On Abaddon's Gate by James S.A. Corey - REVIEW

Synopsis (per Goodreads):  

For generations, the solar system – Mars, the Moon, the Asteroid Belt – was humanity’s great frontier. Until now. The alien artefact working through its program under the clouds of Venus has emerged to build a massive structure outside the orbit of Uranus: a gate that leads into a starless dark.

Jim Holden and the crew of the Rocinante are part of a vast flotilla of scientific and military ships going out to examine the artefact. But behind the scenes, a complex plot is unfolding, with the destruction of Holden at its core. As the emissaries of the human race try to find whether the gate is an opportunity or a threat, the greatest danger is the one they brought with them.

Review:

This is book three in James S.A. Corey's The Expanse series.  Book three takes Holden and crew of the Roci out to the edge of the solar system where a mysterious ring has appeared, and it is through this ring where a majority of our story takes place - a starless void, an alien command station, a gateway.  This is a space opera, and as such, the overall plot surrounding the ring is only a small piece of the story.  What is a space opera, you ask?

I am by no means comparing The Expanse novels to Battlestar Galactica.  That would just be unfair.  However, the tone, the reliance on character development to drive the story, the extraterrestrial setting, put this in the same category at some level (this is not "hard sci-fi" where the emphasis is in scientific and/or technical detail).  

This being the third book in the series, it becomes a little easier to pick up on the writers' tendencies (side note: "writers'" is not a typo.  James S.A. Corey is actually two people).  As such, even though the story is unique from books one and two, even though there's character growth and additional characters added, the path of the story feels familiar.  

The blurb on the cover of the novel is something along the lines of "the closest to a Hollywood blockbuster in novel form as you can get" (I may be paraphrasing that).  That is Corey's style.  All three novels could easily be translated into film (should the science fiction scene become mainstream enough to necessitate the use of novels for additional content - and this is a possibility with Star Wars, Star Trek, Guardians of the Galaxy, etc. hitting the screens).  

What I disliked:  Reliance on new characters to drive the story.  Holden and crew, though central to much of the "purpose" of the events taking place, seemed to take a back seat for a majority of the novel.    Book two also added several new characters (most of which do not make more of an appearance than an off-hand mention by the main cast of this tale), but the driving force behind book two remained the development of the Roci's crew, their relationships with each other, and with various political organizations of the solar system.  

That being said, the book is still an excellent read (don't judge my month-long timeframe to get through the novel as an indication of my enjoyment as there were just too many personal reasons for my lack of reading lately).  Is Abaddon's Gate as good as book one (Leviathan Wakes)?  No.  I'd also venture so far as to say it was not quite the level of book two (Calaban's War) either.  But, the authors that are James S.A. Corey know how to entertain, and I will read the continued (mis)adventures of Holden and crew as they deal with the ramifications of the conclusion of Abaddon's Gate (I'll leave this mostly spoiler free).  Though these novels are generally in the 500 page range, they read like candy - like a popcorn flick.  

On Shark Repellent Bat-Spray

In a previous post I used the 1966 Batman scene where Batman utilizes his "shark repellent bat spray" to escape an attacking shark as an example of when television programming has gone too far into the camp zone (an alternative to Arthur Fonzarelli's waterskiing adventure - though involving a similar aquatic beast).  Dexter, Under the Dome (or just about any other Stephen King work), True Blood (to a certain extent) are meant to be a little darker, edgier, and grounded in some form of modern reality - maybe True Blood needs to be taken off that short list as the show of late has been more-or-less silly.  When a show, book, movie, etc. has been created with the intension of being taken even the slightest bit seriously, any hint of over-the-top shenanigans detracts from character development, storyline, audience engagement, etc.  

What I failed to mention in that post is that to a certain degree, I like campy things.  Killer Klowns from Outer Space?  Sign me up!

The difference here is that this movie never tries to take itself seriously.  The synopsis of this 1988 horror masterpiece (per IMDB): Aliens who look like clowns come from outer space and terrorize a small town.  

All of that being said, one could make the argument that my use of shark repellent bat spray as a symbol of degeneration of episodic program content is contradictory to my own expectations.  1966 Batman was anything but serious, and truth is, I love it.  There is no comparison to the modern Dark Knight that is The Batman, and there shouldn't be.  The 1966 Batman was meant to be fantastic - barely any resemblance to reality, was meant to be over-the-top ridiculous, was meant to entertain through excitement and humor.  Imagine my surprise (I don't follow DC Comics much, so maybe it wasn't a surprise to those who do) when I saw this as I picked up this month's Deadpool at my local comic shop:

A new comic series, written and drawn in the style of 1966 Batman.  Per DC Comics:

"Put on your go-go boots and get ready to "Batusi" back to the Swingin' 60s as DC Comics reimagines the classic Batman TV series in comics form for the first time!  These all new stories portray The Caped Crusader, The Boy Wonder and their fiendish rogues gallery just the way viewers remember them.  In this first adventure, The Riddler's out to steal some valuable artwork from under the noses of Gotham's police.  But Batman gets help from an unlikely source:  a certain femme fatale dressed in feline finery!

This book is everything it claims to be!  It includes pants-less Robin, "Holy <Insert Whatever Is Happening Here> Batman!," ridiculous fight sequences (on a crashing plane in one instance), remarkable unintentional (but really intentional) humor, pre-commercial "IS THIS THE END OF THE CAPED CRUSADER?!," and unbelievable (literally) escapes!  A must read for those who like their fancy meals, but also like their cheese.

On Homeland

I went into Homeland wanting to like the show (stay with me, I do like the show), but had some serious doubts about the sustainability of it.  This stems from the premise of Brody's character skirting the line between terrorist, victim, and hero.  How long can the show continue the "maybe I'm bad, but maybe I'm not" routine (especially with so much of the show in Brody's POV)?  But I had to give the show a chance (LionEyes, cover your eyes) considering the two lead actresses - Claire Danes and Morena Baccarin - are easy on the eyes and the show fills a void left with a lack of Jack Bauer on television.

Not that I'm saying 24 didn't have its problems (if Kim gets kidnapped one more time...!), but espionage and terrorist threats makes for good television.

LE and I binge-watched the second season of Homeland over the last few days, and the show continues to do a decent job of dancing the line of hero and villain, though LE continually comments that Brody is a jerk.  But the show isn't really about whether or not Brody is a terrorist - it's about the interplay between characters - Brody and his family, Carrie and Brody, Carrie and Saul.  

It's the focus on character relationships that separates this show from the others.  The development of of love and family, without the overuse of those relationships as plot devices (does it bother anyone else when the terrorist ends up being the protagonist's brother or father? - I'm looking at you Dexter, 24, and all the other examples that just aren't coming to mind at the moment - you get a pass, Star Wars).  

Season two continues the fast pace, the constant threat, continues the development of emotional growth, separation, anxiety, and lust.  Abu Nazir makes his appearance on American soil.  The plot twists and turns, never quite letting you know who is behind what, and what the overall objective of the terrorist attack entails.  

The final two episodes slow things down a bit (possibly too much).  It was the only time I felt the series was dragging its heels.  Until the extreme end - a twist I did not see coming.  But the show sets up a third season, and leaves me excited for more.  

Thank you Howard Gordon (co-creator of the American version of the show - and author of Gideon's War, which seemed to take place in the Homeland universe and tied in the propensity to have national security problems solved in less than 24 hours) for filling the void when 24 was taken away.  Keep up the good work.

And since LE and I were so far behind in watching the series, there is only two months until season three begins.

On

I still exist.  Continued derailment of plans due to the unpredictability of life has caused a lapse in any thought-provoking commentary.  Please stand by for potential discussions surrounding any of the previously discussed television programming, Abaddon's Gate (currently at approximately 60% completion), Monsters University, and/or any other topic that I deem discussable.  

On Dexter: The End Begins...

Spoiler warning.  Blah blah blah.

Over the course of several years I have developed a love/hate relationship with Dexter (both the show and the novels - the focus of this will be on the Showtime series).  The show has been a pendulum, swinging from the darkly, satirically, humorous phenomena of the Death to Smoochy caliber all the way to the utter cheese of the Batman & Robin badness (ok, maybe not THAT bad).  Maybe I missed my calling in life and should have been a script writer, but again, with Dexter I am more in love with the potential of the concept than I am with the execution (no pun intended).  I suppose that's the problem when you create expectations for something - you create the possibility (likelihood) of failure to meet those expectations.

I have read the Dexter novels (not sure if I am current, but have no intention to move forward from where I left off) and have watched all previous seasons.  This season is being touted as the final, the end of our lovable serial killer one way or another, the last of Deb's "motherfuckers," and my thoughts are "it couldn't come soon enough." Again, I love the concept, but the execution for the last several seasons has been weak.  The series needs to end before it really jumps the shark.

"Robin, hand me down the shark repellent bat spray!"

The season begins with five minutes of the cast gloating over their joy and honor and wonder for being a part of the phenomena that has been Dexter, and how great the show is and how exciting the end will be.  Five minutes taken away from advancing the story in episode one.  Unnecessary.  You're all getting paid handsomely to say these things, so the opinion may be just a little biased.

The show begins several months after the end of last season.  Deb is a drug-doing, undercover, bounty hunter.  Dexter is losing his cool.  And new plot device Brain Doctor/Consultant lady is added to the force and she knows!  The season is laid out.

<intermission music>

I wrote that first segment hours ago.  Since that point CrabCakes has lived up to her name and Peanut has been as much assistance as a one year old can be.  As such, my train of thought is gone, and my brain functionality has decreased to basic operational standards.  Children have a way of pulling the life-force from you, making menial tasks like remembering something from last night seem inconceivable.

I'm not going to go scene by scene through the episode.  I'm not sure I'm capable right now.

But my impression of the show was much of what my impression of most season-opening episodes is.  A sense of underwhelming data-dumping setting up the remaining episodes of the season.  I had been holding onto the feeling ever since the Trinity season that the series should have ended with

The season ending was so impactful, and even with Dexter still amongst the living it had a sense of finality to it.  Now that the show is in its official final season.  Let's hope they can end it on something as emotionally impactful without resorting to how everyone expects it to end.

On Under the Dome S1:E1

Under the Dome (the television series) is based on a novel written by Stephen King of the same name.  The teleplay was scripted by Brian K. Vaughn (of Y: The Last Man fame).  Seeing that the script was written by someone other than Stephen King himself, and knowing (loving) Y: The Last Man, I was excited for the possibilities that could be brought out in an adaptation of Under the Dome. 

Synopsis (per IMDB):

An invisible force field descends upon a small town in the northeastern part of the United States.

Synopsis (per Goodreads): 

On an entirely normal, beautiful fall day in Chester's Mill, Maine, the town is inexplicably and suddenly sealed off from the rest of the world by an invisible force field.  Planes crash into it and fall from the sky in flaming wreckage, a gardener's hand is severed as "the dome" comes down on it, people running errands in the neighboring town are divided from their families, and cars explode on impact.  No one can fathom what this barrier is, where it came from, and when - or if - it will go away.

Dale Barbara, Iraq vet and now a short-order cook, finds himself teamed with a few intrepid citizens - town newspaper owner Julia Shumway, a physician's assistant at the hospital, a select-woman, and three brave kids.  Against them stands Big Jim Rennie, a politician who will stop at nothing - even murder - to hold the reins of power, and his son, who is keeping a horrible secret in a dark pantry.  But their main adversary is the Dome itself.  Because time isn't just shot.  It's running out.

Discussion:

I would say that spoilers are about to be mentioned, but guess what, there's a dome in Under the Dome and all that stuff mentioned in the synopsis begins to happen.  This is more-or-less an introduction to the townsfolk of Chester's Mill, and little besides the dropping of the dome happens.

I was excited for the possibilities...  then I saw this photo.  Stephen King on the set of the show.  If you are familiar with other adaptations of Stephen King's works (The Langoliers, The Stand, Storm of the Century, Bag of Bones, etc.) you are aware of how campy the stories become.  But Szever, The Shining - Jack Nicholson - awesomesauce!  Stephen King had nothing to do with that version of The Shining, and has publicly stated his distaste for the adaptation - decided to remake it on his own.  Guess what.  Not as good.  Whether or not Stephen King actually had involvement in writing/directing/etc. Under the Dome, I have no idea, but my expectations were drastically lowered at the thought of the possibility. 

So, let's look at the cast, as the series stars some household favorites.

Mr. Clean as Big Jim Rennie

The Offspring of Andy Sandberg and Clark Kent as Junior Rennie

Merida as Julia Shumway

Kid-Who's-Probably-Supposed-To-Be-Younger-Than-He-Actually-Is as Joe McClatchey

Guy-From-Everything as Sheriff

Princess Peach as Lady With Virtually No Screentime

Mr. Clean as Big Jim Rennie

I make light of the casting decisions, but overall I have no major qualms with any of the cast.  I read the novel two and half years ago.  I don't remember the physical descriptions of any characters.  That information doesn't really stick with you unless it is absurdly out of the ordinary (Tyrion Lannister).  I had some doubts about Dean Norris as Big Jim Rennie if only because I picture a guy called Big Jim as a big dude.  But Dean Norris kills it with equal parts concerned citizen and evil politician (sorry about the Mr. Clean comment Dean - you rock in Breaking Bad).



However, the remainder of the acting ranged from the acceptable to the depths of the dreaded Stephen-King-campiness.  We get to see Junior Rennie's descent into madness - a great addition to the script - and it is played adequately well (maybe a little over-the-top, but not quite to the point of ridiculuos).  Barbie is played a little darker than the boyscout (though this could just be selective memory - maybe he had that darkness to him in the novels and I just don't remember?).  Julia...  no complaints.



Merida as Julia Shumway



The children and smaller parts really demonstrate the poorer end of the acting spectrum.  Take the Kid-Who's-Probably-Supposed-To-Be-Younger-Than-He-Is.  His reaction to the Dome, the plane crash, his communication with Barbie and the authorities, it all felt contrived - like an adult trying to act like a child.  This may or may not be the actor's fault, as an actor has to work within the limitations of the script he is given, but these moments pull you from the intensity of what happening.  A mysterious dome just trapped an entire town, planes are crashing, cars are crashing, people are missing and/or are dying - everything needs to maintain a level of intensity to keep that feeling of fear and panic and isolation with the audience. 

The casting of quasi-known actors also doesn't help maintain connection with the story as (atleast personally) I am hit with a sense of "hey, I know that guy from somewhere" (*keys Under The Dome into IMDB*). 

Enough about casting.  Shall we move on to action and plot.  The episode is filled with some of everyone's favorite scenes including:

That moment when you can't quite touch your loved one (if I put Rose there instead of the Doctor I might cry - sorry Under the Dome, you need more development before you can make this effective). 

And how can we forget diving away from falling wreckage at the last possible second (this just looked absolutely horrible, but alas, Prometheus has shown us that it could have been much, much, much worse)? 

All griping aside, the pilot of the series was not awful.  There was enough suspense and intrigue to draw me back for more (I suppose knowing all that is to transpire helps - though I do hope the explanation of the dome is better in the show).  It is what I expect of a Stephen King adaptation, and maybe slightly better than that even (I will never forget the jumping celebration freeze-frame at the end of The Langoliers - you should all suffer this image of campiness too (see below) - mind you, this was a Stephen King story). 

Long story short (too late), Under the Dome had an adequate if not slightly underwhelming pilot that feeds you just enough mystery to tune back next week. 

On Being Lovely

This post contains spoilers for the 6/23 episode of The Next Food Network Star

I've made it abundantly clear that I have a quasi-addiction to elimination-type shows.  I've managed to get this disease into a state of remission, whereby I've limited my dalliances with the genre to a specific subset - mainly cooking shows.  These include (but are not limited to) MasterChef, The Next Food Network Star, The Next Iron Chef, Top Chef, etc.  I've already made it clear that I believe these "reality" shows are in some respects scripted - possibly including plants in the cast, so I will forgo the continued rant on that subject.  

The Next Food Network Star adds another layer of intrigue to the cooking challenge existing in MasterChef, Top Chef, et. al.  - that being the person must also display the qualities of a potential television host.  Watching the other cooking challenges, my propensity continues to be to root for the person who I find aesthetically appealing and/or is ethnically diverse from the "normal" contestants (mostly because I find ethnic foods to be interesting and often delicious).  The Next Food Network Star justifies my admittedly superficial inclinations by adding that "star" quality as a requisite.  

That being said, I was happy to see Lovely go.  I mentioned earlier that I typically root for the minority contestants - but the sassy attitude mixed with use of the pseudonym turned me off from day one.  

Which brings about the question...  why use the pseudonym to begin with?  The answer is likely "the twist." There always needs to be a twist, something to isolate you from the other contestants.  I frankly don't even remember the names of the pie guy or the barbecue guy, but I don't need to.  They're The Pie Guy and The Barbecue Guy, and that makes sense on the FOOD NETWORK! Lovely?  Not so much.  So, rule number one for pseudonym use should be - Know Your Target Audience. Andres was already eliminated for failing to recognize who the Network is pandering to.

The odd part about any of this is the fact that I rarely follow the winners of the show afterwards.  The Hearty Boys, Guy Fieri, Amy Finley, Aaron McCargo, Jr., Melissa d'Arabian, Aarti Sequeira, and Justin Warner; all the winners of their respective The Next Food Network Star season.  I may have seen a few episodes of Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives.  I was convinced I would follow Aarti Party when I was rooting for her to win, but alas, I have no real interest in those shows.  So, why do I get invested in any of this?  I don't have an answer, but I'm open to suggestion.