Archive for November, 2010

Worst Science Fiction Title Ever

Posted November 29, 2010 By John C Wright

The fine fellows over at SF Signal are asking all and sundry which is the biggest Sci-Fi turkey you, dear readers, have chanced across this Thanksgiving season. The question would require an ocean of ink to answer, so allow me to answer only one smaller version of the question: which science fiction or fantasy title was the biggest turkey you ever heard tell of? Not the movie, just the title. Not the book itself, just the title?

You see, titles are supposed to be evocative. The title is supposed to be a hint of magic to lure the reader in, to set the viewer wondering. For my money, the two most evocative titles ever penned are: WELL AT THE WORLD’S END. I don’t think any book can live up to the eerie sense of awe that title evokes.

The second: THE DARK IS RISING.

You see, the title THE DARK IS RISING sounds so much more unchancy and supernal than, say, a book titled THE NAZIS ARE INVADING or THE NORSEMEN RAID or MARS ATTACKS or even THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. There is something unspeakable and unnamed in the Dark, so that way before you know what or who it is, you sure don’t want your lifetime to be the time of the rise. You do not want to peer out the window over the snow and see the lampposts being extinguished one by one quite silently, or the stars.

Harlan Ellison once wrote an essay on evocative titles — my memory cannot dredge up the title or the year — where he proposed a great title would be something like THE OTHER EYE OF POLYPHEMUS. He liked the title so much he promised in the essay to write a short story with that title (a promise he has since kept). But he contrasted this with the lest evocative title he could invent: THE JOURNEY.

It tells you it is a story about someone going somewhere.

Harlan Ellison then confesses that coming up with a title as bland and meaningless as THE JOURNEY was difficult. It had taken him hours and driven him to the bottle and caused him to sweat drops like blood. It takes true anti-genius to be able to invent a title so unimaginably unmeaningful.

Well, someone matched that genius, or at least came close. When Hollywood made THE DARK IS RISING into a film, they changed the title to THE SEEKER.

It tells you it is a story about someone looking for something. Or playing quidditch.

I defy anyone, even a mad genius like Harlan Ellison, to come up with a title even more bland, unappealing, uninformative, unevocative, unmagnificent, unmagical.

THE SEEKER! A guy looking for something!

To take the most evocative title in fantasy-dom and turn it into the least is noteworthy, if not awe inspiring, for the same reason seeing corpses of cows spilled out of a train wreck of cattle cars and flung across bundles of smashed and burning freight is noteworthy.

55 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

The Fall and Rise of Science Fiction

Posted November 22, 2010 By John C Wright

A reader asks a fascinating question. He speaks of a recent history of science fiction he’d read, and says the editors “laid the blame of ghetto-izing science fiction at John W. Campbell’s feet. I wonder if you have any thoughts on the matter.”

If the editors made the claim that science fiction was popular and mainstream before Campbell, and ghettoized after, I scorn this opinion as not merely ahistorical, but absurd.

The first fathers of science fiction, Wells, Verne, and the now-forgotten Olaf Stabledon, wrote for a general audience and were admired and respected as much (or as little) as any other writers. However, the next generation of science fiction writers, including figures like Edgar Rice Burroughs, A. Merritt, and Robert E. Howard, wrote boy’s adventure fiction. Beloved as these stories are to fans like myself, they were comicbookish, aimed at children, and dealt with their themes in a childish way.

These stories are, in my fanboy opinion, simply great, but simply not great art.
Read the remainder of this entry »

58 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Judging a Movie by its Cover

Posted November 18, 2010 By John C Wright

One advantage of having no sense of taste at all, is that I can enjoy highbrow stuff like Shakespeare and Milton and Homer, but also I can enjoy simple pleasures with undiminished affection.

After all, highbrow stuff is just lowbrow stuff with more good stuff in it, by which I mean, in the case of Shakespeare, ghosts and witches and fairy kings and people getting run through with swords, and in the case of Milton, war in heaven between archangels clad in gold and adamantium. In the case of Homer, there are more fight scenes on the windy plains of Troy than there are in Jackie Chan’s DRUNKEN MASTER, which consists of a fight scene leading to a fight scene with a fight scene in between,  and Jackie’s doomed friend Patrocles donning his armor to face the ninja-assassin master Hector, unless I am confusing the two.  Then, of course, Jackie is out for revenge, and so he has to undergo intense training with the help of a magic book of fighting techniques, or maybe his mother the goddess gets him better armor — one of those two. I remember there was fighting. Then Luke blows up the entire invulnerable city of Troy with a lucky shot into the lower thermal exhaust port. Which the stolen plans revealed was the only point of Achilles not dipped in the moat of hell, and therefore his one hidden weak spot.

So this appeals to me. Take a look.
Read the remainder of this entry »

33 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

The Age of the Accuser

Posted November 17, 2010 By John C Wright

I have written in this space in recent days about the modern world view, what I here called Dehumanism. Let me say a word about that word, and also say a word about the spirit of the age.

To be a man means to seek a truth that satisfies the mind, a beauty that breaks the heart, and a good that sates the conscience. Deprive a man of any of these things, and he will find no rest, no happiness.

Consider the scene from the MATRIX movie where Cypher, one of the awakened in the real world, sells out his comrades to the machines in order to enjoy a life of pleasure he knows to be illusion.

Cypher: You know, I know this steak doesn’t exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss.

I doubt anyone in the audience agreed with Cypher’s pragmatic empiricism: we would not be happy eating steak we knew to be nothing more than electrical stimulations having no reference to reality, or taking money we had not earned or to which we had no right, or living in a lie, no matter how comfortable. Certainly the film makers expected the audience to react with distain toward the character thus presented. The idea that there is no truth, which is the cornerstone of the Dehumanist doctrine, reduces us all to the same moral level as the character of Cypher.

The other two articles of faith in the dehumanist dogma are that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and that therefore rank ugliness can be made “Art” merely by declaring it to be so; and that the conscience does not exist because all values are relative. We no longer even talk of virtues, or the strength of character needed to act in a praiseworthy fashion. We no longer talk of the self discipline needed to pursue one’s self interests rightly understood. The relativity of all values at one stoke eliminates goodness, and beauty, and truth.

A creature that exists without goodness, truth, and beauty, no matter what else he is, is not a human being, any more than Gollum is a Hobbit. Read the remainder of this entry »

34 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Wright’s Writing Corner — Raising the Stakes

Posted November 17, 2010 By John C Wright

Today’s writing blog includes some thoughts on raising the stakes and on the Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

http://www.ljagilamplighter.com/2010/11/17/wrights-writing-corner-raising-the-stakes/

Also, if anyone is interested in adopting a ten-year-old Chinese boy or knows of someone who might be remotely interested, please let me know. My daughter’s “little brother” is up for adoption.

Be the first to comment

Epilogue: the Morlocks and Me

Posted November 10, 2010 By John C Wright

A reader asks: “Mr Wright – when you were an atheist, did you write Morlock fiction? Why or why not?”

I most certainly did not write Morlock fiction during my atheist days. (Ironically, the one short story I penned that was clearly nihilist in theme and tone, “Silence in the Night”, was one I wrote after my conversion, not before.)

While I was not a Christian, I was a Stoic, and I upheld and promoted the classical virtues (fortitude, moderation, temperance, justice) as well as the Enlightenment virtues (reason, liberty, individualism, liberty) — and I was also a Romantic. I believed and still believe in True Love.  I believed and still believe life is worth living, that reason allows one to discover truth, that truth is better than lies, that logic is better than illogical, beauty than ugliness, life than death.

If anything, I was a more vituperative enemy of the modern culture of death than I am now: I provoked considerable scorn and wrath and Jihadist ire from the Left for suggesting in one book written while I was an atheist that self-control of the passions, especially in the realm of the sexual passions, was a rational and honorable virtue. They had never met an atheist who believed in virtue before, and so their heads exploded.

Another book I wrote when I was an atheist suggested that life was worth living, and that our mission in life was to order our passions, reasons, and appetites to reflect reality and to follow justice — to do what is in one’s own enlightened self-interest and to avoid what is self-destructive. I was saying nothing other than what a Houyhnhnm would say. One reviewer cautioned readers that my book was a work of Christian apologetic.

Again, I recall a private conversation where I pointed out that abortion was against the Darwinian imperative to reproduce the species. Any race, tribe, or clan that had a genetic weakness favoring abortion of its own young would in a few generations be out produced by any race, tribe, or clan lacking that weakness, and their greater numbers would give them a greater talent pool to draw upon. My argument was that any moral code which failed to promote survival was in the long run self destructive, because it was a moral code that would eventually edit itself out of history. My interlocutor accused me of being a Bible-bashing Godbotherer and a Fundie.

This is why I often say that not just Christians are involved in the culture war. Read the remainder of this entry »

42 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Wrights Writing Corner: The Logic of Character Revisited

Posted November 10, 2010 By John C Wright

A post about the phenomenon of 3-Dimensional characters.

http://www.ljagilamplighter.com/2010/11/10/wrights-writing-corner-the-logic-of-character-revisited/

The logic of character is the thing that makes it so that characters come alive, the thing that makes it so that quality A and quality B overlap to make Character C who not only seems vivid and 3-Dimensional but also begins to act on his own.

What do I mean by “act on his own”? Surely, characters do not write themselves without writers!

Be the first to comment

Superman and Dehumanity Part VI — On Heroics

Posted November 8, 2010 By John C Wright

Continued from Previous.

Finally we reach the question: Why Superheroes? What is it about the Superheroic genre that makes supermovies better than modern mainstream movies?

The answer is threefold.

First, older mainstream movies, such as GONE WITH THE WIND and WIZARD OF OZ did not follow the modernist and postmodernist tastes which have ruined so many recent movies. Those mentally empty and morally corrupt philosophies had not yet reached mainstream popular entertainment in those days.

So the first part of the answer is not that superhero movies grew better than normal, just that mainstream movies grew worse. This happened as nonconformists of the 1960’s and 70’s became the establishment in Hollywood. Their world view, which I here have called dehumanism, when consistently portrayed, lacks sympathy, drama, purpose, point and meaning; and therefore the films that win acclaim by accurately reflecting the dehuman world-view lose the ability to tell a tale in a dramatically satisfying way.  Dehumanity and drama are mutually exclusive. More of one means less of another; and it is a rare genius who can reconcile the two.

The modern movies that most obviously defy these corroded modern conventions are deliberately nostalgic homages to serial cliffhangers: STAR WARS and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. These are among the bestselling movies of all time, and they transformed the industry and the audience expectations: summer blockbuster tentpole movies spring from nostalgic roots.

Read the remainder of this entry »

50 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Superman and Dehumanity Part V — On Aesthetics

Posted November 5, 2010 By John C Wright

Continued from Previous.

Are the rules of drama subjective, conventional, or objective? The short answer is a qualified yes: a heavily qualified yes. Drama is subjective, but also conventional and also objective, even if the objective element is requires wisdom to discover, and even if the discovery can never be utterly free of doubt.

The first qualification is that any work of art follows the conventions of its genre, and these conventions, being conventions, are subjective from the point of view of the universe, but objective from the point of view of the individual. Like the rules of chess, the rules for how to write a sonnet cannot be changed by an individual. If you play a game where the pawns move backward, it is not chess; if you write a poem where not of 14 lines of ten syllables in iambic pentameter ending with a rhyming couplet, it is not a sonnet. Call it something else.

The second qualification is that personal matters of taste cannot be fully removed from the question. This does not mean we should fall into the opposite error of assuming all aesthetics is merely personal taste and nothing but: and yet it means that any conclusions admit of doubt, mayhap of grave doubt.

Read the remainder of this entry »

22 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Superman and Dehumanity Part IV — the Contradiction

Posted November 4, 2010 By John C Wright

Continued from previous.

One can indeed write a story that contradicts one’s own world view. Any author unable to disguise his personal opinions for the sake the story he tells lack the essential Puckish dishonesty of the auctorial tribe, and should not be set to telling tribal lays.

However, one cannot hide the world view of the story itself, since this forms the theme, and informs or influences (at least, in works of art maintaining minimal integrity) the plot, character, setting, and style.

A Dehumanist author can write a dramatic tale, but a dramatic tale cannot be a dehumanist tale except in the one exception already mentioned: any story of rebellion against authority, any story that expresses relief or morbid enjoyment at the discovery that life is meaningless and that no final judgment nor eternal life awaits us, can be written dramatically and honestly.

Aside from a rebellion story with a nihilist theme, the dramatist can write nothing else that fits the dehumanist world, and the dehumanist can write nothing else that is dramatic. The attempts to do so will be dishonest, or, at least, will lack an essential element of drama.

Aside from a rebellion story with a nihilist theme, there is no dehumanist drama.

I have made a bold statement: but if we accept what has been said previously about the elements of drama, no other statement will do. Let us recall these elements. What is required for a drama to be truly dramatic?

Read the remainder of this entry »

2 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Superman and Dehumanity Part III — On Morlocks

Posted November 4, 2010 By John C Wright

Continued from Previous

What is Dehumanism?

Dehumanism is a term I have coined to describe that soft-edged cloud of modern thinking beloved of the Progressive elite. There is no rigorous definition of dehumanism for the same reason there is no Magisterium for the Wicca, and no Supreme Ruling Council of Anarchists. We are talking about a loose and incoherent alliance of incoherent thinkers. The central principle of Dehumanism is that it lacks principle. It is a disjointed admixture of Machiavelli, Darwin, Marx, Freud, Nietzsche and Nihilism.

Its Machiavellian view of morals says that the ends justify the means, and says that noblest ends, such as world Utopia, justify the basest means, such as genocide; Its Darwinian view of history says that races and bloodlines are locked in remorseless and eternal war to extinction, that men should be bred like a dogs, and the weak and unwanted be exterminated; Its Marxist view of economics is that the free market is a Darwinian war between economic classes which must regard each other as implacable foes; Its Freudian view of ethics says that to repress the natural and selfish impulses in a child leads to neurosis, therefore ethics is unnatural, whereas pride and lust and greed and ire and perversion are not only natural, but healthy. Its Nietzschean theology says that God is dead and therefore Power is God. Its Nihilist philosophy says that nothing means anything, therefore no philosophy has meaning and no reasoning is reasonable.

Let me hasten to add that no one person holds all these beliefs, or to the same degree. The beliefs contradict each other and contain lunatic paradoxes, so of course no one can embrace all Dehumanist ideals simultaneously or with equal fervor.

Read the remainder of this entry »

23 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Superman and Dehumanity Part II — On Drama

Posted November 4, 2010 By John C Wright

Continued from Previous.

Can a Dehumanist concoct, without betraying his principles, a satisfying dramatic story? The short answer is no. The long answer requires we discover the nature of dehumanism and of drama.

What is Drama?

The muse of philosophy who broods on Mount Helicon must forgive me if I describe what is a sprawling mansion of many chambers with the briefest of blueprints. Again I warn the reader that we are speaking in the most rough-hewn generalities, and that the presences of many exceptions and qualifications (of which, dear reader, I doubt not you are as well aware as I) does not unmake nor invalidate the general result.

To be a satisfying drama, certain basic elements must be present, either in large or in small:

  1. A protagonist with a goal or dream or need or mission, who is facing…
  2. An obstacle (it can be a person, as an evil villain, or a situation, as life in an evil village) presenting a real challenge, perhaps an overwhelming challenge, blocking the protagonist’s achievement of this goal. Facing this challenge initiates…
  3. Rising action, perhaps with unexpected yet logical plot-turns to astonish the reader’s expectations, leading to…
  4. A climax, a crescendo or catharsis, which in turn brings about…
  5. A resolution that not only…
    1. Makes intellectual sense, with no plot threads forgotten and no plot holes showing but also…
    2. Makes moral and emotional sense, it shows the cosmos the way it is or the way it should be, but also…
    3. Makes thematic sense, such that it can be used as an example, or a model, or a reflection of life or some aspect of life.

Read the remainder of this entry »

11 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Superman and Dehumanity Part I

Posted November 3, 2010 By John C Wright

Let me address a question which, if answered, would answer several questions at once. Why are crass popular comic book superhero movies better than mainstream Hollywood movies? Why are they better and more honest, more sound, and more true than a modern comedy or tragedy or melodrama, or what passes for it? Why are they better drama?

There are some deep questions unexpectedly connected to this shallow question. Let us see into what oxbows of digression the river of conversation leads. A prudence of space may require the discussion to be drawn over several entries.

Read the remainder of this entry »

19 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Kick a Fascist, Cap!

Posted November 2, 2010 By John C Wright

On this election day, I thought it would be best to show you all some pics from the upcoming Captain American movie. Remember! You are voting for the right to have our brave G.I.’s, their muscles and nerves altered by experimental super-serum, descend into darkest Germany and super-heroically kick some fascist ass with well-merited super-heroic ass-kicking.

Wear that shield proudly, Soldier!

I have heard disheartening rumors about this flick (something about how they were going to make Captain America join a G.I. Joe team based in Brussels under U.N. control, and hang out with a philandering unwed Dad version of Superman, fighting for “Truth, Justice, and All That Jazz”, and partying on with a drunk fratboy uber-dufus version of Green Hornet that even his Oriental chauffeur Kato cannot stand being around) but if the film does not betray the All-American look and mood of these shots, then all is forgiven.

There are still evils in the world these days, and we still need patriots and heroes.

Read the remainder of this entry »

4 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

News on All Saint’s Day

Posted November 2, 2010 By John C Wright

By mere coincidence, my eye fell upon two news stories yesterday, on All Saint’s Day.

First, a Syriac Church was attacked by Jihadists.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/01/baghdad-church-siege-survivors-speak

Fifty-eight people, most of them worshippers from the Chaldean Catholic community, are confirmed to have been killed in the massacre, which was carried out by al-Qaida […] Ghassan Salah, 17, had just arrived for the Sunday night service with his mother, Nadine, and brother, Ghaswan, when the gunmen burst through the cathedral’s huge wooden doors. “All of you are infidels,” they screamed at the congregation. […]

Then the killing began. […] Thar Abdallah, the priest who married al-Wafi was first to be killed – shot dead where he stood. Gunmen then sprayed the church with bullets as another priest ushered up to 60 people to a small room in the back. […] Mona Abdullah Hadad, 62, was in church with her family when the gunmen started shooting. “They said, ‘We will go to paradise if we kill you and you will go to hell’,” she said. “We stood beside the wall and they started shooting at the young people. I asked them to kill me and let my grandson live, but they shot him dead and they shot me in the back.” […] “I saw at least 30 bodies,” said Madeline Hannah, 33, who was seriously wounded by gunshots. Many appeared to have been blown apart…

Read the remainder of this entry »

21 Comments so far. Join the Conversation