Good Omens

Good Omens has been turned into a TV show, it is my favourite book. I talked about why I love it on this blog over 7 years ago, and I've reread it more since then.

I wasn't sure what I expected when I heard Good Omens was finally going to be a TV series, though Neil Gaiman being heavily involved felt positive. The casting of experienced actors David Tennant and Michael Sheen as the 2 main characters was hopeful. Other casting anouncements felt more mixed to me, but the trailers were encouraging.

I watched the series on Amazon Prime one episode at a time, we don't do much binge-watching anymore. I had intended to reread the book before the TV series started, but I don't read as fast as I used to, so I was still reading the end as we watched the beginning, meaning I quoted a long with a lot of it.

I really enjoyed it. I missed some stuff that was omitted, but a lot more of the original text was in the show than I'd expected. I also really enjoyed a lot of the additions. The whole thing felt very in the spirit of the book, so that's good.

I have a lot more thoughts. I have bullet pointed them.

Crowley and Aziraphale

• Main focus on Crowley and Aziraphale makes sense since they're the only characters there from the Beginning and also they're the stars in the cast. 
• This focus fleshes out Heaven and Hell (Heaven especially), creating more roles for talented actors to play angels and demons, who look very different but seem equally unpleasant. 
• Book focuses more on Crowley and Hell as the Antichrist is their operation, Aziraphale is only angel with character, so the show improves on this showing Heaven's attitude early on and rounding out Aziraphale's character.
• TV show also depicts the evolution of Crowley and Aziraphale's relationship more clearly, from adversaries to friends, to something slashier than the books (though of course the books generated a lot of slash). It initially felt odd to me that Crowley seemed more dependent on and worried about Aziraphale than vice versa, but I realised Crowley was never as committed to being a demon, he enjoyed his job but not the people (Evil is fun, demons are not). Aziraphale on the other hand really does believe in what he's doing (it is Good after all), and so he's far more willing to hold onto a positive, hopefull view of Heaven, even if it endangers his relationship with Crowley.
• Have I been pronouncing Crowley wrong in my head all this time? The TV show it's Crow(like the bird)-lee, whereas I'd thought of it as Crowl(rhymes with growl)-lee. Like how Ozzy Osborne sings it in Mister Crowley. Is that a West Mids thing? I think my way sounds more snaky.

The Humans

• The focus on Crowley and Aziraphale means the human characters get shorter shrift, with less development for basically all of them. Crowley and Aziraphale do disappear a bit from the middle of the book as the affairs of humans and horsemen (or bikers) are lined up and investigated, which doesn't happen in the show. 
• Shadwell looks and sounds too normal, but I appreciate it'd probably be difficult to cast an actor who could match with Shadwell in the book, it's a special kind of awful. Giving him a backstory also took away from the horrifying mystery that is Sergeant Shadwell of the Witchfinder Army ("I never dreamed when I was a kid"), and he seemed a bit too organised and proactive. We don't get much chance to see him through Newt's eyes which flattens him out a bit.
• Madame Tracy wasn't as old or weathered as I'd pictured, but again TV casting is what it is. She was pretty good otherwise and I though the seance scene was very good.
• There was more of Warlock and the Dowlings, which was fine.
• I was worried about Jack Whitehall being cast Newton Pulsifer, but he played Newt so well I kept forgetting it was Jack Whitehall. It's probably due to the kind of performances I've seen Whitehall do in the past, but here he actually perfectly convey a man who would need to undergo a phone box transformation in order to look like Clarke Kent. Bravo to him.
• Anathema felt a bit hard done by, and so did Agnes by extension. I get that not all of the prophecies or asides could have been included, but Agnes's prophecies and the little details about her life developed Anathema's character in the same way the details about Shadwell and the Witchfinder Army did for Newt.
• At least we still got Giles Baddicombe (oh look, Samjeev Bhaskar), which I liked. I understand why the history of the Box was abridged, I did miss Newt putting a saucepan over his head and hiding behind the door.
• Adam and the Them get a fair bit of screen time, but the whole Tadfeld set up is briefer. I can see why Greasy Johnson and the Johnsonites and other Tadfield miscllenia had to be removed, but I didn't realise how much f it there was until it was gone.
• Adam felt more obviously threatening, more showy than what I'd pictured in the book, which may well be a factor of adapting for TV (though in general the book uses a of filmic tropes and audio-visual description). In my head the rise of the Destroyer of Kings, Angel of the Bottomless Pit, Great Beast that is called Dragon, Prince of this World, Father of Lies was more quietly terrifying and the eventual victory of Adam Young more triumphant for it. 
• I was a little surprised the book didn't have more of an environmental message. That's always struck me as a big part of the book, and Adam's rise to his powers is sparked by his realisation of what's been allowed to happen. Goodness knows the anger of youth at the folly and apathy of their elders is a very fitting theme for a show made nowadays.
• Following on from this, I missed Jaime Hernez, the Brazilian mall maintenance worker who helps a light-starved tree, that was a nice bit. I'm glad the Atlanteans and Japanese whaling ship and Kraken were featured, but Jaime was the main heroic human character from those one-off sections.
• Adam didn't mention Heaven (Aziraphale) and Hell (Crowley) messing people around, which struck me as missing another major point the book made. I like that fact that the angel and demon talk about it later and come to realise their complicity in how humanity has turned out.

Horsemen (and Bikers) of the Apocalypse

• The Delivery Man was taller and slimmer I'd imgained. I'd always pictured  It was nice that they showed his wife though.
• I'm fine with the fact that each of the Horsemen only got 1 section each, they weren't much in the way of characters.
• I'm OK with the Other Bikers of the Apocalypse being cut. That section was so much from Pigbog's point of view that it would be difficult to do on screen, especially without somehow introducing him earlier.
• I did miss the rain of fish and the octopus that waves at the shocked policemen

Many Diuerse Wonders and Precepts for the Wife

• Using the voice of God to do the narration means that a lot more of the jokes were included than I was expecting, so that was good. Initially I felt as though the narrative gave the show a bit of a Hitchhikers feel.
• There were a lot more women and people of colour in the cast than I'd pictured, which says more about me than anything else. There's some stuff in the book that was a bit iffy (mostly displaying the casual racism and small-mindedness of some characters) and that stuff was gone, but I did 't miss it.
• Watching the show is the first time I got the bit about the Nightingale in Berkley Square. I mean, I knew it was a reference to a song, but I didn't know the lyrics so didn't get the connection to angels dining at the Ritz until they played it.
• The theme tune was a lot of fun, the visuals were reminscent of some Python stuff.
• I like the addition of the ending, it felt very good that Crowley and Aziraphale took the next stuff in their collusion and actually backed each other aginst their superiors. Plus it makes more sense with the militancy and control we see from Heaven and Hell in the show that they would try to punish their rogue agents.
• I can't rememeber if Aziraphale says the bit about Evil containing the seeds of it's own destruction in the show (it's been a bit since I saw the show, I'm slow to write things up nowadays), but I thought of it when Crowley has trouble crossing the M25 because of his own actions in shaping it to be evil. Also there was a thing with the mobile phone networks, but that's more obvious.

Is it weird that I used my husband's (hardback and unbattered) copy of Good Omens to check some stuff for this post and was disconcerted by the typeface and formatting being different.

Why I Loved 2011

2011 has been a good year over all. Some nice highs and very few bad lows.
Here are a few of my highlights:

• Attending Conventions - Me and my husband went to Easter Con and Fantasy Con, and in between those I went to Alt.Fiction. I had fun, met interesting people and got to spend time in a world that I would like to be more involved with. My goal when going to conventions in future is to try and push myself forward a bit more and meet/chat to more people.

• First Publication - My short story Lupa di Roma was published in Title Goes Here Magazine, Web Edition 1.10 - October 2011. This made me very happy and proud. I have had another short story acceptance, there will be more about that later.

• Twitter - After recommendations from a few different sources I decided to take the plunge and start using Twitter. I've had some great conversations and met (in a virtual sense at least) a lot of lovely people on Twitter. I can be found on Twitter as @ctjhill.

• Apocalypse Girls - A few months ago I was invited to join The Girls' Guide to Surviving the Apocalypse. It's a fun blogging project about anything and everything to do with the apocalypse. Some great, creative women are contributing and I heartily recommend you check it out. We're also on Twitter as @ApocalypseGirls.

I'm hoping I can build on these successes this year. Plus I'm planning a few changes in my offline life, so I hope those go well.

Why I Love Good Omens

I was first given Good Omens for my 16th birthday.

My father says he first read Lord of the Rings when he was 21 and he has reread it regularly ever since then, I can think of several occasions from my when I saw him reading it.* That is what Good Omens is like for me. I have read and reread it so many times that the book is looking distinctly worn. Were it on the shelf at work I'm sure my boss would consider selling it and getting a better looking copy.

I love those moments that I read then immediately reread, sometimes numerous times, just to play the dialogue and expressions and reactions through in my mind until they're as clear as they can be, as though I'm actually watching or directing them. I pretty much only do this with dialogue between main characters, usually when there's humour behind the conversation. There are quite a lot of moments in Good Omens that I do this with, especially conversations between Crowley and Aziraphale. In fact I'd pretty much got a scene-by-scene of their entire drunken conversation in my head before I was in my twenties.

I suspect reading Good Omens is partly why I like Queen.
At 16 I still liked a lot of mainstream music (later working in a clothes shop, and influence from the heavier tastes of friends, would spark a growing appreciation of rock) but I was rarely passionate about music. I knew Dad liked Queen and had heard several of their songs, but we were not a very musical household and it had mostly been in the background. Good Omens was the first book I've read that had a soundtrack. The references to the Greatest Hits of Queen are often sarcastic and at first I thought that the authors didn't like the band. Then I realised that the lyric quotes and the jokes were a sign of appreciation. When I heard certain Queen songs I associated them with Good Omens and though I'm sure Queen would have been a part of my developing musical tastes anyway, I'm sure that association helped. When I hear that bit in 'Bohemian Rhapsody' I still often think of Crowley giving a strangled scream and punching his foot to the accelerator of the Bentley just as the song seems to explode.

Good Omens was in some ways my bridge from Pratchett to Gaiman.
When I first read Good Omens I'd read a lot of Discworld (though being a teenager -and a fairly innocent one- I didn't get all the jokes). I think I had read Neverwhere at that point and Neil Gaiman had been recommended to me by a friend from the Youth Theatre group I attended, as a good author who co-wrote with Terry Pratchett. I remember making a list of things to buy in town and borrow from the city library:
Never ware
Neil Gaiman
socks 
I needed to buy some socks and I had never seen Neverwhere written down. I remember this because later that day my sister saw the note and assumed Neil Gaiman was a designer/brand of socks that I'd been warned against.
Initially I noticed all the Pratchetty bits of Good Omens -the footnotes, the way Death spoke, some of the description, characterisation and jokes, which chimed with what I'd been reading in Discworld. After a few years, during which I read Sandman, American Gods, Stardust and various short stories, I reread Good Omens and noticed the Gaiman-ness -the GK Chesterton references, the speculations about the nature of the divine/demonic, some of the description, characterisation and jokes.

I like that when rereading I still pick up on things I missed before. This doesn't happen every time but it happens enough that I'm still surprised and delighted. Some of it was jokes I didn't get at first due to still being young and innocent (the Coitus Interruptus Award for telemarketers was suddenly amusing - although I later wondered how they knew), others were references to things I hadn't experienced or didn't entirely get until they had a chance to sink in and become ingrained in my worldview.

These are all reasons why I love Good Omens and if you don't really know what I'm talking about I suggest you find a copy and find out. You won't regret it.



* I must say I do not have much love for Lord of the Rings, though I can appreciate its importance to the genre. My dad read The Hobbit to me when I was 8 and I remember enjoying that -though I don't seem to recall the ending, so I think we must have got interrupted. I tried to read LotR when I was 15 and got most of the way through Fellowship but at that point the films were coming out so it just easier to watch.

Why I Love The West Wing

I was first introduced to The West Wing at university by my husband (he blogs about gaming and books at Citadel of Davegotsu).
The first time we watched the entire series it took us about nine months. The second time took us about three months, by that time we were working similar hours. It is unusual for us to spend so much time watching a non-SF series.

The series about a fictional US president, set mostly in the White House, ran from 1999 to 2006 and was created by Aaron Sorkin, who is a televisual maestro.
The West Wing was a great blend of drama and humour, an entertaining character-based series that was also about really important issues. The characters were engaging, the story lines were interesting, and the dialogue was regularly brilliant.

The plot lines could go from the lighthearted to the dramatic. Unsurprisingly there was a lot of content dealing with US politics, which managed to interesting even to a fairly unpolitical Brit like myself.
Aaron Sorkin is skilled at creating shows with characters and situations that you care about, even if you don't have a particular interest in the content. A good example of this is Sports Night, a program about a US sports show, something that an unsporty girl like me would normally never be interested in.

The characters and their interactions really made the show. The White House staff were shown to be extraordinary people -not only doing important and challenging jobs, but dealing with various personal problems in ways that only ever felt human and realistic.
I could list the great things about all the characters: Toby's dry sarcasm, Josh's determination, Charlie's loyalty, Leo's wisdom, CJ being one of the best female characters on television.
I think I'll stop myself there or else I'll go on all night.

President Bartlet was exactly the kind of president that many of us wanted America to have - he was smart and erudite, compassionate and liberal, and he really struggled with some of the serious issues he faced as President. He wasn't perfect, but he was likeable and you could respect him even if you didn't agree with all his choices.

One of the nice things about the series is that it is liked by many geeky types, but can also be recommended to people who aren't into SF.

I remember that the Sci-fi Society at my university had a Big Block of Cheese Day. The Chair (who was from Gloucestershire where they are very serious about cheese) brought in a block of cheese with a small US flag stuck in it. I can't remember if we asked any important questions, but I'm sure it was all done in the spirit of Andrew Jackson.


I would recommend the West Wing to anyone to who enjoys an intelligent TV drama.
Here's a link to the Wikiquotes page, it has great examples of the witty dialogue, but I must warn you it's pretty distracting.

Why I Love Stuart History

One of the most famous -or infamous- English royal dynasties is the Tudors. They are certainly the only one to have their own sexy TV show made in the US.
The Tudors have some great characters. Henry VIII with his enjoyment of weddings and executions. Bloody Mary I, who has her very own cocktail. Feisty Elizabeth I who love her country more than any man!
There was also a financially responsible guy and some kids as well.


Now this is all well and good, but what I like is the family came after that.
The Stuart monarchs are an interesting lot who ruled over a fascinating period of British history.
In just four generations the monarch went from the most powerful person in the country to being a figure whose religion and choice of spouse had to conform with the constitutional will of the nation, with Civil War, execution, abolition and revolution along the way.

Things started well enough for James I (VI of Scotland) who was the first adult King of England since Henry VIII. James' father was blown up when he was just a child and his mother, Mary Queen of Scots, was imprisoned and then executed by her cousin Elizabeth I. Given this background it's unsurprising that he was paranoid, and the 1605 Gunpowder Plot couldn't have helped.
Other than being the monarch who instituted Bonfire Night (giving generations of Britons a reason to set off fireworks in November), James is probably most famous for commissioning the King James Bible. James greatly  feared witchcraft and Macbeth -with it's scary witches and general Scottishness- was written to please him.
James was probably homosexual, and certainly enjoyed the close company of handsome men. Perhaps his most infamous 'favourite' was George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham. Buckingham was widely hated for rapidly becoming one of the most powerful men in the country, and for generally proving awful at any job he was given.

Charles I is best known for upsetting Parliament and being so principled and unbending that the country was ripped apart by Civil War, which ended with his execution. Unlike previous internal wars this was not a battle between competing factions over who should be king, but a conflict between the King and his subjects. At the outset no one had any intention of executing the King or abolishing the monarchy, but things just got crazy. Charles wouldn't give up on his beliefs, and his opponents realised that Charles Stuart would not surrender his power.
Charles married Catholic princess Henrietta Maria of France. The marriage was initially neglectful, but the couple bonded and eventually fell in love after Charles' friend Buckingham was assassinated by a disgruntled naval officer (he had it coming). During the Civil War Henrietta Maria first went to Europe to beg for aid, then returned to the dangers of war torn England and despite being heavily pregnant travelled around the country with Royalist forces.


After Charles I's execution no one really knew what to do next, no one had planned for that outcome. There followed years of uncertainty and governmental change, which many people unsurprisingly took as a sign of the end times. Religious and political radicalism ran rife. Parliamentarian general Oliver Cromwell became Lord Protector -he refused the title of King, even though that would have provided ongoing stability to his regime. Instead Cromwell tried to find a new way to govern the country, however he received much opposition and eventually ended up dissolving Parliaments and throwing opponents in prison -exactly the sort of thing that had made everyone so mad at Charles I. Cromwell held things together, mostly by resorting to military dictatorship whenever his latest idea for governing the country failed. On his death his son Richard inherited the title of Lord Protector, but didn't have his father's support and the government fall into chaos again.

Charles II was invited to reclaim his father's throne in the Restoration. Charles had fought a second Civil War to get the throne back after his father's execution, but had only been crowned in Scotland and had been beaten back into exile (with a brief stopover in an oak tree on the way).
Charles II is known as the Merry Monarch, and considering the number of mistresses and illegitimate children he had it's fair to say that he was no stranger to pleasure. He was also surprisingly loyal to his long-suffering wife Catherine of Braganza, refusing to divorce her even though she never had children.
Charles became popular when he stayed in London during the Great Plague and then helped firefighting efforts during the Great Fire of London. Unlike his father and brother Charles was good at getting on with people and though he faced various problems and plots he is mostly remembered as a charming, roguish figure.

James II came to the throne after the death of his brother Charles. As an open Catholic and a believer in absolute monarchy it was clear he wasn't going to get on well with a largely Protestant country that was still scarred from what happened last time a king got too big for his boots.
If a Catholic King was a worry then a Catholic succession was a nightmare. When the Queen gave birth to a son rumours were rife that the child wasn't truly the heir. One of the odder conspiracy theories states that a baby was smuggled into the birthing chamber in a warming pan.
Leading Protestants invited James' son-in-law, William of Orange, to invade -the country having learned the benefit of forward planning since the last time they needed a change of ruler. After a 4 year reign James II fled and despite some serious attempts to regain his throne he died exiled in France.
James II is pictured fleeing the country with the Royal Seals (not salt and pepper shakers). He threw them in the Thames as he fled and Parliament conveniently decided that this was tantamount to abdication.

Willam III (II of Orange) and Mary II were cousins and spouses (that's just how it goes in royal circles). After kicking out his father-in-law with his Dutch army William -who was third in line to the throne after his wife and sister-in-law- became King on equal terms with his wife Mary, they were the only co-monarchs in English history.
William and Mary were the first constitutional monarchs, ruling by the will of the nation. Many of the rules of British monarchy (especially those involving Catholics in succession) were laid down in law for their reign. William had to defend his reign from the Jacobites, who felt that the succession rightly lay with James II and his son. Mary gave William a lot of her authority, although she did rule well when he was away on military campaigns
Interestingly the History Mug has William and Mary separate, something which rarely happens in Monarch lists - though that might be because the handle got in the way. I have no idea why William is pictured upside down with rodents by his head, I'd be fascinated to know what that's about.

Anne finally became Queen when her brother-in-law/cousin William died. She had refused to speak to her sister Mary for years, resenting the fact that Mary had allowed William to leapfrog her place in the succession. Anne was the first monarch of Great Britain after the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were united.
Anne had many pregnancies and many miscarriages, her eldest child only lived to eleven. Succession caused Anne political as well as personal difficulties. Jacobite Tories wanted Anne to name her half brother James as heir, whereas the Whigs wanted her to pass the throne to her Protestant second cousin from Hanover. This was a period when the two party Parliamentary system first became entrenched in British politics.




Like the Tudors the Stuart's Royal dynasty ended with a childless Queen. The Hanoverians -known as the Georgians- came to the throne, although the exiled Jacobite Stuart line continued to cause them problems.

Why I Love 39 by Queen

This post is slightly later than I intended, I was being a bit useless at the weekend. This post is also not on the preliminary list of posts I came up with, but I don't care because this is an excellent song.

Queen have many excellent, well known songs. I don't really need to explain why I like Bohemian Rhapsody, or One Vision, or Killer Queen. 

I walked down the aisle to Brian May's version of the wedding march from Flash Gordon and me and my husband had You're My Best Friend playing -among other songs- after the wedding ceremony.

The first time I heard 39 I didn't realise it was Queen because the song is sung -and written- by Brian May, and I often identify songs or bands by vocalist. I was listening on my ipod shuffle, which doesn't give you any song info.
The lyrics really struck me and I ended up listening to the song three times in order to get the whole thing, then once I was home I immediately looked it up.

39

In the year of thirty-nine
Assembled here the volunteers
In the days when lands were few
Here the ship sailed out into the blue and sunny morn
The sweetest sight ever seen
And the night followed day
And the story tellers say
That the score brave souls inside
For many a lonely day
Sailed across the milky seas
Ne'er looked back never feared never cried

Don't you hear my call
Though you're many years away
Don't you hear me calling you
Write your letters in the sand
For the day I'll take your hand
In the land that our grand-children knew

In the year of thirty-nine
Came a ship in from the blue
The volunteers came home that day
And they bring good news
Of a world so newly born
Though their hearts so heavily weigh
For the earth is old and grey
little darlin' well away
But my love this cannot be
Oh so many years have gone
Though i'm older but a year
Your mother's eyes from your eyes cry to me

Don't you hear my call
Though you're many years away
Don't you hear me calling you
Write your letters in the sand
For the day I'll take your hand
In the land that our grand-children knew

Don't you hear my call
Though you're many years away
Don't you hear me calling you
All your letters in the sand
Cannot heal me like your hand
For my life's still ahead, pity me.

'In the land that our grandchildren knew' was the lyric the really caught my attention. My initial thought was of time travel and it turns out that I was sort of right.

Although people thought that the song was about war (being in the year of '39 and all) or colonisation, it's quite clear that the song is actually about lost love and time dilation. It's actually beautiful in a sad way.
A brave astronaut helps find the new world his people so dearly need, but in doing that he loses the love of his life as she ages and (presumably) dies in the 'year' he's away. The last line is so full of emotion it's heart-breaking.

This song is the reason I learned about time dilation as I spoke to my husband about the song and he explained about how time dilation works and how it's to do with relativity. The faster and further a spaceship goes, the more time passes on the home planet. Like in Flight of the Navigator, which I saw various times as a child, although I've never seen the beginning.

It's not surprising that this is the subject matter as Brian May has a PhD in Astrophysics.

The song has folksy guitar and soaring background vocals, which reflect both the sad simplicity of lost love and the grand ideas of the SF setting.

I'm no music expert, and have done limited research into musical SF (although any suggestions in this area are appreciated), but I think this song doesn't get the attention it so clearly deserves.

Why I Love Greek Mythology

When I was 6 (maybe 7) I was told the story of Hades and Persephone by a supply teacher at school. I remembered the story, though I'm sure the pronounciation of Persephone (per-sef-oh-nee) escaped me at the time.
It was like a fairy tale, but it explained something and the ending wasn't simply happy, there was compromise.

It later occurred to me that despite their popularity in children's literature Greek Mythology (like most other mythologies) is not especially child friendly. However, possibly because they were viewed as scholarly and academic, Classical myths managed to escape the bowdlerisation that fairy tales underwent. So when they're presented to children they are simply toned down not reworked.
Telling these same recognisable tales is quite a trick for a set of myths that involves kidnaps, killings, weird sexual/reproductive stuff and so, so many extramarital affairs.

I remember having a Usborne book of the Ancient World (I still have it and read it fondly while doing my Ancient History degree) and going back to the page about the Greek pantheon. There was just something fascinating about these figures that represented things, but were also very definite characters.

The interest grew, I read tonnes of Greek mythology books. As I got older the details got more graphic.
Aphrodite wasn't born from a Titan's blood falling into the sea, she appeared when a Titan's castrated genitals were thrown into the sea.

As a kid you accept that the Minotaur was the product of a woman and a bull. As a teenager you realise that's impossible, however you are intrigued to hear that Daedalus (Icarus' dad, who created both the wings and the labyrinth) actually fashioned a 'device' so that Queen Pasiphae (Pass-ih-fie-ee) could slake her unnatural lust for a bull,* whilst wearing some kind of cow disguise.
Now there's a mental image for you.

One of the great thing about Greek myths is that they are interesting stories, with interesting characters. Over 2000 years later there are still themes, emotions and motivations we can understand today. This is probably why the stories get retold and redone so many times, and in so many ways. I'll be the first to admit that I can get a bit pedantic about this particular subject (I usually try to do it for comic effect). But in all honesty Greek myths have been reshaped so many times, in so many ways -and that's just during the BC period- that they are actually fairly malleable, whilst still being a very recognisable set of tales.

At Eastercon Gideon Nisbet (lecturer in Classics) gave a talk and made the point that Classical themes tie very well with SF. He even drew a comparison between Classical Mythology and the comic book universes of DC and Marvel. There's a big cast of characters with a variety of back stories.
This struck a chord with me as I love Greek myth and my husband loves Marvel comics -and we've had discussions over which is more complicated. I maintain that without time travel, alternate/parallel universes, clones, and aliens Greek myth can't be as complicated. Though as I've said above mythology doesn't have canon and there's no editorial hand guiding, but equally there's no change in editor/writer to try and unmake previous tales.

Edited to add:
The text of Gideon's BSFA lecture is now available online for any that are interested.


* She did get hit by Eros' love arrow, I can't remember why just now.

Why I Love The Fifth Element

I'm doing this post slightly sooner than I intended as people have been discussing this on Facebook. Sorry folks, you are just going to have to wait for a ramble about history.


The Fifth Element
In case you haven't seen The Fifth Element, get thee to youtube (though the trailer does seem a bit spoilery and doesn't really show much of the humour that makes the film so good).

Alternatively you can read my plot synopsis:

In 2257 a planet-sized, evil entity threatens to exterminate life in the universe unless four ancient, elemental stones can be joined with the mysterious fifth element to create a secret weapon, long guarded by the Mondoshawan race. Taxi-driver and former military man Korben Dallas rescues and then falls for the beautiful but odd Leeloo. He becomes explosively embroiled in the machinations of an ancient priesthood, the government, an eccentric billionaire and alien mercenaries. It’s a race against time to save life in the universe and only Leeloo has the solution. 

Written and directed by Luc Besson this is a comedic, SF action film with a plot that isn't simplistic, but is easy to follow. The comedy ranges from funny little touches to laugh out loud moments, and the stunts and action set-pieces are well done and full of firepower. There are some heavier, emotional moments, that can be quite touching, although no one watching will be in any doubt as to who is going to win the day.

The setting is brilliantly realised, with every scene packed full of little details in the scenery, props, costumes and effects, which add to the feel of a rich and realistic future world. 

What's also great is that it's heavily industrialised, crowded future -where the ground of New York is lost in fog- but it isn't a dystopia. The world was clearly created with a sense of lighthearted fun, I suspect that the crew enjoyed putting their own stamp on this cool futuristic setting. The film itself makes it clear that humanity is far from perfect, that as a race we've done plenty of crappy things (war being chief among those), but yet the tone rarely dips below hopeful. It's one of the most optimistic yet familiar versions of the future you will seen on film.

Milla Jovovich's spirited portrayal of Leeloo is great to watch. I think it's fair to say that Milla Jovovich is an actress who gravitates to a certain type of role. In fact The Fifth Element is so ingrained in my consciousness that I now see her playing either Leeloo, or character-that-isn't-quite-Leeloo, though possibly that dichotomy will change once I've seen her play Milady in the upcoming Three Musketeers film?

Bruce Willis plays his familiar gruff yet sentimental man of action, but his peculiar, John-Paul Gautier designed costume reflects the playful and delightfully self-mocking tone of the film. Korben is the everyman, but (like John Mclaine) an everyman who knows how to shoot guns and blow stuff up!

Ian Holm plays a kindly priest of an ancient order. Committed to ensuring good triumphs he seems bumbling, but is actually fairly quick-witted. His good-naturedness collides with desperation and the scene where he very apologetically bashes someone over the head is a joy to watch. This film cemented Ian Holm as a kindly fellow in my head, and so it causes me no little confusion when he plays darker characters in other films.

Chris Tucker is unrecognisable and absolutely hilarious as wild, metrosexual* celebrity Ruby Rhod, despite the challenges of this over the top character he never lets his performance slide.

Gary Oldman is wonderfully bizarre and amoral as human bad guy Zorg. Oh, and that weird plastic thing on his head was apparently his idea.

This is an excellent film where the absurd, serious, violent and comedic sit comfortably side-by-side without any one feeling imposed or superficial. If you haven't seen this film you should. If you have, go watch it again.

* Particularly impressive considering the word Metrosexual hadn't even been invented at the time the film was made. Though I suspect it's a concept that's far more understandable to the French mindset than the US one.

Why I Love... Coming Soon

Oops left it longer than intended to update here. Trying to post a couple of times a week.
My main excuse is that I've been reading a lot, so there will be a book update soon. I've also thinking about work stuff and the future (but not in a cool SF kinda way), it's all very dull and I shall speak of it no more. That's not want I have this blog for, so instead to happier things...

I'm planning on starting a new weekly series of posts entitled Why I Love [insert thing here], because it's nice to think about things you love and share them with others. And in these uncertain times it's good to say something positive.


I'm composing a couple of posts in my head already, and trying to stop them from becoming incoherent squeeing. It's probably best to explain why you like something, rather than just gushing about it.

Ideas so far:
Stuart History
The Fifth Element
Greek Mythology
Various Works of Diana Wynne Jones

Now I really should stop watching youtube videos and get on with housework.
I have a guest staying tonight and will be dog-sitting for my parents over the next few days.