Marvel’s Inhumans

inhumans

You know what a bait and switch is, right?

Miriam Webster defines it as:

1 : a sales tactic in which a customer is attracted by the advertisement of a low-priced item but is then encouraged to buy a higher-priced one

2 : the ploy of offering a person something desirable to gain favor then thwarting expectations with something less desirable

So how does this apply to ABC television’s new series Marvel’s Inhumans?

Well, it’s like this: Jack Kirby created The Inhumans back in 1965 as a superhero team. They originally appeared in Fantastic Four #45. They are a royal family of mutant human beings – inhumans – who have been exposed to the Terrigin mist and have developed special super powers.

The Inhumans are led by their king, Black Bolt, and his Royal Family, consisting of Medusa, Karnak, Gorgon, Triton, Crystal and the canine Lockjaw. Both Crystal and Medusa have been members of the Fantastic Four; Crystal has been a member of the Avengers as well.

Are you getting the point here? These are superheroes. They have powers, special abilities, and they fight alongside other superhero teams.

So, when ABC announced that they would be making a TV series featuring the Inhumans, I expected a show about superheroes.

So what did we get?

Well, the setup is pretty much the same as the comics. The inhumans live in the city of Attilan which is located on the moon. Black Bolt’s voice is the most powerful power in the kingdom. The merest utterance from him can cause massive devastation. So he must remain silent. His queen, Medusa, has living hair that she can manipulate to fight and overpower enemies. Karnak can see the limitless possibilities of any action and choose the most effective. Gorgon is super strong and has hooves. Crystal can control the elements – zapping things, freezing things, etc. And lockjaw the giant pug can teleport the members of the royal family anywhere they need to go.

So far so good, right?

However, in the first episode Black Bolt’s brother, Maximus (who has no powers at all) stages a coup and takes over the kingdom. He shaves off Medusa’s Hair, rendering her powerless. Crystal commands lockjaw to transport the others to Hawaii. After that Maximus sedates the giant pup and places Crystal under arrest.

In the Hawaiian jungle Karnak falls, hits his head and loses his powers. Gorgon still has his powers but is pretty ineffective hanging out on the beach with a group of army vet surfers. Black Bolt steals a suit and is immediately arrested. He is tased and he lets out a gasp which sends a police car flying end over end. After that he realizes he just better shut up and cooperate.

So, by the end of the pilot the Inhumans are on Earth, without their powers and separated from each other. The rest of the series promises to continue in this same vein, keeping the Inhumans separate and powerless.

This is not what I signed up for.

And here is the bait and switch. Suppose I’d been promised a gritty cop drama and in the first episode each of the cop characters were put on suspension and had to spend the rest of the series in their own homes dealing with their suspensions? I mean, that might make an interesting show if I hadn’t been promised a gritty crime drama.

Suppose I’d been promised a western with cowboys and gunfights, but in the first episode the main cowboys had to leave the west and head back east to look after their ailing mother’s estate and the rest of the series was about how the gunfighters coped with having to deal with wills, probate and property laws? Again, that might make an interesting series, but not if I had been promised a show about gunfighters.

The Inhumans is about super heroes. Mutants with super powers. That’s what I want to see. If you make a TV series out of Moby Dick and have the characters spend all their time on shore, talking about how they’d like to go back to sea… that’s not really Moby Dick, is it? If you make a Sherlock Holmes TV series and have Homes suffer a brain injury in the opening episode and spend the rest of the season showing how Dr. Watson helps Holmes to regain his deductive powers… well, that’s not what you tuned in for, is it?

I want to see Jack Kirby’s Inhumans. I want to see Black Bolt and Medusa and Karnak and all the others doing what they do… using their superpowers to fight villains or aliens or the Fantastic Four or… anything — ANYTHING — but this boring show!

Sure, Netflix’s Marvel shows can be slow moving. You have to have a certain amount of “TV drama”, and that’s fine. But if I didn’t see Mat Murdoch dressing up in a suit and fighting bad guys I would have checked out. If Luke Cage didn’t use his superpowers and just spent his time mentoring inner city kids… well, that’s inspiring but it’s not what Luke Cage is about. Jessica Jones IS Jessica Jones. Even Iron Fist, for all it’s problems, had Danny Rand using the Iron Fist!

The Inhumans lost no time making their main characters human. And not very interesting ones at that.

The only character who has all the superpowers at his disposal is Maximus, the one human among the inhumans. The fact that he is the villain (and played by Game of Throne‘s Ramsay Bolton) means that the superpowers are all on the wrong side of the equation.

This is not the show that I wanted. Nor is it the show that I will continue to watch.

Advertisements

Science Fiction as Social Commentary

Despite its far flung settings and futuristic subjects, the best SF still has ties to the here and now

The very best science fiction, whether it be literature or in the movies or on television, the kinds of science fiction that resonates most strongly with the readers and viewers, is not the science fiction that merely shows us the wonders of the world of tomorrow, but the science fiction that comments on the world of today.

Despite a recent loud and disruptive movement within science fiction fan circles that proclaimed that science fiction should only focus on rocketships and rayguns, robots and whiz-bang action and decried any other type as propaganda from rabid leftist social justice warriors, science fiction and social commentary go hand in hand. It has done from the very beginning.

From the fantastic adventures of Lemuel Gulliver in Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels in 1735 to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein to today’s fiction in print and on movie screens and television, science fiction that reflects and comments on current events usually has a more profound impact. Indeed, some will argue that is the very purpose of science fiction, to illuminate aspects of our world and our lives today. Science fiction holds it up to a funhouse mirror, distorts it, stretches it, and then examines it in ways that cannot be done without current cultural biases interfering. By couching a subject in the language of the rockets, rayguns and whiz-bang action, greater insights can be wrung from certain subjects and issues that are too “hot button” to talk about directly.

But how much of this is deliberate? As the aforementioned loud and noisy movement has accused the establishment of science fiction of doing so, how much of this “message” is deliberately inserted into modern science fiction as a form of “propaganda” and how much of it occurs naturally, an unavoidable by-product of writers who are keenly aware of our contemporary society’s ills and wish to provide commentary on such, if not prescribing their so-called SJW remedies?

This, it turns out, is not a new discussion. Nor is science fiction’s penchant for presenting social commentary disguised as fantastical adventures.

SOCIAL COMMENTARY

I mentioned Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels earlier. Anyone who has taken a literature course in high school or college knows that Swift’s fanciful adventure was not merely a rousing tale of a hapless traveler in far flung lands. Swift constructed his fantasy world of Lilliputians, Brobdingnagans and Houyhnhnms not as a mere distraction, but to make pointed observations about contemporary European society. He did this deliberately. Indeed, Swift himself is quoted as saying that he wrote Gulliver’s Travels “to vex the world rather than divert it”.

His criticisms of contemporary society did not impinge upon the book’s sales, fortunately. Indeed, the book became popular as soon as it was published. John Gay wrote in a 1726 letter to Swift that “It is universally read, from the cabinet council to the nursery.”

Mary Shelley’s debut novel, Frankenstein, is considered to be one of the first science fiction stories. The English science fiction writer Brian Aldiss has argued that it should be considered the first true science fiction story because, in contrast to previous stories with fantastical elements resembling those of later science fiction, the central character “makes a deliberate decision” and “turns to modern experiments in the laboratory” to achieve fantastic results.

But what does Frankenstein say about society? Shelley says that the world is cruel and monsters will not be tolerated but shhe also asks how will technology change us? The character of Victor Frankenstein is modern man, poised on the cusp of great discoveries that will challenge God, but also poised at the point at which we become the monsters. Victor rejects his creation, goes back to a world that does not embrace change. But change, in the form of Adam, has other ideas.

This battle with change will define the next two giants of Science Fiction: Jules Verne and H. G. Wells. Verne portrays scientific change as a wondrous process that will bring adventure. He often does not show how this will affect human lives. (Captain Nemo is perhaps the closest he comes to it.) Wells rejects Verne’s naiveté and returns to Shelley’s grim view. Change will be painful. Traveling in time, becoming invisible, alien invasion, giant monsters, all will be terrible. Wells is not afraid to make social commentary, in fact, did nothing else at the same time that he predicted tank warfare, aerial bombing and other future realities. His novel, The Island of Doctor Moreau, for instance, was written as a fundraiser to stop animal vivisection. Wells moved away from narrative as he progressed, abandoning the Science Fiction adventure for proselytizing novels and non-fiction.

In the wake of World War I, society as a whole began to change in earnest. Mechanical inventions had been seen on the battlefields of Europe and now, in peacetime, they were making their way into people’s homes. Certainly the early twentieth century was not devoid of social criticism, but in the aftermath of the Great War, it was mostly in the purview of art and culture movements. The surrealists, the Dada-ists, the Bauhous movement. These were, for the most part, intellectuals talking to other intellectuals, and not making many inroads into popular culture. Indeed, that these movements set themselves aside from and opposed to popular culture was a point of pride.

But in 1920 a unique stage production in Russia was about to change all that.

ROSSUM’S UNIVERSAL ROBOTS

R.U.R. is a 1920 science fiction play by the Czech writer, Karel Čapek. R.U.R. stands for Rossumovi Univerzální Roboti (Rossum’s Universal Robots). It premiered on January 25, 1921 and introduced the word “robot” to the language and to science fiction as a whole.

The word “robot”, which displaced older words such as “automaton” or “android” in languages around the world would itself become a trope that would offer science fiction writers copious opportunities to play, poke fun at, or otherwise satirize a host of society’s foibles, not the least of which, mankind’s desire for institutionalized slavery. Indeed, in Czech, robota means forced labour of the kind that serfs had to perform on their masters’ lands and is derived from the word rab, meaning “slave”.

The name Rossum is an allusion to the Czech word rozum, meaning “reason”, “wisdom”, “intellect” or “common-sense”. It has been suggested that the allusion might be preserved by translating “Rossum” as “Reason” but only the Majer/Porter version translates the word as “Reason”. R.U.R becomes one of the first examples of science fiction using a new technology and a fantastical future world to say something profound about the contemporary society from which it sprang.

The play begins in a factory that makes artificial people, called roboti (robots), from synthetic organic matter. They are not exactly robots by the current definition of the term: they are living flesh and blood creatures rather than machinery and are closer to the modern idea of clones. They may be mistaken for humans and can think for themselves. They seem happy to work for humans at first, but a robot rebellion leads to the extinction of the human race.

Again, the social commentary does not hurt R.U.R.‘s public reception. The play was successful in its day in both Europe and North America. R.U.R. quickly became famous and was influential early in the history of its publication. By 1923, it had been translated into thirty languages.

Perhaps by today’s standards using a play about mechanical creations to send the message that slavery is bad may not seem like a very controversial move. It’s pretty well de rigueur today. If you have robots or artificial people in your story, at some point you’re going to have to talk about slavery and how it is bad and how all sentient beings should be free to make their own choices, etc., etc. That message can be found in at least one episode of any of the various Star Trek iterations.

But, of course, the using of science fiction to comment on society would not end with R.U.R.

THOUGHT PROVOKING

There is a phrase that always seems to accompany science fiction of this type. “Thought provoking”. That was always kind of a code phrase that the science fiction you are about to read or see, which may have all the cool, whiz-bang trappings of science fiction that fans love, will also have a “message”

Science fiction that was described as “though provoking” could also be synonymous with “heavy handed” or worse, “boring”.

As L. W. Michaelson observed in his article for The Antioch Review in 1954, “Social Criticism in Science Fiction”: “What better way to reach the adolescent mind than with a glorious action story filled with blasters and super-rockets and energizers and what not and then carefully sandwiched in between the action, some little gems of information that will impart a perspective on our society as a whole?”

There are obvious works that can be described as “message” fiction. Orwell’s 1984 is an obvious warning against totalitarianism. Huxley’s Brave New World is a warning about the dangers of utopia.

This is in contrast to the science fiction published in popular magazines. From Hugo Gernsback’s Amazing Stories magazine and to the many others that popped up in its wake, science fiction was a venue for telling fantastic stories of brave industrialists who overcame society’s indifference or disbelief, and built powerful rocket ships to travel into the far reaches of space. Early science fiction tales were rightfully disregarded as little more than chewing gum for juvenile imaginations.

THE POST WAR ERA

But that began to change. In the post war era of the 1950’s, science fiction writers had transformed from happy-go-lucky champions of technology to gloomy prophets of doom. Indeed, in the nuclear era the “Frankenstein’s Monster” of the day was the atom bomb. It was a powerful and terrible weapon with devastating consequences that raised moral concerns among even the most hawkish of writers.

In this post-war era many science fiction writers felt compelled to include a healthy serving of social commentary along with the aliens, robots and ray-guns. Indeed, it was argued that science fiction was one of the few genres that could do this without too much fear of public censure.

L. W. Michaelson in his essay for “Social Criticism in Science Fiction”, makes plain that the use of science fiction as a cloak or a disguise in order to more freely speak about subjects which were not generally brought up in polite society is a deliberate and an inherent feature of the genre:

“The channeling of man’s critical sense, via science fiction, from the currently inhospitable field of the present to a more secure area of the distant future or past, is due in part to the increasing sensitivity of Americans to criticism of any kind. Al Capp, the cartoonist, noted this in his article in Life (March 31, 1952) and concluded that his comic strip, Lil’ Abner, would have to eliminate social satire entirely and concentrate upon “trivialities” and/or the matrimonial difficulties of his hero.

In regard to this sensitivity, perhaps we feel our way of life is engaged in some ceaseless competition, or is continually on trial before the eyes of an indifferent or hostile world. Thus, if the science-fiction Gulliver mentions the year 2186, or better still 3547, this sensitivity is correspondingly dulled. In other words, there is an inverse ratio to our dislike of criticism; the farther away in time and space the criticism seems to lodge, the less the irritation or concern.”

In the 1950’s science fiction had become so caught up in moralizing and philosophizing about society, that in 1951, editor Raymond J. Healy felt compelled to publish a collection of science fiction tales, New Tales of Time and Space, that were deliberately more positive and light-hearted than the majority of what had become the “message” fiction of the day. In the introduction to the book, magazine editor Anthony Boucher noted about the stories in the collection: “For all their positiveness you’ll find many of these stories markedly critical of the present state of man’s world – many of the authors markedly unconvinced that contemporary American culture is the ultimate and unchangeable Way of Life.”

The criticism of society as a whole from science fiction writers was so obvious that in 1953 conservative editor, Thomas. P. McDonnel, wrote an article for Catholic World Magazine on “The Cult of Science Fiction”. In that essay, he complains that “liberals in general are now using science fiction as a kind of intellectual underground communication system or as a semi-secret club lecture platform.”

And you thought that loud and disruptive movement was a new thing.


This is actually only about half of the article that I wrote. You can read the entire thing and more in the latest issue of DARK WORLDS QUARTERLY. Download issue # 2 for FREE right here, or click on the image below!

Current Issue button 2

The Orville or Star Trek: Discovery?

STD_Orville

Star Trek: Discovery vs the “New” space adventure series The Orville

So, which is it to be? Seth MacFarlane’s sci-fi parody, The Orville, or CBS All Access’s new flagship series, the latest iteration of the 50 year old franchise, Star Trek: Discovery?

Well, honestly, there’s no comparison. The clear winner here is Star Trek: Discovery which pulled well ahead with it’s third episode, taking the series in a completely unexpected direction and confounding critic’s predictions. It is traveling the inroads that have been made for televised science fiction by series like Ronald D. Moore’s Battlestar Galactica reboot and currently with The Expanse.

Star Trek is reinterpreting itself to fit in with the modern television landscape. It’s a series that has been designed with the binge-watching audience in mind. It also doesn’t feel the need to slow down and explain everything.

The Orville, on the other hands is firmly planted in the same territory that was mined by Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation decades ago. The stories are heavy handed and moralistic, but with a lighter than ice cream tone. It is meant to be a parody but it only seems to remember that occasionally when it tries to inject some lame joke in the middle of the drama. And the jokes are lame. Seriously.

The funniest moment of a recent episode was probably one of the subtlest bits of comedy the show has ever attempted. Bortus, an alien crew member, stops and stares at his partner who is eating Rocky Road ice cream and watching The Sound of Music because he is depressed and has chosen a human cure for depression. That one silent moment was the high point of humor for a series that has relied on crude jokes and cultural and racial stereotypes for much of its comedy.

Discovery, on the other hand, seems to have its feet firmly in the stirrups. Once the viewer realizes that the entire season is one whole story arc (and in this day and age of Netflix and other streaming services, that realization shouldn’t be difficult) then the first two episodes, what would, in iterations past be presented as the “pilot” episode, was, in fact, merely the cold open of a much larger story. To judge the series, as many have done, based on the first two would have been akin to giving up on one of the other series episodes based solely upon the pre-credit teaser.

The other aspect of The Orville that has been remarked on by others, most notably by Steve Barnes, author of Twelve Days, and co-author of Dream Park and The Legacy of Heorot, is it’s tendency to cast actors of color as aliens, while the human cast remains mostly white. Of the main cast only Penny Johnson (Cassidy Yates from Deep Space Nine) as the ship’s doctor is not portrayed in a culturally stereotypical way. I have commented elsewhere that The Orville is Star Trek for white viewers who are uncomfortable with too much cultural diversity.

Discovery, on the other hand, embraces diversity right out of the gate with the main character being Michael Burnham, a woman of color (played by Sonequa Martin Green) as first officer to Captain Georgiou, an Asian woman (played by Michelle Yeoh)

Though that relationship does not continue throughout the series, the diversity in cast members is laudable in comparison with the half-hearted attempt at it by The Orville.

The Orville has further added to its unoriginal provenance in its fourth episode which posits a generation ship that situation that mirrors Harlan Ellison’s The Starlost so closely that I wouldn’t be surprised if Harlan were to launch a lawsuit against Fox in the coming days. That episode more closely resembled The Starlost than James Cameron’s The Terminator resembled Ellison’s Outer Limits episode “Soldier”, but we all know how that turned out.

I’m not going to draw this out any longer. For my money, Star Trek: Discovery is the superior show. It is traveling down new roads and, I am confident, it will blaze some roads of its own before the current story arc has finished unspooling.

The Orville, meanwhile, seems destined to boldly go where much better shows have gone before.

Dark Worlds Quarterly #2

DARK WORLDS QUARTERLY #2 is available as a free download from Rage Machine Books. I have a rather longish piece in this issue about Science Fiction and social relevance which has contributions from Daniel Abraham, one half of the writing team James S. A. Corey, author of the Expanse novels, and from David Gerrold about the original Star Trek..

There’s lots of other great stuff in this issue as well. Check it out:

The second issue of DARK WORLDS QUARTERLY is here!

Our second issue features an interview with BYRON CRAFT about his novel THE CRY OF CTHULHU and its sequel SHOGGOTH. Byron regales us with his stories of trying to sell a faithful Lovecraft film to Hollywood back in the 1970’s and his encounters with film producers James R. Nicholson, Samuel Z. Arkoff and Dino De Laurentiis.

G. W. Thomas examines the tales featuring Etheridge and Peters, Thorp McClusky’s supernatural policemen.

We take a lighthearted look at that most sci-fi of science fiction tropes, the Big Brained Aliens! We also take a look at depictions of Cave Men (and Women) in SF and Fantasy from the serious to the silly.

G. W. Thomas writes about Keith Laumer’s BOLO stories, M. D. Jackson looks at how we view aliens and Jack Mackenzie examines science fiction as social commentary.

And for you nostalgia fans we take a look back at the Long Playing Record Album – the LP – and highlight some of the best SF and Fantasy themed music from the old “Prog-Rock” days!

Our second issue of DARK WORLDS QUARTERLY tops our first one at 106 pages of articles, essays, opinion and interviews are ready for your enjoyment! It is colorfully illustrated, loaded with good stuff and it’s FREE!

You can check out our download page or just click on the button below and begin reading it on your preferred device.

Download Now!

RECENT USED BOOKSTORE FINDS!

I’m on vacation this week and I hit a really cool used book store in my travels.

I wasn’t holding out much hope for “Expressions of Time” because it sold jewelry and other trinkets in the front, but the back, where the books were, were a different story.

First off they had the largest collection of Bantam Doc Savage paperbacks I had ever seen. I’ve been scouring bookstores looking for these since I was thirteen years old and I have never seen so many. I scoured through them searching for the very few that I didn’t already have.

IMG_20170426_120144791

There were two others but my photographing skills suck this morning.

I also found these gems:

IMG_20170426_120206550IMG_20170426_120034732IMG_20170426_120227668IMG_20170426_120400895

So, it was a pretty good day and I’m excited. I’m hoping to find even more today!

DWQ

DWQ Teaser

Oh yeah. It’s coming. And it’s gonna be yuuuge!

So what is DWQ? I can’t tell you. I’m just gonna leave this here, though, and let you all speculate amongst yourselves.

When I am allowed to, I will spill the beans.

I Like it “Spicy”!

“Spicy” Pulp covers from back in the day are sexist, misogynistic, lurid and violent, and yet at the same time, kind of goofy. This handful of examples is pretty tame in comparison to a lot of others, but it does give you the general idea.

Is it wrong that I love them so much?

1937-02-saucy-movie-tales-by-norman-saunders1937_03_spicymys1938_06_spicymys003570d791fb2bd51321e501238497fd19287836-15_ward_dturner_sept3429021223-lf8710233923_d8d25be3bb_ospicy-detective-june-1938spicy-detective-may-1936spicy-detective-stories-june-1934spicy-mystery-august-1938