V for Vendetta sets the stage for a great question within the first chapter of the book: Can a villain ever be good? The book starts off with showing the readers the world that the characters live in. It's a strict dictatorship with leaders monitoring every moment. The police--or fingermen-- have total control and can punish criminals however they please. In the midst of punishment by a fingerman V shows up and it seems like a typical superhero story until you listen to him talk a little bit more. V identifies as a villain, not a hero.
Once V introduces himself (note: we don't actually know if he's a man at this point, but the mask he wears is a man's face, so for the sake of simplicity I'm going to call him a him) as a villain I couldn't help, but notice everything he does lines up with what stereotypical villains do. He kidnapped a state official, blew up a building, killed guards and did many more things. Yet he was doing all of this to fight an oppressive government, so wasn't it justified?
He also did help people, for example the prostitute he saved from the fingerman, and believed that he was indirectly helping many by taking down the government. But even with all these reasons I couldn't get past how many people he was killing in order to just prove his point and push his agenda.
The other part of this that was bugging me was that we don't even know if the government was truly as bad as V claims they are. We know that they aren't great people, as the run concentration camps, but V could also be looked at as equally terrible, so what gives him the justification to kill people to support his idea when the government is being judged for doing the exact same thing.
I think that so far in the book V for Vendetta brings up a great point that maybe there isn't truly a hero ever. There are only villains of different levels and motivations and it's up to the people to decide which one they will label as their hero.
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
Craphound
My dad is super into garage sale hunting, goodwill shopping, buying beat down houses and all that so it was really amusing to me to read what was happening inside somebody's head that was also like this because it seemed so accurate. I can definitely picture my dad being Scott, a local businessman who is secretly a craphound, and thinking in this futuristic-old western way. It almost seemed as if this story really could take place in modern day with a normal person who was just really into their hobby and had an overly active imagination.
One thing I really liked about Craphound was how subtle it was that Craphound wasn't human. Obviously they mentioned a few things abut him that were super non-human, like his height and teeth, but it wasn't overwhelming. I didn't find myself constantly confused about what he looked like or distracted trying to picture him, but instead I was able to focus on the actual story and what was happening with craphound emotionally. It wasn't until we started talking in class that I really started to wonder what he would look like--prior to that I had just been picturing him as a slightly odd human, not like this:
I also loved the ending and how surprising it was. For me it was really cool how the author had you getting all riled up with Craphound because he wasn't being a good friend and was taking over the craphounding (Is that what it would even be called...maybe hunting?) and then he had us super mad at craphound for getting the glasses, but then suddenly switched it and made Craphound a really good person (or I guess alien) and made us love him as a character. I really enjoy when authors add a twist at the end and I do have to admit that I definitely did not see this one coming at all.
One thing I really liked about Craphound was how subtle it was that Craphound wasn't human. Obviously they mentioned a few things abut him that were super non-human, like his height and teeth, but it wasn't overwhelming. I didn't find myself constantly confused about what he looked like or distracted trying to picture him, but instead I was able to focus on the actual story and what was happening with craphound emotionally. It wasn't until we started talking in class that I really started to wonder what he would look like--prior to that I had just been picturing him as a slightly odd human, not like this:
I also loved the ending and how surprising it was. For me it was really cool how the author had you getting all riled up with Craphound because he wasn't being a good friend and was taking over the craphounding (Is that what it would even be called...maybe hunting?) and then he had us super mad at craphound for getting the glasses, but then suddenly switched it and made Craphound a really good person (or I guess alien) and made us love him as a character. I really enjoy when authors add a twist at the end and I do have to admit that I definitely did not see this one coming at all.
Friday, March 24, 2017
Firefly: Scifi or not?
So Firefly definitely takes place in a world that has somewhat different technology than we currently have, but I'm not sure that makes it science fiction.
I think that, mainly, science fiction needs to have more of a difference in technology than Firefly has. When we look at other "classic" works of science fiction they have a huge technology gap. For example in Frankenstein they had enough technology to create life in the story while in reality they had nothing even close to that. And in Star Wars not only did they have to advanced ships, but they also had advanced weapons and medical devices. Whereas in Firefly we only see a leap in technology in the ships, and it could even be argued that their weapons and cars were less advanced than what we currently have. I think that the lack of a large gap in technology doesn't allow us to be as amazed. With large gaps we can look at the technology and be stunned as to how it could work and how cool it is and have real discussions over it (like the Star Trek teleporter), but in Firefly were so close to having the technology that it doesn't give us that same opportunity.
I also think they they technology should affect the characters and plot more in a science fiction story. Looking back at Star Trek again most of the episodes heavily relied on a fictional piece of technology or creature, for example the Holodeck played a big part in at least part of the story when it got infected and everybody and t work to figure out what happened. I think the Firefly could easily be the same story if it were on Earth in the west. They don't rely on the ship or its technology as much as they could, it could easily be replaced by a boat or a car and it wouldn't change the story at all.
That all being said I still really enjoyed the story. I thought that it was really well put together and a good plot line. The characters also seems to have more development and connections in the two episodes we watched than in any other movie/show we've seen so far. Thats is definitely close to, if not at, the top of my list (not quite sure it beats Red Dwarf) in terms of best things we've read or watched this year.
I think that, mainly, science fiction needs to have more of a difference in technology than Firefly has. When we look at other "classic" works of science fiction they have a huge technology gap. For example in Frankenstein they had enough technology to create life in the story while in reality they had nothing even close to that. And in Star Wars not only did they have to advanced ships, but they also had advanced weapons and medical devices. Whereas in Firefly we only see a leap in technology in the ships, and it could even be argued that their weapons and cars were less advanced than what we currently have. I think that the lack of a large gap in technology doesn't allow us to be as amazed. With large gaps we can look at the technology and be stunned as to how it could work and how cool it is and have real discussions over it (like the Star Trek teleporter), but in Firefly were so close to having the technology that it doesn't give us that same opportunity.
I also think they they technology should affect the characters and plot more in a science fiction story. Looking back at Star Trek again most of the episodes heavily relied on a fictional piece of technology or creature, for example the Holodeck played a big part in at least part of the story when it got infected and everybody and t work to figure out what happened. I think the Firefly could easily be the same story if it were on Earth in the west. They don't rely on the ship or its technology as much as they could, it could easily be replaced by a boat or a car and it wouldn't change the story at all.
That all being said I still really enjoyed the story. I thought that it was really well put together and a good plot line. The characters also seems to have more development and connections in the two episodes we watched than in any other movie/show we've seen so far. Thats is definitely close to, if not at, the top of my list (not quite sure it beats Red Dwarf) in terms of best things we've read or watched this year.
Friday, March 3, 2017
Red Mars
So while reading this book I started to realise that almost all of the characters are really relatable, but also had to relate too at the same time. It was like while I was reading half the time I was like "I feel you" and then the other half of the time I sort of hated them. Out of the characters that I've read the parts from their POVs heres what I decided:
John Boone:
John Boone:
- Relatable: When people broke into his room and he was yelling at him we saw John fighting a smile like he was having a ton of fun fighting with them.
- What I have a problem with: So far to me he seems obnoxiously sure of himself and perfect. He's popular, he was the first man to walk on the moon, and he's allowed on the Ares even though he shouldn't be. I feel like he got away with a lot just because of his charm.
Frank Chalmers:
- Relatable: Less of a relatable thing and more of a good trait is that he actually appears to think things through, even if we don;t agree with his end ideas.
- What I have a problem with: ....well...you know....the whole wanting to murder your best friend thing
Maya:
- Relatable: Her love triangle. She is very centered on boys/men which I think most girls can relate to on some level. Another cool part is how she uses her emotions to help the others at some points during the book.
- What I have a problem with: Her love triangle. Also the boys/men thing again. It'd relatable when you are in high school, but she isn't. This is a full grown astronaut we're talking about it just doesn't seem mature enough. On top of it not being mature she seems to be a very stereotypical girl with a
Nadia:
- Relatable: Once again less relatable and more awesome is that she's an engineer. Having a female engineer as a main character is pretty rare today, but its even more awesome that they made her in the 90's. Go Nadia breaking down those stereotypes.
- What I have a problem with: I don't really have any problems with Nadia.
Michel:
- Relatable: His homesickness.
- What I have a problem with with: He seems to just do what he thinks others want him to do.
Thursday, February 23, 2017
The Dissapearing Chekhov
Is Star Trek really Star Trek without Chekhov??? I vote no. Chekhov and Kirk really make the show (mainly Chekhov). That being said I did enjoy Star Trek: The Next Generation, I think they did a pretty good job at replacing Kirk, but some things still stood out to me as to ought some things were really improved in it compared to the original, but some things really slacked off too.
I like how there has been a leap in the gender norms. Picard really was a step up from Kirk's manly man persona, but almost a step too far. He's got some manly sides, like how he'll try to protect people, but he also doesn't fight for his people as much as he should and can be too ignorant for his own good. For example with the Tamarians Picard refuses the knife he was offered. While in the end it turned out to be a good thing that he stayed peaceful I think it's pretty unrealistic that such a passive way of approaching situations would always turn out ok. While Kirk's super assertive way might not have been the best approach either he would have died fighting for his ship instead of running like Picard did with the Borg. (Side note on the gender norms: with the girls they haven't really gotten any better as the majority of the girl's we have seen are either in low cut shirts or shown to be annoying which is really annoying in and of itself).
I think the best and most obvious replacement of Kirk was Riker I mean he's basically Kirk with a much cooler way of sitting.
He's huge with the ladies and is the epitome on manliness, just like Kirk. The only difference is that he's not captain yet. I actually really like this aspect of it because it gives Riker something to strive towards, but also adds depth to his character (how he won't leave his ship even if it meant becoming a captain) that we never really got to see in Kirk.
My bigger problem comes with Chekhov. There doesn't even appear to be an attempt at a replacement with him. The only way I can reason with this is by saying that there is no replacement of Chekhov, that he's simply too good to recreate and it wouldn't even be worth trying. I mean how can you replace how perfect he is.
And while I totally agree with my reasoning something tells me it wasn't the same as the producers, so it leads me to wonder why they didn't even try to make a new Chekhov.
Thursday, February 9, 2017
Tlic
While reading Bloodchild I got curious as to what the Tlics looked like. We new that they coiled a bit, had legs that could make a cage, and had a tail with a stinger that could go out or in, but I was having trouble visualizing it so I did some research. Most of the pictures and more in-depth descriptions I found ended up looking like these:
They all seemed to agree that the tlics looked like an enlarged centipede mixed with something else, though some had them looking more like dragons. Throughout all of these there was one thing in common: they all seemed incredibly terrifying. I don't know about you but if one of those came up to me--even if I knew them-- it would scare the crap out of me and I can imgine ever laying in their "cage.". But in Bloodchild everybody seemed either resentful or in love, nobody was scared of them, though it could be argues that the brother's hate came from a place of fear. Which leads me to wonder have they grown accustomed to the looks and actions of the Tilcs or is the fear just laying low in all the Terrans.
They all seemed to agree that the tlics looked like an enlarged centipede mixed with something else, though some had them looking more like dragons. Throughout all of these there was one thing in common: they all seemed incredibly terrifying. I don't know about you but if one of those came up to me--even if I knew them-- it would scare the crap out of me and I can imgine ever laying in their "cage.". But in Bloodchild everybody seemed either resentful or in love, nobody was scared of them, though it could be argues that the brother's hate came from a place of fear. Which leads me to wonder have they grown accustomed to the looks and actions of the Tilcs or is the fear just laying low in all the Terrans.
Thursday, January 26, 2017
Neuromancer
Throughout the Neuromancer a common theme we see is drugs. In the beginning there is no question as to if Case was addicted to drugs or not. Rivera is constantly in need of drugs in order to function. And Molly uses drugs to push through pain.
While reading this book I couldn't help but wonder if the idea of drugs went beyond the most surface level sense--people simply taking drugs-- to more of a symbol. I think that they people in the Neuromancer also represent drugs.
My hint to this was Molly. During the story the way Case treats Molly seems a lot like a drug to me. He feels like he needs her, really enjoys her presence, and she gives him a few small gifts like the ninja star (the same was drugs could give you the "small gift" of a high). But in the end she leaves him and hurts him. This also explains how quickly he grew fond of Molly, much like how Case would grow to love a drug quickly he grew to like Molly.
When Case first encounters Molly he was addicted to drugs and trying to find something that would make him feel. She acted as a new drug, something he could care about. Though they started out as just friends with benefits it seemed to grow more romantic. This is just like how you could start off using a drug just for fun, but then grow to need and and depend on it. When Molly left was right when he decided to start a new life and ditch drugs.
The name Molly also hints towards a drug since Molly is also the street name for a very pure form of methylenedioxymethamphetamine, or MDMA (basically super concentrated Ecstasy). In the 1980's there was a spike in the use of Molly and it became very popular to people to take at parties. Sine the Neuromancer was released in 1984, right in the middle of the spike, Molly could have been named after the drug.
I think that Molly is the Neuromancer is a symbol for the drug culture at the time: appears nice and strong, but in the end it will hurt you and leave you.
While reading this book I couldn't help but wonder if the idea of drugs went beyond the most surface level sense--people simply taking drugs-- to more of a symbol. I think that they people in the Neuromancer also represent drugs.
My hint to this was Molly. During the story the way Case treats Molly seems a lot like a drug to me. He feels like he needs her, really enjoys her presence, and she gives him a few small gifts like the ninja star (the same was drugs could give you the "small gift" of a high). But in the end she leaves him and hurts him. This also explains how quickly he grew fond of Molly, much like how Case would grow to love a drug quickly he grew to like Molly.
When Case first encounters Molly he was addicted to drugs and trying to find something that would make him feel. She acted as a new drug, something he could care about. Though they started out as just friends with benefits it seemed to grow more romantic. This is just like how you could start off using a drug just for fun, but then grow to need and and depend on it. When Molly left was right when he decided to start a new life and ditch drugs.
The name Molly also hints towards a drug since Molly is also the street name for a very pure form of methylenedioxymethamphetamine, or MDMA (basically super concentrated Ecstasy). In the 1980's there was a spike in the use of Molly and it became very popular to people to take at parties. Sine the Neuromancer was released in 1984, right in the middle of the spike, Molly could have been named after the drug.
I think that Molly is the Neuromancer is a symbol for the drug culture at the time: appears nice and strong, but in the end it will hurt you and leave you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)