Who's Your Daddy? Mickey vs. Mandos

Author's note: this is an article I'm writing for the Hillsdale Collegian. Certain names have been changed for privacy purposes.

Luke, George is no longer your father.

Last Tuesday, George Lucas announced that he was retiring, and selling Lucasfilm for $4.05 billion to the Walt Disney Company. The corporate giant, riding on the success of its acquisition of Marvel and The Avengers film, now controls LucasArts, ILM (Industrial Light and Magic), Skywalker Sound, most of Indiana Jones…and all of Star Wars.

The controversy among the fans is almost as bad as “who-shot-first.”

“George Lucas was the worst thing to ever happen to Star Wars,” said sophomore Ewan Crighton. His words reflect the opinion of many a Star Wars veteran who believes (somewhat paradoxically) that the Star Wars universe will be better off without the creator who chopped the Ewok song and hired a furless frog-rabbit to stand next to Liam Neeson.

Others consider Star Wars’s new owner to be a wretched hive of sap and insipidity, and, remembering the “Disney treatment” given to cherished traditional folklore, shudder at the thought of what may happen to one of cinema’s greatest fairytales.
\
Disney’s announcement that they will be releasing a project billed as “Episode VII” in 2015, with a new sequel to be released every few years after that, hardly makes matters any better.  The epidemic of sequel-itis has spread to almost every film Disney has made, and when the nineteenth Star Wars episode they reach, look so good, they will not.

Not all of Disney’s previous purchases have turned sour in their hands. Pixar, minus a few sequel hiccups, has been delighting and inspiring audiences and artists alike since Day 1. Marvel’s first film under Disney has become the third highest grossing film of all time.

Of course, many attribute the success of The Avengers to the directorial talent of Joss Whedon, just as many of the best lines of Star Wars were improvised by Harrison Ford. It is the skill of the individuals involved, not the company, that makes the movie great, and Disney has a particular talent for bringing in strong talent, particularly for its partnered projects. For the English dubs of Hayao Miyazaki’s films alone, Disney has hired the voices of Cate Blanchett, Christian Bale, Billy Crystal, Josh Hutcherson, and the obligatory Jonas brother.

Stars also bring in money with their talent, and it is money that forms the ground philosophy of Disney.

Disney CEO Bob Iger’s said, concerning the Lucasfilm acquisition, “This transaction combines a world-class portfolio of content including ‘Star Wars,’ one of the greatest family entertainment franchises of all time, with Disney’s unique and unparalleled creativity across multiple platforms, businesses, and markets to generate sustained growth and drive significant long-term value.”

If that’s all he has to say, I’ve got a bad feeling about this. But if following the money means not disappointing fans, Disney will take Star Wars along the path that those who know it best have already created - the “Extended Universe” of books, graphic novels, and an entire subset of Wikipedia (known as Wookieepedia) that will keep Disney busy, and fans happy, for a long, long time. But if Disney wants to force Star Wars into their trite-but-child-pleasing mold, Leia just might become the next Disney Princess…and Mickey will witness the firepower of a fully armed and operational fan coalition.

Cloning: Not So Far, Far Away - an essay

The following is the transcript of a speech given three years ago, for the NCFCA Regional Invitational. In-text citation and a works cited page have been added for your convenience.

Today, the word "clone" has become almost synonymous with "Darth Vader's mindless goons" or "those stormtrooper guys that the Rebel Alliance is always fighting." In George Lucas's Star Wars Episode II, a clone creator describes them as "units," "immensely superior to droids" (Lucas) due only to the fact that they can think creatively. "They are totally obedient," he says, "We modified their genetic structure to make them less independent." (Lucas) At first, I found nothing disconcerting about these statements; to me, the clones of Star Wars were robots in human form, not to mention peripheral characters of science fiction. Planet Earth would never have to see, nor worry about, those.

So you can imagine my surprise when I read a Time Magazine article by Michael D. Lemonick saying that scientists had cloned a dog, and that humans were probably on the way (Lemonick). And my unease was only exacerbated further by reading "Republic Commando," a book by Karen Traviss, revealing the individual, day-to-day lives of the clones of Star Wars (Traviss), and, in the process, the frightening possibilities that now face us in the real world.

Here on earth, the possibility of human cloning is already looming on the horizon; therefore, before we dive in headlong, it would be prudent to first critically examine it – analyze the financial and medical risks, determine how it would affect our morals and ethics, and take into account the expert's and the public's opinions. I would like to first address each of these issues of the present in turn, and then close with a vision of the future, because, as we all know, the decisions we make today will affect our tomorrow.

When one thinks of the word "clone," one may be tempted to think of the copy machine; you scan the object, punch in the number of duplicates you want, press the big green start button, and watch as they pop out, one by one. Sadly, cloning is not that simple. The expenses, both financial and medical, and the small success rate make it a formidable task.

According to the aforementioned Time Magazine article, the first attempts to clone a dog cost the makers seven years and over nineteen million dollars (Lemonick). Those attempts failed, and would continue to fail for the next three years (Lemonick). This is mainly because much of the cloning process takes place on the molecular level, where a single blink, a speck, or a millimeter can destroy years of work.

But after the new, artificially fertilized egg is safely in the surrogate mother's womb, everything should be fine, right? Wrong. Surviving clones are not perfect carbon copies of the original (Park). And as of now, the process embeds flaws in genomes, which can lead to disastrous results, including death (Park).

The Human Genome Project of the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health tells us that less than ten percent of cloning attempts produce viable offspring ("Cloning Fact Sheet"). The first cloned sheep, Dolly, is the only successful result of two hundred and seventy-seven cloning attempts (Park). Many of her predecessors were born as bloody, dead atrocities, bodies and organs either deformed or incomplete (Park).  

A common defect among the few cloned animals that have survived past birth is large-offspring syndrome (Park). At U.C. Davis, all six cloned calves born in a study on this syndrome weighed from seven to sixty-eight percent more than their normal counterparts, as well as suffering from cleft palates, breathing difficulties, low oxygen levels in blood, and retarded ability to stand (Lau). The U.S. Human Genome Project says that many clones have a more compromised immune system function, resulting in higher rates of infection and tumor growth ("Cloning Fact Sheet"). And even those who seem perfectly healthy do not live up to normal life expectancy ("Cloning Fact Sheet").

Now, in light of these facts, close your eyes and imagine a cloned human – let's say his name is Andrew. Several hundred other "Andrews" never made it to their first week of life, or even their first day, but he did. One of Andrew's kidneys is damaged, resulting in several major operations and forcing him to be extremely careful for the rest of his life. He cannot play sports for fear he might get hurt - he is so overweight that he'd soon run out of breath trying to keep up anyway - he's two grades behind in school, the doctors tell him he'll only live to the age of twenty, and…you get the picture. And even this picture would be extremely optimistic, and merely physical, telling nothing about his family, thought, or spiritual life. And if we think about it, he may not even be human.

The creation of artificial homo sapiens could change the nature of that word "human being," and who we include in our definition of this word. Would clones like Andrew be considered people, protected by law and given human rights (McGee)? Glenn McGee, a PhD in philosophy and professor of bioethics, says that children often feel pressure to be exactly the same as or completely different from their siblings, particularly if they are twins. He believes that clones, being more or less a much younger genetic twin of someone else, would suffer the same pressure, only a thousand times worse, and would be denied the "right to an open future" (McGee). And speaking of open futures, for a clone to be created, there must be a specific purpose – say, to be a soldier, or to replace a deceased person. The clone would not have the right a normal child would have to just be himself. And by far the most frightening question for many religious groups is: would a clone, being created artificially by mankind, have a God-given soul? Or would he simply be another animal, with nothing higher to live for than to eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die?

Another frightening aspect elaborated upon in many a science fiction book is the value of human life in relation to human cloning; if we were able to effortlessly "create" people, might we be tempted to depreciate human life, and consider people such as the elderly, the handicapped, the ill, and the unborn as less deserving and dispensable, under the assumption that we "can always make more"?

This pattern of thought, that "we can always make more" or that certain people are "less fit to survive," is, I believe, the same train of thought that led to eugenics, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. Such people are playing with lives; Hitler's men "helped nature" or "played God" by killing five-point-seven million Jews deemed less deserving of life (Gilbert 242). Likewise, would we be playing God by artificially creating life? If life becomes so that we can toy with it, decide who gets to be born and who gets to die, how many lives would be considered worthless? How many people would have to die?

With all of these dangers and unanswerable questions, it is no surprise that the majority of public opinion is turned against human reproductive cloning; in fact, according to a 2004 Gallups poll, eighty-nine percent of Americans oppose it (Lyons). Most scientists consider human cloning unethical, and physicians from the American Medical Association have issued formal public statements against it ("Cloning Fact Sheet"), fearing, if not the prospects of cloning itself, the public outrage that would ensue following future human cloning failures ("Human Cloning").  As of 2001, 42 countries have banned human reproductive cloning. However, only fifteen states in the U.S. have passed any state laws pertaining to its prevention, leaving another thirty-five states – and the U.S. legislature – open (Fenoglio).

The answer seems obvious. In addition to being highly expensive, time-consuming, and dangerous, human cloning raises many issues that we cannot deal with and do not want to be held responsible for. But this idea has already been given that inch, and is already gaining miles of progress. As of now, the vast majority of the public, including the President, support therapeutic cloning, the cloning of organs and body parts. Cows are cloned for beef, and people readily buy this higher-grade meat in the supermarkets. Although it is, in and of itself harmless, and even beneficial to mankind, it is a baby step towards something much bigger. One small step at a time, human cloning could grow to be accepted and even applauded, and what might happen then?

No one knows for sure, but that doesn't stop people from guessing. In the fictional world of Star Wars, a world more like our own than we realize, the cloning process has already been perfected, and hastily accepted, as a means of defending the Republic in a major galactic war (Lucas). Clones are being mass-produced by the millions to fight this threat, and in the process, their independence, free will, and even a full lifespan are stripped from them ("Cloning"), in an effort to speed up production and prevent revolts. They are looked upon and treated like robots and freak shows, even though they are human beings (Traviss). Because they are artificially created and expendable, they are given no rights, no homes, no love, no families, and nothing to live for (Traviss).

It seems quite distant to us – currently, there is no major war that would make cloning troops necessary; we don't yet have the technology to mass-produce people without surrogate mothers either. But the danger of the future is still there. And if we are not careful, our world may very well end up with armies of genetically identical soldiers – people like us – just not considered as such.

I would like to close with a quote from "Republic Commando: Hard Contact," the Star Wars novel that originally inspired me to write this speech. These are the words of Jedi Knight Bardan Jusik, addressing the Jedi Council on the matter of clone troopers.

"So how do we justify what we are doing now? Breeding men without choice, and without freedom, to fight and die for us? Where is our society heading? Where are our ideals, and what are we without them? If we give in to expedience in this way, where do we draw the line between ourselves and those we find unacceptably evil?" (Traviss 121)

It is my hope that we draw the line now, rather than put it off, saying we don't have a pencil, and then find one too late.


Works Cited

"Cloning." starwars.wikia.com. Wikia. n.d. Web. 29 Jan. 2010.
"Cloning Fact Sheet." genomics.energy.gov. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of
     Biological and Environmental Research, Human Genome Program. n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2009.
Fenoglio, Gia. "What Cloning Has Wrought." Center for Genetics and Society. Center for Genetics and
     Society, 4 Aug. 2001. Web. 22 Oct. 2009.
Gilbert, Martin. "Atlas of the Holocaust." Oxford: Pergamon, 1988. Print.
"Human Cloning." American Medical Association. American Medical Association. n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2009.
Lau, Eddie. "Dark Side of Cloning Perplexes Scientists." UC Davis Biotechnology Program. UC Davis, 18
     Aug. 1999. Web. 30 Dec. 2009.
Lemonick, Michael D. "Woof, Woof! Who's Next?" Time. Time Inc., 7 Aug. 2005. Web. 14 Oct. 2009.
Lucas, George, dir. Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. 20th Century Fox, 2002. DVD.
Lyons, Linda. "Americans Register Strong Feelings on Cloning Issue." Gallup. Gallup, Inc., 6 Jul. 2004.  
     Web. 29 Jan. 2010.
McGee, Glenn. "Primer on Ethics and Human Cloning." ActionBioscience.org. American Institute of
     Biological Sciences, Feb. 2001. Web. 30 Dec. 2009.
Park, Alice. "The Perils of Cloning." Time. Time Inc., 5 Jul. 2006. Web. 14 Oct. 2009.
Traviss, Karen. Star Wars Republic Commando: Hard Contact. New York: Del Rey Books, 2004. Print.

An Experiment in Character(s)

Take a moment (and a pen and paper), and do a little experiment with me.

Write down a list of characters - real or fictional, book or movie, guy or gal or Gungan, - that you like, admire, or emulate. In fewer words - your favorite characters. 

Done? Good. Now try to put them into categories by personality type. It doesn't have to be intricate, nor does it have to be very specific. Having just two is fine.

In fact, having just two would support our theory. 

It shouldn't be too difficult for you to split your characters into two groups - not only is splitting things into halves easier, but also, as my friend Kelly G. and I have discovered, a character's like-ability to any particular person depends heavily on whether or not the character fits into one of these two groups. 

Now it's a lot more fun - and more scientific - if you have your two groups set straight before I let you know what those groups are, as opposed to reading on ahead, figuring out those groups, and then going back to try to fit your characters into them. So, it's up to you what you want to do, but I aim to move on.

Category A is the "Be" category (confusing enough for you?), made up of the characters that you think you are, or want to be. You empathize with these characters, recognize traits in them that you have in yourself, and follow their storylines more closely because in some sense, they become you. Their like-ability stems from the fact that you empathize with them to some degree; you feel as though you can understand them, and thus, while you may or may not actually like them as people (to be discussed later), you can at the very least relate to them. You become interested in their lives, because those lives pertain to yours.  

The phrase "or want to be" is not a limiting factor - it is rather an expanding one. Oftentimes, the people who we think we are similar to are not necessarily exactly the same as the people we want to be - they may often share similar traits, but let's face it - every once in a while, we find ourselves playing the villain. They're not who we want to be, but they are who we are. This does not mean that we are condemned forever to being the Moriartys, Draculas, and, Anakins of the world - it means that we recognize how our character traits, while strengthening us to a degree, can, if taken too far or without a dose of morality, lead to evil. Certainly, we can always try to change.

Some of the characters in your "Be" category are those catalysts for change - the people whom you would like to be. You look up to them, perhaps because they have traits you do not possess, but also because you can see yourself in the future, with help and a bit of luck, as them. They have, perhaps struggled with the same issues you have, have better mastery over their issues, and are stronger in areas where you are weak. They are you...but better.

Category B is the "Be With" category.  It's very easy for fans to imagine themselves romantically involved with a character - fanfiction and deviantart, among others, have revealed just how often that happens. And as it so happens, unless you think using only your eyes and hands, your "Be With" category people will also tend to follow a personality pattern. And if you are worried that many of those in your Category B are of the wrong sex, that's okay - romance was just an example. These are the people whom you want to be around - whom you would choose as friends and partners, wingmen and bunkmates. They are the ones you can rely on to have your back, hold your secrets, and have some fun. 

The "Be With" category may be very similar to your "Be" category, or it may be radically different, depending. Neither is good or bad - they simply are. Have some zen, and don't worry about it. The worrying comes in the next paragraph.

So now you have your two categories. What can you do with them, besides show them off to friends and look like a nerd? Chances are, if you've managed to separate them into categories, it means that these characters have some traits in common with the others in their group. So here's where it gets interesting - these common traits, along with some combination of the unique traits, can probably tell you a lot about yourself - what you see in yourself, what you desire for yourself, and what you look for in friends and relationships.  You may find some very funny things - for instance, one of my friends discovered that while she herself was/wanted to be kind, helpful, and a generally cheery friend-type, she desired friends who were go-getter leader I-know-what-to-do types. You may find some more sobering things - I found many villains or alienated characters in my "Be" Category, people who were talented and clever, but often amoral or unfeeling concerning other people. You may find things you already knew, or perhaps discover an entirely new, unknown facet to yourself. And, of course, if you're doing this with friends, book/movie recommendations always turn up somewhere.

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious - an Essay

This is was the essay I wrote for UVA. I was tired, it was two hours before the deadline, and I had had enough with essays. So I pulled this out of the what-the-fierfek part of my brain...and I got into UVA. Just goes to show... (finish this sentence however you like).             

 “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” seems a cheap response to “what is your favorite word,” but I do not love it simply for its length. It brings back warm memories of watching Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke dancing in a cartoon fairyland; it harkens to a groundbreaking work of cinema and imagination; and it is almost delicious to say out loud. For me, words are everything; as a storywriter, I spend hours looking for just the right word – a task which often involves taking the word itself apart.

“Super” is obvious. In Mary Poppins, everything is super –imagination reigns, from the chimney tops to the cartoon penguins. As a child, I used to dream of living in a world where anything is possible; now I invest my time in making those dreams a reality.

“Cali” is not a reference to California – at least, not in my book. I prefer “calibrate,” reminiscent of adjusting and fine-tuning. I am not an engineer, nor do I plan to be one, but editing is integral to my life as a writer, changing a word here or a phrase there to create the best possible prose.

“Fragilistic” is Ozian grammar for “fragile.” Many of the things I love in life are fragile – languages, cultures, bonds between people, life itself - and perhaps it is their fragility that makes them so precious to me.  The frailty of these things makes capturing them, with a camera or a notebook, that much more important.

“Expiali” is more obscure. Words like “experiment” or “explore” come to mind, as well as J.K. Rowling’s famous “Expelliarmus!” I am an adventurer by nature, not a scientist or a wizard, but someone who enjoys exploring the hidden worlds of the imagination, and making it come to life.

“Docious” has, in fact, become a slang word for those who do not have the time to say its fourteen-syllable parent. However, whenever possible, I try never to abbreviate, for, as a famous slow-speaking tree once said: “It takes a long time to say anything in Old Entish. And we never say anything unless it is worth taking a long time to say.” And as I have already quite exceeded my word limit, I believe that I have spoken for long enough, and I trust that it was worth taking the time to read. 

Hunger Games: A Review

"Destroying things is much easier than making them," says Suzanne Collins in her novel The Hunger Games.  And I agree. Destroying this book (and the following movie) with a scathing review will be much easier, and perhaps more viscerally satisfying, than trying to write a better one. But with that in mind, I'll try to keep down my hipster disdain for popular tween/teen novels (a disdain reinforced by Twilight fans, among others), and write a balanced review.

The Hunger Games, for the few hermits who have somehow managed to escape hearing about it, concerns a dystopian world in which North America is divided into twelve Districts, ruled by the dictators in the Capitol. Every year, as a chilling reminder of who's boss, the Capitol decrees that "the 12 districts of Panem should offer up a tribute of one young man and woman between the ages of 12 and 18 to be trained in the art of survival and to be prepared to fight to the death" – on live television. The story centers around Katniss Everdeen, a girl from District Twelve who volunteers as tribute in the place of her younger sister Prim. On her journey to becoming the next winner (or is it survivor?) of the Hunger Games, she must deal with the blatant classism of the Capitol, learn to present herself with the poise and grace of a Miss America, fake a romance to gain audience approval, and, of course, kill a lot of people.

The book version of this tale varies widely from its film adaptation not so much in plot as in direction. Although Suzanne Collins did help in writing the screenplay for the film, it provides a completely different take on the story than her novel – not that that's a bad thing. I'll be looking at both in this review, in order. 

But first, a look at the world Collins has created, and the themes presented. Collins's world is a dystopia – a world where the few wealthy folks oppress the many poor folks. While this is not uncommon in dystopian fiction, Collins's Panem has a distinct air of class war to it – the opulence of the Capitol is made to look almost disgusting compared to the abject poverty of District 12, and even within District 12, the merchants and government workers are contrasted with the Seam citizens (the common people working in the mines). There's an unspoken cry of "Unfair!"  behind the whole picture – one that makes me think that, if the current government were overthrown, Panem could very easily, and with popular approval, be reshaped into another kind of dystopia – Communism.

There's also a distinct air of the later Roman Empire's "panem et circenses" philosophy, which says that, given enough popcorn and bad movies, the citizenry will forget about political affairs, and let the government do as it pleases. This is a much more relevant theme, but one that goes largely unexplored. Collins makes sure to emphasize the brutality of forcing children to kill one another on live television. She also makes multiple references to Greco-Roman culture – the introductory chariot promenading, the Coliseum-like atmosphere of the arena, the names of some of the Capitol people (Cinna, Portia, Octavia, Flavius, Cato, etc.), and even the nature of the Games themselves. However, at least in the first book, she fails to explain just how this principle works. Aren't the Games more of a reminder of the outrageous travesties the Capitol has caused? Wouldn't they inspire rebellion more than put it down? And just how distracting is the entertainment, when every second of it reminds you of how the Capitol has oppressed you? The enslavement that television brings isn't explored widely in the book or the movie, and I wish it was. 
More on that later. For now, let's move on to the book. 

The first thing I noticed upon reading was the first-person point of view. Now, there's a lot of debate on this, but the general consensus is, while first-person may create the added advantages of immediacy (forcing the audience into the main character's shoes) and can create more detailed main characters (putting you into his/her head), it can be restricting. Collins cannot tell anything Katniss does not already know, so the inner feelings of the other characters, the inner workings of the Capitol, and the innards of anyone but Katniss are a mystery. Sacrificing this broader perspective gives us a somewhat more intense reading experience, and a better insight into Katniss herself. 

Many have praised Katniss as a wonderful example of a strong female character, as opposed to Bella Swan. However, I found myself, while certainly sympathizing with her, not empathizing with her. While Katniss's dedication to her sister is touching, and her skill with bows and arrows impressive, there seemed to be nothing concerning her personal growth throughout the story. By the end, she seems very much the same as when she began, if a little more traumatized and battle-hardened. Besides her dramatic and rather abrupt decision at the end of the Games, she has not changed noticeably. The skills she takes out of the arena are the same as the skills she took into it – a fierce desire to survive (and who doesn't have that), and wicked bow and arrow skills (which most of us do not have, but many of us are now attempting to acquire). She is strong, but in a way that makes us wish we were her, rather than feel that we are her. For a better illustration of this point, or if you happen to like the BBC series "Sherlock," see the link below.

http://misstransmission.co.uk/the-real-woman-why-molly-hooper-is-the-one-who-counts

That being said, I did care about Katniss – when someone's life is in danger, you tend to care a lot more than you would otherwise. Collins's other characters, on the other hand, are radiant – while they all seem rather secondary, due to the nature of the point of view, they are hugely memorable and nicely executed. There are a great many characters to juggle around in this tale, and Collins does it by defining them by one or two characteristics in such a way that we can remember every one of them. Collins treads the fine line between character and caricature, giving every minor character a certain level of respect, even Effie Trinket, one of the most annoying women in contemporary literature. I fell in love with Rue, Cinna, and even Foxface, to some degree. I largely ignored, however, the awkward Twilight-esque love triangle revolving around Katniss, Gale, and Peeta. 

A love triangle involving two incredibly handsome boys/men fighting over one indecisive girl/woman has been done before, and very badly, too. Collins manages to pull it off, but only just barely. There were times where I felt that the invention of the triangle had been executed simply to draw in the Twilight audience – it felt fake and unnecessary. A love triangle like that is every teenage girl's fantasy – or, in the words of Guinevere from the musical "Camelot":
Where are the simple joys of maidenhood?
Where are all those adoring daring boys?
Where's the knight pining so for me
he leaps to death in woe for me?
Oh where are a maiden's simple joys?
Shan't I have the normal life a maiden should?
Shall I never be rescued in the wood?
Shall two knights never tilt for me
and let their blood be spilt for me?
Oh where are the simple joys of maidenhood?
Shall I not be on a pedestal,
Worshipped and competed for?
Not be carried off, or better still,
Cause a little war?
Where are the simple joys of maidenhood?
Are those sweet, gentle pleasures gone for good?
Shall a feud not begin for me?
Shall kith not kill their kin for me?
Oh where are the trivial joys?
Harmless, convivial joys?
Where are the simple joys of maidenhood?

*ahem* 

Collins' tone is simple, easy to read, and very much Katniss – she pays special attention to every detail of the opulence of the Capital, especially the food, as a starved countrydweller would. I appreciate an author taking the time to really get into her character's head – unfortunately, she has picked rather an unpoetic head into which to go. Katniss has little artistry with her words, and writes rather simply – that in itself has its own sort of beauty, but I can hardly call her an artist of language. It may also have led to something else undesirable, which I will mention later.

On the upside, Collins creates some truly beautiful moments in her work – you can tell her background with television writing in the way she stages some memorable, beautifully handled bits of dialogue and action.  For instance, the end of Katniss and Gale's goodbye meeting could not have been made any better – Collins works very well with a lack of dialogue, using actions and Katniss's wonderings to make jewels out of events. At times, she replaces what would have been useless or inadequate dialogue with a bag of cookies, a piece of bread, or a closing door – manipulating details in such a way as to give them much more meaning than any words ever could. It's this delicate handling of emotion and action that keeps me reading – these small gems amid the rocks. 

There are also some terribly handled moments, as well – moments that are, too, wordless, but corny in a Russell T. Davies sort of way. When the whole of District 12 refuses to clap along with Effie for Katniss's volunteering, instead raising their hands as one in a sign of respect, it felt choreographed – outright emotional manipulation that made no sense in the world outside of television and fiction. Luckily, the number of good moments exceeded the number of bad ones.

Some of these special moments were preserved in the movie, but most of the good ones were not. Thankfully, these missed good moments were replaced with film moments that gave an entirely new perspective of the story. I talked earlier about how first-person point of view was restricting – in film, there is no such thing as point of view (unless you're talking about found-footage movies) – everything must be done in third-person. This allowed the film to go where the book could not – we see the world of the Capitol, the machinations of the top brass, and the minds of the Gamemakers themselves. President Snow gets to explain the mindset behind the Games, Cato gets a moment of desperate/insane/driven-over-the-edge bad guy monologuing that helps us to realize how far the Games have driven him, and we get to see the frankly very cool control room where the Gamemakers control the environment. The social and political implications of the novel are also fleshed out in the film, to great effect.

But these, too, must come at a cost. Because Katniss is not going to narrate all her thoughts out loud, the film was hard pressed to get moviegoers into her mind as the book did. The cinematographer, the one sort of point-of-view we as an audience are going to get, seemed to think that using a handheld for a good three-quarters of the movie would result in a more first-person sort of experience (again, think found footage). The only experience I got was a massive headache from the giant screen rolling and pitching, shuddering and fluttering in the dark room. 

Lucky for them, Jennifer Lawrence was able to bring a lot out of the character in a way that was tangible to her audience – a truly phenomenal actress, she kept a lot of the book in the film simply through her spot-on interpretation of Katniss. Still, the difference is obvious – in the book, it is very clear that Katniss is only pretending to like Peeta, but in the movie, that is a lot less clear. In fact, she seems conflicted, half the time, as to whether or not she is developing a romantic attachment to the boy with the bread.

I had a bone to pick with some of the other casting decisions. While I felt that most people were well-casted, particularly Rue, I disliked Cinna and Haymitch. Cinna had been one of my favorite characters in the book, simply because he was the artist that didn't feel the need to be as flamboyant as the stereotype – the book described him as looking not at all like the other Capitol fashionables. While he is certainly not in the same shocking fashions as the rest of the Capitol residents (by the way, major props to the costume designer for such daring outfits), he seemed to fit the stereotypical African-American fashion-man. Watch any fashion-related television show, find an African-American man, and you will see what I mean.  I think the studio had a chance to really be bold with a character here – find someone who looked quiet and seemingly normal, but with an insane sort of fire in his eyes – and they chose the safe way out: someone who looked as people expect a fashion designer to look, and who lacked the fire that makes a memorable character. My issues with Haymitch are smaller, but also important – he didn't look quite as disheveled, drunk, or just plain disgusting as the book stated. In fact, he reminded me of a well-groomed country singer. 

The book made many sacrifices to fit the attention span of today's moviegoers. A lot of characters and moments were cut out, and much character development was lost (e.g. Madge giving Katniss the mockingjay pin, Gale's cut-off goodbye, Peeta's being drugged). And I found myself a little creeped out by how much I and my fellow moviegoers were rooting for Katniss – as if we wanted her and Peeta to kill everyone else and win. By sacrificing moments such as Cato mourning over the loss of Clove, and instead painting the other Tributes as soulless villains, the film lost sight of the book's goal – to reveal the complete wrongness of putting children/human beings on television and forcing them to compete like animals. 

Speaking of animals, how about those muttations? Frankly, I'm very glad they chose to stage the dog attack at night – any more light and we would have been able to see the sloppy CG. In fact, the genetic mutations idea in general, both in the book and in the film, felt poorly developed. Genetic mutations are a subgenre of science fiction in their own right – to casually mention them as a plot-pushing convenience to make your animals seem stranger and more dangerous is to do the principle an injustice. Concerning CG, however, the wasps were passable, but the dogs were inexcusably bad – with CG wonders such as Rango and The Adventures of TinTin coming out every few months, one wonders how anyone manages to get away with this. Obvious greenscreening and CG sloppiness abound in the chariot scene as well – the studio obviously knew this was not their strong point, since they kept most of the scenes indoors or in the woods. Too picky, you say? Perhaps. Maybe on a smaller home television screen the effects won't be as bad, but as a theatergoing experience, I was disappointed.

Obviously, I'm nitpicking quite a lot. Some would say far too much. But it's these little moments in a movie - particularly a science fiction movie, where so much relies on managing to suspend the audience's disbelief – that ruin everything. I felt myself getting absorbed in the movie…and then jerked back into reality by something flatly and unapologetically unrealistic – poor CG, unrealistic dialogue, or just the fact that somehow Peeta knows how to use mud to make his face look EXACTLY like a rock surface without makeup kit or mirror while bleeding to death. 
In the end, the Hunger Games is a pretty good book and a slightly-less-so movie. The concept behind it is unusual and exciting, and its execution fairly good, fluctuating wildly between the profound and the mundane. For YA fiction, I'd consider this a masterpiece, and quite an achievement, given what fiction of that ilk has been for the past few years. But it's hardly what everyone has hyped it up to be. 

In fact, I find the hype dangerous. Collins's ideas concerning the trivialization of violence in media and the moral dangers of "game" competition come out loud and clear in the book, and in the film, they are punctuated by the quite ghastly wounds that many of the characters endure. But it seems that many preteens are happy to ignore those messages and concern themselves only with Team-Gale-vs.-Team-Peeta, or what-District-do-I-come-from, or what-I-would-do-if-I-was-a-Tribute. The fact that Collins's book is so easy to read, and the fact that librarians and teachers quickly recommend it in their euphoria over preteens even wanting to read at all, continue to put The Hunger Games into the hands and minds of many who are probably too young or immature to pick up on these themes…and The Hunger Games, rather than warning audiences about desensitization, will only contribute to it.

Cooking the Books - an essay

I wrote this short essay (2000 characters total) for the University of Virginia.

Cooking the Books: a Lesson in Portion Size and Poetry

As a child, I was a voracious reader, chomping through Lord of the Rings in eleven days and devouring heady tomes of Austen or Homer without losing my appetite - and, until recently, I was on a novels-only diet. But a few years ago, while strolling idly through the science fiction, I came across “Nightfall and Other Stories,” a collection of short stories by Isaac Asimov. So, on that lazy summer evening, I began my journey into short fiction.

                Sleep did not come easily that night. I found that the stories were like potato chips – you couldn’t eat just one. And, unlike chips, each was not only radically different and deliciously satisfying, a gourmet dish in itself, but it left you curious, and hungry for more. I visited worlds that had never seen darkness, and glimpsed a future where going out-of-doors was considered hazardous to one’s health. And in every story, I discovered a beautifully crafted “what if?” – sometimes answered, sometimes left open for the reader to explore. Both long and short stories were good meals – but while the former was a one-dish dinner, the latter was a pâté de foie gras with Chardonnay, whose flavor lingered in your mouth long after you swallowed.

                Since then, I have sampled collections and anthologies, from Chaim Potok’s Zebra and Other Stories to Halo Evolutions: Essential Tales of the Halo Universe. I have applied the “short is sweet” principle in my own stories, practicing word economy and polishing every sentence until it glows. I have realized that life is not one long epic, but rather a series of moments, each with its own joys or sorrows to savor, lessons or questions to receive and, perhaps, answer. And I have begun to live, as well as write, as well as read, like a food critic – taking my time to savor every word, every nuance, every flavor.   

With college decisions over...

...now is the time to start posting some of the essays I've written.

Most people find writing essays for college applications a chore, but I found joy in them, somehow. I suppose I had to, if only to keep me writing and keep me sane. But every essay I wrote was a foray into who I was.

So here's the essay that I used for my common application, meaning every college I applied to saw this - and some of them asked me about it.

Wait and See

You see that child? Yes, that one – the only one in the throng of five-year-olds who isn’t wearing a traditional princess dress. She’s dressed as Jasmine, because Jasmine is the only Disney princess who wears pants, and hence, the only one with enough mobility to have a good time – which she does not hesitate to do. Her brightly sequined, loudly jingling top and pants allow her to be almost everywhere at once, chattering away with her friends or organizing talent shows for an amused parent audience. When an adult gathers the little princesses together for a group picture, she’s the one striking a dramatic movie star pose, while everyone else sits prettily and says “cheese.”   

You see that kid? There, among the sweltering hordes of Disney World vacationers. She’s the one with the face paint and outlandish belt – taking full advantage of the park’s “Star Wars Weekends,” she and her brother have become vicious bounty hunters scouring the galaxy for targets…while waiting in line for a ride experiencing “technical difficulties.”  Suddenly, she points out their targets: two four-foot-tall Jedi in line behind them - sweaty, cranky, and wearing thin the patience of all within earshot.  Slowly, deliberately, the girl walks up to them, resting one hand on an imaginary laser blaster. “You two Jedi?” One boy gulps, and responds defiantly, “Yeah… what are you?” Winking at his mother, she growls, “Bounty hunters. We eat Jedi for dinner.” The other boy catches on, yells “Heyaah!” and the battle is on – plastic lightsabers versus finger guns – to the amusement of the other park-goers. By the time the miniature Jedi have vanquished the bounty hunters once and for all, the line is moving again. One of the mothers mouths a silent thank-you to the girl, now faking a severe limp as she moves up in line.

                You see that girl? There, in that mini-van speeding down the highway towards the Poconos. While the other teenagers argue over which ski slopes to hit first, she sits quietly, perusing a coil-bound transcript of “God and Country Radio”‘s program on John Calvin’s Treatise On Civil Government. Eventually, she looks up and asks its author, engaged at the steering wheel, “Pastor, you believe that the state should be under the authority of the Bible?” If he were to turn around, he might notice the gleam in her eye and attempt to forestall the coming storm; but, thinking her question to be merely mild curiosity – after all, he only gave her the transcript as debate team research material - he replies in the affirmative. “Why?” she challenges. “What about freedom of religion?” Thus begins a spirited dialogue spanning everything from Locke’s Second Treatise of Government to Catholic beliefs on separation of church and state – a dialogue that will last the rest of the two-hour car trip, through lunch break, and for most of the way back home, long after the rest of the car’s occupants have fallen asleep from exhaustion.

                You see this girl? Yes, this one right here, writing college essays with one hand and eating a chocolate cookie – nature’s best brain food – with the other. When this is finished, she will click “submit,” log off the laptop, and find some other adventure to embark on. Who will she be talking to, playing with, masquerading as, debating with?

Wait and see. 

Kony Island

Kony 2012 - this video has been circulating rapidly for the past few days, coursing its way through our wonderful social networks, seeking to galvanize America: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc

And, like any other wildly popular video, it has also generated a good deal of opposition from those who fear its wildfire tendencies, who are cynical as to its ability to create change, and who envy and/or leech off its hugeness. This tumblrite, in particular, has been getting attention for its blatant opposition to the Kony 2012 movement: http://visiblechildren.tumblr.com/

Here is my response to both of these.


First off, movements like Kony 2012 are nothing new. As the video mentions from the very beginning, internet is changing the way the world works; more and more people are recognizing the power of the internet in creating massive grassroots movements. For evidence, look to the anti-SOPA and anti-Protect-IP movements - although there really can be no evidence as to whether or not the actions of Wikipedia and Google created a big enough effect to reverse the legislation, there can be no doubt that Congress was inundated with emails from angry citizens. Obama's 2008 internet campaign smacks of JFK in more ways than one; he, like Kennedy, took advantage of a new medium, to great effect - the highest voter turnout since 1960. And from the more frivolous side of things, we have Rebecca Black, Justin Bieber, Hank and John Green, and Ryan Higa, all of whom "made it big" through youtube videos.

I personally found it refreshing to see the internet being used as a medium for good - to see people recognize the power of the web and use it to promote humanitarian causes. The voice of child soldiers in Africa has long been muffled by news of economic recession, rising gas prices, and the latest celebrities. The video itself was well-made, tugging at the heartstrings somewhat blatantly, but effective in getting its message across. It appeals not only to pity, but also to the teenage desire to make one's mark on the world, so that by the end, the watcher feels like jumping out of his or her seat and go change the world. Again, this is nothing new, but the cause that it supports is sincere, and it is executed effectively. It is an image of young, determined, and naive Americans, seeking to help their neighbors, stop injustice, and just "do something" about the world they live in.


I would exercise caution, however, before "doing something." Many advertising campaigns, including this one, rely heavily on immediacy - "call within the next five minutes, and we'll throw in a free set of steak knives!" Kony 2012 is not simply setting deadlines - it is relying on an age-old psychology tactic in which the need for speed reduces the ability to think things through. I am not saying that they intentionally do this in an attempt to brainwash America - their call for action is legitimate; the longer we delay, the more atrocities are committed. But speed can cloud one's thinking.


Thankfully. some have thought it through...and openly dislike it. http://visiblechildren.tumblr.com/ published a blog post today against supporting Kony 2012.  In a nutshell, Mr. Oyston's arguments are these: 1) the organization is inefficient and puts too much of its funding into creating more films, 2) it supports the Ugandan Army and the Sudan's People's Liberation Army, both of which are "riddled with accusations of rape and looting," 3) the organization over-simplifies the issues at stake, and "exaggerat[ates] the scale of LRA abductions and murders and emphasiz[es] the LRA's use of innocent children as soldiers," 4) it supports a "White Man's Burden" mentality, 5) various other arguments that can be summarized into the first four.

1) I agree that Kony 2012 has put much more emphasis and funding into its filming efforts than most other organization. However, as we can all see, that has paid off - their latest video has received over four million hits on youtube alone within the past two days. In a world where over a day's worth of videos are uploaded onto the web every minute, getting one's message heard requires much more than clicking "upload." In a sense, there is a trade-off between donating more of the funds to the cause, and getting more people to support the cause. Spending funds on publicity and filmmaking, while seemingly selfish and counterproductive, can pay off in more people watching the videos and donating. And in this mission, where the goal itself is to raise awareness and alert our government, money spent on publicity will be money well-spent. The argument that not enough money is going into "direct services" does not apply, simply because the primary goal of the organization is not to raise whatever funds it itself can collect, but to move the big names of the world to raise both funds and legislation on a scale that no not-for-profit organization could ever match.

2) The ethos of Kony 2012's argument has been massively damaged by the fact that the armies that they are supporting - the Ugandan army and the Sudan People's Liberation Army - are ripe with corruption, abuse, rape, and murder. Certainly, the situation is deplorable. The instruments they seek to use aren't the cleanest. But practically speaking, can we do any better? As the video mentioned, the U.S. is loath to involve itself in anything that isn't its own affairs, so any commitment of U.S. troops will be small and short-term - you can repeat this for most other affluent nations with better-disciplined armies. This leaves only the armies of Africa, most of whom also fall under accusations of rape and unnecessary violence. But of these, Uganda and Sudan are the best-equipped, and have the best motivation, since both their countries suffered at the LRA's hands. It is true that the LRA has since then moved out of those countries, but this has nothing to do with the army's ability to fight, as Mr. Oyston seems to think.

3) Exaggeration and over-simplification accusations can be thrown at almost every advertising campaign. I would like Mr. Oyston to point me to one recent, successful media campaign that did NOT oversimplify issues. This is not to say that such things are correct or moral, but the truth is that any advertisement that admitted to all of its problems and explained all of its complications in full would never succeed. 

"Foreign Affairs has claimed that Invisible Children (among others) “manipulates facts for strategic purposes, exaggerating the scale of LRA abductions and murders and emphasizing the LRA’s use of innocent children as soldiers, and portraying Kony — a brutal man, to be sure — as uniquely awful, a Kurtz-like embodiment of evil.” " Yes, distortion of the facts is regrettable and unprofessional, but it is hardly new. And the fact that there are abductions and murders and child soldiers, never mind how many, should be cause enough for action. I find particular fault in the phrase "emphasizing the LRA's use of innocent children as soldiers..." Should we not emphasize this fact? Is it somehow "unprofessional" or "unfair" to emphasize the fact that children are being forced to kill or be killed themselves? 


4) Another quote with which I have a bone to pick is this: "As Chris Blattman, a political scientist at Yale, writes on the topic of IC’s programming, “There’s also something inherently misleading, naive, maybe even dangerous, about the idea of rescuing children or saving of Africa. […] It hints uncomfortably of the White Man’s Burden." " So there is something inherently misleading, naive, and dangerous about the idea of rescuing children. Is that a reason for not doing so? I don't understand why, when a white person seeks to help a disadvantaged black person, it is seen as condescending. Are we still so steeped in the racism of our past that we cannot help but see racism in every act between races, innocent or not? Should only black people help black people? I personally did not pick up on any racism in Kony 2012's mission, website, or videos, and I question the mentality of someone who does see it. 


I understand that the issues are more complicated than can be fit into a half-hour video. But as responsible citizens, our job is to, after watching the video, take some time to do the research before we decide to support or oppose something. And it is not Kony 2012's fault that we have not. 


Granted, I find that the organization has some issues - its "action packs" are corny, it is overly sentimental at times, and I simply don't like the voice of the narrator. The big difference between this effort and the stop-SOPA movement is that this one advocates us buying something, which is immediately cause for suspicion. But it has made a difference - there is now an early warning radio network to give villages time to evacuate and/or prepare for attacks, legislation has been passed to provide advice and assistance to nations fighting the LRA, and, most important of all, people now know who Kony is, and can email, protest, and generally make their voices known to their government and to the world. Yes, the means is iffy, but the way in which we attack the means can destroy the end. 


"Something isn't better than nothing. Sometimes it's worse." I'd like to ask if this something really is worse than nothing, and, if not, what are you contributing to? Because to do nothing, and then to openly condemn those who try to do something, is what really is worse.  

So for those of you I didn't already spazz to, and for those who don't follow me on dA, I sent Mr. James Arnold Taylor (the voice of Obi-Wan on the Clone Wars series) an email back in November, thanking him for an amazing show (see my Star Wars Weekends post on dA http://foxsword.deviantart.com/journal/An-Account-from-the-Field-Star-Wars-Weekends-218530594 ) and for inspiring me. He sent me an email back in late December. An impossibly long, very thought-out email, that had everything from encouraging Bible passages to practical tips on how to keep my voice healthy.

 More recently, I recorded a reading of Neil Gaiman's poem "Virus," for my youtube channel. here it is, and *insert shameless plug here* check out the other poems I've recorded - while they're often not well-known, they're all worth reading/listening to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X226Dp0jdfg At the suggestion of a friend, I sent the link to Mr. Gaiman, who responded within the day, with just a few words: "Well read!" and a quick note that I had somehow managed to cut off the last two lines when I uploaded the video (don't worry, the version I linked above is the fixed version).

 So two different well-known people, two completely different responses. First off, I'd like to say that I love it when these people bother to reply at all - I know their schedules are busy, that they have many fans, and consequently that they don't have much time to chat. Hearing back from them is a reassurance that they are human, and kind humans at that. I appreciate the time they take to write a thoughtful response, rather than brushing us off like the paparazzi - Mr. Taylor was sweet enough to write an email that took up the entire computer screen and required scrolling besides, and Mr. Gaiman was willing to listen all the way through his poem being butchered by an American.

 Secondly, I still undergo periodic bouts of hyper joy thanks to these guys. May I never be cured of it.

Thirdly and finally, when we all become famous artists, I hope we are all as gracious as this.