Paul Levinson's Blog: Levinson at Large, page 250

Hell on Wheels 5.9: A Good Night for Bohannon

A very satisfying Hell on Wheels 5.9 last night, as Bohannon finally ends up in bed with a woman he loves.

Let's face it - that woman was not Naomi.  The only reason he married her was because he got her pregnant, and wanted to do the right, honorable thing.  He came to love her in a way, and of course their boy William, but it makes sense that he would ultimately accept her decision to go with Isaac, painful as it was for all concerned.

The only woman we've seen Bohannon truly and fully love up until now was Lily, and her murder by the Swede was one of the worst moments both for Bohannon and the show.  But there has been something building up between him and Fong all season, and it was good to see it finally explode into action last night.

Maybe love is too strong a word for what Bohannon currently feels for her, but he certainly feels something far different than what he felt for Naomi.   With the series close to ending, we can now hope for a happy ending for Bohannon, even with Naomi choosing Isaac.

Meanwhile, it was good to see Durant back in action again, if not quite - as always - in solvent and totally legal business.  We know of course from history that he did complete the railroad, and continued to be beset by financial scandals and sanctions for his wheelings and dealings before, during, and after the final completion of the track.   But it will be fun to see exactly how this plays out as this unique series comes to a close.

See also Hell on Wheels 5.1: Rails and Truckee ... Hell on Wheels 5.2: Mei and Cullen ... Hell on Wheels 5.3: Prejudice ... Hell on Wheels 5.8: Letting Him Live?

And see also Hell on Wheels 4.1-2: Rolling Again ... Hell on Wheels 4.5: New Blood ... Hell on Wheels 4.6: Bear and Sanity ... Hell on Wheels 4.7: Why? ... Hell on Wheels 4.8: Aftermath and Rebound ... Hell on Wheels 4.9: High Noon ... Hell on Wheels 4.10: A Tale of Two Sicko Killers ... Hell on Wheels 4.11: The Redemption of Ruth ... Hell on Wheels 4.12: Infuriating and Worthwhile ... Hell on Wheels Season 4 Finale: The Buffalo

And see also Hell on Wheels 3.1-2: Bohannan in Command ... Hell on Wheels 3.3: Talking and Walking ... Hell on Wheels 3.4: Extreme Lacrosse ... Hell on Wheels 3.5: The Glove ... Hell on Wheels 3.6: The Man in Charge ...Hell on Wheels 3.7: Water, Water ... Hell on Wheels 3.8: Canterbury Tales ...Hell on Wheels 3.9: Shoot-Out and Truths ... Hell on Wheels Season 3 finale: Train Calling in the Distance

And see also  Hell on Wheels: Blood, Sweat, and Tears on the Track, and the Telegraph ... Hell on Wheels 1.6: Horse vs. Rail ... Hell on Wheels 1.8: Multiple Tracks ... Hell on Wheels 1.9: Historical Inevitable and Unknown ... Hell on Wheels Season One Finale: Greek Tragedy, Western Style




deeper history

#SFWApro Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music

Outlander 2.11: London Not Falling

My main interest in Outlander, as I've said many times, is how Claire's sojourn 200 years into her past can change history.   Clearly, she can change anonymous history - events and people we don't know about in our history - and has done so many times.  But changing the history we do know about, such as the course of the Jacobite rebellion, is something else again.

We got a tantalizing look at this in last night's episode 2.11.  Jamie and the anti-English prince very much want to press their advantage after least week's victory in Prestonpans - which has indeed been recorded in our history - and move forward with an attack on London which could win them the war, and Scottish independence.   The generals are against this, on the grounds that there are three English armies in the field between the Scots and London, and no one on our side knows where they are.

Claire's response is especially of interest.  She knows from her history that Jamie and the Scots did not advance to London.  But what if they had?  What was Claire thinking about that eventuality? First, that this might indeed win the war for the Jacobites, which would of course change history and make Jamie very happy.   But also - what would that do to Claire?  Would her memories suddenly change, so that she had no recollection of the Jacobites losing?

We've seen hints of this for different events - but nothing as large in history as the Jacobites winning. A change as big as that could well mean that Claire was never up in Scotland in the first place with Frank, which started this whole story.  It could well mean that was never even a Second World War.

Because of all that, I almost hoped that Jamie and Prince Charles had convinced the generals to march on London - what a wild next episode, with history thrown upside down, that would have made!

But fortunately for the sake of a straightforward story not rent by paradox, that didn't happen.  And we'll see what happens to our heroes in the next two episodes in the history we know - more or less.


See also Outlander 2.1: Split Hour ... Outlander 2.2: The King and the Forest ... Outlander 2.3: Mother and Dr. Dog ... Outlander 2.5: The Unappreciated Paradox ... Outlander 2.6: The Duel and the Offspring ...Outlander 2.7: Further into the Future ... Outlander 2.8: The Conversation ... Outlander 2.9: Flashbacks of the Future ... Outlander 2.10: One True Prediction and Counting
And see also Outlander 1.1-3: The Hope of Time Travel ... Outlander 1.6:  Outstanding ... Outlander 1.7: Tender Intertemporal Polygamy ...Outlander 1.8: The Other Side ... Outlander 1.9: Spanking Good ... Outlander 1.10: A Glimmer of Paradox ... Outlander 1.11: Vaccination and Time Travel ... Outlander 1.12: Black Jack's Progeny ...Outlander 1.13: Mother's Day ... Outlander 1.14: All That Jazz ... Outlander Season 1 Finale: Let's Change History




Sierra Waters series, #1, time travel

#SFWApro
Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music

Trumbo and Trump

We finally got around to watching Trumbo last night, the superb 2015 movie starring Bryan Cranston as the brilliant, blacklisted screenwriter Dalton Trumbo who in the 1950s was imprisoned and forced to write under pseudonyms because of the demagogic Republicans of that time, in particular Joe McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee, better known as HUAC.

It was impossible not to be struck by disturbing parallels between those Republicans and the kind of campaign Trump is now running.   Scapegoating, division of Americans, lashing out at the media and the intelligentsia were part and parcel of that era and loom menacingly in this one.  Only the names have changed, from Communist to Muslim and Mexican, from Hollywood to cable television.

Indeed, Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House and a contender for Vice President on a Trump ticket, called for a revival of HUAC just a few days ago as a way of defeating ISIS.

In the 1950s, the original HUAC wreaked havoc on law-abiding Americans like Trumbo, who was only exercising his First Amendment rights.   As the movie dramatically shows, the unexpected death of liberal Supreme Court Justice Wiley Rutledge in 1949 - appointed by FDR - deprived the court of the liberal majority needed to strike down the anti-Communist witch-hunt.

The Supreme Court again hangs in the balance, with the cowardly Republicans of today refusing to even consider Obama's nomination of a replacement for Scalia.   The reign of terror in the 1950s eventually ended, as actor Kirk Douglas and director Otto Preminger stepped to give Trumbo credit for the great screenwriting he did for the movies Spartacus and Exodus, in one of the best days in American history and the best parts of the movie.   HUAC changed its name to something more benign in 1969, and was put out of business completely by Congress in 1975.  But we've yet to have a happy ending with Trump and his ilk in 2016, and Americans who value freedom should redouble their efforts to make sure he never gets near the White House.




Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music

Labeling vs. Tagging: A McLuhanesque Perspective

Just finished being interviewed by WFUV's Zach Atanasoff for his Issues Tank podcast - I'll post the link here when the interview is up online, at the beginning of July - and Zach asked me to comment on why Millennials are more averse to being labeled as such than are Baby Boomers, Generation X'ers and the like about their generations.

I realized that very notion of "label" is something that comes from our print culture, in which we put written or printed labels on boxes and all kinds of things, including files in a cabinet and boxes of papers.   McLuhan would say that the very concept of labeling, and certainly the practice, comes from the output of the printing press, and keeping track of the pieces of civilization it generates.

In contrast, how do we identify posts in social media such Facebook, Instagram, etc?  We tag them. And a tag is a much less defining and confining tool than is a label.   Unsurprisingly,  Millennials who have come of age in a world of social media and its access to information anywhere, from anyplace, any time, are more comfortable with tags than with static and stationary/stationery labels. Tags can be much more easily changed and discarded than labels.

It's fascinating, once again, that Marshall McLuhan, who did most of his writing in the 1960s and died on the last day of 1980, at the doorstep of the digital age, has provided a way of thinking that is so useful in our understanding our Millennial age.




more about McLuhan and social media



Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music

The Difference Between the First and Second Amendments

You often hear well-meaning arguments in favor of gun restrictions and limits on the Second Amendment, that no rights granted under the Bill of Rights are absolute, as evidenced by the fact that, even with the First Amendment, you can't "shout fire in a crowded theater".

Aside from incorrectly citing Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s 1919 opinion in the US Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States which offered "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" as the kind of speech the First Amendment should not safeguard - after all, if there really was a fire, it might be a good idea to shout about it - the example when used in support of gun control suggests a false equivalence between words and bullets.

Words, whether spoken or written, do not kill.   Bullets when fired from guns often do.  Words can of course incite to riot or other criminal activity, and, if so, should be punished if there is clear criminal intent. But otherwise, the First Amendment's providing that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" should indeed be taken literally and as absolute. When that fundamental principle is violated - as when Schenck was arrested for distributing anti-war leaflets, or Nixon tried to prevent The Washington Post and The New York Times from publishing The Pentagon Papers - those violations should not be upheld by the US Supreme or any courts (which is why I thought Holmes' decision was wrong, and the Warren Court's in favor of the publication of The Pentagon Papers was right).

But bullets are not words, and the Second Amendment never provided any absolute wording about what Congress cannot do in regulating weapons. The Second Amendment does not say "Congress shall make no law" regarding possession of firearms.  What it does say is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," and that's something quite different.  Surely that wording does not guarantee the right of the people to bear any arms they choose.  We all would agree, presumably even the NRA, that the Second Amendment does not give people the right to bear rocket launchers with nuclear-tipped weapons.   Where we draw the line can and should be debated.   But assault weapons that can kill and injure hundreds in a few minutes seem manifestly way over any sensible line.

The bottom line of all of this is that we can insist on limitations of the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment without incursions of our absolute rights under the First Amendment.  Such an approach would maximize our effort to safeguard both life and freedom.

Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music

12 Monkeys 2.9: Hands On

A good, solid, self-reflexive episode 2.9 of 12 Monkeys this past Monday night, which delves into a lot of what makes our characters tick.

Jennifer is most likely the central character in this episode, if not in the entire series. In a profound sense, she's actually the least crazy person in the story, despite her presentation, because she alone has lived through most of the years of the narrative in real time.   In fact, even if she were thoroughly sane in the first place, living through a time in which time itself is changing would make her somewhat crazy.  Or, as someone says about Michael in The Deer Hunter, in an insane world a crazy person may be the least maladjusted.

Jennifer's advice to Cole in 2044 - old Jennifer to Cole, who is always at more or less the same age (but see below)  - is to pay attention to the hands not the cup.   And hands do play a major role in this episode, as we see when the Tall Man's hands are later under attack by Cole's hammer seeking information.   By the way, it's interesting that the Tall Man is also known as the Pallid Man - he could also be called the Pall Man, since he certainly casts a pall on everything he touches (but not the Paul man, no thanks).

12 Monkeys has been doing a great job rolling out as many classic time-travel gambits as it can, and there's a nice one in 2.9, as Cole takes his leave of young Jennifer in 2016, and reappears a moment later and at least little older at the door - a little older in age and apparently much older in experience. That moment vividly shows the other side of older Jennifer knowing much more than all of our other characters in the future because she's lived through time. When Cole reappears at young Jennifer's door, he's the one who knows more, much more, than the young Jennifer, for whom just a second has elapsed.   No wonder she's crazy - time has gotten her coming and going.

Hey, I haven't really said much if anything about the actual plot of this episode.   Maybe I'll come back later in time and fill that in - or not.

See you here next week with my review of the next episode, in any case.

See also 12 Monkeys 2.1: Whatever Will Be, Will Be ... 12 Monkeys 2.2: The Serum ... 12 Monkeys 2.3: Primaries and Paradoxes ... 12 Monkeys 2.4: Saving Time ... 12 Monkeys 2.5: Jennifer's Story ... 12 Monkeys 2.6: "'Tis Death Is Dead" ... 12 Monkeys 2.7: Ultimate Universes ... 12 Monkeys 2.8: Time Itself Wants Time Travel

And see also this Italian review, w/reference to Hawking and my story, "The Chronology Protection Case"

And see also 12 Monkeys series on SyFy: Paradox Prominent and Excellent ...12 Monkeys 1.2: Your Future, His Past ... 12 Monkeys 1.3:  Paradoxes, Lies, and Near Intersections ... 12 Monkeys 1.4: "Uneasy Math" ... 12 Monkeys 1.5: The Heart of the Matter ... 12 Monkeys 1.6: Can I Get a Witness? ... 12 Monkeys 1.7: Snowden, the Virus, and the Irresistible ... 12 Monkeys 1.8: Intelligent Vaccine vs. Time Travel ... 12 Monkeys 1.9: Shelley, Keats, and Time Travel ... 12 Monkey 1.10: The Last Jump ... 12 Monkeys 1.11: What-Ifs ... 12 Monkeys 1.2: The Plunge ... 12 Monkeys Season 1 Finale: "Time Travel to Create Time Travel"

#SFWApro

podcast review of Predestination and 12 Monkeys

 





Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music

The Myth of the Hero with a Gun Stopping a Maniac with a Gun

In the debates about gun control which are always going on but which understandably come to the surface whenever a massacre such as what happened in Orlando occurs, the point is always made that if only one or more sane, decent people had been at the scene and been armed, the murderous shooter might have been eliminated sooner and the number of innocent victims reduced.

This argument certainly seems to have some logical merit.   But the facts say otherwise, and indeed, even in places in which there were armed security - such as outside the Pulse Club in Orlando - the murderous devastation ensued.

Perhaps, if we had a world in which every person had a weapon, and carried that weapon just as we all carry our smartphones - that is, everywhere and all the time - a good person with a gun might be in the right place at the right time and stop the killer.   But to get to that point of universal armament and carrying, we would have to have vastly more guns in circulation than there are right now, and this pitches us right into the other side of this argument, which is:  how can we better control who is able to get a gun, with the goal of making sure a terrorist, psycho, or hater isn't able to obtain a weapon?

Without such better control, a move towards more not less armament in the populace would inescapably lead to more not fewer guns in the hands of killers.  That's basic math and logic.  So why not adopt better standards of who can and who cannot legally purchase a gun right now?

Given how well we've done in regulating who can get a driver's license, putting in stronger regulations about who can purchase a gun shouldn't be that difficult.  It's the logical first step to a safer society, whatever our ultimate views about the availability of guns in our country.

Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music

Game of Thrones 6.8: Strategic Advantage

A strategically satisfying Game of Thrones 6.8 tonight, in which the game is played to better effect on multiple fronts than it often is.

My favorite was Jaime's retaking of the castle from the Blackfish, with one of the best interactions of Jaime and Brienne that we've seen so far in the series thrown into the bargain.  With all their knightly courtesy and regretful promises to fight each other if need be, this seemed for all the world like a passage from King Arthur and the Knights of the Roundtable.  And that parting scene with Jaime waving to Brienne as she moved down the river was an especially memorable little icing on this cake.

Arya had one of the best nights in years, too.   Her seeking refuge with the Game of Thrones play-within-a-play Shakespearean troupe and its deadly outcome for the actress in this troupe playing Cersei was a perfect parable about the dangers of mixing reality and fantasy, truth and fiction, which could provide a good lesson for our lives in general.

And Cersei herself has an excellent night, finally getting something of the upper hand over that sanctimonious Sparrow, courtesy of that huge, super knight she has at her disposal.  The fly in her ointment in that too-good son of hers, but as irritating as he is, he's still preferable to his late older brother.

The joke session with Tyrion, the unsullied head, and Daenerys's chief assistant was also a gem, with some pretty good jokes and meta-jokes thrown onto the floor.   And what more could you ask for than Daenerys herself delivered to the top of the pyramid by her dragon at just the right moment.

Not much going in the bitter north tonight, but lots is clicking into place in all parts south, and the coming attractions promise of big battle for Winterfell next week.

See also Game of Thrones 6.1: Where Are the Dragons ... Game of Thrones 6.2: The Waking ... 
And see also Game of Thrones 5.1: Unsetting the Table ... Game of Thrones 5.8: The Power of Frigid Death ... Game of Thrones 5.9: Dragon in Action; Sickening Scene with Stannis ... Game of Thrones Season 5 Finale: Punishment

And see also Games of Thrones Season 4 Premiere: Salient Points ... Game of Thrones 4.2: Whodunnit? ... Game of Thrones 4.3: Who Will Save Tyrion ...Game of Thrones 4.4: Glimpse of the Ultimate Battle ... Game of Thrones 4.6: Tyrion on Trial ... Game of Thrones 4.8: Beetles and Battle ...Game of Thrones 4.9: The Fight for Castle Black ... Games of Thrones Season 4 Finale: Woven Threads

And see also  Game of Thrones Season 3 Premiere ... Game of Thrones 3.3: The Heart of Jaime Lannister ... Game of Thrones 3.6: Extraordinary Cinematography ...Game of Thrones 3.7: Heroic Jaime ...  Game of Thrones 3.9: A Critique 
And see also Game of Thrones Back in Play for Season 2 ... Game of Thrones 2.2: Cersei vs. Tyrion

And see also A Game of Thrones: My 1996 Review of the First Novel ... Game of Thrones Begins Greatly on HBO ... Game of Thrones 1.2: Prince, Wolf, Bastard, Dwarf ... Games of Thrones 1.3: Genuine Demons ... Game of Thrones 1.4: Broken Things  ... Game of Thrones 1.5: Ned Under Seige ... Game of Thrones 1.6: Molten Ever After ... Games of Thrones 1.7: Swiveling Pieces ... Game of Thrones 1.8: Star Wars of the Realms ... Game of Thrones 1.9: Is Ned Really Dead? ... Game of Thrones 1.10 Meets True Blood

And here's a Spanish article in Semana, the leading news magazine in Colombia, in which I'm quoted about explicit sex on television, including on Game of Thrones.

And see "'Game of Thrones': Why the Buzz is So Big" article in The Christian Science Monitor, 8 April 2014, with my quotes.

Also: CNN article, "How 'Game of Thrones' Is Like America," with quote from me

 
"I was here, in Carthage, three months from now." 

#SFWApro

Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music

Outlander 2.10: One True Prediction and Counting

A strong episode 2.10 of Outlander last night, in which Jamie and the Jacobites win the Battle of Prestonplans, as Claire already knew from her history in the future.

So what does this mean for the ongoing series?  Well, the narrative has to be more than Claire's predictions, for better or worse, coming to pass in reality, otherwise we wouldn't have much of a story.

One way of dealing with this is to have characters unknown to history, but well-known and even beloved to us in the story, lose their lives in a winning battle.  This is what happened to good and sad effect last night.   Of course, Jamie and Claire are the best-known anonymous-to-history characters in Outlander, and their fates are therefore always up in the air.

At least, to some extent.  We've already seen this season that Claire not only survives these battles, but makes her way back to the future - and this is, presumably, because Jamie didn't.  But there's no way that Jamie can die in this story (and, again, I haven't read the novels), so this pitches us into the biggest question of this season:

What happened to Jamie to make Claire leave him, short of his dying?   Was Claire lying to Frank in some of what she told him?   Not only that - but with Claire in America, at least for a few years, how on Earth or in fantasy will she ever get back to Jamie?   Will there be some strange stones in the vicinity of Cambridge, MA?

None of that seems too plausible to me, which is one reason I'm looking forward to further episodes.

See also Outlander 2.1: Split Hour ... Outlander 2.2: The King and the Forest ... Outlander 2.3: Mother and Dr. Dog ... Outlander 2.5: The Unappreciated Paradox ... Outlander 2.6: The Duel and the Offspring ...Outlander 2.7: Further into the Future ... Outlander 2.8: The Conversation ... Outlander 2.9: Flashbacks of the Future

And see also Outlander 1.1-3: The Hope of Time Travel ... Outlander 1.6:  Outstanding ... Outlander 1.7: Tender Intertemporal Polygamy ...Outlander 1.8: The Other Side ... Outlander 1.9: Spanking Good ... Outlander 1.10: A Glimmer of Paradox ... Outlander 1.11: Vaccination and Time Travel ... Outlander 1.12: Black Jack's Progeny ...Outlander 1.13: Mother's Day ... Outlander 1.14: All That Jazz ... Outlander Season 1 Finale: Let's Change History




Sierra Waters series, #1, time travel

#SFWApro Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music

Hell on Wheels 5.8: Letting Him Live?

The beginning of the concluding episodes of Hell on Wheels last night - 5.8 - featured the Swede ("I'm Norwegian!") versus Bohannon in an ultimate battle.

In many ways, the very start of the episode was the best, giving us a graphic, stomach-turning explanation of what made the Swede so demented and so filled with hatred for anyone Confederate. You could almost feel sorry for the Swede, even knowing he killed Lily and so many others, until-

Well, until he becomes the Swede with a vengeances, and goes after Bohannon's family.  And here I have trouble suspending my disbelief.   The Swede has killed Bohannon's father-in-law, and come within a hair's breath of killing his wife and little baby - not to mention Bohannon himself - so why does Bohannon not take his wife's good advice and kill the Swede right then and there?

The answer in a good narrative should never be that we needed the Swede alive to tell the rest of the story for the hour, but this is the only convincing explanation that comes to mind.   If you're willing to swallow that, the rest of the hour was as harrowing and riveting as it gets on this blood-and-guts series.  If not, well, then, there's always next week.

As a result of Bohannon taking the Swede to justice, with Bohannon on the very edge of his own life and death, we do get another powerful view of the inexplicability of this hero/anti-hero.  And I suppose that's good.  From the very first episode, Bohannon's motives have not been clear and his actions therefore not predictable, except that he's fundamentally a good man.  Because of that, I can sort of see why Bohannon would risk his life to bring the Swede to hanging justice - but I still don't get why he would allow his family to be at risk, which is what not a killing a psycho, persuasive killer such as the Swede inevitably does.   So far on the series, Bohannon has been nothing but devoted to his new family.

Whether or not Bohannon's motives will become more clear in the episodes ahead remains unclear.  I guess, in an odd way, that this lack of clarity makes the story that much more provocative and appealing.


See also Hell on Wheels 5.1: Rails and Truckee ... Hell on Wheels 5.2: Mei and Cullen ... Hell on Wheels 5.3: Prejudice

And see also Hell on Wheels 4.1-2: Rolling Again ... Hell on Wheels 4.5: New Blood ... Hell on Wheels 4.6: Bear and Sanity ... Hell on Wheels 4.7: Why? ... Hell on Wheels 4.8: Aftermath and Rebound ... Hell on Wheels 4.9: High Noon ... Hell on Wheels 4.10: A Tale of Two Sicko Killers ... Hell on Wheels 4.11: The Redemption of Ruth ... Hell on Wheels 4.12: Infuriating and Worthwhile ... Hell on Wheels Season 4 Finale: The Buffalo

And see also Hell on Wheels 3.1-2: Bohannan in Command ... Hell on Wheels 3.3: Talking and Walking ... Hell on Wheels 3.4: Extreme Lacrosse ... Hell on Wheels 3.5: The Glove ... Hell on Wheels 3.6: The Man in Charge ...Hell on Wheels 3.7: Water, Water ... Hell on Wheels 3.8: Canterbury Tales ...Hell on Wheels 3.9: Shoot-Out and Truths ... Hell on Wheels Season 3 finale: Train Calling in the Distance

And see also  Hell on Wheels: Blood, Sweat, and Tears on the Track, and the Telegraph ... Hell on Wheels 1.6: Horse vs. Rail ... Hell on Wheels 1.8: Multiple Tracks ... Hell on Wheels 1.9: Historical Inevitable and Unknown ... Hell on Wheels Season One Finale: Greek Tragedy, Western Style




deeper history

#SFWApro Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music