one complete story (like The Martian Chronicles and I, Robot), and it deals with a society that has abandoned books and decided to be illiterate morons (like Fahrenheit 451 and the film Idiocracy).

The premise of the book is that there was a huge flame deluge (nuclear war, see the ending of Terminator 3 if you want an idea of what I imagined it to be like), and the people that were left rebelled against the smart people and burned all the books in a global "simplification." What follows is a United States that is divided into several countries, and the rise of Catholocism as a major power in the world once again.

The focus of the stories is on an abbey in the southwestern desert. The abbey is dedicated to a St. Leibowitz, who founded an order of monks who preserve the written word for the time when Man is ready for it again. Why he is so venerated by the monks (other than being their founder) is unclear. It seems like they only want him to be venerated as a saint for their own personal pride. The back cover of the book also implies that a grocery list written by Leibowitz will be an important object in the book, when really it isn't (remember how hyped Darth Maul was before the Phantom Menace cam out? same thing here).

The stories themselves don't really connect that well. All they really have in common is that they take place at the same abbey, in chronological order over a period of roughly one thousand years. They don't really tell a complete story though, and I think that's because there are too few individual stories to tell a whole. I, Robot does a better job telling a story out of several, and it has nine. the Martian Chronicles has over a dozen short stories put together, and that's the most natural progression of all three books. What this tells me is that the more stories you have, the better the book will flow. A Canticle for Leibowitz doesn't flow from one story to another as naturally because there are hundreds of years in between each one, as opposed to a decade at most. The stories are tied together at the very end, when the most recent main character finds the remains of characters we had learned to know and love (or hate) in the last two stories.

Overall, this was an enjoyable read, and it was interesting, but it could have been done a lot better. It needs more stories to add a better flow to the overall story.