Richard Lee Byers's Blog, page 59

THINGS I LEARNED ABOUT SCIENCE FROM POPULAR ENTERTAINMENT

There are five kinds of scientific experiment (although occasionally research can fall into multiple categories):

1. Mad. Mad experiments are undertaken purely to demonstrate that the experimenter has figured out how to do something no sensible person wants to do, like snuff out the sun, or melt everybody's eyeballs. The distinguishing characteristic of a mad experiment is that there is no hope of a positive outcome for anyone, even the experimenter.

2. Evil. Evil experiments are undertaken for antisocial but comprehensible reasons, like conquering the world, or exacting a gruesome revenge on those who played a cruel prank on the experimenter back in high school. Gadgets like death rays and mind control helmets often fall into this category unless developed to counter a clear and present danger like an extraterrestrial invasion.

We should note that the distinction between mad and evil research may depend on context. If Lex Luthor tries to turn all humans into apes, we may well view that as mad. But if Grodd, who is an ape, attempts the same thing, we may discern a practical, albeit diabolical, reason for his actions.

3. Reckless. Reckless research is conducted for worthy ends, but with insufficient attention to safety. Often the researcher has personal issues that convince him speed is paramount. "My wife is dying! So you bet I'm going to inject her with my untested serum of shark and vampire bat DNA! What's the worst that could happen?"

4. Unlucky. Unlucky experiments seem like they ought to be safe, but have disastrous outcomes anyway. You could try to develop the next generation of ShamWow and create a black hole. You could look through a telescope at a strange celestial object and get irradiated with an entirely new form of energy that turns you into the Amazing Antimatter Man. Sometimes these things just happen.

5. Miraculous Breakthrough. The experimenter who makes a miraculous breakthrough leaps far ahead of current science and technology to achieve the seemingly impossible. He may, for example, build a faster-than-light spaceship when no one else has even worked out how to send a manned mission to Mars.

Miraculous breakthroughs are most often accomplished by eccentric mavericks, especially those scorned by their colleagues. They also tend to occur in primitive and adverse circumstances. Some may wonder how Tony Stark could construct his first suit of Iron Man armor in a cave, with his injured heart giving out and terrorists threatening to kill him. But in fact, conditions were ideal.

*

The most difficult and important scientific problems are solved through the power of crude analogies.

When something calamitous is occurring, like a breakdown in the structure of space-time, the government is likely to assemble a crack team of geniuses to save the day. These Nobel Prize winners tackle the problem with higher math, advanced technology, and all the other tools of their esoteric disciplines. Still, little progress can be made until an Everyman type finds his way to the research facility, listens to a brief explanation of the crisis, and then says something on the order of: "So you're saying...space-time is like an onion!" This prompts the scientists to consider the problem in a whole new way and ultimately points to the solution.

It helps if the Everyman has made a perilous cross-country journey prior to reaching the research facility, and if only hours or minutes remain before the developing threat progresses to a point where absolutely nothing can stop it.

*

Slow, careful remedies never work, but fortunately, they don't have to.

Scientists often plan to avert an impending disaster by doing something like meticulously placing charges, then setting them off at just the right moment and in just the right sequence. The purpose may be to knock an asteroid off its trajectory and so keep it from hitting the earth, or to start the planet's core rotating again. Whatever it is, the scientists always agree that the fix must be applied with flawless precision.

One can never predict whether it will be a meteor shower, a crewman falling prey to psychosis, or some other difficulty, but something always happens to keep the team from executing the plan in its original form. Instead, they find themselves reduced to detonating the bombs (or doing whatever) fast, by dead reckoning, at the last possible instant. Happily, this turns out to work every bit as well as relying on timers and computers.

*

If a machine can make something happen, it can make it unhappen.

A good example of this is the machine Reed Richards builds in the first Fantastic Four movie to restore Ben Grimm's humanity. When Ben decides he still needs his super-strength, he hits the button, steps back into the box, and presto, he's the Thing again.

You can observe the same principle at work in your kitchen, by using your oven or microwave to cook food, then make it raw again.

THINGS I LEARNED ABOUT SCIENCE FROM POPULAR ENTERTAINMENT

There are five kinds of scientific experiment (although occasionally research can fall into multiple categories):

1. Mad. Mad experiments are undertaken purely to demonstrate that the experimenter has figured out how to do something no sensible person wants to do, like snuff out the sun, or melt everybody's eyeballs. The distinguishing characteristic of a mad experiment is that there is no hope of a positive outcome for anyone, even the experimenter.

2. Evil. Evil experiments are undertaken f...

THE CONSPIRACY ROOM

Not along ago, I was a guest speaker at Sci-Fi High, a summer writing program for young people. I mention this now because the students and teachers were kind enough to send me a packet of the graphic novels the kids created as their collaborative projects.

All four stories were imaginative and fun, and I learned something, too. One of the tales depicts the villains' fortress as having a "conspiracy room." You know, a special place for evildoers to conspire in.

And I thought, that makes perfect sense. How come, when I've written about the dark lord's castle or whatever over the years, it's never had a conspiracy room? Look for this architectural feature to figure prominently in my work from now on.

*

I recently attended Gen Con and had a great time as usual. I particularly enjoyed playing in LARPs run by the BYOV and Elder Entertainment teams, so thanks and kudos to them.

I'd never LARPed before Gen Con '08, and I've never LARPed anywhere except Gen Con. But the games there are great.

I enjoy them partly for the same reason I like the terrific horror RPG Dread. The player can play without having to worry about the underlying mechanics. Don't get me wrong, I still like D&D. But it's cool to play something where you don't have to mess with arithmetic, and the action never stalls while somebody flips though a rulebook.

*

I was recently approached by a literary agent interested in representing me. I researched the guy a little bit (which wasn't difficult, because he already worked with one of my friends), we talked for an hour on the phone, and the upshot is that, after years of wandering alone in the literary wilderness, I'm going to have representation again.

Call me a wuss, but I found the whole process fairly stressful. Because, while I found ample reason to believe that this particular agent can do me a lot of good, you can't know for sure that's going to happen. Ultimately, you're taking a leap of faith, and one that involves your livelihood.

I guess that's true of anybody making a career decision. I do think, though, that we freelance creative types have to live with a higher level of uncertainty that most people.

So feel sorry for us, damn it. Give us money.

*

I was recently interviewed. If you'd like to read the results, go to this address:

http://grindingtovalhalla.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/reading-the-text-richard-lee-byers/

*

And if you'd like to read my most recent short story, pick up the new anthology Gamer Fantastic, edited by Martin H. Greenberg and Kerrie Hughes, now available from DAW Books.

 

The End

THE CONSPIRACY ROOM

Not along ago, I was a guest speaker at Sci-Fi High, a summer writing program for young people. I mention this now because the students and teachers were kind enough to send me a packet of the graphic novels the kids created as their collaborative projects.

All four stories were imaginative and fun, and I learned something, too. One of the tales depicts the villains' fortress as having a "conspiracy room." You know, a special place for evildoers to conspire in.

And I thought, that makes perfect

GOOD INTENTIONS ARE NOT ENOUGH

Obviously. When I started this blog, I was resolved to update it regularly. But it's been a couple months since I last posted.

That's because I've been busy finishing my new Forgotten Realms novel and teaching online. But now the book is done (at least until my editor kicks it back for rewrites), and I have a somewhat better handle on the online teaching gig. So maybe I can do the blog more often. For the time being, anyway.

This will be kind of a grab-bag, catch-up post.

*

The best movies I've

GOOD INTENTIONS ARE NOT ENOUGH

Obviously. When I started this blog, I was resolved to update it regularly. But it's been a couple months since I last posted.

That's because I've been busy finishing my new Forgotten Realms novel and teaching online. But now the book is done (at least until my editor kicks it back for rewrites), and I have a somewhat better handle on the online teaching gig. So maybe I can do the blog more often. For the time being, anyway.

This will be kind of a grab-bag, catch-up post.

*

The best movies I've seen so far this summer: Drag Me to Hell, The Hangover, Bruno, and Funny People. The common denominator (aside from the fact that three are comedies and Drag Me to Hell actually has a lot of humor in it, too) is that they all feel like stories somebody was actually enthusiastic about telling. As opposed to many other recent movies, where, even when they were enjoyable, you could sit and watch the filmmakers following the official Hollywood formula for a successful summer movie, checking off the beats one by one.

Night at the Museum 2: Battle for the Smithsonian is an example of what I mean. It's fairly entertaining, thanks mainly to Hank Azaria channeling Boris Karloff and Amy Adams reminding us of every plucky tomboy heroine from the movies of the 30's. But it's Product with a capital P.

And the reason I'm singling it out is because it was written by Thomas Lennon and Robert Ben Garant. Who also write and appear on Reno 911, a show that's a hundred times funnier than NatM 2. I think it's safe to say that you can tell where these guys are following the recipe, and where they're having fun and letting their creativity run wild.

*

The worst movie I've seen this summer: Terminator: Salvation. Nothing else comes close. If you can get through all the sappy, heavy-handed symbolism of "the human heart" without throwing up in your mouth a little, shame on you.

Something did occur to me as I was watching the movie, though. Kind of a tip, which I will pass along:

If you're an unstoppable, superstrong juggernaut trying to kill some puny human with your bare hands, don't pick him up, throw him, walk over to where he landed, pick him up, throw him, walk over to where he landed, etc.

You're just begging for him to make it to the dangling electrical cable, steam pipe, forklift, or whatever else he needs to kill you.

Grab him, hold onto him, and squeeze his neck until you crush his windpipe and his spines breaks. Or beat his skull to mush. Either way.

*

Harry Potter and the Half-Missing Exposition

I caught the new Potter movie, and found many things to like about it. But, like all the Potter movies except the first one, it contains elements that make no sense.

At least they make no sense to me, who only read the first novel. I'm told that if you've read the entire series, all is clear. But it's poor storytelling to film an adaptation that only makes sense to people familiar with the source material.

Why is the potion book important, anyway? Why does it need to be hidden? I saw the flick, and I have no idea.

And are the good adult wizards (Dumbledore excluded) doing anything to counter the growing threat of Voldemort? Or are they capable of nothing but fretting and getting picked off whenever the enemy decides to grease them? That's the way it looks in the movie.

I know Harry's the Chosen One, but still, come on! Even if the good adults are scared to face Voldemort, they could try to destroy his followers. Or leave burning bags of dog shit on their porches, ring their doorbells, and run. Something.

*

My conventions appearances between now and the end of the year: Gen Con (August, Indianapolis), Spooky Empire (October, Orlando, Saturday only, probably), and Necronomicon (October, St. Petersburg.) If you're going to any of them, I hope we run into each other.

*

Finally, I'd like to enlist your help in an important cause. I assume you support the rights of the unborn, and likewise the right to bear arms. It follows, then, that you support the right of the unborn to bear arms.

More than two hundred years after the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, the Federal government is finally taking practical steps to guarantee this fundamental right. House Bill 12344321.1221 requires every expectant mother to have a loaded handgun surgically implanted during the first trimester. I urge you to contact your Congressman and express your support. Otherwise, the terrorists win.

ANGELS AND DEMONS

I caught the movie version of Angels and Demons yesterday and thought I'd share my reactions. As usual, if you're leery of spoilers, the safe thing to do is to skip this post.

The good news is, it's better than The Da Vinci Code. I didn't walk out of the multiplex vowing bloody revenge on Ron Howard. For one thing, this time around, Tom Hanks doesn't have that ghastly haircut. For another, Angels and Demons has a faster-paced, more exciting plot. If you like the kind of story where the hero is racing the clock solving puzzles to prevent some terrible catastrophe, and somebody pops out of the shadows and tries to kill him every once in a while, you'll probably enjoy it.

But I will provide three qualifications to that already-tepid recommendation. The first is that with the arguable exception of the villain, all the characters are one-dimensional. Even Tom Hanks, with his considerable acting skill, can't make Robert Langdon into much more than a Tom Hanksy kind of guy who knows about the Renaissance and shit. The script just doesn't give him anything more to work with.

I didn't find that to be a fatal flaw. Years ago (which is why I can't refer you to the specific book or article), I read something Orson Scott Card said about fiction. He pointed out that there are different kinds of stories, and, contrary to what your English teacher may have told you, not all kinds absolutely require probing the depths of the characters' psyches to achieve their desired effects. And I don't think Angels and Demons needs it.

But here's the catch. Some consumers of stories simply don't enjoy them unless they have strong characterization. If you happen to be that sort of viewer, this movie isn't for you.

Let me also say that if you're troubled when a flick pays fast and loose with the laws of physics, or with the rules it sets up for itself early on, you may find yourself annoyed with Angels and Demons. The Magoffin here is an antimatter bomb. If my (admittedly imperfect) understanding of physics is correct, or if we simply go by what the movie tells us about the violence of the impending explosion, then it doesn't seem credible that when the bomb does go off, it doesn't kill everybody in St. Peter's Square. There's just no way the helicopter could have carried it high enough in the time allotted.

But my biggest problem with the movie was the way it smugly pretends to have something profound to say. Ostensibly, it's about the conflict between faith and reason, or, if you prefer, religion and science. And (forgive me if this shocks you) it ends up telling us that, despite any appearances to the contrary, there isn't really any conflict at all.

I'm not going to break away from talking about a movie to share my thoughts on whether or not that's likely to be true. But I will point out that it's a cliché. It's the same bland, reassuring, let's-try-to-make-everybody-happy message that popular fiction generally dishes up when it comes anywhere near this subject.

Now, I'm not invariably opposed to clichés. (And if you read that and said, I know, I read your books, I said it first, so nyah.) But there's no point trading in clichéd messages unless you can at least deliver them in a new or compelling way. Unfortunately, Angels and Demons really only tackles its theme in a shallow and perfunctory fashion. So if it irritates you when a movie takes itself way more seriously than it has any right to, you may also want to give this one a pass.

ANGELS AND DEMONS

I caught the movie version of Angels and Demons yesterday and thought I'd share my reactions. As usual, if you're leery of spoilers, the safe thing to do is to skip this post.

<>The good news is, it's better than The Da Vinci Code. I didn't walk out of the multiplex vowing bloody revenge on Ron Howard. For one thing, this time around, Tom Hanks doesn't have that ghastly haircut. For another, Angels and Demons has a faster-paced, more exciting plot. If you like the kind of story where the hero is r</>

X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE

Oops. It's been a while. Despite my resolve to post new blog entries regularly, the combination of starting my next Forgotten Realms novel and my new online teaching job got the better of me.

But I did find time to catch X-Men Origins: Wolverine over the weekend, and I've got time to write a blog entry this afternoon. So let me tell you what I thought of the flick. But as always, I don't promise to avoid any and all spoilers, so if you haven't seen it yet, read on at your own risk.

<>First off, I </>

X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE

Oops. It's been a while. Despite my resolve to post new blog entries regularly, the combination of starting my next Forgotten Realms novel and my new online teaching job got the better of me.

But I did find time to catch X-Men Origins: Wolverine over the weekend, and I've got time to write a blog entry this afternoon. So let me tell you what I thought of the flick. But as always, I don't promise to avoid any and all spoilers, so if you haven't seen it yet, read on at your own risk.

First off, I liked it. I don't think it's as good a superhero movie as Iron Man or The Dark Knight, but it's plenty good enough to be entertaining.

I thought it did a good job of taking Wolverine's insanely complicated back story from the comics and turning it into something that makes sense and mostly works dramatically on screen. It accomplishes this partly by focusing on three underlying themes from that vast maze of material:

1. Wolverine has been the victim of constant attempts to manipulate and control him.

2. Wolverine has led a tragic life and watched many loved ones die violent deaths.

3. Wolverine has a dark, raging, animalistic side.

The movie nails 1. And 2. It talks about 3., but fails to sell it. As portrayed by Hugh Jackman, Wolverine just seems like a good man coping as best he can with desperate and horrific circumstances. We see him fight for his life, but we never see him go berserk, or look like he's in any danger of doing so.

Well, two out of three ain't bad.

The movie offers up a smorgasbord of mutant characters, some to good effect, some in such minor roles that if you like them from the comics, you're likely to feel cheated by how little you see of them. Liev Schreiber is convincingly scary as Victor Creed, and makes you glad the casting director didn't go with a pro wrestler this time around. Ryan Reynolds is a lot of fun as Deadpool, and it's nice to know that he's going to star in a Deadpool movie. Some good writing and Taylor Kitsch's performance actually made me like Gambit, even though I've always detested him in the comics. (That's why he wasn't in the X-Men novel I wrote some years back.)

The movie does have some of those annoying moments where, even if the characters' powers work as defined, they do things they shouldn't be able to do. We get it that adamantium makes Wolverine's claws unbreakable, but that shouldn't mean they can slash through anything. There's more to cutting than just the relative hardness of the substances involved. If you had an axe made of diamond, you couldn't use it to chop through a steel girder with a single swing. But in this movie, you probably could.

But you can kind of forgive the filmmakers that one, because that is often the way Wolverine's claws work in the comics. I was more annoyed by (and here I really am getting spoiler-y, so last chance to stop reading)

 

 

 

 

 

the plot device used to erase Wolverine's memory. Stryker says, I need him to forget what I did to him. So I'll shoot him in the head with these adamantium bullets. And there are two problems with that.

The first is that you can't just assume that if you shoot a guy in the head and he doesn't die, it's inevitable that he'll end up with a case of total amnesia. It doesn't work like that. Even if Stryker could know what part of the brain to aim for, it's not like he gets to place his shots precisely. Wolverine's rushing him as he's blasting away.

The second is that while Wolverine's flesh and bone regenerate, the adamantium sheathing his skull wouldn't. From this point onward, there would be spots the metal didn't cover. So Wolverine wouldn't be the guy with completely unbreakable bones that he's supposed to be.

This too is no stupider than a lot of what goes down in the comics. But it would be nice to see movies present what's great in the source material while omitting contrivances so lame that we can't buy them even in the context of a world of superpowers and super-science.