Is it just me, or is there a disturbing shift in some of the basic premises of beloved heroes of geekdom/fandom? That is - the ultimate stand against violence as the ultimate answer to all problems. That we do not play some kind of god - even with god-like gifts - and simply decide someone will die when we are given the abilities to make sure it never comes to that. Within the realm of storytelling. Perhaps it is different in the real world, where many humans seem to think their ideas and beliefs and pride are more important than others lives. Perhaps in our real world, the gods of war and the captains of industry sit back in their chairs and laugh at those hapless sheep who spend their lives in pursuits of other things than raw power. To destroy a thing is to have power over that thing says one of the characters in Frank Herberts DUNE. Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent says another in Issac Asimovs Foundation series. But this does not change the idea that childrens literature, by and large, has attempted to imbue principles of ethical behaviour into their stories. The lines between black-and-white, good-and-evil, are drawn very clearly, and perhaps the real world is less like that. Still, those lines DO exist as nearly universal concerning some things. Perhaps modern day writers feel they can not capture an audience unless they tell of something truly morbid or grotesque or gritty. But this just seems to me to be the other side of the vapid New Age type cuteness that exists and is equally dishonest about life. Life is not something AUTOMATICALLY growing darker, gritty, but rather something we inject into the world - something we surround ourselves with. Keeping it Real is a terrible catchphrase to apply to this. I noticed this about Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry had a vision of a utopian future. Many writers whined about not being able to properly form drama in a world where poverty, disease, and other things we face as very real problems now were excised. I think they just werent up to the task, though they may write fine works in scenarios closer to the real world. Cut to Doctor Who. The Doctor began only in the first few episodes as a kind of anti-hero - he nearly kills a wounded caveman just to create an effective escape! It was only over time that his human companions impressed him enough to make them his favourite species. But after those first few episodes in 1963 he has been the archetype of the benificent alien come to Earth to do good things and protect and generally make better the human race. One of the things that the character has always adamantly stated was a preference noty to be involved with violence. And - unless there seems to be no other option available - he does just that. Even when options are not available he usually finds a way to survive without lethal force. Within the realm of this story. The same holds true with another beloved character, Superman. Elliot S. Maggin captures the essence of Supermans personality in this passage from his 1978 novel Superman: Last Son of Krypton: By the time Clark Kent was old enough to start the first grade he had been exposed to the wisdom amassed over ten thousand years of Human history on Earth. He was even able to extrapolate a bit on that wisdom. He could have discoursed with Descartes and Locke. In an apparent contradiction of his own condition, he held Hobbes and Nietzsche and their ideas of the natural superiority of certain members of society in contempt. Martha Kent appreciated the influence of her reading list, but she suggested he substitute simple rejection for the contempt. These two characters - The Doctor and Superman - are both highly respected by the characters they save and the readers who enjoy their adventures because they play against our world. Our world of death and despair and homicidal maniacs and hedge-fund bankers. They come onto the scene and fix things - and delight by doing the impossible. Often that impossibility comes from finding a way to preserve life against all odds. It comes from portraying MERCY to an enemy - an idea enobled in John Boormans Arthurian film Excalibur when Arthur shows mercy and gives his sword to his enemy, building TRUST. For the past decade and a bit before, people have jumped on the bandwagon at reimagining old properties. Everything seems regurgitated. Most of it is garbage. Some, like Battlestar Galactica ended up being great (though Battlestar Galactica also has its push of more gritty. Its fairly appropriate for the story, though). Doctor Who is one of the few thing that never really went away, and it is more of a continuation with a 15 year gap (meaning that this is really only the 35th anniversary of the Doctor being regularly on our screens.) However, there is one thing in particular that stands out. The Christopher Eccleston version of the Doctor LETS an enemy die. Cassandra - in The End of the World, when she dries out and explodes. He could do everything to save her, and its pretty much not like she doesnt probably deserve something horrible to happen to her (and her ultimate ending is suitably narssicistic I suppose) but the Doctor never thought it was his right to make those kind of decisions. He does not DIRECTLY kill her, but he fails to act, which amounts to the same thing, really. This is echoed again with David Tennants Doctor, whos highest moral authority stated by his version of the character is really rather questionable. He comes up with the No second chances, Im that kind of a man line in his debut episode, ostensibly showing us that hell give evil a chance, but when it comes down to it, he will be ruthless. Granted, he goes to obscene lengths to try and avoid having to be ruthless, such as when he becomes human in The FAmily of Blood to escape some aliens he doesnt want to judge. But again, we have a significant change in his character. (This was also originally a novel which included the Seventh Doctor who was portrayed as much darker in his novels.) And recently Matt Smiths Doctor LETS a guy die. The trader Solomon has killed all the Silurians aboard their spacecraft and intends to sell the dinosaurs aboard. He blackmails the Doctor into fixing his legs by causing his friends pain. He is quite obviously an evil character. He tries to escape in his own craft, but the Doctor leaves a device for missiles to home in on aboard. If Solomon can get the device, he can survive. He doesn;t SEEM to have survived, as the ship is blown up. Choice aside, the Doctor CREATED this situation and seems as good as just shooting him. These things go to lengths to avoid responsibility to the absolute non-violent stance of all the past Doctors while still retaining a sense of being a force for good , but in the end we find a SIGNIFICANT change in this character - beloved of millions. In the latest Superman movie Man of Steel, Superman is in an enormous battle with General Zod, who has all the same powers. Zod finally stops trying to get him, and instead begins to hurt those of the Earth. Superman has him in a headlock, but he is about to kill some innocent bystanders with his heat-vision. Instead of allowing them to be hurt, Superman twists Zods neck, breaking it and killing him. This is NOT the character of Superman. The narrative wants us to believe that a force equal to Superman disallows his miracles and forces him to do something terrible to save the world. The Superman - even of past movies - would be willing to give up his powers for the love of a frail human and to even turn back time itself (in a very silly way) to undo a wrong. The lesson of ALWAYS LOOKING FOR A SOLUTION is what is on display here, and absent from the Man of Steel movie. Why are these characters being changed in such fundamental ways? The mistreatment of Star Trek as a phenomena came to a head with Into Darkness, written by Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof, who create it as yet another dystopian war-zone. Roberto Orci recently had a meltdown online trying to defend his work as Trek fans rejected the new Star Trek. After teling one fan to F**k off*, he posted this: you are the most listened to fans ever. That doesn’t mean you will get is to do what you want. just means what I said: I listened. Then we decided, having heard as many opinions as possible. To paraphrase of one of my great and beloved heroes, George W. Bush, “we’re the deciders…. One might question Orcis depiction of George W Bush as a beloved hero and his credentials for being able to write for Star Trek - especially considering Gene Roddenberrys views on Reagan and then Bush Sr. shortly before he died. Perhaps it is the politics of dealing with terrorist threats that has changed the world. Certainly this was the focus of Ronald D. Moores stint with Star Trek: The Next Generation which carried over into Deep Space Nine - the poltics of occupations, and who are the terrorists, and what happens when you have to defend a Utopia. I think he did a pretty good job, but we begin to border on getting away from the roots of Star Trek as is actually mentioned in one of the Next Generation movies by Picard: Does anyone remember when we were explorers? Yes, Science Fiction and Fanatsy allows us to take on current events and show them in new and exciting ways, but heres the rub gentle readers - ITS ALL STILL FANTASY. It may hold a truth within the tale, and you may be able to compare or link it to whats going on, but it is STILL ALL FANTASY. Therefore, Calvin and Hobbes are always the same age. Superman has dated Lois Lane for decades. People get the strangest notions that the Ferengi are supposed to be Jews because of stereotyping and forget that Ferengis...are Ferengis. Freud says that in dreams sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, rather than a phallic symbol. The reason we find certain things beloved is because of the way they are, and it is up to us to act as quality control when there is none, to ensure that outside forces are not trying to use them en masse to sway thinking. Some characters can be thought of metaphorically as the angels speaking through us, to us. To change their nature fundamentally (not temporarily for a story) is to either not understand the phenomena, or to deliberately try to sway minds. It might be interesting at this point to ponder Tolkiens dislike of Allegory. Allegory and Myth use the same symbolic language, but Tolkien asserted that Myth allowed the reader to fill in the spaces themselves - that the One Ring, for instance, COULD be the Nuclear Bomb, but that it could also be Drug Addiction or anything else that fit. Allegory, on the other hand, he felt was the intent of the author attempting interpretation, rather than the reader, in order to persuade.
Posted on: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 03:11:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015