The Fantasy Anniversary Materials Gift List (Part 2)

The list of Fantasy Anniversary Materials concludes today, on Valentine's Day. You can see part one here.

Year 13 - Fairies

Pressed Fairy books make good gifts, although they really upset the fairies. Tinkerbell's sister is quoted as saying, "Every time you kill a fairy, ten more die from sadness, you stinking jerk." And then she promptly died from anger (they're very fragile), only to be pressed into a book herself. A veteran fairy hunter once told me, "If you just clap a lot afterwards, and shout, 'I believe in fairies!' it makes it all better. At least I feel better." Lady Cottington provides a variety of pressed fairy products, if you don't have the time to make your own. You can give your wife fairy dust if you or your wife have a problem with murdering fairies and pasting them into scrapbooks.

Year 14 - Moonstones

Moonstones have quite a number of uses throughout the fantasy realms. Possible gifts include magical moonstones that allow limited teleportation, moonstones you can feed to pokemon to make them evolve, and moonstones that can be used alternatively as fuel and weaponry on certain brands of air ship.

My favorite type is the Britannian moonstone. Found only in the lands of Britannia and Old Sosaria, these create portals called moon gates. Each stone is attuned to a certain phase of the moon, and opens its gate for a limited time when the moon is that phase. To work, they must be buried in the spot where you want the moon gate to appear. Unfortunately, where they teleport you to is somewhat unpredictable (at least for me), and Mister Troll and I got lost in Britannia many years ago for about four months. Trolls are heavily persecuted there, so Mister Troll had a bad time. Even though their king is always touting his "eight virtues," most people are pretty insensitive towards anyone who is not human. However, I got to meet a nice talking horse, and I collected about eight moonstones in total for my collection. I hear they're pretty rare there now.

Year 15 - Silver

Anniversary 15 is the worst anniversary for werewolves. Beware to the naive husband who puchases a set of expensive silverware for his afflicted wife. She's bound to fly into a rage at his insensitivity to her condition, and change into beast form right there. He'll be lucky to avoid getting his head bitten off, literally. At least he'll have something with which to defend himself if the date goes bad. Highly polished stainless steel is an appropriate replacement in this situation.

For the rest of us, silver is kind of boring. Silverware is good, silver tea sets are good, silver jewelry is good, and silver-coated weapons are good. Sorry werewolf lovers, but not everyone likes drooling disease-ridden mongrel people who want to eat or infect everyone else with their nasty disease.

Year 16 - Element: Earth

First, I have a warning about all of the elemental anniversaries. Crass gifts are the domain of cretins. This includes the infamous "broken wind" gift and other bodily functions that can be roughly associated with the elements, or lighting on fire any of these things for the Fire Anniversary. If you subscribe to this behavior, you deserve a divorce as your present. I know you've been married a long time, and you're comfortable with each other, etc., but have some class.

Okay, back to the Earth Anniversary. Rock golems are very helpful for general work around the house, smiting annoying monsters or passers-by, or lifting the diminutive woman to high cupboards and shelves. Sculptures are good, especially if you are artistically inclined and build one yourself. A magical garden can be a nice surprise, but you had better staff it with a golem. Most people don't want a gift that requires them to work.

Year 17 - Element: Water

Vials of enchanted holy water in crystal decanters are pretty, and get a good reception. Fountains are nice, but expensive, and need cleaning (no problem if you got her that golem last year). Surprisingly, I have also seen a bidet go over well, but do you really want to give your wife one of those?

In my opinion, however, these all pale in comparison to the ultimate Water Anniversary gift: A Magical Vacation (tm). They're easy to charter, and fun for the whole family. Take her someplace tropical, such as Port-au-Prince-Charming. Just beware of rich handsome guys bearing glass slippers. Also, I hear tales of a guy named Lancelot who hangs out there, hoping to attract attached women. He'll probably leave your wife alone unless she's a queen, however.

Year 18 - Element: Wind

If you were smart, and saved some fairy dust from Year 13, you're all set. Magical Vacations(tm) by airship are a good choice. Wind chimes work if you're on a budget. Musical wind instruments can work, too, but avoid the horns of blasting. Although such an item can be handy, it is a tempting tool for the wife who cannot get her husband's attention (and we've all been there). These poor husbands have learned that it's much better to be screamed at then blown through the living room wall.

Little-known fact: Baba Yaga's flying hut was a gift to her on Year 18. She kicked her husband out when she discovered that the hut had chicken legs, and this was because he bought it at Yoko's Bizarre Flea Market and Circus Freak Seconds. To this day, he watches the sky and searches for large chicken tracks in the dirt, hoping to find her and apologize. Let this be a lesson to you: don't be a cheapo.

Year 19 - Element: Fire

Braziers of Incense are nice for keeping your house smelling like potpourri, which your wife may enjoy. Don't mistakenly pick up an Incensing Brazier, however. They are very different things. Ever-flaming candles are good if you promise many romantic nights to go with them. If your wife is the evil type, a flaming pit trap might be more her style.

Little-known fact: Hansel and Gretel were almost cooked in an anniversary gift. That's right, the witch received her oven from her husband on Year 19, and later cooked herself in it. It was a fitting end for her, because she used it to make her husband into cookie siding for her house years before her own demise.

Year 20 - Gold

It's the currency of many lands, so one of the easiest to lay hands on. However, if you give your wife a bag of coins on anniversary night, she's going to get the wrong impression. Weapons are no good, unless they're just ornamental. The "in" gift right now is Egyptian-style artifacts. Just don't get a cursed one, unless you're eager to fight mummies or have your little dog dance around in a circle until it falls over. You can find lots of uncursed and cleansed items at Portal 1 Imports.

Year 25 - Adamantium

Be aware that most people selling Adamantium are lying. These people try to pass off titanium alloys as the rare magical metal. If you come across a seller, you should give him a good drubbing, and then offer 1/10 the price. Then you can pass it off to your wife as the real thing, and save yourself some hassle. If you're lucky, you actually got the real thing at a deep discount. Testing for authentic Adamantium is a difficult process involving a sleeping dwarf, a vise, and a large hammer. Unless you want to risk the Dwarven Tentacle Oath (I don't know what this is, and don't want to know), or can pay off Snow White and her friends to let you borrow Grumpy for a while, then it's best just to settle for a knockoff. Whether you confess that it is a knockoff or not is up to you.

Year 30 - Orichalcum

This reddish-gold magical metal has the same problem as Adamantium, except the hucksters are selling copper-gold alloys and brass. Orichalcum is difficult to get, but there is one sure way to put your hands on it: Steal it.

The Prophets of the Unconquered Sun run a temple down in Exalted City. It's a big ziggurat covered in Orichalcum plates. Stealing a few plates is easy, and you can even do it in broad daylight if you're good. Once you have the plates, you can get a local smith to fashion them into whatever you want. The secret is that the Prophets want you to steal it.

Exalted City is a tourist trap for old people (like you on Anniversary 30), and the Prophets are at the center of it all. And they run a big business buying back Orichalcum objects at estate sales and pawn shops. They actually make more money off you while you're in town than they lose from your theft. Sucker!

Year 35 - Mithril

Mithril can be found in Middle Earth, and that's it. Everything else you find outside of Middle Earth, even if it's got the official stamp, is fake. It looks similar, and the metal is mined from the same caves.... However, the guy in charge has the process all wrong, doesn't refine the metal or shape it right. He didn't really learn the craft correctly from his dear departed dad, a true craftsman. In effect, Chris (the guy) is just profiting off the official brand.

Year 40 - Star Metal

Star metal is any strange metal that fell from the sky. If you throw any old hunk of metal high enough and let fall back to the ground, you can call it star metal. The official height necessary is 1000 hill giants tall. You might need some help throwing it. And finding it afterwards.

If it has a pleasing shape, it will make a good gift. There's just something special about raw star metal. Just wait for it to stop smoking before you give it to her.

Year 45 - Ioun Stones

Ioun Stones are shining, multicolored, floating stones harvested from the cores of stars. After you touch one, it will revolve around your head. They are said to give you magical powers as well. I'm sure any wife would be happy to have a couple.

They're actually not as hard to find as you might think. Ever since their original discovery, they have become rather common in the D&D worlds. Most people don't even know where they came from originally.

I know a guy named Rhialto. He calls himself "the Marvellous!" because he has "more Ioun stones than any other wizard! Even more than Ildefonse, ha ha!" Anyway, I don't see what powers they give him other than to make him so dizzy he falls over every time I call his name on the street. That's why I don't recommend more than a couple.

Year 50 - Ancient Technology

If you make it as a couple for this long , the Tech Anniversary will probably be your most exciting anniversary. Ancient technology, inscrutable, covered in a fine layer of metallic dust, always makes a unique gift. It also makes a fine show piece that you'll be able to talk about incessantly for your last few years alive.

My advice for gift purchases is to go with your gut, and get whatever strikes your fancy. It doesn't matter what it does, because part of the joy of this anniversary is the discovery process. Once she receives it, and gets over her initial rush of excitement, you can both fiddle with it until you discover its obscure purpose, whether that is burning someone to a crisp, transporting your wife to another dimension, summoning the Council of Time Lords, or giving your left foot its own personality.

This can be dangerous, but so what? You're freakin' old. If this was a medieval universe instead of a fantasy one, you'd be dead three times over. Live a little! Have fun with your new toy!

Maybe you'll get lucky and find in an old book shop the legendary technical manual, How to Become a Cyber-Lich in Twelve Easy Steps complete with mechanical assistant. If this happens, don't call me from your floating metal coffin. I don't care if it's installed with a telepathic intertron or what-have-you, I don't know what comes after year 50. Maybe I'll research it in a few years, and I'll put out a new article called "The Fantasy Anniversary Materials - The Immortal Years." Until then, you're out of luck.

One last thing. If you think you bought a bomb, take it back. Have a little respect for the lives of those around you who haven't reached year 50 yet.

The Fantasy Anniversary Materials Gift List

My wife reminded me that Valentine's Day is coming up, and that got me thinking about gifts. We like to give gifts that follow the same themes as anniversary gifts. Every year the gift has to be of a different material, according to the established list of materials. You give a silver ring on one anniversary, a gold necklace on another, and so on, depending on what year it is. It helps make Valentine's Day a little more interesting, so we're not always giving flowers or chocolate or cards that look like pink hearts.

Well, I discovered recently that not a lot of people know about the List of Fantasy Anniversary Materials. This blew my mind, so I decided to write up a gift guide for all you clueless warriors, wizards, and fantasy creatures out there. I hope you enjoy it, and that it makes your upcoming anniversary or Valentine's Day that much more romantic!

Year 1 - Parchment

As the first fantasy anniversary material, parchment has little significance. Since it is made from the skin of a dead animal, it's difficult to make into a romantic gift, even if you scrawl your most heartfelt, gushing poems on it, pledging your undying love, etc. If your girl is into magic, she might enjoy a scroll containing a rare spell, especially if you researched it yourself. However, the rest of us will have to get by with a cheesy calfskin greeting card from HallMonk. At least the monks write good love poetry. With all that quiet time and sexual frustration, I'd write some mighty flowery verse, too.

Year 2 - Horn
It's best not to go with the obvious joke gifts on anniversary number two. A punny gift will ruin your hopes of anniversary romance, even if you think it's hilarious. If you can get a unicorn horn, go with that. It's simple, elegant, and you can convert it into healing medicine if you get your wife a more dangerous gift in later years. However, unicorn horns are hard to get nowadays. Chimera horns can be interesting conversation pieces, as can dragon horns. If you make up a fantastical story about how you slew the beast to get its horn, that's even better. Just don't talk about killing unicorns: "Then, I chopped off the pretty white horse's head, and ripped out its horn! It wasn't so white or pretty then! Ha ha! Hey, why are you crying?" is one sure way to ruin the mood.

Year 3 - Amber
Whoever decided that buying a piece of rubbery, fossilized gel for your anniversary gift needs to be frozen in carbonite (what, that's a sci-fi material you say? Hmm. Star Wars almost seems like fantasy to me). Whatever you do, don't get the ones with the dead things inside. Bad move. Many women hate bugs. It doesn't make it better for you to say, "Oh, but it's a metaphor for our love! It will last like this forever!" When I tried that line, my wife said, "You compared our love to a dead bug!?!" Couch time, big time.

Year 4 - Fur
There's many options with fur. Some girls like fur coats. Just make sure she's not a PETA girl. Golden fleece is a favorite, if you can find it, or if your name is Jason (and you're an argonaut). However, it's best to keep this year's anniversary gift away from last year's. Amber and fur are known spell components for lightning magic, and an unstable pair, especially if you rub them together during a thunderstorm. Don't be that guy who has to explain to his mother-in-law why her beloved daughter is a pile of ash.

Year 5 - Hide
Girls of the warrior persuasion like leather armor, from what I hear. There's also the option to go naughty with other leather items, such as whips, if you're into that kind of thing.

Year 6 - Bezoars
Bezoars are nasty. They're clumps of swallowed hair, collected in the stomach over the years, or greasy, rocky lumps found in livers, gall bladders, and other unsavory places. Yuck! The only reason I can think that they were added to the list is because some women got paranoid due to year seven's thematic gift.

Year 7 - Poison
Poison! It's the easy way out of the relationship, if you've got that seven-year itch. Of course, you don't have to kill your loved one, especially if you still love her. And I would never condone it in either case. Other options are sleeping pills, alcohol, opium, LSD, marijuana, Rohypnol, etc. Drugs are poison, too. I'd also be careful about any gifts you receive from her, especially if she feels as nasty about you as you do about her.

And this gets us back to bezoars. According to legend, eating a bezoar can protect you against poison. Someone was thinking ahead! However, you couldn't get me to eat a bezoar, even if my life was on the line. Disgusting.

Little-known fact: Snow White received a poisoned apple as a seventh-anniversary gift from Prince Charming. She gave it to Grumpy to shut him up for a while, and everyone had a good laugh when he never woke back up.

Year 8 - Feathers
Feathers make beautiful headdresses, and can be incorporated into many types of clothing. Just like the horn and fur anniversaries, feathers from more exotic animals make better gifts. For instance, phoenix feathers are a long-time favorite, suitable for use in the creation of wands (see Harry Potter) and potions, or for casual display. They have a fiery, shimmering appearance, but cause no harm to the holder. However, care must be taken with them; misuse will cause one to turn to ash. Thankfully, if you start a fire over the ashes, you have a chance of restoring it. If you killed your loved one on the previous anniversary, and you're feeling bad about it, phoenix down can also be used to revive her. However, this method of resurrection has a high chance of failure unless she's a Final Fantasy game character not named Aeris (sorry Cloud).

Little-known fact: Dumbledore gave James and Lily Potter a feather from his phoenix, Fawkes, for their eighth anniversary. This is the same feather that was used to craft Harry's wand. When Dumbledore handed the unasked-for present to James, Lily gave him the evil eye in response. Dumbledore replied, "What!?! My interest in James is purely platonic."

Year 9 - Potions
Love potions really should not be necessary, guys. Don't make this mistake and look like a moron. If you're really desperate to rekindle the love in your relationship, and you haven't killed her off yet, at least have the intelligence to relabel the bottle.

Potions of strength, stamina, heroism, slipperiness, and euphoria are classic gifts, perfect for a night of romance and adventure. This is such a popular combination, you can now get a convenient six pack down at your local Slay-and-Shop.

Perfume counts as a potion, as well, but it's much less favored than the above (and no, this is not a paid Slay-and-Shop ad. But you have to admit they have a catchy slogan: World Class Food You Can Slay Yourself).

Year 10 - Iron
Iron seems like a boring gift, especially for the monumental 10-year anniversary. However, it is a key material. It embodies strength, fortitude, and dullness (just kidding about that last one). It also has inherent magical properties that can be leveraged against evil fairies and spirits.

Octiron is a risky variant, but an option. If she loves Terry Pratchett, there's a good chance she'll break into giggles when she receives it. If she hasn't heard of Pratchett, she may say, "I don't get it," or, "This isn't funny." Here's the best predictor for success: If your wife insisted that you hang that old poster of a shirtless Rincewind from Teen Heroine Magazine in your guest room, then go with the Octiron.

If she is into Dungeons and Dragons, Cold Iron works. Only available in the D&D worlds, it will allow her to slay some nasty critters that would otherwise bug her to death. Everyone hates damage reduction.

Year 11 - Scales
Dragon scales are the best option for year eleven. Anything made from them is sure to get you the adoration you deserve. Don't give her snake scales and get the old, "Oh, my brave man! You shouldn't have! Did you go kill this in the back yard, all by yourself, you twit?" However, there is a slight difficulty with the scales gift. Everyone loves the metallic scales better than the chromatic ones, which means that more good dragons die every year from poaching, and evil dragons are left to rampage. We really need to turn this industry around. Thankfully, there is a new line of chromatic scale products called ResponsiScales. They sell themselves as the responsible alternative that shows you are a hero who respects your fair lands and the good dragons that protect them.

ResponsiScales are available at Slay-and-Shop. You can even kill the dragon yourself, and they have helpful workshops every Thursday that teach you how to de-scale your dragon carcass and fashion gifts from the scales.

Year 12 - Crystal
For the Crystal Anniversary, don't go home without a magical crystal. If you can get the shard of some dark and mysterious larger crystal (such as the Dark Crystal), this works well. Your wife gets to feel like she is a part of something bigger, even if the world is worse for it. If you live in one of the Final Fantasy game worlds, you can grab some Magicite or Materia for your girl, and she'll be just as happy. Not only do these crystals have the bonus of souls trapped inside, she can use them to upgrade her weapons or enhance her magic abilities.

If you live on the island of Vvardenfell, or in one of the surrounding lands, you can also get crystals that allow you to trap souls yourself! Once a soul is trapped inside, one of these little crystals can be used to power your wife's magic spells. This is a great opportunity for another night out, this time on a mission to kick some monster tail, and not only take their names, but take their souls.

Lastly, don't get her a crystal ball, thinking you are being clever. Without a doubt, she'll love it, but that's not the problem. The problem is that once she has that little bauble, she'll always know why you're late, why you didn't clean up the house, how the baby got hurt, etc., and none of your lame excuses will ever work again.

The list is continued with Years 13 - 50 in Part 2.

The Future of Religion (Part 4)

[Edited to add: This is turning into a modestly popular series of posts, with comments continuing to trickle in (the Long Tail!). Please be sure to peruse the comments to Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4. And, err, Part 5.]

It's time to sum up. This has turned out to be a very interesting set of posts on the topic of religion in science fiction -- interesting for me to work out some thoughts I had, and interesting to read some comments that others have had. I opened with some musings about the portrayal of human religion in science fiction, followed up with a short aside on the alleged conflict between science and religion, and wondered why so little of science fiction shows humans with religion.

The thesis (or perhaps more accurately: supposition) is as follows:

Very few novels in science fiction portray humans as religious.

Please note that I am referring to religion of humans in science fiction (not religious themes, or religion of aliens). Religion may be rife in science fiction, but largely in the purview of aliens (religion as The Other). I would frankly expect the opposite -- that we would unconsciously assume religion to be a human endeavor, while rarely if at all ascribing religion to aliens. Instead I find that authors typically portray humans as areligious.

Lately I've been mentally contrasting science fiction and fantasy along these terms. A typical fantasy novel: the priest character is so common, he's a cliche (the use of a gendered pronoun was intentional, but not relevant to this topic). Don't tell me that religion is necessary to fantasy: sprites and gnolls, knights and magic -- all these can do just fine without gods. There's no need for religion at all. But pull a random science fiction book off the novel, and do you find the characters praying for their safety before dropping out of FTL? I think not. (And why not?)

Hence my statement that humans in science fiction are rarely portrayed as religions, and my confusion as to why this is so.

Of course, my thesis has been disputed by the commenters (you know who are), but the more I think about it, the more I think I'm right. (After all, nothing can convince a man -- or troll -- faster than someone who tells him he's wrong.)

In this post, I want to offer a very, very brief list of science fiction novels that do directly portray humans as religious. Not surprisingly, the commenters covered all the novels that I am familiar with, and offered some more that I will hopefully read soon. (With apologies for my pathetic attempts at one-sentence teasers.)

Let's start with the ones I was thinking about:

• A Canticle for Leibowitz (Walter M. Miller, Jr.): humans have been nuked back to savagery, but the Catholic monastic orders preserve knowledge for the future of humanity.


• A Wrinkle in Time (Madeleine L'Engle): Meg is torn by the long disappearance of her physicist father (hey, that's me!) and her concern over her very young brother's social isolation. The curious Mrs Whatsit, Mrs Who, and Mrs Which offer their help, and Meg must do her part in the struggle against evil -- on the other side of the galaxy. (Thanks to Mrs. Billy Goat for reminding me of this fantastic series.)


• The Handmaid's Tale (Margaret Atwood): in a near-future Christian fundamentalistic theocracy, officially-recognized concubines bear children in place of barren upper class women (male infertility is a subversive concept). (Frankly: boring.)


• Contact (Carl Sagan): the novel itself is not entirely well-known, but you've probably heard of the movie. The main characters in the novel struggle with faith and religion, but this is certainly well into the background of the larger plot.


• "The Last Question" (Isaac Asimov): this short story focuses on the question of whether entropy can be reversed. I had the opportunity to see a planetarium show adaptationy, and it was brilliant. You could probably get the same effect by reading the story out loud while pretending to be Leonard Nimoy. Try it. Let me know how it goes. (To be fair, short stories in science fiction often address religious themes. I have unconsciously equated "science fiction" with "science fiction novels" for this series of posts, but I like this story so much I have to mention it here.)


• Space Trilogy (C. S. Lewis): Mr. Lewis' science fiction is garnering a little bit more attention. Like his better-known (and better-written) Narnia Chronicles, the Space Trilogy is a vehicle for Mr. Lewis' Christian philosophies. The first two works, Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra, read more like late 1800's science fiction, and are not entirely memorable. That Hideous Strength, however, is quite good (and may be read on its own). Science fiction meets World War II England - very, very good.


• Stranger in a Strange Land (Robert Heinlein): a wonderful novel, and quite well known. Valentine Michael Smith grows up under the tutelage of Martians, but is returned to Earth and must painfully learn to understand just what brand of monkeys we really are. But still puzzling to me: what exactly is Heinlein trying to say about religion? Does he buy it? Or does he think it's total crap? Am I missing the point, or are his ideas entirely muddled?


• Dune (Frank Herbert): brilliant (but for the love of all that's dear, don't read the sequels). Dune presents a wonderfully envisioned future of medieval, backstabbing politics. The plots and counter-plots swirl around the House Atreides, which is crushed on the desert planet of Arrakis. The heir, Paul Atreides, survives with the help of the indigenous Fremen.


• The Hainish Cycle (Ursula K. Le Guin): I'm afraid no one- or two-sentence summary can describe these works. Some deal more explicitly with religion (The Telling), while others merely have religion quietly in the background (humans who belong to the Ekumen appear to have a kind of quiet spirituality). I can strongly recommend The Left Hand of Darkness (yes!) and The Dispossessed (double yes!), although as I mentioned, don't expect overt religious overtones.

In addition, the commenters kindly offered the following: The Sparrow, Children of God, Factoring Humanity, Revolt in 2100, the Riverworld series, Xenocide, The Rise of Endymion, the Long Sun series, The Electric Church, The Mote in God's Eye, Instrumentality, Return to Planet of the Apes, Gather, Darkness!, Players of Null A, Variable Star, and Starmaker.

Hopefully I got 'em all? A few I have already read, but most not; I think Sparrow, Instrumentality, and Gather, Darkness sound most promising.

However, I currently have a request list of approximately 40 books and movies at the public library, so clearly I won't be getting to these books soon. Thank to the readers who shared!

And finally, any missing books that show a science fiction humanity with religion?

The Future of Religion (Part 3)

[Edited to add: This is turning into a modestly popular series of posts, with comments continuing to trickle in (the Long Tail!). Please be sure to peruse the comments to Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4. And, err, Part 5.]

In last week's post, I briefly introduced the current conflict between science and religion in the US of A. The topic of this series is, however, science fiction, so let's move forward.

I have asserted that religion is essentially verboten in science fiction (some exceptions were already noted in the comments to my first post). How can that be? Religion, faith, spirituality -- all these are commonplace in literature. Fantasy is, in my mind, a closely-related genre, but fantasy novels feature the supernatural all the time. Science-fiction: essentially never.

So why is religion overlooked in science-fiction? Let me try to work through some of my thoughts on what might be going on.

• Science fiction authors aren't religious.
  
  
  This is an interesting possibility. I don't really know any way to test this theory... it's true that scientists tend to be less religious than the general population, but scientists and science-fiction-authors are very different creatures.


• The conflict between science and religion has already been won for science in the future.
  
  
  This possibility presumes a few things: first, that there is a conflict between science and religion, and second, that it will be won for science in the future. There are indeed many conflicts between science and religion, but not in all things; neither is it necessary that science and religion conflict. Whether this putative conflict will or won't be won in the future is obviously open for debate. Suppose religion "wins" in the future--isn't that going to make for interesting, creative science-fiction? Suppose science "wins"--does that mean future people will hold no spiritual beliefs at all? And what happens when we meet alien races that do hold strong religious beliefs?


• Religion doesn't sell.
  
  
  I think this might be the real reason. Authors are professionals, and their publishers are professionals -- they're all in the business of making money (more charitably: a living). I'm inclined to believe they have a very good idea of what sells. So my guess is that science-fiction novels that feature future religions rarely sell well.
  
  But why wouldn't religion in sci-fi sell well? Is it that the people who buy sci-fi aren't very religious? What's the biggest audience for sci-fi anyways?
  
  Could things be more subtle than the sci-fi audience isn't really interested in religion? Suppose the sci-fi audience is reasonably religious. What happens if an author portrays a future for a particular religion? Will the Catholic League condemn books that portray a future that is monolithically Methodist? Jewish? Hindu? Is it possible to envision a science-fiction future in which the human race is as multicultural as it is today?

So what do you think - why is religion avoided in science fiction?

Next week I'll try listing a few science fiction novels that actually deal with religion.

Spitting in the Eye of the Technological Singularity

The Technological Singularity is a big idea in the world of Sci-Fi. In case you don't know what the Technological Singularity is, I've identified two major definitions with Wikipedia's help:

1. The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence defines it as "the technological creation of smarter-than-human intelligence."

2. Futurist Ray Kurzweil says, "The Singularity is technological change so rapid and so profound that it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. Some would say that we cannot comprehend the Singularity, at least with our current level of understanding, and that it is impossible, therefore, to look past its 'event horizon' and make sense of what lies beyond."

The idea is that once a "smarter-than-human" AI is created, it will be able to build AI smarter than itself, and so on, and the changes to technology accelerate from there. It conjures images of futures filled with world-ruling robots, technologically-augmented humans, and thinking computers that hold the answers to questions humans have not even thought to ask yet. On its surface it's a neat idea and its name has a fun science-y sound. However, besides being fun to talk about, I'm not convinced the idea has much to offer. It has a number of problems that make it implausible. Instead of the definitions listed above, I contend that the Technological Singularity is three things:

1. A Buzzword that Leverages the Mystique of Artificial Intelligence
2. Magic Masquerading as Science
3. A Crutch for Sci-Fi Writers

Now, I'll elaborate.

1. A Buzzword that Leverages the Mystique of Artificial Intelligence

Kurzweil's definition is pretty over-the-top. I don't even know what a "rupture in the fabric of human history" would be. Perhaps this is just another way to say it would be "earth-shattering," or "change everything," etc. Anyway, I don't buy it. Technological advancement won't speed up to the levels he and others have theorized. They've claimed that the exponential curve of technological progress the human race has been making over its existence will continue its ramp up that curve for a long time to come. This just won't happen.

Here's why: True exponential curves do not exist in real life for very long. There are hard limits in this universe such as the speed of light, or the size of an atom. Finite resources and the laws of physics slow everything down eventually. Sometimes a paradigm shift or genius insight can move technology past a roadblock, but some roadblocks you just cannot pass ... unless you believe in magic.

Intelligence is less well understood than physics, making it ripe ground for speculation and forecasting the future (or "future casting" if you're a weatherman) . However, self-driven intelligence has been an elusive animal to this date. It is easy for humans to manipulate computers to do what we tell them to do, or even perform simple decisions based on a mathematical weighting function. However, in 30+ years of AI research, we have little to show other than fancy search techniques, decision trees, and algorithms that can recognize patterns. This does not mean there will not be a breakthrough into a self-motivated AI that can make complex decisions.

However, I do not think the Singularity will occur as stated, even if we create such an AI. The idea is that once an artificial mind is created that contains "intelligence" to surpass human intelligence, it can then create a better artificial mind with higher intellectual function. This is daydreaming at its finest. Intelligence is no easy thing to quantify. How do we know when we have a machine that is more intelligent than its creator?

Answer: It can perform mental tasks that we cannot.

Now, I'm not talking about all the great things computers can do now, such as performing math faster, winning at chess, and drawing fancy pictures on our computer screens. The idea of a "smarter" computer, is one that can do something that we, as humans, can not do, something that is impossible to do with just a human brain and a process to follow.

Knowing how to program a computer, I have a deep sense that this is impossible. It is especially absurd when you look inside a computer program and discover that if you just performed the same steps as the computer, you could come out with the same answer, just taking more time. If you used a tool to automate some of the menial portions, you could do the same thing, perhaps almost as fast as the computer. You might need some training to do it, but you could do it, too.

What this all boils down to is tools and training. At the core of an AI is a machine to make decisions. At the core of a person is a brain that makes decisions. With the right tools, one can be as good at a particular task, or almost as good as another. Therefore, balancing the premise of the Singularity on AI is incorrect. An AI is like a nice calculator, or someone you pay to do your homework. Doing your homework without them will take longer, but you'll still finish with plenty of time to go play.

Therefore, when we boil down the definitions and take a clear look at them, we see that there's nothing inherently special about AI to make all this happen, and this idea of creating a "smarter" AI than what the human mind can produce is bunk. Therefore, there's no such thing as this "Singularity," this event of creating that AI.

As far as the ideas of robotic armies and AI overlords, that's nothing new. We've had Attila the Hun and Hitler, and all sorts of other nasty sociopaths and their movements to deal with in the past. Dealing with these new jerks might be a little harder, but let's hope that we can keep some of those technological advantages for ourselves if we are indeed stupid enough to engineer our own worst enemies.

2. Magic Masquerading as Science

As I wrote above, I believe that it may be possible for a human to create an AI that can perform the same functions as a human. However, to believe that the creation of such an AI will speed our progress ever forward at increasingly-breakneck speeds because of it is fantasy. For one, because a smarter AI cannot be created, there will no longer be this promised ramp of continually smarter AIs. Also, even with fancy AI that is as smart as a human, we are limited by resources. An AI needs to run on a processor with some other peripheral hardware, including memory, network components, robotics, etc. Also, all of these parts need maintenance, and to be replaced on occasion. Lastly, they need energy to function. Even if we reduce sizes down to the quantum level, these all still hold true.

Compare this to a human. Humans have a lot of the necessary hardware built in, and we self-maintain pretty well, some running for 100 years or more. We also procreate. However, resources are still necessary for us, too. There's also an argument here for biological computers, but if you're going to do that, why not just grow human brains? It comes to the same thing anyway.

It also takes time to build a machine to host the AI, and to train the AI, sort of like it takes time to create a functioning human. Granted, the time to create a computer is much smaller than the time necessary to grow a baby, but the resources become harder to procure over time, even if you start going to space to find them and trying to harness the sun for as much energy you can get. Space travel is expensive and time consuming, and harnessing solar energy has a long way to go. Even if you allow for big advances in these technologies, the theory behind the Singularity is starting to get clunky ("Oh, we need AI, and cheap solar, and better manufacturing, and fast space travel, etc.").

So, if we take all of this into account, we see that we'll reach our hard resource limitations faster, which will kill that exponential speed-up. Getting past that is going to take some magical thinking.

3. A Crutch for Sci-Fi Writers

The Singularity has caught on in the Sci-Fi community, and we are seeing more of these stories set after the Singularity. I like that authors who do this are ignoring the whole, "you can't predict what's going to happen after the Singularity!" idea. It's a stupid thing to posit because it's unverifiable and self-satisfying: it's hard to predict a lot of things, such as when we're going to get flying cars. However, just because I like their guts, does not mean that I think it's good form to posit some sort of Technological Singularity in fiction. It moves Sci-Fi into Fantasy, and makes the Sci-Fi less based in science. It's no worse than saying, "Then aliens gave us a bunch of great technology and now we do all sorts of fantastic new things with science," but just like getting all your great tech from aliens, it feels a little like a cop out, and when it gets overused, it starts to feel like a fad.

Let's Hear Your Thoughts

If you vehemently disagree, let me know. I have a feeling my view is not a popular one, especially since the idea of the Technological Singularity is an interesting one. However, I think I'm on the right track in guessing that the futurologists have thought this one out just as well as they thought out flying cars back in the fifties.

The Future of Religion (Part 2)

[Edited to add: This is turning into a modestly popular series of posts, with comments continuing to trickle in (the Long Tail!). Please be sure to peruse the comments to Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4. And, err, Part 5.]

Before we continue to discuss science fiction and religion, we must reflect briefly on religion and science. It is an oft-repeated canard that science and religion are different but equally valid ways of understanding the world.

No. Nonsense. And it's still nonsense no matter how often it's repeated by politicians, scientists, or religious adherents. "Science" is an organized body of knowledge, developed through the systematic application of the scientific method -- ultimately, it comes down to the systematic testing of hypotheses. Claims which cannot be tested are outside the purview of science.

For example, the presence of a supernatural being who cannot be observed through natural processes (allow me the redundancy for purposes of clarity) -- this is not a testable claim. One can neither prove nor disprove through experiment or systematic observation this possibility. This claim therefore belongs to the realm of religion, and not science.

However, I am not aware of any religion which makes no claims that can be tested. In fact, religions typically thrive on the assumption that the supernatural interferes with the natural. Intercessory prayer is a common practice among Christian religions, for example. Now this is testable: can intercessory prayer affect the outcome of certain events? (In fact, it has been tested, repeatedly, but discussing the validity of these experiments is a topic that belongs on another blog.)

Science and religion do overlap. However, they can still co-exist peacefully. Religion could welcome science - perhaps not all religions, or all interpretations of any given religion, but in principle... why not? The converse is also possible: science could thrive on religion (though not dogma). Scientists are seekers of truth -- is that not a phrase that could apply to many religious adherents?

The conflict arises because science accepts nothing - nothing - on faith. Everything must be tested, and when scientific knowledge begins to fail the best and most devious tests (note the plural), then that knowledge must be discarded. Evidence that conflicts with prevailing belief is examined, weighed, and -- if found valid -- gladly welcomed. To put it another way, scientific belief is based on evidence. Many religions (I do not say all) rely on dogma and faith; conflicting evidence is anathema.

Witness the fundamentalist Christian movement in the United States. A belief that the Bible must be literal and accurate results in a jarring conflict with scientific knowledge. The latest battlefield is the teaching of evolution (or lack thereof) in public schools, as well as a watering-down of science standards in order to permit the teaching of fundamentalist Christian beliefs. It's a very odd thing -- apparently many individuals are threatened by the fact of overwhelming evidence in favour of the validity of evolution by natural selection.

Some links might be of interest:

• The evidence to support evolution by natural selection is summarized here. You can download the pdf with a few clicks, or refer to an executive summary. (With thanks to PZ Myers of Pharyngula [see below] for the link to the NAS summary.)



• Perhaps you'll recall the Dover trial? The latest, of course, is the creationist push in Texas. Code words to notice: "teach the controversy" and "just a theory" all signal a fundamentalist push against science. This push is part of a very organized movement, often led by the deceitful Discovery Institute. Coming soon to a state near you! (Up here in Canada, the anti-science movement is far less strong at the moment, but I fear that it will change.)



• Are you interested in the scientific details of the creationism vs science debate? Try TalkOrigins. Panda's Thumb keeps track of the latest events in the creation vs science conflict. Pharyngula also provides current events, but readers may find the strident anti-religious tone to be offensive. In contrast, a haven of ignorance: Uncommon Descent. Or, for something truly frightening, the latest in creation "research".



• And there's the current US presidential race (sweet Mabel, will it never end?!), in which several of the initial Republican candidates expressly denied a belief in evolution. From Reason: "A larger question is whether a candidate's belief about the validity of evolutionary biology has anything to say about his or her ability to evaluate evidence."

The conflict between science and religion -- science and any cherished belief of human culture -- is hardly new. I have offered this crude summary of current events in the United States in order to provoke some thought about the future. Where will science and religion go in the future? Will the conflict continue? Will one "side" win?

I personally find it doubtful that religion will ever fade by the wayside. I find it impossible that the entire human species will ever agree on any one set of beliefs. Shouldn't science fiction reflect the religious and scientific turmoil we see today?

Comments are invited - how will the conflict between science and religion play out in the future, and how should science fiction address this issue? If you imagine a world in the future - aliens and spaceships and the whole lot - where does religion fit into your vision?

Next week I'll try musing about why science fiction so rarely addresses human religion.

The Future of Religion (Part 1)

[Edited to add: This is turning into a modestly popular series of posts, with comments continuing to trickle in (the Long Tail!). Please be sure to peruse the comments to Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4. And, err, Part 5.]

One topic that has been puzzling me lately has been the lack of any serious portrayal of religion in science-fiction. Science-fiction -- real science-fiction -- is in my opinion about people, about the interaction of science, technology, and human culture. Science-fiction is speculative anthropology (see Ursula K. Le Guin, for example). So what does science-fiction have to say about religion? Apparently, nothing.

Go figure.

Religion is seen frequently in science fiction, but almost always religion is associated with alien species. (Star Trek might be a very accessible example here.)

Recently I've been wondering about this while watching Babylon 5. Like much science-fiction (television or otherwise), there are several significant alien species. The Narns revere G'Quan and his writings; spirituality among Narns in general is frequently shown on the show. The Minbari on the show are highly religious. In contrast, the Centauri show little or no spirituality (other than, arguably, the potential civil religion focused on the old Republic). The Vorlons are too cryptic to make sense of, so we can draw no conclusions from them. The only remaining major species on Babylon 5 is the human species, and none of the major characters show any inclination towards religion while on the station, other than partaking in some of the Minbari rituals. True, there are a few episodes that deal with religious humans, such as an episode in which Roman Catholic monks arrive on the station, but overwhelmingly it appears that humans aren't religious.

(In one episode, a major spiritual visitation occurs on the space station. Representatives of each species each see their own main religious figure. The Narns see G'Quan; the Drazi - a minor species - see their ancient prophet; the Minbari see Valen. And what do humans see? Some sort of angel that looks like Mister Clean. I can't begin to guess what that was supposed to represent. Intriguingly, one automatically assumes a monolithic religion for the alien species, but that is simply not possible for humans.)

I won't claim that religion is a universal trait among humans, but it's pretty close to universal... so doesn't it seem odd that science-fiction overlooks the possibility that humans in the future might be religious?

This post is the first in a multi-part series. Please come back next Monday - I'll take a quick detour to blog about the alleged conflict between science and religion. After that, it's back to the science fiction, and hopefully I can present some ideas as to why science fiction typically ignores human religion.

In the meantime, comments are invited; what do you think might be going on? Any favourite science-fiction novels that do portray future religion?

Philip K. Dick in the movies

One of the things I like to do here is take a look at the stories or novels that inspire current movies. The stories usually win the comparison --though not always: most of the Harry Potter movies have been fantastic, while the originals are only so-so. (Feel free to disagree in the comments!) I recently got my hands on a collection of short stories by Philip K. Dick ("Selected Stories of..."), a fun collection of Cold War dystopic stories.

Let me talk about three of them.

"The Minority Report"

When I went to see the movie, I thought -- well, there's a chance they'll pull off a good sci-fi movie. Nah. I suppose it wasn't a bad action movie, and well, it wasn't remotely as bad as "I, Robot" (oh, Isaac! How unkind fate has been to you!), but sci-fi? Three pre-cogs vote on the best future, and the movie doesn't even address the idea of alternate futures? No one is uncomfortable with the morality of jailing people who haven't yet committed a crime? Does it occur to no one that maybe, just maybe, if you told people, hey, we know you're about to kill someone, then maybe they wouldn't do it? Did anyone put any thought into this movie at all?! Other than the product placement team??!

(All right, I had to get that out of my system. Bottled it up for years. Phew. I feel better. It's OK. But: gah!)

The story, also titled "The Minority Report", is quite short. I won't give it away; the ending goes in quite a different direction than in the movie. But at least the characters acknowledge the difficulties -- physics, ethics -- in a world where people are jailed before they commit a crime. And best of all, the main character actually knows something about the system he's using. Apparently Tom Cruise never even knew the pre-cogs disagreed! Who put this guy in charge?!

No, wait -- let me finish -- ow -- can't suppress -- the truth, man -- mumble mumble...

"We Can Remember It for You Wholesale"

Don't worry folks, everything is now under control. The unfortunate outburst you just witnessed has been... dealt with. Ahem.

Well, here I have to admit that I never saw Total Recall. (Seriously. I don't get cable under the bridge.) I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Total Recall was an action movie -- and I think it took place on Mars, yes? (I did once catch the last five minutes or so, but that was a long time ago -- I may be wrong.)

The story is quite quaint, probably more interesting as a foil to a movie than as a story in its own right. It's intended to amuse; there's almost no action. The main character, Quail, can't afford to take a trip to Mars, so he decides to sign up for a faked-memory program. The company will give him fake memories and plant a few mementos in his house: Quail will have memories of being sent as a spy to Mars, an agent for Interplan -- a real adventurous trip to Mars! Unfortunately, when Rekal, Inc. sedates him, they learn he actually did go to Mars as an agent for Interplan and had had his memory mostly wiped.

Oh, shit, they think, and do what any reputable company would do: "Sorry, pal, the procedure didn't work. We're refunding half your money. Please don't come back. Have a nice day!" slam!

And so the fun begins!

"Imposter"

Again, a very short sci-fi story drawn out into an action movie. (Yes! A movie! Same name. With that guy from CSI.) The movie itself is not bad -- not bad action, not bad sci-fi. It's not great, because it doesn't delve into any really interesting ideas. The kernel is there, true, but it's not examined well.

Both the story and the movie start out the same: Spence Olham gets arrested by his good friend Nelson -- military intelligence believes Spence Olham was replaced by a booby-trapped robot from Alpha Centauri, and naturally want him... taken care of.

Olham isn't thrilled about this plan. He manages to escape temporarily, but he must convince his friend, his wife, and even himself that he is who he thinks he is.

It's a neat idea. Unfortunately neither the story nor the movie really gets into it. What if everyone believes you are already dead, and you are a deadly simulcrum? How could you convince them otherwise? How could you convince yourself? The movie takes the technological route ("X-ray in ward 2, stat!"), the story takes the plot route ("Dammit, I'll find the real robot myself!"). Neither delves into the psychology -- wouldn't it have been great to read about a man tortured by self-doubt?

But never mind -- short stories serve as a little sandbox for ideas, a place for playing. For real depth, we must turn to novels. (For a more critical review of the stories discussed here, you might try The Modern Word).

Why TV Fails to Tell Good Stories, and How to Fix It

TV fails to tell long-form and complex stories correctly time and time again. That's a problem for me, because these are my favorite type of stories (Heroes, Battlestar Galactica, Babylon Five, etc.). Unfortunately, it's not a problem that is likely to go away soon. There are three simple reasons for this failure:

1. Television actors are unreliable.
2. Television writers are both lazy and unreliable.
3. Television executives are stupid.

Now that I've offended everyone in the television industry, I want to push even more buttons, and say that there are a few simple solutions to this problem.

But first, let me explain a little more about what I mean when I write about those "long-form" TV show mistakes. Here are three examples from the recent past:

1. Heroes season one was pretty great (not perfect), and it captured my attention like few shows can. However, season two is filled with blunders. To name just one, some random loser shoots the character DL in the beginning of the season, because the actor could not get along with the actress playing his wife (or vice versa), and she was the bigger star. This was a failure of an unreliable actor and actress, and it did nothing for the plot. Maybe Tim Kring, the writer, could have written him out better, but really, he's not the one to blame in this instance.

2. Up until season three, Battlestar Galactica was also amazing. However, season three bogged down like crazy with lots of unnecessary "drama" that failed to move the story forward. Now, this did not bother me, but it bothered a lot of other people. What did bother me was the final episode of the season, which revealed four of the Cylon sleeper cell bad guys. I thought the episode was great, except for the one problem that seriously damaged the series: Ron Moore, the writer, had not decided who among the major cast of good guys were sleeper Cylons until season three began (he admitted as much in an interview). This is writer laziness in the extreme! How can you hope to write a good, coherent story, with appropriate foreshadowing and characterization clues if you don't know how it's going to end?!? If there's one thing that annoys me more than anything else about long-form TV shows, it's writers who make the story up as they go along.

3. Babylon 5 was one of the pioneers of the long-form sci-fi TV show. However, you can easily see its screw-ups at the end of season four, and through all of season five. James Michael Straczynski (JMS), the writer, thought he only had four seasons to wrap up his plot, so he wound it down in season four. Altogether, I thought he did a good job with this. However, at the last minute, after the cast had been let go, Babylon 5 was renewed for a fifth season. JMS should have just said, "Hey, you told me I had four seasons, so the story finished up in four seasons." Instead, he went ahead with a bad season five, with poor replacements for some of the main cast that had disappeared. This is mainly a case of the execs causing disaster, although the writer could have prevented it.

Here's how the TV industry can fix mistakes like the above, and more:

Solution 1: Fire Real Actors, Create Digital Actors.

Real actors have egos that clash and get bruised (see above). They demand more money (like Bitty Schram, who played Sharona from Monk), or get bored, or fear they might become typecast (like Christopher Eccleston, the previous Doctor Who). They get sick, die, get thrown in jail, embarrass the show, or decide to quit acting and spend more time with their families. And you can't just replace them with another actor to play the same role, because audiences don't like that. Well, Doctor Who is an exception, but that's cheating, and has some consequences besides. Even with cartoon characters, it's difficult (though much easier) to replace a voice actor.

The answer is to completely digitalize actors, separating image and voice from the problematic individual. We're getting there already with the Pixar films, Final Fantasy movies, Shrek movies, and films like The Polar Express and Beowulf (even though some of these suffer pretty badly from the problems of the Uncanny Valley). Voice digitalization is still a big problem, but all-in-all, we're getting there.

After voice and image can be disconnected from individual actors, these actors become regular, replaceable employees. Sure, motion capture and acting talent will still be necessary, but the motion capture allows the actors to be in the background, providing data that can be provided by anyone with ability. Also, actors may have different styles, but the look of the character will persist, and I'm sure there will be software to digitally correct small behavioral inconsistencies, as well as actors good enough to adapt to the established character's personality.

Solution 2: Fire TV Writers, Hire Book Writers

Authors of books write better long-form stories than TV writers. This is largely because an author writes an entire book before the publisher publishes it. It also helps that there is an editor to read it all over before publication as well. When the author reveals that Susie is the murderer in chapter ten, and finds that Susie's homicidal streak is not credible because there were subtle indicators of it in previous chapters, he goes back and fixes those chapters. He cannot just make things up as he goes along and hope that the reader does not notice. Publishers and readers want more than that.

Now, not all the TV writers need to be fired, if they can just finish their scripts, or at least the outline with major plot points and secrets, before the airing of the first show. It would also help if they created plots that were a set length, say two, three, or four seasons, and let the story run its course.

There is a large pool of good writers out there just waiting to be tapped. Of course, there are writers who make the same mistakes TV writers make, but these mistakes don't usually show up in a single book. Rather, they tend to show up when the author writes a series of books, possibly trying to milk a proven set of characters for more money. To get around this problem, I'd say that the talent pool is large enough that these people could be avoided.

Solution 3: Tell TV Executives to Butt Out

Television executives have a big problem with micromanagement. They see something they don't like in a series, and they want it yanked. Or they decide that a series makes them good money, so they milk that cow for all it's worth, dragging it into season after season and squeezing the life out of any plot that once existed. To fix this problem, they need to butt out of artistic decisions, and let the plot play out as it was originally planned. They may not see the big picture of the story, or they may not realize that a risk in the plot or characterization may make the story unique, or have unforeseen rewards. They are not the artists, and they should remember that (and they might even make more money if they followed this advice).

Solution 4: Keep What Works

There are a few pieces of the television equation that work right now. For instance, if a TV story is not compelling, audience feedback can help a writer correct the problems mid-stream. Heroes shows us a great example of this. With season two, Tim Kring set up some lame subplots, mostly revolving around some boring and unconvincing romantic scenes. The audience complained online, and Tim Kring changed the direction of the show to make it better (he has stated so publicly). This is good, because improving something is always better than not improving it. Of course, the writer should use his judgment with this approach, because the viewers may not always have good opinions.

TV shows also often perform single episode pacing well. Audiences need hooks that pull them along from episode to episode, and the occasional cliffhanger or surprise revelation to build excitement. Many shows do this well. It's probably one thing that TV writers are better trained to do than fiction writers.

Lastly, there's the humor aspect of TV. Authors are good at dry humor, because that's what works in books. However, this does not necessarily translate as well to the small screen. TV writers have experience with the format, so this is another good reason to keep some around.

Conclusion

There's a lot wrong with the current state of long-form TV drama, but the problems are solvable. Some solutions await in the future, beckoning lucratively, and some are just common sense. Most of the changes would shake up the industry dramatically, and anger many people, but that is the way of progress. I'm all for progress, especially if it gives me the wonderful, evocative, compelling stories that television has the potential to provide.

Anti-Christianity in The Golden Compass?

Let's start this right off with a spoiler warning. I'm assuming you've read the book, and am discussing it freely. Do not read further if you don't like spoilers! (However, I'm not discussing the plot, per se; just the background and perhaps some of the philosophy of the story.)

The coming release of the movie has led to a certain... aggravation on the part of certain Christian groups, notably the Catholic League ("Film sells atheism to kids") and the American Family Association. (For other entertaining manifestos, check out amazon.com. Folks, let's try to keep the reader reviews to less than, say, 2000 words, hmm?)

So what makes His Dark Materials anti-Christian? Well, uh... nothing. But it's quite easy to see what could be upsetting to some Christians. The series features (this is just off the top of my head):

- a dogmatic and immoral church
- no true God (the being considered God is in fact an angel)
- a war on the kingdom of heaven (on the putative "God")
- Eve's choice offers salvation, not sin
- no heavenly afterlife (interestingly, there is a hell)
- gay angels
- underage sex (see: Eve's choice and salvation)

So what? Newsflash! It's fiction!

I think the Catholic League and the AFA might want to review that little detail. A discreet trip to the bookstore should do the trick; they could check out where the book is filed. Under non-fiction? Nope? Not there? Oh, right, fiction.

It's true I read the series as a criticism of the Catholic Church (though some have sugested the target is the Anglican Church). For example, the Magisterium grants indulgences to a priestly assassin. Surely no one is going to be indignant about a criticism of indulgences? Rather we might feel Mr. Pullman is a wee bit behind the times. Will someone be offended by a criticism of dogmatism (in the perjorative sense)? I think not. At worst one might bristle at the suggestion that one's church is overly dogmatic, but that particular criticism--whether fair or not--is hardly anti-Catholic, much less anti-Christian. (Gee, I've never encountered criticisms of dogmatism in literature before.)

So basically, the real problem is that the fictional premise of this series conflicts with Christian belief. That makes the series no more or less anti-Christian than any other fictional work not based in Christianity. The Odyssey? Anti-Christian. Watership Down? Magic, a rabbit-god... it's anti-Christian! In fact, take any fantasy story: non-Christian gods, a completely non-Christian worldview -- oop, yep, must be anti-Christian!

This kind of illogic is utter lunacy. Mr. Pullman may or may not be anti-Christian; from what I've read, he is at least not Christian. Even if he is anti-Christian, I somehow think the entire Christian community could actually cope. But His Dark Materials is not anti-Christian. It's a story, folks. And frankly, it's a story that's steeped in Christian tradition (the Bible, Paradise Lost, gnosticism).

Even if it weren't a story--let's say Mr. Pullman wrote a book and said, "Here are all the things I believe about the world." These would be dramatically competing truth claims (at least to Christians; non-Christians might find it to be nitpicking). Would they be anti-Christian? No, they would be "not Christian" beliefs.

So what is it that draws out the "woe-are-we-Christians" crowd? Now that isn't too hard to figure out. Popularity brings with it the opportunity to manufacture controversy. It's about getting attention. Harry Potter: corrupts youth (how dare we teach our children about good and evil!). Come on. Nobody sane thinks Harry Potter can teach anyone witchcraft. It got to be a popular series, so it was time for the attention-seekers to jump on the bandwagon.

Let's take another movie coming out at the same time: The Seeker (about which I have nothing, but nothing, good to say), which is based on Susan Cooper's marvelous story, The Dark Is Rising. On the surface, it's a Christmas story, good-vs-evil, magic, coming-of-age, and so on. But it's pagan through and through. Holly branches, Yule logs, midwinter solstice - all important elements of the story, and all important elements of pagan ritual. At one point in the story, a priest starts gibbering madly about Satan assaulting his church. The Old Ones (some of whom have been alive several thousand years) look at each other and shake their heads. This is most definitely not a Christian story, but as for controversy, nary a peep. Why? Because His Dark Materials is likely going to be more popular, and because His Dark Materials draws on many elements of Christianity; it's easier to manufacture the controversy.

In the end it's clear to me that Bill Donahue (Catholic League) just wants the publicity. Why else could he oppose the movie, when he even admits any controversial aspects have been removed? "The Catholic League wants Christians to boycott this movie precisely because it knows that the film is bait for the books: unsuspecting parents who take their children to see the movie may be impelled to buy the three books as a Christmas present." That dastardly Philip Pullman, who wants to sell books!

Gimme a break. If you don't like it, don't read it; don't watch it. And please, get over it already.

Post-script

Other links of interest: Hanlon's Razor, Denialism Blog.

Why Heroes is the Best Sci-Fi on TV

I'm a big fan of the television show, Heroes. In fact, I think it's the best show with a science fiction theme on TV. Season two starts this coming Monday, and as it approaches, I have been thinking about why I am so excited. I decided to write the reasons down for you, in case you do not already watch the show. They are all good reasons for you to get involved!

Killer Episodes

Although the series is consistently good, with each and every episode worth watching, there are a few that are phenomenal. These killer episodes include two of my favorites, one that delves into the past, and one that peers into the future.

In Company Man we get to see the gradual transformation of the character Mr. Bennett from an agent, just doing his job, into something greater. This moving episode shines with its interplay between Bennett, his adopted daughter Claire, and his associates in the sinister organization known as The Company. It's probably the episode that made him my favorite character in the show, despite his not being one of the heroes. With episodes like this, not only do we get great action and fancy special effects, but we get powerful drama as well.

Five Years Gone shows us a future world, one in which the event the heroes are trying to stop has already happened: an atomic blast has devastated New York. The episode centers around the time-traveling Hiro Nakamura, and it really is a piece of work. There is major character development among all of the surviving characters, and clues for future development. The best part about the episode is that it leaves you grasping at the possibilities. Based on how certain characters act, what they know when, and what happens to them throughout the rest of the season, it becomes difficult to tell if and how the timeline will be altered. Will Hiro and the rest of the heroes stop the explosion? And if so, how much will play out the same? And what really happened to cause this dystopic future, because clearly some of the characters have their facts wrong (including the ones driving the episode, which is somewhat similar to the unreliable narrator trope). The episode reminds me of something I would find in a book I'd recommend.

Mood, Atmosphere, and Details

Heroes excels at creating a good atmosphere. Every show is opened and closed with a brief topical voiceover from the character Dr. Suresh. His topics range from evolution to the nature of loss. And normally, I'm not a big fan of voice overs, but his charge each episode's atmosphere. And the music during his little monologues enhances the effect. I don't really notice music throughout the rest of the show, but this music, along with the show's theme, draws you in. It's haunting, mysterious, melancholy, and it wraps a cord around your heart and yanks. There is just something about it.

Furthermore, there are other details in the show that make it breathe. These are just little things, but they add up. Some examples:

• Each episode name is shown as a part of the scenery in the opening scene of each episode.
• In one episode, Hiro creates a model consisting of timelines for all of the heroes in an attempt to change history. It is a hanging model of string, newspaper clippings, and pictures, tied together at various junctions where major actors in the story meet. It's a neat little piece of scenery that adds to his character and the story.
• The viewer is continually taken back to certain key locations, among them a specific balcony overlooking New York. On its ledge, we are shown the destruction of the city, and a number of other significant events. By going back time and again, we get a feel for the Heroes universe, and we learn clues about the relationships between the characters.

Character Death Done Right

Major characters die in this show, sometimes unexpectedly. However, when they die, they die right. They don't die of stupid random occurrences with no meaning. And even when they suffer, even when we see a friend's death coming, it's pulled off well. The old lines about "life not being fair," "bad things happen to good people," and, "sometimes people just die," do not apply to character death. The writers seem to understand that we don't want this kind of silly, overdone lesson. We know it already from real life. We want heroic deaths, meaningful deaths, deaths that add to the story. And we get them.

Plot Forethought, Consistency, and Pacing

A consistent science fiction plot differentiates a work of art from simple entertainment, and Heroes nails it. The plot of season one was written before the show was filmed. You can tell this when you watch it. It has consistency and foreshadowing, and the season finale wraps up the major plot points for the season. Thankfully, the writers are not making it up as they go along.

Now, it's not perfect. If you follow news about the show, you know that minor changes have been made to the plot. However, this is inevitable with the nature of television, and it's better than any other show I've seen. Previously, I had thought that Battlestar Galactica had this as well, but then season three came along. The head writer admitted that he had not determined the identities of the cylon (bad guys) sleeper agents until then, and his laziness was visible when the revelations came. However, Heroes succeeds where BSG fails. Sure, some minor characters left during season one because of contractual issues. Also, Mr. Bennett's role grew from minor to major character as his fan base grew. But the meat of the plot stayed true and consistent, like a good book. And that's something to which every show should aspire.

Pacing is also tremendously well done. There are no one-off episodes for viewers to tolerate (see BSG season three) as they wait for the main plot to unfold. Instead, we get regular wow moments, and a plot that continues to move forward each and every episode. Following from that, we get a complete story for one whole season, not a drawn-out series of empty episodes pushed by some exec cheerfully grabbing for the show's udders. Unlike with many other shows, I rarely found myself yelling at the TV to, "Come on! Get on with it already!"

Conclusion

I know I'm going to be watching the first episode on Monday. If season two is as good as season one was, I will be ecstatic. If you're as into Sci-Fi as I am, you should check it out as well. I'm sure you'll be pleasantly surprised, because it really is the best Sci-Fi on TV.

For Fans
If you're interested in some Heroes discussion, hit the comments or meet me in the forums.

A Few Thoughts on Robert Jordan

Robert Jordan died today.

In high school, his series, The Wheel of Time, was one of the major stories I followed. I plowed through each book as I found it, whether it was at the local library, or left under the tree for me at Christmas. And I told my cousins (best friends, and fellow readers) Chad and Todd about The Wheel of Time.

Then, I caught up to Mr. Jordan's writing, and started a cycle of anticipation, waiting for each next book to be published. During the down time, I'd speculate with Chad and Todd on what future plot points would hold. Our speculations were wild and filled with laughter, and sometimes we were right ("Rand will marry all three of them!" I remember saying, to grins and rolled eyes). This continued until we finished high school, and through the first years of college.

These books were important for us as young fantasy readers, and they gave us much - a vivid world full of magic and wonder, haunted characters, and a few brave young men to identify with.

As time moved on, book after book appeared in the series, and the story began to drag out. My cousins and I joked that Robert Jordan would die before he finished the series, and we'd never get to see the conclusion. After talking to others over the years, I'm sure the sentiment was not uncommon. It turns out our jokes were right, unfortunately. Makes them not seem quite so funny, with real life poking its nose in, the ghost of unfinished business, and all that.

In recent years I was not his biggest fan. I stopped reading his books. I saw them as trite, I grew annoyed with the characters ("He can't write female characters," I remember saying), and I was tempted to skip the bulk of each new book to just read the end. I picked up some of the later books when they hit the bargain book section, but did not read them. I thought he had succumbed to milking the story for money, and I thought it was terrible that he'd wreck his story for a few more bucks. Now, I just think that the story got away from him.

I do not know if I will ever finish reading The Wheel of Time, even if the rumors I've heard of his wife writing out the last book are true. However, even if I don't, I want to give a shout out to Robert Jordan. He has affected many lives with his work. He's done what we, as writers, strive to do, even as some of us book snobs take our pot shots. As someone who once had to fight a deadly disease, and as someone who writes, I've found him to be a brave man, someone I'm happy to identify with.

How not to hate Beowulf

Billy Goat just panned the trailer the upcoming movie, Beowulf. No objection here. It's true I hadn't even heard it was coming out yet, but Beowulf has been done before -- BADLY (The Thirteenth Warrior; they say it's based on a Michael Crichton novel. No: Beowulf.).

But, but, but, my dear bridge-goers, to criticize the poem itself, oh no, that I will not stand for! Old Billy Goat has the temerity to borrow my treasured copy of Beowulf and then to dismiss it so casually? It's "like wading through muck"?! (Maybe Billy Goat just meant that as a slur on my lifestyle. Listen, this bridge has been in the family a long time. So I don't clean under every rock all the time. Humph.)

But listen, why don't you have a seat here under the bridge, and let me explain...

How not to hate Beowulf

One of the oldest extant works of what is arguably considered English literature, Beowulf hardly needs introduction; who hasn't read it in school? (And who didn't hate it when they did?) I place the blame squarely on the largely abominable translations available. Instead, avail yourself of Howell D. Chickering's dual-language translation: English, and Old English, on facing pages.

(This is the version I loaned Billy Goat. A large metropolitan library should have it; it's been recently re-issued, so you can find it at the major online booksellers as well: Beowulf: A Dual-Language Edition).

Mr. Chickering's edition has an admirable introduction that discusses not merely the structure of the poem, but also the social context in which the action, and lack thereof, takes place. The latter is important to understand for the impatient modern reader, who, for example, can easily become frustrated at a lengthy discussion of the history of the hero's sword - right at a crucial moment in the fighting. The surviving text of Beowulf is also damaged in parts; it pays well to at least realize that at many spots, specific words (even entire passages) have been omitted or lost, and perhaps reconstructed.

How to love Beowulf

Beowulf is an alliterative poem, a high and sadly lost art. To appreciate it, you must take some time to learn the sounds of Old English and the various meter styles. It was intended to be heard, not read, and you will be doing yourself a favour if you acquire a little bit of the sound and feel of the poem. Hence, my suggestion that you read at least some of it in Old English. Don't worry, Old English isn't hard to pronounce (and Mr. Chickering's book will give you the brief introduction you need). When you read this poem out loud, you'll hear the similarities with modern English; it's not as different as it seems when written.

Let's pull out a little phrase towards the end of the poem, and see what we can learn. The hero Beowulf, by now an aged man, must fight a dragon who ravages the countryside. It turns out the dragon was awoken by a thief who steals a cup from the dragon's hoard.

I've simplified the writing somewhat (with apologies to real scholars!), but read this out loud, just for fun. Can you feel the alliteration? Do the words start to fall into peculiar rhythm? Imagine yourself a Anglo-Saxon bard, reciting manful deeds in front of the hall table. It doesn't matter if you don't understand the words; give them heart!

"... Hord-weard onbad
earfothliche, othat aefen cwom;
waes tha yebolyen beoryes hyrde
wolde se latha liye forgyldan
drinc-feat dyre. Tha weas daey sheashen
wyrme on willan..."

Done? Then let's take a look at the translation (Mr. Chickering's, naturally):

".... The hoard-keeper waited,
miserable, impatient, till evening came.
By then the barrow-snake was swollen with rage,
wanted revenge for that precious cup,
a payment by fire. The day was over
and the dragon rejoiced."

Now let's listen to the Old English f