Greg Bear: Rembrance

Gregory Dale Bear--born August 20, 1951, died November 19, 2022--is one of the great SF writers of his generation. With nearly fifty years of publication, at least thirty to forty of them would leave his colleagues envious.

The photo to the right is how I most remember Greg Bear--the broad smile, the crinkly eyes--although it probably wasn't his only or even his main expression. But this is what sticks with me. That memory lingers on his pleasant disposition says much about the man.

He was brilliant in most things he did. He told us at Clarion West: "I can talk and you can learn from me, or you can talk, and I'll learn from you."

If you were lucky enough to party at his house, his library awed all of us to silence.

Bear was a master of many fields. I gave a signed copy of Bear's novel, Darwin's Radio, to a microbiologist friend who was impressed with Bear's scientific knowledge. He felt like they were colleagues.

But Bear didn't get a PhD or even a B.S. in any scientific field but a degree in English. If you want a masterclass on creating characters, read his Hugo/Nebula winning novelette, "Blood Music," then compare that to the novel version, which deepens the characters. He takes a novelette--good enough to win awards--and makes it better. Most writers would have simply added on to what they'd done.

Here's an interview worth watching to learn about the recollections of man in his later years:

Wonder Woman 1984, or Better Ways to Do Superheroes, or Trent's Five Laws of Superhero Stories

Friends, family, colleagues told me they loved WW84 while critics excoriated it. I read and watched the criticisms, which steered me clear, but I did eventually watch it, driven by curiosity about the contrast in sentiment. Perhaps, being forewarned, I liked it better than expected. A lot of the critiques are interesting in that what some didn't understand, others thought was too on-the-nose.

The WW84 story is far from simple, but I will attempt to make seem so: A stone grants users one wish. But that wish, the users later find out, comes at a cost. Some will fight to stop the use of the stone while others will fight to protect it.

The movie did a lot of things right, and a number could have been done better. This trailer suggests one thing that could have been utilized better:

This is an excellent musical montage with music from the era: New Order's "Blue Monday" updated. Why set it in 1984 if they don't utilize it more? They do use Frankie Goes to Hollywood in a scene that seemed quite effective, helping both capture the era and the sense of a party, both annoyingly distracting for some and alluring for others:

Warning: Spoilers from here on.

The movie introduces a lot of "new" ideas or powers that Wonder Woman is said to have, and some that belong to others. We'll come back to that. 

Now some complained about realism. Well, all superhero movies are fantasy. Iron Man would be dead within a few days, if not minutes, of using his machine, thanks to Newton's Laws of Motion, among other scientific facts. We accept that he could master flying and avoid getting killed. Sure, some stretch credulity, but just run with it. Most of the early powers seem buyable, assuming the nature of super heroes.

One new power, though--invisibility--comes out of nowhere. Better would have been to introduce the power in the way Shazam learns and observes his powers: a role model although this shouldn't be the only way. It happens to make sense:

So the First Law of Superheroes:

1. Gaining superpowers should make sense, not according to our reality but according to the reality of the superhero universe. The audience should be there to witness what the power means to the character within the greater context. Finally, there should be a reason to add this power.

Next, Wonder Woman gains the ability to fly. If she is never going to work with Superman again on the same team, then okay. But each character should have her own unique abilities on the team. "But she needs to fly!" someone might say. Why? What's the point in an invisible jet or armored wings? Why bother? "Because they're cool." True, but then why bother introducing them if she doesn't need them?

Limiting this would have spared the use of moments designed to wow but which came off silly, such as web-slinging on lightning with her lasso. 

"But didn't you say that superheroes are fantasy?" Good point. However, lightning is energy, not matter, so you can't use energy in the same way you'd use matter, even in a fantasy (or if you've changed the laws of the universe, demonstrate how).

Better: Grab the pair of armored wings, and multiple story problems are solved.

2. Superheroes working on a team should have unique traits that make them suitable to working together. Think of it as the heist team. You need the explosive expert, the fire arms expert, the architect who knows the layout and its weaknesses, the getaway car driver who knows how to handle a car. Think of it as a book or comic book publishing team--all of the necessary jobs to make the team work. Redundancy means certain people can be cut. This goes for the baddie team, which can be redundant, but that means they can be killed.

I loved Shazam, but the above makes a sequel difficult. What makes each character's powers unique? Still, I do wish they'd done sequels immediately.

Wonder Woman 1984 adds two new villains. We do understand the motivation for each character. In fact, each character's reason for being is better drawn than most superhero movies draw--the strongest appeal in this particular movie, perhaps. Unfortunately, we don't get enough information about each character's unique abilities to make us invested in a final showdown. So maybe we need just one villain per movie to fully develop the baddie.

3.  Each major superhero and baddie needs an origin story. This means we need to understand their reasons for being, but also their relative strengths and weaknesses. One or both of them may already be confident in their abilities, but we still need to know why they are here and what's new this time and why. If this is a new battle between Joker and Batman, what is different about each this time? How might the outcome be different? That's their origin story for this particular tale.

The wishmaker story is powerful. Someone could make your dream come true, at a cost. Is it worth it? But what powers does this wishmaker actually possess that we'd be invested in watching the final confrontation?

4. Each major superhero and villain should have characteristics or skills that make them suitable for fighting in the climax.

5. The outcome for the hero should be in doubt. Otherwise, why watch the movie or read the book? If the way to win is simple, then you just wasted everyone's time and money to sit down and watch your movie.

If you can just slice through your enemy's starship and kill them all, then it's a stupid story. The problem was too small to begin with. There was never very much at stake.

Wonder Woman 1984, on the other hand, has a comparative embarrassment of riches: two stories worth telling. We have two women contrasting: one who wants to be noticed, one who does not. That deserves one complete movie by itself to fully develop it. Barbara Minerva's story is not only moving but also her transformation is visually exhilarating. The problem is we don't know what skills she possesses that might enable her to defeat Wonder Woman--rules 4 and 5.

The wishmaker story is also powerful and worth telling, but it's not clear why Wonder Woman needs to be involved. His revelation seems to be more of an interior one, rather than one fought through fisticuffs. We don't even know how the two might do battle, anyway. But what was wonderful was how Wonder Woman's desire for something was so powerful, that she was willing to become weaker and even struggled against this desire in order to save the world. Moving.

There may be more rules, but this should suffice for now.