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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)