The Politics of BATTLE FOR THE WASTELANDS, Or Putting "Punk" In Steampunk

As most of my regular readers know, I officially became a steampunk writer with my novel Battle for the Wastelands and its companion novella "Son of Grendel." Although those two books came out relatively recently, I'd been tinkering with them and pitching them for years (I completed the first Battle draft sometime in 2012) and I'd attended the Atlanta steampunk convention AnachroCon in 2014. One common concern I've heard re: steampunk over the years was that it was becoming too focused on aesthetics of parasols and dirigibles, with the "punk" angle (subversion of norms, challenges to authority, etc) neglected. In particular, the late 19th Century on which steampunk is based involved a lot of labor/class unrest that was supposed getting ignored in favor of fashion.

Between those comments I'd seen around and reading Killing For Coal in graduate school, I decided to make labor issues part of the worldbuilding in the Wastelands world. If you haven't read Killing For Coal, it's a fascinating look at the 1913-14 "Colorado Coalfield War" and its aftermath. Although it's mostly remembered for the Ludlow Massacre, in the aftermath of the massacre the striking miners proceeded to hammer the state militia (what would soon become the National Guard) for several days and workers in other trades began holding military drills and the like. That and the Battle of Blair Mountain were the closest incidents to outright socialist revolution in the United States I can think of. This is referenced in Battle when, in a meeting with his warlords, the villain Grendel talks about putting down strikes and the various commanders keeping forces at war footing--despite the vast expense--to avoid dumping hundreds of thousands of young men who know how to use weapons into the labor market. One reason the striking Colorado miners were such effective fighters is that many were veterans of wars in Europe. Although the first lord of the Northlands doesn't know about the coalfield war (I'm keeping it very vague as to whether this is our future, the future of a similar world, or something else entirely--think Stephen King's Dark Tower), he doesn't want similar incidents breaking out across his empire.

(Not only are Grendel and his cronies afraid of strikers being effectively able to resist the local police, the armies of lesser lords, or even Grendel's elite Obsidian Guard, but they're also concerned about their own soldiers following orders in the event they're sent against former comrades. The first Russian Revolution broke out when the soldiers refused to suppress food riots in St. Petersburg, after all. The film In Pursuit of Honor begins with a group of cavalrymen refusing to attack the Bonus Army outside of Washington D.C. because they'd served with those men in France, although I'm not entirely sure if that incident actually happened.)

Another plot plot in Battle is a small-scale war between two of Grendel's warlords that starts out over a labor dispute. One of Grendel's warlords is a straight-up mutant cyborg who breeds armies of mutants in the shadow of an "Old World" nuclear reactor. As part of a trade deal, he'd offered another warlord some to work in mines alongside more "normal" workers. The other workers went on strike and took to the hills with guns rather than work alongside "freaks," much like how racial violence accompanied labor disputes when black workers were brought in to replace striking white ones. The film Matawan covers one such incident, while I remember reading about a number of such instances in Making A New Deal. This ultimately escalated into a war between the two that sets Grendel looking for an outside enemy to keep everybody busy, something that will have consequences throughout the entire series.

Another "punk" element that's worked into the Wastelands world is the Jim Crow practice of convict leasing, chronicled in Slavery By Another Name. When Grendel united his homeland of Sejera through a dynastic marriage (and jackbooting those who objected), he made a very big deal about formally ending chattel slavery. But what dictator doesn't have forced labor? In addition to the usual labor camps and mines for political troublemakers and common criminals, both Grendel's overarching regime and private companies also lease convicts from lesser governments for forced labor. Convict leasing began after Reconstruction and continued all the way through World War II, a nice bit of period-appropriate dystopia. And considering how convicts under Jim Crow were viewed as more expendable than slaves (and in-universe there are references to convict laborers dying at high rates on certain projects), I imagine there'll be rebellions and the like should the opportunity arise.

Finally, part of the backstory for the defeat of the Merrill family--the last major independent power in the Northlands--was labor disputes. James Merrill, who was leader at the time, was preoccupied with mediating the concerns of business owners and workers and paid little heed to Grendel's growing military threat until it was too late. It's an underground labor movement that keeps his son Alonzo and his rebels supplied with equipment and trying to find a way to fairly deal with both capital and labor will become a problem for the son as much as the father in the second book.

The historical steampunk era was not just known for labor and class problems, but also an increasing push for women's rights. The first country to allow women to vote nationwide was New Zealand in 1893, while women won voting rights state by state throughout the 19th Century in the U.S. until the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920 guaranteed the right nationwide. This is touched on a bit when our oblivious hero Andrew Sutter, son of a prior mayor in his hometown, wonders why nobody asks his twin sister Sarah's opinion on anything the way they ask him and Sarah points out this should be rather obvious. 

(Although I didn't go into a lot of detail about how government in Andrew's town works, there aren't any women attending the town meeting on how to deal with the coming assault on the town by the extortionate Flesh-Eating Legion. This would strongly suggest women were either legally not allowed to participate in formal politics or it was Simply Not Done, since the town has been broadly self-governing since the Merrill dynasty fell but must provide tribute and conscripts to the Flesh-Eaters when asked. This might not be universal, since the surviving Merrill armies do field female soldiers and nobody seems to view that as particularly remarkable. To cite Eowyn's conversation with Aragorn in The Two Towers, those without swords can still die upon them.)

However, the main feminist plot point (so far) is the deconstruction of "it's good to be the king" in regards to the harem Grendel started up after the death of his wife. One of his concubines is Catalina Merrill, daughter of James and sister of Alonzo, who really, really doesn't like it. She exhibits some fairly overt symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder from Grendel's attentions. Meanwhile, there's constant catfighting between the women and rival sons of different mothers plotting against each other, something that polygamous societies like the Ottoman Empire or ancient Israel were known for. This will only get worse later in the series. Although none of Grendel's women could be credibly described as 19th Century feminists, this does show how incredibly destructive this situation is. King Conan and his "luscious concubines" this is NOT.

Better "Bittersweet" Ending(s) for GAME OF THRONES

Once upon a time noted fantasy author George R.R. Martin told fans to expect a "bittersweet" ending for A Song of Ice and Fire. He specifically said that once a quest is completed one can't expect everything to be perfect. Although Lord of the Rings and A Song of Ice and Fire are often contrasted with each other, that comment reminded me of the LOTR ending in which the hobbits return from Mordor to find Saruman had ruined the Shire and even after it's rebuilt, Frodo leaves for the Undying Lands because having taken the One Ring to Mordor and surviving a continent-spanning war in the process, this world is no longer bearable for him.

Well, now the Game of Thrones television series on HBO is over. Going in I was already extremely annoyed with how the series piled on a conga line of contrived tragedies to break Danaerys and drive her crazy, culminating with the gratuitous destruction of King's Landing even though the city had already surrendered. I was thinking they were destroying a powerful female character they'd basically set up to be the messiah for the last decade in favor of Jon "Fail Upward" Snow, (and I wasn't the only one to think that--I most definitely was not). My students' graduation was that night so I didn't see the finale, but although the recaps do describe a "bittersweet" ending, some of the stuff they describe sounds absolutely stupid.

(photo courtesy of The Hollywood Reporter)

Danaerys: I expected there to be consequences for torching King's Landing, but I didn't expect her to go even more crazy before they came. Her ordering everybody who fought for Cersei down to the common soldiers to be killed and advocating an eternal war to free all enslaved people (and for her to basically rule the entire world) is ridiculous. Her goal from the beginning is the Iron Throne--where does world domination come in? She left Slaver's Bay for her ex-boyfriend Daario to rule without any intention of coming back, even though it would have made a good logistical base or source of funds for a continued war in Westeros.

If she needs to die, there was no need for her to get progressively more of a megalomaniac to make the viewers agree this was necessary. If you wanted a sad ending that does justice to her earlier humanitarianism, have Jon find her sitting on the Iron Throne having a total guilt-driven breakdown, remorseful for the havoc she wreaked when she went psycho but unable to be trusted not to do the same thing (or worse) again if she gets stressed out enough. Jon mercy-kills her no matter how much he hates to do it for the good of everybody, which seems to be something the series finale got right. Think Carol's "look at the flowers" execution of the unstable Lizzie from The Walking Dead.

(There's actually a GOT meme based on this, although I'd have said "look at the Iron Throne, Dany.")

The series finale (and the burning of King's Landing before it) sounds like the writers were just trying to beat Danaerys' alleged insuitablity to rule into the viewers' heads, much like they had Varys crap on the idea of a dual Jon-Danaerys monarchy that would be the obvious solution to Northern separatism, Jon's superior legal claim vs. Danaerys' superior military one, etc.

Bran: Bran has demonstrated even less interest in ruling (he refuses to be Lord of Winterfell even though he's the legal heir with Robb dead) and has vastly less experience in governing than Jon. And not only is he disabled (probably bad enough in a medieval world), but he seems disabled to the point of being unable to father children. Depending on where the spine break is, paraplegia can also cost one bladder/bowel control and sexual function, although there's nothing in the books or show to indicate Bran has to wear a diaper. Given the political instability (the dynasty that united the kingdom falls, the successor dynasty implodes in less than twenty years, and there's a prolonged civil war by rival dynastic claimants afterward), I would think the lords of Westeros would want a familiar, stable system. An elective monarchy in a continent that's never had that (outside of occasionally on the Iron Islands and at least one Great Council to select among Targaryens) this isn't. And then there's his becoming increasingly weird and inhuman in the process. Jon for all my issues with him would be a more realistic in-universe choice for king.

Arya: It's been established from the beginning Arya didn't want to be "a proper lady" at all, so her turning down Gendry's marriage proposal (especially the way he worded it with "be my lady") made sense. But when did she ever show any interest or aptitude for sailing? When has "what's west of Westeros" ever been an interest of anybody since Brandon the Shipwright, who I don't think is ever mentioned in the show? And why wouldn't Yara kill her at sea for publicly threatening her like she had earlier in the episode? I would imagine she'd be something like Dune's Master of Assassins for King Bran (Six Kingdoms) or Sansa (the North).

EDIT: A friend pointed out that in an earlier season she did say that she wanted to see what was "west of Westeros." My mistake. I'm keeping this entry here to retain what I thought might've been a better course of action and to show my fallibility.

Edmure: Why is Edmure offering himself up as the new king? The books establish him as a good peacetime lord who legitimately cares for his people, but he's a poor commander and the TV show emphasizes his incompetence with that whole "ignite Hoster Tully's funeral barge with an arrow" farce. After all the stuff that's happened to him, I could easily imagine that he knows this. And given his continued loyalty to his Frey wife (this is more in the books than in the show), he's going to have enough problems with the Riverlands. Is this just an excuse to have Sansa publicly humiliate him for a laugh?

Drogon: He didn't kill Jon why? Hell making Bran king would make sense if that happened.

However, it's easy to complain. Here's how I would have handled the last couple episodes to provide a "bittersweet" ending that's much less ridiculous.

*Make it more obvious that Cersei's propaganda campaign against Danaerys as a foreign invader has taken much deeper root among the elites and the common people. We see that in Season 7 with Randyll and Dickon Tarly, but that's just two nobles. If Cersei's nonsense had spread more widely, the armies moving south could find that the people simply do not trust Danaerys. If there are any incidents where the Dothraki rape and pillage, that would make things worse. These would be against Danaerys' orders, but that doesn't really matter where PR is concerned.

The fact that most people view the White Walkers as "grumpkins and snarks" means the fact that Danaerys' dragons saved Westeros from the Night King doesn't cut any ice (hee hee)--they think it's all made up. Varys sees this and between the likelihood the leader of the coalition would not be able to rule an increasingly xenophobic land and his own doubts about Danaerys' sanity (maybe we still get a "destiny" rant from her when he points out the PR problem she's having) starts spreading word around about Jon. Between that and a more obvious poisoning attempt, Varys gets executed in a situation that some viewers might think is a sign Danaerys is turning into her father.

*When Danaerys attacks King's Landing (provoked like in the show by Missandei's gratuitous murder), make the destruction of the city an accident. The bells are ringing and the Lannister main army is routing, but there might still be scorpion fire from the Red Keep from Cersei's die-hards. Danaerys attacks the Red Keep and accidentally triggers her father's wildfire stashes, utterly destroying the city to her shock and horror.

*Danaerys returns to her allies and they discuss that as word of this spreads, it will confirm forever in the eyes of both the elite and commons that Danaerys is the new "Mad Queen" and the rest of the continent will rise up against them. Danaerys could rule by terror via the Unsullied, the Dothraki, and Drogon, but that would require untold cruelty that would be too much for her and wouldn't really work in the long run. The Dornish held off the Targaryens via guerrilla warfare and there's always poison or other forms of assassination. Danaerys is stubborn (giving the viewers more worry that she actually IS the Mad Queen) but the guilt from the obliteration of King's Landing finally pushes her to agree to make Jon the new Targaryen king (even though he emphasizes he DOES NOT WANT IT) and return to Meereen with her loyalists. Danaerys has saved the kingdom from the White Walkers and the narcissistic tyrant Cersei, but she's lost the throne due to Cersei's dishonesty and the accidental destruction of the city confirming the "truth" of this in the minds of ignorant people.

So Jon is left mopier than usual on an Iron Throne he doesn't want and Danaerys retreats once more into exile. Perhaps someday there could be dynastic unification of the "Bay of Dragons" and Westeros with a marriage of Jon and Danaerys' children (or Jon and his heirs get the chunk of Essos Danaerys ruled by default if Danaerys really can't have children), but strongly imply this isn't likely to happen. Jon and Danaerys will have to marry other people, no matter their love for one another, for political reasons and to reduce the likelihood of future Targaryen insanity among their descendants. Very sad for everybody, although I could easily imagine Daario being happy to see her again.

*Alternatively, the PR situation hasn't gotten that bad (enough of the allies' leadership and common soldiers recognize the wildfire for what it is), but between the still severe backlash and Northern separatism epitomized by Sansa and all those skeptical peasants, it's still politically impossible for Danaerys to rule the Seven Kingdoms despite her military superiority. Jon resumes his rule from Winterfell, presumably with a dynastic marriage of his own (to someone from the North or perhaps the Vale), while Danaerys marries that new prince of Dorne (I'm guessing some distant member of House Martell since Doran and his son are dead) to stabilize her rule in the south and replaces the obliterated elites of the Reach and elsewhere with sellswords like Bronn, common soldiers who've fought well enough to be knighted, Dothraki (if they can adapt or if there's enough wasted land that can be left as pasture for their nomadic lifestyle), Northerners seeking better opportunities, etc. There're plans to eventually have Jon's children (and hers if she ever has them) marry to reunite the realm much like how Dorne joined the Seven Kingdoms through marriage, but imply with the Northern proto-nationalism that this isn't going to happen even though it worked before by making the ruler of Dorne a prince in his (or her) own right.

*Bran and Arya go with Jon, with Bran as the near-omniscient Master of Whispers and Arya as his enforcer. If Jon becomes the new king of Westeros, the Northern separatists are bought off with Sansa being elevated to Princess of Winterfell in the Dornish fashion. Tyrion, recognizing his multitude of mistakes as Danaerys' Hand, returns to Casterly Rock and Davos becomes Jon's new Hand either in the North or in King's Landing. If Danaerys stays in the south, perhaps Edmure Tully is brought in to become her peacetime Hand to buy off the Riverlands. There'd be an understanding that Grey Worm would have the military responsibilities so Edmure can focus on making a better life for the regular people, as one would think Danaerys based on her characterization early in the show would like.

*Ghost shows up, either having followed Jon south the whole time (Nymeria seemed to be doing pretty well in the Riverlands) or waiting for Jon in Winterfell when he returns. And he gets his pets. :)

What do you all think? This is a "bittersweet" ending that makes Jon and Danaerys suffer both politically and personally despite their victory, but at the same time it avoids the showrunners' character assassination (or rushed "character development" if you wish to be charitable) of Danaerys, along with the other bizarre character choices I listed above. In fact, it reminds me a lot of the eventual fate of the Federated Commonwealth from BattleTech--the best hope for human unification under rulers who respect human rights is thwarted by the villains' treachery and heroes' bad decisions even if said villains are ultimately beaten.

If anybody wants to do fan-fiction based on this premise, go ahead. I've already seen post-"Bells" fan-fic out there and this would certainly be better than petitioning HBO to re-do the final season.

All Art Is Political: Yes or No?

Lately something I've seen a lot on Twitter, where I follow a lot of writers and other creative types, is the notion that "all art is political." Here is a detailed explanation of this belief from someone who popularized it and here is a rebuttal. I first heard of this notion many years before from a college acquaintance who's now a minister in a very conservative non-denominational church and an active Christian home-schooler (he said that all art has "a message" and essentially there's no neutrality), but it has gained especial prominence in recent years with the rise of various social justice movements online.

Coming from who it does (conservative Christians and the Internet social justice crowd), the whole idea sets my teeth on edge. Although historically the former has had more power than the latter (disapproval by the Catholic Legion of Decency could doom a film), political criticism of art and culture has become more prominent lately with the young-adult fiction controversies. The author-withdrawn novels Blood Heir and A Place for Wolves (the links go to discussions of each controversy individually) are two significant examples. Seriously, the apologies the YA community (or at least some of its more belligerent members) have extorted from the writers in question sound like something out of a Cultural Revolution "struggle session" (I'm not the only one to think that) and speaking as a historian this also brings to mind things like McCarthyism. It sets a precedent for political critique of works not intended to be political and, at worst, political control.

(The U.S. constitutional arrangements make legal censorship all but impossible, but the outrage machines on both sides of the political spectrum can lead to books or movies getting shelved, creatives' careers getting ruined, etc. Criticism isn't censorship, but it can become that de facto if the critics can intimidate the object of their critique or convince gatekeepers like agents, book studios, movie publishers, radio stations, etc. Look how #NoConfederate is threatening to deep-six HBO's first alternate-history project since Fatherland or the hammering of the Dixie Chicks' career.)

However, whether all art is truly political or not depends on how one defines "political," as the rebuttal article above points out. Some books or films are clearly "message fiction"--Margaret Atwood wrote The Handmaid's Tale as a response to the growing power of the Christian Right and the Iranian Revolution and the TV adaptation is clearly about Donald Trump, while It Can't Happen Here is a warning of possible fascism. Get Out is about how even white liberals can be dangerous to minorities and Starship Troopers was written in response to the US limiting nuclear testing and the Soviets breaking their promise to do likewise and has a lot of commentary on citizenship and responsibility. Less subtly there's Orson Scott Card's Empire and the neo-Nazi The Turner Diaries (nope, not linking to it) or the gun politics of Newt Gingrich's 1945.

(German commandos mow down nuclear scientists and their families in Oak Ridge while gloating about how banning guns from the site only made them defenseless against armed attackers and are ultimately defeated and left hogtied by Tennessee good old boys led by either the recently-demobilized Audie Murphy or the retired Sergeant York. I'm not a fan of gun control but this is seriously overplaying one's hand. I would have depicted the good old boys ambushing the Germans, killing a bunch and slowing them down enough for the scientists to escape, but not defeating them so thoroughly and not without taking significant losses themselves once they lose the element of surprise. Considering how poorly 1945 sold, a bit of nuance would've probably been helpful.)

By the above standard, most literature isn't political. I can't think of any sort of "message" in the monster movie Deep Rising or The Hobbit (the book). Tolkien himself objected to the idea that The Lord of the Rings was "really" about World War II or that Mordor was Germany and even described what the story would have looked like if that were the case.

However, if you define "political" to include "reflective of the author's values" or "reflecting the historical or cultural context in which they're written" rather than explicit author soapboxing, things get a bit broader. Tolkien's work in general is all about human fallibility (and there's a lot of criticism of industrialization and nostalgia for rural England) and the story of the hobbits in particular is about how the humble can be more important than the great. The film adaptations of The Hobbit included the new character Tauriel because Tolkien's original book lacked female characters completely and although there were a few women in The Lord of the Rings, their roles were not substantial compared to the men. Meanwhile, Highlander has a moral of self-sacrifice--the Immortals are sterile and Connor's refusal to abandon his wife leaves her to grow old and die without the children she wanted (something she blames herself for). To avoid repeating this mistake (and save himself the pain of watching his lover age and die while he remains young a second time), Connor eschews romantic relationships for centuries.

Now to examine some of my own currently-available work to see how it counts as "political," especially if one incorporates a more expanded use of the term.

Political

The Thing in the Woods-I didn't intend for this to be a "message book" but it does reflect my values in that it's pro-gun and anti-racist. And the context of the early 2000s in the United States plays a major role in the characterization of most of the cast. Although I didn't go in intending to write a "message book" (I was inspired by a Call of Cthulhu scenario about "Lovecraft country" getting suburbanized and wanted to set it in Georgia and not New England to be different), the tale grew with the telling. The immediate sequel The Atlanta Incursion (with the publisher now) ties in with Black Lives Matter, while the in-progress third novel The Walking Worm ties in with the opiate crisis. Early 2000s cultural-political context ahoy!

Nicor-The story is antiwar even though it's on the surface an action-adventure monster story. Also a commentary on the things a man will do for women, particularly in a warlike and patriarchal society--the protagonist hopes to get enough loot and glory from going a-Viking to get a wife "or two."

Ten Davids, Two Goliaths and Discovery and Flight-Two novellas written in Lindsay Buroker's Fallen Empire universe, during the rebellion against the tyrannical Sarellian Empire rather than the troubled aftermath. Although my stories avoid the shades of gray of Buroker's work (which I've noted resembles the Arab Spring), that the Empire created its own enemy by drumming the protagonist out of the Navy for disobeying orders by destroying the bridge of a hijacked ship with beam weapons rather than blowing up the whole ship with a torpedo and his friend is a recovering drug addict who'd been sentenced to personality-altering medical treatment of questionable value is a moral judgement. The world-building I did for Buroker goes into detail about how the Imperial system and its Alliance successor state function and that's definitely political. Basically the Empire is corrupt and abusive toward dissidents, politics and big-big business are incestuously entwined, and many of its economic policies are focused on make-work projects to keep the masses busy while the Alliance in seeking to avoid the tyranny of the Empire is rather weak militarily and perhaps a little too hands-off.

Lord Giovanni's Daughter-I didn't plan for this to be a "message story" either, but Adriana is deliberately characterized to not be a passive "damsel in distress." I also wanted to subvert the fantasy-barbarian stereotype with protagonist John Fiore, who wants to build a library with his mercenary wages. Encouraging women to take initiative? Statement on the importance of education?

Illegal Alien-This started out as a joke about the different meanings of the word "alien," but I wrote it at the time of the Si Se Puede immigrant marches and deliberately hoped to play on that. Plus the protagonist and his friends wouldn't be trying to sneak into the U.S. illegally if there was a guest worker program like the WWII braceros and the hero's back-story touches on NAFTA's effects on Mexico.

Ubermensch and Needs Must-Two stories featuring an Indian-American supervillain protagonist and his rivalry with the hero Silverbolt. I did write an Indian-American protagonist because I actually agree with people's concerns about the lack of representation. The superhero antagonist Silverbolt hates guns due to a domestic violence incident in his past and one character is a stripper and totally unapologetic and unashamed about it. Plus there's a whole lot of Nietzsche quoting. :)

"Coil Gun"-Part of the Pressure Suite collection, this one depicts global nuclear war as survivable (albeit still extremely, extremely sucky) with proper civil defense preparations and ground- and spaced-based missile defenses. It's also critical of racism and religious bigotry, as is the Afrikanerverse in general. You can see my discussion of that here and here.

Picking Up Plans In Palma-This one gets more into religion than politics in that a character (a Catholic) being in a sexual relationship with another (a Protestant) but not married is a major plot point, but it does share the same anti-bigotry moral of "Coil Gun." There's also the added twist that it's a critique of complementarianism and "biblical patriarchy" from a Christian perspective, something I also discuss in the above blog posts.

Debatable

Melon Heads-Not written with any political intention. However, the frat boys of Pi Iota Gamma are much more dangerous (and morally worse) than the titular Melon Heads, who are already suffering from diminished mental capacity and have been reduced to an essentially animalistic state by medical mistreatment and decades living in the woods. A #MeToo story written nearly 15 years early? And in the original draft the frat boys were a drug dealer and a couple of his goons, so you could argue the story makes moral judgments on drug dealing.

The Beast of the Bosporus-I started writing this as essentially "a Lovecraft story in the Ottoman Empire and not New England," but I elaborated on Sokolli's Janissary bodyguard a bit due to concerns from members of my writing group that the story could be interpreted as anti-Muslim. Now there's a Muslim character who isn't a drunk (Sultan Selim II) or a practitioner of dark magic with possible anti-Semitic tendencies (the protagonist Sokolli). Still not a "message book" and not intended to make a statement about anything.

Not Really

I am the Wendigo-My first story for which I was paid and most definitely not a "message book." However, it's also incredibly short. Furthermore, one could wring a moral out of it--the human father is a predator (albeit under utterly extreme circumstances) and is prey himself. However, that's really pushing it.

Lord of the Dolorous Tower-Two young men go meddling in the tomb of a fallen Dark Lord and trouble ensues. One of the two is clearly the dominant party in the relationship (stronger personality and somewhat more educated) and both parties' motivations include impressing girls so one could make some kind of sociological commentary, but really?

Sam-A Doberman vs. a monster that only it can detect. Perhaps a commentary on not being believed when one warns of danger? That's pushing it too.

So getting back to the original point, based on my own work alone I argue that not all art is political, but the stories that are longer and have more depth often touch on significant political, social, or cultural themes. And in the long run, it's these works that have staying power. The Handmaid's Tale will be discussed for years to come, while many schlocky paperback space opera or monster books written at the same time are sold at library book sales for a buck each. It is my hope that The Thing in the Woods is and its sequels are remembered as "horror of the early aughts" and discussed by cultural historians and the like in the same way as, say, the horror of the 1980s.

What do you think?

How I Would Have Done "The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies" (SPOILERS)

Having second-guessed none other than Clive Barker on adapting his own story The Hellbound Heartinto Hellraiser, I'm going to move on to bigger game. I'm going to discuss how I would have done Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, which I saw earlier this week.

Spoilers will be abounding, so be ye warned:

*I really enjoyed the scene where the White Council (Saruman, Elrond, and Galadriel) invades Dol Guldur to rescue the captive Gandalf, however much I didn't like that Gandalf had been taken captive in the first place. I would have had Gandalf, once freed from the crow cage, given a new staff and then he can join the others in fighting the Nazgul and ultimately driving away Sauron. In the film Gandalf lies there semi-conscious the whole time and ultimately has to be removed because Dol Guldur is supposedly sapping his life away. I would have also nixed the quasi-romantic stuff between Gandalf and Galadriel and wouldn't have Galadriel collapsing after driving out Sauron, however impressive she was going into "Dark Queen" mode and speaking in that scary deep voice. Instead all four members of the White Council can exert their power and exorcise Sauron and the Ringwraiths so nobody gets burned out. Finally, I'd nix Sauron's comment about the oncoming "Age of the Orc." Sauron doesn't want to replace Elves, Men, and Dwarfs with Orcs--he wants to rule the Earth forever, worshiped as a god. He has Men as well as Orcs among his servants, and there are references in canon to Dwarfs serving him as well. Instead he could make some comment about this being only a setback but victory shall be his or something like that.

*I would have had more surviving Lakemen. It seemed there were only a few hundred survivors of Smaug's attack on Laketown and a lot of them were women and children. They simply didn't have the numbers to make up one of the armies in the Battle of the Five Armies--it seemed more like they were allies/auxiliaries of the wood elves. They also wouldn't have the numbers to realistically defend the reoccupied city of Dale against the Orcs, even if the latter hadn't managed to breach the walls. Not too numerous though, since they're the survivors of a city that's been devastated by a dragon that inflicts the equivalent of the WWII firebombing of Tokyo.

*I would have also made the Lakemen more formidable militarily, especially once they've reoccupied Dale and reclaimed the city's abandoned stashes of armor and weapons. They visibly recoil at the approach of Dain Ironfoot's Dwarfs despite being in the midst of the uber-disciplined Elven formation and most of them don't seem to have armor. Despite this they do far better than they realistically would against the Orc army storming Dale, especially once they breach the walls. Given how they're basically a civilian militia (even though we do see them drilling in one scene) it'd be more realistic if their main focus was holding the walls of Dale. Perhaps when the Orcish armies appear, Thranduil orders Bard to retreat to Dale and hold it against the Orcs to give the Elves and Dwarves a safe place to retreat? The Dalemen wouldn't have the battle experience of the immortal Elves or the ornery Dwarves, so holding the walls and gates of Dale against Azog would be a more fitting task for them.

*The gigantic "earth eaters" (some kind of huge mutant earthworm) that Azog deploys to bring his army into the Dale region via surprise tunnels could have won him the battle if he'd deployed them intelligently--by attacking the Elves, Men, and Dwarfs. Even if they managed to kill them (mass elven archer fire and the Dwarfs jumping on them), their formations would be out of order and even easier prey for Azog's armies. I would have had just one "earth eater" used to dig one huge tunnel to bring Azog's army in and then have Azog make it charge the Free Peoples. The Dwarfs and Elves will kill it, but it will do a lot of damage.

*The dwarfs seem like a functioning military tactically, including forming a shield wall with pikes and then using a svinfylking to break the Orcish lines once Thorin and his men enter the battle. The elves, however, seem to fight more individually rather than as a unit. Given how each elf probably has hundreds if not thousands of years of combat experience they could probably make this work, but I would have them function more like an organized military. Rather than leaping over the Dwarf shield-wall to engage the Orcs directly I would have them volley-fire arrows into the oncoming Orcs might like they did at the Battle of Dagorlad at the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring and then once they go hand-to-hand, advance as a big square bristling with swords. They'd go into the less-organized Orcish formation like an advancing slice-and-dice machine quite literally chewing into the enemy the way the Elven front ranks sliced into the advancing Orcs at Dagorlad.

*On a less grand level, I would have had Alfred (the Master of Laketown's slimy deputy) killed in the fall of Smaug along with his boss. He's apparently supposed to be funny, but I thought it was obnoxious. He's the one who hails Bard as King of Dale, but that could be saved for the end of the movie.

*I'd like to see more of a familial/paternal relationship between Azog and Bolg. Bolg is explicitly described as Azog's son, but we don't see much beyond him being referred to as such. The Orcs are sapient beings, being the descendants of mutilated/mutated Elves, so they'd have families, emotions, etc., albeit twisted.

*On the matter of the end of the movie, I would have ended it with the surviving King of Erebor (since Thorin dies) sharing out the gold with the Men of Laketown and Elves as promised and the crowning of Bard as the King of Dale. Bilbo is there much like how the Hobbits were at the crowning of Aragorn as the new King of Gondor and then he heads back home. Drawing parallels, you know. Since Bard's grandson Brand is killed in the Battle of the Dale during the War of the Ring and Dain Ironfoot is killed defending his body, perhaps we could see Dain and Bain (Bard's son) being friendly at the end. Foreshadowing.

*Finally, the dialogue between Kili and Tauriel when Kili leaves with the Dwarfs to go to Erebor and Tauriel leaves with Legolas to scout out Mount Gundabad was just awful. I wouldn't have had this love triangle in the first place, but that would have required changing more than just the first movie. Their later interactions and Tauriel mourning Kili's death were fine.

"The Hobbit: Battle of Five Armies" (2014) Review

Just got back from seeing The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (in IMAX 3D no less). I'd ordinarily wait until tomorrow morning, but I'd like to put my impressions to paper before they fade.

The Plot

Smaug attacks Laketown and Bard the Bowman disposes of him in the first ten minutes or so. But with the dragon dead, everybody wants Erebor now, either for its gold or for its strategic position. And so four armies (the fifth will be revealed in due time) converge on the Lonely Mountain...

The Good

*The movie is all about the battle and the battle sequences are awesome. Smaug Dresden-ing Laketown (complete with some trash-talking in Benedict Cumberbatch's awesome voice when he finally notices Bard shooting arrows at him) and his ultimate death starts out the movie with an impressive bang. Then the White Council battles the Ringwraiths and Sauron himself in a supernatural kung-fu battle of awesomeness. And then comes the Battle of Five Armies itself, the fantasy equivalent of the film Gettysburg.

*The Orcs get some character development, with Azog displaying an extremely cunning battle strategy and averting Hollywood Tactics bigtime by using horns and flags to coordinate his troops. That the Orcs, whose battle strategies tend to revolve around burying their enemies with their numbers, display the most strategic and tactical sense of any of the races in this film is pretty impressive. And it's confirmed that Bolg is Azog's son, although we don't really see any familial interaction between them.

*We see Thorin going mad with greed and comparisons are drawn between him and Smaug. It's very well-done.

*The Dwarves display some actual military tactics on multiple occasions themselves--they form a pike-shield wall against the oncoming Orcs and later something resembling a svinfylking to breach an Orc battle-line.

*There's a fair bit of humor in the film, especially from the out-of-control faux-Scottish Dwarf warlord Dain Ironfoot. This is a man who rides a giant pig into battle and kills his foes by alternatively wielding a hammer as big as he is and headbutting them.

*Saruman has no problem dealing with the Ringwraiths, but is visibly intimidated by Sauron. This might explain his actions in The Fellowship of the Ring, since in the movie-verse he seems driven by fear to become Sauron's vassal rather than pretending to deal with him while plotting to take over the world himself (as is more obvious in the books).

The Bad

*For the defeat of Smaug I expected to see Bard crowned the king of Dale, yet that issue is not handled well. Granted, they kind of had more important issues to deal with at the time, but that might've been a good ending.

*Kili's romantic dialogue with Tauriel before the battle starts made me laugh, and not in a good way.

*The survivors of Laketown seem to only number in the dozens if not the low hundreds and they visibly recoil from the menacing Dwarf troops under Dain Ironfoot despite being nigh-surrounded by allied Elves, yet they do a heck of a lot better than they have any right to in defense of Dale against the Orc armies. Especially since most of them don't have armor.

*And even though the Orcs are armored quite impressively, it doesn't seem to be worth a damn.

*When the White Council battles Sauron and the Ringwraiths in Dol Guldur, Galadriel bounces around from nigh-unstoppable to lying around semi-conscious. And Gandalf seems to have romantic feelings for her, which are most assuredly not in the book. Gandalf is an incarnated angelic being and Galadriel is an elf--plus she's also married.

*Some uber-creatures that aren't in the book are used to facilitate the movement of Orcish armies but don't actually fight in the Battle of Five Armies themselves. It's never explained why, even though they'd almost certainly be battle-winners for the forces of darkness.

*In the battle with the White Council Sauron claims the Age of the Orc is coming, but that's not what Sauron is about. Sauron wants to prevent the incipient Age of Men, but he doesn't want to replace humans with Orcs. The Age of Men is about man's dominion over Creation and Sauron wants to have that dominion for himself. He's fine with being worshiped by Men as well as Orcs and other races.

*The phrase "bred for war" gets bandied around a lot.

The Verdict

See it and then see the extended edition that's no doubt coming. 9.0 out of 10.

Some Thoughts on "The Strain" Episode #9: "The Disappeared" (SPOILERS)

I just watched my recorded episode of the most recent episode of the first season of the television series The Strain. Here are some thoughts:

*Like I suspected, this episode ended the Holocaust arc. The young Sertrakian confronts the Master in a manner somewhat different from what I remember in the first book and escapes with crippled hands. In the book it was much clearer the Master spared him out of sadism--with his hands crippled, he wouldn't be of use to the Nazis anymore and they'd kill him. This lack of Evil Gloating has prompted at least one reviewer to accuse the Master of not being particularly Genre Savvy about sparing his enemies' lives. He's Genre Savvy enough to know that Sertrakian has been watching him though...

The next morning, the previously weirdly friendly Nazi Thomas Eichhorst discovers Sertrakian's crippled hands and sends him off to be killed. Fortunately an Allied air raid allows him and a bunch of other prisoners to escape. Eichhorst flees soon afterward, pursued by presumably Soviet troops or partisans with hunting dogs, and hides in a bunker in the woods where he's stashed the Master's coffin. He drinks and whines about how the Master has forsaken him when, well, the Master shows up. Here we see the Master with glowing eyes under his hood, which is cool, and then he pulls back his hood to reveal his horrible face.

Which isn't cool. He looks too much like Count Orlock from Nosferatu,complete with the pointed ears. And a double chin--apparently the vampire overlord needs some more cardio. Another reviewer compared him to some critter that failed an audition for a Lord of the Rings orc. Were I making this, I'd have left his face unrevealed for now, but still allowed the glimpse of the evil glowing eyes. And when the time for the reveal comes, here's a much better version of the Master. Oh well, too late now.

In any event, Eichhorst bows before the Master, who slits open the Nazi's arm with one of his talons. He then cuts open his own flesh to allow one of his parasitic worms to emerge. The Master allows the worm to slither into Eichhorst's open wound and now we know how one makes a sentient vampire with a personality as opposed to a zombie minion.

Am I the only one who got a distinctly blasphemous vibe off that? It came off to me like a parody of the sacrament of communion--this is my body and this is my blood, eat of my flesh and drink of my blood and have eternal life, etc. Between that and the whole "where is your God" exchange with Sertrakian, it seems the Master is kind of a jerk where religion is concerned.

On the other hand, there was that exchange in an earlier episode where Eichhorst claimed to have infected Sertrakian's wife and Sertrakian claimed to have killed a vampire buddy of his, so maybe we'll see more of the Tom and Abe show in the near future.

*We get a bit of back-story for Nora. She's apparently from Argentina and references the infamous disappearances when Ephraim's ex-wife Kelly's goes missing. I suspect that the vampirized Matt came after her first (the whole "dear ones" thing) and now she's on her way to becoming a monster. Next week's episode looks like it'll deal with that issue--there's a scene showing vampire-Matt attacking her, Eph tracking her cell phone, etc.

*I did like Eph's obliteration of vampire-Matt. Silver dagger and repeated blows with a shovel, followed by foot-aided decapitation. And I like how Zach (Kelly and Eph's son) was quick enough on his feet to fend off Matt with a shovel for a few minutes before Eph could come take care of business.

*And Eph and Nora go at it in Eph's house, avoiding sullying the marital bed by having sex on the floor. And then Kelly's friend, the one who referred to Nora as Eph's "spicy side dish" in a previous episode, just happens to come in. She'd dropped off Zach earlier and was apparently worried enough to come check on him. Awkward...

*I found Nora's Alzheimer's-afflicted mother's response to the vampire hunters returning to the pawn shop where they'd left her amusing.

On "Problematic" Elements in a Fantasy World

On Twitter this morning, I came across the following Tweet by Avery Edison, re-tweeted by well-known author Dan Wells, whose John Cleaver books I am a fan of.

Avery Edison ‏@aedison 20 Feb 2013

I HAVE CREATED AN EPIC FANTASY WORLD WHERE DOGS CAN FLY AND GOLD CAN SPEAK and also women are subjugated sorry that's how it was then OKAY?

This isn't the first time I've seen that argument. A particularly vocal member of New Millennium Diverse Fantasy (a Facebook group I would join if it weren't for how aggravating some of its members are) insisted the manifold cruelties of A Song of Ice and Fire cannot be defended on the grounds of "realism" because this is a world where there are dragons (capable of nursing from lactating human women no less) and the Others.

The argument is superficially plausible, but emphasize "superficial." The pre-industrial societies most fantasy worlds are based on (including Martin's) for the most part sucked. For everybody (by modern standards even nobles were poor), but women in particular had it bad. A feudal economy and/or social structure is going to produce elements the Internet Social Justice crowd will call "problematic" by its very nature. Power corrupts and putting all the power in the hands of rich, strong young men is going to have bad consequences for women, the poor, etc. For all its vaunted power, the medieval Catholic Church tried and failed to restrain private war, violence against the Jews, forced marriage, etc., and this was an institution that supposedly had authority over said rich, strong young men's everlasting souls.

(If anything, this is a reason to call out fantasy worlds with princes, princesses, etc. for how they idealize a time that was very bad for almost everybody. George RR Martin's brutalities deconstruct these tropes--the handsome prince Joffrey Baratheon is a spoiled sadist, the pretty princess Sansa Stark is unbelievably naive and suffers for it, and rather than being a Perfectly Arranged Marriage, the union between King Robert Baratheon and Queen Cersei Lannister is unequal and abusive. And the violence the brutish Gregor Clegane and Amory Lorch inflict on the Riverlands is based on a specific military tactic from medieval warfare.)

J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings has been criticized by SF author David Brin due to how, despite its feudal-ish nature, the society is depicted as fairly benign. Perhaps the Stewards of Gondor keep a close eye on the nobles so they don't oppress the common people (in the vein of the Chinese emperors or certain Byzantine dynasties--and Tolkien himself compared Gondor to Byzantium, so that might actually work), but I don't remember this from the text. The Knights of Dol Amroth, in order to have the leisure time needed to become effective cavalry, almost certainly rely on the labor of a large number of peasants. Human nature being what it is, a more realistic portrayal of this type of society would see peasant unrest and complaints, especially in bad times. It's not like real history lacked for them in England or in France.

Now, this is not to say any story based on such a society HAS to be an atrocity pit. Even the pre-modern societies all of us can agree were cruel and restrictive (toward women and others) weren't nearly as restrictive as one might think. Misogynistic medieval Europe still produced personalities like Eleanor of Aquitaine and Joan of Arc. And in fact, fantasy elements can actually serve to undermine social injustice.

For example, the Wheel of Time series (which I admit I haven't read) depicts magic as something only women can use safely. Such women would have a much greater capacity to defend themselves against male violence, which would reduce the need for male protection and thus male control. Even oft-criticized Martin depicts the ruling Targaryen dynasty, whose members of either sex have a unique ability to bond with dragons and thus have an overpowering weapon in war, forbidding the conquered Westerosi nobles from claiming the right of First Night over peasant women.

So if you're going to base your fantasy world on a pre-industrial society, depict it with all its rough edges. If you're going to depict it being less unpleasant than it was, justify it. Although Avery Edison's flying dogs and talking gold wouldn't make faux medieval Europe a less misogynistic place, a woman with feminist inclinations and a fire-breathing dragon (and the ear of a man with similar assets) just might.

Good Uruk-Hai and a Female Robb Stark? Some Fan-Fics For You

The keen minds of my alternate-history forum are at it again, with two new alternate-universe stories taking place in the worlds of A Song of Ice and Fire and Lord of the Rings respectively.

The first one is entitled "The She-Wolf Reborn" and the gist of it is that Robb Stark is born a girl named Anna. Although she looks a great deal like her mother Catelyn Stark, she takes after her late aunt Lyanna in personality. Mayhem ensues.

"Butterflies" from this divergence include Theon Greyjoy at the Wall (for trying to rape Anna), Sansa Stark betrothed to Eddard Karstark and having the dreams of a three-eyed crow, actually meeting Willas Tyrell, and others I won't describe for reasons of spoilers. Author JBO has been so kind as to use some of my ideas, such as a different fate for Mycah the butcher's son. Although he said things are still going to go to hell, they'll go to hell rather differently from canon and I'd like to see it.

The second story is entitled "Saruman of Many Devices." The premise is that the palantir Saruman used in canon to communicate with (and be corrupted by) Sauron has some kind of defect. Instead of connecting Isengard to Mordor, it connects Isengard to Center, the artificial intelligence from David Drake and S.M. Stirling's "The General" series. Saruman in the books is an innovator already, with his Uruk-Hai using gunpowder at Helms Deep and Isengard being transformed into an industrialized war-production site. With the aid of Center, he brings rifles and artillery into Middle-Earth and hilarity (and awesomeness) ensue. Among other things, the Uruk-Hai (under the command of Lurtz) come to the aid of Arwen when she flees with Frodo from the Ringwraiths and earn grudging admission to the anti-Sauron alliance and Uruk armies battle Sauron's horse barbarians as they attack north of Gondor. But the secret of gunpowder weapons has begun to spread...

(As those more familiar with the LOTR books vs. the films can tell, the story draws a lot from the films, like the character Lurtz, Arwen being the one who takes Frodo to Rivendell, etc.)

You all have fun!