The Alabaster Sock

We Will Fight the Threat with Fighting

Posts Tagged ‘Sci-Fi’

Monster is just another name for life

Posted by Matt on October 2, 2011

It’s back to class, which means back to actually reading books on a regular basis. I like reading books, even if it’s for reasons other than my own curiosity or enjoyment. It’s good to be exposed to material that you might not have checked out otherwise, which is why I really do enjoy these English courses. I think I might take them for the rest of my life.

But here’s what I’m getting at:

One of my recent reads was Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake. I had read Atwood’s most famous novel, The Handmaid’s Tale earlier this year, so I have material for comparison, I guess. Oryx is certainly more sci-fi, in that old-fashioned sense where morals are explicit and technology dooms us all. That’s not to simplify the book, it’s certainly not another wailing lament of what a mess we’ve made. Atwood’s way too smart for that. It’s running with far sillier concepts than Handmaid’s Tale (it’s hard not to chortle at least once with names like Pigoon, Rakunk, Wolvog, and the like being constantly tossed about), but that is certainly a side-effect of the subject matter. You get silly names when you’re dealing with gene-slicing and corporate culture, but not when you’re talking about theocracy, you know?

It also amazes me that an 80-year-old woman can write material that reminds me of…well, me, and other people like me. You know, the kids of today. She’s pretty up with the youth culture.

It’s the aforementioned genetic science stuff that makes me a bit…apprehensive. I find the satire of corporate culture funny and fascinating, and it is often grappling with the same ideas I have found very interesting (the segregation between the ‘corporate citizens’ and the people in the cities is an idea I’ve had before, and it’s an idea that looks increasingly plausible). In a way, I want to simply dismiss the problems with the science aspect of the novel by saying it’s a byproduct of the corporate stuff. Essentially, that this is not so much a screed against genetic engineering entirely, but against the possibilities of genetic engineering under the control of for-profit entities. The relationship between science and commerce is a tricky thing. For every new thing we discover, there’s a capitalist asshole who’ll exploit it for money. As the novel itself points out, the scientists under the illusion that these discoveries help people will often ignore how the byproducts of their work are used to bilk the desperate. As a primary example, we know of many cases where advances in agriculture are almost immediately co-opted by evil corporations like Monsanto (and while the ‘evil corporation’ pejorative is a cliche for aimlessly angry youth and aging hippies, if you do any reading about what Monsanto has done in the past, you’d agree with me that those guys are fucked up) and turned into copyright so they can drain farmers for upkeep and sue if their hybrid seeds accidentally land on another’s guy land, if that guy actually owns his own land instead of tending official Monsanto Land.

Yes, that’s what I’d like to believe, just to make my brain happy. But I can’t. I know I need to face these criticisms head on.

I don’t think Atwood is anti-science. And make no mistake: the irrational fear of what can come about from genetic engineering is anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-discovery. The “Frankenfood” meme comes from people who seem to forget that all agriculture is based around altering plants and animals to our liking, with the only difference being that corn and dairy cows were bred into existence eons ago by simple farming folk, and the stuff today is being done by guys in lab coats, who they have been trained to dislike because they do…stuff. The creation of these animals are often based on real ideas being tossed around, but they are exaggerated. The thing is, things like man-animal hybrids aren’t real, and have no scientific reason to ever be real. Getting a skin graft from a pig is not the same thing.

A lot of people, including possibly Atwood, seem to have this invisible line between what is natural and what is artificial. Nature is sacred, even if you take spirituality out of the equation. You can learn and tinker with only so much in the ‘natural’ world before you’ve gone too far. Making life in a test tube is going too far.

Here’s the thing: those lines? They don’t exist. They’re made up. Because the brain we’ve evolved with lets us do stuff like that.

This is not to say that humans cannot fuck up with environment with their meddling. They most certainly can. But that shouldn’t be used against learning how the our biology and the biology of the things all around us works, and using that knowledge to benefit us. Nothing we do is entirely separate from the natural world, and testing out new ideas shouldn’t be seen in a negative light automatically. The same rational minds that genetically engineers corn will know that introducing a new species into the ecosystem can cause major damage if it’s not contained, and will attempt to connect it. We even see that in the novel, albeit it ends badly anyway.

I’m tired of the cliche of the cold, calculating scientist, screwing with shit in his or her lab, reveling in their god role. In the context of Oryx and Crake, this can be seen as a product of the corporate environment, where the goal in science is not for human advancement, but in creating products. This is an issue that we all have to deal with; but more often than not, it’s simply used as a justification for bludgeoning real science if it makes people uncomfortable. It switches the target, and let’s the real crooks get away. So while people hack away at the ethical/moral issues of genetic engineering, that issue of corporate control (which is brought up as an argument and subsequently dropped, or bundled into the case against the science itself, as if they will always be one and the same) gets away with minor cuts and bruises. Once again, one of the things I like about this novel is that it doesn’t immediately drop the criticisms of the corporate mindset just so we can gasp at how awful the very idea of genetically engineering animals is; both are targeted equally, each on their own terms.

But it doesn’t explain away all the attacks on genetic engineering. It seems to, what with the companies all mainly being about selling things like specially grown fried chicken (yes, that old urban legend), or creating vanity products and services. But as much as those are justly ridiculed, we are never presented with a positive alternative. The organ transplant pigs are not seen as any more beneficial, and the fact that they, as mentioned before, get out into the wild and wreck shit (alongside all the other silly names in the book), just seems to reinforce the idea that it’s all bad, even when it’s not immediately recognizable as a useless corporate product (even if it actually is, as it shows). I don’t think I should expect there to be a “well, that’s no good, but this is an okay application!” segment of the book, that would break up the narrative and muddy the point. But it brings that apprehensiveness back, because…well, I just don’t really think that genetically modifying plants and animals (human and non-human) is an inherently bad as this book seems to position it as.

The character of Crake interests me. Crake is, in my mind, a perfect example of a Aspergers supervillain. Now, “supervillain” may be a going a bit too far, even calling him a villain or antagonist in general is wrong, but the guy does kill everyone on earth except the protagonist, so we’re in the same ballpark at least. It’s a character type I myself have tried to work with, and both arise out of that previously mentioned scientist stereotype, but with less of the cold logic and Hollywood insanity, and more general social ineptitude and that very real kind of mania that this type of person can have. To a degree, both the protagonist and Crake share a lack of self-awareness that seem to come with the culture of the novel. They watch porn (including pedo stuff, which brings Oryx into the story) and what essentially amounts of to a combination of reality TV and shock sites, with little to no emotional impact, except at points where the mania seeps in. But the protagonist grows up to be rather petulant, idealistic in a sense but self-absorbed, Crake only goes further into the obsessiveness, eventually making his own race of humans, for no reason other than because he can. There are shines of other motivations in his character, an attempt to always be control being the main one, but it still seems to be simply part of that very specific, very modern-feeling kind of psychopathy. He’s not simply a mad scientist, he’s a guy who became a prodigy and can never stop doing what he’s good at. The urge to create overtakes everything else. It’s a condition that neatly fits into both scientific and corporate environments. I find it to be an interesting bit of characterization.

But that just leads back to the question of scientific ethics: if Crake is the best of the best in his field, what does that say about his field? As I said, I don’t think Atwood is trying to oversimplify things, “these guys are all bad!” or anything like that, but there’s not a whole lot of sympathy shown for them. All the geneticists are either entirely deluded and compromised (like the protagonist’s dad), scheming assholes, or genocidal nerds like Crake. The protagonist, who does not become a geneticist but is raised by them, ends up playing false prophet to a group of naive human spin-offs. In fact, about the only half-decent person in the book is Oryx, but she’s so fucked up mentally that you never really notice. All this seems to show that the view one could gleam from the book is a little more nuanced than simply “you guys are fucking with nature! stop it!”; there are people in the book, people whose actions and reactions are very human. It’s some musty old sensationalist story of science gone wrong. It does attempt to really get into these issues, not simply declare them off-limits.

But no matter how much I want to praise Atwood for her ideas, I just can’t shake the feeling that this delves into anti-science territory. I personally don’t think we should limit what we can learn about and how, even though we should be careful with it. So I have some trouble coming to terms with what this book might be trying to tell me. It’s one of those very difficult matters in art, where something seems to be on the razor’s edge between critical analysis and screeching propaganda. It’s definitely a good piece of dystopic fiction; but I still need to determine what people are taking from it, and whether or not that’s a good thing.


Posted in Observations | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Television Aliens I Have Known (Not About ALF. The ALF post will come later this week)

Posted by Matt on July 14, 2011

Why don’t I explain why I like Doctor Who? I don’t think I’ve done that yet.

Now, one thing to be noted is that I became a fan of the show recently. However, it wasn’t with the new series; I found a bunch of Tom Baker-era reruns on television before the new series aired, and was fascinated with them. Because of my latecomer status, I think I have avoided the zeitgeist that often comes with something as old and fanatically loved (and, in the case of the UK, ingrained in the basic fabric of the culture) as this, and can thus rationalize how I like this show a little more clearly.

One of the big things that endears to me about this series, both the original and the new ones, is that they seem to be able to balance different ideas of sci-fi quite effectively. What are those ideas? The first one is the speculative, the one that has dominated the first half-century of Science Fiction prose before the even pulpier aspects of the genre turned into space opera and took over. This side of sci-fi is the obsession with big ideas, with futuristic plots, with What Ifs. The show’s time travel element, more than it’s space exploration, exemplifies this, especially in the last few seasons, where going back and forward in the timeline to alter things plays a significant part of some of the plots (look at the “Pandorica Opens”/”Big Bang” finale from last year). When the show got weirder ideas in its head, even better. Some of the first episodes I saw were the wonderfully strange “Talons of Weng-Chiang” (which managed to mash together a time-travelling criminal, a killer ventriloquist dummy, Victorian England, giant rats, and Chinese stereotypes into one story) or “The Face of Evil” (which is essentially the standard ‘technology influences a primitive culture’ plot, but also has a computer with multiple personalities, including the Doctor’s). Even in the show’s lesser moments, you could often find a weird story idea or two that stand out among the Sci-Fi television landscape. Whether the show went into the future, or added an alien twist to the past (the latter of which I really enjoy because of the mash-up of incongruous elements. A story about medieval England is so much better when a robot shows up to fuck shit up).

The other element is the one that has been a part of pulp fiction for years, but was really solidified in the 50s: the love of goofy monsters. DW, more than any other big science fiction television show I can think of, has embraced that side of sci-fi, always attempting to come up with some sort of alien beast for the characters to face. Helping that is the low-budget nature of the show; for whatever reason, costumes and make-up and puppets (the show hasn’t even had the money to utilize some stop motion) just make more of an impression than impeccable computer creations (even when the show uses CGI these days, it’s pretty low-rent). I think it may be because the people behind the show had to be creative to make up for the fact that a lot of their monsters were simply fake fur and spray paint. A lot of the scariness ends up being implied; the Daleks and Cybermen are simple and low-tech in execution, but they were given unsettling concepts (the Cybermen were the Borg some 25 years before the Borg, remember, and what are the Daleks but miniature Panzers with a super-Nazi ideology?) to make up for being kind of goofy looking. Sometimes that didn’t work, and we ended up with something completely laughable (Kandy Man?) But even then, there’s something endearing about them. I mean, even bad old monster movies, not Dracula or Bride of Frankenstein, but The Giant Claw and From Hell it Came, have followings. The same deal applies here: it doesn’t matter how stupid a monster is, something about those rubber costumes instills delight in people.

There is also something appealing to the idea of a show where the protagonist is more of a thinker than a fighter, even if it doesn’t always follow up on that idea (here is an analysis of that). Despite being an alien and having lots of gadgets (and, at one point, mastering kung-fu for some reason), the Doctor is not superpowered or a gun-ho type, nor are most of his companions. The characters on the show end up having to solve their problems with thinking…and the odd deus ex machina (again, inconsistencies are there, but not enough to ruin the whole enterprise). This is usually where the horror and mystery elements kick in, which is another thing that makes the show stand out. For someone like me, who can enjoy well-done action with kick-ass heroes beating the shit out of evil, it’s a refreshing thing in to see in the genre pantheon. It’s fun to have an eccentric science-type to be the real hero of the story, and like the monsters, I think the limitations set by having (generally) normal characters who have to use their wits lends to some fun, inventive storytelling.

I think this is why it appeals to me more than the various branches of Star Trek, for example. Now, even though I’ve never tried to become a Star Trek, I do respect what it was trying to do, for the most part. Well, what the original series was trying to do, and TNG tried to emulate, and every other one after that sort of lost. Especially in those original episodes, there was an attempt to combine social awareness (the fact that it had a multiracial and ethnic cast should not be overlooked; I know my generation has come to loathe ‘affirmative action’, primarily because they are a mob of spoiled dickheads, but really, trying to be diverse shouldn’t be considered a problem) and the pulp goofiness, a potent combo that defined Science Fiction literary canon for years (including works from alumnus who worked on the show, like Harlan Ellison). Later series tried to capture that again, and sometimes succeeded, but starting with TNG, the series started to bog down with a love of the bureaucratic utopia the original show proposed, wedging itself firmly up its own ass and losing the sense of fun that the adventures of Kirk & The Gang had (I know there are lots of fans of Picard’s Merry Band out there, and I’m not someone who wants to hate TNG or anything, but I’ve found lots of enjoyment in original series fans’ evisceration of it). So, yes, Star Trek, on paper, should be right up my alley. But it isn’t, and Doctor Who is. To put it simply: I’ve just never been as much of a fan of stories about the kind of space adventuring on Trek, which feels almost militant and colonial; but I can dig the more free-spirited nature of Who, which feels more like wandering from place to place, never knowing where you’re going, not having any sort of mission or objective other than pure curiosity. Add in the horror and mystery stuff that DW aspires to more than most sci-fi televison, and we’re set for life.

But that’s not all. Remember all those production limitations I mentioned before? While the show’s special effects and conflict resolutions are kept in check, the one area where the show doesn’t really have much of a limit is in story possibilities. As I mentioned before, we could have an episode in 13th century England with robots, 20th century Germany with slug monsters, or some distant planet with robot slug monsters. It’s that freedom of imagination that really appeals to me, I think; a show where you can really do anything has always been very agreeable to me.

Being a new convert, as well, means that there’s a ton of history of the show to get into. It’s been fun looking back and seeing how show has evolved over the years, reflecting the times, etc. It’s just like how I was a late convert to comics, and found that I pretty much have ‘new’ material to last me for the rest of my life. It’s reassuring to know that I am still wading in the shallows of the ideasphere. I always have something to go back to.

And that’s why I like Doctor Who

Posted in Idiot Box | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »