Have you ever heard a crazy idea? You probably just dismissed it as being crazy, right? But then have you ever heard that same crazy idea again? And this time coming from a different source?
It's easy to dismiss a crazy idea the first time, but after you keep hearing it again and again, it starts to seem like that crazy idea is catching on.
The crazy idea that I've come here to rant against today is the insane theory that the movie Back to the Future is racist because it takes the invention of Rock & Roll away from the legendary Chuck Berry and gives it to a white kid instead. They say that it rewrites history to give a white man credit for a black man's creation.
I shouldn't have to say it, but that theory is ridiculous. It's an absolutely ridiculous thing to say for a variety of reasons. While any normal person would just write it off as the thoughts of insane individuals, I feel that I must dust off my nerd helm and explain WHY it is an illegitimate claim. So if you ever find yourself face-to-face with some dillweed who's spewing this nonsense in an attempt to sound intelligent, you can quickly point out that they are, in fact, an idiot.
Let's get started, shall we?
In the realm of Sci-Fi, time travel stories generally operate under one of two different theories of Time: I'll refer to these as Line Theory and Ball Theory.
Line Theory says that Time is a linear progression of events. Which is to say that A causes B, B then causes C, and so on.
For example, let's say you've just built a time machine! Impressive. Your first order of business is to go back in time and see a dinosaur! A worthy goal. But OH NO! When you're returning to your machine after seeing that dinosaur you accidentally step on a bug! Well, no matter. I mean, what difference could a bug make? Well, you're wrong! It makes a world of difference! And when you return to your home time you find everything is different! Everyone is now Amish and they ride giant ducks instead of horses or some shit!
That's Line Theory. It says that if you go back and edit A then you end up editing every point that comes afterward. Editing A means ending up with a slightly different B, which then creates a variant of C, and so on. The differences snowball over time until things have changed completely. Examples of stories that use this method: "A Sound of Thunder", The Butterfly Effect, Primer, and Back to the Future.
Ball Theory on the other hand says that Time isn't a linear chain of events. It says that A, B, and C are a single mass of Time. As if you condensed every moment in time into a single ball. And the reason we think it's actually a linear line is just because that line is the route we are moving through the ball of time. Obviously this theory is a little bit harder to wrap your brain around.
Here, let's let infamous time traveler Doctor Who explain it:
So under this theory, if you build that time machine of yours again, go back in time to see a dinosaur, step on that bug, and then return to your home time...nothing will be different. Nothing will be different, because everything has already happened/ is happening / will happen. Each moment exists on its own and in that particular moment...you are stepping on that bug. The point in Time you currently find yourself in is irrelevant. You have/You will always be stepping on that bug at that point in Time.
In a story it usually works like this: I live in time C, I go back to time A, I dink around, I then realize how my actions in A will eventually lead to the world I'm used to in C. Examples of stories that use this method include: The Time Traveler's Wife, Terminator, Doctor Who (usually), and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.
As I said earlier, Back to the Future operates under Line Theory. How can we be sure of this? We can be sure of this because throughout the films we continue to see Marty McFly's actions in the past creating huge changes to his present. Thus, under the rules of Line Theory, the Rock & Roll chain would go like this:
Chuck Berry invents Rock&Roll
--> Marty McFly is inspired by Berry's creation
----> Marty goes back in time and plays Chuck's music
------> Young Chuck Berry hears Marty's cover song
--------> and Young Chuck gets the idea to invent Rock & Roll
The insane racism idea is claiming that this means Marty is the creator of Rock&Roll. When in reality the actual chain of events is this: Chuck -> Marty -> Chuck.
Thus Chuck Prime is the creator, because it is he who influenced an agent to influence Chuck 2.0.
The only way these people's crackpot theory holds water is if the movie had been working under Ball Theory. Because under Ball Theory the chain would have been: Marty -> Chuck -> Marty.
But that isn't possible, because under Ball Theory the movie's entire plot would fall apart! Under Ball Theory Marty would never have had to worry about erasing his own existence, because he never would have been able to change his Mom & Dad's first meeting.
BAM!
So there you go. Suck on that logic, dillweeds.
Showing posts with label Soapbox Speeches. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Soapbox Speeches. Show all posts
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Soapbox Speeches: Twilight Sucks
I could rant all day about why Twilight is horrible, but I won't. I am just not qualified enough on the subject. I have made 2 attempts to read Twilight and they have both ended in failure. My first attempt resulted in me reading one page and then walking away from it to sit in a corner and worry deeply about all the people I know who love that book. After taking a few minutes to gather myself I tried again. This time I made it to page 3, whereupon I decided that I just couldn't bring myself to impose that level of punishment against my brain.
With only 3 pages of Twilight under my belt, my knowledge is primarily secondary. As such, I won't make you sit and listen as I complain about the things I've heard. I will, however, take a moment to point out a couple people who do have firsthand experience with Twilight. They are more skillful than I am anyhow.
With only 3 pages of Twilight under my belt, my knowledge is primarily secondary. As such, I won't make you sit and listen as I complain about the things I've heard. I will, however, take a moment to point out a couple people who do have firsthand experience with Twilight. They are more skillful than I am anyhow.
Alex Day Reads Twilight
Alex Day is a video blogger who decided to film himself reading Twilight and record his reactions to it. It is, in short, hilarious. It is basically what you would get if Mystery Science Theater 3000 riffed a book instead of a movie. If you're like me, curious about Twilight but unable to actually read it, then this is perfect. You get all the plot and a million times the laughs.- Here's the collection of his Twilight videos.
Reasoning With Vampires
A friend of mine just sent me the link to this site today. It is a blog where the author has done what the editors should have and taken a red pen to the Twilight books. With both wit and interesting typography she points out the books' many, many failings. I have actually written this whole post largely as an excuse to share this link.- Here is a link to the main site.
- And here is a link to an interesting interview with the site's author.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Soapbox Speeches: E-books Suck
"This is probably a rant. I don't think of it that way, but it probably is. Thus I've decided that whenever I want to get on my high horse and start haranguing I'll mark the post as a 'Soapbox Speech'. Thus negating the need to start the post warning you that I'm about to rant my ass off. Consider yourself warned." -Jesse
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take a moment to ponder over the idea of a book. Is it just a bundle of paper and ink? Or is it something more? Take another moment to think about the idea of an idea. While a book conjures thoughts of physical examples, an idea is more abstract. And yet I would argue that the image of a book works for both. Printed word is one of the most efficient means of not only capturing and propagating an idea, but of ascribing importance to an idea. It always has been yet the invention of movable type blew the doors wide open and allowed ideas to migrate at an unprecedented rate. People were able to share ideas like never before and, as is their nature, ideas beget more ideas
The obvious argument is that e-books and data represent the next stage in evolution of the written word. I would, however, vehemently disagree with such an argument. The crucial difference is that a book exists. You can own it, touch it, hold it, write in it, claim it, trade it, sell it. These things are not merely facets of a biblophile's fetish, but actual and useful features. The printed word represents a physical manifestation of ethereal concepts. You can reach out and touch a story. You can feel the cover of an idea. Why do you think the concept of book burning is seen as a sickeningly barbaric action? Because it isn't just paper that is burning; it is ideas.
The problem with e-books is that they contain ideas, but are not a manifestation of an idea. Data is to a computer what a thought is to a brain. It is a bundle of switches that happen to be working in such a was as to create a specific instance. It's lack of a physical impact largely negates a majority of its meaning and completely negates any sense of true ownership. You can use someone else's brain, but you can't own it. The same is true of data. Like an mp3 that people transfer to one another, it isn't so much something that you own as it is something you have access to.
Sure a hand-held device that contains 100s of books is convenient. A whole vacation of reading without having to lug around a case of books. But when the device breaks what do you have? What did you ever have? Let's say your device isn't broken, but you have lost interest in a particular title. So what do you do? Well you just delete it. You can simply burn it from your hard drive because it doesn't mean anything at all. But a physical book always has meaning and that is the essence of what makes it important. It's constant meaning represents the concept that ideas have weight, that ideas have impact. That you can take an idea and own it, touch it, hold it, write in it, trade it, and even sell it.
Our entire culture is built around weighty ideas: an ever increasing construction of knowledge and ideas. When we take away an idea's weight there are consequences. When we forget the elements of our foundation, things like “Knowledge is important” and “Every person matters”, we are forgetting part of our humanity.
Books aren't the daily news which is meant to be absorbed and discarded, and yet they are being put in the same realm and we are being told that it is the future. The idea of books being lowered into a realm of consumable entertainments makes me truly sad, because I cannot help but see it as an example of our ideas starting losing their weight and importance. I'm not saying e-books don't have a place of their own in the world of literature. I'm just saying that books are different than e-books and that if we don't see the difference then we just may forget why books are so important. If we can forget something like that...well I don't really want to think about what that says about us.
So let's just try to remember not to burn books. Okay?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take a moment to ponder over the idea of a book. Is it just a bundle of paper and ink? Or is it something more? Take another moment to think about the idea of an idea. While a book conjures thoughts of physical examples, an idea is more abstract. And yet I would argue that the image of a book works for both. Printed word is one of the most efficient means of not only capturing and propagating an idea, but of ascribing importance to an idea. It always has been yet the invention of movable type blew the doors wide open and allowed ideas to migrate at an unprecedented rate. People were able to share ideas like never before and, as is their nature, ideas beget more ideas
The obvious argument is that e-books and data represent the next stage in evolution of the written word. I would, however, vehemently disagree with such an argument. The crucial difference is that a book exists. You can own it, touch it, hold it, write in it, claim it, trade it, sell it. These things are not merely facets of a biblophile's fetish, but actual and useful features. The printed word represents a physical manifestation of ethereal concepts. You can reach out and touch a story. You can feel the cover of an idea. Why do you think the concept of book burning is seen as a sickeningly barbaric action? Because it isn't just paper that is burning; it is ideas.
The problem with e-books is that they contain ideas, but are not a manifestation of an idea. Data is to a computer what a thought is to a brain. It is a bundle of switches that happen to be working in such a was as to create a specific instance. It's lack of a physical impact largely negates a majority of its meaning and completely negates any sense of true ownership. You can use someone else's brain, but you can't own it. The same is true of data. Like an mp3 that people transfer to one another, it isn't so much something that you own as it is something you have access to.
Sure a hand-held device that contains 100s of books is convenient. A whole vacation of reading without having to lug around a case of books. But when the device breaks what do you have? What did you ever have? Let's say your device isn't broken, but you have lost interest in a particular title. So what do you do? Well you just delete it. You can simply burn it from your hard drive because it doesn't mean anything at all. But a physical book always has meaning and that is the essence of what makes it important. It's constant meaning represents the concept that ideas have weight, that ideas have impact. That you can take an idea and own it, touch it, hold it, write in it, trade it, and even sell it.
Our entire culture is built around weighty ideas: an ever increasing construction of knowledge and ideas. When we take away an idea's weight there are consequences. When we forget the elements of our foundation, things like “Knowledge is important” and “Every person matters”, we are forgetting part of our humanity.
Books aren't the daily news which is meant to be absorbed and discarded, and yet they are being put in the same realm and we are being told that it is the future. The idea of books being lowered into a realm of consumable entertainments makes me truly sad, because I cannot help but see it as an example of our ideas starting losing their weight and importance. I'm not saying e-books don't have a place of their own in the world of literature. I'm just saying that books are different than e-books and that if we don't see the difference then we just may forget why books are so important. If we can forget something like that...well I don't really want to think about what that says about us.
So let's just try to remember not to burn books. Okay?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)