Show, not Tell

Thoughts on the SGU episode “Time”:

Why are the actors telling us how hot and sticky the jungle is, while at the same time they’re wearing multiple layers of clothing? Actions speak so much louder than words – when a character supposedly in a jungle says it’s hot, but his shirt isn’t soaked in sweat and he’s wearing visible layers of clothing over an extended period of time, what we see and what we’re told don’t match. And that does a lot to ruin immersion.

And I’m sorry to see Chloe losing her lunch over seeing an alternate self die on camera – by itself it is in no way objectionable, but in the larger context of the show it’s Chloe being emotionally fragile and weak *again*. Why couldn’t she have been the one to survive to throw the Kino into the portal, for example. Just to change things up a bit.

Identifying the Problem

Joseph Mallozzi responded to the question I asked in both a previous post and a comment on his blog.

Melendwyr writes: “What were the most important scenes from the first six episodes of SGU?”

Answer: That’s a matter of opinion. The examples you gave from other shows are not moments I would consider “important” in comparison to others.

I’m starting to gain a greater insight into why I’m not connecting the with crew of the Destiny. The moments I mentioned from previous shows are both widely recognized and generally beloved character moments – and more importantly, I suspect they’re the things that helped “hook” audiences into caring about the events in the shows. No such moments, no hooked audience.

On SGU, Greer, Eli, Young, Rush, and possibly TJ have had such moments. 2nd Lt. James had a minor such moment. Even “Salieri” astrophysicist guy has had his moment to shine. Chloe has not. And that may have a lot to do with why I’m not very sympathetic to Chloe.

Stargate: Universe

As you may have gathered by now, I’m a great fan of the Stargate franchise. Its mixture of tongue-in-cheek action, applied ethics, and heroic adventure is fantastically fun, as long as it’s not taken too seriously.

I’m not a fan of SG-1’s successor series, Stargate: Atlantis, for a variety of reasons and despite its having some truly entertaining characters. Its writing team just couldn’t manage to create a balanced ensemble cast and properly integrate the discovery of Ancient technology into their plots; they had no long-term planning, and their primary villains were just silly. (The Wraith are the worst thing to happen to the franchise in a very long time, IMO.) Several cast members were reduced to secondary support roles, and more obnoxiously, their character concepts were never developed to any real degree or even discarded altogether.

But I had high hopes that things would turn around with SGU, and the first episode (especially the third part of it) had enough meat to it that I was encouraged. Since then, the show has basically failed to deliver. It’s been far too much like a soap opera for my tastes – character flaws are fine, but the constant harping on sex and fan-service-for-guys is annoying. There really are no strong, well-developed female characters despite having lots of interesting guys. And Chloe still doesn’t seem to have a purpose either in her own person or as a character on the Destiny – in every episode, she’s either moped or gotten weepy, and the one time she was ever useful was briefly assisting with first-aid in the middle of a montage.

Now, the first seasons of science-fiction shows are often very rough. SG-1 in particular had a difficult first season, with the writers and characters eventually finding their voices as time passed. I’m hoping that the first six episodes were an extended pilot of sorts for SGU and that things will pick up. But if it doesn’t, and the show becomes another Atlantis, I’m going to leave. I never hated SGA – I just cared less and less about the show until it wasn’t worth the bother to tune in. But there are elements in SGU that I’m beginning to actively dislike.

Priorities

Have I mentioned the webcomic “pictures for sad children” yet? It’s wonderfully horrifying. There is clearly something deeply wrong with its author, John Campbell.

start w/what you can handle

Kung Fu Movie Reviews

I’ve recently viewed three modern classics of Chinese cinema which had been recommended to me: Hero, House of Flying Daggers, and Curse of the Golden Flower.

Hero had beautiful landscapes and gorgeous cinematography, but those landscapes were barren and sere – rather like the emotional context of the film. The story, while having many meritorious points, argues both directly and indirectly for unification under a sole authority. It is both authoritarian and patriotic – it’s easy to see how the cooperation of the Chinese government was acquired for the scenes at the Imperial Palace. It’s certainly a good film, and its political overtones don’t occlude the quality of the storytelling, but it is somewhat jarring. Strikingly, Zhang Yimou himself denied having any political message. It may be more a matter of baseline assumptions that inform the content of the film than an attempt to convey information.

House of Flying Daggers struck me as a more interesting narrative with even more gorgeous scenery. The plot twists were carried off better than those of Hero in my opinion. Both movies were strongly influenced by the traditional Chinese love of nature scenes, but those in Flying Daggers were lusher and not as stark. The plot is tragic, but in a way I found to be more satisfying. Brighter and cheerier scenes, an extraordinarily creepy brothel, and a haunting bamboo forest make this a memorable movie.

Curse of the Golden Flower… well, it’s something like “Titus Andronicus” crossed with “Hamlet”, only without the happy ending. I have never appreciated Aesthetic Minimalism as much as I did after viewing this movie’s representation of the interior of the Emperor’s court – it takes baroque elaboration and vivid color to the point of garishness. The royal family is doomed, treacherous, incestuous, and proud. Their machinations tear their world apart, and ultimately no one wins. And they might not even be able to bring themselves to realize it.

Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class

Today’s book review concerns “Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class” by Ross Gregory Douthat.

Despite entitling his book ‘Privilege’, a word meaning “special laws or rights granted by a dispensing authority”, Douthat does a remarkably poor job of showing that Harvard students are privileged in any particular sense. It’s an entertaining memoir of one student’s life at Harvard and the absurdity of its social and academic climate. In a few places it’s even a thought-provoking inquiry into what the nature of a successful ‘liberal education’ should be and whether Harvard even attempts to accomplish that in any rational way.

But as a coherent picture of what’s wrong, “Privilege” fails. Far more of the book is taken up by assertions that Harvard is this and that, while there is little evidence-based argumentation – just vivid anecdotes and emotionally-charged claims. I was particularly struck by Douthat’s lack of insight into the nature of conservatism – while disparaging “parlor liberals” of the ’60’s who grew up and became “The Man”, he fails to acknowledge that their nostalgia for the past and denial that their roles have changed is a inherently conservative trait.

Worth reading, but for entertainment only.

The Magicians

Today’s review is of Lev Grossman’s new novel The Magicians.

So what’s it about? Imagine a self-conscious deconstruction of the Harry Potter novels and The Chronicles of Narnia, with a little Dungeons and Dragons blended together with snippets of Gulliver’s Travels thrown in to even out the mix.

Basically, a desperately unhappy young man goes to his alumni interview for Princeton and ends up taking a bizarre examination for a college he’s never heard of, where it’s the middle of summer despite it being early November. It turns out to be a school of magic – one that is in all ways almost nothing like Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Magic exists, but it makes brain surgery look like kindergarten painting day. Everything turns out about as well as you expect.

The novel is really about happiness and how you can’t find it even if you’re given your heart’s desire if what you’re seeking to escape if yourself – approximately. Also, the absurdity of certain kinds of escapist fiction and the worlds it postulates.

It’s not a bad book by any means, but I’m not sure it satisfies.

Secular Right: Futility

Heather MacDonald suggests that all her posturing about the foolishness of religion is a way of attracting young people to conservatism, of “rebranding” it. She seems to think that the young are running away from institutions like the GOP in droves because of their theistic stances.

So her anti-religious rhetoric has nothing to do with Reality or Reason (the two things that SR is supposedly about), but is entirely a means toward her end – which seems to be the propagation of what is commonly called “social conservatism”, or so I presume.

Meanwhile, religious morons dominate the discussions. I mean, just look at this guy. That’s the sort of comment that’s all over the place on SR – not because the morons are exerting themselves, but because no one is saying anything of value. Are the morons shouted down? Are the glaring errors in their arguments acknowledged, much less condemned, by anyone? No.

I’m ‘conservative’ because I think change should be approached with caution – which is not to imply that it’s not inevitable, or not desirable. I think the best of the past should be carefully preserved, and care taken to see that the things we introduce to history are worthwhile; I don’t want to back blindly into the future.

In other words, I want to preserve the legacy of Jefferson in “It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg” mode, regarding what should be tolerated. Not “maybe we shouldn’t execute homosexuals, just castrate them instead” mode. (Well, that’s more tolerant than the general view at the time, but I think you get my point.) Or “let’s declare blacks to be two-thirds of a person for purposes of voting assignments”. Or “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are natural rights, but I need to be able to own slaves.” Those are aspects that I don’t see the value in preserving.

The people who want to preserve that sort of stuff aren’t necessarily conservatives. But they are morons. Pure and simple.

I don’t think it’s the GOP’s theism that’s driving people away. It’s their authoritarian, culturally reactive, narrow-mindedness. Those aren’t traits that make up the best parts of our historical legacy. They’re not things I want to preserve and encourage. I want political groups that are based in reason and reality, not ideological stances that proclaim to possess a continuity with a better past while not actually representing what the past was really like. I want stances to be taken because they’re true and correct, instead of being advertising gimmicks.

I’m increasingly of the belief that SR isn’t interested in providing those things.

As long as the religious morons believe they can be influential without having to give up their attempts to promote their delusions, they’ll keep promoting them. The only way to get the religiously conservative to work for the cause of secular conservatism is for secularism to become sufficiently powerful in its own right that the religious feel they have something to gain by allying with it – and something to lose by not doing so. Power attracts power; strength attracts strength. At least in the nonsensical, limbic-brained world of politics.

MacDonald isn’t just going about things in the wrong way, she has the wrong goals. And no one else is doing much contributing to SR, so she’s establishing the site’s message by default.

Evaluations Needed

Hey, folks, I could use your help.

I’ve been reading the works of Raoul A. Robinson lately, and his ideas intrigue me. I’ve already formed a variety of opinions of the claims he makes, but I want other judgments.

Take a look at this article discussing some of his ideas, then consider reading his books, which are available for free download. (They’re really quite short – don’t let the high page counts faze you, the PDF pages are tiny.)

Then, please tell me what you think about the validity of his claims, the strengths of his ideas, and their weaknesses.

(Michael Vassar is specifically excluded from this request.)

Thanks.

A Teacup in a Velvet-Gloved Iron Fist

Erfworld had strips with remarkable writing. Hopefully, once the comic returns, it will again.

In the meantime, we’re left with “Summer updates”, which were previously interesting. Lately, however, they’ve become extraordinary.

See this, this, and this.

If you’re not familiar with the story thus far, those events will be moderately opaque. But if you’ve been following along… the complexity of theme and character is remarkable.