Primrose Everdeen (Willow Shields) has nothing to worry about. At least, that's what her older sister Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) says. Primrose's name is only in the Reaping once - which means she has a very, very small chance of being selected to participate in the Hunger Games. But when the fateful day comes, Primrose's name is the one pulled out of the glass bowl. Katniss immediately volunteers to take her little sister's place. And, just like that, she and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) are whisked away from dirt-poor District 12 to the sparkling Capitol. In a few short days, they find themselves inside an arena with twenty-two other young men and women in a fight to the death - the Hunger Games. But Katniss is determined to come through alive. After all, she promised her sister that she would do everything she could to win.
A good movie adaptation should always try to stay close to its source material. Unfortunately, the definition of "close" can be disputed when the two media are as different as books and movies. But no matter what definition one uses, The Hunger Games movie is very close to the book.
After the text in the beginning of the movie explains the concept behind the Games, the intensity jumps in and completely takes over. Right from the outset, terror reigns supreme. Primrose is terrified of being chosen, and though Katniss gently comforts her, the overall impression of the scene is one of entrapment in a cruel, unfair situation with an undertone of fear. This continues throughout the movie, getting successively amped up as the story develops. Considering that the book has a similar level of intensity (though not as immediate), this was quite an achievement for the filmmakers.
The level of intensity is not the only similarity between the movie and the book. The story is virtually identical, which is to be expected when one considers that Suzanne Collins, the author, helped write the screenplay. However, the most startingly accurate part is the characters. The casting job was about as perfect as it could be. Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) is maybe a little better looking than I would have made him, but everybody else is pretty much spot-on. Jennifer Lawrence, one of the best actresses I have ever seen, is Katniss to a T. Josh Hutcherson is gentle Peeta - but with a masculine side that could easily have been left out. Liam Hemsworth plays a strong, rebellious Gale. Even Donald Sutherland is good in his part. (Of course, bad actors are particularly good at exuding insincerity, so don't go thinking that this is an Academy-Award-worthy performance.)
However, while the story and characters don't deviate one iota from the book, there are a few themes left by the wayside. For example, the Capitol still exerts complete (or nearly complete) control over its citizens. But the Capitol as a mysterious, almost omnipotent - and almost faceless - power just doesn't exist in the movie. Whereas in the book the leaders are seen by Katniss from afar and only occasionally, these same leaders have their own scenes in the movie. This lowers the creepy sense of "The Capitol" that makes it akin to "Them" or "The Others." In other words, the sense of a looming, unseen (and, therefore, unassessed) power is largely gone.
Generally, I like to watch movies before I read the books on which they're based. Because books are nearly always much better than their movies, I get to enjoy the same story twice without being disappointed by the second version. But this movie is very, very close to the book - and is therefore not a disappointment. Because of this, Suzanne Collins's The Hunger Games should be read before watching this movie. The book has much more depth - and explains things barely touched upon by the movie. On the other hand, while the movie doesn't quite live up to the book, it's still an enjoyable experience. That is, if your hands don't lock up after gripping the arms of your seat for two hours and twenty minutes.
Note: Since such a big deal has been made of it, I think I should address the issue of the violence. Is it too violent for a tweenager? Definitely. But I wouldn't go so far as to slap an "R" rating on it. There's a little blood, spears, necks broken by hands, and other kinds of violence. Much of it is hand-to-hand. But most of it is also filmed with a jerky camera or not quite seen. Because it doesn't have the same psychological terror associated with it, I would say that this movie is not as violent as The Dark Knight. But then, that's not saying a whole lot.
My Rating: T/MT (violence, intensity)
Showing posts with label science fiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science fiction. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
A Wrinkle In Time (1962)
(Written by Madeleine L'Engle. First book in the Time Quintet.) Meg Murry is not like other girls. In fact, she's not like other people, period. In the first place, her scientist father disappeared several years ago while working for the government. Second, her teachers - and the whole village - think she's an idiot. Well, moron, actually. Her little brother Charles Wallace is supposed to be the idiot. Meg is really a very intelligent girl, but she's a bit of a late bloomer. Charles Wallace is almost unbelievably intelligent, but he developed the reputation of an idiot as a baby, and reputations are hard to shake. Into this little nest of idiots and morons comes three strange old ladies. Their names are Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who, and Mrs. Which, and they are not exactly human. Also, they have the ability to use the fifth dimension to travel around the universe fighting evil. And they know where Meg and Charles Wallace's father is.
One of my pet peeves is that there are too few really acceptable children's books written nowadays. Kids graduate to teen books long before they are really ready. But that just means that they graduate from innuendo to more explicit sexual content. Looking back on some books I read when I was about eleven, I'm very glad that I was... shall I say not exactly up to speed on innuendo and other semi-sexual content? At the time, I knew somehow that there was something wrong, but I couldn't put my finger on what. About the only safe harbors were Nancy Drew, The Hardy Boys, and Redwall.
A Wrinkle in Time, however, is completely appropriate for children - and challenging as well. Its story is easy enough to follow, but there are parts where kids need to stretch their imaginations. The universe can be stretched in and out of shape by anyone, given the proper training and experience, and there are fanstastic things like centaurs - with wings! - and brains separated from bodies. Mind control makes an appearance as well. But this sort of imaginational stretch should be pretty easy for anyone weaned on Disney movies or the Narnia books.
Finally, L'Engle makes it a point that kids don't all grow up and/or learn at the same rates. Everyone has their own schedule, she seems to say. Just because some kid is "behind," don't assume that kid is a moron. Even those who might very well have some sort of learning disability also have a special talent. This is a great message that kids need to hear: God has a plan in mind for you, and you're not going to be left behind.
My Rating: Borderline AGC/OK (frightening ideas (e.g. the brain), slight parent/child conflict)
One of my pet peeves is that there are too few really acceptable children's books written nowadays. Kids graduate to teen books long before they are really ready. But that just means that they graduate from innuendo to more explicit sexual content. Looking back on some books I read when I was about eleven, I'm very glad that I was... shall I say not exactly up to speed on innuendo and other semi-sexual content? At the time, I knew somehow that there was something wrong, but I couldn't put my finger on what. About the only safe harbors were Nancy Drew, The Hardy Boys, and Redwall.
A Wrinkle in Time, however, is completely appropriate for children - and challenging as well. Its story is easy enough to follow, but there are parts where kids need to stretch their imaginations. The universe can be stretched in and out of shape by anyone, given the proper training and experience, and there are fanstastic things like centaurs - with wings! - and brains separated from bodies. Mind control makes an appearance as well. But this sort of imaginational stretch should be pretty easy for anyone weaned on Disney movies or the Narnia books.
Finally, L'Engle makes it a point that kids don't all grow up and/or learn at the same rates. Everyone has their own schedule, she seems to say. Just because some kid is "behind," don't assume that kid is a moron. Even those who might very well have some sort of learning disability also have a special talent. This is a great message that kids need to hear: God has a plan in mind for you, and you're not going to be left behind.
My Rating: Borderline AGC/OK (frightening ideas (e.g. the brain), slight parent/child conflict)
Friday, January 27, 2012
Everything's Just Ducky
Science fiction. If this doesn't bring to mind Star Trek, then your planet evidently has not been visited by the U.S.S. Enterprise. But, seriously, what does "science fiction" say to you? Aliens? Space ships? Super-cool gizmos? My answer is "all of the above." But apparently I'm an ignoramus.
I'm not una grande aficionada of sf, but I've read a few books now. Here's a rough list: Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton, A Wrinkle in Time by Madeline L'Engle, The Tripods Attack! by John McNichol (though it's more steampunk than sf), The Hunger Games series by Suzanne Collins, One Door Away from Heaven by Dean Koontz, Death Panels by Michelle Buckman, and Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. Most of these books have something in common: technology that didn't exist at the time of its publication, but possibly could exist one day down the road. That is, scientific advances that are mere speculation. All the books on my list fit that description pretty well - except the last one.
Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman is about a group of American men who find their way into an all-female country hidden in South America. The only special thing they use to enter said country is an airplane. Granted, the book was published in 1915, so airplanes hadn't been around all that long. But they still existed. The Herlanders have no special gadgets to help them along. In fact, they seem to be almost devoid of what we typically classify as machinery. They have a few cars, but that seems to be the extent of their technology. Cars already existed in 1915, as well.
So here's my question: Where's the science? Answer: It's a sociological science fiction book. I kid you not. Sociology, which some people have graced with the title "science," is considered scientific enough to put a book like Herland into the sf genre. The idiocy of this label is so ridiculous that it is a little difficult to fully describe. Science is based on observable knowledge. When you pour one chemical into another and you observe that the mixture blows up in your face, you can assume that the combination of those two chemicals makes an explosive. But before you can state it as a fact, you must make sure that it was really those two chemicals alone that caused the explosion. For example, you must isolate them from possible contributing factors like air. Once you're sure that it really was the chemicals, you can announce your discovery to the world.
Sociology, on the other hand, cannot hope to reach this level of certainty in its conclusions. Human behavior cannot be isolated or pigeon-holed. You cannot say for certain that there are no other contributing factors in your equation that could have affected the outcome. So to say sociology is a "science" is to be intellectually inconsistent.
However, having non-scientific subjects like sociology labeled as a "science" only makes sense in the modern world. "Science" is looked up to and worshiped like a god - science knows all! (Who cares whether everything we know will be looked upon by future generations as we now look on the idea that blood-letting will cure all illnesses? But I digress.) This is not only ridiculous, it has ruined science. Any time one facet of life is crowned king over the rest, that facet is dragged down into the dirt. Science used to be the lofty pursuit of understanding the natural world through experimentation and observation. It now lives in the slums of making more or less educated guesses about life based on "data" that represents things far more complex than any computer.
Now, I'm not saying that science ought to be completely severed from the rest of life. I'm not even saying the typically formulaic idea of sf is not in need of improving. What I'm saying is that it's idiotic to call a kangaroo a duck. Not only idiotic, but it robs the kangaroo of its identity. The taint of such a stupid idea even leaks into literature, and as a result we have "science" fiction books like Herland.
I'm not una grande aficionada of sf, but I've read a few books now. Here's a rough list: Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton, A Wrinkle in Time by Madeline L'Engle, The Tripods Attack! by John McNichol (though it's more steampunk than sf), The Hunger Games series by Suzanne Collins, One Door Away from Heaven by Dean Koontz, Death Panels by Michelle Buckman, and Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. Most of these books have something in common: technology that didn't exist at the time of its publication, but possibly could exist one day down the road. That is, scientific advances that are mere speculation. All the books on my list fit that description pretty well - except the last one.
Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman is about a group of American men who find their way into an all-female country hidden in South America. The only special thing they use to enter said country is an airplane. Granted, the book was published in 1915, so airplanes hadn't been around all that long. But they still existed. The Herlanders have no special gadgets to help them along. In fact, they seem to be almost devoid of what we typically classify as machinery. They have a few cars, but that seems to be the extent of their technology. Cars already existed in 1915, as well.
So here's my question: Where's the science? Answer: It's a sociological science fiction book. I kid you not. Sociology, which some people have graced with the title "science," is considered scientific enough to put a book like Herland into the sf genre. The idiocy of this label is so ridiculous that it is a little difficult to fully describe. Science is based on observable knowledge. When you pour one chemical into another and you observe that the mixture blows up in your face, you can assume that the combination of those two chemicals makes an explosive. But before you can state it as a fact, you must make sure that it was really those two chemicals alone that caused the explosion. For example, you must isolate them from possible contributing factors like air. Once you're sure that it really was the chemicals, you can announce your discovery to the world.
Sociology, on the other hand, cannot hope to reach this level of certainty in its conclusions. Human behavior cannot be isolated or pigeon-holed. You cannot say for certain that there are no other contributing factors in your equation that could have affected the outcome. So to say sociology is a "science" is to be intellectually inconsistent.
However, having non-scientific subjects like sociology labeled as a "science" only makes sense in the modern world. "Science" is looked up to and worshiped like a god - science knows all! (Who cares whether everything we know will be looked upon by future generations as we now look on the idea that blood-letting will cure all illnesses? But I digress.) This is not only ridiculous, it has ruined science. Any time one facet of life is crowned king over the rest, that facet is dragged down into the dirt. Science used to be the lofty pursuit of understanding the natural world through experimentation and observation. It now lives in the slums of making more or less educated guesses about life based on "data" that represents things far more complex than any computer.
Now, I'm not saying that science ought to be completely severed from the rest of life. I'm not even saying the typically formulaic idea of sf is not in need of improving. What I'm saying is that it's idiotic to call a kangaroo a duck. Not only idiotic, but it robs the kangaroo of its identity. The taint of such a stupid idea even leaks into literature, and as a result we have "science" fiction books like Herland.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Pertaining To X-Men: First Class
Erik Lensherr (Michael Fassbender) was treated brutally as a child in a concentration camp, where he first learned that he can control metal objects with his mind. Now it's 1962, and he's determined to track down Klaus Schmidt, the German doctor/scientist who murdered his mother and subjected him to hideous experiments. Enter a telepathic mutant named Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and his adopted sister and fellow mutant Raven (Jennifer Lawrence). Charles teams up with the CIA to track down another mutant named Sebastion Shaw (Kevin Bacon) - formerly known as Klaus Schmidt. Shaw has his own team of mutants, and he has partnered with the Russians in an apparent plan to attack the United States. Charles and Erik inevitably cross paths and decide work together.
(Disclaimer: I have never read an X-Men comic book, so none of this review will come from a comic fan's standpoint.)
This is one of the most enjoyable movies I have ever seen. Funny, tragic, cool, exciting, and a little scary at intervals, First Class rises above its minor flaws to the status of a great movie. But the real meat of the movie isn't in the cool superhero (and heroine) powers, or in the story, or in the dialogue. It's in the marvelous acting jobs.
James McAvoy is a pretty good actor. He was great as Mr. Tumnus, and so-so in a badly written part in The Conspirator. But he really shines as Charles/Professor X in First Class. Funny, always optimistic, ever looking out for his friends, and a born leader, McAvoy's Charles is a great character. Every single line and facial expression in the movie is perfect.
Next is Michael Fassbender. I have seen him in three parts now (only two that I remember), and he's simply a fantastic actor. Erik/Magneto is a very complicated character. He's brutal and angry, but can be gentle or even, in one scene, happy. Essentially, he's a conflicted man whose overbearing drive for revenge dominates his entire life, but not so much that his revenge is all there is. As Charles tells him in one scene, there's good inside him - he just doesn't know it. Fassbender pulls this contradiction off beautifully.
The last acting job I want to mention (though everyone in the movie is great) is Jennifer Lawrence's performance as Raven/Mystique. She's not a particularly complex character. She has blue skin, red hair, and yellow eyes that she hides by using her power - the ability to change her appearance completely. She is hurt and angry that society won't accept her. Even her adopted brother seems a little put off by her natural appearance. All in all, not a very difficult part to play. But where Lawrence really shines is in the scenes where Raven is just an ordinary young woman. A warm, fun-loving young woman who's a bit of a spitfire at times must be a difficult part to play, because most actresses I've seen can't do it. Lawrence is perfect.
Unfortunately, First Class isn't my favorite movie for three little reasons. 1) There's too much sexual content for my comfort. None of it is what I would call terrible, but it's constant enough to make it annoying. 2) There's a half-hearted attempt to tie the Civil Rights movement in with the gay "marriage" movement of today.* The attempted tie-in in First Class takes the form of a few scattered jokes, but it's still there. 3) *Spoiler Warning* The part where the U.S. fires on the mutants - good and bad - on the beach is more than a little unrealistic. Unfortunately, there had to be a reason for the X-Men to go into hiding from the government, but the filmmakers could have come up with something better than that. *End of Spoiler*
Despite its flaws, First Class is a job well done. After the total failure of X-Men 3: X-Men United (I haven't yet seen X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but I've heard it's not very good either), the X-Men franchise needed a good reboot. They certainly pulled it off in First Class, despite the movie's flaws.
My Rating: MT (sexual references and content, brutal violence, disturbing images, language)
* For those who don't know, the X-Men stories are reflections of the Civil Rights movement. Professor X is the peace-loving Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., and Magneto is the more violent separatist Malcom X. So any tie-in of the mutants with gays is, by extension, a tie-in of the Civil Rights movement with gays.
Reviews of similar movies:
(Disclaimer: I have never read an X-Men comic book, so none of this review will come from a comic fan's standpoint.)
This is one of the most enjoyable movies I have ever seen. Funny, tragic, cool, exciting, and a little scary at intervals, First Class rises above its minor flaws to the status of a great movie. But the real meat of the movie isn't in the cool superhero (and heroine) powers, or in the story, or in the dialogue. It's in the marvelous acting jobs.
James McAvoy is a pretty good actor. He was great as Mr. Tumnus, and so-so in a badly written part in The Conspirator. But he really shines as Charles/Professor X in First Class. Funny, always optimistic, ever looking out for his friends, and a born leader, McAvoy's Charles is a great character. Every single line and facial expression in the movie is perfect.
Next is Michael Fassbender. I have seen him in three parts now (only two that I remember), and he's simply a fantastic actor. Erik/Magneto is a very complicated character. He's brutal and angry, but can be gentle or even, in one scene, happy. Essentially, he's a conflicted man whose overbearing drive for revenge dominates his entire life, but not so much that his revenge is all there is. As Charles tells him in one scene, there's good inside him - he just doesn't know it. Fassbender pulls this contradiction off beautifully.
The last acting job I want to mention (though everyone in the movie is great) is Jennifer Lawrence's performance as Raven/Mystique. She's not a particularly complex character. She has blue skin, red hair, and yellow eyes that she hides by using her power - the ability to change her appearance completely. She is hurt and angry that society won't accept her. Even her adopted brother seems a little put off by her natural appearance. All in all, not a very difficult part to play. But where Lawrence really shines is in the scenes where Raven is just an ordinary young woman. A warm, fun-loving young woman who's a bit of a spitfire at times must be a difficult part to play, because most actresses I've seen can't do it. Lawrence is perfect.
Unfortunately, First Class isn't my favorite movie for three little reasons. 1) There's too much sexual content for my comfort. None of it is what I would call terrible, but it's constant enough to make it annoying. 2) There's a half-hearted attempt to tie the Civil Rights movement in with the gay "marriage" movement of today.* The attempted tie-in in First Class takes the form of a few scattered jokes, but it's still there. 3) *Spoiler Warning* The part where the U.S. fires on the mutants - good and bad - on the beach is more than a little unrealistic. Unfortunately, there had to be a reason for the X-Men to go into hiding from the government, but the filmmakers could have come up with something better than that. *End of Spoiler*
Despite its flaws, First Class is a job well done. After the total failure of X-Men 3: X-Men United (I haven't yet seen X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but I've heard it's not very good either), the X-Men franchise needed a good reboot. They certainly pulled it off in First Class, despite the movie's flaws.
My Rating: MT (sexual references and content, brutal violence, disturbing images, language)
* For those who don't know, the X-Men stories are reflections of the Civil Rights movement. Professor X is the peace-loving Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., and Magneto is the more violent separatist Malcom X. So any tie-in of the mutants with gays is, by extension, a tie-in of the Civil Rights movement with gays.
Reviews of similar movies:
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Concerning Sapphique
(Written by Catherine Fisher. Sequel to Incarceron.) Finn is Outside, just like he wanted. But, unsurprisingly, he’s having second thoughts about his decision. He finds the world and its silly Protocol to be stifling. Perhaps it isn’t as physically constrictive as Incarceron, the prison where he was entrapped before, but it’s a prison nonetheless. Besides, his oathbrother Keiro is still stuck in the prison – and the Warden of Incarceron absconded with the only way out of Incarceron and sabotaged the only way into the prison at the same time. Finn’s hopes of rescuing Keiro and the former dog-slave Attia are pretty slim. Or is there more to the prison than meets the eye?
Like I said in my review of the first book, this is a really cool idea. There were more cool things in this book, including a crystal-like tower and an airship. And the original idea of Sapphique’s way Out was taken in a new, fairly clever direction. Unfortunately, that’s about all the good I can say about this book. Much to my chagrin, Ms. Fisher took the story from the first book and led it exactly where I didn’t want it to go.
First, Finn alarmingly began to prefer Claudia over Attia. Claudia? The spoiled brat who occasionally yells at Finn for only thinking of himself? I find that particular characteristic of hers both annoying and ironic since Claudia is the one who only thinks of herself (and, occasionally, her tutor Jared). Finn is genuinely concerned about Keiro, although Claudia thinks that’s stupid. Apparently, she thinks Keiro is only concerned about himself as well. Funny how people are most annoyed by the character traits that they possess.
Then there was the really, really cool twist that was hinted at several times. Based on what people were saying, I began to believe that maybe Incarceron could be the Outside, and the Realm might be the experimental prison. It might not be a completely logical idea, but it really seemed like that was where the book was headed. I’m not a real big fan of stories that claim the world is fake, but it would at least have been an interesting twist. Unfortunately, Ms. Fisher didn’t think so.
Finally, I have a strong dislike for the vague and, frankly, weak ending. One of three things happened with that. Either Ms. Fisher didn’t think the whole story through, she neglected to explain it all, or I missed something big. *Spoiler Warning* How did Sapphique, the Emergency Exit glove, become both an exit from and an entrance to Incarceron? And how did Jared become a prison/person hybrid when he put Sapphique’s glove on? Where did his body go? None of these questions are answered.
Sapphique is a very, very disappointing sequel to an intriguing book. There are unanswered questions, a frustrating love story, and a neglect of interesting twists that would keep the story alive and fresh. Need I say more?
My Rating: T (strange sci-fi ideas about the relationship between the body and the soul, mild sexual references)
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Pertaining To Incarceron
(Written by Catherine Fisher.) Finn was born Outside. He knows it. He has memories that come back to him during seizures. People don't believe him. Even Gildas the Sapient thinks Finn is the creation of Incarceron. To Gildas, and to most of the Comitatus, Finn was created by the prison out of recycled bits of matter - a cellborn. But Finn knows better. He knows there is somewhere outside the prison, that he came from that somewhere, and that one day he will remember.
This is a really creepy and really cool idea. In fact, it reminds me a bit of the Matrix. Incarceron is a living, self-sustaining, and speaking prison that keeps its inhabitants trapped inside. Of course, one of the notable differences between the Matrix and Incarceron is that, in the Matrix, one fights the Agents, but in Incarceron, one fights the prison itself. That makes it a bit tough to make any headway. Also, in the Matrix, the prison holds minds, but Incarceron is a physical prison as well as a mental prison of sorts.
However good the idea, an idea can't keep a book afloat all by its lonesome. I've read books that were good ideas, but failed because the main characters were unlikable. That especially seems to happen when the main character is a girl. No offense, but I think most girls in books are idiots. Unfortunately, one of the main characters in Incarceron is an annoying young lady named Claudia - with more emphasis on the "young" than the "lady." She's betrothed to the Heir, a particularly spoiled and weak-minded fellow. But she's willing to do anything to avoid marrying him, etc., etc., etc. Oh, and she can't stand having to wear the starched skirts and other things that Protocol requires of her. A new character trait, that is not. But at least she has an excuse; Protocol (which is basically a rule that says everyone has to live like it's about 1750 or so) has been imposed on them by the rulers, who are somewhat implausibly convinced that they can avoid another bloody uprising like the one that happened decades ago by forcing people to live in the past. Hm. Not the most realistic backstory, but it serves its purpose. Putting all that aside, Claudia is still annoying.
Luckily, Finn is not annoying in the least. He's a good-hearted young man who tries his best. He makes the wrong choice once or twice (notably in the beginning), but these wrong choices only drive him to be better. His friend Attia is a great character as well, and his oathbrother Keiro... well, he's a whole 'nother story.
Incarceron also had just enough twists to show that the authoress knew something more than an interesting concept was needed to keep the story afloat. I guessed most of the developments before the characters knew, but there were one or two good surprises. And really, one can't expect too much from a young adult science fiction book.
All in all, it certainly kept my attention, right up until the end. When I read the last page, I wanted it to go on; what kind of an ending did Ms. Fisher think she was writing? That's not an ending, that's a teaser for Book 2, which, incidentally, I'm getting from my local library today. I can't bear to go much longer without finding out what happens next.
My Rating: T (disturbing concepts about a prison (including that the prison "makes" people), people referred to as "halfmen" or "dog-slaves" as if they were less than human, violence, family problems, mild sexual references)
This is a really creepy and really cool idea. In fact, it reminds me a bit of the Matrix. Incarceron is a living, self-sustaining, and speaking prison that keeps its inhabitants trapped inside. Of course, one of the notable differences between the Matrix and Incarceron is that, in the Matrix, one fights the Agents, but in Incarceron, one fights the prison itself. That makes it a bit tough to make any headway. Also, in the Matrix, the prison holds minds, but Incarceron is a physical prison as well as a mental prison of sorts.
However good the idea, an idea can't keep a book afloat all by its lonesome. I've read books that were good ideas, but failed because the main characters were unlikable. That especially seems to happen when the main character is a girl. No offense, but I think most girls in books are idiots. Unfortunately, one of the main characters in Incarceron is an annoying young lady named Claudia - with more emphasis on the "young" than the "lady." She's betrothed to the Heir, a particularly spoiled and weak-minded fellow. But she's willing to do anything to avoid marrying him, etc., etc., etc. Oh, and she can't stand having to wear the starched skirts and other things that Protocol requires of her. A new character trait, that is not. But at least she has an excuse; Protocol (which is basically a rule that says everyone has to live like it's about 1750 or so) has been imposed on them by the rulers, who are somewhat implausibly convinced that they can avoid another bloody uprising like the one that happened decades ago by forcing people to live in the past. Hm. Not the most realistic backstory, but it serves its purpose. Putting all that aside, Claudia is still annoying.
Luckily, Finn is not annoying in the least. He's a good-hearted young man who tries his best. He makes the wrong choice once or twice (notably in the beginning), but these wrong choices only drive him to be better. His friend Attia is a great character as well, and his oathbrother Keiro... well, he's a whole 'nother story.
Incarceron also had just enough twists to show that the authoress knew something more than an interesting concept was needed to keep the story afloat. I guessed most of the developments before the characters knew, but there were one or two good surprises. And really, one can't expect too much from a young adult science fiction book.
All in all, it certainly kept my attention, right up until the end. When I read the last page, I wanted it to go on; what kind of an ending did Ms. Fisher think she was writing? That's not an ending, that's a teaser for Book 2, which, incidentally, I'm getting from my local library today. I can't bear to go much longer without finding out what happens next.
My Rating: T (disturbing concepts about a prison (including that the prison "makes" people), people referred to as "halfmen" or "dog-slaves" as if they were less than human, violence, family problems, mild sexual references)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)