Impoverished Ninjas Resort to Robbing Convenience Store

And here I thought with Kane Kosugi (son of legendary ninja Sho Kosugi, and star of the Ninja Warrior reality show) starring in War that ninjas were doing better than this financially.

Difference Between Science Fiction and Fantasy

Janice Harayda, over at One-Minute Book Reviews posted (and linked) some comments Michael Crichton made three decades ago with regard to the state of science-fiction and fantasy literature. To quote:

“As a category, the borders of science fiction have always been poorly defined, and they are getting worse. The old distinction between science fiction and fantasy – that science fiction went from the known to the probable, and fantasy dealt with the impossible – is now wholly ignored. The new writing is heavily and unabashedly fantastical.

“The breakdown is also seen in the authors themselves, who now cross the border, back and forth, with impunity. At one time this was dangerous and heretical; the only person who could consistently get away with it was Ray Bradbury. Science fiction addicts politely looked the other way when he did books such as Dandelion Wine and the screenplay for John Huston’s Moby Dick. It was assumed he needed the money.”

Michael Crichton “Slaughterhouse Five” in The Critic As Artist: Essays on Books 1920–1970 With Some Preliminary Ruminations by H.L. Mencken (Liveright, 1972), edited by Gilbert A. Harrison

It's interesting to me that Crichton, thirty-five years ago, is making a complaint that still is voiced in the speculative fiction community to this day. Before commenting about whether his assertion that there exists a distinction between fantasy and science fiction is prima facie true, I think it is important to examine the definition of each he offers.

According to Michael Crichton useful definitions for fantasy and science fiction are:

SCIENCE FICTION -- fictional narratives about what is known or probable according to our current understanding of physics, history, etc.

FANTASY -- fictional narratives dealing with the impossible.

It seems to me that these definitions are simultaneously too narrow and too broad. His definition of science fiction, as presented in the quote above and my (possibly ill-conceived) restructuring of it, might lead itself to include a great deal of literary fiction I might not consider to be science fiction. This is even true if I add the word "speculative" prior to the word fiction, which may make for a more robust definition. I can imagine a whole array of speculative fiction about the known that might not be science fiction, though I think to do so I have to ignore an underlying a priori "common sense" understanding of science fiction. Examples of such stories might include Ludlum spy novels or Kathy Reich's forensic anthropology murder mysteries.

Similarly, the definition is too narrow because it leaves no room for the truly speculative story, the story which gets us to question our current understanding of science and inspires younger readers to question and refine that understanding later in life. An Example of this would include the Foundation Series. Think about it. Have we developed faster than light travel, psionics, "Psychohistory," or "PSYCHOLOGY?" Those of you who are familiar with the stories will know that "PSYCHOLOGY" is very different from modern Psychology. All of those things are not only not possible, but most are likely to be improbable.

One could make similar complaints regarding the Crichton definition of fantasy, which includes an underlying assumption that you and he agree regarding what is impossible. Having read Travels, I wonder at how narrow "the possible" is in Crichton's mind.

All of this leads me to what I think is the problem with rigid distinctions, as opposed to "marketing" distinctions, when it comes to defining boundaries for literary genres which deal with the imagined or "speculated." I won't be so bold as to offer definitions that I think distinguish the two, but I will say that I believe that science fiction is a sub-genre of fantasy. This largely stems from my belief that both deal, at some level, with the imagined. Thus the "weird tale" and "horror" story, among others, also fall into sub-genre of fantasy. Needless to say, my understanding of fantasy is extraordinarily broad, possibly too broad. But I don't think so. I think that the fantastic is where the human mind creates some of the most interesting stories. I also think that the science in some science fiction is so far beyond our current ken that it is analogous to magic. Hmm...isn't that Clarke's third law?

My opinion in this regard is heavily shaped by what I read and enjoy. Looking at the origins of science fiction, one finds it's publishing history inexorably merged with the publishing history of fantasy. I have a great love of the pulps and this leaves me wondering where various characters/stories I enjoy would be placed. Is John Carter of Mars a science fiction or fantasy character? What about Carson Napier who has similar adventures, but with a more scientific origin? What about the world of the "Moon Maid" which was in origin an allegory discussing the world under Bolshevik rule? Where does Starship Troopers fall? (Giant Bugs? Wouldn't the exoskeleton's collape?) John Scalzi's Old Man's War? (Sadly not on the shelf of my local B&N, likely one reason why I shop at the Mystery and Imagination bookstore.) HP Lovecraft's stories of "alien terror?"

Stories that blur the distinction between fantasy and science fiction are as old as the genre themselves, smartly Crichton notes this, so is it useful to have a distinction?

I think there is, but I don't know exactly where to place that distinction except to say that science fiction stories attempt a scientific (even if it is an imaginarily scientific) description of the fantastic things they describe. But where does that leave the Harold Shea stories? D'oh.

What are your thoughts on the subject?

Zombies. The real threat to American safety.

Hat tip to Chris Roberson.

While the Rest of the World "Talks Like a Pirate"

I'm going to SLAM EVIL like the Phantom!

Spawned from the inventive mind of Lee Falk in February 1936, (that's two years before Superman for those of you counting), the "Ghost Who Walks" and his dog Devil became the scourge of pirates everywhere.

I am officially renaming International Talk Like a Pirate Day to the more heroic International Act Like the Phantom Day. And the next time some one says to me, "show me yer booty ye swab," I'm going to whip out my twin .45s and gun em down in the street.

The Wheel of Time Turns: RIP Robert Jordan

As I was doing my daily internet routine yesterday, I came across some sad news at SF Signal. James Oliver Rigney, Jr., known by most as Fantasy author Robert Jordan, died yesterday of complications from primary amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy. For his fans, this news is devastating enough, but I think this also ranks as a major blow to Fantasy fiction.

In defending that statement let me say, that while I have read all of the published "Wheel of Time" books, I have never been a devoted fan of "Robert Jordan's" fantasy tales. I have been in many conversation with others who were critical of the series and usually agreed with their criticisms that the series was "derivative" and did little that is new in speculative fiction. I have also been frustrated by the long wait between novels and the apparent attempt by the author to leave no narrative strand resolved. Each book added new complications while rarely resolving the complications of prior books and each book was so convoluted that I often had to reread the entire series when a new book came out just to know what was going on in the most recent book.

Those words above don't seem to be those that would be written by someone who believes that the loss of Rigney, at a relatively young age I might add, is a tragic loss to the Fantasy genre. But that is exactly how I feel.

Though I primarily read the books so that I could discuss them with friends who were more devoted, and enthusiastic, fans than I, I read them and as I did so I noticed something magical about the works.

What's this? Magic in something I found flawed? Yes, magical.

These were books which were wonderful introductions, surveys if you will, to the entirety of speculative fiction. By using the most common trope, the young boy on a quest, as the foundation of the story and adding elements from across speculative fiction, Rigney created a series that was the perfect gateway series into the hobby. His series was the perfect "second series" to recommend to potential Fantasy fans who wanted to know what to read when they were done with Lord of the Rings. Yes, his "world" borrowed liberally from the tropes established in that canonical series, but he also introduced tropes from other sf/fantasy tales. Do you want a series that makes Dune less daunting to the new reader? Explain to them how the Bene Gesserit are similar to the Aes Sedai and that Paul Atreides is similar to Rand al'Thor, heck there are even devoted bedouin tribe awaiting the arrival of a messianic figure. "Wheel of Time" borrowed from Dune as well as The Lord of the Rings. The list doesn't stop there. It could include Milton's Paradise Lost, the whole King Arthur ouevre, Susan Cooper, Ursula LeGuin. Name an author of speculative fiction, and Rigney probably melded some of their concepts into his fiction.

This was intentional. The "Wheel of Time" was supposed to be a "collective myth" which mirrored all other possible myths. In writing this series Rigney created a sampler of the fantasy and science fiction genres. If you could read and enjoy "The Wheel of Time," you would most certainly enjoy the fiction of other, arguably more proficient, writers of speculative fiction.

"Robert Jordan" was a gift to the fantasy field. He was a regularly best selling author whose works pointed to other works by which one could expand their appreciation of speculative fiction. At least he was when I talked with my friends. I have never been one to criticize my friend's tastes in fantasy, only to find what they enjoy and to use those as springboards for new adventures. In conversations with my friends who are fans of "Jordan," I found near limitless opportunity to recommend further readings. Friends who read "Jordan" on a lark, because he was a best selling author, became long time fans of sf/f after discussing the novels with me.

That is a great gift to the genre and one which I am sad to see go. This leaves two authors who have left unfinished fantasy sagas in the past year. David Gemmell passed away before he could finish his exciting retelling of the Trojan War, and now it appears that "Robert Jordan" has passed away before finishing his epic saga.

You can discuss your thoughts regarding this and other topics with me on my radio show geekerati tonight at 7pm pacific.

My Childhood Dreams are Coming True. A Tron Sequel is in the Works.

Every now and then we here at Cinerati get an exclusive interview. After reading in the Hollywood Reporter that a sequel to Tron was in the works, I rushed to my Rolodex and pulled up the name of someone with an intimate connection with the project.

I'd like all of you to welcome our guest today. Our good friend Bit will be answering our questions regarding the new Tron film.

Hi Bit, are you excited about the new "Tron" sequel being produced by Sean Bailey and Steven Lisberger?


YES

Do you know who will be directing the movie?


YES

Can you tell us the name of the person who will be directing the movie?


NO

Do you really know who will direct the movie?


YES, YES, YES, YES!

But you still can't tell us his name?


NO

Why not?



Hmm...oh, that's right you can only answer yes or no questions, correct?


YES

That being the case, I don't want to try and wrangle too much information out of you. I guess those who want to know more ought to just read Borys Kit's article over at the Hollywood Reporter right?


YES, YES, YES, YES!

After you all read the article. If you want to talk about it, you can join us over at Geekerati on Monday night at 7pm Pacific.

Shoot 'Em Up: Can we decide if this is an action comedy or an ironic complaint please?

I watch a lot of movies, which means I watch some good movies and a lot of bad movies. The two worst movies I have seen this year are Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter (on the small screen) and Shoot 'Em Up (on the big screen). The fact that I watched Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter in the first place should be a hint that I am not exactly a snob when it comes to the movies I watch and love. Hawk the Slayer is one of my all time favorite films after all. But my love of cheesy films doesn't change the fact that not only is Shoot 'Em Up not a good movie, it isn't even a fun movie.

Let me give you a quick rundown of the plot.

BEGIN SYNOPSIS --The film opens with LONE WOLF, not the character's name but the character's type (Clive Owen), sitting at a bus bench waiting for public transit. Suddenly, a pregnant woman, quickly followed by a horde of thugs, runs by LONE WOLF. LONE WOLF follows, helps lady give birth to CUB (by shooting the umbilical cord with a gun no less), and enters into a 3-Day (90 minutes our time) gunfight while trying to protect CUB from the DAIMYO's assassin (Paul Giamatti) and his legion of underlings. While protecting CUB, LONE WOLF recruits LACTATING PROSTITUTE to feed CUB (CUB's mother dies early on in the continual gunfight) while the 90 minute gunfight ensues. The gunfight goes from one level of extreme action to another, raising the stakes as far as it can (sometimes to absurd levels), but finally reaching a plateau and arguably a decline after a parachuting gun battle where the thugs become a thunderstorm's worth of "corpse-drops." END SYNOPSIS

So far, the film sounds like it could be a great amount of mindless fun inspired by every action film we have ever seen. Everything from Hard Boiled to The Spy Who Loved Me are referenced in the action sequences (there's even a nod to Snakes on a Plane), which brings me to my criticism. This film cannot decide whether it is a rip roaring action comedy like Kung Fu Hustle, which plays with tropes, or if it is Hot Shots: Part Deux. The film stumbles between wonderful action and bizarre spoof.

Whether it is the name of the lactating prostitute, DQ -- you know for Dairy Queen, or the protagonists absurd addiction to carrots and Bugs Bunny quotation, the film continually inserts jokes which detract from the action narrative rather than add to it. The director can't even decide whether he is attempting to give us a visual argument why Clive Owen should have been James Bond or whether he is making fun of the Bond character (the opening gunfight has a Walther reference).

Even the action sequences, which are the best part of the film, finally reach a point of saturation. At some point the director ran out of ideas regarding how to out do the action in the previous scene. From my point of view, that would be about the time of the "corpsedrops" falling on my head scene. The parachuting gunfight is brilliant, but what follows seems dull in comparison. The film lacks a sense of pace and when the action stops, which doesn't include the sex scene during which the gunfight continues, it is to insert some really bizarre imagery. The highest example being when Paul Giamatti milks the breast of the dead pregnant woman. Another being the fact that the cause of the gunfight is due to the DAIMYO needing the baby for a marrow transplant and of his entire "baby factory" only one came out compatible.

If Shoot 'Em Up is an homage to John Woo, then it is an homage to the "Say You're Impotent" scene at the end of Hard Boiled which forgets that the best part of that film was the tension regarding the undercover cop and whether or not he will survive.

I like Clive Owen and Paul Giamatti and I think that Monica Bellucci is one of the most beautiful women in the history of the world. But even given those factors, I can't recommend Shoot 'Em Up unless you don't find being stabbed through the brain with a half eaten carrot to be to implausible. If that is the case, you might just enjoy it. As for saying, "I'll just catch it on DVD," let me just say the following. If you are going to see Shoot 'Em Up, make sure you see it on the big screen. It is a bad movie, that is only made worse by watching it on the small screen. Any scene that it has worth seeing, must be seen on the big screen.