Book Review: Railhead

My recent re-engagement with the works of Andre Norton, and something of a re-awakening of an only slightly dormant infatuation with Golden Age Science Fiction couldn’t have come at a better time. My brain was in just the right condition to receive Railhead, the new novel by Philip Reeve. Longtime readers of the blog will know that Reeve is one of my favorite contemporary writers. I first discovered him through his juvenile Jules Verne style romp Larklight, but really came to be a fan with his book Mortal Engines and its follow-ups. With those books, he delved into a lot of the ‘big idea’ Science Fiction spirit I love so much. And he has returned to that with Railhead, a very big idea, Golden Age soaked adventure yarn. A galactic railroad network, threading through stargates, taking humanity from world to world; all under the watchful eyes of ancient AI. Excellent.

What Reeve does that was less common during the era of Asimov, Norton, Heinlein, and others, is populate his wild settings with interesting, nuanced, challenging characters. In Railhead, Zen doesn’t always make great choices. He doesn’t always do the right thing. He’s not a perfect young man. And he’s not alone. Are the villains really villains? Are the heroes heroes? Or are they just people trying to do the best they can with the things they’ve got? Whatever the case, I really like reading about Zen. I love Flex, Gentlemen Take Polaroids, and Nova. I was curious to find out where the Threnody Noon story would go. And the Guardians? The Hive Monks? I want more.

This is the beginning of a longer story; that much is kinda obvious. There are a lot of things introduced, and not all of them are explored to satisfactory degrees. But there is a satisfying story arc to the book. While leaving things in place for events to continue, I like that there is some closure, some resolution. And I’m certainly looking forward to finding out what happens next.

Also, and you’ll know this if you’ve read his other Young Adult novels, Reeve is one of those authors who seems to delight in abusing his characters, and yes, killing them off...especially if they’re one of the ones you really love. This is something that I find thrilling. Knowing that any character, at any time, could get snuffed out makes the reading more intense. And it challenges me, in my own writing, to be more daring; to remember that in life and so in stories, stuff happens. People get hurt, they die, they come into sudden fame or glory or infamy, they fall in love with the wrong person, that make the wrong choice, they find unexpected beauty.

Like Heinlein’s “juvenile” books, and a lot of others from the Golden Age of Science Fiction, Railhead features some young protagonists and there’s no explicit sex. Otherwise, it’s written as though for adults, without condescension or the accepted lowering of writing standards frequently found in young adult fiction. This is a good book. And it happens to be appropriate for teenagers. Sci-fi readers of all ages should check this out. And of course, go back and read Mortal Engines and the other books about the Predator Cities. Great stuff. Hester Shaw, man. One of the great characters.

-Matthew J. Constantine

Comic Review: Red Lance issue 1

You know I’m all about the can-do spirit; the ‘little guy (or gal)’ putting their heart on their sleeve and doing it. I love it in film, for sure. But I also love it in comics. That’s one of the reasons I’ve enjoyed many visits to SPX (the Small Press Expo) and why Artists’ Alley is always my favorite place to check out at comic conventions.

I just got a chance to check out the first issue of Red Lance, which is about as independent as they come. Created by Gary Bloom and crowd-funded into reality on KickStarter, this captures the feel of Silver Age marvel comics. While superheroes aren’t my bag, generally, I’m always interested in seeing someone try to do a unique take. And without the weight of decades of history weighing down plot and character options, unique takes can flourish in the indie scene.

While this is a first issue, so it’s mostly about establishing character and tone, there are several ideas that make me curious. I especially liked Vycia’s manipulation of minds, which made me think there might be a reason that crowds in old Marvel comics seemed to turn on a dime. What if someone were driving them to increased passions and illogical behavior?

Just because a comic doesn’t have Batman or Wolverine in it, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t give it a try. If superheroes are your thing, check out Red Lance. The art is professional (better than a lot of stuff making the cut at the Big Two) and the dialog (often the weakest part of indie comics...and no few major titles) is fairly natural.

Go on over to the KickStarter and make the magic happen.

Matthew J. Constantine

Book Review: Ice Crown

In rediscovering my love of Andre Norton, I got particularly interested in her “Forerunner” series, a set of novels sharing a ‘future history,’ like Alan Dean Foster’s “Humanx Commonwealth,” or Larry Niven’s “N-Space.”  However, things get a bit challenging.  That I’ve found so far, there is little scholarly work on Norton, and no definitive guide to the Forerunner stories. Ice Crown, the book I’ve just read is not listed on several sites I’ve found as being part of it, yet it is clearly set in the same universe, building on some of the same ideas.

Set on a restricted world where local humans live in a medieval style society, it features Roane, a young woman in the Service who has come to the world to investigate the possibility of Forerunner technology. Instead, she gets tangled up in local power struggles, breaks the Service’s rules about interference, and stumbles upon something from a dark time in Human space exploration, the time of the Psychocrats. This book is the first time I remember hearing references to this era of rule by mind-control masters. I’ll be curious to see if they feature in other stories.

On the one hand, I like that Norton gets more into character development in this book than in some of her earlier work. On the other, I find Roane to be a bit dull. There is a story reason, perhaps, for her being a bit of a void. I suppose. But considering the book does start to drag, in spite of its barely over 200 page length, I think, perhaps the character development wasn’t so great.

Norton churned out a ton of novels in her day, and maybe not all of them are winners. This one is OK. If they ever turned her Forerunner stories into a TV series, this would probably serve well as the basis of an episode. Beyond that? Eh. 

-Matthew J. Constantine

Star Trek VS Star Wars

While I’ve written about Star Trek and to a lesser degree Star Wars before, I thought I’d revisit it for a few reasons. First, the recent success of Star Wars: The Force Awakens, a movie that I thought was OK and much better than the previous three films, but not all that great. Second, the recent announcement that a Star Trek TV series is in development. And third, the aftermath of Star Trek Into Darkness (worst Trek film ever?) and the build-up to Star Trek Beyond.

I read an article (see here) that compared Star Trek and Star Wars a while ago, which bothered me. In it, the author postulated that the major difference between the two was that Star Wars was about fighting the Man, and Star Trek was about being the Man. I disagree. Getting past various categorization squabbles (science fiction vs. science fantasy, blah, blah, blah), there are some pretty big differences that separate the two. I’d argue the target audience, for one, is different. Also, the nature of the two is profoundly different. One started as a weekly TV series in the 1960s, while the other started as a blockbuster theatrical release in the 1970s. That difference alone is profound. And when I think of Star Trek at its best, I think of the original series and some of The Next Generation. I don’t tend to think of the films, which from Wrath of Khan on (with the exception of Star Trek IV) are very much more in the Star Wars, summer blockbuster, action film camp.

Star Wars is generally marketed for children. It’s enjoyable for adults, but rarely deals with particularly deep themes or complicated issues. It often relies on gross caricature when presenting characters, so that everyone is on the same page. Good guys are obviously good guys. Bad guys are obviously bad guys. Typically looking at them is all you need to do in order to know what sort of person they are. And the general theme is about as simple as they come, and roots back at least to Zoroastrianism and the duality that would help to form three of today’s major religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism). It is the conflict between Good and Evil.

While still frequently marketed toward younger viewers, Star Trek often presents more complicated issues. There are absolutely ham-fisted attempts (see: most episodes actually written by Gene Roddenberry, for example), but there are occasionally subtle ones, too. With Star Trek, the viewer is frequently presented with a moral question. Unfortunately, as was the style of the day, they were then given the answer to that question. But the questions were often serious, sometimes deep questions of morality, philosophy, and meaning. The question wasn’t “do I submit to the horible forces of Evil?” but rather “is it right to do this evil thing for the greater good?” Or, “do I need to make peace with the evil within me in order to better the good?”

Star Wars never grew out of its simple nature. It remains a story of Good vs. Evil. Even as it distanced itself from its Flash Gordon, pulp roots, it moved deeper and deeper into a universe of constantly warring sides in a battle between ultimate Light and ultimate Dark. Villains rarely seem to have any motivation beyond cruelty and the hunger for power.

Star Trek has changed and evolved many times over the years. Unfortunately, more often than not, this seems to have moved it more in line with the Star Wars tradition. Though not going so much for the Good vs Evil line, it has frequently fallen into the trap Batman & Superman have, the “let’s make it darker” trap. Star Trek was a semi-Utopian setting...so let’s show how the Utopia of the Federation is actually corrupt and evil (Deep Space 9). Star Trek was about brave people who faced the unknown of space for the pure joy of it. So, let’s make the characters hate their jobs and be forced into it (Voyager). Star Trek was about big ideas and moral questions. So let’s make action movies that must be solved by the hero punching the villain (the theatrical films). And as time went on, folks behind Trek tried to make it more ‘sciencey’ by throwing in lots of buzzwords and technobabble which muddied the dialog and provided too many opportunities for technological deus ex machina rescues.

But when Star Trek was at its most Star Trek, it wasn’t about ‘being the Man.’ It was about being the best we could be, then striving to be better. Star Wars, for better or worse, was and is about Good vs Evil. Star Trek made young Matt think about what choices he might make, about what it was to be a good person. Star Wars made young Matt say, “AWESOME!” I loved both. And while Star Wars has lost a lot of its charm over the years, thanks to terrible prequel movies and some other issues; and later expansions of the Star Trek universe seem to have lost the thread; I still have fond memories of both. I just find myself going back to Star Trek, watching the original TV episodes, even popping in the original films (the first four, anyway), far more than I do with Star Wars. Star Wars doesn’t give me the same thrill it once did. Though I enjoy the heck out of the first two films. I’m a Science Fiction nerd, and I have a lot of room in my heart. But when it comes down to it, Star Trek at its best is better than Star Wars. There. I said it.

-Matthew J. Constantine

Book Review: Star Hunter

    Fans of science fiction simply must read Andre Norton (Alice Mary Norton). She was one of the architects of the genre, writing a daunting number of books that stand alone Asimov, Herbert, and the rest. She creates visions of believable futures, peopled with multi-faceted characters. And she does it in just a hundred or two pages.

    In Star Hunter, we’re introduced to Ras Hume, a safari guide and big game hunter who takes wealthy folk to specially selected game worlds. But he’s also running a con, getting the mob and a desperate orphan wrapped up with him. And when they stumble upon something unexpected, all kinds of trouble drops on their head.

    When I’m reading Norton’s work from the 50s and 60s, I can’t help but think she was crafting a larger universe without every getting too strict about it. I often get the feeling that if you flew far enough in one direction or another, you’d find the characters from one of her other novels going through their particular set of struggles. If I were a better man, I’d assemble some kind of guide to her worlds; try to figure out which stories belong together.

Star Hunter
Author: Andre Norton
Publisher: Bean
ISBN: (book two in the collection Secret of the Stars) 978-1-4767-3674-7

-Matthew J. Constantine

Contemporary Heroes VS Classic Heroes

(So, it's been a while. But here's a new post, where I'm trying to work out some ideas. I'd welcome feedback, as I'm not sure I've got a coherent point yet.)

After recently revisiting the Star Wars universe with The Force Awakens, then going back to the works of Robert E. Howard, and finally watching some of the so-called adaptations of that author’s work, as well as the Edgar Rice Burroughs adaptation John Carter, I was struck again by something I’ve been pondering for some time. Contemporary heroes, those typically in fashion in the literature and film of today, are not like heroes of old. There seem to be two distinct and different types of heroes (I’m sure there are more), the self-driven, self-made, self-motivated hero on the one side, and the externally driven, pawn of fate/the gods hero. And, as I’ve been thinking about this, I’ve noticed that some popular fate-driven heroes of today got their start as self-driven heroes of the past. Batman and Superman are two very well known examples of heroes who were once masters of their own fate, but are now frequently portrayed as slaves to it. And then you have John Carter and Conan the Cimmerian. While Carter is transported to Mars (Barsoom) against his will, he then quickly becomes the master of his own fate, taking up arms and winning the hearts and swords of a kingdom. Conan sets out to experience the world for no other reason than his personal desire to learn and experience new and exciting things. But in film adaptations of both characters, fate seems to have picked each for their appointed task. They have destinies. In the Conan films, this is most egregious, featuring Conan’s family being slain and him being driven/stolen from his home and forced into slavery, then destined to rise up and become king. He does not choose to go, he does not choose to become king. These things are chosen for him by the whims of ...of the gods?

In the cases of Superman and Conan this seems to spit directly in the face of the meaning of the characters. Both are Nietzschean Ubermensch, self-made heroes who stand apart and stand as something for others to aspire to. But in later works, they become more Christ-like, meek servants, who are ultimately slaves to greater forces; pretty much the opposite of the Nietzschean ideal. And Batman now becomes a crime fighter not because he was a man of means who saw that he could do something to help people, but because he was tortured by a crime perpetrated upon him. This seems to say that without the death of his parents, Bruce Wayne would simply have been the care-free playboy he pretends to be. His morality, in this scenario does not come from a personal sense of right and wrong, but from a sense of guilt, shame, and revenge foisted upon him by fickle fate. Much like the argument that without the gods there is no morality. I’ve always been somewhat upset by the idea that some people believe that without religion, they would murder, steal, and rape at will. Without someone forcing their will upon you, you have no will of your own? That idea upsets me. But it seems to be at the root of many contemporary heroes, who are only heroic because fate, god, or someone else forces them to become so. Without an outside force acting upon him or her, he or she would either remain unexceptional. Or worse, would be amoral (ala Bruce Wayne’s persona).

And this brings me to contemporary hero avatar, Luke Skywalker. In a film with self-made heroes like Han Solo and Princess Leia, Luke is the ultimate tool of fate, and this becomes more and more pronounced as the series goes on and we learn more about him and his family. He has nearly no agency, no will of his own. In fact, one of the only things he seems to do on his own, by his own will is go to his room and sulk. Otherwise, he is constantly pushed, directed, prodded, and dragged from hick farm boy to galactic hero. Could there be anyone less like Conan? Could there be anyone more emblematic of the contemporary concept of hero? I recently skimmed (I honestly couldn’t bring myself to read it closely, as I got too annoyed) an article comparing and contrasting Star Trek with Star Wars, which essentially boiled down to Star Wars was about fighting the Man, and Star Trek was about being the Man. But was Star Trek about being the Man? Kirk was constantly standing on his own, his crew was constantly going outside the bounds of law and status quo. To me, Star Trek was less about being the Man, and more about bettering oneself, then giving those below a hand up. Star Wars seemed more about lashing out after allowing cruelty to win for too long; essentially fighting back only after there was literally nothing left to do but die. I mean, they didn’t even give the Empire a real bloody nose until AFTER millions and millions of people had been enslaved and murdered. Fate forced the hand of Luke and the rest of the Rebellion. Only when there was absolutely nothing left to do but something, did they do anything.

So when did the change happen? Why? Am I just off base on all of this? And as a fan of Robert E. Howard’s Conan (and other characters), Edgar Rice Burroughs’s John Carter (and other characters), and other self-made heroes (The Shadow, Allan Quatermain, Beowulf, etc.), is there any hope of them being translated to film or TV without first being sifted through the more modern, meak, fate-driven fashion?

-Matthew J. Constantine

The times, they are a changing

Brad and I started this blog as a way to get our dork love out there into the etherspace of the digital world, maybe connect with some other dorks, and generally have some fun.  It's been a blast, and we're not done. But, we've moved beyond what this space could do for us.  We're more than just a blog now.  We've got a podcast (here) and we've recently launched a website (here).  Come check it out and thanks for reading.

-Matt