Books, product reviews, thoughts on technology, random philosophizing, citizen science, science cheerleading, and unsolicited comments about space exploration, back in action.
Sunday, September 08, 2013
The Opening of a Million Doors
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Book Review: The Watchmen
My buddy Doc recommended that I read The Watchmen and see the movie that is based on it. Being a literary purist, I decided to read the comic book (ahem, sorry, graphic novel) first. Okay, so let's have it: what is The Watchmen all about? Well, if you've seen the commercials and haven't read the book, you know that it has something to do with costumed superheroes. Right. That's sort of like saying Star Wars has something to do with space adventure: that doesn't even cover the half of it. Just as George Lucas tried to reinvent the Saturday afternoon space opera matinee, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons took great pains to reinvent the costumed superhero story.
It is 1985, but it is a slightly different variant. Costumed heroes (regular people) and superheroes (people with superhuman abilities) have changed the world through their interventions in history. Eventually, they are hounded out of the business by the Nixon Administration in 1977, which passes a law all but outlawing "the masks." These are not the usual Batman, Superman, and other Justice League heroes I grew up with--sorry, fellow geek readers, I'm a DC guy, not a Marvel fan. These are just a new set of heroes that Moore and Gibbons created to show some of the silliness but also some of the outright danger of having costumed vigilantes on the street, fighting crime.
The golden age of the heroes in this timeline is from the 1940s to the 1960s. They fall out of favor despite helping to win the Vietnam War and bring down all the costumed supervillains. Some have become official agents of the U.S. Government, some have taken straight jobs, some have gone outlaw. The ones still operating are mostly right-wing sociopaths, extremely violent, and creatures to be feared rather than admired. I don't anticipate the movie being much different.
It took me awhile to realize how groundbreaking this book was until I started to realize how much impact it has had. Its habit of including newspaper clippings can be found in Batman: A Death in the Family and DC's The Golden Age. The licensing/agent provocateur status of the heroes can be found in Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. The outlawing of the heroes can be found in The Dark Knight Returns and the Disney/Pixar film, The Incredibles. And so forth. So The Watchmen obviously changed a lot about how the traditional Marvel/DC comics portrayed their heroes, for better or worse. This new anti-heroic look at costumed superheroes can be traced to this book, which was originally a series.
Is it any good? That depends on your point of view. I found it dark, disturbing, and quite at variance with some comics I've read, very much the birth place of others. Do you want your heroes to be more "human," more "realistic?" I guess it depends on your definition of realism. Do I discount the dark side of human nature? Hardly. But what if you want your heroes to be brave, admirable actors for good? I happen to hold the latter view. In that case, The Watchmen is a paradigm shift, but it is a shift toward anti-heroism, which the comic book universes had, until the mid-'80s, tried hard to resist.
Perhaps I'm an idealist, but I still want my heroes to be good, to be people who, if not perfect, are at least a little better than myself to serve as an example of some better morality to strive for in life. After all, if your heroes are just as bad as the bad guys, why should you care if they win? What is protected? What is affirmed? What is gained? I might go see the movie, but I've already got a good idea of what it will be about--and it's not particularly good...at least as we used to understand the word.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Darwin or Lincoln?
Darlene the Science Cheerleader posed an interesting question to me, based on a Newsweek article: who was more important, Abraham Lincoln or Charles Darwin? I decided to write this before reading the Newsweek piece so as not to prejudice myself--all I knew was that they chose Lincoln.
By “important,” I presume they mean influential: who made a difference in more people’s lives? Who improved more people’s lives? Who made more people’s lives worse? Some of these questions I leave as exercises for the reader.
Next to George Washington, Lincoln is one of the two most revered American presidents today. His story is known to all (some better than most—I grew up in Illinois, the “Land of Lincoln,” as it declares boldly on our license plates). He is the president who managed to preserve the Union through force of arms and at a terrible cost in lives and property. The Civil War, also called “The War of Northern Aggression” by some of my compadres south of the Mason-Dixon Line, remains the most disastrous conflict ever fought on the American continent.
The political and economic outcomes were long-lasting and world changing. The war ended slavery and the slave trade in North America, legally brought Black Americans the voting franchise, and changed the shape of the Constitution. It brought an end to the Southern plantation system's aristocracy and its domination of American politics until Woodrow Wilson became president in 1913. It established the Western practices of both trench and indirect assault warfare. It preserved the territorial integrity of the United States and ensured that the States remained United, in form if not always in attitude. (And if you doubt the importance of all this history, I call to your attention the alternate histories of Harry Turtledove, who imagined a counterfactual history in which the U.S.A. and C.S.A. remained separate and how the world suffered from the dreadful consequences of that separation.) All of this was the work of Lincoln. But it is the man’s words that we remember better than others:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation,
under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Lincoln's rhetoric and nearly Biblical cadences have ensured that, almost certainly, his words will long outlive the man and the nation he led. It is one thing to lead a nation through a time a great tribulation and ensure its survival. It is another thing to be a firm, passionate, and articulate defender of a set of beliefs. It is something else altogether to be able to do both. If Lincoln had been defeated in the War Between the States, America would not exist today, and much that this nation achieved in the time since then would not have occurred, from the victories of freedom in World Wars I and II, the Marshall Plan, and the Cold War, all the way up to the election of our current president. This is why Lincoln is still revered over 140 years after his death; Lincoln still matters because America still matters.
Darwin established a whole paradigm in science, one of the prime-moving forces in Western culture. He managed to write, in reasonably clear and non-confrontational prose (unlike some of his inheritors), a scientific theory of why there are so many different types of creatures on this Earth. However, unlike Lincoln, Darwin was not an “indispensible man.” That is, if he hadn’t written The Origin of Species, someone else would have, with more or less the same impact. Darwin just happened to get there first. The prevailing trends in natural philosophy of the 19th century were leading scientists toward increasingly naturalistic theories and explanations for life on Earth. It was simply a matter of time before someone put it all together and said, “You know, given the similarities between X, Y, and Z creatures, their behaviors, and their physical (and later DNA) structures, it’s entirely possible that if you go back far enough, they might have had a common ancestor.” And from there it's not such a great leap, if you make such assumptions about plants and animals, to discuss the possible origins of human beings.
The philosophical “spinoffs” of evolution have been profound and continue to be played out—much like Lincoln’s America. It laid the groundwork for genetics and comparative biology; it has hardened the line between science and religion, to the detriment of the whole culture; and it also has provided “scientific” social justifications for capitalism, aristocracy, communism, imperialism, racism, and atheism.
Lincoln ensured a second birth of the American dream, and that nation now has the dubious honor of being the most powerful nation on Earth, still imperfectly pursuing the ideals Lincoln articulated 150 years ago. One would like to think that future freedom-loving societies will continue to preserve his words down through the ages. Darwin articulated a theory that was an inevitable outcome of the scientific theory and practice of his time. Darwin was a spokesman for the practice of science, which has a longer-term impact than Darwin himself. Therefore, as an individual, as a man, I would argue that Lincoln was the more important of the two. Given science, Darwin was inevitable; given America's history, Lincoln was not.
Monday, December 15, 2008

I know, a lot of media outlets today are just cheering happily about an Iraqi journalist calling President Bush a "dog" and throwing a shoe at him as "the worst possible insult" in Islam. (Funny, I thought humiliating a man naked was the worst possible insult--at least that's what I heard when Abu Ghraib happened.)
The cheering section has forgotten something. The guy thinks Bush is a tyrant, and now he's got people chanting in the streets as if he's some sort of folk hero. All well and good.
But consider an alternate scenario. Imagine the guy he'd thrown a shoe at was Saddam Hussein. What do you suppose would have happened in Saddam's Iraq if the most powerful man in that country had had a shoe thrown at him? Would he be alive today? Would there be crowds cheering in the streets? No. That man would have been captured by Saddam's secret police, beaten up, and slowly lowered into a wood chipper. There would have been no show of public support for fear of similar treatment.
Now, did we really need to go in there? Perhaps not. But imagine where that journalist would be if he'd had similar spunk with a very different leader.