Oz The Not-So-Powerful

Posted on by

I’ve always had a great affection for The Wizard of Oz, having seen the movie at least 15 times in my youth. It was our family ritual to watch it when it came TV on every year. Thinking of it now reminds me of something JRR Tolkien once said – that Britain had no mythology, so he decided to invent one. L Frank Baum did the same for our country, even if he only considered it to be an American fairy-tale. So I had to see the new prequel “Oz the Great and Powerful” when it came to the theater. The trailers featuring Mila Kunis in leather pants were also a motivator. Sadly, Mila’s pants didn’t make up for this not-so-great movie.

Like the original 1939 classic it begins in black and white. The early 1900’s artifacts and costumes seem convincing. The protagonist, carnival magician Oscar Diggs, gets to Oz in the expected way, the tornado-based time-warp wormhole. Big surprise: when in Oz, the movie switches to color. This new Oz looks like an acid trip combining elements of Dr Seuss, Lewis Carroll, and 1970’s Yes album covers. As Oscar narrowly escapes death and crashes into a river, good witch Theodora comes strolling along to rescue him. She immediately assumes he’s the Great Oz of the late king’s prophecy, the wizard who will save the realm from the wicked witch. To me it was puzzling. Why was she walking when witches can fly? And why did she need Oscar’s protection, when (as we later discover) she can shoot thunderbolts from her fingers?

There are a lot of clever effects and cute moments, many of which hearken back to Baum’s book (such as a “China Town” inhabited by porcelain people), but those elements don’t salvage this predictable story. They seem to be trying too hard to make a non-musical clone of the 1939 masterpiece. As in the original movie, the main characters in Oz are the same actors (or voices) of people from the Kansas segment. In this case the concept makes little sense, since Oscar never “wakes up” from his dream. Also, this Oz seems strangely modern. The dialog sounds too 21st Century. The people of Oz are a diverse PC bunch, with blacks, Asians, and a guy in a wheelchair, though they forgot to include gay munchkins. One of Oscar’s new compadres is a flying monkey; the new, scarier baddies are flying baboons. Because Oz has a 3-D version, this movie is full of annoying “things jump out at the screen” moments. The overriding theme is, as with the original, “believe in yourself.” This time, however, it’s less about overcoming one’s own fears and more about being tricked into self-confidence by a phony wizard.

I wouldn’t say that Oz the Great and Powerful was a total stinker, though it wasn’t really worth the cost of a full-priced theater ticket. Neither was it bad enough to accuse it of blasphemy against America’s Oz mythology. In fact, it only increased my appreciation for Judy Garland, Ray Bolger, and the rest of the old gang. Wait for this one to come out on cable, and until then, have another look at the original.

Why Steampunk?

Posted on by

If anything has surprised me about the steampunk movement, it is its longevity. At first it seemed like a transitory fad, more about the fun of wearing “high tech” period costumes to conventions than the stories themselves. Perhaps that’s true, but the literary movement is going strong as well. This is one of the reasons I am currently writing in this genre- my own interest, coupled with its current popularity.

My first exposure to the genre was The Difference Engine by Gibson and Sterling. This sci-fi alternative history about the rise of mechanical computers was published before the “steampunk” term became popular. Alternate history, and the steam era were frequent themes in science fiction (such as Michael Moorcocks’ Warlord of the Air) but only recently did it become a true sub-genre. Since then we’ve seen talented young writers such as Cherie Priest and Scott Westerfield emerge to capitalize on this trend.

Conventionally, steampunk focuses on the Victorian era, which coincides roughly with the reign of Britain’s Queen Victoria, 1837-1901, in particular, the latter years of the 19th Century. In America, this was known as the Gilded Age. Then, steam power dominated the world. It was also a time of great optimism about humanity’s future and the advancement of technology. This is when writers like Jules Verne and HG Wells invented the science fiction genre – though admittedly not all their works were optimistic.

I’ve heard it said that nostalgia for the Victorian era is strong nowadays because in those times, the future looked bright, in contrast to today’s bleak economic and political outlook. Even the rigidity of western society in those bygone times seems refreshing compared to our modern decadence.

Still, there are those of us who can’t quite leave the Gilded Age as it was. This is where the “punk” element comes in. According to Wikipedia, sci-fi writer K.W. Jeter coined the term for the sub-genre containing his own works. The term was originally a pun on the term “cyberpunk,” a popular sci-fi subgenre of the 1980’s, which was in turn associated with the appropriately named “cypher-punk” political movement. At that time “punk” signified anarchy and/or decadence. Eventually the suffix the “punk” came to signify “alternate,” such as the modified histories of steampunk and other new genres such as “dieselpunk.”

Though I’ve always been fascinated by history and period novels, alternate history, such as the works of Harry Turtledove, are even more fun. This kind of writing provided the inspirations for my upcoming novel Fidelio’s Automata. What would have happened if McKinley had not died from the shooting in Buffalo, and Teddy Roosevelt had not become president? Because I grew up in North Dakota, TR (who lived there for a time) was part of the local mythology, and it would be fun to change his life story. Other fascinating characters from that time and place were the Marquis de Mores, an eccentric French nobleman and entrepreneur, and his “liberated” American wife, Medora. What if their business had not failed? The Marquis would not have returned to France, gotten involved in extremist politics, and died as the result of a political plot in North Africa. In Fidelio, I can change these events and speculate on what might have been.

 

Red-Headed Stepchild

Posted on by

Science Fiction is one of the despised genres of literature, loved by the masses and derided by intellectuals. Perhaps I am being oversensitive, but it seems that the critics consider genre fiction to be less important than ‘literary’ fiction. Yet as Samuel R. Delaney once observed, science fiction is one of the least respected forms of writing, about on par with comic books and pornography.

Admittedly, ones perception of sci-fi as despised depends on the definition of the category. One I recall from a writers’ workshop I attended long ago (sorry I don’t recall which one) is that it is fiction in which technology is a crucial element. My own concept is broader, more akin to that of speculative fiction: something about the story, plot, or characters is outside the normal realm of experience. Fantasy is also speculative, therefore science fiction is that portion that is plausible according to the known or extrapolated laws of the universe (that is, it excludes magic and the supernatural.)

Even the first, narrower definition encompasses a number of classics that are not normally considered science fiction. For example, works like 1984, Brave New World, and A Clockwork Orange are often considered dystopian fiction, but all are technology dependent, as wel as speculative. Likewise, Rand’s Atlas Shrugged is seen as a political novel and Crichton’s Andromeda Strain as a thriller. Third-world novels with speculative or fantasy elements are classed as “magical realism.” Thus, sci-fi’s most outstanding works are re-classified as something else.

Part of the problem wit sci-fi is, I believe, political. Many famous science fiction writers (such as Robert Heinlein) would be considered right of center or libertarian in inclination, as opposed to left-leaning academics and intellectuals. In the Golden Age of the mid to late 20th Century, there was a theme of American triumphalism running through a lot of old-school science fiction, which has since become politically incorrect.

Perhaps science fiction is despised because, like its close relative fantasy, it’s escapist. It’s too much fun. Literary fiction is supposed to portray the day-to-day struggles of ordinary people, and well within the boundaries of acceptable thought – in other words, boring. It reminds me of a politically correct critic who attacked Lord of the Rings as “racist.” Indeed, it must be very offensive to the orc and troll lobbies.

All of this is no big deal to those of us who love science fiction, fantasy, and the other speculative realms. From Star Trek and Star Wars to the numerous movies adaptations of Phillip K Dick’s stories, sci-fi is loved by the masses, who vote with their dollars in far greater numbers than for some critically-acclaimed snooze-fest. Thus are the low-down exalted. Glory to the nerds!