Teenage Book Recommend?

A reader writes:

I’m one of the refugees from Mark’s blog.  I’ve really enjoyed your blog as well, even some of your more "bizarre" stories (what the heck is a "chupacabra" anyway? Reminds me of my children’s favorite magic word "abachugaba"….but I digress.)

My question for you has to do with my teen.  She’s 18, and doesn’t have the strongest faith.  She is "interested" in a 19 yo boy, who doesn’t have ANY faith, but is open to Catholicism (and is baptized, btw).  Do you have any ideas for a book or two to keep on hand should any real questions come up?   He’s rather immature, so the Catechism isn’t going to cut it yet.  One of my favorite books for info about what Catholics believe is "The Faith Explained" by Fr. Leo Trese, but again, this isn’t for someone to cut their teeth on.

In regard to your first question, a chupacabra is a legendary create credited with sucking the blood from goats and other small livestock (e.g., chickens). The name is Spanish for "goat sucker" (chupa="it sucks" cabra="goat"). I don’t believe in chupacabras, but I have a taste for X-File-like material and find it interesting to entertain the question of whether some of the creatures mentioned on the blog might be part of the things inspiring the chupacabra legend.

As to your second question, I don’t know of how much help I can be. Not being married (unfortunatly), I don’t have any kids of that age (or any age) and so I haven’t researched the books that might be good for them. In the age that we’re talking about, though, they may be ready for easier-to-read books written for adults. I might give him a book of conversion stories like Surprised by Truth.

Other suggestions, folks?

Legion Clubhouse

A reader writes:


I couldn’t resist…


…showing off my homemade Legion clubhouse. Finely crafted from a Quaker
oatmeal canister and, if my old comics are any indication, it’s correctly
proportioned. (I assume they’re all outside because Bouncing Boy is already inside.)


Love your site.

Legion_clubhouse

Kewl!

That’s just what the original Legion’s clubhouse looked like! (I.e., a rocket accident.) Good work!

Kudos on the action figure collection, too!

Comic Book Recommend!

Dcdsaturngirl2_4This weekend I went to my local comics shop and picked up the books that had accumulated for me in December and January. As a result, last night I read the December and January issues of the Legion of Super-Heroes.

The Legion is, for sentimental reasons, my all-time favorite comic. I started reading it as a boy and fell in love with it.

It’s about a group of young superheroes in the 30th (now 31st) century. It’s also the longest-running super -hero team in existence (having first graced the pages of DC comics in 1957).

It hasn’t always been well-written or well-drawn (and so I haven’t always read it uninterrupted), but hey, it’s a boyhood favorite, and everybody’s entitled to at least one of those.

I’m mentioning it here because I’d like to recommend that comic books fans go out and pick up the two most recent issues.

The reason is that the Legion has just been "rebooted," though they aren’t using the term "reboot" in the industry literature (they’re saying it’s been "re-envisioned").

For those who may not be aware, comic books periodically write themselves into creative corners and the creators decide that the best thing to do is to start over and tell the story afresh, honoring the spirit of what went before while jettisoning all the continuity that has boxed the writers in to a corner creatively. This "do over" is known in the industry as a "reboot."

The biggest reboots in history were the transition from the Golden Age of comics to the Silver Age, which occurred in the 1950s, and the 1988 event Crisis on Infinite Earths, in which the entire DC Universe was rebooted, with the most dramatic changes happening for Superman and Wonder Woman (Batman saw his way through the Crisis relatively unscathed).

Unfortunately, Crisis didn’t do all the work that needed to be done in some corners of the DC Universe, and some titles, like the Legion of Super-Heroes have been rebooted several times since.

The last time the Legion was rebooted, DC went to comic writer wunderkind Mark Waid to do it, and he did a great job. The new Legion was more fun to read than the title had been in some time. Unfortunately, Waid left the book and eventually the writing level declined as subsequent writers boxed themselves in creatively. By the end of that run, I’d basically stopped reading the comics (though I still bought them).

In December, DC brought Waid back to reboot (er . . . "re-envision") the title once again.

After reading the first two issues of the reboot, I’m sold.

Waid has done it once again.

The book is bristling with creativity. There are lots of nods to established Legion tradition, but it’s accessible enough that a new reader can jump in and enjoy it (this being one of the principal goals of a reboot).

The art (by Barry Kitson) is really nice, with a good eye for detail and design that rises well above the pedestrian pencilling that the Legion has suffered from in recent times.

Most important for me, though, are the story and the characters.

As far as the story goes, the Legion is still a super-hero team of about twenty (!) members from different planets and that dwells in the 31st century. What’s different is that it’s now at the center of a youth-movement with more than 75,000 affiliate members. Any kid on any planet who endorses the Legion philosophy can consider himself a legionnaire, even though the core team is still just the twenty-or-so we spend most of our time reading about.

The Legion philosophy is radical for its time. For the last thousand years, humanity has lived in a near-utopian environment with scarcely a breeze to ruffle a bird’s feathers. But it’s a world with a dark side whereby parents have their kids hooked into an invisible Internet that monitors everything they see and hear . . . for their safety, of course.

The opening narration to the Legion explains:

Ours is an age of peace and tranquility. By the dawn of the 31st century, an Earth-based network of worlds has created a rigidly mannered serenity throughout the cosmos–a near-utopia. All we, our parents, and their parents have ever known is security, stability, and order.

We’re so sick of it, we could scream.

The Legion is determined not only to fight bad guys, but to bring back to society a sense of fun, adventure, and excitement.

The first two issues are a good start!

While the story is good (an inter-stellar war is about to start), the characters are also good.

These are important for a long-time fan who has known and loved these character (literally, in my case) for decades.

One of the things that happens each time a title reboots is that the creators adjust the characters in ways they hope will create interesting story potential. Sometimes they are successful; sometimes they are not.

For example, last time the Legion rebooted, one of the most easy-to-look-at legionnaires, the gorgeous Princess Projecta, became a giant snake! (Bad move! My philosophy is: If you want to introduce a legionnaire who is a giant snake, fine, just don’t mess with an established character who is easy to look at.)

In the Legion’s latest incarnation, that hasn’t happened (yet), but other changes, good and not-as-good, have occurred.

I don’t mind the character changes if they serve a conceptual purpose. For example, I was tickled pink by what they did with Colossal Boy.

Originally, Colossal Boy was an Earthling who had invented a serum that allowed him to grow to . . . well . . . colossal proporitions. In the new version, he’s a man from a race of giants who has the ability to shrink himself down to being six feet tall and who wants to be called "Micro Lad" (he doesn’t get his wish).

Ha!

That’s great!

Another creative change centers on Dream Girl, who is from a planet where people have visions of the future, often in their dreams. Dream Girl has always been a hard character for writers to handle, but Waid has broadened the character’s conceptual background immeasurably in the new reboot. In the past she’s been kind of ditzy, but now she spends enough time in the future that she forgets things like . . . we haven’t yet defeated the bad guy in front of us.

Especially nice is the way the second issue plays Dream Girl off the ultra-rational Brainiac 5 (a super-genius from the planet Colu). Brainiac 5 resents here because he spends untold amounts of mental effort deducing the likely outcome of events from gigaquads of seemingly-unrelated data, only to have a precognitive like Dream Girl waltz in and come up with the same conclusion by sheer intuition.

At the end of the second issue, we get this exchange between the two of them regarding Dream Girl’s seemingly infallible predictions:

BRAINIAC 5: All it would take is for one future casualty–just one–to find the will to break the lockstep of destiny. If that happens, all probabilities shift.

The universe is more unpredictable than we give it credit for.

Your predictions don’t have to be infallible.

DREAM GIRL: . . . (pauses) . . .  (smiles) . . .  You’ll feel different when we’re married.

Hah!

Yes!

(Previous Legion continuity has already established that Brainiac 5 has a thing for blonds, and Dream Girl is a blond).

Not all of the character changes are ones I would have made. For example, Star Boy (who has the power to increase an object’s mass) has inexplicably been changed into a black guy for no apparent purpose relating to the story. There are already people in Legion history who could (and should) be introduced to establish adequate black representation on the team: the second Invisible Kid and both of the Kid Quantums, for example. New characters also can be introduced. Unless they have a special story to tell relating to the new Star Boy’s ethnicity, I don’t see the point of the switch.

That being said, I do like the new Star Boy’s character. He looks really cool, and he gets some of the best comedic lines.

In any event, I’d like to recommend the new Legion title for any comic book fans in the audience.

LONG LIVE THE LEGION!

(Saturn Girl had just better not turn into a giant star-nosed mole!)

A Complex Circle

Willthecirclebeunbroken1NOTE: In its native form, "Will the Circle Be Unbroken" is one of the three saddest songs ever written together with "Tomorrow Never Comes" (Creedence Clearwater Revival) and "Ashokan Farewell" (Various). 

NOTENOTE: By the authority vested in me as blog administrator, I am the arbiter of what counts as the saddest songs ever written. No song is in this category until I hear it and judge it so.

NOW: A good piece back I started getting into the unique sound of the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band.

The Dirt Band’s sound was unique in that it didn’t fit into any of the typical categories of popular music in its day (the late 1960s and 1970s). "What is it?" some promos asked. Was it Rock? Country? Folk? Bluegrass? Or something else?

Truth be told, the Dirt Band’s music is today what we might classify as Country-Rock. This was before Rock n’Roll fell apart in the late 1980s and the ensuing remnants were swept up into contemporary Country (which is surprisingly Rock-like), insipid Pop, noxious Hip-Hop, and offensive Rap.

But not all the Dirt Band’s work is Country-Rock. A notable exception is its 1971 album Will The Circle Be Unbroken.

This album is much more traditional, with melodious melodies courtesy of Country-Folk-Bluegrass artists such as Doc Watkins, Earl Scruggs, and Mother Maybelle Carter.

It was a meeting-of-the-generations album, with the Dirt Band (representing youth) joining established artists (representing the older generation) to create wonderful, traditional music.

In a time when the "generation gap" was the talk of the nation, the cover of the album bore the hopeful legend: "Music forms a new Circle."

Indeed it did.

The title song of of the album was sung by country-legend Mother Maybelle, together with the Dirt Band and all the other artists appearing on the album.

The song tells the story of a person who is forced to surrender one’s mother to the reality of death and who wonders whether the whole of the family circle will or will not be reunited with God in heaven.

The central lyric and the chorus of the song is as follows:

Will the circle be unbroken?
By-and-by, Lord, by-and-by?
There’s a better home a-waitin’,
In the sky, Lord, in the sky!

As the chorus suggests, the song has notes of hope, caution, and loss.

It was fitting that Mother Maybelle take the lead in singing the song since she was a member of the original Carter Family. The Carter Family was centered on A. P. Carter, who originally wrote the song. The Carter Family also included his sister-in-law Mother Maybelle Carter and, eventually, her daughter June Carter.

June Carter married music-legend Johnny Cash, to become June Carter Cash.

Mother Maybelle died in 1978, leaving her daughter (June Carter Cash) and he son-in-law (Johnny Cash) behind her.

In the 1980s, the Dirt Band decided to do a sequel album titled Will The Circle Be Unbroken, Volume 2.

This time around, Johnny Cash was one of the main guest singers on the album, and he took the lead on the album’s rendition of the song "Will The Circle Be Unbroken" (which, once again, was sung with the Dirt Band and all the artists participating on the album).

It was a nice touch.

A. P. Carter had written the song.

His sister-in-law, Mother Maybelle, took the lead in recording it the first time around.

Now Mother Maybelle’s son-in-law, Johnny Cash, took the lead.

But the Dirt Band didn’t leave it untouched. They made one of the three saddest songs ever written sound . . . happier, with more hope than before in it. And they added a new stanza to it:

We sang the songs of childhood,
Hymns of faith that made us strong,
Ones that Mother Maybelle taught us,
Hear the angels sing along!

HEAR THEM!

AND THEIR (CLASSIC!) PREDECESSORS!

SpongeBob GaySquarePants

A while back there was a flap over Jim Dobson and comments he made regarding a video involving SpongeBob SquarePants.

To hear some tell it, Dobson accused SpongeBob of being homosexual or of promoting homosexuality in the new video.

Since I have previously said that I find SpongeBob funny, a number of readers sent me links to stories and asked me for comment.

I didn’t comment at the time because of what I considered an absence of hard fact. The stories seemed shaky to me–long on conjecture and short on fact. Frankly, I didn’t trust them. I suspected that something was being blown out of proportion somewhere.

Sure enough, by coincidence I happened to catch an appearance of Dobson on the Hannity and Colmes program in which he vociferously denied having claimed that SpongeBob was gay or that the video–which only has a few seconds of SpongeBob in it and which features just about every major cartoon character currently on Nickelodeon and similar networks–promotes homosexuality.

What he had said was that certain teaching materials associated with the video (which features cartoon characters singing the song "We Are Family" and which is to be distrubuted to schools for showing to children) are in some way supportive of homosexuality. He said that SpongeBob and the video were fine in and of themselves, but they were being used as part of a bait-and-switch strategy on school kids.

There’s some merit to that charge.

While the teaching materials that Dobson (is alleged to have) quoted aren’t readily available, the website of the makers of the video is, and it contains the following "Tolerance Pledge":

Tolerance is a personal decision that comes from a belief that every person is a treasure. I believe that America’s diversity is its strength. I also recognize that ignorance, insensitivity and bigotry can turn that diversity into a source of prejudice and discrimination.

To help keep diversity a wellspring of strength and make America a better place for all, I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own [SOURCE].

The (probably deliberately) ambiguous phrase "sexual identity" can well be construed as referring to those who have "sexual identities" other than the straightforward biological categories "male" and "female." It likely is meant to cover people of one biological sex who have homosexual (or other) temptations. Certainly it’s ambiguous enough that it lends itself to this interpretation. The words are clunky and suggestive of an interpretation meant to cover more than what the simple word "sex" would have covered.

If I were a parent with a kid in school, I’d certainly be critical of any attempt to get my kid to say a pledge like that, including showing him a video of his favorite cartoon characters that is sponsored by an organization promoting this pledge.

Even apart from the "sexual identity" clause, there are better, more direct, and more effective ways of teaching kids to be tolerant of the legitimate differences of others besides encouraging them to say pretentious pledges. For that matter, there’s too much "tolerance" rhetoric in the schools (and in society) than is good for us, as it’s used as a codeword to stigmatize those who want to maintain traditional moral values.

"Tolerance" is not an abstract virtue any more than "intolerance" is an abstract vice. Some things ought not to be tolerated (murder, for example). Whether tolerance in any particular case is virtuous depends entirely on what one is proposing as the object of tolerance. Propose the wrong object and tolerance of it is a vice.

Now, why have I decided to comment on all this now when I didn’t at the time?

Basically, because I ran across

THIS WENDY McELROY EDITORIAL THAT CAME OUT LAST WEEK.

She says a number of things in it that I find valuable, including underscoring the basic point that people shouldn’t be dogpiling on Dobson or creating a media furor without first investigating the facts of the case, and the facts in this case are precious few.

I always like it when people in the media point out that we shouldn’t go off half-cocked before we have the facts (the latter being a chronic danger of their profession).

McElroy also points to contributing factors that led to the furor, including the fact that the media is simply hostile to Dobson.

I’d add an additional contributing factor that McElroy fails to mention: SpongeBob has been at the center of rumors of homosexuality for some time. I’ve encountered the "SpongeBob is gay" rumor a number of times from well-meaning Christians who have never watched the show but who have heard it from others.

Lemme set the record straight on that: So far as one can tell from the show, SpongeBob ain’t gay. He even has a (kind of) girlfriend. (I say "kind of" because shows meant to be enjoyed by young children tend not to get into romance very far these days.) It is very easy to explain what SpongeBob is:

He’s Jerry Lewis.

Like Jerry Lewis, SpongeBob is a comic character trapped perpetually between childhood and adulthood. He’s a perpetually awkward character who in some ways functions as an adult (he has a job, a house, he lives on his own) but has many of the mannerisms and limitations of a child (he’s socially inept, can’t drive a car, has a high-pitched voice, and is naive as all get out).

There are only two major differences between SpongeBob and Jerry Lewis: (1) He’s a sponge, and (2) he’s actually funny.

I’m given to understand (though I have not verified this) that some in the homosexual community have tried to adopt SpongeBob as a mascot, and it’s easy to understand why they might want to do so. Many in the homosexual community (like any community) enjoy the thought of popular figures being members of their community, and the fact that SpongeBob is a popular and perpetual awkward man-child unlikely to ever overtly contradict the idea that he’s gay (when was the last time you saw a cartoon character do that?) makes him a tempting target.

Indeed, there is even an impulse in the homosexual community to take wholesome images of adolescence and turn them into a kind of homosexual parody. That’s why homosexual men dress up as Judy Garland from The Wizard of Oz at gay pride parades. Judy Garland’s character Dorothy is such a wholesome image of a person trapped between childhood (where the character was) and adulthood (where the actress clearly was) that homosexual activists have delighted in corrupting that image.

Well, that’s their lookout. I’m not about to let the fact that some of them have tried to subvert Dorothy into some kind of gay icon stop me from enjoying The Wizard of Oz, and if some are trying to do the same for SpongeBob, I’m not going to let that stop me from laughing at his humor.

All this does go to the question of why the Dobson vs. SpongeBob thing took off as fast as it did, though.

Though I appreciate much of McElroy’s editorial, I’m not persuaded by all of it. In particular, I’d cut Dobson more slack than she does. I’d also challenge her on one particular point. She writes:

[O]ne of the first questions I would ask is whether he would object to cartoon characters being used to inculcate sexual values with which he agrees. Frankly, I doubt he would protest Winnie the Pooh being used to advance the traditional family or the choice of women to become mothers and housewives.

Yet those choices, no less than homosexuality, are politically charged and offensive to some.

After beating up on others for conjecturing rather than checking the facts, it’s a little surprising that McElroy would feel to free to conjecture what Dobson would say about a situation without checking with him.

That aside, I’ll speak directly to the merits of the question she raises: What schools should do is reinforce the traditional moral values that society needs to keep running and that promote human dignity. Heterosexuality, the traditional family, and the choice of women to become mothers and housewives are high on that list. Those are the things that keep society running and they should be encouraged for all too obvious reasons.

If American social fabric has disintegrated to the point that this idea is now taboo in schools, all I can say is, "Well, that’s one more reason my children (should I be so fortunate as to have any) will never be placed in public schools."

SpongeBob GaySquarePants

A while back there was a flap over Jim Dobson and comments he made regarding a video involving SpongeBob SquarePants.

To hear some tell it, Dobson accused SpongeBob of being homosexual or of promoting homosexuality in the new video.

Since I have previously said that I find SpongeBob funny, a number of readers sent me links to stories and asked me for comment.

I didn’t comment at the time because of what I considered an absence of hard fact. The stories seemed shaky to me–long on conjecture and short on fact. Frankly, I didn’t trust them. I suspected that something was being blown out of proportion somewhere.

Sure enough, by coincidence I happened to catch an appearance of Dobson on the Hannity and Colmes program in which he vociferously denied having claimed that SpongeBob was gay or that the video–which only has a few seconds of SpongeBob in it and which features just about every major cartoon character currently on Nickelodeon and similar networks–promotes homosexuality.

What he had said was that certain teaching materials associated with the video (which features cartoon characters singing the song "We Are Family" and which is to be distrubuted to schools for showing to children) are in some way supportive of homosexuality. He said that SpongeBob and the video were fine in and of themselves, but they were being used as part of a bait-and-switch strategy on school kids.

There’s some merit to that charge.

While the teaching materials that Dobson (is alleged to have) quoted aren’t readily available, the website of the makers of the video is, and it contains the following "Tolerance Pledge":

Tolerance is a personal decision that comes from a belief that every person is a treasure. I believe that America’s diversity is its strength. I also recognize that ignorance, insensitivity and bigotry can turn that diversity into a source of prejudice and discrimination.

To help keep diversity a wellspring of strength and make America a better place for all, I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own [SOURCE].

The (probably deliberately) ambiguous phrase "sexual identity" can well be construed as referring to those who have "sexual identities" other than the straightforward biological categories "male" and "female." It likely is meant to cover people of one biological sex who have homosexual (or other) temptations. Certainly it’s ambiguous enough that it lends itself to this interpretation. The words are clunky and suggestive of an interpretation meant to cover more than what the simple word "sex" would have covered.

If I were a parent with a kid in school, I’d certainly be critical of any attempt to get my kid to say a pledge like that, including showing him a video of his favorite cartoon characters that is sponsored by an organization promoting this pledge.

Even apart from the "sexual identity" clause, there are better, more direct, and more effective ways of teaching kids to be tolerant of the legitimate differences of others besides encouraging them to say pretentious pledges. For that matter, there’s too much "tolerance" rhetoric in the schools (and in society) than is good for us, as it’s used as a codeword to stigmatize those who want to maintain traditional moral values.

"Tolerance" is not an abstract virtue any more than "intolerance" is an abstract vice. Some things ought not to be tolerated (murder, for example). Whether tolerance in any particular case is virtuous depends entirely on what one is proposing as the object of tolerance. Propose the wrong object and tolerance of it is a vice.

Now, why have I decided to comment on all this now when I didn’t at the time?

Basically, because I ran across

THIS WENDY McELROY EDITORIAL THAT CAME OUT LAST WEEK.

She says a number of things in it that I find valuable, including underscoring the basic point that people shouldn’t be dogpiling on Dobson or creating a media furor without first investigating the facts of the case, and the facts in this case are precious few.

I always like it when people in the media point out that we shouldn’t go off half-cocked before we have the facts (the latter being a chronic danger of their profession).

McElroy also points to contributing factors that led to the furor, including the fact that the media is simply hostile to Dobson.

I’d add an additional contributing factor that McElroy fails to mention: SpongeBob has been at the center of rumors of homosexuality for some time. I’ve encountered the "SpongeBob is gay" rumor a number of times from well-meaning Christians who have never watched the show but who have heard it from others.

Lemme set the record straight on that: So far as one can tell from the show, SpongeBob ain’t gay. He even has a (kind of) girlfriend. (I say "kind of" because shows meant to be enjoyed by young children tend not to get into romance very far these days.) It is very easy to explain what SpongeBob is:

He’s Jerry Lewis.

Like Jerry Lewis, SpongeBob is a comic character trapped perpetually between childhood and adulthood. He’s a perpetually awkward character who in some ways functions as an adult (he has a job, a house, he lives on his own) but has many of the mannerisms and limitations of a child (he’s socially inept, can’t drive a car, has a high-pitched voice, and is naive as all get out).

There are only two major differences between SpongeBob and Jerry Lewis: (1) He’s a sponge, and (2) he’s actually funny.

I’m given to understand (though I have not verified this) that some in the homosexual community have tried to adopt SpongeBob as a mascot, and it’s easy to understand why they might want to do so. Many in the homosexual community (like any community) enjoy the thought of popular figures being members of their community, and the fact that SpongeBob is a popular and perpetual awkward man-child unlikely to ever overtly contradict the idea that he’s gay (when was the last time you saw a cartoon character do that?) makes him a tempting target.

Indeed, there is even an impulse in the homosexual community to take wholesome images of adolescence and turn them into a kind of homosexual parody. That’s why homosexual men dress up as Judy Garland from The Wizard of Oz at gay pride parades. Judy Garland’s character Dorothy is such a wholesome image of a person trapped between childhood (where the character was) and adulthood (where the actress clearly was) that homosexual activists have delighted in corrupting that image.

Well, that’s their lookout. I’m not about to let the fact that some of them have tried to subvert Dorothy into some kind of gay icon stop me from enjoying The Wizard of Oz, and if some are trying to do the same for SpongeBob, I’m not going to let that stop me from laughing at his humor.

All this does go to the question of why the Dobson vs. SpongeBob thing took off as fast as it did, though.

Though I appreciate much of McElroy’s editorial, I’m not persuaded by all of it. In particular, I’d cut Dobson more slack than she does. I’d also challenge her on one particular point. She writes:

[O]ne of the first questions I would ask is whether he would object to cartoon characters being used to inculcate sexual values with which he agrees. Frankly, I doubt he would protest Winnie the Pooh being used to advance the traditional family or the choice of women to become mothers and housewives.

Yet those choices, no less than homosexuality, are politically charged and offensive to some.

After beating up on others for conjecturing rather than checking the facts, it’s a little surprising that McElroy would feel to free to conjecture what Dobson would say about a situation without checking with him.

That aside, I’ll speak directly to the merits of the question she raises: What schools should do is reinforce the traditional moral values that society needs to keep running and that promote human dignity. Heterosexuality, the traditional family, and the choice of women to become mothers and housewives are high on that list. Those are the things that keep society running and they should be encouraged for all too obvious reasons.

If American social fabric has disintegrated to the point that this idea is now taboo in schools, all I can say is, "Well, that’s one more reason my children (should I be so fortunate as to have any) will never be placed in public schools."

Blue Tongue!!!

Some time ago I began noticing a problem with the make-up on sci-fi shows.

It’s only skin deep.

Sure, the alien may have funny colored skin (blue, green, whatever), but his mouth is always human-red.

Bad idea.

If an alien really has funny body chemistry, blood, and pigmentation, his mouth shouldn’t be the same color on the inside as ours.

I decided that if I were ever in a position to make a sci-fi series, I would have the alien actors rinse their mouths out with food coloring (or something) to change the color of them on the inside.

Well, someone who actually does make a sci-fi series finally got the same idea!

If you look closely on Star Trek Enterprise, you’ll notice that the Andorians have blue not only on their outer skin but also on the insides of their mouths.

Yee-haw!

Improved alien make-up realism!

I noticed this a piece back, and have been meaning to blog about it, but my memory was jogged when last night on Enterprise Shran the Andorian (played by the immortal Jeffrey Coombs–a.k.a. Weyoun, Brunt) was being choked by someone and we got a really good shot of his face with his bright blue tongue protruding out.

Kewl!

Incidentally, in fairness to the make-up artists, it may be that we have only recently developed something that you can put in your mouth to change it’s color without having it last an unduly long time (or it may be only recently they have worked up the gumption to ask actors to dye their mouths for long periods).

Either way, I’m a happy camper.

It’s the simple things in life (like a food coloring mouthwash) that really matter.

Double Crime Recap!!!

Excellent television last night on Monk!

Very creative!

I love it when a show breaks out of the TV box and does something really neat.

Y’know how on detective shows they tend to have a moment at the end where the detective figures out how the crime was done and describes it for everyone, often with us seeing a flashback of what happened during the crime?

Well, on last night’s episode of Monk ("Mr. Monk Gets Cabin Fever"), we got a double-dose of this–simultaneously!

During the middle of a gun battle at the episode’s climax, Monk and Lt. Discher each figured out how a different crime was committed.

In union, they said "I’ve got it!"

Then, rather than either deferring to the other, they both began to blurt out how the respective crimes were committed, and we were treated to flashbacks of them done in split-screen fashion a la 24, watching the different criminals walk through their misdeeds while Monk and Discher talked over each other.

As the gun battle raged, a confused local sheriff asked Capt. Stottlemeyer, "Which one are you listening to?"

"Neither," Stottlemeyer replied, trying to focus on the gun battle.

Great stuff!!!

Haven’t seen that on TV before!

One more reason to watch Monk!

Friday TV Roundup

STAR TREK ENTERPRISE:

"United"

Trapped on a remote-controlled Romulan ship, Trip and Malcolm must outwit their captors to escape. NOTE: This is the second episode of the Andorian arc and continues to lay the groundwork for the Romulan War leading to the founding of the Federation.

STARGATE SG-1:


"It’s Good to Be King", Episode #813.

While attempting to warn a former adversary of an approaching threat, the SG-1 team stumbles upon what may be an ancient time machine. NOTE: Features the return of everyone’s favorite semi-bad guy, ex-Col. Maybourne of the NID.

STARGATE ATLANTIS


"Hot Zone", Episode #113.

McKay must stop a deadly virus from spreading throughout the population of Atlantis.

BATTLESTAR GALACTICA


"You Can’t Go Home Again", Episode #105.

Adama and Lee put the fleet at risk while searching for Kara.

MONK


"Mr. Monk Gets Cabin Fever"

After Monk witnesses a Chinese mob killing, he goes into protective custody and is taken to a remote cabin in the woods, where he uncovers another murder.

The Day Star Trek Died

Star Trek Enterprise is dead. It has been cancelled.

Press release:

02.02.2005

Star Trek: Enterprise Cancelled!

After four seasons, Star Trek: Enterprise has reached the end of its mission …

PRESS RELEASE

UPN and Paramount Network Television have jointly announced that this will be the final season of Star Trek: Enterprise on UPN. [Production will continue until the end of this season, which will finish shooting in March.] The series finale will air on Friday, May 13, 2005.

"Star Trek has been an important part of UPN’s history, and Enterprise has carried on the tradition of its predecessors with great distinction," said Dawn Ostroff, President, Entertainment, UPN. "We’d like to thank Rick Berman, Brannon Braga and an incredibly talented cast for creating an engaging, new dimension to the Star Trek universe on UPN, and we look forward to working with them, and our partners at Paramount Network Television, on a send-off that salutes its contributions to The Network and satisfies its loyal viewers."

David Stapf, President of Paramount Network Television, said, "The creators, stars and crew of Star Trek: Enterprise ambitiously and proudly upheld the fine traditions of the Star Trek franchise. We are grateful for their contributions to the legacy of Trek and commend them on completing nearly 100 exciting, dramatic and visually stunning episodes. All of us at Paramount warmly bid goodbye to Enterprise, and we all look forward to a new chapter of this enduring franchise in the future."

A prequel to the original "Star Trek" series, STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE premiered on UPN on Sept. 26, 2001, and aired for its first three seasons on Wednesdays (8:00-9:00PM, ET/PT). On Oct. 8, 2004, STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE moved into its current time on Fridays (8:00-9:00PM, ET/PT). Through its four-year run, STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE produced a total of 98 episodes and earned four Emmy Awards [SOURCE; cowboy hat tip to the reader who e-mailed this].

With the passing of Enterprise, the Star Trek franchise now goes into hibernation. The franchise has been suffering from fatigue for a number of years, such that even when it has produced quality work (as recently on Enterprise), audiences haven’t tuned in. There has also been a lot of competition from other sci-fi shows, which weren’t on the air when the franchise re-launched years ago with Star Trek: The Next Generation.

The cancellation was expected. A year ago Star Trek was only barely renewed, and the Paramount brass apparenly told the creators of the series that they had a year to wrap it up in a nice way. It was also moved to Friday nights, which is a death-night for ratings in general (The Original Series was also moved to Friday night in its last season), and especially so for sci-fi series when the Sci-Fi Channel has such an excellent lineup opposite a show like Star Trek Enterprise.

The franchise is likely to lie fallow for several years, though there are indications that a Star Trek movie (reportedly involving exclusively new characters) is in development.

Though, personally, I wish Enterprise had got to finish its planned seven-year run, I recognize that a hiatus will be good for the franchise, allowing the field to lie fallow creatively and, more importantly, allowing the audience to regain an appetite for Star Trek. (Absence makes the heart grow fonder, after all.)

Whether its eventual re-launch (pun intended) will be successful is entirely up in the air. (Star Wars’ re-launch wasn’t that successful, despite eager fan anticipation.)

At the risk of speaking ill of the dead, allow me to offer a few thoughts on why Enterprise failed.

Apart from the phenomena of franchise fatigue and competition from other shows (and, indeed, a whole network devoted to sci-fi), the creators of the show fundamentally misjudged what the audience wanted to see. They made it too similar to previous Star Trek series in some ways and too different from them in others. What they produced in the early seasons of Enterprise was virtually a mirror image of what they needed to do.

Specifically:

  1. They misjudged the main plot of the show. The fans were not excited about seeing another Star Trek series where the characters are just wide-eyed explorers of the galaxy. We’d seen that before. What the fans were interested in seeing was the Romulan War and the founding of the Federation. Yet the creators stupidly set the series too early in Star Trek chronology for us to see that except in brief flash-forwards (complicated by the complicated and never-satisfactorily-resolved Temporal Cold War plotline).
  2. The fans were not interested in seeing the sexy aspects of the show, which at times verged on soft-core porn (or so I am given to understand from film critic definitions, never having watched any kind of porn, myself). Sex has always been around on Star Trek, but it has been handled in a less in-your-face way than in the current series.
  3. The series showed itself too similar to prior shows by introducing in its first season implausible meetings with aliens not-met-in-this-way or not-met-until-later-series (the Klingons, the Ferengi, the Borg). Rationalizations were offered for why these meetings didn’t violate established first contact facts, but they still alienated fans (no pun intended).
  4. The series showed itself too different from prior shows by reinterpreting major facts about beloved races, most notably the Vulcans, who are very different from how they have been portrayed in later series (a fact that was recently rectified in the current season, but only after alienating fans for three seasons).
  5. The series also was too different from other series by its "packaging." Instead of the vibrant color and slick design schemes that previous series had, Enterprise was far more drab in its color scheme and mundane in its design. While some of the latter was justified by its closeness to the present in time, the creators went too far.
  6. The creators also made a boneheaded mistake by not having the words "Star Trek" in the title of the series in its early seasons. This is a classic illustration of how the "re-thinking" of Star Trek simply went too far.

Having said all that, I look forward to the DVDs of the series, which will begin to be released May 3, just ten days before the final episode airs. The DVDs will allow me to see many of the episodes for the first time. (Since I had The Dinkiest Cable IN THE WORLD when the series began, I didn’t see a lot of them; also I was sufficiently unimpressed by what I did see that I wasn’t motivated to tune in when I moved and got better cable.)

To end on a happy note, the current season of Enterprise is much better than what has come before, and the final episodes of the season are supposed to be even better. The last episode is rumored to be very good and to serve not only as a fitting end to the series (given its cancellation) but also to be a "Valentine" to long-time Star Trek fans.

Watch ’em while you can, folks!