Missed It: Coyote Kings of the Space Age Bachelor Pad

I have been meaning to read Coyote Kings of the Space Age Bachelor Pad since it came out 8 years ago (in 2004). Finally this weekend I found a copy and put down the cash. There were a couple of Chuck Palaniuk-y moment that made my stomach go squish garble urk, and some stutters and falters in tone and such. However, the tone is good, characters are witty and self-aware without being precious, and the atmosphere is addictive. Time for the breakdown! Also a greasy yet cute picture of the most common four-legged predator in the Canadian praries.

Thanks, Wiki!

Summary: A couple of young North African kids, one a school dropout and the other a mad scientist, spend their days making neighbourhood children happy and being quietly awesome. That is, until their peaceful Edmontonian existence is disrupted by a mysterious chick, the drug ring chasing her, and some epic WTF surrounding an ancient artefact jar of ulimate McGuffin power. Also there is a bit of cannibalism and some emotionally resonant struggles with growing up/dealing with 'sad violin' topics in one's personal history.

Pros: Likeable main characters. Hamza and Yehat are different guys and although the story is centred on Hamza, Yehat isn't fully relegated to the role of a sidekick. They are pretty well-developed, idiosyncratic, and memorable.

The goons are also a lot of fun to read about. Pow-Zap character profiles preceding each new first person character keep the muliple narrators relatively easy to follow. The villains themselves are surprisingly well-developed specimens of ordinary human evil, complete with Feelings, Ambition, 'n' Stuff!

The atmosphere is probably the best part. The bizarre mix of Norse and Egyptian mythology with a North African backbeat works surprisingly well. The technology sections show their age, but practically everything works. It is hard to find African/non-American/Eurocentric sci-fi, so the vibe is very cool. Also I really want Ethiopian food right now.

Cons: Sheremnefer is also interesting, but what happens to her is predictable and kind of disappointing. A coupke of things here wer, such as

SPOILER ALERT INCOMING!

McGuffin desctruction and NO Happy Endings For Immortals rules coming into effect.

SPOILER MODE DEACTIVATED.

Yehat's intriguing mechanical fuckery wth the R-Mer gets exploration, but not as much as I would have liked, somehow. Also, Hamza is trapped in the past, but development of this is wobbly amd in retrospect it sometimes feels uneven. At least it feels like the character forcing himself to sulk and whimper rather than the author forcing him.

The only forced bit is the wacky sci-fi tomfoolery with the FanBoys and the new recruIts. The book went a lttle too far into the comic book side there. Too much POw-zap during an emotional peak detracted from the poignancy. Its hard to worry for characters when crazy Australians and fascists are tHrowing around swastika boomerangs.

Final Verdict: 7 out of 10. Totally worth a read, and Minister Faust has a really cool and unconventional style, but there were some hard-to-identify yet definite flaws. Still, it is a refreshig change and the Canadian setting is a lot of fun. The thing that would have bumped this novel to an 8 or even a 9 would have been a comic book or graphic novel format.

Well, that's our show for tonight. For more fun, reviews, writing teasers, and general lulz, be sure to come back, or follow me on Twitter at SciFiMagpie. And don't forget to link me to people, because your mother always told you it was polite to share. See you later!

Counting Grave-Stones: Reflections on Why Heroes Die

Sometimes, it takes a controversy about something barely related to inspire you. Originally, I had intended to do an entire post on the Mass Effect ending debate issue. I'm not even going to say the word 'spoilers', because at this point, given all the press, it's effectively moot. However, instead of a focus on the ending alone, let's get talking about the meaning of it.

Cue Fan Outrage: Unless You Kick Puppies (or Geth), Your Hero Dies.

In any case, the questions Bioware's writers stuck us with were inevitable but agonising. Should Shepard sacrifice himself for not only humanity, but all other species? Should you sacrifice an entire nation to save your own legendary hide? Is the Indoctrination Theory a legitimate idea or an attempt by fans to console themselves over bizarrely restricted writing? And, above all else, should we be enjoying the uncompromising finale or demanding they fix the strangely rushed and spiritually conflicted McGuffin-powered end?

There were some tears and long debates into the night while I considered the endings and their impact. More so, I marvelled at the emotional impact of the series. When people are so attached to a collection of pixels that they launch an all-out-offensive to save those pixels from untimely doom, one knows that there is no higher praise for one's writing. Bioware has been strong-armed into saying a few choice words about the whole fiasco, and those words, shock and awe, are formed in ways that suggest they will be tweaking things to make people happier. I'm undecided on my feelings about this--my inner child is happy that the hero may get a chance to ride off into the sunset, but the rest of me is debating about the ethics of the issue. There have already been some excellent writings on whether this is a precedent or just par for the course with a big company. There's no point in re-hashing more discussions about whether it violates the artistic integrity of the writers to change or add to the ending. This said, some interesting discussions about how much artistic control/integrity changes as a concept when you are involved in a large company have yet to be written...but that's a post for another time.

Now, where was I? Ah: the crux of the problem I have with the ending comes down to this. The unanswered questions are an issue, but above all, killing the hero is cheap. The 'Jesus' trope, also known as the 'sacrificial goat' archetype, stinks.

Photobucket

Problem, audience?

However, you can only sulk and cry for so long before you start thinking about why you're upset.

...And there I was, trying to piece together why it is that the death of a main character could upset me so much led to some hard thoughts. Back in my childhood, when the Matrix Trilogy was still being released, I recall a sense of agony surrounding the deaths of Trinity and Neo. Now I know that the reason this, and ultimately, Shepard's death and the death of all other heroes upsets us is that we relate to them and it's a 'facing your own mortality' issue. Of course, it's also not fun to realise that people you care about, fictional or real, will inevitably be dead and gone at some point. To kill off a hero not only subconsciously acts as a remind of this fact, it also forces you to go through the grieving process once you realise it has happened. Again, though it's an integral part of the life cycle, it's not cheerful and not fun--though it makes for some great art.

In addition to that, when you have a character with a legendary status or large amounts of power, the stakes are even higher than with the emotional connection. Abstract ideals and sometimes lives are at stake, often both. At this point, we go from experiencing an upsetting event, the loss of a person we care about, into loss of an ideal territory. A 'sacrificial goat', as my 10th grade English teacher referred to them, is someone or something that must be be given up, destroyed, or killed to satisfy a need or redeem a wrong. In Christian mythology, Jesus dies to compensate for humanity's sins, somehow delivering us from them by taking the burden onto himself. Prometheus, in Greek myth, is not killed, but having his liver pecked out by an eagle every day probably counts as some kind of sacrifice. You can also find more info about this and other tropes at the TV tropes site.

Heroic Sacrifice Trope

So...what's so wrong with the heroic sacrifice? Let's start with how it traps us into restrictions of Christian morality; apart from limiting plot options, it also sways the plot towards certain rules. Limiting human power and implying that power is an automatic sin is not a good idea. At best, it keeps most of us from seeking power in any way. I'll save the 'nature of society' rant for later, but in essence, the sacrifice issue keeps people from seeking elevation and information to better themselves. It also tends to suggest that only through sacrifice can errors and tragedies be amended. While giving up opportunities and losing lives in a war tend to be inevitable, it's not necessarily smart to imply that something is valueless or unattainable unless someone dies for it.

Source: Fark

He died for your sins, but he's cool with that, bro.

Then, too, heroic sacrifices lead to lesser evils such as cheap writing tricks. In the old days, if you had a hero, they would generally either be struck down in battle or join the pantheon--you know, a happy ending. Now, a hero with lots of power is generally either struck down in their prime by accident, kills themselves for the Greater Good, turns into a villain, or loses that power through a horrible accident, making them just like the rest of us. (When I say power, I should mention--this can be a magical power, superb intellect or physique, political power, economic or social power, or some combination of these.) In the comics, you have a lot of rise-and-fall plotlines, where a hero dies, is resurrected, gains more power, dies again, ad infinitum.

In games, endings tend to be dark for these heroes. And unless you sacrifice yourself, the moral compass of the story (whether a Greek chorus of villagers or the story writing) will call you on being a selfish asshole for not offing yourself on demand. Please note, too, that power will be granted only for as long as the story lets you have it, or as it is necessary to the plot. Once the conflict is solved, there is no chance to enjoy the power, use it to clean up the aftermath of the disaster, or even just learn to live with it. Oh, sure, the occasional happy ending will involve not killing the hero, but generally there is a ride into the sunset or this ending will cut off right after the climax, sparing the audience from having to watch the character die or deal with reality. If neither of these happens, the protagonist probably didn't have a significant enough level of power to count as a real saviour. And that, of course, is a problem in and of itself.

At the end of the day, much as life often requires us to give things up--time, energy, loved ones, careers--the Saviour idea makes this okay, and makes it easier to do these things as a matter of course. I'll leave all of you to chew over the other implications of that, but I will say that a lot of fans are rejecting the attempt to force at least one legendary character down this pathway. And that, at least, is a good beginning to lessening the domination of an idea that makes people think dying for a cause is necessary when a lot is at stake.

That's all the thinking I have time for today--don't forget to follow me here, on Twitter, at SciFiMagpie, and to comment and share! Soon, we'll be talking about dystopian fiction, then and now, about WordThieves, and there will even be some exclusive content teasers...and much, much more.

That Feminist Post

Hi gang!

First, I want to send a shout out to my readers in Russia, Belgium, and Germany...thanks for visiting, guys! I'm happy to see that I can interest people outside my own continent.

All right. Well, I used to avoid the 'f' word--not 'fuck', it's a fun word to say--'Feminism'. However, a video series by feministfrequency (here is the first of one of her videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqJUxqkcnKA&feature=relmfu) is making me seriously reconsider that. I see myself primarily as an egalitarian, in the sense that I defend men's rights as well as ensuring that women I describe are real people. However, I have to thank this most excellent vlogger for making me realize: I really am a feminist.

You're probably asking yourself, a) I knew that already, how dense is this girl, or b) why does it matter? The problem is, feminism and feminist writing and art have some really bad press. From the ludicrous and somewhat unsanitary genuine menstrual blood paintings (yes, this is a thing http://www.regretsy.com/2011/07/08/maxed-out-2/ ) to Margaret Atwood's dry, repetitive WORKS OF GREAT LITERATURE, 'feminism' generally gets mistaken for 'straw feminism' or 'shit I wouldn't read/watch if it was the only way to get a cheeseburger whilst I was starving to death on a deserted island'. Even the ladies who are much less annoying or ponderous still tend to go on, say, Disney-hating rampages, or get stuck on irrelevant points involving male vilification/adoration and other straw feminist ideas.
So, clearly I'm implying that I am better than these other ladies--though I want to hastily make it clear that I have been strongly inspired by excellent writers, both male and female, who have done a lot more with their female casts than, well, castrate them. But how can we tell that a film or novel is not merely entertaining, but also a solid representation of more than just male character development?
I could re-write her ideas, and a simplified list of them will probably be an unofficial part 1.5 of this entry. In the meantime, I just have to refer you to this gal's tidy checklists. These are some seriously entertaining and easy ways to see whether a story passes muster for representing human stories from more than the usual North American perspective (i.e. white dude in America). As well, you can adapt a lot of these to see how racist or unracist a story is. For instance, substitute the words 'Magic Negro/Wise Old Asian Dude/Quirky Indian Dude' Trope for 'manic pixie dream girl' to test your given film, and you will have some highly uncomfortable realizations about popular cinema.

I realize that there are probably some white dudes who are pretty unhappy right now. To them, I say--guys, I'm sorry to put you on the spot here, but we need your help to change some of this crap too. I bet you're kind of bored of all those sausage fests in action movies...and dramas...and comedies...in fact, I know you are. There are some hilarious people who don't get a chance to show off because it's a matter of habit to pass them over unless the script calls for 'an ethnic person' or a female. So, show it: Hollywood and a lot of us novelists forget that sexual gender and ethnicities other than 'white' and 'male' should be perfectly normal, rather than just part of a plot device. I've already punched some big holes in Bioware's beautiful and elegant Mass Effect series. Now, readers, I want you to do the same--to your heads.
Give some thought to stuff you read and run your books/films through the Beschdel test: must have two named women talk to each other (preferably for more than 60 seconds) about something other than a man. And then, when you realize how many fail, get your butts back here and let's get some comments going.

Catch you later!