The Art of J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings--the proem

Is it fair to examine poetry intended as a mythic part of as a larger prose work as poetry? Probably not, but such effects should exist to one extent or another. 

The first line has lovely assonance and consonance--the n's and s's and long e's. The second does the work of bringing together the first two lines by not only continuing the above, but also by adding the "or" sound. Moreover, we are given a repetitive grammatical structure of a "[number] for"--a pattern echoed through two more lines.[And to contrast with the \lines that begin with "One."]

Aside from rhyme and iambic rhythm (a rhythm that it didn't start with, anyway), one has to question strange arrangements like "in their halls of stone." Why move "stone" from the more natural "stone halls" to "halls of stone"? It's actually a brilliant move, highlighting the stone--the hardness and coldness, not just of the halls, but of the dwarves, of the rings and the ring bearers--all bound to the one.

"Under the sky" may not add much to eleven-kings unless there are others who don't live under the sky.

The fifth line breaks the pattern with a line that creates foreboding "In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie."

Before the fifth line is repeated in the eighth, we have anaphora of "One Ring to"--including an interior anaphora, which does exactly what the words claim: "bind them." There is rhyme, too, although I'm not sure this is an actual form--A B A B, A C C A

While the final line reintroduces us to the darkness, it's not clear that the repetition adds anything new--certainly nothing more than it's first appearance. Perhaps, then, it is best to consider it as a bit of folklore unearthed in the the mythos of this realm--one designed to set mood and demonstrate the power of the ring.

Realistic Portrayals of Religion

 A group of us were discussing religion, science and science fiction, and Andy Dibble came up with some excellent rules for portrayal of religion, using Ursula LeGuin's The Telling as an example.

I'd also add one weird aspect to religion. It picks up whatever's around it like Silly Putty--sometimes not contradictory necessarily, but sometimes it is. Christmas trees, Ptolmeic solar system, holidays, etc. 

I forget which illustrated coffee table book it was, but Joseph Campbell pointed Hebrew coins where God had the feet of serpents. This would seem to contradict their religion due to the serpent in Eden. Campbell listed one reason for their inclusion as the bronze serpents they had to kiss thanks to Moses, but other interpretations might be possible. Still did the image seem to conflate the two contradictory images? Or was one trodding on the other? A nuanced view is preferable to the uncharitable.

We have names for things in the culture that are supposedly forbidden, but that isn't quite what happened. Some things are clearly verbotten in religions although contextual clues give a nuanced interpretation. Other times they're a verbal tradition, based on an interpretation that's difficult to pin down.

Within any religion, though, there are selective interpretations that suit believers, and sometimes don't suit them, so that they wrestle with passages trying to understand. This isn't not usually good guy vs. bad guy scenario, although it can be an interpretation that suits one's worldview. Perhaps the aforementioned Silly Putty analogy is the desire not to conform to the text, but to unite with those around them.

This may be perhaps too nuanced for a short story to handle well or a cursory examination of a religion. And my placing this here does not constitute approval or disapproval--merely an observation.

Alien, Aliens, mothers, Alien 3 vs. William Gibson's script (spoilers galore)

Apparently, a new Alien movie is coming out along with a new Blade Runner, with Ridley Scott at the helm. Sounds promising.

This is my belated follow-up to this earlier post about the William Gibson script.

So Alien, the first movie in the franchise, gets a solid 8.4 on IMDB while the sequel Aliens gets an 8.3.

They are not without flaw. The biology of the species has a gaping hole and seems improbable although that doesn't interfere with the story. Namely, how is that creature growing bigger?

One pleasure, outside the obvious plot tension, is the mother motif. In the first, the seemingly benevolent mother is in the ship's computer  helping make their lives easier, but later we learn that "mother" is an amorphous authority running the ship from the outside, steering them into danger for its own benefit. A stand-in for authoritative governments that lack regard for its citizens and only use them as pawns to whatever that larger goal might be. The only other "mother" present (the alien) is meant to be seen as a visual metaphor for how destructive their government is.

In the second, we get an expanded metaphor of a positive mother where Ripley plays a surrogate mother to an orphaned child. The metaphor is now a contrast of mothers. The original metaphor has to be understood within the context of someone naming their native country their mother or father. The metaphor in the second loses bad government metaphor, but explores mother in a new fascinating way.

The followup, Alien3, got a 6.5 on IMDB. Why? This website lists ten possible reasons why.

It also explains why Gibson minimized Sigourney Weaver's role, which seemed a strange choice since she was the main player in the first two.

My first impression of the audio script was that it was too similar, which was why I needed to rewatch the first films as the audio drama was catching listeners up to speed.

Now Gibson's strength is teasing out an intriguing threat made in the first two that somehow never really made it into the series: namely weaponizing this alien species. This isn't settled here in his script but it leaves the door to be discovered in a further sequel. In retrospect, Gibson's choice is the most logical expansion of the series. 

Instead, the movie that got made was more creative in the sense of setting it on a former prison colony where a religion sprung up around their conditions--in theory. Granted, whoever created the religion could have tried harder, but it was still fascinating. Part of it may have been the necessity due to eliminating weapons. Nonetheless, the original concept feels fresh and should have breathed some life into it.

But it didn't build on what we knew. Ripley's character isn't expanded (apart from sex which isn't explained), and characters get killed off, probably to simplify the narrative. You certainly want a child visiting this colony. Also, we get no closer to understanding the species in the way that Gibson's makes us feel like we are approaching.

Finally, it didn't expand the motherhood metaphor except now Ripley is carrying a mother-alien child within her. Yet she doesn't follow the same lifecycle as the aliens did before. So again, biology problems. No explanation for why this creature the size of a baby isn't detected by the mother. And the metaphor isn't clear. Perhaps she's like the opposite of the Virgin Mary--with a kind immaculate conception. And she does sacrifice herself as a savior, falling in the shape of a cross, but to kill the infant this time. But there'd need to be more clues throughout to draw this conclusion. Perhaps I need to give it another viewing to see how well it built toward this view of "mother."

The real problem of Alien3 is the idiot plot. Sure, they kill off the one intelligent guy, so that it really is an idiot plot. But even that doesn't make sense. Why was she drawn to the guy where she didn't seem drawn before? Why develop his character then kill him off?

Now the brilliance of the first movie was that it explained why people didn't do the intelligent thing. The least powerful guys had the best advice, but it went unheeded. Why? "Mother" computer/government.

Alien3 was an decent movie with some fascinating premises that could conceivably have paid off. Perhaps, had it not had its predecessors, it'd have been seen as a stronger movie with less to live up to.

Would Gibson's script have been better? Hard to say. Certainly it would have at least expanded the series and moved it toward a long-term goal. It probably needed some revision to bring in some of the brilliance of the first and second films, which could have happened had the right director sculpted the script toward what the series had been building. Still, while not as powerful as the first two, both have something to add for fans of the series. It's good that it saw the light of day.

Wheel of Time (first three episodes)

I first read Robert Jordan's first novel some time ago. I rather liked it with some caveats (although I'm not sure if that's clear). I had anticipated reading more in the series--at least until it got boring, but I seemed to have lost that path.

I still plan to revisit the series, but here's one take on the TV series adaptation of The Wheel of Time from Amazon's Prime. The first episode doesn't do a great job getting us to care about what's happening to the characters, but the events are engaging.

By episodes two and three, though, the characters start to show promise, so if the first episode doesn't appeal to you, give the next two a go to see if they start to rub off on you. The IMDB ratings of the episodes mirror my own reaction, leaping from 7.6 to 8.2.

Kafka on what kind of books we should read

  “I think we ought to read only the kind of books that wound or stab us. If the book we're reading doesn't wake us up with a blow to the head, what are we reading for? So that it will make us happy, as you write? Good Lord, we would be happy precisely if we had no books, and the kind of books that make us happy are the kind we could write ourselves if we had to. But we need books that affect us like a disaster, that grieve us deeply, like the death of someone we loved more than ourselves, like being banished into forests far from everyone, like a suicide. A book must be the axe for the frozen sea within us. That is my belief.” 

--Franz Kafka

Food for thought. I couldn't find where this originated, but still a fascinating perspective, no matter who said it.

Monte Cook's Numenera -- on sale!

 I went to Clarion with Monte Cook and had no idea what big deal he was at the time. He just seemed like your average nice guy--pleasant to chat with.Who knew that mild-mannered man was a mastermind of the RPG underworld?

He had a smooth fun writing style and imagination that I enjoyed. I bought his novel and I believe he signed it. He did one of the editions of D&D, so he's kind of a big deal.

Now he has his own gaming company.  If you are into RPG, this sounds cool and surprisingly inexpensive. $15 for a bunch of PDFs. I wish they did other versions, though.

 

99 cent ebook: L. Ron Hubbard Presents Writers of the Future Volume 37

 Ebook just released yesterday, reduced 90% to 99 cents.

L. Ron Hubbard Presents Writers of the Future Volume 37

I have a story in here. 

At the time of posting: #114 in Science Fiction Anthologies (Kindle Store)

Update:

The highest I saw:

#7 in Science Fiction Anthologies (Kindle Store)

#8 in Science Fiction Anthologies (Books)

#3488 Overall