In storytelling, Science-Fiction has been a very popular genre for hundreds of years, and not without reason. Since the dawn of man, humans have attempted to discover what lies in their future. Whether it be via arcane fortune-telling or modern computer simulation, we have always tried to predict what may come, leaving "Sci-Fi" to be quite an intriguing prospect. Within this genre, there are two main categories: soft and hard Sci-Fi.
"Soft Science-Fiction" is likely the more common of the two. It entails little practical explanation of the futuristic technology, equipment, weapons, etc. that are found within the story. It is simply treated as a given that the explanation would be too complex for the audience to understand, and are thus given none.
"Hard Science-Fiction" is arguably the far more interesting of the two. It entails that all or most of the futuristic technology presented is given some form of explanation that attempts to ground the story in some semblance of reality. Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Saga" series, for example, goes into vast detail about the fictional technologies offered in each book. In the third, "Xenocide", for example, therein lies a subatomic particle known as a "philote". These philotes connect to one another, then connect to quarks, then to protons, neutrons, and electrons, then to atoms, then molecules, etc. These philotes are simply a more extravagant way to explain "String theory" to its audience. The philotes are then connected between various machines called "ansibles" that allow near-instant communication with one another, no matter how far said ansibles are sent, making it possible for people thousands of light-years away to have a conversation with no more than a few seconds of lag between each message.
If a story is able to somehow combine the two, it makes for a fascinating world in which to tell a story. Two prime examples would be "Star Wars" and "Star Trek". Both attempt to explain the more mystical side of their technology with an exaggeration of real-life science in order to provide just enough mystery to keep said technologies futuristic and captivating.
Sunday, October 6, 2019
Entry #9: Muck-raking misadventures
My recent mention of the downsides of industrial agriculture seems apt for this entry, as I will be discussing a horrible scandal involving the meat industry a hundred years ago.
This famous political cartoon requires quite a bit of context for those that don't know. It shows President Roosevelt partaking in an action referred to as "muck-raking". This is a disparaging term for journalists or equivalents who "rake" through the seemingly innocuous events in search of any "muck" in order to reveal any amount of negative aspects. A term, unfortunately, thrown all too quickly at times, such as in this case. Upton Sinclair's book, "The Jungle" was published with the hope of revealing the horrifying conditions of early 20th century meat-packing facilities. At first, the book and Sinclair himself were dismissed as overreactions until the problem became far too clear to ignore. Several men in the war had eaten meat packaged with boric acid, becoming too sick to fight, or simply dying. Many other such examples began to fall upon the ears of the public.
When president Theodore Roosevelt expressed his support to fight the meat industry's scandal, the once-negative term of "muck-raker" became a symbol. One of justice, and of corruption being given its due. As the picture's caption, and Roosevelt's own words express, it is an unbecoming kind of ghastly procedure, but one that is utterly necessary for the safety of the American people.
This famous political cartoon requires quite a bit of context for those that don't know. It shows President Roosevelt partaking in an action referred to as "muck-raking". This is a disparaging term for journalists or equivalents who "rake" through the seemingly innocuous events in search of any "muck" in order to reveal any amount of negative aspects. A term, unfortunately, thrown all too quickly at times, such as in this case. Upton Sinclair's book, "The Jungle" was published with the hope of revealing the horrifying conditions of early 20th century meat-packing facilities. At first, the book and Sinclair himself were dismissed as overreactions until the problem became far too clear to ignore. Several men in the war had eaten meat packaged with boric acid, becoming too sick to fight, or simply dying. Many other such examples began to fall upon the ears of the public.
When president Theodore Roosevelt expressed his support to fight the meat industry's scandal, the once-negative term of "muck-raker" became a symbol. One of justice, and of corruption being given its due. As the picture's caption, and Roosevelt's own words express, it is an unbecoming kind of ghastly procedure, but one that is utterly necessary for the safety of the American people.
Entry #8: The most terrifying movies of all...
Many-a-time has a movie-goer left the cinema, their mind in a state of panic. Their hearts pounding, their sweat running cold. Perhaps it was "It", or maybe "The Exorcist", or even "Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark"; or for some people, it just might be "War of the Worlds", "Ender's Game" or "Eragon". But is their reaction out of fear, or out of anger?
Why are book-based movies typically so vehemently disliked? There are many reasons, but to truly see why, we must "Dig Deeper".
To begin, in my own opinion, I've found that the biggest problem is simply that movies like these are never long enough to express the lengthy stories they attempt to adapt. For an example of success in this regard, look no further than "The Green Mile". An extraordinary adaptation, albeit not exactly of a book, but a similar format. This adaptation is so incredible, in part due to the skilled actors such as Michael Clark Duncan and Tom Hanks, but also in its length. The first movie I'd seen that was three hours long, this movie had exactly the time it needed to express the story it wanted to tell. An experience that has lingered with me since the moment I began watching.
The experience I received from a ~324-page book condensed into a 2-hour movie? Much less extravagant. That being said, I enjoyed the "Ender's Game" movie, but was severely disappointed by how much better it could have been if so much of what made the story so great had to be removed. As for "Eragon", imagine my disappointment at ~544 pages being utterly squashed into 1 and 3/4 hours.
Most simply of all, a visual interpretation is a far cry from one's imagination. When reading a good book, one can visualize the scene in its entirety, including minuscule details such as wall decorations. With movies, however, everything is visualized for the audience. Often times with vast differences that conjure disgust from those that enjoyed its source material.
When it comes down to it, books and movies are just far too different to consistently overlap with success. It seems an imprecise art to do so, and as such, I do not envy truly talented directors that have been ridiculed for such a failure...
...Oh! And don't even get me started on video game-based movies!
Sunday, September 22, 2019
Entry #7: "Fresh"
As much as the analysis of media is incredibly entertaining, it is just as important to do the very same kind of analysis when faced with certain outlets like News and, what I'll be discussing, documentaries.
For the purpose of this entry, I will be talking about the documentary "Fresh"
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637620/
Going into the analysis, we will be ignoring any personal preexisting prejudices about organic farms versus industrial, and recognizing that, like most documentaries, this film has a clear bias. Firstly, it is not a bad thing that the film has bias, but it would be a problem if the film attempted to hide its bias.
The film is certainly not afraid to show the darker side to industrial farming in order to raise the idea of organic farming as high as they can, and nor should they be. Having already undergone a culinary class in High School, I already knew about some of the more inhumane and morally bankrupt sides to industrial farming, but many people still don't know about some of the horrors involved with milking (pardon the analogy) as much efficiency out of animal slaughtering as possible. Those who are aware, however, are pressured to ignore such brutal processes by the vast wealth of meat-processing companies, and, on a lighter note, the good that comes from introducing industrial farming to the more impoverished and famished countries of the world.
Just as I was, they could also be swayed in the opposite of the intended direction by the horrendous actions of radical groups such as PETA, whose brutal acts of violence toward men, women, children, and even the animals they supposedly live and die by, are only detrimental to helping the vast problems they claim to solve with but the pettiest of attempts. A fact that I loathe to no end. That, however, is a rabbit hole for another day.
Unlike the aforementioned radical groups, this documentary uses far, far more than mindless fear-mongering and brainwashing to get their point across. The film mainly seems to express the proof that, on a smaller scale, organic farming is far more efficient than industrial farming. The proof comes from many facets, one of which being that industrial framing breeds bacteria, as well as animals, at an alarmingly swift rate. This means that animals need to be given antibacterial medicine to avoid tainted meat, which can create stronger infections that require yet stronger medicine, etc. The point of organic farming is not that "giving medicine is unnatural and therefore bad", as many assume, but that giving medicine is simply unnecessary if the animals are treated well, and are given the resources to live more naturally.
As a skeptic of organic farming, it was very important that I ignore my own prejudices and took the film at face-value. Instead of scoffing when the film introduced an idea I disagreed with, I treated it as a given that the documentary knew more than me, and cross-referenced the information with my own previous knowledge, and new research. Even if the documentary was wrong, or lied, it would still have done its job of bringing information about organic farms, even if that wasn't the creators original intention.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637620/
Going into the analysis, we will be ignoring any personal preexisting prejudices about organic farms versus industrial, and recognizing that, like most documentaries, this film has a clear bias. Firstly, it is not a bad thing that the film has bias, but it would be a problem if the film attempted to hide its bias.
The film is certainly not afraid to show the darker side to industrial farming in order to raise the idea of organic farming as high as they can, and nor should they be. Having already undergone a culinary class in High School, I already knew about some of the more inhumane and morally bankrupt sides to industrial farming, but many people still don't know about some of the horrors involved with milking (pardon the analogy) as much efficiency out of animal slaughtering as possible. Those who are aware, however, are pressured to ignore such brutal processes by the vast wealth of meat-processing companies, and, on a lighter note, the good that comes from introducing industrial farming to the more impoverished and famished countries of the world.
Just as I was, they could also be swayed in the opposite of the intended direction by the horrendous actions of radical groups such as PETA, whose brutal acts of violence toward men, women, children, and even the animals they supposedly live and die by, are only detrimental to helping the vast problems they claim to solve with but the pettiest of attempts. A fact that I loathe to no end. That, however, is a rabbit hole for another day.
Unlike the aforementioned radical groups, this documentary uses far, far more than mindless fear-mongering and brainwashing to get their point across. The film mainly seems to express the proof that, on a smaller scale, organic farming is far more efficient than industrial farming. The proof comes from many facets, one of which being that industrial framing breeds bacteria, as well as animals, at an alarmingly swift rate. This means that animals need to be given antibacterial medicine to avoid tainted meat, which can create stronger infections that require yet stronger medicine, etc. The point of organic farming is not that "giving medicine is unnatural and therefore bad", as many assume, but that giving medicine is simply unnecessary if the animals are treated well, and are given the resources to live more naturally.
As a skeptic of organic farming, it was very important that I ignore my own prejudices and took the film at face-value. Instead of scoffing when the film introduced an idea I disagreed with, I treated it as a given that the documentary knew more than me, and cross-referenced the information with my own previous knowledge, and new research. Even if the documentary was wrong, or lied, it would still have done its job of bringing information about organic farms, even if that wasn't the creators original intention.
Sunday, September 15, 2019
Entry #6: Over-analysis
As my mission statement and the title of my blog suggests, I love over-analyzing stories of all kinds. I believe it is a very fun and effective method of bettering your understanding of the things you read, no matter how mundane or trivial.
There are those, however, who turn this pastime into an issue. I'm sure you've heard the jokes about how English teachers will demand that symbolism be found in the smallest of details. This is an example of when over-analysis is mistreated. When analyzing art of any kind, it should be understood that it is subjective. That any interpretation is just as valid, if not more so, than even the author's own intention. I, among many others, have fallen victim to the tyrant that requires a symbolic rendering of something so simple and literal as a house.
Let that sink in.
Many children in English class are required to elaborate the potentially infinite interpretations of such mundane and simple concepts, yet are "corrected" when their interpretations are "wrong". One example would be when I was told to provide the symbolism of Gatsby's home from the book "The Great Gatsby". Among other things, I said that his home would be a safe-haven, or sanctuary, as it is almost universally understood that a person should feel safe in their home.
My teacher informed me that I was incorrect, because Gatsby was killed in his home.
As silly of a problem as this may seem, it is very important to address, as children all across the country are being reprimanded for the crime of having original thought. In this world, the ability to "Dig Deeper" is one of the greatest that one can have, as it gives them an advantage over others that don't fully understand the copious amounts of information that is bombarding our eyes each and every day. This way of thinking is being suppressed among the public, to the point where it almost sounds like a "1984"-esque conspiracy theory that the government wants to "control the masses" or something along those lines.
I encourage anyone who has gone, or is going through, such a failure of education to think about whether or not you agree with your instructor's interpretations. Think about why you agree, and what lead you to such a conclusion. For the purpose of the course, give the answers that your instructor wants to hear, but in your own mind, think about which ones you believe and which ones you don't. Don't worry if you disagree with them all, and don't worry if you disagree with none. As long as everybody can keep their own beliefs intact, this problem should, hopefully, be gone within a few years.
There are those, however, who turn this pastime into an issue. I'm sure you've heard the jokes about how English teachers will demand that symbolism be found in the smallest of details. This is an example of when over-analysis is mistreated. When analyzing art of any kind, it should be understood that it is subjective. That any interpretation is just as valid, if not more so, than even the author's own intention. I, among many others, have fallen victim to the tyrant that requires a symbolic rendering of something so simple and literal as a house.
Let that sink in.
Many children in English class are required to elaborate the potentially infinite interpretations of such mundane and simple concepts, yet are "corrected" when their interpretations are "wrong". One example would be when I was told to provide the symbolism of Gatsby's home from the book "The Great Gatsby". Among other things, I said that his home would be a safe-haven, or sanctuary, as it is almost universally understood that a person should feel safe in their home.
My teacher informed me that I was incorrect, because Gatsby was killed in his home.
As silly of a problem as this may seem, it is very important to address, as children all across the country are being reprimanded for the crime of having original thought. In this world, the ability to "Dig Deeper" is one of the greatest that one can have, as it gives them an advantage over others that don't fully understand the copious amounts of information that is bombarding our eyes each and every day. This way of thinking is being suppressed among the public, to the point where it almost sounds like a "1984"-esque conspiracy theory that the government wants to "control the masses" or something along those lines.
I encourage anyone who has gone, or is going through, such a failure of education to think about whether or not you agree with your instructor's interpretations. Think about why you agree, and what lead you to such a conclusion. For the purpose of the course, give the answers that your instructor wants to hear, but in your own mind, think about which ones you believe and which ones you don't. Don't worry if you disagree with them all, and don't worry if you disagree with none. As long as everybody can keep their own beliefs intact, this problem should, hopefully, be gone within a few years.
Entry #5: "When Mayhem Strikes"
As much as I love "Digging Deeper" into entertainment, I feel as though it is just as important to do so for a more practical purpose.
When one reads, watches, or hears the news, one must understand not just what is being told, but how they are learning of it, and by whom. If you were to read a news article on Fox News' official website, you could see their own interpretation to a certain event. If you were to go to a lesser new source, however, you might just as well find someone else's interpretation of Fox News' interpretation of an event that you have yet to know about firsthand.
Apart from news, this applies to common advertisements as well. Take Allstate's famous "Mayhem" commercials for instance. These ads are famous for a good reason, as they are excellent in their purpose and provides entertainment for the viewers.
The advertisements range from hilarity, to startling reality. The general formula of these ads is thus: "Mayhem", sharply-dressed man, causes great damage to person or property that could be avoided or negated by insurance. The purpose is clearly to convince the public to buy Allstate insurance, however, this is done in a way that is not only entertaining, but insightful, as the audience is given the opportunity to decide whether or not they would be willing to risk the possibility of any of the aforementioned incidents occurring when they did not have the proper insurance to recover. Moreover, it shows the diversity in types of insurance, which not everyone would be aware of, and in doing so, promotes the many types that Allstate provides.
When one reads, watches, or hears the news, one must understand not just what is being told, but how they are learning of it, and by whom. If you were to read a news article on Fox News' official website, you could see their own interpretation to a certain event. If you were to go to a lesser new source, however, you might just as well find someone else's interpretation of Fox News' interpretation of an event that you have yet to know about firsthand.
Apart from news, this applies to common advertisements as well. Take Allstate's famous "Mayhem" commercials for instance. These ads are famous for a good reason, as they are excellent in their purpose and provides entertainment for the viewers.
The advertisements range from hilarity, to startling reality. The general formula of these ads is thus: "Mayhem", sharply-dressed man, causes great damage to person or property that could be avoided or negated by insurance. The purpose is clearly to convince the public to buy Allstate insurance, however, this is done in a way that is not only entertaining, but insightful, as the audience is given the opportunity to decide whether or not they would be willing to risk the possibility of any of the aforementioned incidents occurring when they did not have the proper insurance to recover. Moreover, it shows the diversity in types of insurance, which not everyone would be aware of, and in doing so, promotes the many types that Allstate provides.
Sunday, September 8, 2019
Entry #4: "Weird writing"
When writing a story, one might not follow any given structure, template, or prompt. "Weird writing" is what I like to call these forms of writing that deliberately avoid what is typical or expected. An excellent example is the breed of internet campfire stories known as "creepypastas". These stories are often attached to a stigma of poor, unprofessional writing and awkward attempts at horror, but more particularly, I will be discussing one subset of creepypastas that became known as the "SCP Foundation".
If one were to accidentally stumble across the popular website dedicated to "SCP's", they might be immediately immersed in its form of "weird writing".
http://www.scp-wiki.net/
Originally starting as a single creepypasta posted on 4chan, the first article was far different from the usual post. Instead of being a simple story about a scary creature or terrifying hypothetical situation, it was written with very precise, clinical language, in a structured format. Here is an excerpt:
"Item #: SCP-173
This format was incredible, in that it set up a sort of "horror punch-line". As the Sculpture's holding cell is described with specific details, it leads the reader to being making assumptions about what the description will entail before they even read it. This structure spawns dozens of other articles and SCP's with their own designations, item numbers, special containment procedures, etc. before dozens became hundreds, and hundred became thousands. Despite its very unprofessional and obscure beginnings, the SCP Foundation has made its way into the mainstream and is enjoyed by millions of readers, writers, and even gamers, alike.
Speaking of games, another interesting form of "weird writing" is what is known as an "ARG": Alternate Reality Game. These fascinating, and sometimes disturbing, tales are meta upon meta levels of storytelling. The best part is, they can come in just about any form. They can be a series of YouTube videos with a hidden meaning, such as "Poppy",
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8JE00xTMBOqKs7o0grFTfQ
or "Petscop".
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZKQv0ZFHpeIUkOtNjtq4KA
Or they can be cryptic websites with even more cryptic messages waiting to be deciphered, such as "Cicada 3301", a sadly discontinued string of puzzles, or "Forgotten Languages",
https://forgottenlanguages-full.forgottenlanguages.org/
a website written in a fictional, decipherable language that leads to references ranging from alchemy, to ancient religion, to science fiction alien technology.
ARG's are a mind-boggling experience that goes far beyond the interactivity of video games, and into the real world where clues might need to be found in real life hidden locations. "Weird writing" is a medium that I hope continues to grow in popularity as it has for the past few decades, and in this world of social media, I predict that it will.
If one were to accidentally stumble across the popular website dedicated to "SCP's", they might be immediately immersed in its form of "weird writing".
http://www.scp-wiki.net/
Originally starting as a single creepypasta posted on 4chan, the first article was far different from the usual post. Instead of being a simple story about a scary creature or terrifying hypothetical situation, it was written with very precise, clinical language, in a structured format. Here is an excerpt:
"Item #: SCP-173
Object Class: Euclid
Special Containment Procedures: Item SCP-173 is to be kept in a locked container at all times. When personnel must enter SCP-173's container, no fewer than 3 may enter at any time and the door is to be relocked behind them. At all times, two persons must maintain direct eye contact with SCP-173 until all personnel have vacated and relocked the container.
Description: Moved to Site-19 1993. Origin is as of yet unknown. It is constructed from concrete and rebar with traces of Krylon brand spray paint. SCP-173 is animate and extremely hostile. The object cannot move while within a direct line of sight."
This format was incredible, in that it set up a sort of "horror punch-line". As the Sculpture's holding cell is described with specific details, it leads the reader to being making assumptions about what the description will entail before they even read it. This structure spawns dozens of other articles and SCP's with their own designations, item numbers, special containment procedures, etc. before dozens became hundreds, and hundred became thousands. Despite its very unprofessional and obscure beginnings, the SCP Foundation has made its way into the mainstream and is enjoyed by millions of readers, writers, and even gamers, alike.
Speaking of games, another interesting form of "weird writing" is what is known as an "ARG": Alternate Reality Game. These fascinating, and sometimes disturbing, tales are meta upon meta levels of storytelling. The best part is, they can come in just about any form. They can be a series of YouTube videos with a hidden meaning, such as "Poppy",
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8JE00xTMBOqKs7o0grFTfQ
or "Petscop".
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZKQv0ZFHpeIUkOtNjtq4KA
Or they can be cryptic websites with even more cryptic messages waiting to be deciphered, such as "Cicada 3301", a sadly discontinued string of puzzles, or "Forgotten Languages",
https://forgottenlanguages-full.forgottenlanguages.org/
a website written in a fictional, decipherable language that leads to references ranging from alchemy, to ancient religion, to science fiction alien technology.
ARG's are a mind-boggling experience that goes far beyond the interactivity of video games, and into the real world where clues might need to be found in real life hidden locations. "Weird writing" is a medium that I hope continues to grow in popularity as it has for the past few decades, and in this world of social media, I predict that it will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)