Gone is Just the Beginning

The first non-blockbuster YA book I've read in quite some time (since sophomore year of college, I think--wow), and Gone is everything you'd expect it to be: original, suspenseful, and trope-r-iffic!

The basics: Gone begins with everyone over 14 in the small town of Perdido Beach disppearing: one second they're there, the next, they're gone. Our main protagonist, Sam, shunts taking responsibility and instead looks for his crush Astrid's autistic little brother, along with his wisecracking best friend Quinn. This leaves the town bully, Orc, in charge: at least until the boarding school kids show up. Oh, and on top of the survival problem, some kids have special powers: lightning bolts, teleporting, telekinesis, or other kinds of power that only require their hands to be free. And the local wildlife has also mutated: snakes can now fly and coyotes talk, for instance. All the while Sam and co. try to solve the mystery of the FAYZ (Fallout Alley Youth Zone).

Now, this is only the first book of a series (with the final installment due next year), so only a few of the mysteries are solved, with many more still to come, I'm sure. The story takes so many unexpected twists and turns, I can't tell you too much of the plot without spoiling this thrill. (Still, spoilers may follow)

Guh, their makeup is so overdone

The structure of the book is very cinematic: we jump around to different scenes and perspectives throughout the book, just like in any disaster movie or TV drama. We see what both the "good guys" and the "bad guys" are up to, which only builds the suspense and excitement even more, as we uncover new details and more secrets are revealed. The premise is also very imaginative, combining elements from classic stories and creating a whole new breed of sci-fi and the supernatural. However, there are moments that make you go, "Really?"--even with the unrealistic premise, some things are just too far-fetched. For example: would Lana and her dog really have survived a tumble down a steep ravine in a vehicle without their seatbelts on? The fact that Sam and Caine are twin brothers really came out of left field--no hints or anything. And--really? You name the bad brother "Caine"? Gee, I wonder what that references.

Bald biblical references aside, this story is full of familiar tropes. We have the reluctant hero (Sam); the goofy, hopelessly ordinary best friend (Quinn); the genius and love interest rolled into one (Astrid); the idiot savant (Pete); the token minority (Edilio); the big dumb bully and his loyal sidekick (Orc and Howard); the cunning villain, who doubly serves as the hero's foil (Caine); the sadistic psychopath (Drake); the sultry seductress (but PG-rated: Diana); the computer whiz (Jack); the den mother (Mary); among others. Whatever comes to your mind when you think of these tropes, that's probably what they are. They might step out of the box every now and then, but their characters are pretty predictable. There's also a real, sinister evil lurking behind it all--though there will be more on that in the next book, most likely. Funnily enough, basically all the bullies go by non-human nicknames--so it's easy to tell who those guys are. There's nothing wrong with characters fitting neatly into tropes(that's why they're tropes); however, it makes for unambitious characterization.

Premium Rush: a Thrilling Bike Ride

Premium Rush is only the second movie I've seen in theaters this year--and on opening weekend, no less. It looks like it won't make much at the box office: it debuted 7th this past weekend, just ahead of the new conservative documentary 2016: Obama's America (which you can't pay me to see). Considering the timing, and the pro-cycling theme of the movie, I'm not surprised. Premium Rush is a low-key action movie, with no explosions or a lot of shooting. Instead, the thrill lies in the chase: car on bike, bike on bike, bike on foot, car on foot, foot on foot, and so on. Fans of urban cycling and Joseph Gordon-Levitt shouldn't be disappointed--though perhaps fans of following the rules of the road will be.

(mild spoilers follow)

The story follows a daredevil courier named Wiley, who's assigned to a special delivery: a "premium rush" (hence the title). All goes smoothly until he's stopped by an NYPD detective who, it turns out, has a really bad gambling problem, and wants the package desperately. Wiley refuses, of course, as this courier service is a secure service, and so the chase begins. Later, when Wiley loses the detective for a moment, a hapless bicycle cop catches him breaking road rules, and will stop at nothing to catch him. Along the way we meet some courier colleagues of Wiley's, among them overconfident rival Manny and ex-girlfriend Vanessa, who help him deliver the package. Throughout the film we go backward and forward in time, obtaining a new piece of the puzzle, building up suspense and excitement all the way.

The story is pretty much what you'd expect from a popcorn thriller like this--though I couldn't guess at the contents of the envelope until I was given sufficient clues, so it's not predictable, and the coincidences aren't that far-fetched. Aside from a chaotic, claustrophobic flashback that occurs after Wiley gets into an accident, the camera work is well done: we feel the same rush as the couriers do when they ride. Special effects, thankfully, are sparing, used only to enhance the experience of navigating the bustling streets of NYC on two wheels and for slo-mo. And like the NPR reviewer said, the setting actually feels like New York: from the gridlocked traffic to the rude pedestrians to the slightly grimy look and feel of the objects surrounding them. The cast is also quite diverse, giving a far more accurate representation of NYC residents.

Characterization was also well-done here. There is a villain to hate, and some of the cop characters come off as a little doofy, NYC road users as assholish. But this is being told from a courier's point of view (mostly). Wiley, our hero, is certainly likeable enough (thanks in part to JGL's charm), though not without his flaws. He preaches the gospel of Brakeless Fixie, and almost as overconfident as his rival, breaking dozens of road rules over the course of the movie. We get a real sense of who the characters are simply from the way they act and talk to one another: a sign of really good screenwriting. The little backstory that we need to know is woven seamlessly into clipped cell phone conversations. And as far as the couriers go--I believe it. Tough, daring, aggressive, and they don't take shit from anybody--including the cops.

This movie is largely harmless in the category of stereotyping and oppression: nobody likes cops anyway; many cyclists are assholes (especially in NYC, I'm sure); there's sufficient diversity of race and gender; and members of the lower classes are whom we root for. However, I did have a problem with how aggressive Manny and Wiley were in, um, expressing their affection for Vanessa, and even more so by the dispatcher's blatant sexual harassment. Vanessa's a tough chick, and I was hopping she'd punch him out, any of them out--but she just pushes them away or brushes it off as a joke. She says in the movie that she wants to quit couriering so she can have a "steady job"; but maybe she's just sick of all the harassment.

Overall, the movie works as a great commercial for bicycle couriers--or, at least, urban cycling: exciting, well-constructed, and suspenseful. General Score: 4 stars out of 5. Oppression Score: 3 (mainly for the sexual harassment thing). Highly recommended if you just want to watch a fun popcorn flick and forget the world for two hours.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll be going out for a bike ride.

Introducing a New Rating Rubric!

Before I post my next review, I'd like to take some time to explain a second dimension with which I will be rating books, movies, and the like. In case you haven't noticed by now, I'm pretty lefty, and I usually take a paragraph or two to point out any problematic content in the story in question. So, why not build upon that and add a handy rating system to gauge the severity of the oppressive content?

As my overall rating is based on five, and we all love multiples of five, this "Oppression Scale" will be based on 10. 1 means little to no oppressive content (which will be few, I'm sure) and a 10 will be OMG RACIST SEXIST CLASSIST HOMOPHOBIC BULLSHIT! Most likely, a "good" book will have a low oppression score, and a "bad" book will have a high oppression score. I predict that many will score around 3-7. Now, this score is obviously entirely subjective, as different people will be bothered by different content to varying degrees. And no, cliche's will not be counted--unless they're racist cliche's.

Let's take an example: The Hunger Games (book). It features a strong female character, a diversity of races (shown in a good light), and is critical of violence and reality TV. However, I don't think Collins goes far enough in portraying the horror of forced violence, and is inconsistent in Katniss's reactions to violence and death. Overall, these are pretty weak criticisms, so I'll rate it a 2. I don't think we need to be too concerned about this book.

As for an example on the other end of the spectrum: Fifty Shades of Grey. There is nothing redeemable about this book. Christian and Ana's relationship is abusive, yet the author tries to make it seem like an ideal romance. And given that so many women seem to think that this is OK, that makes it even worse. I haven't actually read the whole thing myself--I credit Jennfer Armintrout and her wonderful recaps for cluing me in on the details. And since I haven't read the whole thing, I'll just give it a 9: highly oppressive.

So, that's how it works! Look for it in coming reviews!

A Brave Old World, Indeed

It's been a long time coming, and I have finally read Aldous Huxley's best-known novel, Brave New World. Seriously, can anyone else name another book of his they've heard of, let alone read? As a fan of dystopian and other socially relevant speculative fiction, I had to read this, a classic of the genre. While some of the glaring anachronisms (to the modern mind) are at once funny and frustrating, I did my best to set them aside and evaluate the book in-context. But even with that in mind, I found the book to be less of a novel and more of a weakly woven parody.

The novel opens with a tour of a "hatchery and conditioning center," where children are carefully manufactured and raised to fulfill their duties as defined by their assigned caste. Even though they have time to play (the type of play most often alluded to being "erotic play"), childhood in this world looks like a real drag. And immediately we know that this is going to be a very dry, detached novel. Usually these sorts of novels start out by presenting the protagonist at some point during his daily routine in this weird world. Instead, we get a boatload of exposition. Kudos to not following the formula I guess?

There are several main characters, as well. We meet Lenina first (bet you didn't get that reference right off the bat), a seemingly conventional hatchery worker. Then a bit later we see the world from Bernard Marx's perspective, an Alpha-Plus whose short stature makes him an outcast, and a very bitter one, at that. His only friend is Helmholtz, a lecturer at the university, and who apparently has too much of a good thing going on. All three of these characters become inextricably linked when Lenina, who apparently has a greater proclivity toward monogamy than her peers as well as an attraction to odd men, goes on a trip to a savage reservation with Bernard. While there, they meet a pair of white people living amongst the so-called "squalor": a woman named Linda, who looks way older than your typical 44-year-old would look even then, probably, and her son, John. That last guy is the third main character.

Linda apparently had become separated from the hatchery director while on holiday there, and she was pregnant with their son--an obscenity and an abomination in this civilization. Both of them are outcasts in the reservation, so when Bernard offers John the chance to go back to England with them, he eagerly accepts. However, things aren't so great when they return. Everyone is horrified by Linda's haggard appearance, so she spends the rest of her life on soma (the happiness drug with no side effects--unless you take too much for too long). And John, last name Savage, doesn't find the "Other Place" to be quite as nice as he'd imagined. The infinite sets of twins freaks him out, the promiscuity repulses him, and so does the indulging of "pleasant vices." The only people he can talk to are Bernard and Helmholtz--but since Bernard is petty, John connects more with Helmholtz, who is slightly more thoughtful and understanding. Lenina and John share a mutual attraction to one another, but as she abhors marriage and he, extramarital sex, John drives her away.

After the death of his mother, John incites a riot amongst the hospital workers when he discards their soma ration, and the three men are taken away and dealt with. Bernard and Helmholtz are sent away to an island somewhere, and John is encouraged to stay. However, John wants to be alone (something that civilians are conditioned against doing), and goes to hide in an abandoned lighthouse. However, because he decided to stay in Britain and not, like, go far far away like he should have, he is discovered, and people start flocking to the lighthouse to gawk at him. After a secret "feely" (movies that engage all the senses) is made about him, even more people come, and John is pushed over the edge when Lenina shows up. Enraged, he starts beating her, and the other people beat each other. In the end, he hangs himself.

To give Huxley credit, it's not like all the women are perfectly fine with this society: Lenina does fall in love with John, which other women seem mystified by. However, as it is shown with Lenina and Linda, apparently promiscuity is hard to shake, and perhaps John's undue repulsion at Lenina's advances are a result of his own social conditioning, having seen his mother sleep with a lot of men--and suffer for it. And so of course it is only the men who can defy society. This aspect of the book was a large portion of the outrage expressed when it was first published--and these people obviously missed the point. Sex was one of the distractions to make the people happy and keep them from thinking too much, and monogamy meant committing oneself to a single person--and that could bring all sorts of problems. After all, "everyone belongs to everyone else". And not more to a single person than another person.

I suppose that the blatant references to Soviet leaders, the confusion between Henry Ford and Sigmund Freud, the irony of an American Indian reservation being more civilized than civilization, and the obvious choice of Shakespeare were deliberately satirical--I certainly thought it was funny. (actually the Indian thing wasn't funny--that part's racist). But overall I didn't find the tone very satirical--ridiculous, yes, but not very funny at all. This was in part due to the fact that several chapters are devoted to a few characters merely spouting talking points at each other. In all of chapter 17, the Western Europe controller and John Savage are engaging in a debate about God and unhappiness. And since Bernard and Helmholtz just get sent to an island, the stakes were nonexistent here. Sure, John kills himself, but it was sort of his fault because he stayed in England instead of going to a place where he would be FAR FAR AWAY from people. Yes, this place is horrible because it takes away people's choices, stamps out any capacity for rational thought in the majority of the population, and demonizes nature and biology (making it way more difficult for outcasts to function in society), but, to paraphrase Mustapha Mond, what would there be to gain if they changed now? It's already too late. Everybody's happy, even the Alphas who step out of line. There is no danger.

Perhaps Huxley meant it as more of a cautionary tale, to show the world we could end up living in. Advances in genetic engineering have brought about speculation of "designer babies" becoming our future--though under the free market it would be the rich with perfected genetics and not the lower classes--and thanks to the Internet, we have more ways to distract ourselves than ever. People do have sex more often, and with more sexual partners--however, it's the ignorance of sexuality and slut-shaming that are more pressing problems regarding this topic, not promiscuity itself. More people are also less religious--but as long as they're not worshiping the almighty dollar or a political leader instead, I don't think this is a problem, either. Manipulation of the masses, however, is a problem, and I'll give Huxley credit for that one.

The novel is about as shallow as the world it depicts. Huxley has spent too much time imagining the world, and articulating what is wrong with it, rather than developing the characters struggling in this world. Thus breaking one of the golden rules of writing: show, don't tell. The book was interesting, but I couldn't be moved very much. I finished the book, but I wasn't invested in the characters or the story--though I guess shallow characters make a shallow story. The unhappiest person was John, and of course he would be unhappy, he didn't belong there!

Perhaps, though, that isn't the point. When people talk about this book they talk about the world that Huxley created, not the characters within it. And it has made me think about how happiness can never be guaranteed for everyone all the time, and a guaranteed happiness saps humanity of freedom and meaning (among other musings). A perfect world is impossible. Huxley gets points for thoughtfulness, even with a shallow story.

3 stars out of 5.

How to Become an Urban Cyclist

Cross-posted from my other blog, and inspired by this blog. 

You were never into riding as a kid. Perhaps you had experienced a traumatic accident, taking off the training wheels too early, only to recover your nerve five years after. You only ride in summer, to nature’s sweet spots in your hometown: a tall waterfall, expansive cornfields bordering a winding rural road, or secret paths through wooded trails. You had thought of it as a leisure activity that allowed you to explore places you could not go by car, and too far to go on foot. Even in a forest of asphalt and concrete, the unique mobility of cycling can lead you to new places.

1. Find friends who already do it. It’s always easier to get into something when you have a friend who’s already into it. Maybe you don’t know they use bicycles for transportation at first. Maybe you just think they’re cool, and secretly admire them for the way their coolness comes off effortlessly, emulating them when you can—sometimes conscious of it, sometimes not. Observe how they love it, ask them why they choose cycling over the T. Think, subconsciously, that this is a way you can be cool like them.

Source: CBS local

2. Do it because you want to. Never do it because it’s cool—your heart will not be in it, and urban cycling must be undertaken wholeheartedly. You like the idea because it’s a great way to incorporate exercise into your day, and you miss the gust of wind on your face as you accelerate downhill. You never liked public transportation, anyway: how you squashed up against strangers at rush hour, the frustrating delays on the green line, the inconvenient one a.m. curfew. And it’s good for the environment, too.

3. Get some wheels. Ask for advice from your friends, and research your perfect bike: it’s as important as finding the right car. If you want a light weight, go for the road bike; but if you prefer durability, a hybrid may be more your speed. Browse Craigslist and do some comparison shopping; bring your biker friend when you make your final choice, if you want another opinion. Your new ride may feel strange at first—much larger than the one back home—but like new shoes, it will suit you in no time.

4. Buy a bike lock—better yet, buy two. Bicycle thieves are everywhere, and no place is truly safe. It could happen to anyone, and it has already happened to some of your friends. Try not to worry too much—but write down the serial number, just in case.

5. Overcome your fear of fatal crashes by taking precautions. Wear a helmet, even if it looks dorky. Always be alert. If you ride at night, wear reflective clothing or accessories and lights. You can never have too many lights. Start out by taking detours through city parks and low-traffic streets at a slow pace. Don’t get annoyed by the fluorescent speedsters that pass you by. And certainly don’t be ashamed of your street clothes: if they’re comfortable, they are as good as any spandex.
The easiest way to get used to it is to just go out there and ride. Begin with shorter trips, and once you’ve gotten your bike legs (literal and figurative), go out farther. Ride up hills at your own pace, even if motorists honk as they pass. Don’t overexert yourself. In time, the two-mile ride to work will feel like nothing at all.

6. Always be courteous. If a passing motorist gets mad and says you don’t belong there, say calmly that you have a right to the road. The occasional rude encounter might leave you muttering expletives until you reach your destination, but road rage won’t end motorist hostility.

7. Follow the rules of the road, and there will be fewer motorist mishaps. However, if the light is red, and the streets are clearly deserted, it’s OK to go. We all do it sometimes.

8. Love your bicycle. Protect it from the rain with shade or plastic bags, remove any rust that accumulates, take it in for a tune-up every six months or so. If you wish, dress it up with a basket or reflective paint. If you plan on riding throughout the cold and snowy New England winter, prepare ahead. If you take care, you and your bike may be riding together for a long, long time.

And it always helps to have a sense of adventure when you ride. You never know what you’ll find at the end of a wrong turn.