Sunday, July 30, 2017

WTF: Part 2

I work at night, when everyone is asleep. Some nights are busy. Some aren't. Either way, people are usually asleep, leaving me no one to talk to. I need someone to talk to tonight. Since I don't have that, another poem.

Bloodlines
I'm all alone
trying to be tough.
Be the man
that he wants
me to be.
But I'm not that man.
I'm not that tough.
Just a broken heart.
Tears streaming down.
Abandoned
by the only dad I've known.
Angry words shouted
over a child's pain.
Losing the point.
Losing our minds.
Two angry men
shouting like animals
trying to be dominant.
I was trying to end
all the judgement.
He was trying
to escape his age.
My apology came too late.
Angry wounds festered
turning to hate.
"He's not my blood"
Echoes in my ears.

Saturday, July 29, 2017

My Love of Sci-Fi

No disclaimer today, since I'm not bad mouthing everyone's favorite superheroes. No, today is for something a little different. Today, I talk about why I love sci-fi, and why, despite my humble beginnings of old school D&D and Tolkein, I enjoy it so much more than fantasy. Not that I dislike fantasy, otherwise there would have been a disclaimer. Don't look for an issue where there is none.

(It occurs to me the above is sort of a disclaimer, disclaimer.)





I think, ultimately, what I love most about science fiction is the guess work. The thought of what could possibly happen, following certain logical developments in technology, society, economics, or whatever. In the end, most good science fiction, in my opinion, takes an idea and plays it out over a theoretical span of time. What might the Earth look like in twenty years? In a hundred? What might this technology become in that same amount of time? How might that effect us? Where will our society be, in this imagined future? I love all of those questions, but then again I am fascinated by what might come, despite being stuck on the past.

Something else I entirely dig is the ability to mix science fiction with nearly every other genre, without it coming across as particularly forced or awkward. You want to do something post-apocalyptic? Well, by definition, that's pretty much science fiction, as it usually takes place in the future, following a technological disaster. Want to mix in some western? No problem! Just look at Firefly or Westworld. You want some sort of political drama? How's Expanse, Babylon 5, or Deep Space 9 grab you? Hell, if you even want to mix in some straight up magic, look no further than Star Wars or anything in the Shadowrun universe? There is something about that Arthur C Clarke saying where "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" that seems to make anything possible within the genre. And yes, while I know you can create a fantasy world where all of your standard tropes are told through the lens of technology, I feel that is the exact moment that it stops being fantasy.

Finally, and this again is just me, I love the visuals of science fiction so much. Especially when it goes so far as to be effectively magic. I love looking at starship designs, whether near future hyper-realistic, or Star Trek level nonsense. I love jump gates, and terraforming engines, and clone vats. All of these things can easily be translated into fantasy, and have been, but there is just something about the designs that accompany the technological versions. Maybe it's the attempt to at least try to explain things with currently understood science. Maybe it's the materials being smoother, or maybe more familiar. Maybe it has something to with many of the ideas being progressions of what we have today, where the artist tries to imagine what form something might take in however much time. I really couldn't tell you for certain. All I know is that I simply love, in a nearly giddy way, how science fiction looks most of the time.

I'm not really trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking here, or somehow justify what it is that makes me love science fiction more. I'm certainly not trying to say that one genre is better than another, and that anyone who doesn't see things the way I do is wrong. What I am doing, rather poorly if I'm honest, is trying to convey why it is that I love sci-fi so damned much. Maybe I can't though. Maybe if you love something, it defies any rational attempt at explanation. Yeah, let's go with that.

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

My Problem With Batman

DISCLAIMER

The following thoughts are my own. Generally speaking, I don't believe in right or wrong when it comes to someone's taste or creativity. I, in no way, mean to offend anyone with my opinion of the subject matter, or on anyone else's thoughts on the topic.




I get why people like Batman, I really do. What is there not to like? He is the pinnacle of human achievement in nearly every way. He is in peak physical fitness. He is perhaps the world's most skilled fighter, with nearly every weapon. He has one of the sharpest intellects in the whole DC Universe. He has a vast, seemingly limitless fortune. He has gadgets for every situation that one could ever conceive of. His will is perhaps stronger than any creature alive, possibly surpassing the whole Lantern Corps put together. And, perhaps most importantly, he looks SO DAMN COOL!

He is also incredibly boring.

Shots fired, I know, but hear me out. Whenever I hear people complain about how boring Superman is, I almost always hear the same arguments, stating that he's "too powerful" and how "he can't lose". People love to rail against the godlike Kryptonian for all his powers, his squeaky clean morality, and his tired trope of being the last member of his race (kinda). But nearly every one of those arguments can be readily turned on the Batman himself, often to an even greater degree, yet any attempt to do so is met with immediate dismissal as a hater. Still, whether you don't want to hear it or not, each and every one of those points is doubly applicable to the Bat.

I'd argue that Batman is perhaps the most powerful character in the whole of the DC Universe, and is certainly godlike in his abilities. Batman NEVER loses, at least not in any meaningful way. People are always so quick to point out the various times he has been defeated, immediately bringing up times when his back was broken, when he lost his fortune, lost his entire home city, or even his life. The problem with that, in my opinion, is none of those consequences ever last, and more often than not, are quickly forgotten. Batman has been physically beaten so many times, and recovered, that the very concept of injury no longer applies to him. In a sense, he is every bit as invulnerable as Superman, and perhaps more so, simply because the process of being wounded has no real effect. If injuries have no meaning, how is it functionally different from invincibility? It certainly isn't any different in a narrative sense.

Also, it is interesting to note how, while Batman is very quick to beat and brutalize his opponents, he (in his modern form) has the same aversion to killing that Superman does. There are plenty of arguments that while Superman refuses to break society's laws, leaving punishment up to the systems in place, so too does Batman. Yes, he does, without a doubt, take the law into his own hands. But, he always turns people over to the police, so they can be tried and ultimately thrown into the revolving door Arkham. I'm not sure that Batman has broken any less laws than the Man of Steel, especially if you take into effect property damage or trespassing. In fact, I generally argue that superheroes as a whole don't really pay attention to the law, rather focusing on the areas where such rules fail to protect, but that topic is for a different time.

Superman is the last of his race, basically. Batman is certainly not. Not going to refute that. But, the impact of this "Last Son of Krypton" title I feel is nearly identical to Batman's murdered parents. Both characters feel that they are alone in the world, only letting a very small number of people in beyond their emotional walls. Both feel isolated in the world, and are often convinced that no one on the planet could truly understand them. That perceived isolation influences everything they do, and forms a large portion of the core of their characters. And, for those who like to point out that Superman was raised by the Kents, which balanced him out and made him part of the world community as a whole, didn't Batman have Alfred to perform the same function? While their methods and imagery might be different, I think, ultimately, a large portion of their psychology is the same.

One last thing to consider, back to the issue of Batman's inherent power, is he basically supernatural ability to prepared for every eventuality. So many story lines with Batman involve him breaking out some plan at the end, which surprise, he had sitting around for just this eventuality. Characters with the ability to see the future don't have as much foresight as the Bat, who is almost never caught completely unprepared. Often the worst it gets being that he doesn't have said contingency plan ready AT THAT MOMENT, requiring just a bit of time for him to tweak and roll out. Other times, it's simply a matter of getting to one of his omnipresent caches, or the Batcave itself, to get the gadget, to beat the villain, and save the day. If you take a step back from many of his story arcs, you can see a large portion of it is simply a delaying tactic before his secret plan works.

To be fair to old Batsy, I personally think the problem lies in the character's popularity rather than flaws in his design. He originally started out as just a rich vigilante, trying to stop petty crooks while he dealt with the trauma of losing his parents. It was only with the steady increase in his fandom that his strength continued to be amplified to a stunning degree. Arguably, Batman shouldn't be able to stand up to Superman in a fight, but he always does. Hell, most the time he comes out on top in his bouts with The Man of Steel, due to all the attributes already mentioned. The problem is that, if they want him to interact with all these other superheroes, many of whom are godlike in power, they need him to bring more to the table. Which is why they ultimately gave him the power of "always prepared", simply so that he can have just the right thing, at just the right moment, to save the day. That's what he does in any sort of Justice League scenario. He stands around, trying to "survive" the fight of gods around him, until that perfect moment for him to pull the ace from his sleeve.

I'm not saying I know a way to fix this issue. I would say they should kill him off, or give him some sort of serious change, but the fandom doesn't want that. They didn't take to Azrael, they didn't take to Robo Gordon, and they didn't take to any of Bat family assuming the mantle. They want their Bat just the way he is, supposedly mortal, but better than any of the gods he encounters.

Monday, July 24, 2017

WTF is this?

I was talking to a friend of mine (not about comics or heroes or anything like that), and the subject of poetry came up. I apparently told a rather sad story about how I used to write poetry all the time, then stopped after my first, and last, poetry reading. Now, I could bore you with what few details there are in that story, but I won't. You're not here for that. but, what I can say, is I wrote my first poem in about 17 years. Intentionally.

It counts if it's a haiku, right?


I sat to reflect
A small world dripping around
Not enough rain here

Sunday, July 23, 2017

The (Re)Amazing Spiderman

DISCLAIMER

The following thoughts are my own. Generally speaking, I don't believe in right or wrong when it comes to someone's taste or creativity. I, in no way, mean to offend anyone with my opinion of the subject matter, or on anyone else's thoughts on the topic.






So, a new Spiderman movie. One that I haven't seen, but would certainly like to. A movie that seems to contain everything fans have wanted from the character for decades, including funny quips, acrobatic adventure, teen drama, and even the odd cameo or two. Tom Holland is said to have pulled off the role amazingly well (no pun intended), and the movie itself is getting rave reviews.

Just like the first Toby Maguire one. Just like the first Andrew Garfield one.

It sort of made me wonder what it IS about this character that people just absolutely love, at first. Why is it that people are perfectly content to see him portrayed over, and over, and now over, again? Sure, each actor gives us a slightly different portrayal, as shown through a different director's lens, while embarking on a different writer's adventure. But how is the character so enduring, yet so quick to fade from our minds? Each sequel has done worse than the previous. This last movie, while opening incredibly well, also has had the sharpest second week drop in MCU history. Why?

I think it has to do with the character himself, and which part of our emotions he taps into. Peter Parker, ultimately, is every nerd's fantasy alter-ego. He's one of them, geeked out and bullied, socially awkward, and lives in a lower income bracket. His family life is different from the standard nuclear family, raised by a (usually) ancient aunt, who he presumes would never understand what it's like to be a young man in this day and age. But, at the exact same time, he's gifted in every way his fans wish they were. He's the smartest guy on the block, sometimes portrayed in the same echelon as Tony Stark or Reed Richards. His powers give him varying degrees of super strength (the better to beat his bullies), and super agility (the better to avoid the attacks of said bullies). Even more, and perhaps a more integral part of the character, Peter Parker is witty in the way we all wish we were, able to come up with just the right thing to say in nearly every situation. With all of this, he's like the nerd messiah.

But, all of that gets old. I think just like high school ends, and all that drama and social battling fades away, so too does much of the allure of Peter Parker's core strengths. Peter exists best as a teen dream, living in that world, and the moment he, or more importantly his fans, step out in the wider world of adulthood, he seems somehow... stunted? Yes, he winds up getting the job at the paper as a photographer, and continues the nerd fantasy by eventually marrying the impossibly sexy Mary Jane Watson, but the areas in which we related to him fall away. He's no longer the champion of the disillusioned, but rather that guy who gets ALL the breaks. He's that guy at work who just always seems to win. He's never around, but produces the best work there. He's so good at his job that he never gets in trouble, and gets away with things no other employee would. And when he's done for the day, he goes home to his actress wife, who clearly sees something in him the rest of the world doesn't. It's just a strange disconnect from what made us like him in the first place.

I think that is why Spiderman in TV and movies is always being portrayed in that high school drama genre. While in the comic books he went on, and they continue with his adult life, it seems those outside his core fandom really only relate to him when he is that younger hero, struggling against those very familiar obstacles. I also think that is why Ultimate Spiderman, Mile Morales, gained so much popularity as well. They introduced a new version of the character that, while certainly being different in many regards to Peter, hit all the same notes of youthful struggle. They found a way to stay within that theme, while also keeping grown up Peter for those who didn't want to see yet another reboot to the character (a fairly ingenious idea, really).

At the end of the day, Spiderman is still an interesting character, who we all seem to love and root for. I just personally think that, if we really look at it, Peter Parker's real power is nostalgia, and his ability to bring it out of all of us.