I was floored when I saw Gaiman's name on a Marvel comic several months ago. I don't really know that much about the comics industry, but I knew that every comic I ever read by Gaiman was in the alternate universe of DC. The author's afterword reveals that it was Marvel's new editor-in-chief that requested him specifically. That Gaiman took on some of Marvel's most popular characters, known more for dynamic action than existentialist angst, says a lot about the kind of thematic challenges he likes to create for himself. It would have been easier to find an obscure, internally-conflicted superhero to drag through a metaphorically-rich narrative, but instead he decided to take well-known 20th-century characters 400 years into the past in order to explore themes of mythology around them.
I just want to mention that I'm not a comics geek. Someone more involved with marvel comics would appreciate more about the characters than I did, since I'm not as familiar with all of them. I come to this book as a fan of Gaiman, of Sandman, and his novels, but I didn't read many other DC comics. I did really enjoy the book, and I'm glad I waited for the bound book. I'm not sure I could have waited a so long for the next month's issue. Plus, I first saw the book at issue 2 and I couldn't find the first one.
Gaiman mixes historical figures like Queen Elizabeth in to the plot, as well as mixing in historical events with the fiction. In a way, this is giving readers several things to identify with be it history or superheros. Shifting alliances, blurred lines between good and evil, and supernatural influences are some of the plot elements that are common to 1602, Sandman, and several novels. I would also argue that he uses a Deus Ex Machina, but then I could have just missed the foreshadowing. The book covers themes of sacrifice, duty, honor, predjudice, greed, and corruption. I'd probably have to do a re-read to really get the full depth out of the characters, who have so many layers, a series of books would be necessary to fully explore them, and, recalling the ending, it would seem to me that Gaiman might just be interested in doing that.
I'd recommend this book for fans of X-Men, Sandman, manga, or even Tolkein. You don't have to know the characters to understand the plot, but if you do, its a lot of fun to see the historical versions of them. With this and last year's Sandman book, I'm glad to see Gaiman back in the genre, and hope he continues to work in both the DC and marvel comic universes.
UPDATE: I read a blog with an interesting review of 1602 that was a bit more critical than I was, check it out on the intermittent
Thursday, November 25, 2004
Monday, November 15, 2004
Virtual Sweatshops
boingboing has a post about a new short story on Salon by Cory Doctorow. The story concerns females in online gaming, the real financial rewards possible with online gaming, and how this game economy might cause online games to become the new sweatshops. It's an interesting read both as fiction and as social commentary. If you don't subscribe to Salon, endure the 30-second commercial for a free day pass, it's worth it.
Monday, November 08, 2004
Hold the onions
Eric Schlossers scathing exposé on the fast food industry reaches much farther and wider than I had originally expected, and this was an abridged version. He links together such far-ranging topics such as Walt Disney, government contracts, meatpacking, suburban sprawl, illegal aliens, environmental concerns, chicken farmers, distrubution of weath, e-coli, advertising for children, real estate, and Mikhail Gorbachev. It is also a history book, covering the "invention" of fast food, the socio-economic factors leading up to it's development and that supported it's explosive growth, and the negative impact of fast food on America's food chain, diet, workforce and suburban landscape.
Most people who complain about fast food only do it on the cultural level saying that the homogenizing of American (and, actually, the world) is costly to the culture at large. If every suburban area has the same collection of Wal*Marts, Burger Kings, Taco Bells and McDonalds, then no place is unique, so what pride would a resident have in "their town" if its indistinguishable from any other town? What Schlosser reveals to the reader is that EVERYTHING that the fast food industry touches is negatively affected by it. From the rancher who can no longer afford to actually OWN cattle due to the incredible downward price pressure from the meat processors, to the teenager who serves your burger with indignation, because he's making a poverty wage, and everyone in betwee, the author sheds light on all the gruesome impacts of the industry. Make sure you aren't listening or reading the part about slaughterhouses during lunch, it is quite stomach-churning, but not for the reasons you might think. Everyone knows in the back of thier mind, that a hambuger used to be a cow and had to be killed and cut up, but not many think of the people that have to work there and the literal torture they have to go through.
His conclusion is severly critical of not just this industry, but of the dangerously increasing power large corporations wield in general. His solution, interestingly enough, proves that its corporations that have the power to change the industry for the better of all those involved, and without hurting the shareholders. I hope they get the message.
Fast Food Nation on Audible.com, 9 hrs.
Most people who complain about fast food only do it on the cultural level saying that the homogenizing of American (and, actually, the world) is costly to the culture at large. If every suburban area has the same collection of Wal*Marts, Burger Kings, Taco Bells and McDonalds, then no place is unique, so what pride would a resident have in "their town" if its indistinguishable from any other town? What Schlosser reveals to the reader is that EVERYTHING that the fast food industry touches is negatively affected by it. From the rancher who can no longer afford to actually OWN cattle due to the incredible downward price pressure from the meat processors, to the teenager who serves your burger with indignation, because he's making a poverty wage, and everyone in betwee, the author sheds light on all the gruesome impacts of the industry. Make sure you aren't listening or reading the part about slaughterhouses during lunch, it is quite stomach-churning, but not for the reasons you might think. Everyone knows in the back of thier mind, that a hambuger used to be a cow and had to be killed and cut up, but not many think of the people that have to work there and the literal torture they have to go through.
His conclusion is severly critical of not just this industry, but of the dangerously increasing power large corporations wield in general. His solution, interestingly enough, proves that its corporations that have the power to change the industry for the better of all those involved, and without hurting the shareholders. I hope they get the message.
Fast Food Nation on Audible.com, 9 hrs.
in-f'ing-credible
I know this is supposed to be a book site, but I just saw "The Incredibles" and I feel it is necessary to make this comment:
Go. See. It. Now.
Just go, don't put it off!
Seriously!
WTF are you waiting for?
Go. See. It. Now.
Just go, don't put it off!
Seriously!
WTF are you waiting for?
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Photoshop Election Map
I was reading this boingboing post about a red/blue election map that adjusted the red-blue color based on a percentage of the voters in that state. The evenly divided states were purple, with the difference between those that went "red" barely noticable from those that went "blue".
They also linked to a USA Today map that broke the traditional red/blue down by county and someone did a purple map for counties as well. I noticed USA Today also had the 2000 results in the same format so I thought I could take their maps and do a quick photoshop calculation to reveal the counties that changed from 2000 to 2004.
Note: Alaska had no results on the 2004 map and Hawaii was Democrat, unchanged. Black areas are unreported counties from 2004.
Click for larger image
UPDATE: I know a lot of people have looked at this map, and with the lack of comments, I fear that perhaps I didn't make the map's key clear.
Blue areas are counties that voted republican for president in both 2000 and 2004
Green areas are counties that voted democrat for president in both 2000 and 2004
Red areas are counties that voted republican for president in 2000 and democrat in 2004.
Yellow areas are counties that voted democrat for president in 2000 and republican in 2004.
In essence, blue and green areas stayed the same while red and yellow areas switched parties.
What stories does this tell? Well, I think its clear that the era of the "Dixiecrat" is over, the Democrats are losing thier strength in the south. As suburban sprawl expands in places like Colorado, and Minnesota, traditionally republican areas start to fade in to democrat areas. Interesting, still, the southern tip of texas remains pretty strongly democrat, with only 2 counties switching to republican.
I see the map as a type of Rorschach, and I wonder what other people see in it. What's your take? What did you come looking for in an election map? What conclusions do you hope to see and have you been dissapointed? What do you think this map will look like in 2008?
UPDATE: For reference, here is a link to all historical presidential election results
They also linked to a USA Today map that broke the traditional red/blue down by county and someone did a purple map for counties as well. I noticed USA Today also had the 2000 results in the same format so I thought I could take their maps and do a quick photoshop calculation to reveal the counties that changed from 2000 to 2004.
Note: Alaska had no results on the 2004 map and Hawaii was Democrat, unchanged. Black areas are unreported counties from 2004.
Click for larger image
UPDATE: I know a lot of people have looked at this map, and with the lack of comments, I fear that perhaps I didn't make the map's key clear.
Blue areas are counties that voted republican for president in both 2000 and 2004
Green areas are counties that voted democrat for president in both 2000 and 2004
Red areas are counties that voted republican for president in 2000 and democrat in 2004.
Yellow areas are counties that voted democrat for president in 2000 and republican in 2004.
In essence, blue and green areas stayed the same while red and yellow areas switched parties.
What stories does this tell? Well, I think its clear that the era of the "Dixiecrat" is over, the Democrats are losing thier strength in the south. As suburban sprawl expands in places like Colorado, and Minnesota, traditionally republican areas start to fade in to democrat areas. Interesting, still, the southern tip of texas remains pretty strongly democrat, with only 2 counties switching to republican.
I see the map as a type of Rorschach, and I wonder what other people see in it. What's your take? What did you come looking for in an election map? What conclusions do you hope to see and have you been dissapointed? What do you think this map will look like in 2008?
UPDATE: For reference, here is a link to all historical presidential election results
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
