Michael Offutt's Blog, page 87

Stranger in a Strange Land is coming to television on the SyFy channel but it really belongs on HBO.

Stranger in a Strange Land is one of my favorite books. In thinking about the upcoming adaptation scheduled to debut on the SyFy channel, I do worry that the network will be unable to do it justice. Much of what makes Stranger in a Strange Land so compelling are the observations made by Valentine Michael Smith, an earthling borne on Mars and raised by Martians (thereby making him the sole owner of the Red Planet as far as corporate rights go). I think it's one of Heinlein's greatest works, because it skillfully navigates the craziness of human existence from the concept of god and how we choose to worship god from faith to faith to faith and even how sexuality all ties into these concepts in ways that most of us fail to notice.

It's also a timely novel and doesn't seem to lose any of its relevance by today's standards. As soon as Michael Valentine Smith is discovered on Mars, corporations and institutions of various kind all try to bend him to their will. Within short order, he's essentially put into prison "for observation" and it becomes clear that institutions (which have an obligation toward self-preservation) will override basic morality if it means they can accomplish their goals. How is this any different than what we saw this year in plurality? But the greatest irony is that Mike learns that in order to connect with the public at large, he must build his own institution because that is the way that people seem to work. And thusly, he founds his own religion (not unlike another "Smith" from history) and eventually meets a fate that is also eerily similar, i.e., he's killed by a mob.

The novel also gives us the word "grok" which originally means to drink water, but morphs into many other things. It comes to be an understanding between two people, or a substitute for some deep understanding of the universe. By the end of the book, "grokking" comes to embrace Mike's idea of god on a cosmic level, and he becomes enlightened to the idea that sexuality (and sex itself) are the greatest gifts that belong to humanity. On Mars, "grokking" is to share water. On Earth, to "grok" extends to kissing and then sharing of other bodily fluids in the ultimate version of what it means to grow closer to another human being.

Now that I've written all of this, I feel that this series should have landed with HBO. But I'm definitely going to give SyFy a chance. I suppose in the end that Syfy just needed to mine another source like Grossman's The Magicians for a profitable series with a built-in audience. Ursula K. LeGuin and Octavia Butler (and other others) are too political subversive for television right now. The hard science fiction crew of Asimov and Niven are probably too difficult for most people to understand, and Orson Scott Card is too damaged to take a chance on any more of his works (seeing as he's basically become a foaming at the mouth alt-right conservative). So Heinlein it is.

Eh, either way I'll be excited about this venture.

Take a moment to educate yourself by watching a video about the depth of the ocean.

This video is amazing if you've ever wondered how deep the ocean was. Things I learned:

1) Penguins dive to a depth where pressure is the equivalent weight of a polar bear standing/balancing on a quarter.

2) If you are flying and look out a window and see the clouds and think, "Wow...I'm really high in the sky," then that's about the depth that the ocean goes to. Impressive, right? It's also a good way to visualize just how much salt water there is out there.

3) We don't really know how deep the ocean is. We're discovering spots that are deeper than we thought from time to time, and most of these places seem to be off the coast of Guam.

4) There are a lot of scary things that call the ocean home, and we've only really explored 5% of it.

Yeah...I don't think I'll be going swimming in it any time soon.

This year we got three technologies that have great potential to be the game-changers of the future.

Pokemon GoI was looking at Pokemon Go last night. Not so much because I love the game, but because of what it represented in breaking as big as it did this year. If you at all followed the phenomenon, it was impressive. And as far as technologies go, Pokemon Go was one of three things that I saw explode on the scene in 2016 that gave us a vision of the future. The other two are the launch of HTC Vive and the Oculus Rift (these both happened in the spring). All of these offer some really unique opportunities to gain enhanced insights by applying their analytics technologies to things people use every day. Allow me to elaborate.

HTC ViveVR and AR hardware and software could be used by to complement ground force GPS tracking data with a near real-time display of the troops on the ground. This would give commanders an immediate familiarity not only with troop movements but with the type of terrain they are moving through, the route ahead, and other such information that could only previously be gleaned by an observer present on the scene. Homeland security organizations and emergency response personnel could make use of the same kind of information in the wake of disasters. Pretty cool, right?

It's even possible that applying VR or AR technology to the analytics information could allow the Census Bureau to save money by zeroing in on households they need to contact.

The Oculus RiftBut it doesn't stop there. Analytics-infused VR could allow the medical industry to make informed decisions that could save millions of dollars a year. Imagine having a doctor in your home, conducting a telehealth consultation where their hologram interacts with you in a virtual reality environment. Present on the VR device you might be wearing are all the health analytics from previous checkups, current vital signs, and other information that's pertinent to your body.

Honestly, when I think about it, the applications for analytics-infused virtual or augmented reality are as unlimited as the creativity of those using them. 2016 has been so different from other years because of so many reasons.

Let's talk about that Wonder Woman trailer that dropped last week.

I absolutely loved the new trailer for Wonder Woman that dropped last week. It is filled with incredibly beautiful shots, however, none grab me so much as this one, where Diana dives into the sea just off the shore of the Amazonian island of Themyscyra to save Steve Trevor. It rightly illustrates just how outside the realm of human athleticism and ability Diana actually is.
Because of press releases, we already know that the movie is set during the first World War. Even Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) correctly calls it "The War To End All Wars," which I believe is how it was referred to back then. It makes me curious if the German troops will be the villains in the film. The Germany of World War I is a lot different from the Germany in World War II. There's a lot more "moral gray area" than the second. The clash of empires slaughtering the flower of youth of an entire continent isn't as good a story as the defeat of an Evil Nazi Empire. However, the distance back in time is difficult for contemporary writers to empathize with, i.e., it's difficult for us to depict class, gender, or race at all accurately for that time and to still feel like we have heroes to for whom to root.
That being said, this adventure that Diana undertakes is supposed to disillusion Wonder Woman for decades to come and make her unwilling to interfere in the world of men. Another thing that occurred to me from watching the trailer is that Diana must have some kind of precognition. She doesn't appear to be moving fast enough to block the bullets by sight (like the Flash). So something about her abilities allows her to see projectiles in time before they actually occur so she knows where to be in order to block them.
Here's the trailer if you haven't seen it yet.

The Walking Dead has been telling us for nearly seven years that the key to leadership is playing a role different from your actual self.

The Walking Dead has been full of interesting villains. However, aside from just being evil, each has adopted a certain "character" to play in leading their disparate groups. I also think this is pretty accurate to how society actually functions. For example, F.D.R. didn't want people to know he couldn't walk, so he played a carefully curated role that people could believe in...one that suggested that he was far healthier than the truth. And over the decades, this kind of thinking hasn't changed much. Just recently Donald Trump called Hillary Clinton "weak" and impled that, "she doesn't have the stamina." It's essentially the same thing.
In the second episode of the new season, we met King Ezekiel who is this larger-than-life character living in a place appropriately called "The Kingdom," and who has a sidekick that's a Bengal tiger. All of his men-at-arms are knights and wear armor, and it's kinda/sorta like a modern renaissance fair. And King Ezekiel owns up to what he's doing in a conversation with Carol that takes place near the end of the episode. He says that he knows it's all a ruse, but it's something that the people just needed with all the horror in the world. That's when it occurred to me that all the other "leaders" are also playing a role. The only reason Ezekiel's really sticks out is because it's so wild.
For example, Rick Grimes is still playing at Sheriff. He's changed a lot because of the world, and doesn't hesitate to just kill people these days, but deep down inside he's still very much into justice. And justice from a certain point-of-view can look a lot like revenge. Still, he seems to be able to mete it out without his mind suffering permanent damage because he's sheltered his psyche within this role he's created for himself...he has a job and a responsibility to his people and how he actually feels about doing certain things need to be separated from his duty. As long as he can focus on that, he seems to be able to survive just about anything.
The same could be said for the Governor. Before he ran arrears of Rick Grimes and company, the Governor was a politician, playing this larger-than-life charismatic role as the leader of Woodbury. Anyone that remotely crossed him ended up dead. However, he was fair to most people as long as you had nothing that he wanted or questioned him in any way. And a glimpse inside his psyche via one of the books revealed an even deeper layer: the fact that he was actually playing the role of his twin brother (who died) and the undead daughter he was keeping wasn't actually his biological daughter, but belonged to his brother. He basically assumed the entire role because his brother was a charismatic good man and that's what he wanted to be. People had "admired" his brother. But you only got that story from the book Rise of the Governor.
The latest batch of people, called "The Saviors," and led by Negan are no different. Negan's playing the role of a Mafioso. He's in charge of this huge family that extorts The Walking Dead's version of "protection money" from communities in exchange for keeping the "undead menace" under control. That's basically what his roving army does. It maintains the herds so that they don't overwhelm and threaten the settlements of Alexandria, Hill Top, and the Kingdom. In truth, of course, they're just parasites feeding off the communities and not really doing all that much constructive. But it's the character that Negan has decided to play. It's why he insists on following through and keeping his word in front of everyone. People need to see that he means business so that his orders are never questioned. Who knows what he's actually like in person, or what kind of person he was before the event that made the dead rise from their graves.

It's an interesting thing to think that successful leadership may depend on how well you can play a certain role. I suppose it makes sense that some of our most powerful leaders (and those aspiring to the highest offices in the land) are essentially actors. It's a truth that the Walking Dead has been telling all along, but it took me seven seasons to actually see it.

The Insecure Writer's Support Group asks what is your favorite aspect of being a writer?

It's the first Wednesday of November, and everyone knows that the first Wednesday of a new month is when we celebrate the blog celebration known as the Insecure Writer's Support Group. The November 2nd question is:

What is your favorite aspect of being a writer?
This is a really fun question, and one that's easy to answer. My favorite part is getting sucked into a story that I find really interesting and then getting feedback/validation from a fan that someone else got sucked into it too. That feeling is just super awesome, and yes I save all of my fan mail.

Thanks for visiting and be sure to check out other insecure writers in the list.

Check out the awesome Alex Ross preview prints for Universal movie studio's shared universe of monsters.

This weekend, website io9 showcased a bunch of Universal movie studio's monster prints commissioned by the amazing Alex Ross. I've been a fan of Alex Ross for decades now. Just about everything he's drawn has been "drool worthy" in my opinion. Anyway, these are just a preview of a bunch that are going to be released at next year's San Diego Comic Con to celebrate Universal's shared monster universe (you know, like Marvel's shared universe and the shared universe of CW's DC lineup). Check these out because they're awesome.

Okay it's time to weigh in on the season seven premiere of The Walking Dead

SPOILER ALERT: YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

Along with seventeen million other people, I watched the premiere on Sunday night. I was shocked that we lost two main characters in the same night, and Glenn's death struck me much harder than Abraham's. The camera stayed on him so long...with that eye just bulging out...and saying, "Maggie, I will find you." As if somehow those two could be happy in an afterlife, because the world of The Walking Dead is so cruel.

Negan as a villain is a game-changer for the series. Nothing will ever be the same. Rick's a broken man, Maggie will be ruminating over the death of Glenn for the rest of her life, and the others will have PTSD at seeing their friends bludgeoned to death in front of them by a maniac with a barbed wire baseball bat.

However, I didn't like the way the showrunners handled the introduction of Negan. I think putting all of this into the last season would have been a much better storytelling play. The premiere just seemed to drag on and on and on. It's like The Walking Dead decided to heavily troll its very loyal (and powerful) audience, which smacks of a television show taking its viewers "for granted."

That being said, there are hundreds of articles already written about the season seven premiere. I want to point out that there's always a disconnect between when critics think a show is no longer conveying a meaningful message and when viewers grow tired of it. I consider myself a viewer and not a critic and yes, the show had me on the edge of my seat, frustrated that it was taking soooo long to figure out who Negan killed, and it will have absolutely no impact on whether or not I continue to watch as that is a given. I have to see the new characters, the leader of the Kingdom, and his tiger companion. That will be just too cool.

I have to believe after watching all of this brutality and seeing characters I get emotionally invested in get destroyed, that there is an endgame plan. I want it to be some kind of conclusion that offers a glimmer of hope, where humanity overcomes an insurmountable apocalyptic situation. I also know though that Kirkman (the creator of the comic book) has said this is a really long story. So whatever ends up happening, we won't know for many years to come. And if the premiere is any kind of foreshadowing, there is much more darkness to come before things start to improve.

In Full Frontal Samantha Bee asks female heads of state around the world about misogyny.

If you have time, watch this six minute clip from Samantha Bee's Full Frontal. I found it interesting, because she goes around and asks female heads of state around the world about misogyny. If anything, it's a real eye-opener.

Works of fiction should not be edited to conform with political correctness because they aren't real and are only there to entertain.

I got into an interesting conversation this weekend with my friend Meg about The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Basically, she said she wasn't interested in it because the movie (playing at a local theater with live shadow acting) promotes "rape culture." It was an interesting comment because I came back with the opinion that it's a work of fiction. Dr. Frankenfurter is not a real character. I followed up with the question, "Does our fiction need to be edited so that it doesn't promote 'rape culture' or so that it becomes politically correct?" When I asked her this question, she indicated in not so many words that she didn't mean it that way. However my question did give her pause to think about the implications of being able to distinguish between reality and fiction.

We live in a very peculiar world right now. Facts and everyday realities, if they don't agree with what a person believes to be true, are now being dismissed as partisan opinion. There are many people who (because of this environment) are unable to tell truth from lie, fact from fiction, or fantasy from reality. I've never seen anything quite like it. You can actually present a video to some people, and if that actual video doesn't agree with what they believe, they'll dispute it saying it's faked. I'm troubled by the new realities that seem to be sweeping the nation, where facts no longer seem to matter, and conspiracy theories and untruths are things that people believe with all their heart.

That being said, I'm more thankful than I ever have been that the First Amendment exists. I never really expected the threat to actual fiction to come from the political left, but I see that there's a bunch of people out there who believe that works of fiction need to be "edited" so as not to portray anything that may be "triggers" for people. For example, there are people who believe that Game of Thrones and Westworld should be modified so that they don't portray so much sexual assault. I of course disagree with this. The programs should feature as much sexual assault as the writer wants. No one is forcing anyone to consume either the programs (or the books). If someone is against these things, then start a discourse as to why.

The argument (of course) is that some people are being encouraged by what they see in film and in fiction books and even (by extension) video games. And that's where I think society needs to really think about what's going on here: people are losing their ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality. Why is this happening? Do we blame education and belief systems? Or do we look at ourselves and realize that there are conversations taking place every day meant to break down trust and faith that once existed between people only to shift that trust and faith to someone else who has a singular objective: to make money. I suppose this is one of the real downsides of capitalism. Anyone care to weigh in?