Book Review: Distrust That Particular Flavor

Distrust That Particular Flavor by William Gibson (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 2012. 259pp)

Born in 1948, William Gibson is an American-Canadian science fiction writer. His debut Novel, Neuromancer (1984) effectively predicted the internet. He has also written for TIME, Wired, Rolling Stone, and The New York Times. He has been awarded the Hugo, Nebula, Philip K. Dick, Ditmar, Seiun, and Prix Aurora awards.

Science Fiction: A Future Truth

The future is always something that has amazed me. What’s coming next? How will humanity change for the better? Or for the worse? All these questions find potential answers in the realm of science fiction. Though I’m not a hard-core science fiction fan by any means, I’ve been known to dabble in shows like Star Wars and Star Trek from time to time. As a science fiction writer, William Gibson has made several predictions about the future, including coining the term “cyberspace”.

While successful in the world of science fiction, Gibson’s Distrust That Particular Flavor serves as a collection of essays and journalistic articles compiled over the years. These articles are presented amidst the backdrop of a savvy retrospective, much like a postscript, which Gibson paints at the end of each chapter; he recollects with either distain or contentment the articles he wrote seemingly long ago. As a science fiction writer, he is often asked “What do you think will happen?” Gibson states,

“The day I reply with anything other than a qualified ‘I haven’t got a clue,’ please shoot me. While science fiction is sometimes good at predicting things, it’s seldom good at predicting what those things might actually do to us. For example, television, staple window dressing for hundreds of stories from the Twenties through the Forties, was usually presented as a mode of personal communication. Nobody predicted commercials, Hollywood Squares, or heavy-metal music videos” (15).

The Nostradamus Quality 

A careful investigation of Gibson’s writing and articles through this collection provides evidence that Gibson has a certain Nostradamus quality (though he wouldn't admit this) about his predictions regarding technology and the future (the best example would be his prediction of the internet). But, he also has incredible insights about the current state of today’s affairs. Take this quotation as an example:

“People my age are products of the culture of the capital F-Future. The younger you are, the less you are a product of that. If you’re fifteen or so, today, I suspect that you inhabit a sort of endless digital ‘Now’, a state of atemporality enabled by our increasingly efficient communal prosthetic memory. I also suspect that you don’t know it, because, as anthropologists tell us, one cannot know one’s own culture” (44).

Will We Have Computer Chips in Our Heads?

Photo by Eyemage

Gibson seems to view the world, both present and future, with the fresh eyes of a child. As a result, Gibson’s writing is able to make countless predictions, as well as intriguing commentary. When asked “will be have computer chips in our heads?” he writes in TIME magazine,

“It won’t, I don’t think, be a matter of computers crawling buglike down into the most intimate chasms of our being, but of humanity crawling buglike out into the dappled light and shadow of the presence of that which we will have created, which we are creating now, and which seems to me to already be in process of re-creating us” (218).

So, if these quotes seem a little arrogant to you, let me caution you. I’ve cherry-picked these out of an entire book, so they are a little out of context. Gibson doesn’t claim that he predicts the future well, or that he’s influenced the development of products. He doesn’t claim that without his fiction business wouldn’t have been creative enough to innovate. Rather, he claims that somehow he had an idea where technology would go in some cases.

This collection of essays shows an eye for the uncanny and the unperceived. From observations on film technology, to why Japan is so seemingly ahead of the curve, this collection serves as a great reminder of our past, as well as something to foster a curiosity for the future. Distrust That Particular Flavor would be a good read for anyone wanting to see stories of an autobiographical nature that map thinking about technological advances at the same time.

Verdict: 3.5 out of 5

---

Posted by: Andrew Jacobson

Affiliate Links:

Guest Film Review: In Time

In Time directed by Andrew Niccol (Regency Enterprises, New Regency Pictures, Strike Entertainment, PG-13, 109 minutes)

Starring Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried, and Cillian Murphy

Science without Morals

In Time, the newest work from writer-director Andrew Niccol, is a thoughtful addition to the genre of dystopian futuristic films. Niccol wrote and directed Gattaca, which is easily one of the best science fiction films ever created, and he returns to the theme with a film about a society that has embraced science and technology to the point where it loses its moral compass.

In Time shows us a society where genetic engineering has effectively solved the problem of aging and death — everyone is immortal and stops aging beyond their 25th birthday. Thus, we are presented with the situation where sons and daughters appear to be the exact same age as their biological parents.  

Population Control

A society that has achieved immortality must deal with the problem of finite resources for an infinitely growing population. This "near-futuristic" society has chosen, at birth, to give each person a glowing digital clock on his or her forearm. Everyone is given exactly one year to live and that year starts counting down at exactly 25 years. When the clock reaches zero, the person receives a jolt and instantly dies.

A result of this innovation is that "time" has supplanted money as the effective currency — workers are paid literally by the hour, a coffee is 4 minutes, service by a prostitute equals one hour, and a bus ride costs the time it takes to walk to your destination. Time can be transferred to others through a special handshake or collected by various portable and non-portable scanners.

Minutes before Clocking Out

Justin Timberlake plays Will Salas, a 28-year-old factory worker living day to day with rarely more than 24 hours on his clock. At a bar he encounters a rarity, a man with more than a century of time stored up, whom he saves from a gang of time-stealers. This rich man in return gifts all but a few minutes of his time to Will before "clocking out", content with the life that he has lived, and depressed at the inequality within his society where many involuntarily clock out each day so people like him can live forever.

Will uses his newfound time to cross "time-zones" to utopian New Greenwich where nearly all its inhabitants have centuries or even millennia of time, acquired through skimming time off the multitudes of lower classes.

In New Greenwich, Will is introduced to Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried), daughter of one of the richest men in the world, but also is confronted by a Timekeeper (Cillian Murphy) who wants to pin the theft of the rich man's century on Will. Rather than go into custody, Will kidnaps Sylvia, evading the Timekeepers, and going on a journey where the couple explore the morality of a society where the deaths of millions prop up the immortality of a few.  Along the way, the characters learn the value of time, since in New Greenwich, the “time-rich” leisurely enjoy every activity, unlike in the slums where eating, drinking, and walking are done as quickly as possible. This dichotomy clearly illustrates the truth that the greatest resource one possesses is time — if it is used well.

The Morality of Redistributionism

It's easy to see this film as an allegory where time is equivalent to money and feel either vindicated or disappointed when the film explores the morality of redistributionism, similar to the folktale of Robin Hood, robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. I think this film goes deeper than that. Much like how Gattaca displayed a society whose genetic discrimination seems horrific to the audience while the characters largely did not notice the injustice right before them, we see in Will and Sylvia an awakening of senses to the injustices of the status quo.  

The deeper meaning is to remove the blinders from all our eyes, to look for the injustice that may be right before us, and to respond to the call to make society a better place. Who knows what modern practices will seem horrific to our future descendants?

In Time is a well-executed and thought-provoking sci-fi/action film that appeals to a wide audience, even those who generally don’t appreciate sci-fi. Nearly all aspects of the film’s production are good, the acting is acceptable, and it is noteworthy that Justin Timberlake has made a successful career transition from music and comedy to dramatic acting to the point that he feels quite natural in this type of role. If you are looking for a good sci-fi/action film, I recommend checking out In Time.

---

Robb Stankey is a graduate student in Genetics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. In addition to his interests in genetics and science fiction, he enjoys homebrewing and cooking with his wife, Jessie. More content from Robb can be found at http://r.robbplusjessie.com/.

Television Show Review: Doctor Who

Doctor Who created by Sydney Newman, C.E. Webber, and Donald Wilson (British Broadcasting Corporation)

Currently starring Matt Smith, Karen Gillan, Arthur Darvill, and Alex Kingston.

His Name Is the Doctor

Currently listed as the longest-running science fiction television show by the Guinness World Records, Doctor Who follows the adventures of a time-traveling alien named The Doctor. Traversing the universe with a time machine called the TARDIS which possesses an outward appearance of a blue police box, the Doctor typically travels with a female human companion and, together, they encounter numerous villains and work toward saving people groups, worlds, and righting injustices in the universe.

Although the series began in 1963, the current version of Doctor Who premiered in 2005. With a sharp and dry wit, the actors playing The Doctor carry the show through brilliant dialogue and colorful acting.

Connecting with the Innate Desire to Get Away

The TARDIS

While I enjoy the humorous dialogue, what intrigues me about this series is the companion figure. Each character who travels with the Doctor finds the banal reality of everyday life in London to pale in comparison with traveling with this humanoid alien. For these people, escape leads to real life.

I don’t claim to know the underlying themes that define humanity, but it certainly seems like we all share an innate sense of discovery. When my wife and I travel, we find joy in wandering the streets of a new city exploring nooks and crannies.

In Doctor Who, the viewer lives vicariously through the companion. If you were offered free travel anywhere in time and space, wouldn’t you say yes with no questions asked?

As an example, with the obviously caveat that it could be pre-ordained, I think of the times that Conan O’Brien grabs a random fan during a show and tells him or her that the show is paying him or her to travel for a week. Each time, the audience member jumps on the airplane with no questions asked.

Of course, Doctor Who is an entertaining show that combines action adventure, science fiction, and humor. Yet, I am drawn to these deeper themes beneath the surface plot. If you realize the human condition for discovery and you like science fiction with a good dose of British humor, I recommend watching Doctor Who from its current inception in 2005.

Film Review: Paul

Paul directed by Greg Mottola (Universal Pictures, Relativity Media, Working Title Films, R, 104 minutes)

Starring Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Seth Rogen, and Kristen Wiig.

I Hated This Movie So Let Me Be Brief

I wanted to see this movie because I had faith in the duo of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. Starring in the soon-to-be cult classics, Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, these actors have blended comedy and social satire through an artful presentation. With the funding of a major studio, Paul ought to be even better with a larger budget. Wrong!

A Mandatory Plot Mention

Pegg and Frost play nerds on holiday in the United States. Having attended Comic Con, the duo travels the southwest encountering the classic UFO landmarks. After an unfortunate accident, the nerds encounter a pot-smoking alien named Paul. In a move that gives the movie a plot, Pegg and Frost agree to help Paul find a way back home.

Stay Away!

With lazy writing, poor acting, and a boring plot, Paul is a miserable watch. It strikes me as odd that such brilliant comedy in previous Pegg/Frost films vanishes in this movie. In my mind, the only explanation is that Universal Studios micro-managed this plot into lowest-common-denominator humor. If you are into physical humor and an obvious joke, there might be something worth salvaging. For me sadly, I wish I had avoided Paul.

Book Review: Fahrenheit 451

Fahrenheit 451: The Temperature at Which Book Paper Catches Fire and Burns… by Ray Bradbury (New York: Del Rey Books, 1953. 208 pp)

With over five hundred published works to his name, Ray Bradbury is one of the heavyweights in American literature during the 20^th century. Born in Illinois, Bradbury’s family moved to California when he was thirteen. He graduated from Los Angeles High School and did not enter college. Drawn to writing from an early age, Bradbury attended the Los Angeles Science Fiction Society meeting many of the influential writers in the region. Bradbury began writing professionally by publishing stories in magazines. As his stories encountered praise, Bradbury began writing longer works. As the say, the rest is history. Bradbury’s best-known books are The Martian Chronicles, The Illustrated Man, Fahrenheit 451, and Something Wicked This Way Comes. For his contribution to literature worldwide, Bradbury received the National Book Foundation’s 2000 Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters and the National Medal of Arts in 2004.

The Hedonist’s Paradox

Do you remember the last time you were happy? What caused it? Did a bonus alter your disposition? Did it occur during a sporting event? Were other people involved? When you got there, could you trace the steps that lead you to delight?

Speaking personally, the times I recognize as “happy” are untraceable, as if, in some serendipitous turn, joy occurs by accident. Likewise, the times that I have pursued happiness, it fleetingly disappears like a tuft of smoke.

This phenomenon – philosophically, known as the hedonist’s paradox – states that those pursuing happiness as an end never find it; yet, those pursuing other ends, inevitably find happiness.

In Flames

At its core, Fahrenheit 451 riffs around the value of happiness in society. Set in an unspecified future date, the book depicts the existential breakdown of fireman, Guy Montag.

In this era, firemen no longer extinguish fires; they set them. Operating under the guidelines of a distant authority, the sole purpose of the firemen is to exterminate books. Artfully detailing the job description, Bradbury writes,

“It was a pleasure to burn.
It was a special pleasure to see things eaten, to see things blackened and changed. With the brass nozzle in his fists, with this great python spitting its venomous kerosene upon the world, the blood pounded in his head, and his hands were the hands of some amazing conductor playing all the symphonies of blazing and burning to bring down the tatters and charcoal ruins of history” (3).

What Happens When You Throw Powdered Milk in the Bonfire?

The firemen spend little time considering the question, “Why?” For them, the job provides a level of prestige and carnal joy. What boy hasn’t spent a summer evening in front of the fire observing the many ways in which objects become consumed by the flames? Touching on these desires, Bradbury asserts,

“’What is there about fire that’s so lovely? No matter what age we are, what draws us to it?’ Beatty blew out the flame and lit it again. ‘It’s perpetual motion; the thing man wanted to invent but never did. Or almost perpetual motion. If you let it go on, it’d burn our lifetimes out. What is fire? It’s a mystery. Scientists give us gobbledegook about friction and molecules. But they don’t really know. Its real beauty is that it destroys responsibility and consequences. A problem gets too burdensome, then into the furnace with it’” (115).

Disagreement = Despair?

Montag, however, receives a large jolt when other characters asking him why he does what he does. His job is to burn books. But, why is it books? What makes a book worthy of burning?

While discussing these questions with his boss, Captain Beatty, Montag hears the party-line answer:

“’You know the law,’ said Beatty. ‘Where’s your common sense? None of those books agree with each other. You’ve been locked up here for years with a regular damned Tower of Babel. Snap out of it! The people in those books never lived. Come on now’” (38)!

Stated differently, books create unhappiness. With disagreement, society encounters despair through quarrel. Thus, in hope of asserting happiness in civilization, leadership removes choice; it deletes the “why.”

Why is Why Important?

Guy wants the “why.” He thinks, perhaps, that books provide the “why.” In this assumption, the rest of Fahrenheit 451 unfolds. Meeting a retired and underground professor, Montag hopes to save books. Yet, Faber – the professor – disagrees,

“It’s not books you need, it’s some of the things that once were in books. The same things could be in the ‘parlor families’ today. The same infinite detail and awareness could be projected through the radios and televisors, but are not. No, no, it’s not books at all you’re looking for! Take it where you can find it, in old phonograph records, old motion pictures, and in old friends; look for it in nature and look for it in yourself. Books were only one type of receptacle where we stored a lot of things we were afraid we might forget. There is nothing magical in them at all. The magic is only in what books say, how they stitched the patches of the universe together into one garment for us” (82-83).

A Victim of its Own Hype

Photo by Sarah Wynne

Despite its cult status, Fahrenheit 451 left me unsatisfied. While its novella length and easy prose allowed for a quick read, its content felt shallow. Although burning books supplies a shocking sub-thread to the narrative, it felt unbelievable. Of course book burnings have occurred throughout history, but forcibly burning books seems less believable than having books fade into obscurity as people focus on television instead of the printed word.

Furthermore, the characters never develop. As Guy meets people and interacts with them, his character functions only to keep the narrative flowing. Of course, he transforms as the story proceeds, but I never felt a connection with him.

In short, Fahrenheit 451 illustrates the hedonist’s paradox. Its culture pursues happiness and, in its self-medicated state, its citizens never comprehend that their happiness is false.

Montag asks the question, “why?” At its core, Fahrenheit 451 exists to remind us the importance of “why.” Remember to ask this question constantly. We all too easily forget “why” and just “do.” If we don’t know why, we may find ourselves acting in horrible ways.

I assume everyone has read Fahrenheit 451. For me, reading this book fulfills my desires to complete the canon of classic 20^th century American literature. Honestly, I think the hype of this book gracing the lists of great American literature contributed to my disappointment in the book. Nevertheless, I understand its value and recommend Fahrenheit 451.

Film Review: Super 8

Super 8 directed by J.J. Abrams (Amblin Entertainment, Bad Robot, and Paramount Pictures, PG-13. 112 minutes)

Starring Joel Courtney, Kyle Chandler, Elle Fanning, and Riley Griffiths.

Mystery

Shrouded in mystery, the trailer for Super 8 reveals very little plot. From it, we get a clear picture that J.J. Abrams is interested in telling a story through concealment. Much like Ernest Hemingway’s writing style, this form of narration builds suspense as the human mind fills in the blank spaces.

Super 8 is a science fiction film that depicts a small town’s encounter with a dangerous unknown being. The protagonists of the film are a group of children who are filming a Super 8 zombie movie. While filming a scene at the local train station, they encounter a treacherous and mysterious train derailment.

Having survived the incident and slipped away before the Air Force arrived, the youth start to experience strange happenings around town as dogs run away, people disappear, and appliances malfunction. Coupled with an overbearing Air Force presence, it is clear something is afoot.

But, that is all I shall say in summary. J.J. Abrams intended for this movie to be mysterious and who am I to rain on his parade.

The Importance of Concealment

So let’s discuss the importance of concealment in movies. For me, the most impressive portion of Abrams’ film is the way in which he portrays the narrative without explicitly revealing it.

As an example, Super 8’s opening scene illustrates a factory that carries a sign advertising the number of days since its last accident. As the shot focuses on this sign with its numerals suggesting over 2 years of safe working conditions, an employee removes the digits and replaces them with the number 1.

While an over-the-top,Michael-Bay-like movie would depict the character getting crushed by a steel beam, Abrams communicates the same idea with the removal of a number. As Super 8 unfolds, Abrams’ tendency to unveil the plot in small portions develops suspense and makes for a better movie.

Pretty Good

Although the suspense created a fun viewing experience, Super 8 lacked strong dialogue and, at certain points, relied on special effects. As such, the movie is entertaining but not emotionally moving. Twenty years from now, I doubt we’ll look back at Super 8 and label it a classic in the mold of E.T. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the movie enough to recommend it.