Sciencs Vs. Magic: Hawking Vs. Potter?

The comments he made regarding John Paul II weren’t the only things that Stephen Hawking had to say recently.

ACCORDING TO THIS STORY,

he stated a number of other interesting things, such as humans needing to start establishing offworld colonies that can function independently from earth if we want to survive long term.

That project might take awhile–longer than most of us will be around–but Hawking also mentioned a much shorter-term project he’s involved in:

Hawking said he’s teaming up with his daughter to write a children’s book about the universe, aimed at the same age range as the Harry Potter books.

"It is a story for children, which explains the wonders of the universe," his daughter, Lucy, added.

They didn’t provide other details. 

The Dork Knight of Gotham

Batman_1
Being that two of my JA.O blogmates have posted recently on the topic of super-heroes, I had to throw in my two pfennigs.

A few weeks ago our family acquired (cheap) a copy of the original (Adam West) Batman movie (1966).

Okay, I admit it… I have no taste. I like this movie better than any of the darker, more recent Batman films (except Batman Forever) and it is a guilty pleasure that I have passed on to my kids. They have really enjoyed it. One measure of the success of a film in our house is when we go around for weeks afterward inserting bits of the dialogue into our everyday speech. Batman 1966 qualifies in spades.

The movie is campy, fun, clean, goofy, brimming with Bat-gadgets and fisticuffs, and boasts the greatest cast of Bat-villains ever. Like the classic Looney Toons, the humor of the movie (as well as the series) operates on different levels. As a kid I missed a lot of the grown-up jokes and sexual innuendo, but had a blast, anyway.

For the record, in this film Batman is intensely heterosexual.

The main reason I’m posting on Batman, though, is a scene toward the end of the film, where the President of the United States makes an appearance (more or less… we see his chair and one arm from behind). He sports a generic Texas twang and, though it isn’t really a straight impersonation, it is obviously meant to represent then President Lyndon Johnson.

What’s weird is that, though it doesn’t sound like Johnson, the voice sounds remarkably, uncannily like George W. Bush.

SEE IF IT DOESN’T!

[JIMMY ADDS: If you watch this movie, don’t miss the MUST SEE (!) "Some days you just can’t get rid of a bomb!’ scene. It’s hilarious!]

[JIMMY ALSO ADDS: There’s an interesting episode of the Batman TV series in which they play off Lyndon Johnson’s political misfortunes and the fact that due to his unpopularity he didn’t run for re-election when he legally could have. In this episode, Batman is running for mayor of Gotham City in order to stop a villain from getting the post, and the episode is transparently meant to be a "Batman runs for president" episode under the surface (e.g., they mention the cowboys and indians voting in the western precincts of Gotham City). At the end of the episode, after Batman has won and turned the mayorship over the the guy who really should be mayor, he is in Commissioner Gordon’s office when he receives a phone call from a major, unnamed political party asking him to be their presidential candidate. He politely declines, but he and the commissioner comment on how nice it was of "them" to ask. At this point, we have no idea which party it was that asked, but then Batman gets another call, from the other political party, asking him the same thing, and he replies, "I . . . thought your party already had a presidential candidate for 1968." ZING!]

GAY MAG: “How Gay Is Superman?”

Advocate_coverWhen I saw this cover on the Drudge Report, I grimaced.

Why would The Advocate–a notorious homosexual magazine–be running a cover story asking "How gay is Superman?" and showing a picture from the upcoming movie Superman Returns?

Did it mean that the actor picked to play Superman (about whom I know nothing) is gay? Did it mean that the movie contains a homosexual theme or plot element?

The answer to those two questions is, apparently, "no," for which I am relieved.

Instead, according to the L.A. Times, The Advocate’s article dealt with an attempt to view superheroes in a homosexual light.

This is something that is not that surprising.

I don’t know precisely what to attribute it to, but the homosexual community frequently seeks to reinterpret wholesome American icons in homosexual terms.

That’s why so many men in homosexual parades dress up as Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz, or why the idea of gay cowboys in Brokeback Mountain struck such a note with the homosexual community. Re-reading superheroes in this light looks like a continuation of the same theme of the homosexualization of what is in itself wholesome and innocent.

I can only imagine that those in the gay community who do this kind of thing take a kind of perverse delight in reinterpreting icons of goodness and decency in this fashion. In that perverse delight, by definition, there is an element of perversity that would infuriate many in the gay community if it were labelled with a particular noun which is a cognate of "perverse" and a synonym for "perversity."

Unfortunately, those in the homosexual community who are doing this kind of thing are not without collaborators.

That explains why D.C. Comics would allow the reinterpretation of Batwoman as a "lipstick lesbian" (which, I discovered, is a lesbian who cultivates a feminine rather than a "butch" appearance). The announcement of that was particularly disgusting to me, since I remember the original Batwoman from reprints of old Batman stories that I read as a child, and the original Batwoman was created as a love interest for Batman himself.

It also explains why–according to the L.A. Times story–the marketing department promoting Superman Returns is apparently advertising the movie in homosexual venues in an attempt to pull in gay moviegoers–but without alienating the straight community that is expected to form the core audience of the film.

I can only view such efforts with contempt.

While the film itself is meant to be a thematic followup to the first two Superman movies, which were quite good, if Warner Brothers is specifically trying to get the gay community out to see this film in order to play off of a desire to subvert wholesome American images so that it can make more money then it is contributing to the subversion and homosexualization of American culture.

GET THE STORY.

The Physics Of Star Trek

I decided to take a little road trip over the Memorial Day weekend, so I loaded up the truck and I went over to Phoenix. While there I went square dancing with the Bucks & Bows club of Scottsdale, which was very enjoyable, and I also got in a good bit of listening to audio books while shooting through the desert.

One of the books I listened to was Lawrence M. Krauss’s The Physics of Star Trek. It was a nice read.

It came out a good while ago, so it didn’t go all the way up to the end of recent Star Trek history, but it was nice to hear a professional physicist’s take on the show.

It was clear that Krauss enjoys Star Trek and can appreciate episodes even when they contain physics mistakes. He also handled the subjects he considered in a quite balanced way, regularly avoiding the trap of saying "This could never happen" while making it clear that the current understanding of physics would make it very, very hard for it to happen.

One of the things that Krauss was most impressed with was how good the technobabble on the show can be. While a bunch of it is just junk (from a physics point of view as well as a dramatic point of view), there are a startling number of times where the writers of Star Trek seem to have picked terminology for things that eerily mirrors the actual terms scientists use, started using after the show, or might plausibly use in the future. (An easy example is a TOS episode in which the writers referred to something that sounds like a black hole–before the term "black hole" had been coined–as a "black star.")

After discussing warp drive and time travel and deflector shields and inertial dampers and the like, Krauss concludes the book with a couple of chapters dealing with particularly good and particularly bad physics moments on Star Trek.

I was kind of surprised that in the bad physics moments that he picked on a few things that dealt with minor matters of terminology that I wouldn’t have included in a top 10 mistakes chapter. I was also kind of surprised that he omitted some of my favorite science errors on Star Trek (like where the heck is Spock getting all of his body mass from as he’s rapidly re-growing to adulthood on the Genesis Planet in Star Trek III? I mean, he should be stuffing his face with food every second, if it were even possible for him to metabolize it into body mass that fast.)

But then that’s the fun of top 10 lists: Debating whether they actually are the top 10 or not.

Krauss also handles the subject of religion quite well. He’s respectful to religious sensibilities and interested in the theological questions that are raised by Star Trek technology, such as the implications for the transporter on the question of whether the soul exists.

In his discussion of this topic, though, I think he makes a mistake in reasoning, though it is a forgiveable one since it would require significant theological background to spot the problem and, after all, "He’s a physicist, not a theologian, dammit!" (Please excuse the bad word in deference to Dr. McCoy.)

Here’s the issue: If a transporter takes you apart molecule by molecule (or particle by particle), it would seem to kill you. If it then assembles an identical copy of your body (either out of the same atoms or new ones) and that new copy works properly then–one might suppose–it looks like we are nothing more than molecules in a particular, replicable pattern. In other words: There is no soul.

Krauss remains neutral in the book on whether souls exist, but I would take issue with whether the above line of reasoning works.

From a Catholic perspective, everything that is alive has a soul. Not everything has an immortal soul (only rational beings have those as far as we know), but life and the possession of a soul are concomittant.

So if a transporter makes an identical copy of your body and it’s alive then it has some kind of soul. If it’s clearly rational then it also clearly has a rational and thus an immortal soul. (But be careful here: The reverse is not necessarily true. If it isn’t clearly rational then that doesn’t mean it automatically lacks an immortal soul. Irrational people still have immortal souls by virtue of their membership in a rational species–mankind–even if their exercise of reason is impaired.)

If a transporter made a down-to-the-particle copy of you and it was not rational then I would say that this constitutes evidence that the soul does exist since clearly something other than a molecular copy of your body is needed for you to be rational.

But if it makes a copy and the copy is rational then I don’t think we have evidence one way or the other about the existence of the soul.

Why is that?

Because the evidence is consistent with either the hypothesis that we are nothing more than patterned molecules or the hypothesis that the copy has a new soul (yours presumably having departed when you were taken apart and killed).

To see the basis for the second hypothesis, let’s set aside the issue of killing: Suppose that the transporter doesn’t destroy your body. It just scans it and makes a copy of you, so now there are two of you. In this case, the transporter is functioning as a kind of high-tech cloning device, one capable of making an identical copy that doesn’t even have to grow up and acquire new memories. It’s a totally identical clone in the best tradition of bad sci-fi cloning stories.

But this would put the theological issue on the same footing as cloning, which theologians have already had the chance to chew over in real life.

As I’ve often pointed out before, if you were able to clone a person (either by fissioning an early embryo or by nuclear transfer) and you got a rational being as a result then it would be unambiguous that the clone has a rational soul.

Why is that?

Well, all you’ve done in this case is come up with a new human body by a morally illicit means. God means human bodies to come into existence as the result of sexual union between a husband and a wife, and at the moment the body comes into existence, he provides it with a soul. That’s how he set things up to work for our species, and that’s the only way that it is moral for us to bring new humans into the world.

But God has already shown himself willing to provide souls even when human bodies are not generated in a morally licit manner. Humans have had the ability to create new human bodies in immoral ways for a long time (e.g., by premarital sex, by adultery, by rape). Recently we’ve added some new techniques (e.g., in vitro fertilization). And we may soon add more (e.g., cloning). But it’s all the same thing: You’re just coming up with a new human body by immoral means.

God has been willing to endow people who were born in such ways with rational souls as is evidenced by the fact that they are both living and rational. Jesus even had some people like that in his family tree (think: the Tamar incident in Genesis 38).

So if–in addition to artificial twinning and nuclear transfer–you come up with a new cloning technology (transporter cloning) then you haven’t changed the playing field theologically. All you’re doing is coming up with a new human body (a rather mature one) by immoral means, but that won’t stop God from endowing it with a rational soul.

So it doesn’t seem to me that having a transporter produce rational copies of you would be evidence for the non-existence of the human soul.

It would be evidence for the existence of the soul if the transporter couldn’t produce rational copies that were known to be particle-for-particle identical to you. In that case we would have found an instance where God doesn’t provide a soul even though we’re providing a body. But the reverse isn’t the case.

I would thus say that the existence of the soul is to some extent verifiable but not falsifiable by transporter technology.

That doesn’t mean I’d be theologically comfortable with transporter technology. If it works as advertised then it’s basically a murder/cloning device.

Fortunately, in at least one episode, they indicate that you remain conscious through the transporter process, and if that’s the case then it doesn’t look like you’re being killed at all but simply adjusted in some way that allows you to pass through solid matter without actually being killed.

I’VE WRITTEN ABOUT THAT BEFORE.

So I differed with Krauss’s reasoning on this point, but it was still nice to listen to him tackle the obvious theological question that transporter technology would pose, and it was a pleasure to listen to his balanced and informed take on the physics of the show.

If you’d be interested in hearing an actual physicist offer a sympathetic but critical look at the subject then be sure to

GET THE BOOK.

A Most Ingenious Paradox

Down yonder, a reader writes:

I would like to see someone write a long article on the strange combination of traditional values like patriotism, family and a faith that plays right alongside praising infidelity, praising being drunk and Tim McGraw’s ambivalent song about abortion. There seems to be a strange disconnect among Country singers and their fans who can sing along with Restless Heart’s "Why does it have to be wrong or right?" one minute and then switch to "Believe" by Brooks and Dunn the next.

It’s like reading Cosmo and Inside the Vatican and not seeing any conflict.

Weird.

I think I can shed some light on the paradox. The reason for it is very simple: Country music is a form of folk music.

Folk music, by definition, reflects the interests of a particular people or "folk." Since there are saints and sinners in every group, folks music invariably includes songs that appeal to both. By its nature, folk music is broadly reflective of whatever the particular folk is interested in, which includes things like their religious lives, their families, their romances, their jobs, their frustrations, and their entertainments. The particular mix of these topics will vary from culture to culture and from time to time even within a particular musical tradition, but the same topics show up over and over again, just in different ratios.

Folk music can be distinguished from more selective musical traditions which are more polarized topically. Religious music–particularly those song that are sung in church–for example, is very, very narrow topically. Perhaps it’s the most narrow genre of music that shows up in each culture since it is devoted to the holy, which by definition is set apart from the ordinary.

Children’s music is also quite narrow in topics because its target audience is only just learning about life and the music created for children is focused on what children are interested in (e.g., animals, the jobs of the adults they see around them) and what is considered appropriate for them at their age.

Classic rock and roll, which received its foundational imprint as music for mid 20th century adolescents and young adults, is also narrower in topic than country music since its target audience hasn’t really come to terms with life as adults. It’s also marked by the obsessive interest of young males with a few particular topics (e.g.,  dating, sex, cars, rebellion against authority). It also shows notable traces of the particular era in which it was formed (e.g., songs about drug abuse rather than alcohol abuse).

Country music received its foundational imprint as music for traditional American adult society, which has historically been rural and religious. This means that you get some songs that are heavily religiously themed but also songs about sin. Since people struggle with their sins, you get some songs that reflect the struggle ("Why Does It Have To Be Right Or Wrong?"). Since people also give themselves over to their sins, you also have songs that glorify sinning ("Get Drunk And Be Somebody"). Since people get hurt by others’ sins, there are songs about that, too ("Your Cheatin’ Heart"). And there are songs that morally censure sinning ("Wreck on the Highway"). And songs from the perspective of those hurting under their own sins ("Honky Tonk Blues"). And songs that worry about whether people will escape from their sins ("Will The Circle Be Unbroken?").

You even get some songs that are like something from a Flannery O’Connor story (e.g., the Dixie Chicks’ "Goodbye, Earl" or Rock County’s "Turn It On! Turn It On! Turn It On!").

It’s a big, complex mix because folk music reflects the lives and struggles of the folk it represents. It includes both the good and the bad, leading to the paradox of amazingly powerful spiritual songs right next to ones glorifying sin.

That’s not to say that people to whom the folk music is addressed like all of the songs in the tradition. Religious country music fans frown on the glorify sin songs. Irreligious country music fans may roll their eyes at the  religious songs. But the mix is there because the music represents a folk and the folk itself is mixed. Some fans appreciate both kinds of songs because both reflect their lives and aspirations.

The paradox seems particularly striking if one is used to music that is topically more narrow (e.g., used to only religious music–which has the holy stuff but leaves out the sin-oriented songs–or used to rock and roll–which is more oriented toward the sinful stuff and tends to leave out the holy most of the time).

But the paradox of modern country music is normal in folk music. If you go back and listen to 19th century American folk music, the exact same themes are there: You’ve got explicitly religious songs and ones that hit the standard life and sin themes. "Ol’ Rosin the Beau" glorifies a reprobate who dies and goes to hell and drinks whiskey with the devil. "Soldier’s Joy" has alcohol/drug abuse in it ("It’s 25 cents for the morphine/It’s 15 cents for the beer/It’s 25 cents for the morphine/Gonna drink me away from here"). The original, pre-War version of "Dixie" has adultery in it ("Old Missus married Will the weaver/William was a gay deceiver . . . Old Missus played the foolish part/She died for a man who broke her heart"). "Sweet Betsy From Pike" has implied extramarital sex and possible illegitimate preganancy in it. "Buffalo Gals" and "The Yellow Rose Of Texas" are about being attracted to the opposite sex. "Cindy" is about the opposite sex being attracted to you. "Lorena" is about lost love and missed opportunities. The "Boatman’s Dance" is about glorifying a particular job/lifestyle.

And the same is true of folk music in other times and cultures. Back in the Middle Ages they had all kinds of religiously themed songs, but they also had drinking songs they’d sing in the taverns. And songs about romance and sex and loneliness and hardship and everything else that is part of the human condition.

Because that’s the paradox of true folk music: It reflects the paradox of the fallen human condition.

As to the paradox of why particular singers will sing both religious songs and those that glorify sin, the answer to that is simple also: They’re doing what singers have always done . . . trying to make money.

Incidentally,

MUSINGS FROM A CATHOLIC BOOKSTORE ALSO HAS A DISCUSSION OF THIS GOING.

The 4400

4400

I basically don’t watch TV any more. Most TV shows–even ones that I like and intend to watch–don’t motivate me to tune in each week. So what I’ve done with such shows is to just watch them on DVD when they come out.

That way I don’t have the hassles of commercials or having to tune in each week or being frustrated by cliffhangers (except for the season finale).

That’s the up side. The down side is that I also have to wait a really long time between getting to see seasons of the show, but it works for me.

I’ve just started watching the second season of The 4400, which just arrived in the mail, and so far I’m pleased. The opening episode is two hours (well, 90 minutes) long, and it serves as an effective reintroduction to the premise and cast of the show–though  the first few minutes of it were a little rough given how long it’d been since I saw season one.

You may not have heard of The 4400 since it’s not getting that much publicity, but here are the basics: It’s a show that airs on the USA Network and–like other USA Network shows (such as Monk)–it has really short seasons (12 episodes in the second, and even less in the first). But they’re trying to do quality rather than quantity, which is what is important to me.

The show was co-created by Rene Echevarria, who was one of the best writers on Next Gen and DS9. It also has Ira Stephen Behr as a regular writer. He also was one of the best Next Gen/DS9 writers. It was their names which got me to watch the first season, and I wasn’t disappointed.

The premise is that, beginning in 1941, a bunch of people–4400 of them (big surprise)–were abducted, apparently by aliens (though we’re later told that isn’t the case) and then returned–all at the same moment–in the present day.

When they were returned, the government did the only sensible thing: It locked them up.

But eventually it was determined that they didn’t seem to be a threat to themselves or others, and so they were released. The government’s still watching them, still trying to figure out what’s up with the whole getting abducted and then being returned all at once thing. It’s a good thing that the government’s watching, because a few of the 4400 start manifesting unusual abilities that even they don’t understand or know why they have.

The writing on the show is quite good, and Echevarria and his team have avoided some of the obvious traps that a series like this could fall into. The government is not persecuting the 4400. It’s acting reasonably. We don’t have an evil government versus righteous 4400 plot. This isn’t a standard good versus evil show. Both members of the 4400 and the normal population are shown being good and bad, helpful and creepy.

That ambiguity is the stuff that human drama is made of.

Let me give you an example of a really nice bit of writing from the series pilot episode, which shows insight into the human condition:

One of the guys we see get abducted is an American serviceman in the Korean War. When we meet him, he’s not aware that he’s about to be abducted, and with an especially good reason since he has other things to worry about at the moment: He’s getting the snot beat out of him by fellow American servicemen.

Why are they doing that?

A clue is found in the fact that he’s black and they’re white and it’s 1951, just after the integration of the armed forces.

Now the standard, easy thing to do in the writing here would be to chalk the snot kicking incident up to simple, straightforward racism: They’re bigots who view him as sub-human. But that’s not what happens.

Instead, as his fellow servicemen are leaving, one of them turns to the gentleman and says: "We treated you like an equal. . . . But that wasn’t good enough for you."

All of a sudden we’re not in familiar territory anymore. They’re not the kind of simple, unadulterated bigots we were expecting. They were willing to treat him like an equal–or at least they thought they did so.

So what was it that sparked the incident?

We find out when they leave and the serviceman looks at a photograph of himself and his white girlfriend.

Now it all makes sense!

His fellow servicemen are bigots! But they’re not the simple, stereotypical bigots we were expecting. They’re a bunch of "separate but equal" bigots. Their racism isn’t simple, unalloyed hostility towards black people. It’s tempered in a way that makes them and their motives–and the writing of the show–more complex.

And it’s a fully believable moment that shows insight into the human condition: This kind of thing could and did happen in 1951. We have an example of racist evil in this scene, but it shows more subtlety and thus deeper insight into human psychology than the simple, comic book racism we’re used to seeing on screen.

There’s also a nice bit when the serviceman is returned–along with the other 4400–in the present day: As he’s sitting in the detention center with the other returnees, he’s reading a magazine and he exclaims: "What? The Secretary of State is colored!"–at which point another character, abducted years later, walks by and corrects him and says, "Black."

(What would have been even better here is if another abductee then walked by and said, "Afro-American" and then a third walked by and said "African American." That also would have showed the evolving racial situation, but the writers didn’t go in that direction.)

Once he is released from the detention center, the serviceman has culture shock at seeing a genuinely integrated society and as being treated–for real this time–as an equal and one who can cross racial boundaries and isn’t expected to remain separate. But he gets over his culture shock and is able to fit in to 21st century society . . . at least as well as a member of the 4400 can.

That shows you the kind of writing you can expect in the series. It’s more complex than the run-of-the-mill, hackneyed stuff you’d get on most shows of the type, just as Echevarria’s and Behr’s scripts were better and more complex than typical Star Trek stuff. Now that they’re freed from the (amazingly tight) shackles that Star Trek writers were under, they have a chance to spread their wings, and I’m enjoying watching the results.

It’s the same kind of situation as with Battlestar Galactica–where DS9 veteran Ron Moore got the chance to spread his wings.

The second season opener–the only ep I’ve watched so far–has some nice touches as well.

There is, unfortunately, a violent, Fundamentalist zealot in it, but I can accept that since some Fundamentalists would react negatively to the 4400 in real life (and the one in the show is able to cite a verse from Revelation that does sound like the events of the series).

(Also like Battlestar Galactica, there are interesting religious themes in the series, that I’m curious to see how and if the writers will pay off.)

Summer Glau (River from Firefly/Serenity) makes an appearance as a mental patient and does her usual excellent job playing a mentally disturbed young woman.

Jeffrey Coombs (Weyoun from DS9) also has a cameo, which may turn into a regular part. It’s nice to see him without prosthetic makeup.

And an H. P. Lovecraft book plays a significant role at a crucial moment in the plot.

CHECK OUT THE FIRST SEASON.

OR THE SECOND.

STICKS HICKS NIX DIX CHIX

Dixie_chicksSince I was talking about music earlier today, I may as well touch on this story as well.

To the left is the cover of the Dixie Chicks’ new album, Taking the Long Way, which is their first new album since they shot off their mouths in a spectacularly rude way at a specutacularly bad time that was sure to alienate their country music audience.

GET THAT STORY IF YOU DON’T KNOW IT.

They could have recovered from that, but instead they issued a string of smouldering non-apologies and eventually appeared–bizarrely!–on the cover of Entertainment Weekly stark nekkid with inflammatory words and phrases painted on their bodies.

That ain’t really the country thing to do, and their fans turned their backs on them.

Now, personally, I don’t care if they hold the opinions of President Bush that they expressed in England. I’m not happy with President Bush, myself. But to say what they did (that they’re ashamed that the president is from Texas) when they did (in wartime) where they did (on foreign soil) to whom they did (Euro liberals) was sure to hack off the people who bought their records, and following it up with a bunch of non-apologies and bizarro stunts LIKE THIS (skin warning!) was utterly contemptuous of their core audience.

In other words, they were alienating their base.

So, three years later out comes their first new album and their label starts pitching it to country music stations and with news stories being written with headlines like "Dixie Chicks Return To Country Radio."

So have three years changed things? Is all forgiven? Will their country fans start listening to them again?

A precondition for forgiveness is repentance, and with defiant, in-your-face songs on the album like "Not Ready To Make Nice"–a contemptuous stab at those who were offended by their actions three years ago–it’s clear that the Chicks have some repenting to do if they want to be forgiven by their country fans.

AND SO THE ALBUM IS GOING NOWHERE, MANY STATIONS AREN’T PLAYING ITS SONGS, AND THOSE THAT ARE ARE GETTING COMPLAINTS.

Good.

I used to listen to their songs–I particularly liked "Goodbye Earl"–but the Chicks showed themselves to be a bunch of spoiled girls who have never grown up. I have no interest in listening to their songs because I will have no ability to enjoy them until they can adopt an attitude other than contempt for those who gave them their success by buying their albums and supporting them and their careers.

A basic rule of getting along in life for public figures is "Don’t show contempt for your base."

That’s a principle Mr. Bush ought to learn if he’d like his reputation to fare well in the long term, too.

The Many Faces Of James Darren

MoondoggieSee the guy in this picture?

That’s Moondoggie from the Gidget movies, and it’s Gidget he’s standing next to.

Moondoggie was played by a teen idol of the day known as Jimmy Darren (who was popular enough that he later appeared in animated form on The Flintsones as Jimmy Darrenrock.)

As part of his teen heartthrob career, Jimmy recorded a number of albums.

But he moved out of this phase of his career (as teen idols tend to do). He tried to move on to more "serious" roles, like this one . . .
Tony
Here he is as Dr. Tony Newman, one of two time-travelling scientists on the Irwin Allen thriller TV show, The Time Tunnel.

I recently blogged about the release of the DVDs of that series, which I was a fan of as a boy.

This was the role in which I first became aware of Jimmy Darren, though I had no clue who he was in real life any more than I did any actors I saw on TV at the time.

During this period of is career he also went for "serious-er" roles than that of a time-travelling scientist, such as Pvt. Spyros Pappadimos in The Guns of Navarrone.

I like The Guns of Navarrone, but I was oblivious to Darren’s role in it, too. It wouldn’t be until he started performing another role that I really became aware of who he was.

That role–which is the one for which I’ll always best remember him–is this one:
Vic
Here he’s appearing as the holographic 1962 lounge singer Vic Fontaine on Star Trek: Deep Space 9.

This was a great role for him! It drew on his musical and sci-fi background and he did an absolutely outstanding job as a suave, wise, strong, and (once in a while) vulnerable lounge singer who could really sing.

There was also some irony to the role since in the imaginary 1962 world that Vic inhabited, he sang at a Vegas nightclub and hung with members of the Rat Pack like Frank and Dino and Sammy–and in real life the actor Jimmy Darren was a close friend of Frank Sinatra.

The Vic Fontaine role came along at an important point for Darren and allowed him to re-enter the kind of musical world that he had worked in at the beginning of career. His role on DS9 proved so popular that not only did he become a virtual regular on the show (in more than one sense of the term), it also re-launched his career as a singer.

After the show he started recording albums again, and a number of his older ones have been re-released.

In fact, there’s ten of ’em on iTunes for download right now (search on the term "James Darren").

From_the_heartI haven’t heard all ten, but if you enjoyed his singing on DS9–or if you just like really well-sung American standards in the Frank Sinatra/Mel Torme tradition–then I’d like to recommend one album in particular: This One’s From The Heart.

This is the first album he did after DS9, and as a thank you to the fans of the show who would form a key part of its purchasers, it includes virtually all the songs he sang as Vic Fontaine–only this time without them being interrupted for story or covered over by dialogue or cut short for time.

Here’s the playlist of standards it includes:

"The Best Is Yet To Come," "Come Fly With Me," "That Old Black Magic," "All the Way," "It’s Only A Paper Moon," "I’ve Got the World on a String," "You’d Better Love Me," "Sophisticated Lady," "Just In Time," "I’ve Got You Under My Skin," "The Way You Look Tonight," "Here’s to the Losers," "You’re Nobody Till Somebody Loves You," "Dancing in the Dark," "Night and Day," "I’ll Be Seeing You," and "Satin Doll."

That’s quite a lineup! And Darren’s rendition of these songs is excellent.

I have a bunch of the same songs done by Frank Sinatra, but despite Sinatra’s undeniable mastery of this form of singing, I find that I enjoy Darren’s versions better. Darren’s voice has a more velvety quality, like Mel Torme’s, compared to Sinatra, and this makes it warmer. This kind of Rat Pack singing requires the singer to project a kind of strengh through his voice, but there are different kinds of strengths, and if you listen to Sinatra’s voice he at times projects a cruel streak.

Darren, by contrast, projects a friendliness and warmth, even when the song would lend itself to a cruel treatment. For example, a personal favorite are the songs "You’d Better Love Me" and "Here’s to the Losers," both of which have to be handled just right or the singer comes off sounding aloof and arrogant. That’s how Sinatra might do them. But in Darren’s hands, "You’d Better Love Me" sounds friendly and playful and "Here’s to the Losers" sounds compassionate and optimistic.

Not every song on the album is a winner to my mind. I don’t really like "Sophisticated Lady," for example. (It’s a slow song, and I have a constitutional aversion to slow songs.)

Growing up when I did, I didn’t discover this type of music until I was an adult. Back in high school, singers like Frank Sinatra were considered square, but when I grew up enough to appreciate types of music that weren’t popular with my high school buddies, I came to appreciate this genre.

Unfortunately, it’s a little hard to refer to because there isn’t a standard name for it. Some are calling it "classic pop" (i.e., the type of music that was popular before rock & roll). Others are calling it "pop standards." Or "lounge music." Whatever you want to call it, there’s just something comforting and classy about this type of music.

Overall, Darren’s This One’s From The Heart is an outstanding introduction to and example of the genre, and I’d heartily recommend it if you were a DS9 fan, if you’re a lover of this style of music, or even if you’ve never really gotten into this style of singing and would like to see what the fuss was about.

Enjoy!

Bad News, Everybody!

SONY hasn’t learned its lesson and has optioned two more of Dan Brown’s Robert Langdon books for sequels to The Da Vinci Code.

The first sequel is the book Angels & Demons (which was actually published to no special fanfare years before The Da Vinci Code), which deals with the Illuminati and their plot against the Catholic Church and . . . are you ready? . . . killing people at the Vatican with antimatter!

Also, the pope has fathered a child out of wedlock with a nun, but to avoid breaking a vow he didn’t have sex with her instead used artificial insemination.

Obviously this pope had a degree in moral theology before becoming pope.

And a degree in canon law. (The vow is to not get married, not to not have sex; the latter is an entailment of not getting married. And it isn’t even a vow in unless he’s a religious; it’s a promise.)

And a real sense of fun. (I mean, he committed a mortal sin to have a child, and he didn’t even commit the enjoyable one.)

MORE INFO HERE.

The next sequel–based on the book Brown is currently writing–is set in America and deals with Freemasons.

MORE ON THE SEQUELS FROM A HOLLYWOOD PERSPECTIVE.